Why Multiple Building Select (MBS) Is Essential To The Success of SC2 On a Competitive Level
1) SC2 must have a good interface to attract the initial fanbase who will then spread good word and gather an even larger one. If it didn't, the negative press (from both reviews and word of mouth) will quickly kill off the game's potential and it'll never even be given the chance to form a thriving pro community. So only if the initial player base is kept pleased, will a small percentage of this large pool of newbs become the loyal SC veterans/progamers that will keep the game alive and kicking (i.e. TL.net). As discussed, the option to turn off MBS/automine can also be included in either maps or game types depending on how things turn out. However, my prediction is that very few new SC2 players will make the switch once they are "spoiled" by MBS, and this again severely limits the pro-scene.
But the key point here to emphasize is that the large newb pool is a prerequisite to a large competitive community and thus CANNOT be overlooked/ignored. They simply must be catered to, or the second part will not even be possible. Everyone here started off as a noob at one point. To say "screw the noobs, let them learn the hard way like I did" after you have passed that stage already is not only being selfish but also narrow-minded because you're ultimately hurting the game by lowering the potential skill pool.
2) SC2 must have a very high skill curve in both mechanical and mental aspects in order to keep the competitive scene happy. The mechanistic side (high apm) can be achieved in a number of ways, such as emphasizing the importance of micro (the War3 way), but the easiest would be to limit the interface. Back in 1997, when SC was released I believe a lot of these restrictions were unintentional, as even other RTS games from the same period had similar UI limitations. However, now that every single RTS from the past 8 years (including Bliz's own War3) has some form of MBS or equivalent, leaving this out of a game released in 2008+ will feel very artificial and awkward, as it is breaking the RTS standard and will become a huge disappointment to many potential fans (see point 1).
SC Alpha
Although this may be a bit exaggerated, I believe that for the "new generation" of RTS players, a game without MBS would feel something akin to the frustration we would feel if a War2-like interface (9-unit selection cap, no building hotkeys, queues or rallies, all spells manual cast including heal and more) was forced upon SC, for the very same reason that we know that we are being artificially limited. Just imagine this for one second. Suppose that Blizzard had decided to make SC with a UI similar to War2 while keeping everything else identical (let's call this game "SC Alpha"), because they gave in to the masses of War2 fans that were screaming at Blizz for "noobifying" SC (this actually happened, btw).
Now, is it not true that these same Koreans who practice 10 hrs a day at perfecting their technique, would gain even more for their efforts in SC Alpha? Let's imagine that a 200 apm SC player, would require 300-400 apm (and even more of the beautiful "keyboard dancing" that Tasteless loves) in SC Alpha to achieve the same level of play with a balance of macro and precise unit control. There will be an even larger difference in skill amongst the pros, as only a select few such as NaDa ever consistently break 400+ apm in games. When we see NaDa's (near) perfect micro combined with his "oovlike" macro in SC Alpha on OGN, compared to the other much lesser pros, we will be in even more awe at his abilities than in the current SC! These few Korean pros may even be happy with the way things are, because now becoming a true pro-gamer requires a certain amount of natural born talent/agility to become successful (just like how rare it is for someone to be genetically built for NBA material).
Do you see my point yet? Assuming that rest of the game aside from the UI is virtually identical, is SC Alpha really the better competitive game because it differentiates skill even more than SC?
I believe not. Although it may be extremely rewarding and fun to those few that enjoy training and mastering the UI to effectively use their 300-400 apm to play somewhat competently in SC Alpha, even the people with around 200 apm may feel artificially limited by the interface. Simply put, SC Alpha would not be as fun to play for the majority of the fans as the current SC, due to frustrations with the UI. The game would never be even close to reaching the popularity of SC in Korea today, because newbs would get turned away from lack of interest. Such a pro-scene with the BoxeR's, NaDa's, and Nal_rA's of today would NOT be possible.
Now can you see the pro-MBS crowd's point yet? It's not that we want an easier game for ourselves. It's because we want the pro-scene to live on and start a new generation by not disappointing the RTS newbs with artificial limitations in the UI before they gather enough interest to become pros. If these newbies think that lack of MBS isn't fun or causes frustrations due to being "spoiled" by the UI's of more recent RTS's, then many of them will NOT give SC2 a proper chance, and this thereby greatly restricts the pro-scene. That is the unfortunate truth.
Armies of Exigo: A Valuable Lesson
Unfortunately, even if most game reviewers are complete RTS noobs (which is often true for large popular sites), they are still catered to the mass market and are very important to their success among such an audience where the most sales will be coming from. Basically, it does not matter one bit how "wrong" you believe the reviewers are, because they are probably playing with a mindset similar to the average gamer, and are thus writing an "accurate" review if you think about it.
Despite its gorgeous graphics, this real-time strategy game seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Armies of Exigo is a real-time strategy game that should have Blizzard blushing. This debut offering from developer Black Hole Games borrows quite a bit from Blizzard's classic real-time strategy releases. In making its Blizzard clone, the developer has emulated everything from the 3D look of the units and buildings of Warcraft III to the three-pronged storyline of Starcraft and the Hollywood-quality cutscene movies that Blizzard is known for. The only problem is that while Black Hole has all the ingredients of a great real-time strategy game, the formula in Armies of Exigo comes off as, well, far too formulaic. Armies of Exigo is in many ways a 1999-era real-time strategy game with 2004 production values. It's a beautiful strategy offering that's technically on par with the best games on the market, and you can appreciate the graphical detail on display as armies clash, magical effects rain down, and units are hurled into the air by mighty blows. However, it's disappointing that the gameplay is very much like that of the earliest real-time strategy games. This is a traditional RTS that seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years. ... That said, if you're looking for an old-school real-time strategy game, then you'll most likely enjoy Armies of Exigo, especially since it features a lot of gameplay in its single-player campaign. Just be prepared for some frustration along the way. However, if you're looking for innovation or streamlined or modern gameplay, you won't find it here.
Armies of Exigo The perfect game for that nostalgic masochist in your life. by Steve Butts
December 15, 2004 - No developer in their right mind would be upset if you compared their game to Starcraft. The Blizzard classic set a new standard for strategy games five years ago and sparked an excessive number of copycats. It took a few years for real-time strategy developers to absorb the model before finally breaking through it in terms of technology and design. While some gamers still hold Starcraft up as the standard by which all other real-time strategy games are judged, none can deny that lots of new features have been introduced in the meantime.
Armies of Exigo hearkens back to the days when every RTS that came our way seemed to be cast in the Starcraft mold. Though this makes it a very traditional and ultimately unsurprising game, it also means that the developers have the benefit of five years of refinement to look back on. Consequently Armies of Exigo seems like an anachronism -- a familiar but finely polished take on the previous generation of strategy games. ... Capping groups at 15 units could potentially create a real headache in terms of controlling the armies. Armies of Exigo allows you to combine these small groups into one of four larger Super Groups. This extra layer of flexibility is definitely welcome but, given the size of the maps and the overall shape of the action, it would be much easier if the designers had just increased the unit cap for the basic groups. Keeping tabs on the status of the units within each individual group is basically impossible without lots of management. ... Closing Comments: Since it borrows so heavily from Starcraft, Armies of Exigo definitely has a lot going for it. The three races are balanced nicely and the campaign offers a lengthy challenge. Though the story is a bit forgettable, the cutscenes are almost as good as those we've seen from Blizzard.
Still, this is definitely a game aimed at the hardcore, old school crowd. Newcomers to the real-time strategy genre will find that the campaign is difficult to the point of near total aggravation. I've played almost every RTS released since Starcraft and even I threw up my hands in frustration at times. Veterans who are looking for something new will find that the design holds no surprises. The dual-layer map system is a nice gimmick but I'm looking to Liquid's Dragonshard to actually make something interesting from the concept.
Needless to say, Armies of Exigo despite its excellent visuals, was NOT a successful game and has literally 0 pro-scene today despite its catering to the hardcore crowd familiar to SC.
Solutions
Obviously, I'm not simply suggesting to keep MBS in the game without changing anything, as then I would be completely contradicting my second point above in that the game should require high manual dexterity. Let's take a look at a bunch of possible solutions that Blizzard can implement, keeping this in mind.
Having two modes, with one for competitive play and one for the casual crowd will probably not solve anything, and officially segregate the population into two groups. The problem is that most new SC2 players will start off with MBS/automine as default in both the campaigns and online games because that's what they're used to from other RTS's. I highly doubt that they'll make the switch over and scrap their MBS just because a few "oldschool" SC fans have chosen to do so, especially if they have invested any reasonable amount of time into the game and have gotten comfortable with the new UI. Outside of Korea, this group of "non-MBS" will probably stay about the same as the current SC population, maybe up to 1-2% of total players once SC2 comes out.
I personally believe that the best and only way to truly solving this dilemma is by taking the long road, where we (or Blizzard) come up with a way to add in more complicated macro without making it seem like an artificial limit of the UI. Anything less than that IMHO is just a copout and an excuse to keep ourselves happy at the expense of the future SC2 pro-scene.
Warp gates for Protoss are already a great start, as they require quite a fair bit of clicking to use without seeming like the UI is forcing it upon you. Who knows, maybe Zerg will even be fine with MBS, as the only way for a player to efficiently produce both enough drones and an army at the same time is to manually morph larvae from different hatcheries and direct them to different locations. Maybe they can come up with a completely new production method for zerg? What about some ideas for Terran production. So I suggest we do something important and put our minds together and come up with a true solution to the MBS problem, rather than a shortcut to simply disguise it. Because if Blizzard doesn't, then who will?
UI From Recent RTS Games
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: What new RTS games have such skilled, competitive players? You speak as though there is this great pool of competitive players that require MBS and automining, but who are they? SC has been at WCG for years now as other RTS's come and go. The competition level for non-SC and non-WC3 RTS's is low.
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) has major imbalances in their game (e.g. C&C tank rushes, superweapons, etc). Any patches often only fix only 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, PvT). 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 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)
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. For example, very few people are going to argue that 3-D graphics (common to all 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.
I am fairly sure 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 they won't compromise.
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 awesome would it be, if one of YOUR ideas was implemented into SC2, the game that millions of people will be playing worldwide?
That was an incredibly well thought out, and articulately worded argument.
I personally believe that the best and only way to truly solving this dilemma is the hard way, where we (or Bliz) come up with a way to add in more complicated macro without making it seem like an artificial limit of the UI. Anything less than that IMHO is just a copout and an excuse to keep ourselves happy at the expense of the future SC2 pro-scene.
I agree with this statement 100%.
I think that the main problem that people have with MBS is that it really kills macro.
If Blizzard can keep it in, but still make macro a huge, and important, part of the game, I will be one happy little man.
Edit: Only 7 posts? I see you going far, my friend.
You know, even if there is multiple building select, I don't think pros will use it. If they all just build at the same time i mean all you be doing is mindlessly massing 1 type of unit and a mix wins over just 1 unit spam. Cause I imagine they want to build different units at the same time over tank, tank, tank then vult, vult, vult rather be doing tank, vult, vult then vult, tank, tank. You know things like that. The only time i see it being used is late late game when people have the macro to blindly mass units while the need to micro what they have more.
One way to keep multiple building selection and keep some of starcraft macro style would be to put a limit of one unit created per key press. If you have 10 gateways selected, to make 7 zealots and 3 dragoons you would have to press the zealots hotkey 7 times and the dragoon hotkey 3 times. This would require a degree of precision to rapidly create the units you want and give you more control over your unit creation than having your 7 "zealot gateways" creating 7 zealots and the 3 "dragoon gateways" creating the 3 dragoons.
Sc1 3z4z4z5z6z7d8d would become 3zzzzzdd instead of the current 3z4d
What new RTS games have such skilled, competitive players? You speak as though there is this great pool of competitive players that require MBS and automining, but who are they? SC has been at WCG for years now as other RTS's come and go. The competition level for non-SC and non-WC3 RTS's is low.
I think you're overestimating the RTS crowd. There just aren't that many North Americans that play RTS's or would be interested in playing RTS's competitively. If you combine all of the current competitive RTS players in North America and force them all to play SC2, it'll still have less players than the FPS games. SC2 has to attract new players to the genre and to the competitive scene of the genre. To new players of the genre it is irrelevant what other games have or don't have.
I don't think that a future professional SC2 player will quit the game because there is no MBS or automining. In the end, the competitive scene will only flourish if there are a lot of players interested in competition. Initially, many casual players will play "competitively" but it won't take long for casual players to separate themselves out by sticking to money maps, UMS, public 3v3's and 4v4's, vs computers, etc. And then their existence does not matter for competitive players at all.
So how big is this crowd of people who would straight-up quit the game if there is no MBS or automining, but would love the game so much if those things are present that they'd eventually become competitive players? I just don't think there are that many and you've made no argument for their magnitude. What percentage of the non-SC non-WC3 competitive players are like that?
You speak as though MBS and automining and reviews are the only things that will attract players, but I think we all know that the new 3d graphics and the names StarCraft and Blizzard are going to be the main draws of the game. There is really no precedent to a game like SC2 coming out so I don't know what you're basing your speculation on.
Your argument featuring a comparison of the concerns of WC2 players prior to the release of SC doesn't hold. Balancing the UI is a very important aspect of building a long-term competitive RTS. SC hit upon a very successful formula for competition pretty much by accident/luck. Just because WC2 had a "harder" UI than SC does not mean that continuing to make the UI "easier" will result in an even better game. Like I've mentioned before, SC has been the most successful competitive RTS. Copying other RTS's that have failed to live up to SC is not a good way to improve the game.
The concern about MBS/automining at TL.net is that it will make the game worse for competitive players. You seem to accept this argument but you think that the attraction of extra players will more than make up for any damage MBS/automining causes. But again, you don't support this claim. Of course it would be ideal for the game to be at least as good for the competitive scene AND attract extra players, but it seems like it'll be good for competition OR attract extra players. It's important to know which side of the OR you land on. You seem to argue that the OR doesn't exist but then say that we have to do extra work for the AND. So do you really think MBS/automining will be better for the competitive scene overall or not?
Finally, you should consider the image of SC. Why can't manual macro be a definitive aspect of SC? Every RTS has to have unique aspects that separate it somehow and why can't SC be set apart by not hopping on the MBS/automining bandwagon? People know that SC has been wildly successful, even if they don't actually play it anymore. People see the sales numbers, hear about Korea, hear about the numbers still on battle.net. They've already set SC behind them and go onto other games, but SC2 will be a chance to revisit the franchise and see what all the craze is about. There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it.
Complicating other things in order to compensate for MBS is retarded imo.Thats just annoying. Just don't allow the MBS in the first place.
I personally agree with Izzy, that pros wouldn't be abusing the MBS as much as they need to be more specific, but this only barely gives them an edge over novice players who use it. I think MBS is imbalanced towards the aggressor though. Its like the slippery slope, I explained this in detail in some other thread.
The only way I believe this could be solved is having a player choose the options before games (like game speed, game type, etc.) Just like their are money map players and regular players, Ladder and melee.
I think the problem with the "but all the other games are already doing it"-line of reasoning is that eventually the game (starcraft 3, or 4, or whatever) is going to play itself since that's where all the other games are going..
I'm not trying to say that's what the pro-mbs side wants or anything, I just don't think that particular argument makes sense.
And nony, I think there is one realistic - major - group of players who could be turned off by a lack of MBS, and that's the Warcraft 3 crowd..
I don't know exactly how they all feel about it tho, most of them seem to like starcraft as well (or at least that's the impression I get whenever I read WCReplays.com) so maybe they wouldn't be too disappointed.
A wide range of Korean SCers already have nearly perfect mechanics, to the point that if MBS were present in SC, taking advantage of it wouldn't make their macro significantly faster. So what is it that seperates pros like Nada and Oov from guys like Bifrost and Hery? I can tell you it's not because they can tell their factories to produce 4 tanks and 6 vultures in 0.2 seconds, since they can all do it.
MBS would not significantly change the top level of professional gameplay. It would not dull the skill differentiation at the top level of gameplay seen amongst players like Savior or Bisu. Where MBS would 'hurt' competitiveness the most would be at the lower levels of competition where a player with 150 APM would normally destroy a player with 60 APM without MBS; but as Nony said, "their existence does not matter for competitive players at all".
And if all we care about is the professional competition in SC2, I don't see how simplifying the mechanical aspect of macromanagement would hurt skill differentiation at those levels concerned.
And i highly doubt sc2 will lose any popularity if you can't use MBS in a competitive game. how do easy interfaces help encourage esports? They don't. Every korean progamer i have spoken to thinks MBS deters from the gameplay that made Starcraft feel fun, they're not complaining about the difficulty of the game, that's what they love about it.
The average newb has no desire to be the best sc2 player. They can have mbs and automining if they want. As i posed in the 'Competitive play issues' thread, these people can use these settings in non competitive games like public games.
Putting MBS in competitive starcraft is like adding more hitpoints and instant respawn time in Counter strike. 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. I feel that MBS deters from the intensity of SC2 by a mile.
I played the game myself and i must admit i was horrified to see how slow and easy the game felt. I felt like my favorite game had been newbified to fit a trend that is already ruining RTS games.
I think that an important point is being missed here. Even the best starcraft players in the world do not play close to an optimal level. Not even close. At times, pros use control groups of up to 12 units. If they had the time, don't you think they would control each unit individually? MBS will free up some APM to do other, more interesting, things.
On September 09 2007 11:09 BlackStar wrote: The pro-scene of SCII is to be based on people that would refuse to play a game with an interface as the original SC?
I don't see how people that are too lazy to use practice, or whatever their reason, will be able to defeat someone like Flash in three years...
Without spectators you dont have a proscene, the end.
On September 09 2007 10:57 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think the problem with the "but all the other games are already doing it"-line of reasoning is that eventually the game (starcraft 3, or 4, or whatever) is going to play itself since that's where all the other games are going...
NonY has a very good counterargument, I think that MBS should not be included in the game. The game should be a game that's easy to learn, fun to play, but hard to master and understand all the aspects of it. If the game is easy to learn, lacking an MBS should not deter players. There are many other options for what NonY called the 'extra players', UMS of course, such as defense games or bound games or whatever, and of course the map editor will be very powerful for those types of games this time around seeing how the WC3 editor was very good. The only people I can see that will want MBS is fastest map players.
So, in conclusion it does not matter whether Starcraft 2 gets bad reviews or not, no matter what it gets, people will buy the game and play it, and many people will have fun with it. If there is MBS, Starcraft 2 may get good reviews, HOWEVER, the progaming scene would generate much less revenue than now. The pros are pretty much what has kept Starcraft alive for this long and kept making money from the game (UMS applies too though), and if the game is oversimplified then Starcraft 2 cannot last long.
I think that if many thousands of people can still enjoy UMS in Broodwar and Warcraft 3, which don't have MBS, they will still be able to enjoy UMS in Starcraft 2, and possibly even switch over to the progaming scene just as many people do.
First of all Nony, I appreciate your well-mannered and thought out response. Here is my counter-argument.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: I think you're overestimating the RTS crowd. There just aren't that many North Americans that play RTS's or would be interested in playing RTS's competitively. If you combine all of the current competitive RTS players in North America and force them all to play SC2, it'll still have less players than the FPS games.
On the flipside, I believe you are underestimating them. By "RTS crowd" I mean anyone who is potentially interested in RTS at all, this could mean pretty much anyone who's even touched one before. Anyone could become interested and become somewhat competitive especially if they don't first get frustrated at the game.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: SC2 has to attract new players to the genre and to the competitive scene of the genre. ... I don't think that a future professional SC2 player will quit the game because there is no MBS or automining. In the end, the competitive scene will only flourish if there are a lot of players interested in competition. Initially, many casual players will play "competitively" but it won't take long for casual players to separate themselves out by sticking to money maps, UMS, public 3v3's and 4v4's, vs computers, etc. And then their existence does not matter for competitive players at all.
So how big is this crowd of people who would straight-up quit the game if there is no MBS or automining, but would love the game so much if those things are present that they'd eventually become competitive players? I just don't think there are that many and you've made no argument for their magnitude. What percentage of the non-SC non-WC3 competitive players are like that?
Define a "future professional SC2 player". You seem to suggest here the casual and the competitive are mutually exclusive, and that the competitive scene comes from thin air, when in fact the second always arises from the first (i.e. two are inherently linked). Please read carefully. 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. How many people do you think decided from day 1 that "I will become a pro SC player" (excluding Korea, where $$$'s involved). Everyone starts as a newb with the simple goal of having fun.
If you don't even make an attempt to appeal to and capture a new fanbase and market, then of course there is no possible way that the pro scene would expand, and will only remain as large as it is now while gradually shrinking as time goes by. I think you understand this much.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: To new players of the genre it is irrelevant what other games have or don't have.
This is not necessarily true. Lack of automining would not make sense to even someone new since all other units rally properly, and lack of MBS could be a pain for potentially anyone. Plus, there could be many people who are not new to the genre but are new to SC or War3.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: You speak as though MBS and automining and reviews are the only things that will attract players, but I think we all know that the new 3d graphics and the names StarCraft and Blizzard are going to be the main draws of the game. There is really no precedent to a game like SC2 coming out so I don't know what you're basing your speculation on.
Yes, it's true that the name and graphics will attract many players. However, you underestimate the effects of word of mouth to KEEP a game selling and continually attracting new players. Why do you think SC and War3 are still be selling copies today? Negative press from both reviews and word of mouth will reduce the game's potential if many people who buy it start saying saying "What an archaic interface. This is so 10 years ago."
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: Your argument featuring a comparison of the concerns of WC2 players prior to the release of SC doesn't hold. Balancing the UI is a very important aspect of building a long-term competitive RTS. SC hit upon a very successful formula for competition pretty much by accident/luck. Just because WC2 had a "harder" UI than SC does not mean that continuing to make the UI "easier" will result in an even better game. Like I've mentioned before, SC has been the most successful competitive RTS. Copying other RTS's that have failed to live up to SC is not a good way to improve the game.
You seem to have missed the point of my comparison. Read it again and think of the overall message. Nowhere did I say that an "easier" UI will result in a better game. The point of why applying the War2 UI to SC would NOT be a good idea is that although it further differentiates players by skill, it is ONLY because the interface is artificially limited, which I think most people can agree is NOT ideal. This is also present in SC, but this was NOT intentional, because MBS was not necessarily the standard at the time.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: The concern about MBS/automining at TL.net is that it will make the game worse for competitive players. You seem to accept this argument but you think that the attraction of extra players will more than make up for any damage MBS/automining causes. But again, you don't support this claim.
So instead of attempting to attract new players, you will instead let the existing player base stagnate? The only way to expand the scene is by actively making it friendly enough for new people to be interested without being frustrated. Remember, opposite of fun = frustration.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: Of course it would be ideal for the game to be at least as good for the competitive scene AND attract extra players, but it seems like it'll be good for competition OR attract extra players. It's important to know which side of the OR you land on. You seem to argue that the OR doesn't exist but then say that we have to do extra work for the AND. So do you really think MBS/automining will be better for the competitive scene overall or not?
Again, copying/pasting my answer from above.
Define a "future professional SC2 player". You seem to suggest here the casual and the competitive are mutually exclusive, and that the competitive scene comes from thin air, when in fact the second always arises from the first (i.e. two are inherently linked). Please read carefully. 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. How many people do you think decided from day 1 that "I will become a pro SC player" (excluding Korea, where $$$'s involved). Everyone starts as a newb with the simple goal of having fun.
If you don't even make an attempt to appeal to and capture a new fanbase and market, then of course there is no possible way that the pro scene would expand, and will only remain as large as it is now while gradually shrinking as time goes by. I think you understand this much.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: Finally, you should consider the image of SC. Why can't manual macro be a definitive aspect of SC? Every RTS has to have unique aspects that separate it somehow and why can't SC be set apart by not hopping on the MBS/automining bandwagon? People know that SC has been wildly successful, even if they don't actually play it anymore.
I can assure you that the definitive aspect/image of SC that made it appeal to the vast majority of people who have ever played it is NOT the manual macro. I for one played SC with friends on only BGH/LT for several years, and not once did I enjoy it over other RTS because the macro was more "hands-on". It was everything else that kept me hooked. First of all, the story made me interested. Next, I found that SC was probably the most fast-paced and balanced RTS out there. Games were always "fun" even AS the noob that I was, and that would be the key factor that keeps people playing. When people keep playing (most important), people will get better, and thats how competition arises. You can only have competition if there are players. Part of the problem with SC was the lack of a proper ladder. This will be completely different for SC2, with the introduction of AMM. If you've ever played War3, you would understand how much additional life this has provided.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: People see the sales numbers, hear about Korea, hear about the numbers still on battle.net.
Very few people know about the Korean SC scene or concern themselves with numbers on BNet.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: They've already set SC behind them and go onto other games, but SC2 will be a chance to revisit the franchise and see what all the craze is about. There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it.
That is exactly why this opportunity cannot be missed (see above as well). The game must be MADE to appeal to new people (and former SC fans). You do not do this by simply tacking on a UI from a game released 10 years ago, because people's standards for RTS interface have changed and they do not like artificial limitations. This is the only aspect of the game that I want removed and that I am pretty sure any new players will also not appreciate.
I am glad you have not used the ridiculous argument that everything will become automated, just because decisions that do NOT require choice are removed.
On September 09 2007 12:11 Superiorwolf's original post wrote: + Show Spoiler +
NonY has a very good counterargument, I think that MBS should not be included in the game. The game should be a game that's easy to learn, fun to play, but hard to master and understand all the aspects of it. If the game is easy to learn, lacking an MBS should not deter players. There are many other options for what NonY called the 'extra players', UMS of course, such as defense games or bound games or whatever, and of course the map editor will be very powerful for those types of games this time around seeing how the WC3 editor was very good. The only people I can see that will want MBS is fastest map players.
So, in conclusion it does not matter whether Starcraft 2 gets bad reviews or not, no matter what it gets, people will buy the game and play it, and many people will have fun with it. If there is MBS, Starcraft 2 may get good reviews, HOWEVER, the progaming scene would generate much less revenue than now. The pros are pretty much what has kept Starcraft alive for this long and kept making money from the game (UMS applies too though), and if the game is oversimplified then Starcraft 2 cannot last long.
I think that if many thousands of people can still enjoy UMS in Broodwar and Warcraft 3, which don't have MBS, they will still be able to enjoy UMS in Starcraft 2, and possibly even switch over to the progaming scene just as many people do.
orangedude, you make good points but I don't think that people would get angry because of the lack of MBS. When people start playing Starcraft anyways, most of them just play Single player then move on to UMS. Since UMS are still popular even now, which don't have MBS, it won't matter if there are MBS are not. Sooner or later a friend or someone will show them the way of melee and they will get into it.
If there is no MBS, Starcraft 2 will be popular anyways, because noobs can still enjoy the game. The only ones that want MBS as I have stated before, are fastest players. Though people will be used to games with MBS, it is not required in such a great game, because it will be fun nonetheless.
To attract people, Starcraft 2 will already be doing a good job just by being released, since many people know Blizzard's reputation and people buy new games just to play them and see what it's like. I think instead of making the game attractable by simplifying the interface, there should be another option. That option would be making a powerful map editor, because many people LOVE UMS.
Well, what your basically saying that in order for SC2 to be at the top and be one of the great new RTS's it has to adapt to current patterns, and include such features as auto-rally and MBS.
Now you say that in order to have a competitive scene, we will need this, because if we have MBS/other features -> people play the game -> some go on to be pro
This is very wrong, because someone who has the intention of going pro I would assume barely cares about the interface. What he cares about is how to master the game so he be best the best, aka, a pro. Now, I think that everyone here can say something along the lines of, "I will be a SC2 pro," because at the minute, we do not know what the scene will be like, what the skill level will be like. That being said, I know for sure that let's say I was considering going pro in this game, "Oh, I wonder how this interface will be...will it allow MBS or not? How will that stack up to other games on the market??" No of course not. I'll simply think that this interface is the way it is, and I'll try my best and practice to master it. I basically repeated myself twice, but my point is: The games shouldn't adapt to progamers, the progamers should adapt to the games
Great OP. Reflects a lot of my sentiments very well.
On September 09 2007 10:58 Jyvblamo wrote: A wide range of Korean SCers already have nearly perfect mechanics, to the point that if MBS were present in SC, taking advantage of it wouldn't make their macro significantly faster. So what is it that seperates pros like Nada and Oov from guys like Bifrost and Hery? I can tell you it's not because they can tell their factories to produce 4 tanks and 6 vultures in 0.2 seconds, since they can all do it.
MBS would not significantly change the top level of professional gameplay. It would not dull the skill differentiation at the top level of gameplay seen amongst players like Savior or Bisu. Where MBS would 'hurt' competitiveness the most would be at the lower levels of competition where a player with 150 APM would normally destroy a player with 60 APM without MBS; but as Nony said, "their existence does not matter for competitive players at all".
And if all we care about is the professional competition in SC2, I don't see how simplifying the mechanical aspect of macromanagement would hurt skill differentiation at those levels concerned.
No, that is incorrect. Just because they are all capable if near perfect macro doesn't mean removing it doesn't change the game dynamics. A lot of their strategy is based upon the fact that they have to do it. You constantly see pros do little things to try to distract their opponent and fuck up their multitasking. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not there.
On September 09 2007 11:02 clizz wrote: I think that an important point is being missed here. Even the best starcraft players in the world do not play close to an optimal level. Not even close. At times, pros use control groups of up to 12 units. If they had the time, don't you think they would control each unit individually? MBS will free up some APM to do other, more interesting, things.
No, the thing YOU are missing is that making the game so easy that it's possible to play flawlessly is HORRIBLE for a game. Baseball would suck if every team had a batter that batted 1.000. Not only that, but that's simply not fun, individually controlling every single unit all the time: that's WC3, and it's slower paced. Starcraft is fun because you're constantly overwhelmed with things, and constantly jumping between macro and micro, while making decisions as to how to balance your time most efficiently. Not only is the game not as competitive when you don't have this trade off, it's simply not as fun.
