|
On September 09 2007 16:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 14:56 1esu wrote:On September 09 2007 11:01 MyLostTemple wrote:
How do easy interfaces help encourage esports? They don't.
...
Many people thought that Counter strike wouldn't be a successful esport when it was in it's very early stages because players could die so fast and had to wait until the end of the round to respawn. As it turns out people LOVE watching this game and LOVE playing this game.
It's ironic that you use a prime example of a game that has succeeded as an e-sport in part BECAUSE it has an 'easy interface'. Virtually every action in CS can be accomplished in a single mouseclick or keystroke, or bound to a single keystroke in the case of buying stuff at the beginning of a round. The challenge is in the movement, the aiming, the strategies, and the teamwork, to name four things. It's in a large part because of this 'easy interface' that CS has such a ginormous competitive community, which in turn fuels its professional status. Sure, it's an FPS and SC is an RTS, but the principle remains the same: an interface should allow players to complete any game action in as few keystrokes/clicks as possible. It's for this reason that I support the idea in the 'MBS solutions' thread to keep MBS, but make it '5zzzzz' instead of '5z', as for every zealot I want I only have to click 'z' (after I selected my gates with '5'). Another example of a popular e-sports game that has an easy interface is KartRider. Granted, the fact that it's even more popular in Korea than SC has something to do with its e-sports status, but it takes the up, down, left, right, and shift keys and makes a game that's really easy to get into, but ridiculously difficult to master. Oh, and before anyone brings up this particular genre, the counter-example among fighting games would be Super Smash Bros. Melee. IMO MBS is sort of like Auto-aim. Although this might be a poor example, given that I don't play FPS  I think most serious - PC - FPSers look down on auto-aim no? I don't like the idea of having to press go 5zzzz because then how will you know if you've filled up all your gateways or not (or does the display jump to the next one everytime you build)? Oh and kart rider has a somewhat different demographic.. namely everyone. Isn't the type of game that anyone can play, ie you play it for 15 minutes during coffee break or after you get home from first grade school.
Hmm, good try , but I think auto-aim translated from FPS into SC would be something more like auto-micro. But if you want MBS in CS, imo it would be like the ability to reload all your weapons at once rather than one at a time. It's not a huge problem if it were possible, but it isn't exactly very realistic in this case.
|
On September 09 2007 17:47 BluzMan wrote:
I thinks many people miss the point about interface features completely.
It's not about who clicks faster. It's not about who can perform mundane tasks faster. No. The point of competetive StarCraft is about "everything counts". Taking advantage in everything makes you victorious in the end. The point about playing good StarCraft is all about getting to maximum possible effeciency. What does that mean? That means that if you have two ways of doing something, for example, an "easy" way and a "hard" way, and "hard" is like 2% more efficient than "easy" that is what will happen:
- Medicore players will go the "easy" way and keep being mediocre. They will however, keep in pace with the game and will learn.
- Good players will go the "hard" way no matter if it takes 10x the actions needed just because it gives them the advantage. The magnitude of that advantage hardly has any effect, it's only important that the advantage exists.
Common examples:
- Worker spread.
- Worker rally to unoccupied minerals.
- Sending workers to build buildings "in advance" (i.e. slightly before than you have the amount of minerals needed)
- Many other features of this kind.
Now these don't win games. If you don't do a spread but keep playing good you will triumph over an inferior player nevertheless. But on the high level everything counts and, given everything other equal, the player who does these things will triumph over a player who doesn't. But still they only become apparent as you rise in skill, on lower skill levels they hardly matter. So, the point number one is going to be:
I. Doing it "the right way" should only give a slight advantage, however, there should be many things to do "the right way".
Now, point number two:
II. Auto-mining and MBS will be in the game no matter what.
Blizzard isn't going to scrap those features - they have thier reviewers, and, as Aphelion rightly pointed out in another thread, there's no thing worse that frustration. These features would be a step back from the interfaces of RTS'es of the modern day and would give a bad reputation to StarCraft II. They are already in, face it.
III. Any solution to MBS should be logically coherent and not artificial.
Aphelion also proposed stuff like "if auto-rallied, workers should idle for several seconds". Now, imagine playing the game for the first time. You see that and wonder "why does that happen?" only to find no kind of a logical answer. There's one very important thing about StarCraft - it is nothing close to having to babysit your units. Babysitting and getting the maximum out of your units are two entirely different things.
IV. In light of principle I, MBS is already solved to some extent.
How? It's easy. Now, every protoss (or at least I assume so) will strive to get warpgates late-game. What is our micro with gateways - click gateway, queue, click another gateway et cetera. What is the micro with warpgates - select gateways, order unit, click on a spot, order another unit et cetera. Different? Well, yes, but not drastically. In fact, it takes the same amount of actions. Exactly the same. With the only difference that you have to aim with your warpgates to get better unit positioning, so it is in fact harder.
