|
On September 10 2007 10:23 Aphelion wrote:
1.) For the purposes of making SC2, they had better consider War3 a failure.
2.) Its not unexplored territory. All those games with "improved UI" have universally proven to suck. And you don't just add changes for the sake of changes.
3.) The veterans' points hold much more weight because they actually play BW at a high level and are not just pulling shit from their asses, which anyone can do. And no, I am not a veteran.
4.) There are differences between those and start off noob and those who are eternal noobs because of their mentality. If theirs is a supcom fan's mentality favoring "automated UI" so they can "execute strategy instead of mass clicking", they will be eternal noobs.
1) That's your opinion, not fact. War3 = a success. This is a fact. They also already said they're moving in two very different directions in terms of design for Warcraft and SC franchises.
2) READ MY QUOTE. This argument has been proven false about a thousand times over yet you still manage to revive it from the dead. Just because a feature is common to games that suck, doesn't mean its a bad feature.
3) If Blizzard were to take veteran's points at the COST of alienating many new players, that would be a terrible decision for them. Yes, some people will be happy, but most will not be. They're smart enough not to do this. The only way to solve this is a compromise that can please both sides.
4) Automated UI is different from UI that removes artificial restrictions. You might turn away a lot of people from the "start off as noobs", simply because they think the UI is at fault and made them lose.
|
So you've never played BW then akast?
Either that or you're not a very clever troll. BW has a strategic depth no other game has.
As for the OP, you're post is good, but I can't say I agree. Macro the way it is now in BW is incredibly important and vital to the game. If you dumb it down with MBS and auto-mine you're taking away a critical element that makes BW the brilliant game it is. BW is good because it's so hard. I'm all for the new units, abilities etc, but they need to keep the fundamentals of the macro, micro and speed of the game.
Strategy will come with the new units and abilities, but please keep BW non-noob friendly. We want a competitve game, not something to satiate the newbs.
|
On September 10 2007 10:40 orangedude wrote:
3) If Blizzard were to take veteran's points at the COST of alienating many new players, that would be a terrible decision for them. Yes, some people will be happy, but most will not be. They're smart enough not to do this. The only way to solve this is a compromise that can please both sides.
4) Automated UI is different from UI that removes artificial restrictions. You might turn away a lot of people from the "start off as noobs", simply because they think the UI is at fault and made them lose.
3) I don't think I've read the thread closely enough, where exactly is this "compromise" and where does it tailor to the veterans?
4) If you think the UI was at fault when it's the same for ALL PLAYERS, you're a sore loser. You probably wouldn't have played too much either.
|
Ugh, I really don't know what should be done about MBS now. There are many good points on both sides of the argument.
If MBS stays in, a large part of macro will be taken out, and it will either be replaced by more micro, or (hopefully), other macro based actions. Although the juggle of micro and macro would be in some part changed, it could possibly not be a flop, but there is always the chance that it will be too easy, even with new features.
But if MBS gets taken out, one of the more important aspects of SC will be retained. The multitasking and juggling of micro and macro. The downside being the possibility of a smaller fanbase as well as bad reviews, which would be bad for sales, and possibly progaming (without an audience, there can't be professional)
The middle ground is basically adding more keystrokes or clicks into the MBS or preventing hotkeying multiple buildings. That could be possible (I've gotten used to being able to hotkey only one comsat, and clicking on any others I might need), but it seems unlikely.
I've probably missed a few (or a lot) of points on both sides of the argument, but I say that we should just give MBS a try, and it can always be removed during beta. Starcraft 1 went under a huge change from beta to final release, and the same could happen with Starcraft 2.
Oh, and to those people who insult "noobs", please be less arrogant and remember that you were once new to the game, and you probably did not consider yourself inept or stupid.
|
On September 10 2007 10:43 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 10:40 orangedude wrote:
3) If Blizzard were to take veteran's points at the COST of alienating many new players, that would be a terrible decision for them. Yes, some people will be happy, but most will not be. They're smart enough not to do this. The only way to solve this is a compromise that can please both sides.
4) Automated UI is different from UI that removes artificial restrictions. You might turn away a lot of people from the "start off as noobs", simply because they think the UI is at fault and made them lose. 3) I don't think I've read the thread closely enough, where exactly is this "compromise" and where does it tailor to the veterans? 4) If you think the UI was at fault when it's the same for ALL PLAYERS, you're a sore loser. You probably wouldn't have played too much either.
