EPTi highly doubt that the lack of these things will be worth more than a point out of ten in any review system. its not like a reviewer will look at the game, see no mbs available and drop the rating from a 8 to a 5 out of disgust
Why MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 - Page 5
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
SoMuchBetter
Australia10606 Posts
i highly doubt that the lack of these things will be worth more than a point out of ten in any review system. its not like a reviewer will look at the game, see no mbs available and drop the rating from a 8 to a 5 out of disgust | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2598 Posts
On September 10 2007 00:26 Superiorwolf wrote: 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. I'm the one talking about 100 % perfect macro and you managed to completly missunderstand what I was saying. Take a look at the interface discussion thread and the posts (ironically) dissing Hwasins "noob" macro. No one has 100 % perfect macro. No one is going to have perfect macro in SC2 either, regardless of if MBS is in or not. Which means that it's unlikely they will spend significantly less time on macro. If it's not possible for the best players today to play perfectly and we make it easier for them the top players of tomorow will play a bit closer to perfect, but it won't reduce the ammount of macro that is possible if it's the human limit that is the deciding factor. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2598 Posts
On September 10 2007 01:16 SoMuchBetter wrote: you guys are overestimating how much mbs/automining is going to effect the reviews of the game i highly doubt that the lack of these things will be worth more than a point out of ten in any review system. its not like a reviewer will look at the game, see no mbs available and drop the rating from a 8 to a 5 out of disgust 1 point is the difference between GOTY and just "good". And you seriously overestimate how good reviewers are at RTS games and how much time they have to actually play before they have to start writing. Most reviewers are going to get schooled and many would start to whine about the interface. The interface is missing some things we're used to these days. A key to find the next idle worker, Age of Empires style, would have been very helpful. And since certain units' spell effects are crucial to doing well, they should be more accessible; Activision's Star Trek: Armada has the right idea in this regard. One of the most annoying things about Starcraft is the limit of twelve units to a group, especially if you're playing the Zerg, who rely on unruly swarms rather than, say, the Protoss' small groups of powerful crack troops. But it's fairly easy to get around this; instruct your groups to follow each other and just control the lead group. This is what IGN has to say about Starcrafts interface. That was years ago (even though it wasn't reviewed when it was released). Imagine what they would say if stuff didn't change for SCII. Armies of Exigo tried to stay hardcore and they got slammed pretty hard for it. | ||
|
TaDa1.
655 Posts
I like SC because in sc, u have to balance the time u use for macro and micro. If macro or micro is too easy, the game will not be very fun. Do u know what Grubby said about the gameplay of w3? He said that at competitive level, the game is not as fun because in w3, macro is so easy, everyone can have near perfect macro. And when people have the same macro, the game is not be as fun. Harass is not effective so people don't have much incentive to harass, they just focus on building their force. And since u can't win with macro anymore, u r forced to use timing and micro to win. At first it's fun. I came up with a bunch of nice strat, used them quite climb pretty high on the ladder. But after 3 years, there's virtually no new strat for timing win. It's all micro war then. That was the reason I left w3 and learn sc from the scratch I believed that in w3 Bliz intended to replace macro with creeping. They failed! Even though creeping is like macro, creep jaking is random, this seriously take away the balance. If Bliz gonna make macroing easier, they need to come up with something good, | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On September 09 2007 17:58 orangedude wrote: 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.Orange pretty much explained it for me (as per usual); auto-aim in FPSs would be more like storm or stim being autocast. Aiming requires a decision (albeit at an almost instinctual level), and then the execution is a simple mouse move+click, just like casting storm or stim. '4z5z6z7z8z9z0z', on the other hand, is the result of a decision on what type and number of units one wants to make, and is simply excessively complicated execution. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On September 09 2007 17:53 Plexa wrote: Whats the difference between Multiple Larva selection and Multiple building selection? - You can't continually hotkey larva Perhaps we should aim to make MBS more like MLS - just a thought Yep. Precisely what I said in my thread. I suggested allowing control-click of buildings, but not letting them be hotkeyed. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