For terrans, the solution is also there - you have two kinds of addons - tech addon and mass addon. Now, if the game encourages unit mixing, you'd really want to select those separately because you want different units coming out. You don't want marines coming out of a barracks with a tech addon installed. You don't want to order 1 marine from barracks with a mass addon because you can queue 2. This concept can be generalized to point number five:
V. If unit mixing is encouraged, a player who manually controls production is going to have an edge vs a player who does it in 1-click mode.
As simple as that. A player who used mass queue with MBS will only produce units in packs: 6 zealots, 6 stalkers, 6 immortals. A player who uses manual select can do stuff like 3 zealots, 2 stalkers, 1 immortal in one go. Not to mention that one wouldn't really want to order 6 high templars because no sane economy can support such things. 4 zealots 2 HT is ok, but ordering 6 HT means there's something wrong with your play which is precisely what I want to point out. Manual control leads to better production management and will surely be used by the pros because it gives advantage. We've already figured out that the magnitude of that advantage doesn't matter. Everything counts. MBS in it's current state is not a problem.
Worker auto-rally, on the other hand, somewhat lacks solution at this point. I would solve it in way that workers don't seek unoccupied minerals better than in SC I. This way you'd want to reset rally point after every worker, but it meets an unusual problem - you start our with six. Spreading four workers isn't that easy, spreading six seems unbelievably hard.
Great post. You've put a lot of what I've been saying into a more concise format and brought up a few new points. I agree with everything here. Regarding your Terran solution, I think the anti-MBS people may point and say "Now the all we need are two groups of barracks or two groups of factories ". However, I think this is a pretty good compromise already between the two sides. If I have a number of barracks, factories, and starports with both tech and mass addons in each group, then I'll need about 6 hotkeys to macro efficiently. This is not different at all from the 4z5z6z7z8z9z of SC, except that it may work throughout the whole game.
Whether or not, this is a good thing will depend on the player you are asking. I think many people will think that being able to manage all your buildings from a maximum of 6 hotkeys is an improvement in UI (I know I will), while others will think this is a bad thing as this makes the late game less hectic. I guess it all depends on the player you're asking. I am in favour of this change, because this will let me control my army better and I think most new players also will have this view as well.
|
I'm voicing my wholehearted support for the OP. Truly well-constructed post and I agree with not only the ideas argued, but also the reasoning behind those. My view is that in a strategy game, your objective is to outwit and outplay your opponent, and the objective of User Interface is to make your ideas come true. The difficulty of the game should arise from the skill needed to defeat your opponent, not from the need of mastering the UI.
People have counter-argued mainly on the basis of MBS and AM potentially ruining the progaming- and/or competitive -scene so I'd like to address some of those fears.
First and foremost: I'd LOVE to see current progamers take a match in original SC with the only difference of AM and MBS turned on, just to see how neat tricks would their units now do as they'd be free from constant babysitting of their production lines. I simply can't precieve a situation where less-skilled played would be able to beat a pro because AM and MBS were suddenly available. Furthermore I can't imagine how the quality of play would decrease by this - I'd see it going up.
Secondly: Watch some of the pimpest plays from recent years and ponder to yourself how many of those would have never happened if there had been MBS and AM available? I'm willing to bet on zero. None of Starcraft's great innovations, strategical and tactical ingeniousities or jaw-dropping micro-moves are based on those.
Third and final point: People seem to be misusing the word 'macro' as a synonym for 'time spent on building stuff'. If due to MBS and AM time required to manage your base does decrease, that's not to say time needed on macro should decrease. Macro means the ability to control the big picture, unit-building is only one aspect of this, and I'm sure noobs and pros alike are able to find use for the time freed from menial tasks.
ps. Instead of viewing these UI-additions as inherintly bad, try your best to see past them to what new venues they will open to micro and macro alike. The game should not be difficult because you're fighting against the UI, but with the tools provided by it - using them to the best of your abilities to defeat your opponents.
|
People seem to be forgetting one crucial thing:
Building 15 tanks at once is not good even in SC and is considerd noob. Having enough resources for MBS to truly matter as much as some people is saying is noob.
Good players keep their minerals/gas below 500 at least, only using a few factories at once and building a couple of units with each multitask. If a player only builds tanks out of 3 factories 5 times then the difference between MBS and a restricted interface is much smaller. In fact MBS will probably encourage multitasking since players can press a hotkey when they get 200 mins/100 gas and build a single tank. Good players will now do this constantly as well as shifting their rally points to their army instead of taking a break from combat and jumping back to their production place.
So MBS may actually make the game more competetive since players will allways strive to get their reinforcements to the battle immediatly.
I think to many people assume that the macro of the best progamers is the "perfect" level of macro attainable in SC. It's not.
Macro is the task of building as many units as possible AND bringing them into the figthing as soon as possible.