On September 09 2007 12:11 Superiorwolf's original post wrote: + Show Spoiler +
NonY has a very good counterargument, I think that MBS should not be included in the game. The game should be a game that's easy to learn, fun to play, but hard to master and understand all the aspects of it. If the game is easy to learn, lacking an MBS should not deter players. There are many other options for what NonY called the 'extra players', UMS of course, such as defense games or bound games or whatever, and of course the map editor will be very powerful for those types of games this time around seeing how the WC3 editor was very good. The only people I can see that will want MBS is fastest map players.
So, in conclusion it does not matter whether Starcraft 2 gets bad reviews or not, no matter what it gets, people will buy the game and play it, and many people will have fun with it. If there is MBS, Starcraft 2 may get good reviews, HOWEVER, the progaming scene would generate much less revenue than now. The pros are pretty much what has kept Starcraft alive for this long and kept making money from the game (UMS applies too though), and if the game is oversimplified then Starcraft 2 cannot last long.
I think that if many thousands of people can still enjoy UMS in Broodwar and Warcraft 3, which don't have MBS, they will still be able to enjoy UMS in Starcraft 2, and possibly even switch over to the progaming scene just as many people do.
orangedude, you make good points but I don't think that people would get angry because of the lack of MBS. When people start playing Starcraft anyways, most of them just play Single player then move on to UMS. Since UMS are still popular even now, which don't have MBS, it won't matter if there are MBS are not. Sooner or later a friend or someone will show them the way of melee and they will get into it.
If there is no MBS, Starcraft 2 will be popular anyways, because noobs can still enjoy the game. The only ones that want MBS as I have stated before, are fastest players. Though people will be used to games with MBS, it is not required in such a great game, because it will be fun nonetheless.
The reason many people move onto UMS in SC, is because it is very difficult to easily log-on to BNet and find a good evenly matched game. If you have played War3 before, you will immediately realize how crucial the AMM/ladder is to the game, and how important that EVERYONE is on the SAME LADDER. A good ladder is able to foster competition on its own, and War3's has shown this to be successful.
At any time, anyone of any skill level can just jump online and in seconds, find someone who is about equal to their skill level and have a fair and enjoyable game. This allows people to easily mass-game and train if they so wish. Thus, many people start out casually and obviously they gradually get better as they put more games under their belt, albeit sometimes even unintentionally over time. This leads to increased overall skill level of the ladder, and this generates competition, and eventually led to a competitive scene in War3. This is one of the reasons its still around after all this time and is much larger than SC scene outside of Korea (especially in China), despite SC being a more suitable spectator sport.
On September 09 2007 12:11 Superiorwolf's original post wrote: + Show Spoiler +
NonY has a very good counterargument, I think that MBS should not be included in the game. The game should be a game that's easy to learn, fun to play, but hard to master and understand all the aspects of it. If the game is easy to learn, lacking an MBS should not deter players. There are many other options for what NonY called the 'extra players', UMS of course, such as defense games or bound games or whatever, and of course the map editor will be very powerful for those types of games this time around seeing how the WC3 editor was very good. The only people I can see that will want MBS is fastest map players.
So, in conclusion it does not matter whether Starcraft 2 gets bad reviews or not, no matter what it gets, people will buy the game and play it, and many people will have fun with it. If there is MBS, Starcraft 2 may get good reviews, HOWEVER, the progaming scene would generate much less revenue than now. The pros are pretty much what has kept Starcraft alive for this long and kept making money from the game (UMS applies too though), and if the game is oversimplified then Starcraft 2 cannot last long.
I think that if many thousands of people can still enjoy UMS in Broodwar and Warcraft 3, which don't have MBS, they will still be able to enjoy UMS in Starcraft 2, and possibly even switch over to the progaming scene just as many people do.
orangedude, you make good points but I don't think that people would get angry because of the lack of MBS. When people start playing Starcraft anyways, most of them just play Single player then move on to UMS. Since UMS are still popular even now, which don't have MBS, it won't matter if there are MBS are not. Sooner or later a friend or someone will show them the way of melee and they will get into it.
If there is no MBS, Starcraft 2 will be popular anyways, because noobs can still enjoy the game. The only ones that want MBS as I have stated before, are fastest players. Though people will be used to games with MBS, it is not required in such a great game, because it will be fun nonetheless.
The reason many people move onto UMS in SC, is because it is very difficult to easily log-on to BNet and find a good evenly matched game. If you have played War3 before, you will immediately realize how crucial the AMM/ladder is to the game, and how important that EVERYONE is on the same ladder. A good ladder is able to foster competition on its own, and War3's has shown this to be successful.
At any time, anyone of any skill level can just jump online and in seconds, find someone who is about equal to their skill level and have a fair and enjoyable game. This allows people to easily mass-game and train if they so wish. Thus, many people start out casually and obviously they gradually get better as the put more games under their belt, albeit sometimes even unintentionally over time. This leads to increased overall skill level of the ladder, and this generates competition, and eventually led to a competitive scene in War3. This is one of the reasons its still around after all this time and is much larger than SC scene outside of Korea (especially in China), despite SC being a more suitable spectator sport.
iCCup is suitable for a great ladder where a person can find a game almost instantly. I do agree though that Starcraft has a crappy ladder system.
On September 09 2007 12:11 Superiorwolf's original post wrote: + Show Spoiler +
NonY has a very good counterargument, I think that MBS should not be included in the game. The game should be a game that's easy to learn, fun to play, but hard to master and understand all the aspects of it. If the game is easy to learn, lacking an MBS should not deter players. There are many other options for what NonY called the 'extra players', UMS of course, such as defense games or bound games or whatever, and of course the map editor will be very powerful for those types of games this time around seeing how the WC3 editor was very good. The only people I can see that will want MBS is fastest map players.
So, in conclusion it does not matter whether Starcraft 2 gets bad reviews or not, no matter what it gets, people will buy the game and play it, and many people will have fun with it. If there is MBS, Starcraft 2 may get good reviews, HOWEVER, the progaming scene would generate much less revenue than now. The pros are pretty much what has kept Starcraft alive for this long and kept making money from the game (UMS applies too though), and if the game is oversimplified then Starcraft 2 cannot last long.
I think that if many thousands of people can still enjoy UMS in Broodwar and Warcraft 3, which don't have MBS, they will still be able to enjoy UMS in Starcraft 2, and possibly even switch over to the progaming scene just as many people do.
orangedude, you make good points but I don't think that people would get angry because of the lack of MBS. When people start playing Starcraft anyways, most of them just play Single player then move on to UMS. Since UMS are still popular even now, which don't have MBS, it won't matter if there are MBS are not. Sooner or later a friend or someone will show them the way of melee and they will get into it.
If there is no MBS, Starcraft 2 will be popular anyways, because noobs can still enjoy the game. The only ones that want MBS as I have stated before, are fastest players. Though people will be used to games with MBS, it is not required in such a great game, because it will be fun nonetheless.
The reason many people move onto UMS in SC, is because it is very difficult to easily log-on to BNet and find a good evenly matched game. If you have played War3 before, you will immediately realize how crucial the AMM/ladder is to the game, and how important that EVERYONE is on the same ladder. A good ladder is able to foster competition on its own, and War3's has shown this to be successful.
At any time, anyone of any skill level can just jump online and in seconds, find someone who is about equal to their skill level and have a fair and enjoyable game. This allows people to easily mass-game and train if they so wish. Thus, many people start out casually and obviously they gradually get better as the put more games under their belt, albeit sometimes even unintentionally over time. This leads to increased overall skill level of the ladder, and this generates competition, and eventually led to a competitive scene in War3. This is one of the reasons its still around after all this time and is much larger than SC scene outside of Korea (especially in China), despite SC being a more suitable spectator sport.
iCCup is suitable for a great ladder where a person can find a game almost instantly. I do agree though that Starcraft has a crappy ladder system.
The fact that you need to know about iCCup first before being able to use it already excludes most people. On the other hand a War3's ladder is built directly into BNet. There is a huge difference, as 100% of players are aware of and are able to use it at any time.
On September 09 2007 12:26 Wizard[pl] wrote: Now you say that in order to have a competitive scene, we will need this, because if we have MBS/other features -> people play the game -> some go on to be pro
This is very wrong, because someone who has the intention of going pro I would assume barely cares about the interface. What he cares about is how to master the game so he be best the best, aka, a pro. Now, I think that everyone here can say something along the lines of, "I will be a SC2 pro," because at the minute, we do not know what the scene will be like, what the skill level will be like.
This is not wrong at all. You need to back up your statements. A large fanbase + a competitive ladder automatically fosters competition even if not a single person out of the thousands thinks "I want to be pro". People become better with time simply by playing games. If you keep everyone on the same ladder and keep people interested in the game, skill level will rise.
On September 09 2007 12:26 Wizard[pl] wrote: That being said, I know for sure that let's say I was considering going pro in this game, "Oh, I wonder how this interface will be...will it allow MBS or not? How will that stack up to other games on the market??" No of course not. I'll simply think that this interface is the way it is, and I'll try my best and practice to master it. I basically repeated myself twice, but my point is: The games shouldn't adapt to progamers, the progamers should adapt to the games
Again, the MBS feature is to appeal to NEW players, not pros. And you said it yourself, the progamers should be able to adapt to an SC with MBS + potentially new macro actions.
I agree with the OP. SC2 has to have MBS pretty much regardless or too many people will be pissed/confused (far more than would be upset by including it) and the whole scene will be hurt. Therefore rather than complain about MBS it's more useful to test the game with it and make changes to the actual gameplay as necessary to preserve the desired difficulty level.
On September 09 2007 11:02 clizz wrote: I think that an important point is being missed here. Even the best starcraft players in the world do not play close to an optimal level. Not even close. At times, pros use control groups of up to 12 units. If they had the time, don't you think they would control each unit individually? MBS will free up some APM to do other, more interesting, things.
No, the thing YOU are missing is that making the game so easy that it's possible to play flawlessly is HORRIBLE for a game. Baseball would suck if every team had a batter that batted 1.000. Not only that, but that's simply not fun, individually controlling every single unit all the time: that's WC3, and it's slower paced. Starcraft is fun because you're constantly overwhelmed with things, and constantly jumping between macro and micro, while making decisions as to how to balance your time most efficiently. Not only is the game not as competitive when you don't have this trade off, it's simply not as fun.
WC3 is slower paced than SC for totally different reasons (e.g. high hit points, slow moving units). Don't talk about something you don't know about. Also, its only slow when you're watching, which is why SC is by far the better spectator sport. Try actually playing it before you make more judgments. Top War3 players all have 200+ apm and some Korean ones even have 300-400+.
On September 09 2007 11:02 clizz wrote: I think that an important point is being missed here. Even the best starcraft players in the world do not play close to an optimal level. Not even close. At times, pros use control groups of up to 12 units. If they had the time, don't you think they would control each unit individually? MBS will free up some APM to do other, more interesting, things.
No, the thing YOU are missing is that making the game so easy that it's possible to play flawlessly is HORRIBLE for a game. Baseball would suck if every team had a batter that batted 1.000. Not only that, but that's simply not fun, individually controlling every single unit all the time: that's WC3, and it's slower paced. Starcraft is fun because you're constantly overwhelmed with things, and constantly jumping between macro and micro, while making decisions as to how to balance your time most efficiently. Not only is the game not as competitive when you don't have this trade off, it's simply not as fun.
Don't talk about something you don't know about.
This is funny because there are several hundred people on TL.net thinking this about you. I'm one of them.
I think that this is the best thread I have ever seen on the SC2 section. Very good points are made, and I think that I need to experience the game personally before I can say anything. However, at the moment, I am more inclined to agree with Nony on several points. This is a good catalyst for discussion though.
On September 09 2007 11:02 clizz wrote: I think that an important point is being missed here. Even the best starcraft players in the world do not play close to an optimal level. Not even close. At times, pros use control groups of up to 12 units. If they had the time, don't you think they would control each unit individually? MBS will free up some APM to do other, more interesting, things.
No, the thing YOU are missing is that making the game so easy that it's possible to play flawlessly is HORRIBLE for a game. Baseball would suck if every team had a batter that batted 1.000. Not only that, but that's simply not fun, individually controlling every single unit all the time: that's WC3, and it's slower paced. Starcraft is fun because you're constantly overwhelmed with things, and constantly jumping between macro and micro, while making decisions as to how to balance your time most efficiently. Not only is the game not as competitive when you don't have this trade off, it's simply not as fun.
Don't talk about something you don't know about.
This is funny because there are several hundred people on TL.net thinking this about you. I'm one of them.
So you only know how to flame someone when you lose an argument? Congrats, and keep out of this thread please.
On September 09 2007 11:02 clizz wrote: I think that an important point is being missed here. Even the best starcraft players in the world do not play close to an optimal level. Not even close. At times, pros use control groups of up to 12 units. If they had the time, don't you think they would control each unit individually? MBS will free up some APM to do other, more interesting, things.
No, the thing YOU are missing is that making the game so easy that it's possible to play flawlessly is HORRIBLE for a game. Baseball would suck if every team had a batter that batted 1.000. Not only that, but that's simply not fun, individually controlling every single unit all the time: that's WC3, and it's slower paced. Starcraft is fun because you're constantly overwhelmed with things, and constantly jumping between macro and micro, while making decisions as to how to balance your time most efficiently. Not only is the game not as competitive when you don't have this trade off, it's simply not as fun.
Don't talk about something you don't know about.
This is funny because there are several hundred people on TL.net thinking this about you. I'm one of them.
Do you really have to flame every single poster who opposes your position? And over-exaggerate, falsely assume, or be blatantly hypocritical while doing it? All it does is decrease people's respect for your opinion, regardless of the side of the debate. And it's a shame, for now and again you actually make good points.
Sorry, I didn't get a chance to do it in the last thread, and believe me, it needed to be said. ^_^
I think I'm going to transplant the relevant sections of my posts in the previous thread over here, if you don't mind, orangedude. People are more likely to read page 3 than page 17, and people keep reiterating arguments I've already addressed.
I agree with Nony's post 100%. Starcraft's UI is a blank canvass on which the player creates art. Adding MBS and automining takes much of the fun and competitiveness out of the game.
Here are the 'best of' my anti-anti-MBS arguments from Tasteless's thread. If anyone who was following that thinks I missed a really good one, just send me a PM and I'll edit it in. If it's too hard to read, just let me know and I'll organize them better.
Oh, and btw, great job on the OP orangedude, and thanks for giving me credit.
On September 05 2007 14:33 1esu wrote: In game design theory, the opposite of fun is frustration; if a player is frustrated by something in the game which they feel is the fault of the game, not them, they are not having fun. Removing elements of the game that frustrate players (which they feel is the game's fault) is just as much an improvement to a game as adding elements that make it more fun, as both increase the net amount of "fun". Now, think back to when you were first playing SC. Weren't you frustrated at the time by how the game made you rotely perform the simplest actions, and how dumb the AI was at times? (Incidentally, if you had fun in this when you were just starting out, I'd say either there were no other games with a better interface out or you were enjoying it in the masochistic sense, which is actually considered a component of fun by certain game theory scholars; either way, they are irrelevant to the argument I'm constructing) Now, however, you are comfortable with having to deal with the UI, and you revel in how your mastery of the UI makes you better than your peers at SC. Therefore, you view having to do these actions as fun, and therefore enriching your game experience, and after 9 years no one could say you were wrong in your subjective view. However, the fact stands that before you got used to the UI because the rest of the game was so good, you were frustrated by it, and therefore not having fun. This is why Blizzard is simplifying the interface, to remove the parts of SC that caused frustration in people originally experiencing the game, not because they feel controlling your army is more fun than other aspects of the game. The problem is, after 9 years those who got comfortable with the interface now view the fact that the interface makes you do even the most basic tasks as fun, and naturally object to the "noobification" of the interface.
On September 06 2007 09:00 1esu wrote: Let's be honest here, none of us have any idea how MBS/automine will affect SC2, as it is incredibly difficult to look at an idea and figure out how it will affect gameplay dynamics without actually playing the game. That's why the iterative method of game development, where the game is made playable at a very early state and constantly playtested, is far superior to the 'waterfall' method, where the game is only made playable after most of the content has already been made. Even the TL peoples who were at Blizzcon played a very early internal alpha version of the game, that is nowhere close to having all features implemented, and played mostly against people of far inferior skill level, to the point where they could sit back and max up without experiencing severe harrass (which is what units like reapers and colossus who can traverse cliffs, and the recall abilities given to all races seem to be headed for). Is it too much to wait until closed beta, which I assume some members of TL will have access to, when all the features are complete and players of equal skill will be playing, to decide whether MBS/automine should stay or go?
On September 08 2007 13:11 1esu wrote: As many of you know, my position is pro-MBS because I want us to experience the feature in closed beta before we make a final judgement on the degree to which it affects the game. I think it will have little effect on the skill balance and overall competitiveness of the game, i.e. those who dominate in SC now will continue to dominate regardless of MBS. On the other hand, there are those like FA who believe that the decrease in skill involved in macro-application (to use his term) will have a significant, and indeed major, effect on the skill curve. Both of us have made what I believe to be good arguments on our respective beliefs, but we agree that they are just 'beliefs', and that playing the game with MBS is required to discover which position is correct. Therefore, the majority of this post is directed towards those who don't see why MBS should even be added to the game in the first place.
To those who ask "why put this in?":
I think we all want SC2 to become a professional e-sport in the non-Asian markets. However, I don't think the current SC competitive community is large enough to support a professional e-sport, whether as a league of its own or included in the CPL/CGS/ESWC/etc. In what was probably his only coherent post in this thread, HunterGatherer gave a link to a poll that shows that about 430 (29% of the respondees) members of TL use the site mainly to follow SC in Korea, and play SC sparingly, if at all. (Not surprisingly, I might add, as it's one of the best, if not THE best, e-sports news sites around despite the fact that no one to my knowledge is being paid to do this.) That's a fair number of people who love to watch SC, but for some reason don't play it. I think the a big reason for this is the interface, as one can't be truly competitive in SC until they've mastered it, especially the '4z5z6z7z8z9z0z' part of macro-application. This is more the fault of the hotkeys being uncustomizable, as the hotkeys were assigned by Blizzard to correspond to the name of the unit/ability, NOT to be ergonomic. I would bet that the fact that the hotkeys set awkwardly is the main reason SC players don't use them; with customizable hotkeys a set (and community-approved) feature for SC2, noobs WILL be using the hotkeys, and thus they play a factor in MBS. But even WITH customizable hotkeys, there still will be resistance to non-MBS play by the newer players that are vital to the growth of the SC2 competitive community and its potential as an e-sport. This is due to the perception of the macro interface as "artificially limiting". With some conjecture on why Blizzard made the SC interface the way they did, I'll try to explain why people might (and imho, will) think of '4z5z6z7z8z9z0z' as "artificial".
SC, as we all know, is a RTS. Being a strategy game, IMHO skills should revolve around one of two groups: strategic, and tactical. In SC, theorycraft and macro-theory fall under strategic skills, as they revolve around the overall game-plan, while micro-application falls under tactical, as it revolves around battles. However, macro-application in the 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z sense doesn't fall under either, as it doesn't involve decision-making. At best, it would fall under a "logistical" group, but all of the other skills that would fit in this category (keeping supplies in ratio to army size, building static defenses to help defend your supply chain, remembering to build units while involved in battles) involve a decision. 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is unique in that the decision has already been made, but the skill is required to get a result. Real-time strategy games should focus on fast, efficient decision-making; 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z by itself involves no decision-making, and so it feels artificial. Even worse, this skill is required before all others for a potential competitive SC player; while FA makes a good explanation of his worry that a 5/5/5/3 player would have a significant chance of beating him at 5/5/5/5 if MBS were used, I doubt that such a player would ever exist, as there's simply little point in training the other skills to such a high degree if you're just going to lose to overwhelming numbers due to your inefficient interfacing. If I have an advantage in army numbers, it should be a result of a tactical victory earlier on where I took an economic advantage (in SC, by taking an expansion while keeping my opponent from doing the same), not because I've committed sequences of awkwardly-placed keys to muscle memory when my opponent hasn't. I think it's this, even more than the uncustomizable hotkeys, that keep people from playing SC competitively.
Then why would Blizzard put it in the game, you ask. Well, my hunch was that it was the same reason there was a 12-unit grouping limit. Blizzard wanted big armies in SC, but they were likely afraid that if they made units too easy to produce either: 1) players wouldn't bother controlling them and would just attack-move all over the place; 2) games would become massive rush-fests, which at the time (and to an extent now) was considered a very boring strategy, and a sign of poor design (C&C's tank rush as a classic example); or 3) large numbers of units would produce lag on the technology of the time. There are two obvious ways Blizzard could disencourage building too many units; by making large groups of units more difficult to control, or by making the production of units progressively difficult as the scale of production (number of producing buildings) increased. The former led to the 12-unit/group limit; the second led to the inability to group buildings. Blizzard knew the value of hotkeys, and probably thought that the difficulty of producing through hotkeys would keep building numbers down. Of course, this seems rather silly in retrospect, but you have to keep in mind that they also didn't expect anyone to actually play on fastest. Game design is like that; the results of your design are often unexpected. This is could also explain why hotkeys were never customizable for SC, even though SC was still being significantly updated when customizable hotkeys were introduced in WC3. Unfortunately, requiring extensive, awkward key sequences backfired, as SC was such a good game players adapted themselves (many with their non-dominant hand) to the interface in order to stay competitive. However, with SC2, Blizzard wants to focus on microing large armies, and thus, the heavy-handed disincentives to mass-produce are no longer needed. Thus, we have effectively unlimited unit selection, and MBS. Automine, on the other hand, is simply an AI improvement; if medics are now smart enough to hang back and heal units instead of running straight into enemy fire, wouldn't it seem rather stupid if worker units, whose primary purpose is to mine unless the commander needs them to build or fight, need to be individually told to do so?
In summary, MBS is an improvement to the game for three reasons: 1) It allows the SC2 competitive community to grow, and therefore makes SC2 much more likely to be picked up as a serious e-sport; 2) RTS skills should be ones that emphasize fast, accurate decision-making, and 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is one of the few if not the only skills that doesn't involve decisions, and furthermore is a requirement if one wants to effectively apply any of the others; and 3) Blizzard wants to focus on microing large armies with SC2, and MBS works towards this purpose, while the current interface makes it more difficult to make large armies.
EDIT: As if this post wasn't long enough, two quickies for LonelyMargarita:
First off, the reductio ad absurdum argument doesn't work for either side, as just like you think it's ridiculous that you'd want to add more limitations to the SC interface to introduce more physical skill, we think it's ridiculous to want automation for anything that requires the player to make a decision. Take autocasting, for example: while we want autocasting for interceptor building and scarab building, since no decision goes into making those (as the units would be a waste of resources without them) we want them autocast; on the other hand, stuff like casting storm or stim requires the player's input to be used effectively, so we'd be furious if the AI tried to do it for us.
Secondly, there's far more depth to skills that involve quick, dynamic decision-making like theorycraft, macro-theory, and micro-application than there is in the muscle memorization of awkwardly-spaced key sequences that is the part of macro-application that you're defending (in fact, all pro players have already effectively mastered it when they go pro). Therefore, it is hardly the case that if the latter were removed, anybody would be able to play 'perfect' SC/SC2.
On September 09 2007 12:11 Superiorwolf wrote: NonY has a very good counterargument, I think that MBS should not be included in the game. The game should be a game that's easy to learn, fun to play, but hard to master and understand all the aspects of it. If the game is easy to learn, lacking an MBS should not deter players. There are many other options for what NonY called the 'extra players', UMS of course, such as defense games or bound games or whatever, and of course the map editor will be very powerful for those types of games this time around seeing how the WC3 editor was very good. The only people I can see that will want MBS is fastest map players.
So, in conclusion it does not matter whether Starcraft 2 gets bad reviews or not, no matter what it gets, people will buy the game and play it, and many people will have fun with it. If there is MBS, Starcraft 2 may get good reviews, HOWEVER, the progaming scene would generate much less revenue than now. The pros are pretty much what has kept Starcraft alive for this long and kept making money from the game (UMS applies too though), and if the game is oversimplified then Starcraft 2 cannot last long.
I think that if many thousands of people can still enjoy UMS in Broodwar and Warcraft 3, which don't have MBS, they will still be able to enjoy UMS in Starcraft 2, and possibly even switch over to the progaming scene just as many people do.
I think a game having "9/10, pc gamer game of the year" sells a lot of copies when parents are looking for christmas gifts and what not.
Shouldn't underestimate the importance of good reviews..
In game design theory, the opposite of fun is frustration; if a player is frustrated by something in the game which they feel is the fault of the game, not them, they are not having fun. Removing elements of the game that frustrate players (which they feel is the game's fault) is just as much an improvement to a game as adding elements that make it more fun, as both increase the net amount of "fun". Now, think back to when you were first playing SC. Weren't you frustrated at the time by how the game made you rotely perform the simplest actions, and how dumb the AI was at times? (Incidentally, if you had fun in this when you were just starting out, I'd say either there were no other games with a better interface out or you were enjoying it in the masochistic sense, which is actually considered a component of fun by certain game theory scholars; either way, they are irrelevant to the argument I'm constructing) Now, however, you are comfortable with having to deal with the UI, and you revel in how your mastery of the UI makes you better than your peers at SC. Therefore, you view having to do these actions as fun, and therefore enriching your game experience, and after 9 years no one could say you were wrong in your subjective view. However, the fact stands that before you got used to the UI because the rest of the game was so good, you were frustrated by it, and therefore not having fun. This is why Blizzard is simplifying the interface, to remove the parts of SC that caused frustration in people originally experiencing the game, not because they feel controlling your army is more fun than other aspects of the game. The problem is, after 9 years those who got comfortable with the interface now view the fact that the interface makes you do even the most basic tasks as fun, and naturally object to the "noobification" of the interface.
When I first played SC I had no opinions on the interface really, I think I liked total annihilation better (this was like almost 10 years ago, I was 9 or something), probably because it was easier to mass at metal maps
When I first started playing SC for real, I didn't care about the interface at all, and when I moved to BW I'd seen the progamer vods so I was determined to get good at 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z - which I viewed as a really cool skill.
Meh, basically - before I played seriously, it didn't bother me, once I started playing seriously (2002) I thought it was cool. Note that when I first played it in 1998, the only other RTSes I'd played were.. Hm, Warcraft 2, Total Annihilation and age of empires.
When I played money maps in 2001 I don't remember ever being frustrated by the interface.. Not on hunters eithers. When I played LT in 2002 I, as I said, already knew of the pro-scene.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: What new RTS games have such skilled, competitive players? You speak as though there is this great pool of competitive players that require MBS and automining, but who are they? SC has been at WCG for years now as other RTS's come and go. The competition level for non-SC and non-WC3 RTS's is low.
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.
In game design theory, the opposite of fun is frustration; if a player is frustrated by something in the game which they feel is the fault of the game, not them, they are not having fun. Removing elements of the game that frustrate players (which they feel is the game's fault) is just as much an improvement to a game as adding elements that make it more fun, as both increase the net amount of "fun". Now, think back to when you were first playing SC. Weren't you frustrated at the time by how the game made you rotely perform the simplest actions, and how dumb the AI was at times? (Incidentally, if you had fun in this when you were just starting out, I'd say either there were no other games with a better interface out or you were enjoying it in the masochistic sense, which is actually considered a component of fun by certain game theory scholars; either way, they are irrelevant to the argument I'm constructing) Now, however, you are comfortable with having to deal with the UI, and you revel in how your mastery of the UI makes you better than your peers at SC. Therefore, you view having to do these actions as fun, and therefore enriching your game experience, and after 9 years no one could say you were wrong in your subjective view. However, the fact stands that before you got used to the UI because the rest of the game was so good, you were frustrated by it, and therefore not having fun. This is why Blizzard is simplifying the interface, to remove the parts of SC that caused frustration in people originally experiencing the game, not because they feel controlling your army is more fun than other aspects of the game. The problem is, after 9 years those who got comfortable with the interface now view the fact that the interface makes you do even the most basic tasks as fun, and naturally object to the "noobification" of the interface.
When I first played SC I had no opinions on the interface really, I think I liked total annihilation better (this was like almost 10 years ago, I was 9 or something), probably because it was easier to mass at metal maps
When I first started playing SC for real, I didn't care about the interface at all, and when I moved to BW I'd seen the progamer vods so I was determined to get good at 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z - which I viewed as a really cool skill.
Meh, basically - before I played seriously, it didn't bother me, once I started playing seriously (2002) I thought it was cool. Note that when I first played it in 1998, the only other RTSes I'd played were.. Hm, Warcraft 2, Total Annihilation and age of empires.
When I played money maps in 2001 I don't remember ever being frustrated by the interface.. Not on hunters eithers. When I played LT in 2002 I, as I said, already knew of the pro-scene.
Good point, but keep in mind that 1) the other RTSs played by people coming into SC2 will be of the likes of WC3, SupCom, Company of Heroes, etc. SC was actually easier to use than the interfaces of its contemporaries, while it is much more difficult to use than the interfaces of current RTSs; and 2) if SC2 keeps the SC interface, noobs will be in a different situation than you were in, as there will already be a considerable segment of the community who's far more used to the interface than they are, and it's inevitable that some of them will rub that fact in the noob's faces, repeatedly.
On September 09 2007 12:11 Superiorwolf wrote: NonY has a very good counterargument, I think that MBS should not be included in the game. The game should be a game that's easy to learn, fun to play, but hard to master and understand all the aspects of it. If the game is easy to learn, lacking an MBS should not deter players. There are many other options for what NonY called the 'extra players', UMS of course, such as defense games or bound games or whatever, and of course the map editor will be very powerful for those types of games this time around seeing how the WC3 editor was very good. The only people I can see that will want MBS is fastest map players.
So, in conclusion it does not matter whether Starcraft 2 gets bad reviews or not, no matter what it gets, people will buy the game and play it, and many people will have fun with it. If there is MBS, Starcraft 2 may get good reviews, HOWEVER, the progaming scene would generate much less revenue than now. The pros are pretty much what has kept Starcraft alive for this long and kept making money from the game (UMS applies too though), and if the game is oversimplified then Starcraft 2 cannot last long.