It's Blizzard's job to add some e-Sports material into their promotion of SC2. If they hold a press conference prior to release (and therefore prior to reviews being written) where they talk about the elements of the game that are there specifically to create a challenge for competitive gamers and therefore create a hope that SC2 might be played professionally 5+ years after release, then the magazines and web sites can write that in. Every single competitive game in the world (I'm thinking mostly sports here) have artificial limits that are absolutely required to maintain healthy, long-lasting competition. It's the same concept and I don't know why it can't have a positive spin attached to it for SC2 so that newbies don't feel like their game is ruined. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
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. That's exactly what I'm worried might happen; Blizzard removing MBS before it's properly playtested (in the closed beta at least), since none of us know for sure what effect it will have on the gameplay of a feature-complete SC2. The poll in the other thread does lessen my concern, as the majority so far have voted pro-MBS (I voted 'Not Sure'), but I think it would be a huge mistake to remove MBS before the closed beta. 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. 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 accept your premise that a new player participating in a ladder game shows an interest in competitive play, and agree that there will be many such players in the first month or two of SC2, simply because the hype will cause a large number of initial sales. However, it's not who's initially playing the ladder that we're concerned with, but who is still playing after a year or even two. Only then can you consider a player part of the 'competitive community' that we're talking about. Even with MBS, new players will lose most, more likely all, of their games against SC veterans. However, if the SC interface is kept in SC2, you'll bet the press will have a field day with it. And if a new player hears that SC2 kept the "outdated" SC interface to appease the SC competitive community, and then loses several times to SC veterans, do you think that the player will blame their losses primarily on their relatively poor decision-making? I for one think that the player will instead blame the loss on the "outdated" interface that SC2 kept for the SC community's benefit. There's a huge difference between the two: if the new player with an interest in competitive play believes their loss was due to a deficiency of skill, they will go through "hell and frustration" to increase their skill, just as you said. However, if they think the game is at fault (regardless of anyone else's opinion), they'll abandon the game. Thus, I think you'll see far more potentially-competitive players drop out of ladder play after a couple months if the interface isn't updated, and that'll severely hurt the chances of a long-term competitive community large enough to support professional SC2 play outside of Korea developing. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On September 10 2007 00:26 Superiorwolf wrote: 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. This is wrong, wc3 is still kicking wo any macro at all and is larger than sc except in korea and sc2 will have a ton more macro than wc3. And then its wrong since mbs wont remove any of those things: The game will be intense since it has high lethality and high resource flow, just like starcraft. The game will be exciting since micro is way to hard and a slip can cost you your army, so you never really know when a game is over, just like starcraft. The game will require skill just like any other game, a better skilled person will most often beat a worse skilled person. This encourages people to train in order to beat other persons, and since there will be much more variables to this game than wc3 due to more playerfreedom it will be much harder to play at epic levels, similarily to how starcraft is extremely hard to play at epic levels. Pro people gets thrown of a game beacuse of imbalances usually, since its imbalances that makes games boring and simple at high levels and makes the matches repetetive. And at last, you all know that in starcraft macro is generally seen as more powerfull than micro. Now mbs nerfs macro a bit and instead adds macro tasks such as the warping units for toss or the switching of addons for terrans, wich wont have the same effect on the game as the old macro tasks of building units or telling drones to harvest but it will be more balanced to the effects of micro. | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On September 10 2007 02:08 NonY[rC] wrote: It sounds like there is an issue with reviewers. If reviewers can't recognize what a competitive RTS requires then they need to be educated. While game reviewers are good at playing a ton of games a year, for a short period of time each, and writing reviews for gamers that do the same, they completely fail at understanding what a long term competitive game requires. If they knew more, they would write a review along the lines of "StarCraft has found a perfect balance between strategy and mechanics, micromanagement and macromanagement, dexterity of the hands and dexterity of the mind. It all adds up to one of the most satisfying competitive gaming experiences created to date. If there is an RTS meant to make groundbreaking progress on the US e-Sports scene, this is it." It's Blizzard's job to add some e-Sports material into their promotion of SC2. If they hold a press conference prior to release (and therefore prior to reviews being written) where they talk about