The definition of perfect macro would then be (not including things like knowing when to expand and when to build what) to have mechanics on a level that you can build the unit you want exactly when you can afford it and then immediatly moving that unit to your forces (or some other place where it's put too good use).
We can then see that not even Nada or ooV are even close to having perfect macro, and that they could probably increase their effectivness substantiually with MBS.
Of course MBS would also increase the importance of some other aspects of gameplay that we rarely see in the SC of today, namely supply lines.
Sometimes when T bunker pushes a Z we'll see the Z trying to cut of T's reinforcments. With players haveing better macro and thus more small groups of units traveling over the battlefield this would be much more important. Plus there's also plenty of effects that no one can really predict.
|
What one can really predict is that one of the two major components of the only game who's suitable for progaming to date will be severely amputated.
I'm not even speaking of the unit production here, imagine all your 5 nexus to 1 hotkey, coupled with auto mining. Are you enough stupid to claim it wont have any major impact on the game ?
As something to replace the macro attention, this is more than unsure. And stop with very circunstancial ridiculous examples.
These threads make me cry T.T
The mass teenagers creating an account only for and since the sc2 forum make me cry.
Most of you don't even have an idea why starcraft is still here and why you still can post on this site. And don't tell me it's not about the 'keeps you on the toes' macro, because it's certainly one of the major reasons.
|
On September 09 2007 19:44 Fuu wrote:
What one can really predict is that one of the two major components of the only game who's suitable for progaming to date will be severely amputated.
I'm not even speaking of the unit production here, imagine all your 5 nexus to 1 hotkey, coupled with auto mining. Are you enough stupid to claim it wont have any major impact on the game ?
As something to replace the macro attention, this is more than unsure. And stop with very circunstancial ridiculous examples.
These threads make me cry T.T
The mass teenager people creating an account only for and since the sc2 forum make me cry.
Most of you don't even have an idea why starcraft is still here and why you still can post on this site. And don't tell me it's not about the 'keeps you on the toes' macro, because it's certainly one of the major reasons.
It will only be "severly amputated" if the top gamers were using 100 % perfect macro. They are not, and I dare say that the reason is because of UI limitations. If MBS was introduced the free time could be spent on something else, and it probably would be spent on improving their allready impressive macro.
It's also a fact that the better you get at macro the less MBS matters to you since if you build a marine exactly everytime you get 50 minerals it will be the same number of clicks (although you don't have to find a specific free barracks).
So in short, MBS makes it easier to macro but it doesn't matter because no living person has perfect macro anyway which means it will simply raise the bar.
|
On September 09 2007 19:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 19:44 Fuu wrote:
What one can really predict is that one of the two major components of the only game who's suitable for progaming to date will be severely amputated.
I'm not even speaking of the unit production here, imagine all your 5 nexus to 1 hotkey, coupled with auto mining. Are you enough stupid to claim it wont have any major impact on the game ?
As something to replace the macro attention, this is more than unsure. And stop with very circunstancial ridiculous examples.
These threads make me cry T.T
The mass teenager people creating an account only for and since the sc2 forum make me cry.
Most of you don't even have an idea why starcraft is still here and why you still can post on this site. And don't tell me it's not about the 'keeps you on the toes' macro, because it's certainly one of the major reasons.
It will only be "severly amputated" if the top gamers were using 100 % perfect macro. They are not, and I dare say that the reason is because of UI limitations. If MBS was introduced the free time could be spent on something else, and it probably would be spent on improving their allready impressive macro. It's also a fact that the better you get at macro the less MBS matters to you since if you build a marine exactly everytime you get 50 minerals it will be the same number of clicks (although you don't have to find a specific free barracks). So in short, MBS makes it easier to macro but it doesn't matter because no living person has perfect macro anyway which means it will simply raise the bar.
It will indeed raise the bar and close the gaps.
|
On September 09 2007 19:54 Fuu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 19:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 09 2007 19:44 Fuu wrote:
What one can really predict is that one of the two major components of the only game who's suitable for progaming to date will be severely amputated.
I'm not even speaking of the unit production here, imagine all your 5 nexus to 1 hotkey, coupled with auto mining. Are you enough stupid to claim it wont have any major impact on the game ?
As something to replace the macro attention, this is more than unsure. And stop with very circunstancial ridiculous examples.
These threads make me cry T.T
The mass teenager people creating an account only for and since the sc2 forum make me cry.
Most of you don't even have an idea why starcraft is still here and why you still can post on this site. And don't tell me it's not about the 'keeps you on the toes' macro, because it's certainly one of the major reasons.
It will only be "severly amputated" if the top gamers were using 100 % perfect macro. They are not, and I dare say that the reason is because of UI limitations. If MBS was introduced the free time could be spent on something else, and it probably would be spent on improving their allready impressive macro. It's also a fact that the better you get at macro the less MBS matters to you since if you build a marine exactly everytime you get 50 minerals it will be the same number of clicks (although you don't have to find a specific free barracks). So in short, MBS makes it easier to macro but it doesn't matter because no living person has perfect macro anyway which means it will simply raise the bar. It will indeed raise the bar and close the gaps.