I think that if many thousands of people can still enjoy UMS in Broodwar and Warcraft 3, which don't have MBS, they will still be able to enjoy UMS in Starcraft 2, and possibly even switch over to the progaming scene just as many people do.
I think a game having "9/10, pc gamer game of the year" sells a lot of copies when parents are looking for christmas gifts and what not.
Shouldn't underestimate the importance of good reviews..
When I first played SC I had no opinions on the interface really, I think I liked total annihilation better (this was like almost 10 years ago, I was 9 or something), probably because it was easier to mass at metal maps
When I first started playing SC for real, I didn't care about the interface at all, and when I moved to BW I'd seen the progamer vods so I was determined to get good at 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z - which I viewed as a really cool skill.
Meh, basically - before I played seriously, it didn't bother me, once I started playing seriously (2002) I thought it was cool. Note that when I first played it in 1998, the only other RTSes I'd played were.. Hm, Warcraft 2, Total Annihilation and age of empires.
When I played money maps in 2001 I don't remember ever being frustrated by the interface.. Not on hunters eithers. When I played LT in 2002 I, as I said, already knew of the pro-scene.
This is true. That's because at that time, people including me and you weren't spoiled by the improved UI of other RTS's yet. Like I said it wasn't an industry standard then, so most people did not mind.
Things are totally different now. I can guarantee you that Gamespot will tear apart SC2 like they do to many high budget sequels of popular games that do not innovate enough.
Damn, orange, you keep on saying exactly what I'm thinking when I want to reply, so I don't have anything to reply with!
One quickie, though:
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it.
Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here.
On September 09 2007 14:08 1esu wrote: Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike.
A lot of people actually seemed to complain that the game wasn't enough like the original in terms of throwing large numbers of enemies at you at once. I actually liked it, but your point that sticking to a previously-loved formula is no guarantee of a good reception for a new game is correct.
I've been saying this before SC2 was even released. The thing is, SC2 should have enough strategical depth and multitasking that even if MBS and auto-mine existed, there would be plenty of room otherwise for players to differentiate in skill.
Even with BW as it is now, the lack of MBS and AM puts an artificial limitation on the skill of progamers. Their APM can handle only so much while constantly cycling through production buildings and expos. Top players would be constantly moving around with their armies and playing even better if they didn't have to constantly babysit all that other stuff.
Given even more options in SC2, I'm pretty sure there'll always be enough to keep players busy.
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.
On September 09 2007 12:11 Superiorwolf wrote: If there is MBS, Starcraft 2 may get good reviews, HOWEVER, the progaming scene would generate much less revenue than now. The pros are pretty much what has kept Starcraft alive for this long and kept making money from the game (UMS applies too though), and if the game is oversimplified then Starcraft 2 cannot last long.
I think you have this concept a bit backwards. It is not the "pros" that have kept Starcraft alive, but in fact the fans that have kept the "pros" alive by popularizing SC in the first place. Next, their continued support by watching their games on TV, buying merchandise, attending live games, etc generates ad revenue so that companies will sponsor progamers that play the best. Without any fan support, the whole economy immediately collapses, and pro-gaming dies in under a month. The fans are the sole reason why the pros can wear their fancy SK-T1 and KTF jackets, and live a fancy life while playing games for a living. If the pros suddenly decided to stop playing, new pros would quickly emerge from the fanbase to replace them in due time, but it is easily recoverable.
Why do you think the Koreans are so highly skilled and successful at SC? It's because Korea built up a ginormous SC fanbase in the late 90s, which may or may not have been a fluke (debatable) due to their economy that turned PC-bangs into SC gaming centers. Remember how Euro players could even play on par with the Korean players during early SC? They weren't always the SC monsters that they are now. Along with any large player base, highly skilled players come out naturally due to competition among themselves. The key point to all of this is that, if you want to form a successful pro-gaming scene, you must first attract as many fans to the game as possible. Skill inevitably will reveal itself as long as there is prolonged interest in the game.
This is why it is of utmost importance for SC2 to attract as many newbs to the game as it is possible. The pros should never come first when making any game design choice, unless Blizzard is just trying to be nice and is buying our love. Don't take this statement the wrong way. If it's possible to make a decision that will benefit both sides (e.g. adding strategical depth, better balancing of matchups), or will improve the game for one side, while not affecting the other side or only minorly inconveniencing them (e.g. adding customizable hotkeys for the pros, adding a tutorial to the campaign for the noobs, but allowing you the choice to skip it), then of course it's a good thing.
However, if the decision is going to cause major upsets to a potential new fanbase (i.e. ditching MBS/automining), while also affecting a portion of the pros, then Blizzard would be foolish to go ahead with it, unless a compromise can be reached that will please both sides. You have to realize that Blizzard's #1 priority as a game developer is to please their customers, and the newbies make up far more than the pros. The key to Blizzard's unique success in RTS's is that they have more often catered to BOTH sides than other developers, by making the game both easy to pick up and difficult to master at the same time. They've also given us a ton of extra little things like patches, free maps, etc, that people often take for granted, which gives them a good rep and a loyal fanbase.
So now, as the "loyal SC fanbase", we should have a duty to think of new ways for this compromise to work out instead of fighting their decision, because it's almost guaranteed that Blizzard will end up implementing MBS/automining. They might say its still up in the air, but if they're not dumb and Vivendi has anything to say, it's just white lies to please the SC fans.
Any new ways to use our apm in realistic macro-related areas without introducing artificial UI limitations into the game (e.g. Warpgates are a good start) are welcome. If just one person out of the hundreds out there has a brilliant idea in their mind, we might be able to make SC2 a better game.
On September 09 2007 15:17 orangedude wrote: This is to everyone on TL.net. Stop trying to fight the inevitable and use your brain to come up with new ways to use our apm in realistic macro-related areas without introducing artificial UI limitations into the game (e.g. Warpgates are a good start), instead of wasting energy arguing for no end result. If just one person out of the hundreds out there has a brilliant idea in their mind, we might be able to make SC2 a better game.
Fuck off. There isn't a website out there that knows more about SC gameplay than TL net does. If this is your mentality, you should stop posting here.
wtf. Where did I say that you people don't know about gameplay? I just said to stop pointless arguments. You're just starting up another one right here.
Edit: Crap, I just realized that I actually misphrased that part pretty badly without thinking about it. That message was actually directed to both sides (i.e. Everyone on TL.net), and that argument BETWEEN the two is a waste of energy (e.g. the 20 pages of junk), because nothing will ever get resolved. Even if the anti-MBS side is right, or if the pro-MBS side is right, it won't matter because IMO Blizzard will implement it regardless. Thus, it's better to that effort to try to come up with ideas instead. I was not trying to belittle any one side's points. My bad.
Its not a fucking pointless argument. There are very legitimate points by veteran forum goers and top foreign players why MBS should not be included. Its by no means a goddamn conclusion that MBS will be included or anything can replace the "boring macro".
Okay, I'll take that last part back then. I wasn't forcing anyone to stop, just making a suggestion. Go for it then. The problem is that both sides are totally set in their ways, and thats how we got 17 pages of filler. Their reasons aren't pointless, but having both sides locked in an endless argument sure is.
I said it's a pretty reasonable conclusion that Blizzard will implement MBS. If you don't agree with my above post, then post why. Never said macro is boring.
Starcraft is Starcraft, it doesn't need anything to draw people in other than it's name. People who have no RTS experience know of Starcraft and those who want to try out a RTS will try out SC2. I have many friends who never played a single RTS before and are already telling me they're excited about SC2 (from the game play demos and the intro video). Keep in mind these are casual gamers, they don't look for specific stuff dealing with the system mechanics because they don't know any better. They're infinitely more attracted to good graphics, a good storyline/campaign, good music, and other things rather than a little thing called multiple building selection. Not having multiple building selection will most definitely not reduce the amount of people who will try out SC2.
People who are serious about competitive gaming won't really care about not having multiple building selection either. The competitiveness of a game will depend more on ease of matchmaking and the actual depth of the game. If people can find good competition and the game is enjoyable enough (and deep enough) to continue learning (and practicing), then the game will have potential to thrive at the e-sport level.
On September 09 2007 13:29 KaRnaGe[cF] wrote: I agree with Nony's post 100%. Starcraft's UI is a blank canvass on which the player creates art. Adding MBS and automining takes much of the fun and competitiveness out of the game.
so essentially Sc2 (with MBS)
Sc1
In summation... you can still have a good time coloring within the lines - but it's nothing compared to the fun and satisfaction of creating a piece of art
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.
I think one thing that needs to be said is this: Whether or not Blizzard uses MBS or any other feature is irrelevant, what matter is that you keep the "options" as limited as possible. Think about the most successful game compared to starcraft. That would be counter-strike. What makes its wildly popular is that everyone does the same thing, there isn't a setting if you're a "proplayer" you all do the same thing whether its a pub, a scrim, a match, or whatever. Sure one is more structured than the other, but you can't have multiple things being options such as the scenario,"They can start out playing the game in the "noob" version and then when they become good, if they become good, they can take away the noob-friendly features." No that's a bunch of bs and is a horrible idea, it complicates the game. Think about quake, everyone plays on the same version even if its a competitive mod to do so. Its not half the people doing one thing and the other half doing another. Let the map differences be the determining factour, not silly things like multiple building selection. Heck, I bet if SC didn't have ctrl groups for multiple units you guys would think it'd be a good idea to keep it out of SC2.
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.
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.
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 19:44 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:
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 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 20:00 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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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. 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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the longevity and competitiveness of Starcraft lies, to some degree, in the fact that it had the ability to evolve years after its release. New strats, new styles of playing, new tricks have always been coming up, and this, I think, is a major reason for the success of its pro scene.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
This brings me back to my original points. The reviewers rate games for the AVERAGE player, because most people are the same as them. Reviews aren't meant to cater to pros (<5% of people). Therefore, a lowered rating due to UI limitations is an accurate review in most cases. Hardly anyone outside of the pro-scene will be informed enough to write the comments that you state.
On September 10 2007 02:08 NonY[rC] wrote: 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.
I think Blizzard has been doing a pretty decent job already, with inviting pros for tournies every year for Blizzcon/WWI (which other company does that?). Of course they can do more, but that's up to them really. What can we do about it?
On September 10 2007 02:08 NonY[rC] wrote: 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.
What are these "artificial limits" for sports aside from forcing players to play fairly or not causing any other player harm or affect their health (this is analogous to not allowing hacks on BNet)? If it's part of the game foundations itself, that's not really artificial.
On September 10 2007 02:08 NonY[rC] wrote: 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.
I don't believe there's any way you can really positively advertise UI restrictions in a game successfully. You not only have to convince the average person, but also reviewers. If you have good ideas for this, then we can see.
On September 10 2007 03:58 LxRogue wrote: 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.
Uh... you need to rethink this and read 1esu's detailed posts regarding this. MBS compared to manually clicking through each building does not require a change in conscious decision. If you do not allow MBS, this is in fact an "artificial" limitation. On the other hand, if you made stims autocast, this is a different story, as that requires a decision.
On September 10 2007 04:05 Gandalf wrote: I am personally fine with both the presence or absence of MBS. However, I believe the latter has a much greater chance of creating a massive pro scene for SCII.
Good post, but I assume you mean that the 'former', i.e. the presence of MBS, has a much greater chance of creating a massive SC2 pro scene. ^_^
People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.
On September 10 2007 04:05 Gandalf wrote: I am personally fine with both the presence or absence of MBS. However, I believe the latter has a much greater chance of creating a massive pro scene for SCII.
Good post, but I assume you mean that the 'former', i.e. the presence of MBS, has a much greater chance of creating a massive SC2 pro scene. ^_^
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument.
That's not an argument. It's a claim. And it is either true or not. Now you yourself will admit that it is quite accurate so what is your point?
It's not like progamers don't want perfect macro. It's that in some cases it is even too difficult for them. And once that is no longer the case competitive gaming becomes pointless because progamers start to reach the sealing.
Anyway, no one thinks progamers have 'terrible macro' because they can't play perfect and they have to make a decision on how to spend their time.
Seems you think that something is either 'terrible' or 'perfect'. I can't quite figure out against what kind of argument this is a counter.
1esu, at least let other people decide on what their opinion is.
On September 10 2007 04:05 Gandalf wrote: I am personally fine with both the presence or absence of MBS. However, I believe the latter has a much greater chance of creating a massive pro scene for SCII.
Good post, but I assume you mean that the 'former', i.e. the presence of MBS, has a much greater chance of creating a massive SC2 pro scene. ^_^
Yep, thanks for pointing that out. Going to fix it now.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
You're missing the point of the pro-MBS side. It's not perfect now, and it never will be perfect even with MBS. It will just become slightly closer there for EVERYONE. This means you're adding overall skill into the game, which can only be a good thing. It would be even better IMO, if there are other macro-related tasks to take up some of that time, which I'm sure there will be in SC2.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
That decision is still there. It just takes maybe half a second less time than it took before for the pros.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
I disagree with this. They didn't make a conscious judgment to let workers idle. They were just preoccupied with something else and forgot to. It takes them maybe half a second or less to send an idle worker to mine and get back to what they were doing before. Any player who is considered to have superior macro than another will be less likely to have idle workers.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
This is your personal opinion. I'd rather not see careless play if one is considered the best in the world.
Which is more exciting? One player winning a game because they outplayed their opponent with a "pimpest play", or a win only because his opponent played sloppily? Look at who are some of the most popular players in Korea like BoxeR and Nal_rA. They are known for their unorthodox/creative/daring plays that won them games, not because they played more flawlessly than the other player. In SC2, this will only become more important to winning a game than it currently is, so you will see even more of these "plays" to differentiate between the best.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
What are you judging these %'s on? How much time is spent on each? It only takes progamers 1 second to cycle through their buildings and build all their units. They only need to do this once every 40 seconds for say a dragoon.
Next, for the average SC newbie, it's probably true that a majority of their time is actually spent producing units. They will then a-attack these units and continue producing more. That is NOT a good thing. This will change with MBS, now they will actually try to focus on controlling them better if macroing is made easier, instead of sending them out on suicide missions. This means additional skill will be added to the game.
Finally, I would personally prefer if some other macro-related aspect was placed in to increase time spent, that is not due to an ARTIFICIAL LIMIT by the UI (i.e. like the Protoss warpgates). So, I think it's better to try to come up with new ideas instead of debating about a design choice that's already coming.
On September 10 2007 04:05 Gandalf wrote: I am personally fine with both the presence or absence of MBS. However, I believe the latter has a much greater chance of creating a massive pro scene for SCII.
Good post, but I assume you mean that the 'former', i.e. the presence of MBS, has a much greater chance of creating a massive SC2 pro scene. ^_^
It would be the latter.
On September 10 2007 05:22 BlackStar wrote: 1esu, at least let other people decide on what their opinion is.
It was a joke! I was pointing out that his entire post was pro-MBS, yet he got 'former' and 'latter' mixed up, thus accidentally saying he was anti-MBS after making all those points for the pro side. I was simply pointing his error out so he could fix it. Relax, peoples. ^_^
47 Reasons TA is better than Starcraft 1) Starcraft only has 84 units, over half of which are buildings and their add-ons! Total Annihilation has over 250.
2) In Starcraft, only 12 units can be in a group at once. Note that this was claimed to help "prevent rushing", not that it really does because you can just hotkey groups of units. Of course, Total Annihilation has no limit.
3) In Starcraft, a maximum of five units can be built at once by each building except Zerg, who can only build three and only at certain times. Total Annihilation has no limit.
4) In Starcraft, only nine commands can be given to one unit at once and you can't see what has been queued or in what order, nor can you undo any queued commands and the commands can only be spells or movement orders. In Total Annihilation there is no limit, and you are shown exactly what each unit will do and in what order and you can undo and redo any of the commands in any order.
5) In Starcraft, when a construction unit builds a structure, or a unit plant builds a unit, no other units can help construct, hence the build speed cannot be augmented in any way. In Total Annihilation, you can have as many units as you want help construct buildings and units to speed it up. (Note that even in WarCraft II, you could make an extra peon help build a structure.)
6) There are a limited number of resources on any given Starcraft map. Total Annihilation has no limit. However, when making a map, you can simulate the 'limited resources' concept by restricting all resource units (Solar Collectors, Metal Extractors etc.), and place lots of debris, rocks, and trees. That way you will have to reclaim them, much like in gathering your resources in Starcraft.
7) In Starcraft, you can select all units of the same type, but only on the screen, and only 12 of them. CTRL-Z in Total Annihilation selects all units of that type on the map.
8) Starcraft has no water units whatsoever. In Total Annihilation, you can build entire bases on or under the water!
9) In Starcraft, there is no way to reclaim the minerals of dead units, buildings, and incomplete buildings (not that there is any debris from buildings, of course, as it "magically disappears"). In Total Annihilation, all destroyed units and buildings leave behind scrap metal which can be extracted and reused. You can even extract the metal from operational units and buildings, friend or foe.
10) In Starcraft, all units see in a circular radius, with small line of sight restrictions from large mountains. In Total Annihilation, you can choose between circular line of sight as in Starcraft, permanent line of sight as in Command & Conquer or true line of sight, where units cannot see through walls or over cliffs.
11) In Starcraft, all units shoot in a circular radius, including through wall and over cliffs. The projectiles are not effected by elevation, wind, or gravity. Total Annihilation uses true physics to determine the path of projectiles.
12) In Starcraft, the only change in elevation is onto plateaus and bridges and such, but you're not really "above" anyone as far as the game is concerned. Total Annihilation has everything from small hills to huge mountains that affect the game dramatically.
13) You can not see the energy of a unit unless it is selected in Starcraft. In Total Annihilation, you can see the remaining armour of all units on the screen at once, or turn that off if you prefer more atmosphere.
14) In Starcraft, aircraft can not land. In Total Annihilation, not only do aircraft land, but some can do so underwater.
15) The music in Starcraft is all played on a synthesizer. The music in Total Annihilation is played by a real orchestra and if you prefer, you can put in different CDs and play anything you want.
16) In Starcraft, you can't deselect your selected unit ever, unless they die or go into a assimilator/extractor! In Total Annihilation, you can always deselect everything by right clicking.
17) Right clicking in Starcraft uses "smart commands," but left clicking only uses commands that have been selected. In Total Annihilation, left clicking uses "smart commands," unless you have a command selected. Then it uses that command. Right clicking deselects. Note that you can change the mouse settings in the options window in TA to mimic that of StarCraft.
18) In Starcraft, the only way to have a unit hold fire is to move him around or to ally with the enemy. In Total Annihilation, you can set units to hold fire, to return fire only, or to fire at will.
19) At a Starcraft unit constructing building, the only command you can give units built there is a rally point. In Total Annihilation, you can tell units where to go and set waypoints; you can have them hold fire, return fire, or fire at will; and you can have them hold position, maneuver, or roam at their destination. You can even set them to a patrol route before they exit the building!
20) StarCraft only has one construction unit. Total Annihilation has nine different construction units. Each of them can build different types of structures at varying speeds.
21) With the spawned version of Starcraft, you can only play a game hosted by the person with the CD that you used to install StarCraft. In Total Annihilation, with the spawn, you can play any multiplayer game, so long as the CDlayer ratio is at least 1:3.
22) With Starcraft online games, you have to play IPX simulated games on the internet, so you cannot use IP addresses. In Total Annihilation, you can be the server which cuts out the middle man and speeds up games, but if you want, you can always choose to play with simulated IPX.
23) In Starcraft, flying units do not fly; they hover. They are more like flying vehicles. All air units in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine the flight path, really bank, and do not stop in mid air like all flying units in Starcraft.
24) Projectiles in Starcraft always hit their target and do damage, whether it appears so or not. Projectiles in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine whether they hit or miss their targets and the damage is determined by how close the explosion was to the target.
25) Units in Starcraft cannot fire while moving. If you set them to, every unit in Total Annihilation will automatically aim and fire at enemy units in range, moving or not. This is great for hit and run missions or 'driveby shootings'.
26) Many weapons in Starcraft do not have projectiles. For example, there is a siege tank with its massive artillery shells and marines' gauss rifles that travel at infinite velocity, and then the explosion just appears on the target. Every weapon in Total Annihilation fires a projectile using a physics engine that determines how to hit the target.
27) In Starcraft the largest maps are 256x256. Total Annihilation has maps at least four times that size, for longer and more thought out strategies.
28) In Starcraft there are only two ways to get resources - mining minerals and vespene gas. In Total Annihilation there are several ways to get resources. You can reclaim plants and rocks, you can use metal extractors, metal makers, many different energy producers, and most units produce a bit of energy themselves.
29) In Starcraft if your hatchery/command center/nexus is destroyed, you keep your resources somehow, so that marine had better have deep pockets. In Total Annihilation your Commander stores all your metal and energy, so if he dies you lose most of your resources. You can also build metal and energy storage facilities so you can have a higher maximum resources capacity. Construction plants and several units also store resources.
30) Starcraft has crystals and vespene geysers growing out of the surface of space stations. Total Annihilation drills the metal out of the space station.
31) The Starcraft storyline in the manual states that the Protoss race teleport all their prebuilt buildings and warriors from the Aiur (The Protoss homeworld). However, when fighting a battle on Aiur, the Protoss gain no advantage whatsoever. In non-campaign maps TA does not include the homeworlds and therefore does not have to deal with this problem.
32) In Starcraft a marine can shoot a burrowed Zergling on the other side of a mountain wall past a barracks behind a tree underneath a Siege tank with pinpoint accuracy! In Total Annihilation you cannot.
33) In Starcraft, you cannot choose your colour. It is selected for you randomly. You are just as likely to get purple or yellow as something you want. In TA, you have a choice of ten different colours, including black.
34) Starcraft has no way at all to get new units/structures into the game, other than expansion sets, because the units are hard coded into the StarCraft engine. Total Annihilation's game engine was built specifically to load units found in the directory. When booting up the game it searches the directory and says "Oh a new unit, I'll just add him in here!" and you can then play with it normally. You can also download new units online that were posted at Cavedog's website weekly, and from many others.
35) Multiplayer lag in Starcraft is presented by the game momentarily pausing and commands being delayed by up to five seconds. Lag in Total Annihilation multiplayer simply slows the game down.
36) In Starcraft it's harder to control your units because of the unsatisfactory unit AI. For example, when trying to move a dragoon up stairs he will move jerkily up the stairs, and then decide to go back down and try to go onto the higher platform in a different way. You have to manually click for each step you want him to take. In Total Annihilation units go where you want, when you want, in the most efficient way possible most of the time.
37) In Starcraft when you initially set up the game to host, you can not change the settings when the game has been hosted. If you decide you want to play a different map, you have to completely rehost the game. IIn Total Annihilation you can change all of the settings (except for game name) while the game is being hosted, and then view the settings even while in the middle of the game.
38) In Starcraft if you want to restrict units from play, must build a custom scenario and disable the desired units for each player. In Total Annihilation, when hosting the game, meaning you can edit the unit restrictions with a few clicks you can limit the number of that unit available in the game at any time by one player, or completely prevent them from being used altogether. Other players in the game can also view the unit limits/restrictions.
39) In Starcraft all of the super weapons (nuclear missiles, psionic storms) are impossible to stop after they are casted/lauched. In Total Annihilation, you can build missile defense systems which fire anti-nukes and takes out the missile in mid air before it reaches your base. Note that the antinukes also take out other ICBMs and you can build mobile versions.
40) In Total Annihilation, most weapons as well as units are an object in the game, meaning that a Big Bertha could very well hit a bomber flying past or a nuke could hit a fighter flying overhead. In Starcraft, all weapons are mere graphical effects, and nothing like this can ever happen. 41) In SC a unit armed with more than one weapon (wraith, goliath, scout) cannot shoot both of them. In TA, units can have up to 3 weapons and can fire all at once.
42) Units do not decrease in spee when going up an incline, neither do they tilt or do anything neat.
43) Units in SC do not explode when they die. They have a pretty graphic placed on them, then they disappear, doing no damage to their surroundings. TA units can give off huge explosions, small explosions or normal explosions, all which send debris and unit pieces flying away, depending on the damage taken.
44) No radar in SC. All that you have to detect things with are LOS. TA has radars to detect units and sonar to actually SEE things underwater aswell as detecting.
45) No REALLY long range units. You cannot shell someone from a long distance (siegtanks come closest, but they really don't shoot that far). In the movies in SC they use artillery against a dragoon.
46) Units in SC cannot self destruct. If you don't want that bunker you have to attack it to destroy it. TA has selfdestruct.
47) TA has more lighting effects. When units get hit, their is light. When units explode there is light on other units. When units fire there is light. In SC the only light effects are when a unit fires, and when a nuke goes off.
List of mods for TA: Engines: Spring TA:3d Unreal Annihilation
Balancers: Uberhack Bugfix XTA TA Works project TA: Devolution TA: Reloaded Thunderball The Pack Warmonger Evolva Models Absolute Annihilation CornCobMan's Mod TA 4.0
TCs: Armoured Typhoon Command and Conquer TA TA Mech wars Axis and Allies TA/Spring Warhammer 40,000 TA Gundam Annihilation Dune TA Operation Barbarossa World Domination Operation Polaris WW2 Reborn Star Wars TA Final Frontier Dark Suns Independance War War at sea Opherium 3 TA: Battle for paradise Total Battletech Epic: Spring Imperial Authority Rock Paper Scissors TA: Method of Desctruction TAAW LOTR: TA Battletanx TA
Races: TLL Talon Rumad Rhyoss TJT Mynn Xect AC/DC Argon Aquarians BioHazard Rogue TA-AK UN The Nafilen Addon
Unit Packs/Addons: Aftermath design Unit pack MAGMA Pack Micro Pack Raven TA UTASP TAUCP TAUIP Ultimate War Seal Pack GMTA UDG 40 Spider Pack Aerial Assault Force Emergency Pack Starship Pack
Total number of Mods: 72 TA has over 5000 single downloadable 3rd party units.
List of mods for Starcraft Action Starcraft Aliens VS predator Aqueous Rift Brutkrieg's TC pack Fury of the Ancient Gundam Century Heidomus Kaladonmus NeoTech Open Rebellion Robotech SC Sickel Team fortress Star Trek Dominion War YoshiCraft Project Revolution StarCraft D6 StarWars Shadows of Vengeance NanoWar WormsCraft
Total number of Mods: 19 Don't know about single downloadable 3rd party units for SC.
TA Awards: Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998 Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer 1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot Best Music 1997, GameSpot 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award 1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998 Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, Adrenaline Vault Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain 1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews 1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com Game of the Year, Game Review Central Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998 Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998 Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998 Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany Gold Award, PC Action Germany Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK Platin Award, PC Power Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge Hands-On Award, PC GamePro Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play Star Player Award, Games Machine GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997 GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997 Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld
Total: 55
Starcraft Awards: Greatest Game of All Time - GameSpot Number-one selling PC Game of 1998 - PC Data Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Game of the Year -- Computer Gaming World Game of the Year -- European Consumer Trade Show Industry Award Game of the Year -- PC Powerplay Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Game of the Year -- PCFan Taiwan Gamer's Choice of Game of the Year. -- Chinese Edition of PC Gamer or PC Gamer (China) Hall of Fame -- Gamespy Strategy Game of the Year -- Computer Games Strategy Plus Strategy Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Real Time Strategy Game of The Year -- PC Gamer Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamespot Strategy Game of the Year -- Games Domain Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Real Time Strategy Game - Editor's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamecenter Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Best Real-Time Strategy Title -- PCFan Mulitplayer Game of The Year - 1999 Milia Awards Multiplayer Game of the Year -- Gamecenter Mulitplayer Game of The Year -- The Gamers Net Best Multiplayer Title -- PCFan Best New Multiplayer Online Game -- 1999 Codie Awards Best use of Online Multiplayer Gaming (Editor Award) -- HotGames.com Best Online Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Special Achievement Award - Best Story -- Gamespot Special Achievement Award - Best Multiplayer Game -- Gamespot Best use of Sound in a Computer Game (Reader Award) -- HotGames.com #1 Reader's Top 50 -- PC Gamer Best Depth -- PC Accelerator 5 out of 5 Stars Editor's Choice-- Computer Gaming World 5 out of 5 Gameworthy Rating -- C/NET Gamecenter 9.4 out of 10 -- Online Game Review 92% Editors Choice -- PC Gamer 4.5 out of 5 star rating - Computer games Strategy Plus 5 out of 5 star rating - Mac 3D Total Action 9.1 out of 10 rating -- Gamespot A+ -- Gameweek 4 out of 4 star rating - USA Today
47 Reasons TA is better than Starcraft 1) Starcraft only has 84 units, over half of which are buildings and their add-ons! Total Annihilation has over 250.
2) In Starcraft, only 12 units can be in a group at once. Note that this was claimed to help "prevent rushing", not that it really does because you can just hotkey groups of units. Of course, Total Annihilation has no limit.
3) In Starcraft, a maximum of five units can be built at once by each building except Zerg, who can only build three and only at certain times. Total Annihilation has no limit.
4) In Starcraft, only nine commands can be given to one unit at once and you can't see what has been queued or in what order, nor can you undo any queued commands and the commands can only be spells or movement orders. In Total Annihilation there is no limit, and you are shown exactly what each unit will do and in what order and you can undo and redo any of the commands in any order.
5) In Starcraft, when a construction unit builds a structure, or a unit plant builds a unit, no other units can help construct, hence the build speed cannot be augmented in any way. In Total Annihilation, you can have as many units as you want help construct buildings and units to speed it up. (Note that even in WarCraft II, you could make an extra peon help build a structure.)
6) There are a limited number of resources on any given Starcraft map. Total Annihilation has no limit. However, when making a map, you can simulate the 'limited resources' concept by restricting all resource units (Solar Collectors, Metal Extractors etc.), and place lots of debris, rocks, and trees. That way you will have to reclaim them, much like in gathering your resources in Starcraft.
7) In Starcraft, you can select all units of the same type, but only on the screen, and only 12 of them. CTRL-Z in Total Annihilation selects all units of that type on the map.