the elements of the game that are there specifically to create a challenge for competitive gamers and therefore create a hope that SC2 might be played professionally 5+ years after release, then the magazines and web sites can write that in. Every single competitive game in the world (I'm thinking mostly sports here) have artificial limits that are absolutely required to maintain healthy, long-lasting competition. It's the same concept and I don't know why it can't have a positive spin attached to it for SC2 so that newbies don't feel like their game is ruined. NonY, you're an excellent player, but what you're saying sounds like a fairy tale. It's not about if the reviewers getting schooled, it's about them giving the game a good score. We all depend on them no matter how shitty they are and it's the harsh reality, want it or not. Tremendously outdated interface will lower the scores greatly. Yes, competetive, and (god forgive me for that arrogance) smart, yes, smart players will surely recognize the gem in StarCraft II. But the reviewers work for the mass buyer, hence, they are a part of the mass buyer sub-socium. And mass buyer is geared towards Company of Heroes, Medieval II and Dawn of War. The RTS genre took that direction only because it's the most profitable. It's a dumb, slow, automated and unspectacular direction, but we have to take those players into account - they are our money bag. They are the fuel for the rocket SC II will cruise into the competetive world on. WCG constantly accepts titles only based on reviewer's score (hell, they took in Dawn of War patch 1.3 which was TREMENDOUSLY imbalanced and that imbalance was even confirmed by the developers), we see some new stupid games every year. There's no kind of a judging commitee for a competetive game outside Korea, and even in Korea, if you watch MBCGame during off-starcraft hours, they have some utterly ridiculous games being played. We need those scores. And the payment is not that large, I've explaned that 2 pages back. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On September 10 2007 02:08 NonY[rC] wrote: It sounds like there is an issue with reviewers. If reviewers can't recognize what a competitive RTS requires then they need to be educated. While game reviewers are good at playing a ton of games a year, for a short period of time each, and writing reviews for gamers that do the same, they completely fail at understanding what a long term competitive game requires. If they knew more, they would write a review along the lines of "StarCraft has found a perfect balance between strategy and mechanics, micromanagement and macromanagement, dexterity of the hands and dexterity of the mind. It all adds up to one of the most satisfying competitive gaming experiences created to date. If there is an RTS meant to make groundbreaking progress on the US e-Sports scene, this is it." It's Blizzard's job to add some e-Sports material into their promotion of SC2. If they hold a press conference prior to release (and therefore prior to reviews being written) where they talk about the elements of the game that are there specifically to create a challenge for competitive gamers and therefore create a hope that SC2 might be played professionally 5+ years after release, then the magazines and web sites can write that in. Every single competitive game in the world (I'm thinking mostly sports here) have artificial limits that are absolutely required to maintain healthy, long-lasting competition. It's the same concept and I don't know why it can't have a positive spin attached to it for SC2 so that newbies don't feel like their game is ruined. What a long term competitive RTS requires is gameplay balance, and Blizzard is one of the few (actually, I'm pretty sure the only) RTS developers that is their own publisher, and can therefore afford to repeatedly patch their games to perfection. Most RTSs have a handful gameplay-altering patches max, including an expansion and its patches; SC had 15 patches for its expansion alone. That's why SC has been a more popular long-term competitive game than its counterparts in the genre, with the exception of WC3, also made by Blizzard. Sure, some might argue that there should be a balance between 'macro' and 'micro', but again, until we play a feature-complete version of SC2 we can't say whether the macro will require less attention (especially if Luuh's revision of MBS is put into the game). The only extensively-balanced RTS that has included interface improvements is WC3, and it's more successful an e-sport than SC, if one takes Korea out of the equation. Really, the major reason most people here dislike WC3 is because it's as much of an RPG as it is an RTS; Blizzard did this intentionally, and it worked out rather well considering how bold a move it was, but it's an acquired taste. Name these artificial limits that other sports have for me, other than the restriction that it's played by someone with a physical body, which has it's own limits. The last time I saw this point brought up, the examples were dribbling in basketball and not using your hands in international football; the problem with those examples is that they're not artificial, they're required in order for those sports to be non-contact (the 3-second rule in handball is the same way), which is an essential part of the "spirit" of those sports. It is, after all, impossible to take possession of a ball under another person's control without contact unless they are forced to