So? A person who needs help to spend the 2000 minerals he has in the bank isn't going to be able to compete with a pro either way.
MBS will raise the bar on the highest levels and lower it on the lowest levels. Isn't that what we want? Sure the gap in the middle will close a bit but what we have seen Blizzard is compensating with other things either way.
Anyway, if you agree with me that the bar will be raised in professional gaming how can you say that MBS will destroy one of the two aspects that make progaming enjoyable?
|
On September 09 2007 19:44 Fuu wrote:
What one can really predict is that one of the two major components of the only game who's suitable for progaming to date will be severely amputated.
I'm not even speaking of the unit production here, imagine all your 5 nexus to 1 hotkey, coupled with auto mining. Are you enough stupid to claim it wont have any major impact on the game ?
As something to replace the macro attention, this is more than unsure. And stop with very circunstancial ridiculous examples.
These threads make me cry T.T
The mass teenagers creating an account only for and since the sc2 forum make me cry.
Most of you don't even have an idea why starcraft is still here and why you still can post on this site. And don't tell me it's not about the 'keeps you on the toes' macro, because it's certainly one of the major reasons.
Dude, you have to undestand that not "wasting" some time on individiually selecting each one of your 15 gateways to train units, will give you in return time to do other stuff, imagine fighting 2 separate battles, one at the top of the map at an expand and one on the lower side of the map on another map, both carefully controlling your units as well as fastly replacing dead units. Imo that's not only more fun to do, but as well as entartaining for the viewers. Fun factor and entartainment value made sc what it is today alongside with the skill and complexity that it requires to be played at a high level.
As for the mass teenagers statement, yes many of them haven't played sc that much, neither have followed the pro scene. However you should be glad they are comming here to read/post rather then random new sc 2 sites.
I personally haven't played sc that much, but have watched some vods and stuff, I do understand people's problems of why the MBS should not be in. But making a game harder to play just for the sake of making some people frustrated/unable to play is dumb. The real issue is will better macro make a difference in the game or not. If you think that add-ing MBS to the game is suddenly going to boost lesser skilled players to a high level you are wrong. The only thing that will change and that bugs most of the sc fans is that the game will switch to a micro-intensive game where 10 very good controled units will beat 20 of them. Thats the real issue not MBS.
|
On September 09 2007 20:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 19:54 Fuu wrote:On September 09 2007 19:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 09 2007 19:44 Fuu wrote:
What one can really predict is that one of the two major components of the only game who's suitable for progaming to date will be severely amputated.
I'm not even speaking of the unit production here, imagine all your 5 nexus to 1 hotkey, coupled with auto mining. Are you enough stupid to claim it wont have any major impact on the game ?
As something to replace the macro attention, this is more than unsure. And stop with very circunstancial ridiculous examples.
These threads make me cry T.T
The mass teenager people creating an account only for and since the sc2 forum make me cry.
Most of you don't even have an idea why starcraft is still here and why you still can post on this site. And don't tell me it's not about the 'keeps you on the toes' macro, because it's certainly one of the major reasons.
It will only be "severly amputated" if the top gamers were using 100 % perfect macro. They are not, and I dare say that the reason is because of UI limitations. If MBS was introduced the free time could be spent on something else, and it probably would be spent on improving their allready impressive macro. It's also a fact that the better you get at macro the less MBS matters to you since if you build a marine exactly everytime you get 50 minerals it will be the same number of clicks (although you don't have to find a specific free barracks). So in short, MBS makes it easier to macro but it doesn't matter because no living person has perfect macro anyway which means it will simply raise the bar. It will indeed raise the bar and close the gaps. So? A person who needs help to spend the 2000 minerals he has in the bank isn't going to be able to compete with a pro either way. MBS will raise the bar on the highest levels and lower it on the lowest levels. Isn't that what we want? Sure the gap in the middle will close a bit but what we have seen Blizzard is compensating with other things either way. Anyway, if you agree with me that the bar will be raised in professional gaming how can you say that MBS will destroy one of the two aspects that make progaming enjoyable?
Omg i think this was clear enough : simply cause there wont be sufficient distinction between different levels. Your only counter argument to refute what i just wrote was :
'So? A person who needs help to spend the 2000 minerals he has in the bank isn't going to be able to compete with a pro either way.'
Indeed, it won't make the newb pro, clever guy !
If you don't think that, in starcraft, MBS and auto mine would severely close the level gap between let's say, OOV and me, then it's useless to discuss more. And as i think you're craving to answer me that he would still win, please don't, that's indeed the case & that's not even the point.