8) Starcraft has no water units whatsoever. In Total Annihilation, you can build entire bases on or under the water!
9) In Starcraft, there is no way to reclaim the minerals of dead units, buildings, and incomplete buildings (not that there is any debris from buildings, of course, as it "magically disappears"). In Total Annihilation, all destroyed units and buildings leave behind scrap metal which can be extracted and reused. You can even extract the metal from operational units and buildings, friend or foe.
10) In Starcraft, all units see in a circular radius, with small line of sight restrictions from large mountains. In Total Annihilation, you can choose between circular line of sight as in Starcraft, permanent line of sight as in Command & Conquer or true line of sight, where units cannot see through walls or over cliffs.
11) In Starcraft, all units shoot in a circular radius, including through wall and over cliffs. The projectiles are not effected by elevation, wind, or gravity. Total Annihilation uses true physics to determine the path of projectiles.
12) In Starcraft, the only change in elevation is onto plateaus and bridges and such, but you're not really "above" anyone as far as the game is concerned. Total Annihilation has everything from small hills to huge mountains that affect the game dramatically.
13) You can not see the energy of a unit unless it is selected in Starcraft. In Total Annihilation, you can see the remaining armour of all units on the screen at once, or turn that off if you prefer more atmosphere.
14) In Starcraft, aircraft can not land. In Total Annihilation, not only do aircraft land, but some can do so underwater.
15) The music in Starcraft is all played on a synthesizer. The music in Total Annihilation is played by a real orchestra and if you prefer, you can put in different CDs and play anything you want.
16) In Starcraft, you can't deselect your selected unit ever, unless they die or go into a assimilator/extractor! In Total Annihilation, you can always deselect everything by right clicking.
17) Right clicking in Starcraft uses "smart commands," but left clicking only uses commands that have been selected. In Total Annihilation, left clicking uses "smart commands," unless you have a command selected. Then it uses that command. Right clicking deselects. Note that you can change the mouse settings in the options window in TA to mimic that of StarCraft.
18) In Starcraft, the only way to have a unit hold fire is to move him around or to ally with the enemy. In Total Annihilation, you can set units to hold fire, to return fire only, or to fire at will.
19) At a Starcraft unit constructing building, the only command you can give units built there is a rally point. In Total Annihilation, you can tell units where to go and set waypoints; you can have them hold fire, return fire, or fire at will; and you can have them hold position, maneuver, or roam at their destination. You can even set them to a patrol route before they exit the building!
20) StarCraft only has one construction unit. Total Annihilation has nine different construction units. Each of them can build different types of structures at varying speeds.
21) With the spawned version of Starcraft, you can only play a game hosted by the person with the CD that you used to install StarCraft. In Total Annihilation, with the spawn, you can play any multiplayer game, so long as the CDlayer ratio is at least 1:3.
22) With Starcraft online games, you have to play IPX simulated games on the internet, so you cannot use IP addresses. In Total Annihilation, you can be the server which cuts out the middle man and speeds up games, but if you want, you can always choose to play with simulated IPX.
23) In Starcraft, flying units do not fly; they hover. They are more like flying vehicles. All air units in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine the flight path, really bank, and do not stop in mid air like all flying units in Starcraft.
24) Projectiles in Starcraft always hit their target and do damage, whether it appears so or not. Projectiles in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine whether they hit or miss their targets and the damage is determined by how close the explosion was to the target.
25) Units in Starcraft cannot fire while moving. If you set them to, every unit in Total Annihilation will automatically aim and fire at enemy units in range, moving or not. This is great for hit and run missions or 'driveby shootings'.
26) Many weapons in Starcraft do not have projectiles. For example, there is a siege tank with its massive artillery shells and marines' gauss rifles that travel at infinite velocity, and then the explosion just appears on the target. Every weapon in Total Annihilation fires a projectile using a physics engine that determines how to hit the target.
27) In Starcraft the largest maps are 256x256. Total Annihilation has maps at least four times that size, for longer and more thought out strategies.
28) In Starcraft there are only two ways to get resources - mining minerals and vespene gas. In Total Annihilation there are several ways to get resources. You can reclaim plants and rocks, you can use metal extractors, metal makers, many different energy producers, and most units produce a bit of energy themselves.
29) In Starcraft if your hatchery/command center/nexus is destroyed, you keep your resources somehow, so that marine had better have deep pockets. In Total Annihilation your Commander stores all your metal and energy, so if he dies you lose most of your resources. You can also build metal and energy storage facilities so you can have a higher maximum resources capacity. Construction plants and several units also store resources.
30) Starcraft has crystals and vespene geysers growing out of the surface of space stations. Total Annihilation drills the metal out of the space station.
31) The Starcraft storyline in the manual states that the Protoss race teleport all their prebuilt buildings and warriors from the Aiur (The Protoss homeworld). However, when fighting a battle on Aiur, the Protoss gain no advantage whatsoever. In non-campaign maps TA does not include the homeworlds and therefore does not have to deal with this problem.
32) In Starcraft a marine can shoot a burrowed Zergling on the other side of a mountain wall past a barracks behind a tree underneath a Siege tank with pinpoint accuracy! In Total Annihilation you cannot.
33) In Starcraft, you cannot choose your colour. It is selected for you randomly. You are just as likely to get purple or yellow as something you want. In TA, you have a choice of ten different colours, including black.
34) Starcraft has no way at all to get new units/structures into the game, other than expansion sets, because the units are hard coded into the StarCraft engine. Total Annihilation's game engine was built specifically to load units found in the directory. When booting up the game it searches the directory and says "Oh a new unit, I'll just add him in here!" and you can then play with it normally. You can also download new units online that were posted at Cavedog's website weekly, and from many others.
35) Multiplayer lag in Starcraft is presented by the game momentarily pausing and commands being delayed by up to five seconds. Lag in Total Annihilation multiplayer simply slows the game down.
36) In Starcraft it's harder to control your units because of the unsatisfactory unit AI. For example, when trying to move a dragoon up stairs he will move jerkily up the stairs, and then decide to go back down and try to go onto the higher platform in a different way. You have to manually click for each step you want him to take. In Total Annihilation units go where you want, when you want, in the most efficient way possible most of the time.
37) In Starcraft when you initially set up the game to host, you can not change the settings when the game has been hosted. If you decide you want to play a different map, you have to completely rehost the game. IIn Total Annihilation you can change all of the settings (except for game name) while the game is being hosted, and then view the settings even while in the middle of the game.
38) In Starcraft if you want to restrict units from play, must build a custom scenario and disable the desired units for each player. In Total Annihilation, when hosting the game, meaning you can edit the unit restrictions with a few clicks you can limit the number of that unit available in the game at any time by one player, or completely prevent them from being used altogether. Other players in the game can also view the unit limits/restrictions.
39) In Starcraft all of the super weapons (nuclear missiles, psionic storms) are impossible to stop after they are casted/lauched. In Total Annihilation, you can build missile defense systems which fire anti-nukes and takes out the missile in mid air before it reaches your base. Note that the antinukes also take out other ICBMs and you can build mobile versions.
40) In Total Annihilation, most weapons as well as units are an object in the game, meaning that a Big Bertha could very well hit a bomber flying past or a nuke could hit a fighter flying overhead. In Starcraft, all weapons are mere graphical effects, and nothing like this can ever happen. 41) In SC a unit armed with more than one weapon (wraith, goliath, scout) cannot shoot both of them. In TA, units can have up to 3 weapons and can fire all at once.
42) Units do not decrease in spee when going up an incline, neither do they tilt or do anything neat.
43) Units in SC do not explode when they die. They have a pretty graphic placed on them, then they disappear, doing no damage to their surroundings. TA units can give off huge explosions, small explosions or normal explosions, all which send debris and unit pieces flying away, depending on the damage taken.
44) No radar in SC. All that you have to detect things with are LOS. TA has radars to detect units and sonar to actually SEE things underwater aswell as detecting.
45) No REALLY long range units. You cannot shell someone from a long distance (siegtanks come closest, but they really don't shoot that far). In the movies in SC they use artillery against a dragoon.
46) Units in SC cannot self destruct. If you don't want that bunker you have to attack it to destroy it. TA has selfdestruct.
47) TA has more lighting effects. When units get hit, their is light. When units explode there is light on other units. When units fire there is light. In SC the only light effects are when a unit fires, and when a nuke goes off.
List of mods for TA: Engines: Spring TA:3d Unreal Annihilation
Balancers: Uberhack Bugfix XTA TA Works project TA: Devolution TA: Reloaded Thunderball The Pack Warmonger Evolva Models Absolute Annihilation CornCobMan's Mod TA 4.0
TCs: Armoured Typhoon Command and Conquer TA TA Mech wars Axis and Allies TA/Spring Warhammer 40,000 TA Gundam Annihilation Dune TA Operation Barbarossa World Domination Operation Polaris WW2 Reborn Star Wars TA Final Frontier Dark Suns Independance War War at sea Opherium 3 TA: Battle for paradise Total Battletech Epic: Spring Imperial Authority Rock Paper Scissors TA: Method of Desctruction TAAW LOTR: TA Battletanx TA
Races: TLL Talon Rumad Rhyoss TJT Mynn Xect AC/DC Argon Aquarians BioHazard Rogue TA-AK UN The Nafilen Addon
Unit Packs/Addons: Aftermath design Unit pack MAGMA Pack Micro Pack Raven TA UTASP TAUCP TAUIP Ultimate War Seal Pack GMTA UDG 40 Spider Pack Aerial Assault Force Emergency Pack Starship Pack
Total number of Mods: 72 TA has over 5000 single downloadable 3rd party units.
List of mods for Starcraft Action Starcraft Aliens VS predator Aqueous Rift Brutkrieg's TC pack Fury of the Ancient Gundam Century Heidomus Kaladonmus NeoTech Open Rebellion Robotech SC Sickel Team fortress Star Trek Dominion War YoshiCraft Project Revolution StarCraft D6 StarWars Shadows of Vengeance NanoWar WormsCraft
Total number of Mods: 19 Don't know about single downloadable 3rd party units for SC.
TA Awards: Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998 Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer 1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot Best Music 1997, GameSpot 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award 1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998 Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, Adrenaline Vault Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain 1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews 1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com Game of the Year, Game Review Central Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998 Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998 Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998 Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany Gold Award, PC Action Germany Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK Platin Award, PC Power Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge Hands-On Award, PC GamePro Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play Star Player Award, Games Machine GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997 GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997 Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld
Total: 55
Starcraft Awards: Greatest Game of All Time - GameSpot Number-one selling PC Game of 1998 - PC Data Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Game of the Year -- Computer Gaming World Game of the Year -- European Consumer Trade Show Industry Award Game of the Year -- PC Powerplay Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Game of the Year -- PCFan Taiwan Gamer's Choice of Game of the Year. -- Chinese Edition of PC Gamer or PC Gamer (China) Hall of Fame -- Gamespy Strategy Game of the Year -- Computer Games Strategy Plus Strategy Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Real Time Strategy Game of The Year -- PC Gamer Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamespot Strategy Game of the Year -- Games Domain Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Real Time Strategy Game - Editor's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamecenter Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Best Real-Time Strategy Title -- PCFan Mulitplayer Game of The Year - 1999 Milia Awards Multiplayer Game of the Year -- Gamecenter Mulitplayer Game of The Year -- The Gamers Net Best Multiplayer Title -- PCFan Best New Multiplayer Online Game -- 1999 Codie Awards Best use of Online Multiplayer Gaming (Editor Award) -- HotGames.com Best Online Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Special Achievement Award - Best Story -- Gamespot Special Achievement Award - Best Multiplayer Game -- Gamespot Best use of Sound in a Computer Game (Reader Award) -- HotGames.com #1 Reader's Top 50 -- PC Gamer Best Depth -- PC Accelerator 5 out of 5 Stars Editor's Choice-- Computer Gaming World 5 out of 5 Gameworthy Rating -- C/NET Gamecenter 9.4 out of 10 -- Online Game Review 92% Editors Choice -- PC Gamer 4.5 out of 5 star rating - Computer games Strategy Plus 5 out of 5 star rating - Mac 3D Total Action 9.1 out of 10 rating -- Gamespot A+ -- Gameweek 4 out of 4 star rating - USA Today
47 Reasons TA is better than Starcraft 1) Starcraft only has 84 units, over half of which are buildings and their add-ons! Total Annihilation has over 250.
2) In Starcraft, only 12 units can be in a group at once. Note that this was claimed to help "prevent rushing", not that it really does because you can just hotkey groups of units. Of course, Total Annihilation has no limit.
3) In Starcraft, a maximum of five units can be built at once by each building except Zerg, who can only build three and only at certain times. Total Annihilation has no limit.
4) In Starcraft, only nine commands can be given to one unit at once and you can't see what has been queued or in what order, nor can you undo any queued commands and the commands can only be spells or movement orders. In Total Annihilation there is no limit, and you are shown exactly what each unit will do and in what order and you can undo and redo any of the commands in any order.
5) In Starcraft, when a construction unit builds a structure, or a unit plant builds a unit, no other units can help construct, hence the build speed cannot be augmented in any way. In Total Annihilation, you can have as many units as you want help construct buildings and units to speed it up. (Note that even in WarCraft II, you could make an extra peon help build a structure.)
6) There are a limited number of resources on any given Starcraft map. Total Annihilation has no limit. However, when making a map, you can simulate the 'limited resources' concept by restricting all resource units (Solar Collectors, Metal Extractors etc.), and place lots of debris, rocks, and trees. That way you will have to reclaim them, much like in gathering your resources in Starcraft.
7) In Starcraft, you can select all units of the same type, but only on the screen, and only 12 of them. CTRL-Z in Total Annihilation selects all units of that type on the map.
8) Starcraft has no water units whatsoever. In Total Annihilation, you can build entire bases on or under the water!
9) In Starcraft, there is no way to reclaim the minerals of dead units, buildings, and incomplete buildings (not that there is any debris from buildings, of course, as it "magically disappears"). In Total Annihilation, all destroyed units and buildings leave behind scrap metal which can be extracted and reused. You can even extract the metal from operational units and buildings, friend or foe.
10) In Starcraft, all units see in a circular radius, with small line of sight restrictions from large mountains. In Total Annihilation, you can choose between circular line of sight as in Starcraft, permanent line of sight as in Command & Conquer or true line of sight, where units cannot see through walls or over cliffs.
11) In Starcraft, all units shoot in a circular radius, including through wall and over cliffs. The projectiles are not effected by elevation, wind, or gravity. Total Annihilation uses true physics to determine the path of projectiles.
12) In Starcraft, the only change in elevation is onto plateaus and bridges and such, but you're not really "above" anyone as far as the game is concerned. Total Annihilation has everything from small hills to huge mountains that affect the game dramatically.
13) You can not see the energy of a unit unless it is selected in Starcraft. In Total Annihilation, you can see the remaining armour of all units on the screen at once, or turn that off if you prefer more atmosphere.
14) In Starcraft, aircraft can not land. In Total Annihilation, not only do aircraft land, but some can do so underwater.
15) The music in Starcraft is all played on a synthesizer. The music in Total Annihilation is played by a real orchestra and if you prefer, you can put in different CDs and play anything you want.
16) In Starcraft, you can't deselect your selected unit ever, unless they die or go into a assimilator/extractor! In Total Annihilation, you can always deselect everything by right clicking.
17) Right clicking in Starcraft uses "smart commands," but left clicking only uses commands that have been selected. In Total Annihilation, left clicking uses "smart commands," unless you have a command selected. Then it uses that command. Right clicking deselects. Note that you can change the mouse settings in the options window in TA to mimic that of StarCraft.
18) In Starcraft, the only way to have a unit hold fire is to move him around or to ally with the enemy. In Total Annihilation, you can set units to hold fire, to return fire only, or to fire at will.
19) At a Starcraft unit constructing building, the only command you can give units built there is a rally point. In Total Annihilation, you can tell units where to go and set waypoints; you can have them hold fire, return fire, or fire at will; and you can have them hold position, maneuver, or roam at their destination. You can even set them to a patrol route before they exit the building!
20) StarCraft only has one construction unit. Total Annihilation has nine different construction units. Each of them can build different types of structures at varying speeds.
21) With the spawned version of Starcraft, you can only play a game hosted by the person with the CD that you used to install StarCraft. In Total Annihilation, with the spawn, you can play any multiplayer game, so long as the CDlayer ratio is at least 1:3.
22) With Starcraft online games, you have to play IPX simulated games on the internet, so you cannot use IP addresses. In Total Annihilation, you can be the server which cuts out the middle man and speeds up games, but if you want, you can always choose to play with simulated IPX.
23) In Starcraft, flying units do not fly; they hover. They are more like flying vehicles. All air units in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine the flight path, really bank, and do not stop in mid air like all flying units in Starcraft.
24) Projectiles in Starcraft always hit their target and do damage, whether it appears so or not. Projectiles in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine whether they hit or miss their targets and the damage is determined by how close the explosion was to the target.
25) Units in Starcraft cannot fire while moving. If you set them to, every unit in Total Annihilation will automatically aim and fire at enemy units in range, moving or not. This is great for hit and run missions or 'driveby shootings'.
26) Many weapons in Starcraft do not have projectiles. For example, there is a siege tank with its massive artillery shells and marines' gauss rifles that travel at infinite velocity, and then the explosion just appears on the target. Every weapon in Total Annihilation fires a projectile using a physics engine that determines how to hit the target.
27) In Starcraft the largest maps are 256x256. Total Annihilation has maps at least four times that size, for longer and more thought out strategies.
28) In Starcraft there are only two ways to get resources - mining minerals and vespene gas. In Total Annihilation there are several ways to get resources. You can reclaim plants and rocks, you can use metal extractors, metal makers, many different energy producers, and most units produce a bit of energy themselves.
29) In Starcraft if your hatchery/command center/nexus is destroyed, you keep your resources somehow, so that marine had better have deep pockets. In Total Annihilation your Commander stores all your metal and energy, so if he dies you lose most of your resources. You can also build metal and energy storage facilities so you can have a higher maximum resources capacity. Construction plants and several units also store resources.
30) Starcraft has crystals and vespene geysers growing out of the surface of space stations. Total Annihilation drills the metal out of the space station.
31) The Starcraft storyline in the manual states that the Protoss race teleport all their prebuilt buildings and warriors from the Aiur (The Protoss homeworld). However, when fighting a battle on Aiur, the Protoss gain no advantage whatsoever. In non-campaign maps TA does not include the homeworlds and therefore does not have to deal with this problem.
32) In Starcraft a marine can shoot a burrowed Zergling on the other side of a mountain wall past a barracks behind a tree underneath a Siege tank with pinpoint accuracy! In Total Annihilation you cannot.
33) In Starcraft, you cannot choose your colour. It is selected for you randomly. You are just as likely to get purple or yellow as something you want. In TA, you have a choice of ten different colours, including black.
34) Starcraft has no way at all to get new units/structures into the game, other than expansion sets, because the units are hard coded into the StarCraft engine. Total Annihilation's game engine was built specifically to load units found in the directory. When booting up the game it searches the directory and says "Oh a new unit, I'll just add him in here!" and you can then play with it normally. You can also download new units online that were posted at Cavedog's website weekly, and from many others.
35) Multiplayer lag in Starcraft is presented by the game momentarily pausing and commands being delayed by up to five seconds. Lag in Total Annihilation multiplayer simply slows the game down.
36) In Starcraft it's harder to control your units because of the unsatisfactory unit AI. For example, when trying to move a dragoon up stairs he will move jerkily up the stairs, and then decide to go back down and try to go onto the higher platform in a different way. You have to manually click for each step you want him to take. In Total Annihilation units go where you want, when you want, in the most efficient way possible most of the time.
37) In Starcraft when you initially set up the game to host, you can not change the settings when the game has been hosted. If you decide you want to play a different map, you have to completely rehost the game. IIn Total Annihilation you can change all of the settings (except for game name) while the game is being hosted, and then view the settings even while in the middle of the game.
38) In Starcraft if you want to restrict units from play, must build a custom scenario and disable the desired units for each player. In Total Annihilation, when hosting the game, meaning you can edit the unit restrictions with a few clicks you can limit the number of that unit available in the game at any time by one player, or completely prevent them from being used altogether. Other players in the game can also view the unit limits/restrictions.
39) In Starcraft all of the super weapons (nuclear missiles, psionic storms) are impossible to stop after they are casted/lauched. In Total Annihilation, you can build missile defense systems which fire anti-nukes and takes out the missile in mid air before it reaches your base. Note that the antinukes also take out other ICBMs and you can build mobile versions.
40) In Total Annihilation, most weapons as well as units are an object in the game, meaning that a Big Bertha could very well hit a bomber flying past or a nuke could hit a fighter flying overhead. In Starcraft, all weapons are mere graphical effects, and nothing like this can ever happen. 41) In SC a unit armed with more than one weapon (wraith, goliath, scout) cannot shoot both of them. In TA, units can have up to 3 weapons and can fire all at once.
42) Units do not decrease in spee when going up an incline, neither do they tilt or do anything neat.
43) Units in SC do not explode when they die. They have a pretty graphic placed on them, then they disappear, doing no damage to their surroundings. TA units can give off huge explosions, small explosions or normal explosions, all which send debris and unit pieces flying away, depending on the damage taken.
44) No radar in SC. All that you have to detect things with are LOS. TA has radars to detect units and sonar to actually SEE things underwater aswell as detecting.
45) No REALLY long range units. You cannot shell someone from a long distance (siegtanks come closest, but they really don't shoot that far). In the movies in SC they use artillery against a dragoon.
46) Units in SC cannot self destruct. If you don't want that bunker you have to attack it to destroy it. TA has selfdestruct.
47) TA has more lighting effects. When units get hit, their is light. When units explode there is light on other units. When units fire there is light. In SC the only light effects are when a unit fires, and when a nuke goes off.
List of mods for TA: Engines: Spring TA:3d Unreal Annihilation
Balancers: Uberhack Bugfix XTA TA Works project TA: Devolution TA: Reloaded Thunderball The Pack Warmonger Evolva Models Absolute Annihilation CornCobMan's Mod TA 4.0
TCs: Armoured Typhoon Command and Conquer TA TA Mech wars Axis and Allies TA/Spring Warhammer 40,000 TA Gundam Annihilation Dune TA Operation Barbarossa World Domination Operation Polaris WW2 Reborn Star Wars TA Final Frontier Dark Suns Independance War War at sea Opherium 3 TA: Battle for paradise Total Battletech Epic: Spring Imperial Authority Rock Paper Scissors TA: Method of Desctruction TAAW LOTR: TA Battletanx TA
Races: TLL Talon Rumad Rhyoss TJT Mynn Xect AC/DC Argon Aquarians BioHazard Rogue TA-AK UN The Nafilen Addon
Unit Packs/Addons: Aftermath design Unit pack MAGMA Pack Micro Pack Raven TA UTASP TAUCP TAUIP Ultimate War Seal Pack GMTA UDG 40 Spider Pack Aerial Assault Force Emergency Pack Starship Pack
Total number of Mods: 72 TA has over 5000 single downloadable 3rd party units.
List of mods for Starcraft Action Starcraft Aliens VS predator Aqueous Rift Brutkrieg's TC pack Fury of the Ancient Gundam Century Heidomus Kaladonmus NeoTech Open Rebellion Robotech SC Sickel Team fortress Star Trek Dominion War YoshiCraft Project Revolution StarCraft D6 StarWars Shadows of Vengeance NanoWar WormsCraft
Total number of Mods: 19 Don't know about single downloadable 3rd party units for SC.
TA Awards: Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998 Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer 1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot Best Music 1997, GameSpot 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award 1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998 Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, Adrenaline Vault Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain 1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews 1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com Game of the Year, Game Review Central Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998 Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998 Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998 Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany Gold Award, PC Action Germany Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK Platin Award, PC Power Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge Hands-On Award, PC GamePro Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play Star Player Award, Games Machine GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997 GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997 Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld
Total: 55
Starcraft Awards: Greatest Game of All Time - GameSpot Number-one selling PC Game of 1998 - PC Data Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Game of the Year -- Computer Gaming World Game of the Year -- European Consumer Trade Show Industry Award Game of the Year -- PC Powerplay Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Game of the Year -- PCFan Taiwan Gamer's Choice of Game of the Year. -- Chinese Edition of PC Gamer or PC Gamer (China) Hall of Fame -- Gamespy Strategy Game of the Year -- Computer Games Strategy Plus Strategy Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Real Time Strategy Game of The Year -- PC Gamer Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamespot Strategy Game of the Year -- Games Domain Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Real Time Strategy Game - Editor's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamecenter Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Best Real-Time Strategy Title -- PCFan Mulitplayer Game of The Year - 1999 Milia Awards Multiplayer Game of the Year -- Gamecenter Mulitplayer Game of The Year -- The Gamers Net Best Multiplayer Title -- PCFan Best New Multiplayer Online Game -- 1999 Codie Awards Best use of Online Multiplayer Gaming (Editor Award) -- HotGames.com Best Online Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Special Achievement Award - Best Story -- Gamespot Special Achievement Award - Best Multiplayer Game -- Gamespot Best use of Sound in a Computer Game (Reader Award) -- HotGames.com #1 Reader's Top 50 -- PC Gamer Best Depth -- PC Accelerator 5 out of 5 Stars Editor's Choice-- Computer Gaming World 5 out of 5 Gameworthy Rating -- C/NET Gamecenter 9.4 out of 10 -- Online Game Review 92% Editors Choice -- PC Gamer 4.5 out of 5 star rating - Computer games Strategy Plus 5 out of 5 star rating - Mac 3D Total Action 9.1 out of 10 rating -- Gamespot A+ -- Gameweek 4 out of 4 star rating - USA Today
Also why people who always blame the interface for limiting their "strategic genius" will be forever noobs.
Not to mention that TA was imbalanced as hell and always degenerated into mindless spam of units wich all more or less did the same thing, so there wasnt much strategy in it really.
even if boxer and nal_ra are one of the most popular players of all times, it doesnt support the fact that micro needs to be the most important aspect of starcraft gameplay. right now, the balance between the two are perfect. you cannot just focus on one aspect of the game and hope to win (you see intotherainbow and Nal_ra when they are trying to be tricky as hell and do insane strats, but end up falling behind in other areas and lose) but u cannot at the same time focus on pure macro (you know what happens when its pvt and u triple nex for the econ advantage while the terran does either a fd build or 2 fac push). the thing is that without both of these aspects in the game, it wouldnt be so competitive. mbs is not needed for the competitive edge in sc2, or automining. it just takes away another part of what makes the game competitive(the ability to micromanage everything as opposed to the AI having it do it all for you) out of the game, hence taking out a chunk of the game. I know it seems mundane at times where u must click 6-10 gateways and produce a mix of dragoons and zealots while the enemy is knocking on your doorstep, but it adds to the adrenaline when they are attacking you. there are so many things going on, it produces an affect that no game that i have tried that is RTS rivals. warcraft 3, you just highlight all ur buildings and push like a or h for huntress or archers and bam, you will have a fresh batch of unit, C&C series, i dont even want to go into, you are only 4 clicks away from massing a huge army in the heat of battle. i was never good at civilization or age of empires, so i will not comment on those. but what im trying to say in this winded post is, all elements of sc make sc what it is today. it is an exciting part of competitive starcraft. for example, like when oov, nada, or hwasin is fighting a zerg, when you just saw the armies of lets say savior, the armies clash and all units or a majority are lost you are like wtf right? great battle control or some errors made on whoever's part. but then the camera goes to the newly created terran blob that whoever has managed to macro IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE, ready to move out for a second clash of might, do you not get excited? doesnt it put u in awe, you are like thinking, wow goddamn pros, no wonder they are the top of the top, in the midst of all that, you have another 50 marines/medic + army along with tanks and sci vessels already waiting to roll out. i want to be just like em. its something to work for, a goal, and whatever else that pushes us to play more and more in this game. without it, once ulearn build order and shit, pretty soon anyone can macro up an army like that, specially with terran blobs, marines being dirt cheap. select ur 20 barracks and just push m + c and u are set-_-;; ppl keep bringing up the fact that the audience we need to target with this dumbed down version of sc2 is the newbs. however, are we not talking bout the competitive edge of sc here? not them? plz just listen to yourselves as you spout out bs bout how automining and mbs will not affect the competitivesness of the game. this game was designed with both micro and MACRO in mind, where you needed a balance of both to succeed. where is the balance of this when anyone in the heat of battle can press 5m and start like 10-20 marines from building all at once?
one thing i worry bout with my opiinion aside bout mbs is the fact that zerg is at a huge disadvantage. since larvae only pop out every 30 seconds or whatever the time, im not sure, wouldnt it put them at a huge disadvantage. in the past, when the armies of other races and zerg are fighting, they had to make sure to micro their armies against the horde because of the sheer numbers. macroing at the same time is tough because of the attention you give to the zerg armies. but now, with mbs and stuff, wouldnt it dumb down the part where protoss can lets say select all their gateways and build like 10 zlots with 2 clicks? without moving your screen? zerg can use mbs too, but they would have to wait for larvae and such, totally ruining the balance of how many units they can each build. i want to explain this better, but i am focused on another thing so yeah. ill leave you guys at that.
47 Reasons TA is better than Starcraft 1) Starcraft only has 84 units, over half of which are buildings and their add-ons! Total Annihilation has over 250.
2) In Starcraft, only 12 units can be in a group at once. Note that this was claimed to help "prevent rushing", not that it really does because you can just hotkey groups of units. Of course, Total Annihilation has no limit.
3) In Starcraft, a maximum of five units can be built at once by each building except Zerg, who can only build three and only at certain times. Total Annihilation has no limit.
4) In Starcraft, only nine commands can be given to one unit at once and you can't see what has been queued or in what order, nor can you undo any queued commands and the commands can only be spells or movement orders. In Total Annihilation there is no limit, and you are shown exactly what each unit will do and in what order and you can undo and redo any of the commands in any order.