3) It's in the appropriately named 'MBS Solutions' thread. Luuh's post. He's also started another thread where he reiterated his idea.
4) If you think MBS is at fault when it's the same for ALL PLAYERS, you're a sore loser. The argument works both ways, chap.
|
On September 10 2007 10:37 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +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. It takes out the option. In BW, mass clicking isn't just a necesary part of the game that you have to do in every situation, every game, it's an option to spend your limited time and handspeed. Should you continue to micro your four marines that are behind a zerg's mineral line and neglect keeping your barracks pumping for a few seconds, or are you lacking in base defense so you have to build out of raxes? Is your economy strong enough that you can let your goons melt and dent that tank line a little and rebuild, or is that a hanbang force that's game deciding that you HAVE to micro? MBS doesn't simply remove a tedious aspect of BW, it also removes the choice involved in where to spend your limited amount of clicks.
Take a step back. SC2 will compensate that by providing more choices for strategy. In other words, would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy? The fact that you don't have to worry about base management will allow you a greater range of strategies that you have a choice to pick from. With no MBS and rally points, the amount of strategies at hand will be limited as you are concentrating on the tedious aspects of SC as well as the major aspects.
What SC2 is doing is improving the quality of tools for the player. You are the strategist, commander, captain and you are in charge of the tools and resources at your disposal. If the tools are faulty, like the old SC UI, that means you will not be able to maximise the effectiveness of your strategies. So they are improving the tools to allow better and more effective strategies.
So you've never played BW then akast?
Either that or you're not a very clever troll. BW has a strategic depth no other game has.
As for the OP, you're post is good, but I can't say I agree. Macro the way it is now in BW is incredibly important and vital to the game. If you dumb it down with MBS and auto-mine you're taking away a critical element that makes BW the brilliant game it is. BW is good because it's so hard. I'm all for the new units, abilities etc, but they need to keep the fundamentals of the macro, micro and speed of the game.
Strategy will come with the new units and abilities, but please keep BW non-noob friendly. We want a competitve game, not something to satiate the newbs.
First of all, I have played broodwar for years, although granted I have not played at a professional level.
Second, why on earth would a game not cater to new players? This does not make business sense in the least. Blizzard does want to cater to the pro community but it also wants to increase the fanbase of Starcraft. Why do you want to limit the fanbase? Are you that egotistical and up there on your high horse to not expand Starcraft's fanbase?
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
The point is that the WC3 player does hardly anything with his left hand and even less back at his base. All the wc3 player has to do is micro, the rest is made VERY easy for him. One thing that makes starcraft such an intimidating game is not only do the micro battles end very quickly (leading to much less room for error) but the player is constantly having to micromanage his base back at home while this is occurring.
Allowing for MBS actually turns SC2 into a large scale WC3 game. With the computer making sure my probes always mine for me and MBS making sure unit production is much easier than the original SC... well there just isn't that much else i have to do is there? Don't tell me that now i can focus on 'strategy' and micromanagement better. I can out micro kids and out think them while keeping 300 apm and watching for idle probes. If you can't do that i suggest you learn how to play the game, not dumb it down so you wont have to try so hard.
If MBS is around for competitive play, i'll probably be 10x more likely to turtle and not harass since harassment wont do much to distract the player from other tasks. When i rush another player in Starcraft i can usually distract them in enough ways that i can be ahead on multiple levels--that's a good thing. Have you ever watched a replay of a progamer holding off an intense rush? It's incredible, they manage to keep up unit production, make sure workers are still mining, out micro the rush, and then respond with the correct tech path. That's SEXY. Watching some player micro while he never returns to his base is boring.
finally, would any of the pro mbs players like to 1;1? i'd like to see just where you stand in this game.
|
On September 10 2007 10:23 Aphelion wrote:
1.) For the purposes of making SC2, they had better consider War3 a failure. [/b]
WC3 is a RTS with RPG elements, it's completely different from both SC and SC2. No need to make comparisons. Really. It's just silly.
2.) Its not unexplored territory. All those games with "improved UI" have universally proven to suck. And you don't just add changes for the sake of changes.
See next paragraph.