If you over simplify a component of the game, it will close the levels gaps along this component. If blizzard has something planned to induct a level difference on another aspect of the game, then so be it, if you think it's REALLY NECESSARY to change the macro system. As i don't think it's the case for my last two points, i'm worried.
|
On September 09 2007 20:19 Fuu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 20:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 09 2007 19:54 Fuu wrote:On September 09 2007 19:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 09 2007 19:44 Fuu wrote:
What one can really predict is that one of the two major components of the only game who's suitable for progaming to date will be severely amputated.
I'm not even speaking of the unit production here, imagine all your 5 nexus to 1 hotkey, coupled with auto mining. Are you enough stupid to claim it wont have any major impact on the game ?
As something to replace the macro attention, this is more than unsure. And stop with very circunstancial ridiculous examples.
These threads make me cry T.T
The mass teenager people creating an account only for and since the sc2 forum make me cry.
Most of you don't even have an idea why starcraft is still here and why you still can post on this site. And don't tell me it's not about the 'keeps you on the toes' macro, because it's certainly one of the major reasons.
It will only be "severly amputated" if the top gamers were using 100 % perfect macro. They are not, and I dare say that the reason is because of UI limitations. If MBS was introduced the free time could be spent on something else, and it probably would be spent on improving their allready impressive macro. It's also a fact that the better you get at macro the less MBS matters to you since if you build a marine exactly everytime you get 50 minerals it will be the same number of clicks (although you don't have to find a specific free barracks). So in short, MBS makes it easier to macro but it doesn't matter because no living person has perfect macro anyway which means it will simply raise the bar. It will indeed raise the bar and close the gaps. So? A person who needs help to spend the 2000 minerals he has in the bank isn't going to be able to compete with a pro either way. MBS will raise the bar on the highest levels and lower it on the lowest levels. Isn't that what we want? Sure the gap in the middle will close a bit but what we have seen Blizzard is compensating with other things either way. Anyway, if you agree with me that the bar will be raised in professional gaming how can you say that MBS will destroy one of the two aspects that make progaming enjoyable? Omg i think this was clear enough : simply cause there wont be sufficient distinction between different levels. Your only counter argument to refute what i just wrote was : 'So? A person who needs help to spend the 2000 minerals he has in the bank isn't going to be able to compete with a pro either way.' Indeed, it won't make the newb pro, clever guy ! If you don't think that, in starcraft, MBS and auto mine would severely close the level gap between let's say, OOV and me, then it's useless to discuss more. And as i think you're craving to answer me that he would still win, please don't, that's indeed the case & that's not even the point. If you over simplify a component of the game, it will close the levels gaps along this component. If blizzard has something planned to induct a level difference on another aspect of the game, then so be it, if you think it's REALLY NECESSARY to change the macro system. As i don't think it's the case for my last two points, i'm worried.
Yes MBS would close some gaps when it comes to macro but only for the lower levels of players. It will also make the game a lot more enjoyable for those players, because let's face it if you go to a ordinary messege board (say PA) almost all of the new players bitch about having to macro to much. MBS means less and less the better you get and top players won't be able to macro on 100 % either way.
But new players, even with MBS won't be able to do everything they should do either way. Blizzard are also trying to enhance micro with adding more abilties to units that requires the players controll. Hopefully this will mean that there is a better balance between macro and micro on the lower levels and a more enjoyable game for them.
Now, my real argument is why would it matter if you close the skillgaps on the lower levels?
The answer is: It doesn't. It's still a game that will be impossible to master which is what this entire discussion is about. At low and mid tiers people can allways find something else to improve upon in order to beat their opponents like BO's, strategy, micro or being good at harass since new players are very far from being efficent in every field.
The only people MBS will really affect is the old BW players who are used to the game being 70 % macro and APM being a huge part of their skill. Mid tier SCII will have less focus on macro, I personally think this will make the game a lot more fun to play.
Edit: And a game that's fun for new players means more of them stays which means competetive gaming becomes much bigger.
|
With MBS, you could focus on other important aspects of the game, such as MICRO.
|
Your real argument ??
I don't see any argumentation in fact, just an affirmation.
In fact it will close the skill gap obviously where there's a gap, means not only on the lower levels. For example between the best amateurs and the pros, and that's for sure not suitable.
I don't know why you suppose it won't happen at higher levels ? For me the lower levels is in fact the place where it matters the less cause the concerned people don't even know what hotkey means... So yes, i still don't understand anything to your real argument...
And even if it's the case, why do you think it wouldn't matter ? They indeed can find something alse to improve. Is it a reason to put this component out ? For the next game another newb will claim another thing should be out, and make exactly the same argumentation than you. Is it improvement ? For sure not in my eyes.
|
The skill gap/skill spectrum needs to be wider. There needs to be a bigger gap between the very best amateurs. There needs to be a bigger gap between the A+ Pros and the B- Pros. There needs to be a bigger gap between the different types of newbies and casual players.
A bigger skill spectrum means a better game. I can't even comprehend why anyone would think reducing the skill spectrum is not a bad thing. Let alone a good one.