5) In Starcraft, when a construction unit builds a structure, or a unit plant builds a unit, no other units can help construct, hence the build speed cannot be augmented in any way. In Total Annihilation, you can have as many units as you want help construct buildings and units to speed it up. (Note that even in WarCraft II, you could make an extra peon help build a structure.)
6) There are a limited number of resources on any given Starcraft map. Total Annihilation has no limit. However, when making a map, you can simulate the 'limited resources' concept by restricting all resource units (Solar Collectors, Metal Extractors etc.), and place lots of debris, rocks, and trees. That way you will have to reclaim them, much like in gathering your resources in Starcraft.
7) In Starcraft, you can select all units of the same type, but only on the screen, and only 12 of them. CTRL-Z in Total Annihilation selects all units of that type on the map.
8) Starcraft has no water units whatsoever. In Total Annihilation, you can build entire bases on or under the water!
9) In Starcraft, there is no way to reclaim the minerals of dead units, buildings, and incomplete buildings (not that there is any debris from buildings, of course, as it "magically disappears"). In Total Annihilation, all destroyed units and buildings leave behind scrap metal which can be extracted and reused. You can even extract the metal from operational units and buildings, friend or foe.
10) In Starcraft, all units see in a circular radius, with small line of sight restrictions from large mountains. In Total Annihilation, you can choose between circular line of sight as in Starcraft, permanent line of sight as in Command & Conquer or true line of sight, where units cannot see through walls or over cliffs.
11) In Starcraft, all units shoot in a circular radius, including through wall and over cliffs. The projectiles are not effected by elevation, wind, or gravity. Total Annihilation uses true physics to determine the path of projectiles.
12) In Starcraft, the only change in elevation is onto plateaus and bridges and such, but you're not really "above" anyone as far as the game is concerned. Total Annihilation has everything from small hills to huge mountains that affect the game dramatically.
13) You can not see the energy of a unit unless it is selected in Starcraft. In Total Annihilation, you can see the remaining armour of all units on the screen at once, or turn that off if you prefer more atmosphere.
14) In Starcraft, aircraft can not land. In Total Annihilation, not only do aircraft land, but some can do so underwater.
15) The music in Starcraft is all played on a synthesizer. The music in Total Annihilation is played by a real orchestra and if you prefer, you can put in different CDs and play anything you want.
16) In Starcraft, you can't deselect your selected unit ever, unless they die or go into a assimilator/extractor! In Total Annihilation, you can always deselect everything by right clicking.
17) Right clicking in Starcraft uses "smart commands," but left clicking only uses commands that have been selected. In Total Annihilation, left clicking uses "smart commands," unless you have a command selected. Then it uses that command. Right clicking deselects. Note that you can change the mouse settings in the options window in TA to mimic that of StarCraft.
18) In Starcraft, the only way to have a unit hold fire is to move him around or to ally with the enemy. In Total Annihilation, you can set units to hold fire, to return fire only, or to fire at will.
19) At a Starcraft unit constructing building, the only command you can give units built there is a rally point. In Total Annihilation, you can tell units where to go and set waypoints; you can have them hold fire, return fire, or fire at will; and you can have them hold position, maneuver, or roam at their destination. You can even set them to a patrol route before they exit the building!
20) StarCraft only has one construction unit. Total Annihilation has nine different construction units. Each of them can build different types of structures at varying speeds.
21) With the spawned version of Starcraft, you can only play a game hosted by the person with the CD that you used to install StarCraft. In Total Annihilation, with the spawn, you can play any multiplayer game, so long as the CDlayer ratio is at least 1:3.
22) With Starcraft online games, you have to play IPX simulated games on the internet, so you cannot use IP addresses. In Total Annihilation, you can be the server which cuts out the middle man and speeds up games, but if you want, you can always choose to play with simulated IPX.
23) In Starcraft, flying units do not fly; they hover. They are more like flying vehicles. All air units in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine the flight path, really bank, and do not stop in mid air like all flying units in Starcraft.
24) Projectiles in Starcraft always hit their target and do damage, whether it appears so or not. Projectiles in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine whether they hit or miss their targets and the damage is determined by how close the explosion was to the target.
25) Units in Starcraft cannot fire while moving. If you set them to, every unit in Total Annihilation will automatically aim and fire at enemy units in range, moving or not. This is great for hit and run missions or 'driveby shootings'.
26) Many weapons in Starcraft do not have projectiles. For example, there is a siege tank with its massive artillery shells and marines' gauss rifles that travel at infinite velocity, and then the explosion just appears on the target. Every weapon in Total Annihilation fires a projectile using a physics engine that determines how to hit the target.
27) In Starcraft the largest maps are 256x256. Total Annihilation has maps at least four times that size, for longer and more thought out strategies.
28) In Starcraft there are only two ways to get resources - mining minerals and vespene gas. In Total Annihilation there are several ways to get resources. You can reclaim plants and rocks, you can use metal extractors, metal makers, many different energy producers, and most units produce a bit of energy themselves.
29) In Starcraft if your hatchery/command center/nexus is destroyed, you keep your resources somehow, so that marine had better have deep pockets. In Total Annihilation your Commander stores all your metal and energy, so if he dies you lose most of your resources. You can also build metal and energy storage facilities so you can have a higher maximum resources capacity. Construction plants and several units also store resources.
30) Starcraft has crystals and vespene geysers growing out of the surface of space stations. Total Annihilation drills the metal out of the space station.
31) The Starcraft storyline in the manual states that the Protoss race teleport all their prebuilt buildings and warriors from the Aiur (The Protoss homeworld). However, when fighting a battle on Aiur, the Protoss gain no advantage whatsoever. In non-campaign maps TA does not include the homeworlds and therefore does not have to deal with this problem.
32) In Starcraft a marine can shoot a burrowed Zergling on the other side of a mountain wall past a barracks behind a tree underneath a Siege tank with pinpoint accuracy! In Total Annihilation you cannot.
33) In Starcraft, you cannot choose your colour. It is selected for you randomly. You are just as likely to get purple or yellow as something you want. In TA, you have a choice of ten different colours, including black.
34) Starcraft has no way at all to get new units/structures into the game, other than expansion sets, because the units are hard coded into the StarCraft engine. Total Annihilation's game engine was built specifically to load units found in the directory. When booting up the game it searches the directory and says "Oh a new unit, I'll just add him in here!" and you can then play with it normally. You can also download new units online that were posted at Cavedog's website weekly, and from many others.
35) Multiplayer lag in Starcraft is presented by the game momentarily pausing and commands being delayed by up to five seconds. Lag in Total Annihilation multiplayer simply slows the game down.
36) In Starcraft it's harder to control your units because of the unsatisfactory unit AI. For example, when trying to move a dragoon up stairs he will move jerkily up the stairs, and then decide to go back down and try to go onto the higher platform in a different way. You have to manually click for each step you want him to take. In Total Annihilation units go where you want, when you want, in the most efficient way possible most of the time.
37) In Starcraft when you initially set up the game to host, you can not change the settings when the game has been hosted. If you decide you want to play a different map, you have to completely rehost the game. IIn Total Annihilation you can change all of the settings (except for game name) while the game is being hosted, and then view the settings even while in the middle of the game.
38) In Starcraft if you want to restrict units from play, must build a custom scenario and disable the desired units for each player. In Total Annihilation, when hosting the game, meaning you can edit the unit restrictions with a few clicks you can limit the number of that unit available in the game at any time by one player, or completely prevent them from being used altogether. Other players in the game can also view the unit limits/restrictions.
39) In Starcraft all of the super weapons (nuclear missiles, psionic storms) are impossible to stop after they are casted/lauched. In Total Annihilation, you can build missile defense systems which fire anti-nukes and takes out the missile in mid air before it reaches your base. Note that the antinukes also take out other ICBMs and you can build mobile versions.
40) In Total Annihilation, most weapons as well as units are an object in the game, meaning that a Big Bertha could very well hit a bomber flying past or a nuke could hit a fighter flying overhead. In Starcraft, all weapons are mere graphical effects, and nothing like this can ever happen. 41) In SC a unit armed with more than one weapon (wraith, goliath, scout) cannot shoot both of them. In TA, units can have up to 3 weapons and can fire all at once.
42) Units do not decrease in spee when going up an incline, neither do they tilt or do anything neat.
43) Units in SC do not explode when they die. They have a pretty graphic placed on them, then they disappear, doing no damage to their surroundings. TA units can give off huge explosions, small explosions or normal explosions, all which send debris and unit pieces flying away, depending on the damage taken.
44) No radar in SC. All that you have to detect things with are LOS. TA has radars to detect units and sonar to actually SEE things underwater aswell as detecting.
45) No REALLY long range units. You cannot shell someone from a long distance (siegtanks come closest, but they really don't shoot that far). In the movies in SC they use artillery against a dragoon.
46) Units in SC cannot self destruct. If you don't want that bunker you have to attack it to destroy it. TA has selfdestruct.
47) TA has more lighting effects. When units get hit, their is light. When units explode there is light on other units. When units fire there is light. In SC the only light effects are when a unit fires, and when a nuke goes off.
List of mods for TA: Engines: Spring TA:3d Unreal Annihilation
Balancers: Uberhack Bugfix XTA TA Works project TA: Devolution TA: Reloaded Thunderball The Pack Warmonger Evolva Models Absolute Annihilation CornCobMan's Mod TA 4.0
TCs: Armoured Typhoon Command and Conquer TA TA Mech wars Axis and Allies TA/Spring Warhammer 40,000 TA Gundam Annihilation Dune TA Operation Barbarossa World Domination Operation Polaris WW2 Reborn Star Wars TA Final Frontier Dark Suns Independance War War at sea Opherium 3 TA: Battle for paradise Total Battletech Epic: Spring Imperial Authority Rock Paper Scissors TA: Method of Desctruction TAAW LOTR: TA Battletanx TA
Races: TLL Talon Rumad Rhyoss TJT Mynn Xect AC/DC Argon Aquarians BioHazard Rogue TA-AK UN The Nafilen Addon
Unit Packs/Addons: Aftermath design Unit pack MAGMA Pack Micro Pack Raven TA UTASP TAUCP TAUIP Ultimate War Seal Pack GMTA UDG 40 Spider Pack Aerial Assault Force Emergency Pack Starship Pack
Total number of Mods: 72 TA has over 5000 single downloadable 3rd party units.
List of mods for Starcraft Action Starcraft Aliens VS predator Aqueous Rift Brutkrieg's TC pack Fury of the Ancient Gundam Century Heidomus Kaladonmus NeoTech Open Rebellion Robotech SC Sickel Team fortress Star Trek Dominion War YoshiCraft Project Revolution StarCraft D6 StarWars Shadows of Vengeance NanoWar WormsCraft
Total number of Mods: 19 Don't know about single downloadable 3rd party units for SC.
TA Awards: Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998 Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer 1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot Best Music 1997, GameSpot 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award 1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998 Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, Adrenaline Vault Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain 1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews 1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com Game of the Year, Game Review Central Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998 Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998 Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998 Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany Gold Award, PC Action Germany Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK Platin Award, PC Power Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge Hands-On Award, PC GamePro Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play Star Player Award, Games Machine GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997 GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997 Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld
Total: 55
Starcraft Awards: Greatest Game of All Time - GameSpot Number-one selling PC Game of 1998 - PC Data Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Game of the Year -- Computer Gaming World Game of the Year -- European Consumer Trade Show Industry Award Game of the Year -- PC Powerplay Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Game of the Year -- PCFan Taiwan Gamer's Choice of Game of the Year. -- Chinese Edition of PC Gamer or PC Gamer (China) Hall of Fame -- Gamespy Strategy Game of the Year -- Computer Games Strategy Plus Strategy Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Real Time Strategy Game of The Year -- PC Gamer Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamespot Strategy Game of the Year -- Games Domain Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Real Time Strategy Game - Editor's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamecenter Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Best Real-Time Strategy Title -- PCFan Mulitplayer Game of The Year - 1999 Milia Awards Multiplayer Game of the Year -- Gamecenter Mulitplayer Game of The Year -- The Gamers Net Best Multiplayer Title -- PCFan Best New Multiplayer Online Game -- 1999 Codie Awards Best use of Online Multiplayer Gaming (Editor Award) -- HotGames.com Best Online Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Special Achievement Award - Best Story -- Gamespot Special Achievement Award - Best Multiplayer Game -- Gamespot Best use of Sound in a Computer Game (Reader Award) -- HotGames.com #1 Reader's Top 50 -- PC Gamer Best Depth -- PC Accelerator 5 out of 5 Stars Editor's Choice-- Computer Gaming World 5 out of 5 Gameworthy Rating -- C/NET Gamecenter 9.4 out of 10 -- Online Game Review 92% Editors Choice -- PC Gamer 4.5 out of 5 star rating - Computer games Strategy Plus 5 out of 5 star rating - Mac 3D Total Action 9.1 out of 10 rating -- Gamespot A+ -- Gameweek 4 out of 4 star rating - USA Today
So you want to give these same people the chance to give their same reasons for hating SC to continue on hating SC2? How about trying to convince them and a whole new group out there to join instead.
On September 10 2007 08:05 koryano321 wrote: even if boxer and nal_ra are one of the most popular players of all times, it doesnt support the fact that micro needs to be the most important aspect of starcraft gameplay. right now, the balance between the two are perfect. you cannot just focus on one aspect of the game and hope to win (you see intotherainbow and Nal_ra when they are trying to be tricky as hell and do insane strats, but end up falling behind in other areas and lose) but u cannot at the same time focus on pure macro (you know what happens when its pvt and u triple nex for the econ advantage while the terran does either a fd build or 2 fac push). the thing is that without both of these aspects in the game, it wouldnt be so competitive. mbs is not needed for the competitive edge in sc2, or automining. it just takes away another part of what makes the game competitive(the ability to micromanage everything as opposed to the AI having it do it all for you) out of the game, hence taking out a chunk of the game. I know it seems mundane at times where u must click 6-10 gateways and produce a mix of dragoons and zealots while the enemy is knocking on your doorstep, but it adds to the adrenaline when they are attacking you. there are so many things going on, it produces an affect that no game that i have tried that is RTS rivals. warcraft 3, you just highlight all ur buildings and push like a or h for huntress or archers and bam, you will have a fresh batch of unit, C&C series, i dont even want to go into, you are only 4 clicks away from massing a huge army in the heat of battle. i was never good at civilization or age of empires, so i will not comment on those. but what im trying to say in this winded post is, all elements of sc make sc what it is today. it is an exciting part of competitive starcraft. for example, like when oov, nada, or hwasin is fighting a zerg, when you just saw the armies of lets say savior, the armies clash and all units or a majority are lost you are like wtf right? great battle control or some errors made on whoever's part. but then the camera goes to the newly created terran blob that whoever has managed to macro IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE, ready to move out for a second clash of might, do you not get excited? doesnt it put u in awe, you are like thinking, wow goddamn pros, no wonder they are the top of the top, in the midst of all that, you have another 50 marines/medic + army along with tanks and sci vessels already waiting to roll out. i want to be just like em. its something to work for, a goal, and whatever else that pushes us to play more and more in this game. without it, once ulearn build order and shit, pretty soon anyone can macro up an army like that, specially with terran blobs, marines being dirt cheap. select ur 20 barracks and just push m + c and u are set-_-;; ppl keep bringing up the fact that the audience we need to target with this dumbed down version of sc2 is the newbs. however, are we not talking bout the competitive edge of sc here? not them? plz just listen to yourselves as you spout out bs bout how automining and mbs will not affect the competitivesness of the game. this game was designed with both micro and MACRO in mind, where you needed a balance of both to succeed. where is the balance of this when anyone in the heat of battle can press 5m and start like 10-20 marines from building all at once?
one thing i worry bout with my opiinion aside bout mbs is the fact that zerg is at a huge disadvantage. since larvae only pop out every 30 seconds or whatever the time, im not sure, wouldnt it put them at a huge disadvantage. in the past, when the armies of other races and zerg are fighting, they had to make sure to micro their armies against the horde because of the sheer numbers. macroing at the same time is tough because of the attention you give to the zerg armies. but now, with mbs and stuff, wouldnt it dumb down the part where protoss can lets say select all their gateways and build like 10 zlots with 2 clicks? without moving your screen? zerg can use mbs too, but they would have to wait for larvae and such, totally ruining the balance of how many units they can each build. i want to explain this better, but i am focused on another thing so yeah. ill leave you guys at that.
Organize your thoughts please. I can't understand this huge block of text. Quote my points, and reply to them individually. No one's going to read all of this.
On September 10 2007 08:05 koryano321 wrote: one thing i worry bout with my opiinion aside bout mbs is the fact that zerg is at a huge disadvantage. since larvae only pop out every 30 seconds or whatever the time, im not sure, wouldnt it put them at a huge disadvantage. in the past, when the armies of other races and zerg are fighting, they had to make sure to micro their armies against the horde because of the sheer numbers. macroing at the same time is tough because of the attention you give to the zerg armies. but now, with mbs and stuff, wouldnt it dumb down the part where protoss can lets say select all their gateways and build like 10 zlots with 2 clicks? without moving your screen? zerg can use mbs too, but they would have to wait for larvae and such, totally ruining the balance of how many units they can each build. i want to explain this better, but i am focused on another thing so yeah. ill leave you guys at that.
The amounth of larvas is already balanced to the other players amounth of buildques, so it wouldnt affect anything at all.
Only difference might be that the other races has more use for it since they have more producers at any one time, but its not like they will suddenly start producing much faster than zerg just beacuse of mbs.
Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
interesting discussion, there are a few things that need to be cleared up
1) everyone needs to stop saying 'pros can't even play perfect games.' just because you saw some random FPVOD of a pro with bad macro doesn't suddenly prove that pros are incapable of playing perfect games. I've sat behind iloveoov and watched him play five tvz games in a row perfectly. Believe me, i was looking for EVERYTHING. He never missed a beat. I can say the same with Savior, i even saw him play a perfect game with protoss. That doesn't mean that these people haven't screwed up games when under tremendious pressure. At the same time they're definitely not interested in competing on a game with lower standards.
Wouldn't it be great to see savior oov and nal ra all tearing it up on SC2?
2) yes grubby has said that wc3 has major issues on the competitive level, mainly because there's not enough tasks for the players to juggle, instead randomness can take over. That doesn't mean he hates the game, it means he's recognized a heavy flaw in it. We discussed this at Blizzcon while playing SC2.
3) Lets get one thing straight, if you've played as much as Nony, or any other good sc player, you know it's not impossible to maxed fast while keeping up in upgrades, out microing your opponent and out thinking him. It just takes A LOT of practice. That's a good thing for esports.
Here's SC on the competitive scene compared to baseball:
Not only do you have to run to the bases as fast as you can, steal bases, you have to hit a baseball that can be coming at any speed and at some very strange angles, this is what makes baseball so good. It's a very difficult sport to fully master.
For some people, hitting the ball is to hard, so we let them play tee ball. Now all you have to do is run to the bases and know when to steal. Unfortunately tee ball is not respected the same way baseball is, mainly because teeball is much easier.
Don't turn our sport into tee ball
4) If any magazine is ignorant enough to critisize the lack of MBS in competitive play, i'm sure TL.net will mail the shit out of them and make sure they are made awear of their errors.
On September 10 2007 08:27 BlackStar wrote: Even if you want to change the balance between macro and micro you would not want to that by making the game easier.
They arent making the pro level game easier, theyre making the pro level game harder by adding a lot of shit to do since pros dont have as much use for mbs and autorally as noobs, at the same time they make the noob level game easier by adding stuff such as this.
Btw, dont underestimate the keybinding use of noobs, they use it in all games with mbs for production, while keybindings in sc are very cumbersome to use due to the selection limits compared to other games.
47 Reasons TA is better than Starcraft 1) Starcraft only has 84 units, over half of which are buildings and their add-ons! Total Annihilation has over 250.
2) In Starcraft, only 12 units can be in a group at once. Note that this was claimed to help "prevent rushing", not that it really does because you can just hotkey groups of units. Of course, Total Annihilation has no limit.
3) In Starcraft, a maximum of five units can be built at once by each building except Zerg, who can only build three and only at certain times. Total Annihilation has no limit.
4) In Starcraft, only nine commands can be given to one unit at once and you can't see what has been queued or in what order, nor can you undo any queued commands and the commands can only be spells or movement orders. In Total Annihilation there is no limit, and you are shown exactly what each unit will do and in what order and you can undo and redo any of the commands in any order.
5) In Starcraft, when a construction unit builds a structure, or a unit plant builds a unit, no other units can help construct, hence the build speed cannot be augmented in any way. In Total Annihilation, you can have as many units as you want help construct buildings and units to speed it up. (Note that even in WarCraft II, you could make an extra peon help build a structure.)
6) There are a limited number of resources on any given Starcraft map. Total Annihilation has no limit. However, when making a map, you can simulate the 'limited resources' concept by restricting all resource units (Solar Collectors, Metal Extractors etc.), and place lots of debris, rocks, and trees. That way you will have to reclaim them, much like in gathering your resources in Starcraft.
7) In Starcraft, you can select all units of the same type, but only on the screen, and only 12 of them. CTRL-Z in Total Annihilation selects all units of that type on the map.
8) Starcraft has no water units whatsoever. In Total Annihilation, you can build entire bases on or under the water!
9) In Starcraft, there is no way to reclaim the minerals of dead units, buildings, and incomplete buildings (not that there is any debris from buildings, of course, as it "magically disappears"). In Total Annihilation, all destroyed units and buildings leave behind scrap metal which can be extracted and reused. You can even extract the metal from operational units and buildings, friend or foe.
10) In Starcraft, all units see in a circular radius, with small line of sight restrictions from large mountains. In Total Annihilation, you can choose between circular line of sight as in Starcraft, permanent line of sight as in Command & Conquer or true line of sight, where units cannot see through walls or over cliffs.
11) In Starcraft, all units shoot in a circular radius, including through wall and over cliffs. The projectiles are not effected by elevation, wind, or gravity. Total Annihilation uses true physics to determine the path of projectiles.
12) In Starcraft, the only change in elevation is onto plateaus and bridges and such, but you're not really "above" anyone as far as the game is concerned. Total Annihilation has everything from small hills to huge mountains that affect the game dramatically.
13) You can not see the energy of a unit unless it is selected in Starcraft. In Total Annihilation, you can see the remaining armour of all units on the screen at once, or turn that off if you prefer more atmosphere.
14) In Starcraft, aircraft can not land. In Total Annihilation, not only do aircraft land, but some can do so underwater.
15) The music in Starcraft is all played on a synthesizer. The music in Total Annihilation is played by a real orchestra and if you prefer, you can put in different CDs and play anything you want.
16) In Starcraft, you can't deselect your selected unit ever, unless they die or go into a assimilator/extractor! In Total Annihilation, you can always deselect everything by right clicking.
17) Right clicking in Starcraft uses "smart commands," but left clicking only uses commands that have been selected. In Total Annihilation, left clicking uses "smart commands," unless you have a command selected. Then it uses that command. Right clicking deselects. Note that you can change the mouse settings in the options window in TA to mimic that of StarCraft.
18) In Starcraft, the only way to have a unit hold fire is to move him around or to ally with the enemy. In Total Annihilation, you can set units to hold fire, to return fire only, or to fire at will.
19) At a Starcraft unit constructing building, the only command you can give units built there is a rally point. In Total Annihilation, you can tell units where to go and set waypoints; you can have them hold fire, return fire, or fire at will; and you can have them hold position, maneuver, or roam at their destination. You can even set them to a patrol route before they exit the building!
20) StarCraft only has one construction unit. Total Annihilation has nine different construction units. Each of them can build different types of structures at varying speeds.
21) With the spawned version of Starcraft, you can only play a game hosted by the person with the CD that you used to install StarCraft. In Total Annihilation, with the spawn, you can play any multiplayer game, so long as the CDlayer ratio is at least 1:3.
22) With Starcraft online games, you have to play IPX simulated games on the internet, so you cannot use IP addresses. In Total Annihilation, you can be the server which cuts out the middle man and speeds up games, but if you want, you can always choose to play with simulated IPX.
23) In Starcraft, flying units do not fly; they hover. They are more like flying vehicles. All air units in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine the flight path, really bank, and do not stop in mid air like all flying units in Starcraft.
24) Projectiles in Starcraft always hit their target and do damage, whether it appears so or not. Projectiles in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine whether they hit or miss their targets and the damage is determined by how close the explosion was to the target.
25) Units in Starcraft cannot fire while moving. If you set them to, every unit in Total Annihilation will automatically aim and fire at enemy units in range, moving or not. This is great for hit and run missions or 'driveby shootings'.
26) Many weapons in Starcraft do not have projectiles. For example, there is a siege tank with its massive artillery shells and marines' gauss rifles that travel at infinite velocity, and then the explosion just appears on the target. Every weapon in Total Annihilation fires a projectile using a physics engine that determines how to hit the target.
27) In Starcraft the largest maps are 256x256. Total Annihilation has maps at least four times that size, for longer and more thought out strategies.
28) In Starcraft there are only two ways to get resources - mining minerals and vespene gas. In Total Annihilation there are several ways to get resources. You can reclaim plants and rocks, you can use metal extractors, metal makers, many different energy producers, and most units produce a bit of energy themselves.
29) In Starcraft if your hatchery/command center/nexus is destroyed, you keep your resources somehow, so that marine had better have deep pockets. In Total Annihilation your Commander stores all your metal and energy, so if he dies you lose most of your resources. You can also build metal and energy storage facilities so you can have a higher maximum resources capacity. Construction plants and several units also store resources.
30) Starcraft has crystals and vespene geysers growing out of the surface of space stations. Total Annihilation drills the metal out of the space station.
31) The Starcraft storyline in the manual states that the Protoss race teleport all their prebuilt buildings and warriors from the Aiur (The Protoss homeworld). However, when fighting a battle on Aiur, the Protoss gain no advantage whatsoever. In non-campaign maps TA does not include the homeworlds and therefore does not have to deal with this problem.
32) In Starcraft a marine can shoot a burrowed Zergling on the other side of a mountain wall past a barracks behind a tree underneath a Siege tank with pinpoint accuracy! In Total Annihilation you cannot.
33) In Starcraft, you cannot choose your colour. It is selected for you randomly. You are just as likely to get purple or yellow as something you want. In TA, you have a choice of ten different colours, including black.
34) Starcraft has no way at all to get new units/structures into the game, other than expansion sets, because the units are hard coded into the StarCraft engine. Total Annihilation's game engine was built specifically to load units found in the directory. When booting up the game it searches the directory and says "Oh a new unit, I'll just add him in here!" and you can then play with it normally. You can also download new units online that were posted at Cavedog's website weekly, and from many others.
35) Multiplayer lag in Starcraft is presented by the game momentarily pausing and commands being delayed by up to five seconds. Lag in Total Annihilation multiplayer simply slows the game down.
36) In Starcraft it's harder to control your units because of the unsatisfactory unit AI. For example, when trying to move a dragoon up stairs he will move jerkily up the stairs, and then decide to go back down and try to go onto the higher platform in a different way. You have to manually click for each step you want him to take. In Total Annihilation units go where you want, when you want, in the most efficient way possible most of the time.
37) In Starcraft when you initially set up the game to host, you can not change the settings when the game has been hosted. If you decide you want to play a different map, you have to completely rehost the game. IIn Total Annihilation you can change all of the settings (except for game name) while the game is being hosted, and then view the settings even while in the middle of the game.
38) In Starcraft if you want to restrict units from play, must build a custom scenario and disable the desired units for each player. In Total Annihilation, when hosting the game, meaning you can edit the unit restrictions with a few clicks you can limit the number of that unit available in the game at any time by one player, or completely prevent them from being used altogether. Other players in the game can also view the unit limits/restrictions.
39) In Starcraft all of the super weapons (nuclear missiles, psionic storms) are impossible to stop after they are casted/lauched. In Total Annihilation, you can build missile defense systems which fire anti-nukes and takes out the missile in mid air before it reaches your base. Note that the antinukes also take out other ICBMs and you can build mobile versions.
40) In Total Annihilation, most weapons as well as units are an object in the game, meaning that a Big Bertha could very well hit a bomber flying past or a nuke could hit a fighter flying overhead. In Starcraft, all weapons are mere graphical effects, and nothing like this can ever happen. 41) In SC a unit armed with more than one weapon (wraith, goliath, scout) cannot shoot both of them. In TA, units can have up to 3 weapons and can fire all at once.
42) Units do not decrease in spee when going up an incline, neither do they tilt or do anything neat.
43) Units in SC do not explode when they die. They have a pretty graphic placed on them, then they disappear, doing no damage to their surroundings. TA units can give off huge explosions, small explosions or normal explosions, all which send debris and unit pieces flying away, depending on the damage taken.
44) No radar in SC. All that you have to detect things with are LOS. TA has radars to detect units and sonar to actually SEE things underwater aswell as detecting.
45) No REALLY long range units. You cannot shell someone from a long distance (siegtanks come closest, but they really don't shoot that far). In the movies in SC they use artillery against a dragoon.
46) Units in SC cannot self destruct. If you don't want that bunker you have to attack it to destroy it. TA has selfdestruct.
47) TA has more lighting effects. When units get hit, their is light. When units explode there is light on other units. When units fire there is light. In SC the only light effects are when a unit fires, and when a nuke goes off.
List of mods for TA: Engines: Spring TA:3d Unreal Annihilation
Balancers: Uberhack Bugfix XTA TA Works project TA: Devolution TA: Reloaded Thunderball The Pack Warmonger Evolva Models Absolute Annihilation CornCobMan's Mod TA 4.0
TCs: Armoured Typhoon Command and Conquer TA TA Mech wars Axis and Allies TA/Spring Warhammer 40,000 TA Gundam Annihilation Dune TA Operation Barbarossa World Domination Operation Polaris WW2 Reborn Star Wars TA Final Frontier Dark Suns Independance War War at sea Opherium 3 TA: Battle for paradise Total Battletech Epic: Spring Imperial Authority Rock Paper Scissors TA: Method of Desctruction TAAW LOTR: TA Battletanx TA
Races: TLL Talon Rumad Rhyoss TJT Mynn Xect AC/DC Argon Aquarians BioHazard Rogue TA-AK UN The Nafilen Addon
Unit Packs/Addons: Aftermath design Unit pack MAGMA Pack Micro Pack Raven TA UTASP TAUCP TAUIP Ultimate War Seal Pack GMTA UDG 40 Spider Pack Aerial Assault Force Emergency Pack Starship Pack
Total number of Mods: 72 TA has over 5000 single downloadable 3rd party units.