3.) The veterans' points hold much more weight because they actually play BW at a high level and are not just pulling shit from their asses, which anyone can do. And no, I am not a veteran.
But on the other hand they might be so used to SC's interface that they are much more resistant to change, and because SC was so successful it leads to thinking among the good players that this must somehow be related to the interface, although the biggest strength of the game is its balance, variety of strategies, and the unique roles of the units (almost every unit has a very clear role or purpose, and usually no other unit can replace that, so units never really become obsolete, even the weakest ones remain useful throughout the game thanks to some upgrades. There also is no "uber" unit, so you always have to win with the right combination of units). All other RTS games are seriously lacking in these areas.
Besides, the MBS people have made at least equally strong points for their side. If you are at least decent in the game, you can take part in that discussion. If a Brutalisk2 came up who played just like me, only with 500 APM more, and he was advocating SBS, then that wouldn't make his arguments any more viable just because he's a better player.
It's all about the content, not the reputation of the guy behind the content.
4.) There are differences between those and start off noob and those who are eternal noobs because of their mentality. If theirs is a supcom fan's mentality favoring "automated UI" so they can "execute strategy instead of mass clicking", they will be eternal noobs.
That's complete bullshit...
|
On September 10 2007 10:51 akast wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 10:37 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: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. It takes out the option. In BW, mass clicking isn't just a necesary part of the game that you have to do in every situation, every game, it's an option to spend your limited time and handspeed. Should you continue to micro your four marines that are behind a zerg's mineral line and neglect keeping your barracks pumping for a few seconds, or are you lacking in base defense so you have to build out of raxes? Is your economy strong enough that you can let your goons melt and dent that tank line a little and rebuild, or is that a hanbang force that's game deciding that you HAVE to micro? MBS doesn't simply remove a tedious aspect of BW, it also removes the choice involved in where to spend your limited amount of clicks. Take a step back. SC2 will compensate that by providing more choices for strategy. In other words, would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy? The fact that you don't have to worry about base management will allow you a greater range of strategies that you have a choice to pick from. With no MBS and rally points, the amount of strategies at hand will be limited as you are concentrating on the tedious aspects of SC as well as the major aspects. What SC2 is doing is improving the quality of tools for the player. You are the strategist, commander, captain and you are in charge of the tools and resources at your disposal. If the tools are faulty, like the old SC UI, that means you will not be able to maximise the effectiveness of your strategies. So they are improving the tools to allow better and more effective strategies.
That is complete guesswork. Do you think it was on purpose that modern TvP is generally limited to metal, and modern TvZ is limited to being infantry-based? Probably not. Assuming that SC2 will have more strategies to choose from isn't necessarily a smart assumption. If you had unlimited handspeed/multitask in BW, you'd probably always stray towards a harass-intensive style like Bisu's. Even if it does unlock more strategies to use, there'll probably always be a dominant one. Changing the domininant strategies does not necessarily add more, but making the UI more friendly to do so does necessarily subtract away.
More importantly, your example, "would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy" still isn't as mind intensive or as time intensive. I mean, arguably, it's already present in BW. Should you go for a storm drop in PvZ or focus on your main army? However, an amount of urgency/tension gets taken away from both options if you take away a lingering option in the back of your mind every 15-30 seconds, keeping your gateways producing perfectly.
|
On September 10 2007 10:06 Aphelion wrote:
Yea, fuck this. I almost wish that Blizzard never announced SC2 until its released, so we can be spared from this massive influx of suck.
Is there something that forces you in these discussions? Do you think with help of your demagogy and disputes blizzard will drop UI improvements without even testing them? You hate this subforum, but you are one of those who're keeping these crappy countless flamefest threads about UI alive. It's like writing, writing and writing in "religious" threads at General forums and then saying that forum sucks.
Nothing will change till the Beta test. Here, at tl.net, months later nothing changed with help of these infinitive topics - I saw only one person here who's analyzing opponents' arguments and always opened to change his mind if they're good enough, Blacklizard, all other just keep saying same over and over, rising level of anger. I'd suggest instead of blaming Blizzard or this subforum, blame this worthless threads and stop supporting them.
|
[B]If MBS is around for competitive play, i'll probably be 10x more likely to turtle and not harass since harassment wont do much to distract the player from other tasks.