SCII will not be some 'strategy IQ' test. SCII will demand a lot of practice.
|
On September 09 2007 22:25 Fuu wrote:
Your real argument ??
I don't see any argumentation in fact, just an affirmation.
In fact it will close the skill gap obviously where there's a gap, means not only on the lower levels. For example between the best amateurs and the pros, and that's for sure not suitable.
I don't know why you suppose it won't happen at higher levels ? For me the lower levels is in fact the place where it matters the less cause the concerned people don't even know what hotkey means... So yes, i still don't understand anything to your real argument...
And even if it's the case, why do you think it wouldn't matter ? They indeed can find something alse to improve. Is it a reason to put this component out ? For the next game another newb will claim another thing should be out, and make exactly the same argumentation than you. Is it improvement ? For sure not in my eyes.
This discussion was about how MBS was or was not bad for competetive gaming. My argument is that it does not hurt the top tier gamers because their macro is not 100 %, most because of a bad UI holding them back. With MBS they can simply take the time saved and put it into improving their macro. At the same time MBS means very little on a progamer level because they will want to build their units as soon as they have the resources, which means that they will still build them more or less 1 by 1.
The amateurs may get a level of macro reminding us of progamers today but the progamers will have even better macro. And at the same time the better you get the less it means.
And if you don't get why new players hate the SC kind of macro and why it has to go you are blind. It was OK when SC came out because all the games did it the same way, but people these days demand games that do what they want them to do. Good UI is a required component in any modern game because people get extremly frustrated when the game artifically limits their command. There's no need to make people click 30+ times in order to build 15 zealots anymore, and new players know this and expect it to only be 2 clicks.
It's very easy to see why a new player gets frustrated when he knows he should build more units but he still gets run over because he just can't do it and the other guy has more troops. And it's a valid source of frustration as well because he's not loosing to the other player, he's loosing to the interface.
If we cut this part of the game out new players will get their 15 zealots and it's what they do with them that matters. But at the same time they have so many other areas they can improve in (including macro) that it doesn't really matter, because people will differentiate in skill in other ways. And yes, for the next SC players will complain about something, but as long as it's complaints on how they have to figth the game instead of their opponents we should listen to them.
I think it's really sad that there are so many good SC gamers that thinks a inferior mechanics have to stay because they have come to rely on it. In the ideal game there are no UI limitations and you figth only your opponent instead of figthing the game first and then your enemy.
|
8748 Posts
First of all I'd like to say to the people that think that MBS and automining are going to be in the game guaranteed are simply wrong. Refer to Mani's post. Also note that following the release of SC2, Blizzard will have to release a series of patches modifying gameplay to meet its players' needs. MBS and automining could just as easily be changed or removed then. And this thread isn't about whether or not MBS/automining are good for the gameplay, but whether or not using MBS/automining as bait to lure newbies into multiplayer is worth a possible dumbing down of gameplay.
I am thinking that the type of person who would quit a game because he doesn't understand that making 10 zealots should be harder than making 1 zealot is not the type of person that will eventually be able to put in the patient practice and dedication that competitive play would require of him. Anyone who gets frustrated because what he wants isn't handed to him will be constantly frustrated at playing a game competitively. Your estimate that a small amount of new players will funnel into competitive gaming is probably true, but what you need to prove is that a percentage of new players who would quit the game if there were no MBS/automining would go on to become competitive gamers if those features ease their entry. My guess would be that it's something like .01-.05% and therefore insignificant, but the burden of proof isn't upon me. You made a post full of claims that you have not proven and speculation for which you provide no evidence. I don't want to continue on with rhetoric because I think we'll both make good cases that'll please the readers who came into this post with an inclination to each of our positions.
One of my main arguments above is that you must attract the new players first, THEN a certain percentage of these people may become interested and start becoming better only IF they enjoy it enough to stick around.
There are many people who will buy SC2 with plans of playing it competitively online. I could make a poll here to show the incredibly high percentage of people who will play SC2 competitively, but I imagine you'll cast this site off as an exception. But would you agree that going online and playing a ladder game is showing an intention or an interest for competitive play? How many people do you think will play a ladder game within the first month if MBS/automining are not included? Do you honestly think it's going to be a ghost town? I envision a huge blind enthusiasm. I could make another poll on this site that might be more interesting to you that would ask how many people here would prefer not to have MBS/automining, but would still play the game if they are in there. I predict very high percentage of yes and I'd expect the same from the newbies when the conditions are reversed (want MBS/automining, but not have it).
So if we agree that people will at least try the ladder even if the features aren't exactly what they want, then we have to look at what keeps a competitive person playing. Nearly every competitive player I've met only enjoys a game that he wins and never enjoys a game that he loses. There are exceptions of course, but that is basically how the "competitive itch" functions in people. If they go through hell and frustration throughout the game but turn out a win, they'll be happy and be dying to do it again. If they go through hell again but lose, then they're upset but their competitiveness keeps them seeking after what their opponent has and they don't. "Having fun" is one of the last things a competitive player is thinking about. For the vast majority of the time, fun is winning.