List of mods for Starcraft Action Starcraft Aliens VS predator Aqueous Rift Brutkrieg's TC pack Fury of the Ancient Gundam Century Heidomus Kaladonmus NeoTech Open Rebellion Robotech SC Sickel Team fortress Star Trek Dominion War YoshiCraft Project Revolution StarCraft D6 StarWars Shadows of Vengeance NanoWar WormsCraft
Total number of Mods: 19 Don't know about single downloadable 3rd party units for SC.
TA Awards: Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998 Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer 1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot Best Music 1997, GameSpot 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award 1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998 Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, Adrenaline Vault Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain 1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews 1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com Game of the Year, Game Review Central Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998 Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998 Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998 Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany Gold Award, PC Action Germany Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK Platin Award, PC Power Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge Hands-On Award, PC GamePro Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play Star Player Award, Games Machine GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997 GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997 Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld
Total: 55
Starcraft Awards: Greatest Game of All Time - GameSpot Number-one selling PC Game of 1998 - PC Data Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Game of the Year -- Computer Gaming World Game of the Year -- European Consumer Trade Show Industry Award Game of the Year -- PC Powerplay Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Game of the Year -- PCFan Taiwan Gamer's Choice of Game of the Year. -- Chinese Edition of PC Gamer or PC Gamer (China) Hall of Fame -- Gamespy Strategy Game of the Year -- Computer Games Strategy Plus Strategy Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Real Time Strategy Game of The Year -- PC Gamer Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamespot Strategy Game of the Year -- Games Domain Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Real Time Strategy Game - Editor's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamecenter Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Best Real-Time Strategy Title -- PCFan Mulitplayer Game of The Year - 1999 Milia Awards Multiplayer Game of the Year -- Gamecenter Mulitplayer Game of The Year -- The Gamers Net Best Multiplayer Title -- PCFan Best New Multiplayer Online Game -- 1999 Codie Awards Best use of Online Multiplayer Gaming (Editor Award) -- HotGames.com Best Online Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Special Achievement Award - Best Story -- Gamespot Special Achievement Award - Best Multiplayer Game -- Gamespot Best use of Sound in a Computer Game (Reader Award) -- HotGames.com #1 Reader's Top 50 -- PC Gamer Best Depth -- PC Accelerator 5 out of 5 Stars Editor's Choice-- Computer Gaming World 5 out of 5 Gameworthy Rating -- C/NET Gamecenter 9.4 out of 10 -- Online Game Review 92% Editors Choice -- PC Gamer 4.5 out of 5 star rating - Computer games Strategy Plus 5 out of 5 star rating - Mac 3D Total Action 9.1 out of 10 rating -- Gamespot A+ -- Gameweek 4 out of 4 star rating - USA Today
On September 10 2007 08:33 MyLostTemple wrote: interesting discussion, there are a few things that need to be cleared up
1) everyone needs to stop saying 'pros can't even play perfect games.' just because you saw some random FPVOD of a pro with bad macro doesn't suddenly prove that pros are incapable of playing perfect games. I've sat behind iloveoov and watched him play five tvz games in a row perfectly. Believe me, i was looking for EVERYTHING. He never missed a beat. I can say the same with Savior, i even saw him play a perfect game with protoss. That doesn't mean that these people haven't screwed up games when under tremendious pressure, and they're definitely not interested in competing on a game with lower standards.
Wouldn't it be great to see savior oov and nal ra all tearing it up on SC2?
2) yes grubby has said that wc3 has major issues on the competitive level, mainly because there's not enough tasks for the players to juggle, instead randomness can take over. That doesn't mean he hates the game, it means he's recognized a heavy flaw in it. We discussed this at Blizzcon while playing SC2.
3) Lets get one thing straight, if you've played as much as Nony, or any other top American player, you know it's not impossible to maxed fast while keeping up in upgrades, out microing your opponent and out thinking him. It just takes A LOT of practice. That's a good thing for esports.
Here's SC on the competitive scene compared to baseball:
Not only do you have to run to the bases as fast as you can, steal bases, you have to hit a baseball that can be coming at any speed and at some very strange angles, this is what makes baseball so good. It's a very difficult sport to fully master.
For some people, hitting the ball is to hard, so we let them play tee ball. Now all you have to do is run to the bases and know when to steal. Unfortunately tee ball is not respected the same way baseball is, mainly because teeball is much easier.
Don't turn our sport into tee ball
4) If any magazine is ignorant enough to critisize the lack of MBS in competitive play, i'm sure TL.net will mail the shit out of them and make sure they are made awear of their errors.
You got it all wrong, heres starcraft:
Now, wheelchair baseball isnt as fun to watch as normal baseball simply beacuse seeing handicapped players isnt as fun as seeing players playing to their full potential.
On September 10 2007 08:43 Klockan3 wrote: They arent making the pro level game easier, theyre making the pro level game harder by adding a lot of shit to do since pros dont have as much use for mbs and autorally as noobs, at the same time they make the noob level game easier by adding stuff such as this.
I assume you mean switching around add ons on production buildings. You would only do that once or twice a game. But the ratio between those is so incredibly off I am kind of doubting if you really meant that.
But I can't imagine what other 'a lot of shit' is added to macro.
47 Reasons TA is better than Starcraft 1) Starcraft only has 84 units, over half of which are buildings and their add-ons! Total Annihilation has over 250.
2) In Starcraft, only 12 units can be in a group at once. Note that this was claimed to help "prevent rushing", not that it really does because you can just hotkey groups of units. Of course, Total Annihilation has no limit.
3) In Starcraft, a maximum of five units can be built at once by each building except Zerg, who can only build three and only at certain times. Total Annihilation has no limit.
4) In Starcraft, only nine commands can be given to one unit at once and you can't see what has been queued or in what order, nor can you undo any queued commands and the commands can only be spells or movement orders. In Total Annihilation there is no limit, and you are shown exactly what each unit will do and in what order and you can undo and redo any of the commands in any order.
5) In Starcraft, when a construction unit builds a structure, or a unit plant builds a unit, no other units can help construct, hence the build speed cannot be augmented in any way. In Total Annihilation, you can have as many units as you want help construct buildings and units to speed it up. (Note that even in WarCraft II, you could make an extra peon help build a structure.)
6) There are a limited number of resources on any given Starcraft map. Total Annihilation has no limit. However, when making a map, you can simulate the 'limited resources' concept by restricting all resource units (Solar Collectors, Metal Extractors etc.), and place lots of debris, rocks, and trees. That way you will have to reclaim them, much like in gathering your resources in Starcraft.
7) In Starcraft, you can select all units of the same type, but only on the screen, and only 12 of them. CTRL-Z in Total Annihilation selects all units of that type on the map.
8) Starcraft has no water units whatsoever. In Total Annihilation, you can build entire bases on or under the water!
9) In Starcraft, there is no way to reclaim the minerals of dead units, buildings, and incomplete buildings (not that there is any debris from buildings, of course, as it "magically disappears"). In Total Annihilation, all destroyed units and buildings leave behind scrap metal which can be extracted and reused. You can even extract the metal from operational units and buildings, friend or foe.
10) In Starcraft, all units see in a circular radius, with small line of sight restrictions from large mountains. In Total Annihilation, you can choose between circular line of sight as in Starcraft, permanent line of sight as in Command & Conquer or true line of sight, where units cannot see through walls or over cliffs.
11) In Starcraft, all units shoot in a circular radius, including through wall and over cliffs. The projectiles are not effected by elevation, wind, or gravity. Total Annihilation uses true physics to determine the path of projectiles.
12) In Starcraft, the only change in elevation is onto plateaus and bridges and such, but you're not really "above" anyone as far as the game is concerned. Total Annihilation has everything from small hills to huge mountains that affect the game dramatically.
13) You can not see the energy of a unit unless it is selected in Starcraft. In Total Annihilation, you can see the remaining armour of all units on the screen at once, or turn that off if you prefer more atmosphere.
14) In Starcraft, aircraft can not land. In Total Annihilation, not only do aircraft land, but some can do so underwater.
15) The music in Starcraft is all played on a synthesizer. The music in Total Annihilation is played by a real orchestra and if you prefer, you can put in different CDs and play anything you want.
16) In Starcraft, you can't deselect your selected unit ever, unless they die or go into a assimilator/extractor! In Total Annihilation, you can always deselect everything by right clicking.
17) Right clicking in Starcraft uses "smart commands," but left clicking only uses commands that have been selected. In Total Annihilation, left clicking uses "smart commands," unless you have a command selected. Then it uses that command. Right clicking deselects. Note that you can change the mouse settings in the options window in TA to mimic that of StarCraft.
18) In Starcraft, the only way to have a unit hold fire is to move him around or to ally with the enemy. In Total Annihilation, you can set units to hold fire, to return fire only, or to fire at will.
19) At a Starcraft unit constructing building, the only command you can give units built there is a rally point. In Total Annihilation, you can tell units where to go and set waypoints; you can have them hold fire, return fire, or fire at will; and you can have them hold position, maneuver, or roam at their destination. You can even set them to a patrol route before they exit the building!
20) StarCraft only has one construction unit. Total Annihilation has nine different construction units. Each of them can build different types of structures at varying speeds.
21) With the spawned version of Starcraft, you can only play a game hosted by the person with the CD that you used to install StarCraft. In Total Annihilation, with the spawn, you can play any multiplayer game, so long as the CDlayer ratio is at least 1:3.
22) With Starcraft online games, you have to play IPX simulated games on the internet, so you cannot use IP addresses. In Total Annihilation, you can be the server which cuts out the middle man and speeds up games, but if you want, you can always choose to play with simulated IPX.
23) In Starcraft, flying units do not fly; they hover. They are more like flying vehicles. All air units in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine the flight path, really bank, and do not stop in mid air like all flying units in Starcraft.
24) Projectiles in Starcraft always hit their target and do damage, whether it appears so or not. Projectiles in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine whether they hit or miss their targets and the damage is determined by how close the explosion was to the target.
25) Units in Starcraft cannot fire while moving. If you set them to, every unit in Total Annihilation will automatically aim and fire at enemy units in range, moving or not. This is great for hit and run missions or 'driveby shootings'.
26) Many weapons in Starcraft do not have projectiles. For example, there is a siege tank with its massive artillery shells and marines' gauss rifles that travel at infinite velocity, and then the explosion just appears on the target. Every weapon in Total Annihilation fires a projectile using a physics engine that determines how to hit the target.
27) In Starcraft the largest maps are 256x256. Total Annihilation has maps at least four times that size, for longer and more thought out strategies.
28) In Starcraft there are only two ways to get resources - mining minerals and vespene gas. In Total Annihilation there are several ways to get resources. You can reclaim plants and rocks, you can use metal extractors, metal makers, many different energy producers, and most units produce a bit of energy themselves.
29) In Starcraft if your hatchery/command center/nexus is destroyed, you keep your resources somehow, so that marine had better have deep pockets. In Total Annihilation your Commander stores all your metal and energy, so if he dies you lose most of your resources. You can also build metal and energy storage facilities so you can have a higher maximum resources capacity. Construction plants and several units also store resources.
30) Starcraft has crystals and vespene geysers growing out of the surface of space stations. Total Annihilation drills the metal out of the space station.
31) The Starcraft storyline in the manual states that the Protoss race teleport all their prebuilt buildings and warriors from the Aiur (The Protoss homeworld). However, when fighting a battle on Aiur, the Protoss gain no advantage whatsoever. In non-campaign maps TA does not include the homeworlds and therefore does not have to deal with this problem.
32) In Starcraft a marine can shoot a burrowed Zergling on the other side of a mountain wall past a barracks behind a tree underneath a Siege tank with pinpoint accuracy! In Total Annihilation you cannot.
33) In Starcraft, you cannot choose your colour. It is selected for you randomly. You are just as likely to get purple or yellow as something you want. In TA, you have a choice of ten different colours, including black.
34) Starcraft has no way at all to get new units/structures into the game, other than expansion sets, because the units are hard coded into the StarCraft engine. Total Annihilation's game engine was built specifically to load units found in the directory. When booting up the game it searches the directory and says "Oh a new unit, I'll just add him in here!" and you can then play with it normally. You can also download new units online that were posted at Cavedog's website weekly, and from many others.
35) Multiplayer lag in Starcraft is presented by the game momentarily pausing and commands being delayed by up to five seconds. Lag in Total Annihilation multiplayer simply slows the game down.
36) In Starcraft it's harder to control your units because of the unsatisfactory unit AI. For example, when trying to move a dragoon up stairs he will move jerkily up the stairs, and then decide to go back down and try to go onto the higher platform in a different way. You have to manually click for each step you want him to take. In Total Annihilation units go where you want, when you want, in the most efficient way possible most of the time.
37) In Starcraft when you initially set up the game to host, you can not change the settings when the game has been hosted. If you decide you want to play a different map, you have to completely rehost the game. IIn Total Annihilation you can change all of the settings (except for game name) while the game is being hosted, and then view the settings even while in the middle of the game.
38) In Starcraft if you want to restrict units from play, must build a custom scenario and disable the desired units for each player. In Total Annihilation, when hosting the game, meaning you can edit the unit restrictions with a few clicks you can limit the number of that unit available in the game at any time by one player, or completely prevent them from being used altogether. Other players in the game can also view the unit limits/restrictions.
39) In Starcraft all of the super weapons (nuclear missiles, psionic storms) are impossible to stop after they are casted/lauched. In Total Annihilation, you can build missile defense systems which fire anti-nukes and takes out the missile in mid air before it reaches your base. Note that the antinukes also take out other ICBMs and you can build mobile versions.
40) In Total Annihilation, most weapons as well as units are an object in the game, meaning that a Big Bertha could very well hit a bomber flying past or a nuke could hit a fighter flying overhead. In Starcraft, all weapons are mere graphical effects, and nothing like this can ever happen. 41) In SC a unit armed with more than one weapon (wraith, goliath, scout) cannot shoot both of them. In TA, units can have up to 3 weapons and can fire all at once.
42) Units do not decrease in spee when going up an incline, neither do they tilt or do anything neat.
43) Units in SC do not explode when they die. They have a pretty graphic placed on them, then they disappear, doing no damage to their surroundings. TA units can give off huge explosions, small explosions or normal explosions, all which send debris and unit pieces flying away, depending on the damage taken.
44) No radar in SC. All that you have to detect things with are LOS. TA has radars to detect units and sonar to actually SEE things underwater aswell as detecting.
45) No REALLY long range units. You cannot shell someone from a long distance (siegtanks come closest, but they really don't shoot that far). In the movies in SC they use artillery against a dragoon.
46) Units in SC cannot self destruct. If you don't want that bunker you have to attack it to destroy it. TA has selfdestruct.
47) TA has more lighting effects. When units get hit, their is light. When units explode there is light on other units. When units fire there is light. In SC the only light effects are when a unit fires, and when a nuke goes off.
List of mods for TA: Engines: Spring TA:3d Unreal Annihilation
Balancers: Uberhack Bugfix XTA TA Works project TA: Devolution TA: Reloaded Thunderball The Pack Warmonger Evolva Models Absolute Annihilation CornCobMan's Mod TA 4.0
TCs: Armoured Typhoon Command and Conquer TA TA Mech wars Axis and Allies TA/Spring Warhammer 40,000 TA Gundam Annihilation Dune TA Operation Barbarossa World Domination Operation Polaris WW2 Reborn Star Wars TA Final Frontier Dark Suns Independance War War at sea Opherium 3 TA: Battle for paradise Total Battletech Epic: Spring Imperial Authority Rock Paper Scissors TA: Method of Desctruction TAAW LOTR: TA Battletanx TA
Races: TLL Talon Rumad Rhyoss TJT Mynn Xect AC/DC Argon Aquarians BioHazard Rogue TA-AK UN The Nafilen Addon
Unit Packs/Addons: Aftermath design Unit pack MAGMA Pack Micro Pack Raven TA UTASP TAUCP TAUIP Ultimate War Seal Pack GMTA UDG 40 Spider Pack Aerial Assault Force Emergency Pack Starship Pack
Total number of Mods: 72 TA has over 5000 single downloadable 3rd party units.
List of mods for Starcraft Action Starcraft Aliens VS predator Aqueous Rift Brutkrieg's TC pack Fury of the Ancient Gundam Century Heidomus Kaladonmus NeoTech Open Rebellion Robotech SC Sickel Team fortress Star Trek Dominion War YoshiCraft Project Revolution StarCraft D6 StarWars Shadows of Vengeance NanoWar WormsCraft
Total number of Mods: 19 Don't know about single downloadable 3rd party units for SC.
TA Awards: Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998 Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer 1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot Best Music 1997, GameSpot 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award 1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998 Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, Adrenaline Vault Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain 1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews 1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com Game of the Year, Game Review Central Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998 Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998 Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998 Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany Gold Award, PC Action Germany Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK Platin Award, PC Power Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge Hands-On Award, PC GamePro Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play Star Player Award, Games Machine GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997 GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997 Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld
Total: 55
Starcraft Awards: Greatest Game of All Time - GameSpot Number-one selling PC Game of 1998 - PC Data Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Game of the Year -- Computer Gaming World Game of the Year -- European Consumer Trade Show Industry Award Game of the Year -- PC Powerplay Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Game of the Year -- PCFan Taiwan Gamer's Choice of Game of the Year. -- Chinese Edition of PC Gamer or PC Gamer (China) Hall of Fame -- Gamespy Strategy Game of the Year -- Computer Games Strategy Plus Strategy Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Real Time Strategy Game of The Year -- PC Gamer Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamespot Strategy Game of the Year -- Games Domain Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Real Time Strategy Game - Editor's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamecenter Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Best Real-Time Strategy Title -- PCFan Mulitplayer Game of The Year - 1999 Milia Awards Multiplayer Game of the Year -- Gamecenter Mulitplayer Game of The Year -- The Gamers Net Best Multiplayer Title -- PCFan Best New Multiplayer Online Game -- 1999 Codie Awards Best use of Online Multiplayer Gaming (Editor Award) -- HotGames.com Best Online Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Special Achievement Award - Best Story -- Gamespot Special Achievement Award - Best Multiplayer Game -- Gamespot Best use of Sound in a Computer Game (Reader Award) -- HotGames.com #1 Reader's Top 50 -- PC Gamer Best Depth -- PC Accelerator 5 out of 5 Stars Editor's Choice-- Computer Gaming World 5 out of 5 Gameworthy Rating -- C/NET Gamecenter 9.4 out of 10 -- Online Game Review 92% Editors Choice -- PC Gamer 4.5 out of 5 star rating - Computer games Strategy Plus 5 out of 5 star rating - Mac 3D Total Action 9.1 out of 10 rating -- Gamespot A+ -- Gameweek 4 out of 4 star rating - USA Today
QFT. It fucking hurt to read that post. The stupidity and ignorance stings. Throughout the thread orangedude brought up some good points for pro-mbs. However, I would still really really prefer to have no mbs and no automining. I like sc1 a lot, and it'd be great if sc2 could utilise the same system that worked so well in the original along with its new features.
Haha i love the pics in tasteless' golf and baseball analogies. I agree with what anti-mbs and automing people say on the issue, that it contributes to making the game more exciting, adrenaline pumping, and fun. It's not the only thing of course, but it is a major one. Too bad idiots like the guy who posted on supcomuniverse and newb game reviewers who really don't know shit are gonna get in the way Too bad competitive rts gamers like those on tl.net are far in the minority...
On September 10 2007 08:51 Klockan3 wrote: You got it all wrong, heres starcraft: [...] Now, wheelchair baseball isnt as fun to watch as normal baseball simply beacuse seeing handicapped players isnt as fun as seeing players playing to their full potential.
Hahahaha...
I doubt he will accept that watching Savior play SC is like watching someone who is handicapped.
On September 10 2007 08:51 Klockan3 wrote: You got it all wrong, heres starcraft: [...] Now, wheelchair baseball isnt as fun to watch as normal baseball simply beacuse seeing handicapped players isnt as fun as seeing players playing to their full potential.
Hahahaha...
I doubt he will accept that watching Savior play SC is like watching someone who is handicapped.
Yeah i know it was over the top a bit, but mbs and all other UI improvements doesnt change the game much anyway but overall its like the baseball players would be forsed to play with sand in their shoes, making all their actions a bit less fluid. Or if someone always had a big lamp blinding the hitter so its hard to see the ball, to make it harder to hit it.
His analogy fits better when you compare starcraft vanilla with moneymaps btw, moneymaps removing a large part of the actual game wich is everything that has to do with expansions, same as how T-ball removes the pitching part.
My analogy fits this perfectly however, since wheelchair baseball use the same rules as normal baseball but with the limitations of wheelchairs. Same is sc2 using the same rules as starcraft but withouth the same UI limitations.
On September 10 2007 08:43 Klockan3 wrote: They arent making the pro level game easier, theyre making the pro level game harder by adding a lot of shit to do since pros dont have as much use for mbs and autorally as noobs, at the same time they make the noob level game easier by adding stuff such as this.
I assume you mean switching around add ons on production buildings. You would only do that once or twice a game. But the ratio between those is so incredibly off I am kind of doubting if you really meant that.
But I can't imagine what other 'a lot of shit' is added to macro.
On the top of my head: Thors being built by scv's making them cumbersome to make. Reapers being bought instead of built. The starport will require a lot of macro when moving around and building, when you at the same time want it near the frontlines to recharge energy. A good player wont build more addons than necesary, switching the tech addon around to get the right uppgrades and switching both the power and the tech to the unit type currently being made, so if he needs air he removes the factories for the starports etc, this will only be usefull earlygame and later when you dont have time youll get addons for all of them.
The above things, especially the moving around buildings, can take a ton of time if used to its fullest degree, and will allow the terran to have an army production flexibility somewere in between toss and zerg.
On September 10 2007 08:33 MyLostTemple wrote: 2) yes grubby has said that wc3 has major issues on the competitive level, mainly because there's not enough tasks for the players to juggle, instead randomness can take over. That doesn't mean he hates the game, it means he's recognized a heavy flaw in it. We discussed this at Blizzcon while playing SC2.
I just have a question about this point. Admittedly, I don't know much about WC3, but wouldn't this fact ("not enough tasks to juggle") be due more to the fact that in WC3, units have high hp and low damage (low mortality), players tend to restrict unit production so as to stay within an upkeep level, and many spells are autocasted? I think these are the facts that tend to lead to players microing a hero and ~10 units while staying under 50 food (spending gold on items and upgs) with 2-3 production buildings for a good portion of the game, rather than the MBS system.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the point you brought up has less to do with MBS than with the actual balance/gameplay (not sure if thats the word i'm looking for) of WC3. Also what did you mean by 'randomness'?
also, in my opinion, automining has the potential to be much worse than MBS, but that's not what this thread is about....
On September 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote: Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
On September 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote: Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
Exactly.
Everyone also needs to remember SC2 is also a sequel of SC, and that RTSes can only deviate so much from it without being a total piece of modern shit. And also remember that your hypothetical "alternative macro tasks" are completely unfleshed out and basically non-existent.
On September 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote: Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
Exactly.
Everyone also needs to remember SC2 is also a sequel of SC, and that RTSes can only deviate so much from it without being a total piece of modern shit. And also remember that your hypothetical "alternative macro tasks" are completely unfleshed out and basically non-existent.
Everyone also need to remember that sequels usually come with the UI enhancements that is proper for its time of release, while keeping the same theme of gameplay as its preceder.
If the game doesnt noone will like it since the fans of the old titel will hate it since it deviates from the old titel, and new players will hate the lack of proper UI.
On September 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote: Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
Exactly.
Everyone also needs to remember SC2 is also a sequel of SC, and that RTSes can only deviate so much from it without being a total piece of modern shit. And also remember that your hypothetical "alternative macro tasks" are completely unfleshed out and basically non-existent.
Everyone also need to remember that sequels usually come with the UI enhancements that is proper for its time of release, while keeping the same theme of gameplay as its preceder.
Everyone also needs to remember that every single one of those RTSes and sequels have been POSes compared to SC.
On September 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote: Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
Exactly.
Everyone also needs to remember SC2 is also a sequel of SC, and that RTSes can only deviate so much from it without being a total piece of modern shit. And also remember that your hypothetical "alternative macro tasks" are completely unfleshed out and basically non-existent.
Everyone also need to remember that sequels usually come with the UI enhancements that is proper for its time of release, while keeping the same theme of gameplay as its preceder.
Everyone also needs to remember that every single one of those RTSes and sequels have been POSes compared to SC.
But you know: 1: Blizzard made starcraft. 2: Blizzard hasnt tried to recreate the gameplay of starcraft before, and noone else have the dedication to make a game as good as starcraft so all the starcraft clones failed and are now forgotten. 3: Since we only have starcraft wich plays like starcraft you cant point at any game as proof that its bad since none of them were made by blizzard as a starcraft game, warcraft 3 were made as a rpg/rts with small battles wich is why it plays like it does, it has nothing to do with the UI. 4: Now since we know that we cant know the effects of the UI changes, why shouldnt blizzard go with the option that gives the most sales and largest playerbase? Since we know for a fact that a lot more people will get turned off by the dated UI than hardcore fans wich for some reason wont buy it just beacuse of the UI improvements.
47 Reasons TA is better than Starcraft 1) Starcraft only has 84 units, over half of which are buildings and their add-ons! Total Annihilation has over 250.
2) In Starcraft, only 12 units can be in a group at once. Note that this was claimed to help "prevent rushing", not that it really does because you can just hotkey groups of units. Of course, Total Annihilation has no limit.
3) In Starcraft, a maximum of five units can be built at once by each building except Zerg, who can only build three and only at certain times. Total Annihilation has no limit.
4) In Starcraft, only nine commands can be given to one unit at once and you can't see what has been queued or in what order, nor can you undo any queued commands and the commands can only be spells or movement orders. In Total Annihilation there is no limit, and you are shown exactly what each unit will do and in what order and you can undo and redo any of the commands in any order.
5) In Starcraft, when a construction unit builds a structure, or a unit plant builds a unit, no other units can help construct, hence the build speed cannot be augmented in any way. In Total Annihilation, you can have as many units as you want help construct buildings and units to speed it up. (Note that even in WarCraft II, you could make an extra peon help build a structure.)
6) There are a limited number of resources on any given Starcraft map. Total Annihilation has no limit. However, when making a map, you can simulate the 'limited resources' concept by restricting all resource units (Solar Collectors, Metal Extractors etc.), and place lots of debris, rocks, and trees. That way you will have to reclaim them, much like in gathering your resources in Starcraft.
7) In Starcraft, you can select all units of the same type, but only on the screen, and only 12 of them. CTRL-Z in Total Annihilation selects all units of that type on the map.
8) Starcraft has no water units whatsoever. In Total Annihilation, you can build entire bases on or under the water!
9) In Starcraft, there is no way to reclaim the minerals of dead units, buildings, and incomplete buildings (not that there is any debris from buildings, of course, as it "magically disappears"). In Total Annihilation, all destroyed units and buildings leave behind scrap metal which can be extracted and reused. You can even extract the metal from operational units and buildings, friend or foe.
10) In Starcraft, all units see in a circular radius, with small line of sight restrictions from large mountains. In Total Annihilation, you can choose between circular line of sight as in Starcraft, permanent line of sight as in Command & Conquer or true line of sight, where units cannot see through walls or over cliffs.
11) In Starcraft, all units shoot in a circular radius, including through wall and over cliffs. The projectiles are not effected by elevation, wind, or gravity. Total Annihilation uses true physics to determine the path of projectiles.
12) In Starcraft, the only change in elevation is onto plateaus and bridges and such, but you're not really "above" anyone as far as the game is concerned. Total Annihilation has everything from small hills to huge mountains that affect the game dramatically.
13) You can not see the energy of a unit unless it is selected in Starcraft. In Total Annihilation, you can see the remaining armour of all units on the screen at once, or turn that off if you prefer more atmosphere.
14) In Starcraft, aircraft can not land. In Total Annihilation, not only do aircraft land, but some can do so underwater.
15) The music in Starcraft is all played on a synthesizer. The music in Total Annihilation is played by a real orchestra and if you prefer, you can put in different CDs and play anything you want.
16) In Starcraft, you can't deselect your selected unit ever, unless they die or go into a assimilator/extractor! In Total Annihilation, you can always deselect everything by right clicking.
17) Right clicking in Starcraft uses "smart commands," but left clicking only uses commands that have been selected. In Total Annihilation, left clicking uses "smart commands," unless you have a command selected. Then it uses that command. Right clicking deselects. Note that you can change the mouse settings in the options window in TA to mimic that of StarCraft.
18) In Starcraft, the only way to have a unit hold fire is to move him around or to ally with the enemy. In Total Annihilation, you can set units to hold fire, to return fire only, or to fire at will.
19) At a Starcraft unit constructing building, the only command you can give units built there is a rally point. In Total Annihilation, you can tell units where to go and set waypoints; you can have them hold fire, return fire, or fire at will; and you can have them hold position, maneuver, or roam at their destination. You can even set them to a patrol route before they exit the building!
20) StarCraft only has one construction unit. Total Annihilation has nine different construction units. Each of them can build different types of structures at varying speeds.
21) With the spawned version of Starcraft, you can only play a game hosted by the person with the CD that you used to install StarCraft. In Total Annihilation, with the spawn, you can play any multiplayer game, so long as the CDlayer ratio is at least 1:3.
22) With Starcraft online games, you have to play IPX simulated games on the internet, so you cannot use IP addresses. In Total Annihilation, you can be the server which cuts out the middle man and speeds up games, but if you want, you can always choose to play with simulated IPX.
23) In Starcraft, flying units do not fly; they hover. They are more like flying vehicles. All air units in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine the flight path, really bank, and do not stop in mid air like all flying units in Starcraft.