This is a great point that isn't often made.
|
On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 10:51 akast wrote:On September 10 2007 10:37 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: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. It takes out the option. In BW, mass clicking isn't just a necesary part of the game that you have to do in every situation, every game, it's an option to spend your limited time and handspeed. Should you continue to micro your four marines that are behind a zerg's mineral line and neglect keeping your barracks pumping for a few seconds, or are you lacking in base defense so you have to build out of raxes? Is your economy strong enough that you can let your goons melt and dent that tank line a little and rebuild, or is that a hanbang force that's game deciding that you HAVE to micro? MBS doesn't simply remove a tedious aspect of BW, it also removes the choice involved in where to spend your limited amount of clicks. Take a step back. SC2 will compensate that by providing more choices for strategy. In other words, would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy? The fact that you don't have to worry about base management will allow you a greater range of strategies that you have a choice to pick from. With no MBS and rally points, the amount of strategies at hand will be limited as you are concentrating on the tedious aspects of SC as well as the major aspects. What SC2 is doing is improving the quality of tools for the player. You are the strategist, commander, captain and you are in charge of the tools and resources at your disposal. If the tools are faulty, like the old SC UI, that means you will not be able to maximise the effectiveness of your strategies. So they are improving the tools to allow better and more effective strategies. That is complete guesswork. Do you think it was on purpose that modern TvP is generally limited to metal, and modern TvZ is limited to being infantry-based? Probably not. Assuming that SC2 will have more strategies to choose from isn't necessarily a smart assumption. If you had unlimited handspeed/multitask in BW, you'd probably always stray towards a harass-intensive style like Bisu's. Even if it does unlock more strategies to use, there'll probably always be a dominant one. Changing the domininant strategies does not necessarily add more, but making the UI more friendly to do so does necessarily subtract away. More importantly, your example, "would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy" still isn't as mind intensive or as time intensive. I mean, arguably, it's already present in BW. Should you go for a storm drop in PvZ or focus on your main army? However, an amount of urgency/tension gets taken away from both options if you take away a lingering option in the back of your mind every 15-30 seconds, keeping your gateways producing perfectly.
I think I can see the problem here in both our arguments. I'm speaking from a casual gamer's point of view and you're speaking from a pro-gamer's point of view. I want SC2 to be fun and my version of being fun is creating and executing strategies with minimum hassles through limited UI.
You want the limited UI because you want the game to be as intensive as possible, which I guess is fair enough. But I see the limited UI as a chore that will make SC2 seem more like 'work' then a game.
|
On September 10 2007 11:10 akast wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 10 2007 10:51 akast wrote:On September 10 2007 10:37 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: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. It takes out the option. In BW, mass clicking isn't just a necesary part of the game that you have to do in every situation, every game, it's an option to spend your limited time and handspeed. Should you continue to micro your four marines that are behind a zerg's mineral line and neglect keeping your barracks pumping for a few seconds, or are you lacking in base defense so you have to build out of raxes? Is your economy strong enough that you can let your goons melt and dent that tank line a little and rebuild, or is that a hanbang force that's game deciding that you HAVE to micro? MBS doesn't simply remove a tedious aspect of BW, it also removes the choice involved in where to spend your limited amount of clicks. Take a step back. SC2 will compensate that by providing more choices for strategy. In other words, would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy? The fact that you don't have to worry about base management will allow you a greater range of strategies that you have a choice to pick from. With no MBS and rally points, the amount of strategies at hand will be limited as you are concentrating on the tedious aspects of SC as well as the major aspects. What SC2 is doing is improving the quality of tools for the player. You are the strategist, commander, captain and you are in charge of the tools and resources at your disposal. If the tools are faulty, like the old SC UI, that means you will not be able to maximise the effectiveness of your strategies. So they are improving the tools to allow better and more effective strategies. That is complete guesswork. Do you think it was on purpose that modern TvP is generally limited to metal, and modern TvZ is limited to being infantry-based? Probably not. Assuming that SC2 will have more strategies to choose from isn't necessarily a smart assumption. If you had unlimited handspeed/multitask in BW, you'd probably always stray towards a harass-intensive style like Bisu's. Even if it does unlock more strategies to use, there'll probably always be a dominant one. Changing the domininant strategies does not necessarily add more, but making the UI more friendly to do so does necessarily subtract away. More importantly, your example, "would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy" still isn't as mind intensive or as time intensive. I mean, arguably, it's already present in BW. Should you go for a storm drop in PvZ or focus on your main army? However, an amount of urgency/tension gets taken away from both options if you take away a lingering option in the back of your mind every 15-30 seconds, keeping your gateways producing perfectly. I think I can see the problem here in both our arguments. I'm speaking from a casual gamer's point of view and you're speaking from a pro-gamer's point of view. I want SC2 to be fun and my version of being fun is creating and executing strategies with minimum hassles through limited UI. You want the limited UI because you want the game to be as intensive as possible, which I guess is fair enough. But I see the limited UI as a chore that will make SC2 seem more like 'work' then a game.