Putting this all together, the ladder will initially have a large amount of people regardless and people with the competitive itch will yield to it whether or not MBS/automining are in the game. The catch is that MBS/automining might not be good for StarCraft's formula for a long-term competitive game. Even the small chance that these things might disrupt StarCraft's success as a long-term competitive game is a very big deal. All the effort is for nothing if, in the end, the game will only hold the interest of competitive players for ~2 years.
As far as reviews determining sales numbers and interest, perhaps you are looking at the wrong types of games. Let's look at the release of Halo 3 for a better idea of what SC2's release will be like. It's already surpassed 1 million pre-orders without a review in sight. The average release of a game might depend heavily on reviews and word of mouth, but a company like Blizzard and a franchise like StarCraft will not.
I have to go play a tournament now but I'll try to return and address more things later.
|
On September 09 2007 23:19 NonY[rC] wrote:First of all I'd like to say to the people that think that MBS and automining are going to be in the game guaranteed are simply wrong. Refer to Mani's post. Also note that following the release of SC2, Blizzard will have to release a series of patches modifying gameplay to meet its players' needs. MBS and automining could just as easily be changed or removed then. And this thread isn't about whether or not MBS/automining are good for the gameplay, but whether or not using MBS/automining as bait to lure newbies into multiplayer is worth a possible dumbing down of gameplay. I am thinking that the type of person who would quit a game because he doesn't understand that making 10 zealots should be harder than making 1 zealot is not the type of person that will eventually be able to put in the patient practice and dedication that competitive play would require of him. Anyone who gets frustrated because what he wants isn't handed to him will be constantly frustrated at playing a game competitively. Your estimate that a small amount of new players will funnel into competitive gaming is probably true, but what you need to prove is that a percentage of new players who would quit the game if there were no MBS/automining would go on to become competitive gamers if those features ease their entry. My guess would be that it's something like .01-.05% and therefore insignificant, but the burden of proof isn't upon me. You made a post full of claims that you have not proven and speculation for which you provide no evidence. I don't want to continue on with rhetoric because I think we'll both make good cases that'll please the readers who came into this post with an inclination to each of our positions. Show nested quote +One of my main arguments above is that you must attract the new players first, THEN a certain percentage of these people may become interested and start becoming better only IF they enjoy it enough to stick around. There are many people who will buy SC2 with plans of playing it competitively online. I could make a poll here to show the incredibly high percentage of people who will play SC2 competitively, but I imagine you'll cast this site off as an exception. But would you agree that going online and playing a ladder game is showing an intention or an interest for competitive play? How many people do you think will play a ladder game within the first month if MBS/automining are not included? Do you honestly think it's going to be a ghost town? I envision a huge blind enthusiasm. I could make another poll on this site that might be more interesting to you that would ask how many people here would prefer not to have MBS/automining, but would still play the game if they are in there. I predict very high percentage of yes and I'd expect the same from the newbies when the conditions are reversed (want MBS/automining, but not have it). So if we agree that people will at least try the ladder even if the features aren't exactly what they want, then we have to look at what keeps a competitive person playing. Nearly every competitive player I've met only enjoys a game that he wins and never enjoys a game that he loses. There are exceptions of course, but that is basically how the "competitive itch" functions in people. If they go through hell and frustration throughout the game but turn out a win, they'll be happy and be dying to do it again. If they go through hell again but lose, then they're upset but their competitiveness keeps them seeking after what their opponent has and they don't. "Having fun" is one of the last things a competitive player is thinking about. For the vast majority of the time, fun is winning. Putting this all together, the ladder will initially have a large amount of people regardless and people with the competitive itch will yield to it whether or not MBS/automining are in the game. The catch is that MBS/automining might not be good for StarCraft's formula for a long-term competitive game. Even the small chance that these things might disrupt StarCraft's success as a long-term competitive game is a very big deal. All the effort is for nothing if, in the end, the game will only hold the interest of competitive players for ~2 years. As far as reviews determining sales numbers and interest, perhaps you are looking at the wrong types of games. Let's look at the release of Halo 3 for a better idea of what SC2's release will be like. It's already surpassed 1 million pre-orders without a review in sight. The average release of a game might depend heavily on reviews and word of mouth, but a company like Blizzard and a franchise like StarCraft will not. I have to go play a tournament now but I'll try to return and address more things later.
I make three claims that I think have all the backing that they need.
1) New gamers (and reviewers for that matter) does not like UI limitations. I get this from reading posts on the Penny-Arcade boards, reviews on IGN and similar places.
2) The % of top gamers are in proportion to how many people play the game at a basic level. This can be verified just from looking at other sports and by looking at Korea.
