Why MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 - Page 8

On September 10 2007 09:31 Aphelion wrote:


Everyone also needs to remember that every single one of those RTSes and sequels have been POSes compared to SC.

On September 10 2007 09:51 akast wrote:
I really hope that most pros here don't think that advanced 'dexterity' was what made SC1 so much better from other games. Any RTS game can have a really bad user interface that will require an abnormal APM to play the game properly and require an inordinate amount of dexterity, not just SC1.

What SC2 adds is a shift in focus. The players will use their APM in battles, rather than in base management. This is where the exciting action will take place. Who gets excited seeing some dude rallying his workers to mine in record time??

Geez some of posters here make it seem like they would like SC2 to be in binary form so they can WTFPWN their opponents with 500+APM.

On September 10 2007 10:13 akast wrote:
LOL.

I'm guessing most you blokes will stick to Project Revolution since so many of you are put off by new features in SC2.

On September 10 2007 09:39 Aphelion wrote:


1.) Blizzard also made Warcraft 3.
2.) Which is why we are in unexplored territory, and rules which applied for previous sequels are trends they carved out are just as much to be avoided as to be adopted.
3.) You also don't have any proof that it doesn't. And this entire forum last few days have been filled with very good arguments by veteran players why it does make a difference.
4.) SC2 will have sales regardless. And Blizzard should go with the option which makes the game play the best, because that is what gives a game longevity. Noobs who can't play a non-MBS game won't form a long term playerbase.

On September 09 2007 13:53 orangedude wrote:
The fact that most RTS's have failed is absolutely not due to MBS and automining. There are many more obvious reasons for their apparent lack of longevity. The primary reason why almost every other RTS does not reach the level of success of Blizzard's is because they are not made with as much love and care. Blizzard puts much thought into every aspect of their RTS franchise, and spends an enormous time designing, redesigning, balancing, and again rebalancing until they are completely and utterly satisfied with their work. You should all know this by now and can see it in their design process for SC2. Imbalances and exploits are even patched for years AFTER the game is released to keep gameplay continually fresh. No other company in existence does this.

Every other RTS from every other company released so far (excluding mirror races) have major imbalances in their game (e.g. C&C tank rushes, superweapons, etc). Any patches often only fix technical issues, and rarely address gameplay. This is a problem, because any large imbalance in a strategy game immediately causes the strategical game metatype to become entirely one dimensional (this has even happened after many years to several matchups in SC to an extent: ZvZ, TvT). People start building the same mix of units every game, because it is the strongest/most effective/least counterable.

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 many matchups became strategically stale in only a few years (not completely Blizzard's fault either since 4 races + heroes are MUCH harder to balance than 3 races with only units)

Finally, again my main point is that just because a feature is common to games of recent years that do not achieve the same success as SC, does NOT mean that this feature is intrinsically bad. I'm sure this has been brought up a ton of times in another thread called "Just because it's in War3, doesn't mean it sucks". For example, no reasonable person is going to argue that better cinematics (common to most games now) is a bad thing just because it's in all these games that do suck. This is simply an industry standard, in the same way that MBS/automining is now an RTS standard. If you don't have this feature, MOST people are not going to be pleased. That is a simple truth.

We should be instead focusing on ways to make up for the addition of MBS/automining with additional macro ideas rather than opposing its inclusion into SC2, because we might actually profoundly improve the game as a result of our ideas. How fucking awesome would it be, if one of YOUR ideas was implemented into SC2, the game that millions of people will be playing worldwide?

I am fairly sure (90%, I'll take bets) that Blizzard will end up implementing MBS/automining regardless of what we say, since it is definitely in THEIR best interests to do so (financially, and to increase a loyal fanbase by attracting new players). They are not making the game JUST for the hardcore crowd (probably <5% of the market), because the majority will always come first. They will take our opinions into account, but this is one area where I think there is no reason whatsoever for them to compromise.

On September 10 2007 10:19 orangedude wrote:
1) You make it seem like War3 is a failure, when it's actually bigger outside of Korea than SC (especially in China). Some people prefer micro over macro and those people play War3. Others prefer macro over micro and play SC. Both are excellent games.

On September 10 2007 10:26 akast wrote:
^^

You favour mass clicking over strategy :S.

On September 10 2007 10:27 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:


Get the fuck out.

On September 10 2007 10:29 akast wrote:


Sorry wasn't referring to you. Referring to the poster above you.

On September 10 2007 10:35 akast wrote:
Well the let me rephrase my question.

Whats wrong in favouring strategy over mass clicking?

Am I wrong or is SC supposed to be about different and unique strategies?

Leave the micro in battles, not in base management.