Yep. Exactly right.
|
On September 10 2007 10:51 akast wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 10:37 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: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. It takes out the option. In BW, mass clicking isn't just a necesary part of the game that you have to do in every situation, every game, it's an option to spend your limited time and handspeed. Should you continue to micro your four marines that are behind a zerg's mineral line and neglect keeping your barracks pumping for a few seconds, or are you lacking in base defense so you have to build out of raxes? Is your economy strong enough that you can let your goons melt and dent that tank line a little and rebuild, or is that a hanbang force that's game deciding that you HAVE to micro? MBS doesn't simply remove a tedious aspect of BW, it also removes the choice involved in where to spend your limited amount of clicks. Take a step back. SC2 will compensate that by providing more choices for strategy. In other words, would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy? The fact that you don't have to worry about base management will allow you a greater range of strategies that you have a choice to pick from. With no MBS and rally points, the amount of strategies at hand will be limited as you are concentrating on the tedious aspects of SC as well as the major aspects. What SC2 is doing is improving the quality of tools for the player. You are the strategist, commander, captain and you are in charge of the tools and resources at your disposal. If the tools are faulty, like the old SC UI, that means you will not be able to maximise the effectiveness of your strategies. So they are improving the tools to allow better and more effective strategies. Show nested quote +So you've never played BW then akast?
Either that or you're not a very clever troll. BW has a strategic depth no other game has.
As for the OP, you're post is good, but I can't say I agree. Macro the way it is now in BW is incredibly important and vital to the game. If you dumb it down with MBS and auto-mine you're taking away a critical element that makes BW the brilliant game it is. BW is good because it's so hard. I'm all for the new units, abilities etc, but they need to keep the fundamentals of the macro, micro and speed of the game.
Strategy will come with the new units and abilities, but please keep BW non-noob friendly. We want a competitve game, not something to satiate the newbs. First of all, I have played broodwar for years, although granted I have not played at a professional level. Second, why on earth would a game not cater to new players? This does not make business sense in the least. Blizzard does want to cater to the pro community but it also wants to increase the fanbase of Starcraft. Why do you want to limit the fanbase? Are you that egotistical and up there on your high horse to not expand Starcraft's fanbase?
I'm sorry but this is complete and utter crap.
If you really think the macro in BW limits the strategic depth of the game, then you don't know what you're on about.
I don't want to limit the fanbase, I'm just saying they would be making a huge mistake by dumbing down one of the critical aspects of the game that make BW the best RTS ever.
If Blizzard don't make SC2 better than BW they will lose their fanbase. Fans don't want SC2 to reinvent the game, just reimagine it.
|
On September 10 2007 10:51 MyLostTemple wrote:
The point is that the WC3 player does hardly anything with his left hand and even less back at his base. All the wc3 player has to do is micro, the rest is made VERY easy for him. One thing that makes starcraft such an intimidating game is not only do the micro battles end very quickly (leading to much less room for error) but the player is constantly having to micromanage his base back at home while this is occurring.
Allowing for MBS actually turns SC2 into a large scale WC3 game. With the computer making sure my probes always mine for me and MBS making sure unit production is much easier than the original SC... well there just isn't that much else i have to do is there? Don't tell me that now i can focus on 'strategy' and micromanagement better. I can out micro kids and out think them while keeping 300 apm and watching for idle probes. If you can't do that i suggest you learn how to play the game, not dumb it down so you wont have to try so hard.
You make some good points here, but allowing MBS for SC2 does NOT make it into WC3 at all. Not even close. The two games are designed in fundamentally different ways, and the UI is one of the least important ones. Maybe when Project Revolution finishes (it's already in beta), we can have some SC matches in War3 UI and see how different it is.