3) Progamers are not even close to achiving 100 % perfect macro. If you watch VODs or replays this is clearly evident.
I can extrapolate a few things from this.
The more people who initally buy SCII, give it good reviews, good rep by word of mouth and so on the more people you'll have playing it. The longer a very large ammount of people keep playing the game the more new people will join because of that.
The more people who play the game the more "competetive" people will try it out. A few of these people will then rise in skill and become top gamers.
Perhaps these players themselves don't really care about if the UI is limited or not, that's not the point. The point is that the more players who play in the first place the more likely candidates there are for top gamers.
Yes, Starcraft II is highly anticipated. But there's a huge difference between selling well and selling WoW. Korea was a bit of a fluke, if we want a proscene in the rest of the world SCII better sell like hotcakes.
Which is why good UI is important because it will determine how many people initially try the game and how many like it.
If no one has perfect macro then how does improving the UI (and thus the ability to macro) "dumb down" the game? It will certainly move the ammount of skill/macro to a higher level than BW but does that really matter? I still don't think that it will be humanly possible to achive 100 % perfect macro even with MBS regardless of how pro you are.
Just moving the skillbar to the rigth does not dumb the game down and if there is no maxium ammount of skill talking about skill gaps is irrelevant. Especially about a feature that can never help you achive perfect macro in the first place.
And I don't see how the burden of proof would only be on us. I've yet to see anyone show me why MBS would dumb down the game. Just saying that it's obvious that it gets easier because you can build 15 zealots in the same time as one does not cut it.
Dune II wasn't a "smarter" game than Warcraft, Warcraft wasn't a "smarter" game than Warcraft II and Warcraft II wasn't a "smarter" game than SC.
All of these games massivly improved the UI and they still got more complex in every itteration, and a lot more fun to play as well.
So I'd like to see some actuall proof on how improved UI would dumb down SCII when it has never dumbed down RTS games in the past.
|
|
|
orangedude, I think that the one thing you have proven correct is attracting the fanbase at first so that the progamers have something to play for. However, what you haven't yet recognized is that if the game is not intense, exciting, and takes skill, then the progaming will not last long because the fan base will not last long.
You're talking about how macro is not 100% perfect now, and that you want closer 100% perfect or almost perfect macro. If this was so, then it would become a game of almost pure micro. In other words, Warcraft 3. If the game takes lots of skill, seeing the gamers moving their hands across the keyboard, switching screens every second, microing and macroing their hearts out, the more intense the game is, the more exciting it is to watch it, because if it takes a lot of skill then only some people can achieve that. If people could ONLY focus on micro, any micro would be nerfed in terms of skill. Mind controlling 12 carriers wouldn't be as exciting as before, because while mind controlling, the player SHOULD still have to macro, but with 'perfect' macro, they won't need to macro much at all.
Micro is only exciting if you know there's other stuff going on in the game, and that the progamers have to be focusing on everything at the same time and doing everything, too.
|
Now, I agree with Nony that SC2 will probably have a ton of preorders and unconditional (i.e. no judging based on reviews or word of mouth) first year purchases from fans of Blizz/the SC franchise or people who know SC2 will probably be a good game. On the other hand, there will inevitably be the fence-sitters who are just looking for a new good game. Those are the types that will either
a.) look at gamerankings.com and the reviews compiled on it. If they do this, then an older interface will probably give the game worse reviews, making the potential buyer less likely to buy the game
or b.) ask their friends. If their friends are avid SC fans, then they'll give the buyer good reviews. If these friends were people who just bought SC2 because they knew SC2 should be a good game from what they had heard, or hadn't really played SC1 very much, then the reviews might be "well, the game was good, but the interface was really old..." This isn't the best of reviews, but the buyer still might buy the game.
Since we are also talking about longevity of the game, then we should also consider what people will be saying 5 years after release, when gaming will have evolved even further. I know I'm able to get my friends to buy/play SC1 nowadays by telling them it's fun, but they also look at review sites first. So in 5 years, they could potentially be wanting to buy a game. I recommend SC2, but they decide to pop on gamerankings to check it out. If they see a bunch of low reviews because of an outdated interface, then they'll be hesitant to buy the game, even if they know I believe it's good. After all, they know I was a SC1 fan and probably am biased. When we look at the longterm aspects of the game, we must not only think of competitive play, but financial success. Sure, a game might be really competitive early on, but if it can't draw new people to play it 5 years from now, it won't be successful.
Nony also seemed to allude to Blizz possibly removing MBS and AM through patches. I'm completely against that, as a.) It's bad for the later buyers ("Yeah, it's a good game, but the most patch 1.10 completetly changed the gameplay.") b.) I'd feel somewhat betrayed if any company decided to use patches to change the game into something I didn't buy (yes, I realize this is my personal opinion on actions like this, but I doubt I'd be the only one who felt this way)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