repeatedly give up control of the ball for small periods of time, e.g. dribbling. The "spirit" of SC revolves around, imho, quick, effective, and accurate decision-making. Making it almost exponentially more difficult to order units with more buildings doesn't fit. Unless someone could explain how it does fit, or give an intuitively better definition of the "spirit" of SC, I'm still going to say that this part of the interface is truly 'artificial'. One last point; as Mani pointed out, there's still a large amount of technical skill involved in playing SC2 even with MBS. Even with the alpha, there's still micro, multitasking, and the rest of the macro, (which has much less of a margin for error with MBS than without) just for a few examples. How's the tournament going? | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On September 10 2007 03:08 1esu wrote: Name these artificial limits that other sports have for me Restricted use of performance-enhancing drugs. The nutritional supplements that athletes are allowed to take are certainly outdated but sports organizations have drawn the line on what kind of performance-enhancing treatments an athelete can undergo. | ||
|
LxRogue
United States1415 Posts
MBS is by nature contrary to competitiveness. We are not being "artificially limited," we are simply given limited automation as opposed to having everything done for us by the computer. | ||
|
mdainoob
United States51 Posts
On September 10 2007 01:18 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: I'm the one talking about 100 % perfect macro and you managed to completly missunderstand what I was saying. Take a look at the interface discussion thread and the posts (ironically) dissing Hwasins "noob" macro. No one has 100 % perfect macro. No one is going to have perfect macro in SC2 either, regardless of if MBS is in or not. Which means that it's unlikely they will spend significantly less time on macro. If it's not possible for the best players today to play perfectly and we make it easier for them the top players of tomorow will play a bit closer to perfect, but it won't reduce the ammount of macro that is possible if it's the human limit that is the deciding factor. Uh although pros may not macro perfectly, if you are to add many simplifications to the game, then the dexterity aspect of macro becomes MUCH smaller, despite the strategical depth unaltered. With less dexterity required, logically less time is going to be spent on macro. Execution would be less of a factor than simply knowing what to do. Macro can be said to compose of two aspects (as some1 said earlier), one knowing when to expo, what to build ect, and the other actually doing it. This other aspect of bw macro will be heavily reduced by automing and mbs, something that many players here (including myself) dont want. I assume you've played bw a lot, and so you clearly know the amount of dexterity and speed and multitasking required to macro effectively. Even for pros this is a large drain. The pros are going to spend much less tiem macroing and focus more time on microing if mbs and automing and added and no suitable substitutes are in place (which we can't completely determine yet). I guess this is just my personal preference, but I think its much more impressive to see a pro play so well and play at a level beyodn waht I could ever achieve, than to see someone playing a slowed down game and think, "hey, i could do that. I thought of that strategy too". Also as a general response, i've had some friend's who've played c&c3 and when they tried sc they never complained about "wtf wheres the multiple building select?". I don't think it would be as detrimental for reviews as some people seem to think. | ||
|
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
On September 10 2007 03:58 LxRogue wrote: SC as it is now does not require an extreme amount of clicking/apm. Some of the best players out there only have like 200 apm, which itself is not physically difficult to achieve. MBS is by nature contrary to competitiveness. We are not being "artificially limited," we are simply given limited automation as opposed to having everything done for us by the computer. Sc does require an extreme amount of clicking/apm, since those 200 apm consists of ninja combinations like 8sz9sz0sz for instance or what have you. MBS is not by nature contrary to competitiveness. It shifts the games focus points a bit, but not by far. It's not an end-of-the-world scenario, and I'd rather myself be able to play the game decently than instead being forced forever to be unable to micro battles since there simply isn't enough time to do that. Building stuff takes too much time today for all but the very best few korean pro-gamers. Heck possibly even them. | ||
|
Gandalf
Pakistan1905 Posts