Also about 200 apm is a minimum requirement for War3 pros as well, because of the importance of micro. Like I said, there are two ways to increase the mechanical skill required for a game, either up the importance of macro or micro. War3 chose to focus on that side, and became a totally different game. It may have a few flaws, but it's still pretty damned successful. SC isn't perfect in ALL ways either (i.e. ZvZ and TvT can be boring to watch).
On September 10 2007 10:51 MyLostTemple wrote:
If MBS is around for competitive play, i'll probably be 10x more likely to turtle and not harass since harassment wont do much to distract the player from other tasks. When i rush another player in Starcraft i can usually distract them in enough ways that i can be ahead on multiple levels--that's a good thing. Have you ever watched a replay of a progamer holding off an intense rush? It's incredible, they manage to keep up unit production, make sure workers are still mining, out micro the rush, and then respond with the correct tech path. That's SEXY. Watching some player micro while he never returns to his base is boring.
Yea, that is sexy. As a spectator though, too bad the only thing you see for both players are the micro side. You only get to see the players macro side in those brief FPS moments. I'll agree that SC makes a better spectator sport than War3, because of the way it's designed (high HP units, too many spells, slow units, etc). SC2 won't suffer any of those problems.
On September 10 2007 10:51 MyLostTemple wrote:
finally, would any of the pro mbs players like to 1;1? i'd like to see just where you stand in this game.
Sure, you can probably beat the shit out of me, but you can probably do the same to most of the anti-MBS side too 
|
On September 10 2007 11:12 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 11:10 akast wrote:On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 10 2007 10:51 akast wrote:On September 10 2007 10:37 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: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. It takes out the option. In BW, mass clicking isn't just a necesary part of the game that you have to do in every situation, every game, it's an option to spend your limited time and handspeed. Should you continue to micro your four marines that are behind a zerg's mineral line and neglect keeping your barracks pumping for a few seconds, or are you lacking in base defense so you have to build out of raxes? Is your economy strong enough that you can let your goons melt and dent that tank line a little and rebuild, or is that a hanbang force that's game deciding that you HAVE to micro? MBS doesn't simply remove a tedious aspect of BW, it also removes the choice involved in where to spend your limited amount of clicks. Take a step back. SC2 will compensate that by providing more choices for strategy. In other words, would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy? The fact that you don't have to worry about base management will allow you a greater range of strategies that you have a choice to pick from. With no MBS and rally points, the amount of strategies at hand will be limited as you are concentrating on the tedious aspects of SC as well as the major aspects. What SC2 is doing is improving the quality of tools for the player. You are the strategist, commander, captain and you are in charge of the tools and resources at your disposal. If the tools are faulty, like the old SC UI, that means you will not be able to maximise the effectiveness of your strategies. So they are improving the tools to allow better and more effective strategies. That is complete guesswork. Do you think it was on purpose that modern TvP is generally limited to metal, and modern TvZ is limited to being infantry-based? Probably not. Assuming that SC2 will have more strategies to choose from isn't necessarily a smart assumption. If you had unlimited handspeed/multitask in BW, you'd probably always stray towards a harass-intensive style like Bisu's. Even if it does unlock more strategies to use, there'll probably always be a dominant one. Changing the domininant strategies does not necessarily add more, but making the UI more friendly to do so does necessarily subtract away. More importantly, your example, "would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy" still isn't as mind intensive or as time intensive. I mean, arguably, it's already present in BW. Should you go for a storm drop in PvZ or focus on your main army? However, an amount of urgency/tension gets taken away from both options if you take away a lingering option in the back of your mind every 15-30 seconds, keeping your gateways producing perfectly. I think I can see the problem here in both our arguments. I'm speaking from a casual gamer's point of view and you're speaking from a pro-gamer's point of view. I want SC2 to be fun and my version of being fun is creating and executing strategies with minimum hassles through limited UI. You want the limited UI because you want the game to be as intensive as possible, which I guess is fair enough. But I see the limited UI as a chore that will make SC2 seem more like 'work' then a game. Yep. Exactly right.