24) Projectiles in Starcraft always hit their target and do damage, whether it appears so or not. Projectiles in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine whether they hit or miss their targets and the damage is determined by how close the explosion was to the target.
25) Units in Starcraft cannot fire while moving. If you set them to, every unit in Total Annihilation will automatically aim and fire at enemy units in range, moving or not. This is great for hit and run missions or 'driveby shootings'.
26) Many weapons in Starcraft do not have projectiles. For example, there is a siege tank with its massive artillery shells and marines' gauss rifles that travel at infinite velocity, and then the explosion just appears on the target. Every weapon in Total Annihilation fires a projectile using a physics engine that determines how to hit the target.
27) In Starcraft the largest maps are 256x256. Total Annihilation has maps at least four times that size, for longer and more thought out strategies.
28) In Starcraft there are only two ways to get resources - mining minerals and vespene gas. In Total Annihilation there are several ways to get resources. You can reclaim plants and rocks, you can use metal extractors, metal makers, many different energy producers, and most units produce a bit of energy themselves.
29) In Starcraft if your hatchery/command center/nexus is destroyed, you keep your resources somehow, so that marine had better have deep pockets. In Total Annihilation your Commander stores all your metal and energy, so if he dies you lose most of your resources. You can also build metal and energy storage facilities so you can have a higher maximum resources capacity. Construction plants and several units also store resources.
30) Starcraft has crystals and vespene geysers growing out of the surface of space stations. Total Annihilation drills the metal out of the space station.
31) The Starcraft storyline in the manual states that the Protoss race teleport all their prebuilt buildings and warriors from the Aiur (The Protoss homeworld). However, when fighting a battle on Aiur, the Protoss gain no advantage whatsoever. In non-campaign maps TA does not include the homeworlds and therefore does not have to deal with this problem.
32) In Starcraft a marine can shoot a burrowed Zergling on the other side of a mountain wall past a barracks behind a tree underneath a Siege tank with pinpoint accuracy! In Total Annihilation you cannot.
33) In Starcraft, you cannot choose your colour. It is selected for you randomly. You are just as likely to get purple or yellow as something you want. In TA, you have a choice of ten different colours, including black.
34) Starcraft has no way at all to get new units/structures into the game, other than expansion sets, because the units are hard coded into the StarCraft engine. Total Annihilation's game engine was built specifically to load units found in the directory. When booting up the game it searches the directory and says "Oh a new unit, I'll just add him in here!" and you can then play with it normally. You can also download new units online that were posted at Cavedog's website weekly, and from many others.
35) Multiplayer lag in Starcraft is presented by the game momentarily pausing and commands being delayed by up to five seconds. Lag in Total Annihilation multiplayer simply slows the game down.
36) In Starcraft it's harder to control your units because of the unsatisfactory unit AI. For example, when trying to move a dragoon up stairs he will move jerkily up the stairs, and then decide to go back down and try to go onto the higher platform in a different way. You have to manually click for each step you want him to take. In Total Annihilation units go where you want, when you want, in the most efficient way possible most of the time.
37) In Starcraft when you initially set up the game to host, you can not change the settings when the game has been hosted. If you decide you want to play a different map, you have to completely rehost the game. IIn Total Annihilation you can change all of the settings (except for game name) while the game is being hosted, and then view the settings even while in the middle of the game.
38) In Starcraft if you want to restrict units from play, must build a custom scenario and disable the desired units for each player. In Total Annihilation, when hosting the game, meaning you can edit the unit restrictions with a few clicks you can limit the number of that unit available in the game at any time by one player, or completely prevent them from being used altogether. Other players in the game can also view the unit limits/restrictions.
39) In Starcraft all of the super weapons (nuclear missiles, psionic storms) are impossible to stop after they are casted/lauched. In Total Annihilation, you can build missile defense systems which fire anti-nukes and takes out the missile in mid air before it reaches your base. Note that the antinukes also take out other ICBMs and you can build mobile versions.
40) In Total Annihilation, most weapons as well as units are an object in the game, meaning that a Big Bertha could very well hit a bomber flying past or a nuke could hit a fighter flying overhead. In Starcraft, all weapons are mere graphical effects, and nothing like this can ever happen. 41) In SC a unit armed with more than one weapon (wraith, goliath, scout) cannot shoot both of them. In TA, units can have up to 3 weapons and can fire all at once.
42) Units do not decrease in spee when going up an incline, neither do they tilt or do anything neat.
43) Units in SC do not explode when they die. They have a pretty graphic placed on them, then they disappear, doing no damage to their surroundings. TA units can give off huge explosions, small explosions or normal explosions, all which send debris and unit pieces flying away, depending on the damage taken.
44) No radar in SC. All that you have to detect things with are LOS. TA has radars to detect units and sonar to actually SEE things underwater aswell as detecting.
45) No REALLY long range units. You cannot shell someone from a long distance (siegtanks come closest, but they really don't shoot that far). In the movies in SC they use artillery against a dragoon.
46) Units in SC cannot self destruct. If you don't want that bunker you have to attack it to destroy it. TA has selfdestruct.
47) TA has more lighting effects. When units get hit, their is light. When units explode there is light on other units. When units fire there is light. In SC the only light effects are when a unit fires, and when a nuke goes off.
List of mods for TA: Engines: Spring TA:3d Unreal Annihilation
Balancers: Uberhack Bugfix XTA TA Works project TA: Devolution TA: Reloaded Thunderball The Pack Warmonger Evolva Models Absolute Annihilation CornCobMan's Mod TA 4.0
TCs: Armoured Typhoon Command and Conquer TA TA Mech wars Axis and Allies TA/Spring Warhammer 40,000 TA Gundam Annihilation Dune TA Operation Barbarossa World Domination Operation Polaris WW2 Reborn Star Wars TA Final Frontier Dark Suns Independance War War at sea Opherium 3 TA: Battle for paradise Total Battletech Epic: Spring Imperial Authority Rock Paper Scissors TA: Method of Desctruction TAAW LOTR: TA Battletanx TA
Races: TLL Talon Rumad Rhyoss TJT Mynn Xect AC/DC Argon Aquarians BioHazard Rogue TA-AK UN The Nafilen Addon
Unit Packs/Addons: Aftermath design Unit pack MAGMA Pack Micro Pack Raven TA UTASP TAUCP TAUIP Ultimate War Seal Pack GMTA UDG 40 Spider Pack Aerial Assault Force Emergency Pack Starship Pack
Total number of Mods: 72 TA has over 5000 single downloadable 3rd party units.
List of mods for Starcraft Action Starcraft Aliens VS predator Aqueous Rift Brutkrieg's TC pack Fury of the Ancient Gundam Century Heidomus Kaladonmus NeoTech Open Rebellion Robotech SC Sickel Team fortress Star Trek Dominion War YoshiCraft Project Revolution StarCraft D6 StarWars Shadows of Vengeance NanoWar WormsCraft
Total number of Mods: 19 Don't know about single downloadable 3rd party units for SC.
TA Awards: Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998 Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer 1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot Best Music 1997, GameSpot 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award 1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998 Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, Adrenaline Vault Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain 1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews 1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com Game of the Year, Game Review Central Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998 Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998 Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998 Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany Gold Award, PC Action Germany Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK Platin Award, PC Power Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge Hands-On Award, PC GamePro Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play Star Player Award, Games Machine GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997 GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997 Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld
Total: 55
Starcraft Awards: Greatest Game of All Time - GameSpot Number-one selling PC Game of 1998 - PC Data Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Game of the Year -- Computer Gaming World Game of the Year -- European Consumer Trade Show Industry Award Game of the Year -- PC Powerplay Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Game of the Year -- PCFan Taiwan Gamer's Choice of Game of the Year. -- Chinese Edition of PC Gamer or PC Gamer (China) Hall of Fame -- Gamespy Strategy Game of the Year -- Computer Games Strategy Plus Strategy Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Real Time Strategy Game of The Year -- PC Gamer Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamespot Strategy Game of the Year -- Games Domain Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Real Time Strategy Game - Editor's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamecenter Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Best Real-Time Strategy Title -- PCFan Mulitplayer Game of The Year - 1999 Milia Awards Multiplayer Game of the Year -- Gamecenter Mulitplayer Game of The Year -- The Gamers Net Best Multiplayer Title -- PCFan Best New Multiplayer Online Game -- 1999 Codie Awards Best use of Online Multiplayer Gaming (Editor Award) -- HotGames.com Best Online Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Special Achievement Award - Best Story -- Gamespot Special Achievement Award - Best Multiplayer Game -- Gamespot Best use of Sound in a Computer Game (Reader Award) -- HotGames.com #1 Reader's Top 50 -- PC Gamer Best Depth -- PC Accelerator 5 out of 5 Stars Editor's Choice-- Computer Gaming World 5 out of 5 Gameworthy Rating -- C/NET Gamecenter 9.4 out of 10 -- Online Game Review 92% Editors Choice -- PC Gamer 4.5 out of 5 star rating - Computer games Strategy Plus 5 out of 5 star rating - Mac 3D Total Action 9.1 out of 10 rating -- Gamespot A+ -- Gameweek 4 out of 4 star rating - USA Today
That thread is made of so much stupid, you could knit a sock covering only half the toes with it.
There are two major reasons for why StarCraft did sell so well in spite of its shortcomings:
1) Blizzard is quite a large company and they could really push the game 2) It is pretty simple to learn and, yes, even master - ergo, it's more popular because people don't get their dicks chopped off like they would with a challenging game.
Ouch.
ha, StarCraft is a nice game but it lacks some HUGE thing, that is of course, Strategy (sold it after I finished the campaings).
On September 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote: Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
Exactly.
Everyone also needs to remember SC2 is also a sequel of SC, and that RTSes can only deviate so much from it without being a total piece of modern shit. And also remember that your hypothetical "alternative macro tasks" are completely unfleshed out and basically non-existent.
Everyone also need to remember that sequels usually come with the UI enhancements that is proper for its time of release, while keeping the same theme of gameplay as its preceder.
Everyone also needs to remember that every single one of those RTSes and sequels have been POSes compared to SC.
But you know: 1: Blizzard made starcraft. 2: Blizzard hasnt tried to recreate the gameplay of starcraft before, and noone else have the dedication to make a game as good as starcraft so all the starcraft clones failed and are now forgotten. 3: Since we only have starcraft wich plays like starcraft you cant point at any game as proof that its bad since none of them were made by blizzard as a starcraft game, warcraft 3 were made as a rpg/rts with small battles wich is why it plays like it does, it has nothing to do with the UI. 4: Now since we know that we cant know the effects of the UI changes, why shouldnt blizzard go with the option that gives the most sales and largest playerbase?
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 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote: Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
Exactly.
Everyone also needs to remember SC2 is also a sequel of SC, and that RTSes can only deviate so much from it without being a total piece of modern shit. And also remember that your hypothetical "alternative macro tasks" are completely unfleshed out and basically non-existent.
Everyone also need to remember that sequels usually come with the UI enhancements that is proper for its time of release, while keeping the same theme of gameplay as its preceder.
If the game doesnt noone will like it since the fans of the old titel will hate it since it deviates from the old titel, and new players will hate the lack of proper UI.
Proper UI ...
I like how you assume that it's proper UI when the most successful RTS game to date has not this UI, and all the other shits since 98 present it.
Maybe you think it's not correlated, as you seem to know shit about starcraft. Obviously it is. I'm 120 APM player so i'm not even trying to defend my case, but the success of starcraft and this 'outdated' UI are correlated.
Since when do you play the game ? What's your level ? What's your age ? All these information are precious to grasp your level of understanding on why it's such a good game. Your registration to the TL forums in july only to spread your shitty advices is annoying. SC2 doesn't need you. Actually, only the financial department of Blizzard may find you useful.
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.
You speak my heart, Fuu. Those questions need to be answered by a lot of people on these SC2 forums. I wish there is a option to see what percentage of a person's posts are on these forums.
On September 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote: Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
Exactly.
Everyone also needs to remember SC2 is also a sequel of SC, and that RTSes can only deviate so much from it without being a total piece of modern shit. And also remember that your hypothetical "alternative macro tasks" are completely unfleshed out and basically non-existent.
Everyone also need to remember that sequels usually come with the UI enhancements that is proper for its time of release, while keeping the same theme of gameplay as its preceder.
Everyone also needs to remember that every single one of those RTSes and sequels have been POSes compared to SC.
They were POSes because of terrible balance and terrible ideas, not because of a superior UI. Peaced
The UI is intimately associated with the game philosophy. The other games valued easy mass production, automated economy, and "big picture" game play. SC is about constant action and you playing the game yourself. That is reflected in the UI.
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.
OMG, it's a lost war.
For each post you take the time to write, there is a new registration + 1st post of someone like this genius T.T
I will be sticking to BW if SC2 isn't to my liking. It will kill me to see the community to flock over to SC2, but I guess I'll be like one of those diehard War2 players.
Its precisely the fear of that that I keep posting in this forum, even though it really annoys me.
I'm guessing most you blokes will stick to Project Revolution since so many of you are put off by new features in SC2.
I don't think you understand. Here at TeamLiquid we value quality posts that contain reason and evidence (or lots of funnies). And you're posting useless trash in one of the SC2 forums most debated topics.
On September 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote: Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
Exactly.
Everyone also needs to remember SC2 is also a sequel of SC, and that RTSes can only deviate so much from it without being a total piece of modern shit. And also remember that your hypothetical "alternative macro tasks" are completely unfleshed out and basically non-existent.
Everyone also need to remember that sequels usually come with the UI enhancements that is proper for its time of release, while keeping the same theme of gameplay as its preceder.
Everyone also needs to remember that every single one of those RTSes and sequels have been POSes compared to SC.
But you know: 1: Blizzard made starcraft. 2: Blizzard hasnt tried to recreate the gameplay of starcraft before, and noone else have the dedication to make a game as good as starcraft so all the starcraft clones failed and are now forgotten. 3: Since we only have starcraft wich plays like starcraft you cant point at any game as proof that its bad since none of them were made by blizzard as a starcraft game, warcraft 3 were made as a rpg/rts with small battles wich is why it plays like it does, it has nothing to do with the UI. 4: Now since we know that we cant know the effects of the UI changes, why shouldnt blizzard go with the option that gives the most sales and largest playerbase?
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.
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. 2) We are in unexplored territory, so we should just sit back and not change anything? Then why is Blizzard making SC2. They should just print a 2 on the old SC boxes, and rely on their name and brand recognition to sell itself. 3) There have been very good points (and some shitty ones) from BOTH sides, not just the veterans. 4) Refer to my OP. All pros were once noobs. Pros don't appear from thin air. Pros come naturally with a large enough noob fanbase.
I will also quote this post from earlier again.
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.
Seriously, Fuu, no side was ever going to win this war. Both are convinced they're right, and both will probably argue until well after SC2 comes out. I liked the first 7 or so pages of this thread, because they offered the best arguments from both sides about the subject. Personally, I think MBS is necessary for the financial success of SC2, which in turn is necessary for the esports/competitive success...
EDIT: Intelligence struck the thread as I was typing this. I apologize for my mostly useless rant/post =/
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.
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.
Warcraft 3 and Starcraft were both successes in their own rights. They're different. And you're saying you want to close the gap that made them different? What the fuck? Further UI improvements and focus on micro should go into Warcraft 4. Leave the macro in Starcraft 2.
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.
The focus on micro in war3 wasn't soley because macro was easier. Yes, I'll concede that easier macro was a large part of what forced the focus on micro, but other factors were involved. Expensive units with lots of HP was another large factor. Expensive units meant that losing one or two could change the whole course of the battle. Lots of HP meant microing the same 12 units back and forth to see who could gain the unit advantage. It's why we hear them speak about food count a lot more in W3 than SC...
SC is still going to be a fast paced game where the focus is who can micro low hp relatively cheap units while producing more units at the same time to keep up the advantage. This is where the old schoolers want SC to be the same. They want the "produce more units at the same time" to be the major focus of the game. I guess I'd like it to be this way too, but I see the potential differences that can be implemented with MBS (look through the MBS solutions thread, there are plenty of good, seemingly reasonable compromises) that doesn't dictate that the macro system must be the exact same as in SC1.
The new people... or the "trash" as some people seem to refer to them, seem to favor the other extreme, i.e. the mass building with one click. I find as I read more discussions about this that I disagree with this philosophy. It really does take focus away from macro, and I'm not completely buying the more-micro argument anymore.
On the other hand, I do think there can possibly be more macro actions (don't ask me what... I'm not creative enough), and I believe MBS can be implemented to satisfy a majority. Heck, if Blizz implements the tab idea or the repetitive pressing key idea, along with the shift-key idea, I'd be happy. As someone pointed out in one of the other threads, MBS should be balanced so that it's accessible to the newbs, but the old way is or can be better.
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.
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 10:40 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 10:35 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?
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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)
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.
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?
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.
I never said Macro limited the strategic depth of the game...I said that the limited UI limited it.
And as I said before, the poor UI cannot be considered the most critical aspect of the game because it can be replicated so easily by other games. Any game producer can produce a game that requires 200+APM to play a game properly. But will this game be any good or successful? I doubt it.
Starcraft's most critical aspect is differentiated races and balance. Not poor UI.
And you did imply you wanted to limit the fanbase.
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.
Keep it non-newb friendly? Using that logic, how the hell will the fanbase be expanded if new players find it way to hard to even play the game? Sorry, not everyone starts out as pros.
I'm wondering about the correlation between skill at SC and their stance on MBS. Does the fact that they're good at SC1 mean their opinions are automatically better on what they want for SC2? Why? Sure, they know SC1 better, and are thus more intricately linked with the game and what made it good. But, discounting other people's opinions because they are worse than them doesn't seem to make sense. The better players seem to like the competitive level the way it is and want the SC2 interface to be the same as SC1's for the sake of keeping things as close as they can, in hopes that everything remains the same.... This isn't a criticism of the anti-MBSers, but it seems like that those that are good at the game tend to be antiMBS, and I'm wondering why.
As someone pointed out earlier, if MBS is balanced correctly, the better players will still do things the hard way because it should be more efficient and better than doing it the easy way, just like queueing up units.
Ok I'm going to bring my thing about skill differences since it makes more sense in this thread than the other.
On September 10 2007 10:41 mahnini wrote: ...
Secondly, it's a huge problem, this just makes it worse for the new players to get acquainted to the game. If a mid-level player can 5z with MBS 25% of the time and the new player can only 5z 10% of the time he's just going to get run over. A new player would get crushed even harder.
Here's the way I see it, and I'm seeing this through your way just for the hell of it. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 There are many skill levels in SC but the gap between each is fairly low. The difference between 9 and 10 would be apparent but not too bad and the gap between 1 and 2 would be the same.
1-2-3-4-5 There are less skill levels in SC2 (with MBS) but the gap between each would be significantly larger. A player at skill level 1 would lose worse to a player at skill level 2 than in SC. While it does lower the gap between skill level 3 to 5.
So the improvement in SC is linear in terms of levels not time while the improvement in SC2 with MBS would be great at first but slowly become flat.
I don't know where this came from, random thoughts, carry on.
I've constructed a pictogram (fancy word I felt like using not knowing the exact definition because I'm too lazy to look it up): Blue = SC Red = SC2 with MBS
As you can see once a player learns how to take advantage of MBS the newer player will actually be more at a disadvantage than he would in SC. SC2 would also reach it's "highest" level much higher due to much less to do other than micro. So in essence in SC2 the difference between lowest and highest is smaller than it would be in SC. But the difference between sequential levels would be higher until about midpoint.
Blue is y = root of x Red is y = x^3 In terms of shape in case you can't tell due to my apparent parkinsons.
I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC.
On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote: I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC.
Even if you know how to use hotkeys and MBS after the campaign, it doesn't mean you're used to using it in a fast-paced competitive environment to its full potential. Until you reach it's full potential, of which there is one, you're going to get raped by everybody who has reached that potential. That problem doesn't happen in BW because players are not only limited by their habits, but their speed too.
On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote: I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC.
What a cop out. You would assume campaigns would teach players how to macro too but apparently not.
The average player that starts with SC has about 40apm (It was for me and for others I've seen play), I don't want to start an apm debate but 40apm is not enough to be able to micro and take full advantage of MBS.
Edit: nothing warrants SC2 to have a higher peak than SC that makes no sense. Being top of the game is being top of the game, I'm just saying SC has many more in between skill levels due to the amount of things that you must learn to do. The gap is bigger among lesser players, think about it, it makes sense.
On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: 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.
Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it.
On September 10 2007 11:35 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: Even if you know how to use hotkeys and MBS after the campaign, it doesn't mean you're used to using it in a fast-paced competitive environment to its full potential. Until you reach it's full potential, of which there is one, you're going to get raped by everybody who has reached that potential. That problem doesn't happen in BW because players are not only limited by their habits, but their speed too.
Actually, the problem is worse in BW, since it's much harder to learn how to use the hotkeys (awkwardly-spaced, most people's non-dominant hand, lack of dexterity in the pinky and ring fingers) as fast as most competitive SC players (who are pretty much 99% of melee players nowadays). Therefore, there's a much longer period of rapage.
On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote: I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC.
How would sc2 reach a higher skill gap with all this skill based material out of the game? Your talking as if progamers can't even execute brilliant strategies becuase they're too busy spamming hotkeys. They can do both, that is the beauty of starcraft which separates this game from the piles of unsucessful esport failures we call 'other rts games.'
Are you turning down my 1:1 offer? If your knowledge of this game is so good that you can assert all this about the future of esports you should be willing to show your own skill in this game. You can pick the map.
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?
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.
I never said Macro limited the strategic depth of the game...I said that the limited UI limited it.
And as I said before, the poor UI cannot be considered the most critical aspect of the game because it can be replicated so easily by other games. Any game producer can produce a game that requires 200+APM to play a game properly. But will this game be any good or successful? I doubt it.
Starcraft's most critical aspect is differentiated races and balance. Not poor UI.
And you did imply you wanted to limit the fanbase.
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.
Keep it non-newb friendly? Using that logic, how the hell will the fanbase be expanded if new players find it way to hard to even play the game? Sorry, not everyone starts out as pros.
I don't want to limit the fanbase. I never said that, I never want that. I just want a game that is hard and not catering to people who expect to be a pro after one week.
SC2 should be something that develops over years like BW did and features like MBS will limit this. If the game is too easy people will abandon it once they realise it has limited gameplay and a lack of depth. If Blizzard are really serious, they need to make SC2 as hard as BW is to generate the competition that will be needed to keep it successful for a long time.
On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: 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.
Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it.
Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained.
On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote: I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC.
What a cop out. You would assume campaigns would teach players how to macro too but apparently not.
The average player that starts with SC has about 40apm (It was for me and for others I've seen play), I don't want to start an apm debate but 40apm is not enough to be able to micro and take full advantage of MBS.
That's not a cop out at all. MBS will be a feature of the UI that SC2 is built around. That's like saying it's difficult to learn how to select more than one unit at a time, so noobs will order units to attack one by one. Blizzard will make damn sure that they'll teach the player how to use it. Macro on the other hand is too broad to be taught. You learn it by experience.
How is 40 apm not enough to take advantage of MBS? I don't see your logic at all. That's like saying there's a minimum apm requirement to select your group of zealots at once.
a few quick points - game intensity / "tasks to juggle" can be increased by increasing game speed -- blizzcon speed wasn't max - agree with the points that there should be macro mistakes (be it idle scvs or forgetting pylons or whatever) and micro mistakes even by the best pros because the game demands too much. - agree that blizzard has already addressed noobification concerns somewhat with warp gates and tech addons, etc. - agree with the point that requiring frequent multitasking back to macro to spend $ or build supply/buildings/workers will keep the game almost as challenging (even without the other additions or increased speed), even if the actual clicking/spending process is faster - agree that the average player (aka super-noob) must be able to enjoy the game, and a non-artificially limited interface is important for this.
bravo OP and a few others for the discussion here.
Although Aphelion hasn't stated it quite so kindly, he's right. The ability to beat the campaign has never, and will never correlate with your multiplayer skill.
On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote: I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC.
What a cop out. You would assume campaigns would teach players how to macro too but apparently not.
The average player that starts with SC has about 40apm (It was for me and for others I've seen play), I don't want to start an apm debate but 40apm is not enough to be able to micro and take full advantage of MBS.
That's not a cop out at all. MBS will be a feature of the UI that SC2 is built around. That's like saying it's difficult to learn how to select more than one unit at a time, so noobs will order units to attack one by one. Blizzard will make damn sure that they'll teach the player how to use it. Macro on the other hand is too broad to be taught. You learn it by experience.
How is 40 apm not enough to take advantage of MBS? I don't see your logic at all. That's like saying there's a minimum apm requirement to select your group of zealots at once.
No, I'm saying that new players won't have the ability to multitask well enough to take full advantage of MBS. He won't know how to macro as well as the other guy who will be cranking out units much faster than he would be able to in SC. Also, it has the potential to turn new player games into a macro fest since the time invested in macroing has much higher output than time spent microing.
Not to mention it's easier and unit combos really won't matter too much at that level as long as you can overpower his macro. I'm talking D- to D level here.
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?
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.
I never said Macro limited the strategic depth of the game...I said that the limited UI limited it.
And as I said before, the poor UI cannot be considered the most critical aspect of the game because it can be replicated so easily by other games. Any game producer can produce a game that requires 200+APM to play a game properly. But will this game be any good or successful? I doubt it.
Starcraft's most critical aspect is differentiated races and balance. Not poor UI.
And you did imply you wanted to limit the fanbase.
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.
Keep it non-newb friendly? Using that logic, how the hell will the fanbase be expanded if new players find it way to hard to even play the game? Sorry, not everyone starts out as pros.
I don't want to limit the fanbase. I never said that, I never want that. I just want a game that is hard and not catering to people who expect to be a pro after one week.
Not having MBS implemented in SC will immediately limit the fanbase. Read earlier posts in this thread, many points were made there.
On September 10 2007 11:38 RowdierBob wrote: SC2 should be something that develops over years like BW did and features like MBS will limit this. If the game is too easy people will abandon it once they realise it has limited gameplay and a lack of depth. If Blizzard are really serious, they need to make SC2 as hard as BW is to generate the competition that will be needed to keep it successful for a long time.
Then focus on making it hard without implementing a feature that will turn off a major portion of the potential fanbase. Something like making warpgates very viable.
On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: 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.
Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it.
Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained.
Mate...Blizzard wants the average SC2 game to last 15-20 minutes. If someone can pull off 12+ gateways in that time, I'd like to see it. It would probably be a very small minority. It would be an unrealistic scenario.
On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: 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.
Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it.
Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained.
I think there's still an element of difficulty in the latter two, as you 1) have to remember how many gates/larvae/facts/etc. you have at your base, or you'll start queuing in one or more of them, and 2) have to make sure you can spam the key(s) as quick as you could select the buildings, without accidentally pressing too often. Regardless, I could easily add Aphelion's ctrl-click idea to any of the above options to select all the buildings of one type on the screen (but they remain unhotkeyable, like larvae), for use in the 7+ building phase, and then the interface is still streamlined with no effect on the decision.
Good point btw, I'll admit I was worried when you started your contribution by flaming everyone.
On September 10 2007 11:28 mahnini wrote: Ok I'm going to bring my thing about skill differences since it makes more sense in this thread than the other.
Secondly, it's a huge problem, this just makes it worse for the new players to get acquainted to the game. If a mid-level player can 5z with MBS 25% of the time and the new player can only 5z 10% of the time he's just going to get run over. A new player would get crushed even harder.
Here's the way I see it, and I'm seeing this through your way just for the hell of it. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 There are many skill levels in SC but the gap between each is fairly low. The difference between 9 and 10 would be apparent but not too bad and the gap between 1 and 2 would be the same.
1-2-3-4-5 There are less skill levels in SC2 (with MBS) but the gap between each would be significantly larger. A player at skill level 1 would lose worse to a player at skill level 2 than in SC. While it does lower the gap between skill level 3 to 5.
So the improvement in SC is linear in terms of levels not time while the improvement in SC2 with MBS would be great at first but slowly become flat.
I don't know where this came from, random thoughts, carry on.
I've constructed a pictogram (fancy word I felt like using not knowing the exact definition because I'm too lazy to look it up): Blue = SC Red = SC2 with MBS
As you can see once a player learns how to take advantage of MBS the newer player will actually be more at a disadvantage than he would in SC. SC2 would also reach it's "highest" level much higher due to much less to do other than micro. So in essence in SC2 the difference between lowest and highest is smaller than it would be in SC. But the difference between sequential levels would be higher until about midpoint.
Blue is y = root of x Red is y = x^3 In terms of shape in case you can't tell due to my apparent parkinsons.
x = arbitrary time btw :D
Disclaimer: random thoughts
good stuff, Mahnini, I was thinking of posting a graph too. although I don't see how that's y = x^3.
my graph would be more like:
with player skill along the x axis, and rewards/results in the game along the y-axis.
the flat part at the left is the learning curve, the flat part at the right is the asymptote.
the best part is when you're in the middle part of the curve, because you're being challenged, and when you improve a bit you can immediately see the results.
generally, a game should strive to keep the learning curve small (on the left side), and ensure that nobody (or only a very very few) will be in the asymptote at the right.
to me, wc3 is definitely a case where it was too easy to get to the right side of that curve -- "almost perfection". at that point, it's kind of boring, and random noise like creep-jacking luck plays too much of a factor.
edit: i forgot to add the bit on topic. if you added MBS/AM to original SC then it might push too many people up to near perfection, but this is a new game. blizzard can easily add other things to do, increase the speed, have units whose effectiveness varies wildly with skill (like HTs, mutas and marines), etc. to make the game require more skill and be more rewarding.
On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: 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.
Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it.
Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained.
Mate...Blizzard wants the average SC2 game to last 15-20 minutes. If someone can pull off 12+ gateways in that time, I'd like to see it. It would probably be a very small minority. It would be an unrealistic scenario.
On September 10 2007 11:53 RowdierBob wrote: I think the best solution is making it available in regular games if people want it, but disabling it for ladder games.