I think Nony's argument about making a poll on TL.net to check support for MBS isnt really valid, since most of TL.nets active members (which are how many? around a 1000?) are strongly attached to SC (such as me). Obviously the results will be exceedingly biased. I'm confident Blizzard knows what they're doing. They've released several games and they've all been massive hits. I'm sure they know what to do. The presence or absence of MBS wont necessarily "dumb down" the game or make it so that it stagnates after a couple of years. A game as complex as SCII wont depend too much on any single aspect. I think SC was a fluke to some extent, and Blizzard never imagined the success it did achieve. SC2 is different, this time Blizzard are actively trying to get it at and beyond where SC is. Someone made a point that I agree with. A game with a UI that is ages old by todays standards, despite the fact that it might attract someone like me or other SC veterans, will be poorly received by the masses. If SCII only manages to attract the current SC crowd plus some retired players, its never going to get as big as SC. Better UI = more people pick it up = bigger pool of people from which pros might develop. Of course it isnt as simple as that, the game itself must be conducive to all levels of play, which I am positive Blizzard will achieve. I also think its entirely possible that people who havent played SC before end up being top SCII players, beating out SC's top players. I am personally fine with both the presence or absence of MBS. However, I believe the former has a much greater chance of creating a massive pro scene for SCII. I also find the notion that SC is the perfect game, has achieved the perfect balance in everything etc etc very depressing. I think theres always room to improve, and for that, changes need to be made. Despite being a hardcore SC fan, I want SCII to be innovative, new, and fresh. I dont want to play the same game with a new skin and some minor differences. Even if something worked really well for SC, it can be improved. Furthermore, SCII is different in many ways, its entirely possible that a method of macro that worked really well for SC would be entirely hindering in SCII. | ||
|
Gandalf
Pakistan1905 Posts
On September 10 2007 03:58 NonY[rC] wrote: Restricted use of performance-enhancing drugs. The nutritional supplements that athletes are allowed to take are certainly outdated but sports organizations have drawn the line on what kind of performance-enhancing treatments an athelete can undergo. Its not the restrictions that are artificial, its that the drugs are an artificial/non-natural means of improving ones physical condition. Like a hack, for example. I bet SCII wont allow hacks. There are obviously rules and regulations and "limits" that govern most (if not all) sports though. For example in football, I'm sure the ball has to fall within a certain weight range etc But worry not, SCII will have these "artificial" limits too. If Blizzard wanted, they could program the game so that armies would micro on their own. Or macro would be automatic. Or anything like that. But no, they obviously havent, and wont. So I think any discussion about enforcing limits should only be about how these limits will ensure massive success for SCII. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On September 10 2007 01:41 TaDa1. wrote: I came from w3 to sc so I personally don't believe that MBS is such a necessity. I like SC because in sc, u have to balance the time u use for macro and micro. If macro or micro is too easy, the game will not be very fun. Do u know what Grubby said about the gameplay of w3? He said that at competitive level, the game is not as fun because in w3, macro is so easy, everyone can have near perfect macro. And when people have the same macro, the game is not be as fun. Please give a link to that quote from Grubby. Not as fun as what? I've followed the War3 scene as well as SC for many years. I've never seen anything of the like from any of the top players. Why would they continue playing if it wasn't fun? Plus, you have to admit that the War3 scene is larger than SC outside of Korea. On September 10 2007 01:41 TaDa1. wrote: Harass is not effective so people don't have much incentive to harass, they just focus on building their force. That's exactly what happens when you INCREASE the importance of macro. It's the opposite in War3. There is much more incentive to harass than just building, because both players are able to build well. On September 10 2007 01:41 TaDa1. wrote: And since u can't win with macro anymore, u r forced to use timing and micro to win. At first it's fun. I came up with a bunch of nice strat, used them quite climb pretty high on the ladder. But after 3 years, there's virtually no new strat for timing win. It's all micro war then. That was the reason I left w3 and learn sc from the scratch This importance of micro has in War3 is Blizzard's design choice that permeates every single aspect of the game. High HP units, lots of unit abilities, importance of heroes, slow moving units, etc and the like were all put in from the start for the purpose of making micro more important than macro. This didn't happen by accident. Also, refer to this quote from my OP: However, the fact that strategies are still evolving in SC even after TEN years is a testament to how well balanced Blizzard designed SC. I do not believe this is luck, but more of a product of hard work and talent. In this area SC also outshines War3, as several matchups in the latter became strategically stale in only a few years (not completely Blizzard's fault either since 4 races + heroes + units are MUCH harder to balance than only 3 races + units) On September 10 2007 01:41 TaDa1. wrote: I believed that in w3 Bliz intended to replace macro with creeping. They failed! Even though creeping is like macro, creep jaking is random, this seriously take away the balance. If Bliz gonna make macroing easier, they need to come up with something good, I see your point, but saying that creepjack takes away from balance is sort of like saying how harassing takes away from balance. You never know how much damage you can deal (e.g. like in