But as I said before, in order for the Starcraft fanbase to expand, the game has to cater for new players, and being newb-friendly might not be to bad if it helps the fanbase to expand. This can also lead to a bigger pro-scene. See? Win-win for everyone  .
|
No. The pro scene will be an inferior game. Making the BEST pro-gaming game has to be the focus now, because SC is the only one of its kind. There is no second chance. There are mounds of easy noob games out there made by other developers.
|
On September 10 2007 11:15 akast wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 11:12 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 10 2007 11:10 akast wrote:On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 10 2007 10:51 akast wrote:On September 10 2007 10:37 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: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. It takes out the option. In BW, mass clicking isn't just a necesary part of the game that you have to do in every situation, every game, it's an option to spend your limited time and handspeed. Should you continue to micro your four marines that are behind a zerg's mineral line and neglect keeping your barracks pumping for a few seconds, or are you lacking in base defense so you have to build out of raxes? Is your economy strong enough that you can let your goons melt and dent that tank line a little and rebuild, or is that a hanbang force that's game deciding that you HAVE to micro? MBS doesn't simply remove a tedious aspect of BW, it also removes the choice involved in where to spend your limited amount of clicks. Take a step back. SC2 will compensate that by providing more choices for strategy. In other words, would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy? The fact that you don't have to worry about base management will allow you a greater range of strategies that you have a choice to pick from. With no MBS and rally points, the amount of strategies at hand will be limited as you are concentrating on the tedious aspects of SC as well as the major aspects. What SC2 is doing is improving the quality of tools for the player. You are the strategist, commander, captain and you are in charge of the tools and resources at your disposal. If the tools are faulty, like the old SC UI, that means you will not be able to maximise the effectiveness of your strategies. So they are improving the tools to allow better and more effective strategies. That is complete guesswork. Do you think it was on purpose that modern TvP is generally limited to metal, and modern TvZ is limited to being infantry-based? Probably not. Assuming that SC2 will have more strategies to choose from isn't necessarily a smart assumption. If you had unlimited handspeed/multitask in BW, you'd probably always stray towards a harass-intensive style like Bisu's. Even if it does unlock more strategies to use, there'll probably always be a dominant one. Changing the domininant strategies does not necessarily add more, but making the UI more friendly to do so does necessarily subtract away. More importantly, your example, "would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy" still isn't as mind intensive or as time intensive. I mean, arguably, it's already present in BW. Should you go for a storm drop in PvZ or focus on your main army? However, an amount of urgency/tension gets taken away from both options if you take away a lingering option in the back of your mind every 15-30 seconds, keeping your gateways producing perfectly. I think I can see the problem here in both our arguments. I'm speaking from a casual gamer's point of view and you're speaking from a pro-gamer's point of view. I want SC2 to be fun and my version of being fun is creating and executing strategies with minimum hassles through limited UI. You want the limited UI because you want the game to be as intensive as possible, which I guess is fair enough. But I see the limited UI as a chore that will make SC2 seem more like 'work' then a game. Yep. Exactly right. But as I said before, in order for the Starcraft fanbase to expand, the game has to cater for new players, and being newb-friendly might not be to bad if it helps the fanbase to expand. This can also lead to a bigger pro-scene. See? Win-win for everyone .
The problem is that most of us anti-MBS folk think that the pro scene won't be as relevant or exciting as the current BW pro-scene, because among the top players, there won't be too many gods anymore. With less emphasis on multitask, there would probably be less differentiation in skill among anyone who can use the UI to macro perfectly, and thus there'd be less "holy crap" and more "I could do that if I practiced for a few months." It'd be less of "a day to learn and a lifetime to master" and more of "an hour to learn and a month to master. "There's also a debate whether two modes should be implemented, one with UI improvements and one without, but then there's opposition of this idea too, because alot of people don't want to splinter the community (like in D2)
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
Orangedude or akast, msg me on aim = IAmTasteless
i'm going to 1:1 one of you and post the replay on here.
And no orangedude, your wrong, the anti-mbs side players give me a great challenge, beyond macro, but in strategy too. I have never heard of any of these pro mbs players and i question their knowledge of the game (no offense guys).
|
But you're dumbing down the game which is the long run will lead to a quick demise.
BW is insanely competitive because it is so hard. If you add newb friendly features in, you're closing the skill gap and making it less competitive.
Adding these features may give short term success in terms of expanding the fanbase, but it will ultimately deter from the game's long term viability because it will make the gameplay suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