SC, will you pull a July muta harass, or only able to get a few small kills). Any conflict between two players will have an element of chance in it. Also, the better you get, the more important it is to predict where the other player is, and scouting becomes ever more important. At the pro level, 90% of the time it's more of a game "sense". | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On September 10 2007 03:58 NonY[rC] wrote: Restricted use of performance-enhancing drugs. The nutritional supplements that athletes are allowed to take are certainly outdated but sports organizations have drawn the line on what kind of performance-enhancing treatments an athelete can undergo. But thats because those drugs negatively affects the persons health, and are banned since noone should feel forced to give up their health to be competetive. There are drugs that doesnt have negative effects and those are completely fine and are used by all of the top sports people. Other than drugs with negative effects nothing is forbidden that hasnt to do with actual gameplay. All the rules of sports are just like the stats of starcraft, like zealot costing 100 mins and dealing 2x8 dmg etc, they are what makes up the game. The UI is like the equipment of the players, good equipment makes it easier and less annoying to play same as a good UI. Also mbs have nothing to do with automation, it doesnt automates anything any more than selecting multiple zerglings and ordering them to move, wich orders each of them to move to that location. MBS = MUS, multiple unit selection, wich by all starcraft players is seen as needed to play the game otherwise it would just get annoying. Why should buildings be special really? | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2598 Posts
On September 10 2007 04:00 mdainoob wrote: Uh although pros may not macro perfectly, if you are to add many simplifications to the game, then the dexterity aspect of macro becomes MUCH smaller, despite the strategical depth unaltered. With less dexterity required, logically less time is going to be spent on macro. Execution would be less of a factor than simply knowing what to do. Macro can be said to compose of two aspects (as some1 said earlier), one knowing when to expo, what to build ect, and the other actually doing it. This other aspect of bw macro will be heavily reduced by automing and mbs, something that many players here (including myself) dont want. I assume you've played bw a lot, and so you clearly know the amount of dexterity and speed and multitasking required to macro effectively. Even for pros this is a large drain. The pros are going to spend much less tiem macroing and focus more time on microing if mbs and automing and added and no suitable substitutes are in place (which we can't completely determine yet). I guess this is just my personal preference, but I think its much more impressive to see a pro play so well and play at a level beyodn waht I could ever achieve, than to see someone playing a slowed down game and think, "hey, i could do that. I thought of that strategy too". Also as a general response, i've had some friend's who've played c&c3 and when they tried sc they never complained about "wtf wheres the multiple building select?". I don't think it would be as detrimental for reviews as some people seem to think. I disagree strongly. Pros today can't play a perfect macro game as shown by the Hwasin video. Not even Nada or ooV can. With MBS they could play a better game but it would not be a less intense game. A top player today goes back and activates several production buildings mid battle and sends out perhaps one controll group of finished units. That's what he's capable of doing while performing on top, and he will still be struggling to spend all his money in a good way, and he'll probably resort to queing some units. This is not optimal macro. Optimal macro is what we see in early progames where players build 1 unit and send it down to the battle line. This is possible because there isn't enough things going on in the first few minutes so a progamer can easily handle this. If a progamer could build units individually as soon as he had the money and send them down individually to his army he would and we would see a neverending stream of reinforcments going towards the hotspots. If MBS is included it's unlikely that everyone will say "oh but the current level of macro is fine, I'll just slack of with the rest of my ability". What will likely happen is that they use their skill to macro even harder, building units in smaller groups and sending reinforcements more often. MBS will not reduce the speed and multitasking required for top level Starcraft unless a top level player runs out of meaningfull things to do. MBS will reduce the importance of macro however, because in a stressed out situation it will be easier to achive "acceptable" levels of macro but a truly great player needs to excell in all areas. My point is that SC allready has an inhuman ammount of meaningfull things to do, including macro. SCII looks to expand on that with more abilities. Unless pro's run out of things to do I don't think the game would change that much from MBS. Also remember, MBS is only a benefit as long as you are not striving for good macro since MBS requires you to build multiple units at once while perfect macro is building every unit as soon as it's avalible. I seriously think most people think MBS would have a bigger impact on the game than it will have. | ||
| ||