That way the newbs can have their MBS fastest map mega macro battles and the rest of us can have a game with real competition.
Not to be rude, but I'd suggest you read the entire thread before reviving arguments that have already been thoroughly covered. Having to reiterate the same thing several times for new contributors is causing much of the tension and inflamed tempers in this thread, which is detracting from what I feel is some good discussion going on.
On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote: I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC.
What a cop out. You would assume campaigns would teach players how to macro too but apparently not.
The average player that starts with SC has about 40apm (It was for me and for others I've seen play), I don't want to start an apm debate but 40apm is not enough to be able to micro and take full advantage of MBS.
That's not a cop out at all. MBS will be a feature of the UI that SC2 is built around. That's like saying it's difficult to learn how to select more than one unit at a time, so noobs will order units to attack one by one. Blizzard will make damn sure that they'll teach the player how to use it. Macro on the other hand is too broad to be taught. You learn it by experience.
How is 40 apm not enough to take advantage of MBS? I don't see your logic at all. That's like saying there's a minimum apm requirement to select your group of zealots at once.
No, I'm saying that new players won't have the ability to multitask well enough to take full advantage of MBS. He won't know how to macro as well as the other guy who will be cranking out units much faster than he would be able to in SC. Also, it has the potential to turn new player games into a macro fest since the time invested in macroing has much higher output than time spent microing.
Not to mention it's easier and unit combos really won't matter too much at that level as long as you can overpower his macro. I'm talking D- to D level here.
Ah, I think I misunderstood your point before. There was no clarification to what "taking advantage of MBS" meant. You make a good case here.
However, there is a difference. Those people who are just learning to take advantage of MBS will not blame their losses on the UI, so they can only blame themselves and not the game. They will gradually learn (while climbing the ladder) and jump the gap. No one will complain that "omg, the other player cheated by using MBS". If MBS is not in, there will be a TON of people who will scream at Blizzard "wtf, that guy is only better than me because he can click through buildings faster than me?" and become frustrated with the GAME, not himself.
On September 10 2007 11:53 RowdierBob wrote: I think the best solution is making it available in regular games if people want it, but disabling it for ladder games.
That wont work at all, the official ladder will be played by noobs wich is a huge part of wc3's success, since theres so many playing at different skill levels. If there are easier ways to play than the ladder then the ladder will become smaller than otherwise wich is always a bad thing.
Just look at starcraft, it gave people the option to play moneymaps and then most noobs just play it and never finds the competetive side of the game.
Then look at wc3, theres a ton of people playing the ladders there on ordinary maps with the real rules.
On September 10 2007 11:28 mahnini wrote: Ok I'm going to bring my thing about skill differences since it makes more sense in this thread than the other.
On September 10 2007 10:41 mahnini wrote: ...
Secondly, it's a huge problem, this just makes it worse for the new players to get acquainted to the game. If a mid-level player can 5z with MBS 25% of the time and the new player can only 5z 10% of the time he's just going to get run over. A new player would get crushed even harder.
Here's the way I see it, and I'm seeing this through your way just for the hell of it. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 There are many skill levels in SC but the gap between each is fairly low. The difference between 9 and 10 would be apparent but not too bad and the gap between 1 and 2 would be the same.
1-2-3-4-5 There are less skill levels in SC2 (with MBS) but the gap between each would be significantly larger. A player at skill level 1 would lose worse to a player at skill level 2 than in SC. While it does lower the gap between skill level 3 to 5.
So the improvement in SC is linear in terms of levels not time while the improvement in SC2 with MBS would be great at first but slowly become flat.
I don't know where this came from, random thoughts, carry on.
I've constructed a pictogram (fancy word I felt like using not knowing the exact definition because I'm too lazy to look it up): Blue = SC Red = SC2 with MBS
As you can see once a player learns how to take advantage of MBS the newer player will actually be more at a disadvantage than he would in SC. SC2 would also reach it's "highest" level much higher due to much less to do other than micro. So in essence in SC2 the difference between lowest and highest is smaller than it would be in SC. But the difference between sequential levels would be higher until about midpoint.
Blue is y = root of x Red is y = x^3 In terms of shape in case you can't tell due to my apparent parkinsons.
x = arbitrary time btw :D
Disclaimer: random thoughts
good stuff, Mahnini, I was thinking of posting a graph too. although I don't see how that's y = x^3.
my graph would be more like:
with player skill along the x axis, and rewards/results in the game along the y-axis.
the flat part at the left is the learning curve, the flat part at the right is the asymptote.
the best part is when you're in the middle part of the curve, because you're being challenged, and when you improve a bit you can immediately see the results.
generally, a game should strive to keep the learning curve small (on the left side), and ensure that nobody (or only a very very few) will be in the asymptote at the right.
to me, wc3 is definitely a case where it was too easy to get to the right side of that curve -- "almost perfection". at that point, it's kind of boring, and random noise like creep-jacking luck plays too much of a factor.
edit: i forgot to add the bit on topic. if you added MBS/AM to original SC then it might push too many people up to near perfection, but this is a new game. blizzard can easily add other things to do, increase the speed, have units whose effectiveness varies wildly with skill (like HTs, mutas and marines), etc. to make the game require more skill and be more rewarding.
Yeah, I just had y=x^3 in reference to shape. Edit: i realized how wrong i was, carry on.
The thing is when players in SC2 learn how to properly macro and micro their skill level will shoot up due to MBS making things a whole lot easier (again, think somewhere around D- to D in SC terms). In SC they would be limited in progression by speed and need to multitask back and forth between base and unit but as it stands now SC2 does not have that.
On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: 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.
Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it.
Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained.
Mate...Blizzard wants the average SC2 game to last 15-20 minutes. If someone can pull off 12+ gateways in that time, I'd like to see it. It would probably be a very small minority. It would be an unrealistic scenario.
Hahaha. So you can't play this game at all, and all your talk about APM etc was limited to what you absorbed off this forum.
On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: 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.
Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it.
Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained.
Mate...Blizzard wants the average SC2 game to last 15-20 minutes. If someone can pull off 12+ gateways in that time, I'd like to see it. It would probably be a very small minority. It would be an unrealistic scenario.
Uh..
That's hilarious.
You're hilarious.
Want a cookie?
To clarify, what i mean by this post is, it's really common to pass the 8 gate mark in PvT and PvZ by the 12-15 minute mark easily. If you don't believe me, play me, watch the rep, and see when I get my 8th constantly producing gate. Hell, even the 12th.
akast - the TL envoys to Blizzcon were hitting 200/200 in under 15 minutes every game, I hear.
Currently macro is too simple. That's not to say that MBS is bad - it's just that some part of macro needs to be made more complicated [preferably strategically]
if all else fails, a mechanical handicap would work as well.
edit: as for the gateways - as Spirit and Aph said already, 8 gates is quite few. It's common to see 12+, even 15+. [there's that fairly famous tempest game on luna with 15 gates and 200/200 by 11 minutes or so]
On September 10 2007 12:13 Aphelion wrote: 8 gate is kinda low actually. Its common to max out 200/200 in 13 min or so PvT, and 11 min is possible even. Thats at least 11-12 gates off 3 base.
That's assuming he goes 1rax cc with low pressure up until the timing push designed to kill right after protoss takes his second...
Akast would probably do a 2fac high pressure build because that's how earlier players tend to go. Thus, 8 gates is conservative guess.
On September 10 2007 12:09 Mora wrote: edit - i didn't read the whole thread, so i shoudln't bother contributing to the discussion.
Really, just skimming the first 5 or 6 pages are sufficient to get a grasp of it. I was just getting a little irritated of the same points being brought up again and again on both sides by people entering the debate. ^_^
On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote: I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC.
How would sc2 reach a higher skill gap with all this skill based material out of the game? Your talking as if progamers can't even execute brilliant strategies becuase they're too busy spamming hotkeys. They can do both, that is the beauty of starcraft which separates this game from the piles of unsucessful esport failures we call 'other rts games.'
Are you turning down my 1:1 offer? If your knowledge of this game is so good that you can assert all this about the future of esports you should be willing to show your own skill in this game. You can pick the map.
I already know that you are a better player than me. What are you trying to prove? It doesn't make your points more valid just because you can beat me, espcially since we're not discussing strategy here. I'll take up the challenge though. Tell me where to meet.
On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote: I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC.
How would sc2 reach a higher skill gap with all this skill based material out of the game? Your talking as if progamers can't even execute brilliant strategies becuase they're too busy spamming hotkeys. They can do both, that is the beauty of starcraft which separates this game from the piles of unsucessful esport failures we call 'other rts games.'
Are you turning down my 1:1 offer? If your knowledge of this game is so good that you can assert all this about the future of esports you should be willing to show your own skill in this game. You can pick the map.
I already know that you are a better player than me. What are you trying to prove? It doesn't make your points more valid just because you can beat me, espcially since we're not discussing strategy here. I'll take up the challenge though. Tell me where to meet.
He's trying to prove that you don't have the experience to understand the appeal of macro that keeps us vehemently against MBS.
On September 10 2007 12:14 Last Romantic wrote: akast - the TL envoys to Blizzcon were hitting 200/200 in under 15 minutes every game, I hear.
Currently macro is too simple. That's not to say that MBS is bad - it's just that some part of macro needs to be made more complicated [preferably strategically]
if all else fails, a mechanical handicap would work as well.
edit: as for the gateways - as Spirit and Aph said already, 8 gates is quite few. It's common to see 12+, even 15+. [there's that fairly famous tempest game on luna with 15 gates and 200/200 by 11 minutes or so]
That's interesting... I'm curious, what were your ideas for a more complex strategical macro? I've been trying to think, and I can't think of stuff.. But no one ever accused me of creativity.
On September 10 2007 12:55 Gandalf wrote: The 1v1 idea was pretty stupid. The thread was doing ok before that. It seems now like people are getting pissed.
Actually no, Nick wanted to gauge his skill level... I watched the first game, there was a pretty clear difference. Tasteless started showing orange some macro or keyboard tricks (or 'secrets' as he kept calling them), he was genuinely trying to help orange get better, although I don't think orange has a very receptive attitude about it, but meh, Nick tried at least...
Anyways, this thread is getting pretty useless, if nothing productive comes after another page I'll close it.
Ok, to start with, GREAT post by OP. This is the first time I think I've read a well worded pro-MBS argument.
I havn't read the entire thread just yet, but I would still like to bring up a point, if it hasnt been brought up yet.
Someone somewhere posted that zerg have a form of easy macro due to the fact that they could select multiple larva at a time, allowing them to build multiple units at a time. However this is not overpowered in starcraft due to the simple fact that you still must go back to your hatcheries to do so, And this is what I think the biggest problem is with MBS. Its not the fact that you can do the macro actions faster than you could before. Its the fact that you dont have to go back to your base to do so.
Tasteless once said in one of his commenties "If you were to watch these guys screens right now, you'd have an epileptic fit" Its true, progamers are jumping all over the place controlling everything. That I think is the major problem. With MBS and Automine, you only ever have to go back to your base to build more buildings. Apart from that you can sit back and watch your army the entire time. This takes away from the game a lot. I like the fact that in starcraft I have to manage all these different expansions and bases. And that I cannot do this at the same time as watching my army. Ive actually got to go to those expansions to make them do what I want them to do. I think a lot of the difficulty in starcraft is due to this fact that youve got to be constantly jumping around to different areas of the map to make sure that everything is going smoothly. Most of this will be lost if MBS and Automine are implemented, which I fear will make the game feel a lot less hectic and boring.
On September 10 2007 13:29 Fen wrote: Ok, to start with, GREAT post by OP. This is the first time I think I've read a well worded pro-MBS argument.
I havn't read the entire thread just yet, but I would still like to bring up a point, if it hasnt been brought up yet.
Someone somewhere posted that zerg have a form of easy macro due to the fact that they could select multiple larva at a time, allowing them to build multiple units at a time. However this is not overpowered in starcraft due to the simple fact that you still must go back to your hatcheries to do so, And this is what I think the biggest problem is with MBS. Its not the fact that you can do the macro actions faster than you could before. Its the fact that you dont have to go back to your base to do so.
Tasteless once said in one of his commenties "If you were to watch these guys screens right now, you'd have an epileptic fit" Its true, progamers are jumping all over the place controlling everything. That I think is the major problem. With MBS and Automine, you only ever have to go back to your base to build more buildings. Apart from that you can sit back and watch your army the entire time. This takes away from the game a lot. I like the fact that in starcraft I have to manage all these different expansions and bases. And that I cannot do this at the same time as watching my army. Ive actually got to go to those expansions to make them do what I want them to do. I think a lot of the difficulty in starcraft is due to this fact that youve got to be constantly jumping around to different areas of the map to make sure that everything is going smoothly. Most of this will be lost if MBS and Automine are implemented, which I fear will make the game feel a lot less hectic and boring.
On September 10 2007 13:29 Fen wrote: Ok, to start with, GREAT post by OP. This is the first time I think I've read a well worded pro-MBS argument.
I havn't read the entire thread just yet, but I would still like to bring up a point, if it hasnt been brought up yet.
Someone somewhere posted that zerg have a form of easy macro due to the fact that they could select multiple larva at a time, allowing them to build multiple units at a time. However this is not overpowered in starcraft due to the simple fact that you still must go back to your hatcheries to do so, And this is what I think the biggest problem is with MBS. Its not the fact that you can do the macro actions faster than you could before. Its the fact that you dont have to go back to your base to do so.
Tasteless once said in one of his commenties "If you were to watch these guys screens right now, you'd have an epileptic fit" Its true, progamers are jumping all over the place controlling everything. That I think is the major problem. With MBS and Automine, you only ever have to go back to your base to build more buildings. Apart from that you can sit back and watch your army the entire time. This takes away from the game a lot. I like the fact that in starcraft I have to manage all these different expansions and bases. And that I cannot do this at the same time as watching my army. Ive actually got to go to those expansions to make them do what I want them to do. I think a lot of the difficulty in starcraft is due to this fact that youve got to be constantly jumping around to different areas of the map to make sure that everything is going smoothly. Most of this will be lost if MBS and Automine are implemented, which I fear will make the game feel a lot less hectic and boring.
It's been brought up.
OK sorry, dont have time to read through 12 pages of posts.
On September 10 2007 13:29 Fen wrote: Ok, to start with, GREAT post by OP. This is the first time I think I've read a well worded pro-MBS argument.
I havn't read the entire thread just yet, but I would still like to bring up a point, if it hasnt been brought up yet.
Someone somewhere posted that zerg have a form of easy macro due to the fact that they could select multiple larva at a time, allowing them to build multiple units at a time. However this is not overpowered in starcraft due to the simple fact that you still must go back to your hatcheries to do so, And this is what I think the biggest problem is with MBS. Its not the fact that you can do the macro actions faster than you could before. Its the fact that you dont have to go back to your base to do so.
Tasteless once said in one of his commenties "If you were to watch these guys screens right now, you'd have an epileptic fit" Its true, progamers are jumping all over the place controlling everything. That I think is the major problem. With MBS and Automine, you only ever have to go back to your base to build more buildings. Apart from that you can sit back and watch your army the entire time. This takes away from the game a lot. I like the fact that in starcraft I have to manage all these different expansions and bases. And that I cannot do this at the same time as watching my army. Ive actually got to go to those expansions to make them do what I want them to do. I think a lot of the difficulty in starcraft is due to this fact that youve got to be constantly jumping around to different areas of the map to make sure that everything is going smoothly. Most of this will be lost if MBS and Automine are implemented, which I fear will make the game feel a lot less hectic and boring.
It's been brought up.
Yeah, but not as thoroughly explained as Fen's post is, which I think is helpful. Most anti-MBSers just say "the macro is crucial to the game's competitiveness!" or "the game is too slow and boring without macro!" without explaining that it's mostly not the '4z5z6z7z8z9z0z' part they're really referring to, it's the going back to the base multitasking part. That's a crucial point in understanding both sides' arguments.
He does indeed know how to play starcraft, his openers are the standard ones a player uses on the maps he choose. However, i did manage to find out that orangedude was unawear of the correct finger usage of keyboard combos. This probably explains why he felt the macro combos to be too difficult and a waist of time.
correct combos for protoss: 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d = pinky on 'd' ring on '4' middle finger on '5' index on 6 and up. 0p9p = index on 'p' middle on '0' and ring on '9'
remember good positions for making buildings fast:
bp[shift] = pinky on 'b' and index on 'p' use thumb on 'shift' so you can send your probe back to minerals fast. You will probably need the right windows key missing to pull this one off.
If you don't know shortcuts like these, macroing can be VERY difficult. (with customizable hotkeys you can make an easier hotkey setup so you wont struggle as much with this)
Orangedude's argument to get rid of the macro combos is as illogical as someone arguing that we should have PSI storm auto casted because 'clicking' the storm button can never work fast enough to utilize the ability. All someone has to do is show them to put their index over the 't' key and suddenly that player can storm with speed and precision he would never have dreamed of before.
I do respect your arguments, but i believe if you haven't learned how to shift your hand over the keyboard, you are arguing against a feature of starcraft you know nothing about. And that is one feature that made this game beautiful and intense. Lets let it carry over into competitive play.
Ok, so Tasteless showed me some of his keyboard tricks (moving hands all around the keyboard and using pinky fingers for production). He obviously knows the most efficient way to macro early on, and this makes the game a lot more enjoyable for him to play. I respect his opinion on this and I can see why he wants to keep MBS in.
But does that mean everyone else is playing it "wrong" though? And Teletubby, why would you close this thread? Just because nothing's productive atm, doesn't mean nothing will be.
The t for storm thing is different though, because it was intended to be in the game by Blizzard. Hotkeys were always part of the game and can be customized to suit your needs. The way you place your fingers though isn't so much a feature, but personal preference and is completely up to the player to decide. Some ways are obviously better than others.
On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote: I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC.
and with mbs and automining, how will there be a higher gap between the pros? with everyone being able to macro easily in the midst of battle, wouldnt that lower the gap between all pros? i dont see your line of logic when dumbing down the macro aspect of the game, explain please.
On September 10 2007 13:52 orangedude wrote: Ok, so Tasteless showed me some of his keyboard tricks (moving hands all around the keyboard and using pinky fingers for production). He obviously knows the most efficient way to macro early on, and this makes the game a lot more enjoyable for him to play. I can see why he wants MBS in.
Does that mean everyone else is playing it "wrong" though? And Teletubby, why would you close this thread? Just because nothing's productive atm, doesn't mean nothing will be.
I'm not making a 'Starcraft Intelligent design argument.' If i thought starcraft players were playing the game 'wrong' and there was actually something 'wrong' with that, i would be trashing on bgh players and ums players. I'm not. But there is something 'wrong' with telling a bunch of competitive starcraft players that their ladder and tournament games should have MBS forced upon them because a whole bunch of other players never learned all the techniques.
If you want to be the best and you want to play competitively, there is something "wrong" with not utilizing the keyboard since your probably spending 10x the energy on tasks that could be completed without even looking at the screen.
I suggest we make the new players learn what the old already did (and will probably be easier to learn with customizable hotkeys). The players who know this technique enjoy the game more for it. So why take this away?
On September 10 2007 13:52 orangedude wrote: Ok, so Tasteless showed me some of his keyboard tricks (moving hands all around the keyboard and using pinky fingers for production). He obviously knows the most efficient way to macro early on, and this makes the game a lot more enjoyable for him to play. I can see why he wants MBS in.
Does that mean everyone else is playing it "wrong" though? And Teletubby, why would you close this thread? Just because nothing's productive atm, doesn't mean nothing will be.
I'm not making a 'Starcraft Intelligent design argument.' If i thought starcraft players were playing the game 'wrong' and there was actually something 'wrong' with that, i would be trashing on bgh players and ums players. I'm not. But there is something 'wrong' with telling a bunch of competitive starcraft players that their ladder and tournament games should have MBS forced upon them because a whole bunch of other players never learned all the techniques.
If you want to be the best and you want to play competitively, there is something "wrong" with not utilizing the keyboard since your probably spending 10x the energy on tasks that could be completed without even looking at the screen.
I suggest we make the new players learn what the old already did (and will probably be easier to learn with customizable hotkeys). The players who know this technique enjoy the game more for it. So why take this away?
Because as aesthetically pleasing a technique as it is (I admit I do like watching it), it intuitively feels to new players like a barrier built into the interface, since the skill involved in dancing across the keyboard is incogruent with the other skills which require decision-making, and which come to mind when most people think of RTS games. How do I know this? Because of the "noobs" that have posted in this thread. Assuming that they are inexperienced with SC, their intuitions, especially since they are all so consistent, represent how the non-SC gamer will react to the SC interface being kept in SC2. And, as you've noted, most if not all of these intuitions are negative. Why does this matter? Because, as people familiar with TL, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that these "noobs" are interested in playing SC2 competitively. However, if they feel the game is placing an "artificial restriction" upon them, as many have stated, then only a very small percentage will actually play competitively long enough to be a part of the competitive community. And if this happens, you can kiss the possibility of professional SC2 outside of Asia goodbye, much less the long-term success of the SC2 competitive community. After all, can you name me one truly professional-level SC competition other than the WCG in the Americas or Europe?
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?
What exactly are they compensating with?
On September 09 2007 22:19 sc2rocks wrote: With MBS, you could focus on other important aspects of the game, such as MICRO.
There's already micro in the game, and one of the great charms of SC is that you have to choose between macro and micro constantly.
On September 09 2007 22:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
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.
Ok, I think you make good arguments and all but this post is just flat wrong:
This is what I'm most annoyed by:
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.
Ok, so if I'm playing vs Federer in tennis, and I KNOW what I should do, but I just can't fucking do it because I've played tennis a total of 5 times in my life, I should just blame my equipment? The game? The rules?
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.
That doesn't sound very fun to me, I like the physical aspect of the game. Better technique should be rewarded.
I know you probably don't want a game controlled completely through, say, voice commands or something, you still want micro etc, I just don't like the arguments you used in this post, even though I don't entirely disagree with what you are saying overall.
Nony:
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.
I quit when I start winning for too long, I play 20 hour sessions when I'm losing. 8[
Cuddly:
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.
I think MBS will, as I think you've already said yourself, help the mid-tier gamers more than the very top, which will lead to a smaller gap between truly great and good - and this is BAD.
A worse player can already beat a better player, reducing the areas in which you can differentiate good from bad is going to lead to smaller edges and more - at least short term - luck, I would think.
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.
Because you can go too far with improvements, I'm not 100% saying MBS is going too far I'm just saying that's why you can't use the argument that hey, SCs interface is easier than War2s, so obviously if we make SC2s interface even easier to use it will be better.
Also I would probably miss 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z..
Armies of Exigo tried to stay hardcore and they got slammed pretty hard for it.
IIRC AoE had MBS (did it have auto-mining when rallied? only played the beta briefly), I thought the main sources of criticism were that it was basically 'just another WC3/Starcraft'.
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.
But if macro becomes easy to the point where you never have to sacrifice either macro or micro in favour of the other then there will be less room for skill differentiation no?
Or at least the impact (of differing skill levels) will be much smaller as I don't think the best players will benefit nearly as much.
Tada1
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. 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,
This is pretty much what I'm worried about, even though the scope/scale of SC2 will obviously make it much less likely to happen since there'll be so much more to SC2 macro even with MBS/AM.
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.
Only when we are dead!!! Serious response is obv. yes, although I'm pretty sure it will take a while (except for War3 players of course, they'll start at the same place as us).
On September 10 2007 13:52 orangedude wrote: Ok, so Tasteless showed me some of his keyboard tricks (moving hands all around the keyboard and using pinky fingers for production). He obviously knows the most efficient way to macro early on, and this makes the game a lot more enjoyable for him to play. I can see why he wants MBS in.
Does that mean everyone else is playing it "wrong" though? And Teletubby, why would you close this thread? Just because nothing's productive atm, doesn't mean nothing will be.
I'm not making a 'Starcraft Intelligent design argument.' If i thought starcraft players were playing the game 'wrong' and there was actually something 'wrong' with that, i would be trashing on bgh players and ums players. I'm not. But there is something 'wrong' with telling a bunch of competitive starcraft players that their ladder and tournament games should have MBS forced upon them because a whole bunch of other players never learned all the techniques.
If you want to be the best and you want to play competitively, there is something "wrong" with not utilizing the keyboard since your probably spending 10x the energy on tasks that could be completed without even looking at the screen.
I suggest we make the new players learn what the old already did (and will probably be easier to learn with customizable hotkeys). The players who know this technique enjoy the game more for it. So why take this away?
Because as aesthetically pleasing a technique as it is (I admit I do like watching it), it intuitively feels to new players like a barrier built into the interface, since the skill involved in dancing across the keyboard is incogruent with the other skills which require decision-making, and which come to mind when most people think of RTS games. How do I know this? Because of the "noobs" that have posted in this thread. Assuming that they are inexperienced with SC, their intuitions, especially since they are all so consistent, represent how the non-SC gamer will react to the SC interface being kept in SC2. And, as you've noted, most if not all of these intuitions are negative. Why does this matter? Because, as people familiar with TL, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that these "noobs" are interested in playing SC2 competitively. However, if they feel the game is placing an "artificial restriction" upon them, as many have stated, then only a very small percentage will actually play competitively long enough to be a part of the competitive community. And if this happens, you can kiss the possibility of professional SC2 outside of Asia goodbye, much less the long-term success of the SC2 competitive community. After all, can you name me one truly professional-level SC competition other than the WCG in the Americas or Europe?
1esu, this element to starcraft is a feature that completely separates this game from any other rts game that is popular today. I don't see why we would make this games sequal easier so that a bunch of newbs can compete with out learning all the tricks. They can learn like everyone else. Starcraft isn't as popular in major tournaments around the world because most tournaments wont sponsor games unless they have top of the line graphics. It has nothing to do with it's lack of mbs, if that's what your implying. Putting SC2 in the competitive scene with the original UI settings will only help it grow as a spectator sport. I can't believe you'd honestly think SC2 needs to have MBS in order to survive in esports when it's clearly been proven that, when given the chance, this game grows to extremely popular levels like it has in Korea. All it needs is some sexy graphics and some new cool units with THE SAME old interface to be successful. Then you have the looks AND the gameplay.
But alas, i'm too tired to argue about this any more. Now that i've proven i'm arguing with a bunch of people who have never bothered to learn hotkey combos i don't see any reason to discuss this. I'm sorry new players can't learn this quickly, there's a lot about sc you can't learn quickly, that's what makes this game good.
Blizzard can easily implement modes of play that will teach players how to hotkey together. I think most SC players start out being terrible at SC because it comes with a strategy guide jam packed with bullshit. Instead, the player has to learn on his or her own. And if anyone complains about this new setting, blizzard can proudly point out the korean pro scene and how SC2's gameplay must mimic the intensity that has been shown over there. If new players are still disgusted with this feature, i'm sure there are a dozen other rts games that will suit their needs.
Lets just make sure this game is putting the Starcraft players needs somewhat higher than the 'other rts gamer's needs. It was our game first right? I'm sure we can spread our love to the next generation.
Amen. I'm going to cease posting on this topic too, I don't think there's anything I can say that is better or with more authority than what Tasteless just said.
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.
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.
For whatever it's worth, the fact that it's impossible to maintain perfect macro when the going gets tough is part of what makes starcraft great.
I hope that, MBS or no MBS, in SC2 there'll still be that feeling of - I'm not sure what word to use - panic? Enjoyable panic when you are struggling to send your probes away, remake the pylons powering some of your gateways that were killed by that latest zergling drop and still make units from the rest of your 10 gates.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.
Good post.
When I try to imagine SC with MBS, TvZ is the matchup that would suffer the most as in most other matchups you need more of a mix of units whereas making 15 marines from your raxes at once is pretty standard in TvZ, but will be made much easier with MBS.
Luuh's suggestion - from .. earlier this thread? another thread? Who knows, too huge! Ayway, his suggestion to make it so that you have to click once per unit you want made is great I think.
4z5z6z7z8z9z0z will become 4zzzzzzzz or whatever, or 4zzzttt or 4mmmmmmmcf. Could have a little number showing which rax you are currently at, ie 12 raxes selected, now viewing rax 7/12.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
30% of your macro is spent clicking the 10 gateways? What is your APM, like 10?
This post reminded me of the 'micro/macro' stats in BWChart, and how I usually have more of my actions spent on micro than macro (60/40 or so) which is funny given how BW is always percieved to be such a macro dominant game.
Not really all that related to the post I quoted, just reminded me.
47 Reasons TA is better than Starcraft 1) Starcraft only has 84 units, over half of which are buildings and their add-ons! Total Annihilation has over 250.
2) In Starcraft, only 12 units can be in a group at once. Note that this was claimed to help "prevent rushing", not that it really does because you can just hotkey groups of units. Of course, Total Annihilation has no limit.
3) In Starcraft, a maximum of five units can be built at once by each building except Zerg, who can only build three and only at certain times. Total Annihilation has no limit.
4) In Starcraft, only nine commands can be given to one unit at once and you can't see what has been queued or in what order, nor can you undo any queued commands and the commands can only be spells or movement orders. In Total Annihilation there is no limit, and you are shown exactly what each unit will do and in what order and you can undo and redo any of the commands in any order.
5) In Starcraft, when a construction unit builds a structure, or a unit plant builds a unit, no other units can help construct, hence the build speed cannot be augmented in any way. In Total Annihilation, you can have as many units as you want help construct buildings and units to speed it up. (Note that even in WarCraft II, you could make an extra peon help build a structure.)
6) There are a limited number of resources on any given Starcraft map. Total Annihilation has no limit. However, when making a map, you can simulate the 'limited resources' concept by restricting all resource units (Solar Collectors, Metal Extractors etc.), and place lots of debris, rocks, and trees. That way you will have to reclaim them, much like in gathering your resources in Starcraft.
7) In Starcraft, you can select all units of the same type, but only on the screen, and only 12 of them. CTRL-Z in Total Annihilation selects all units of that type on the map.
8) Starcraft has no water units whatsoever. In Total Annihilation, you can build entire bases on or under the water!
9) In Starcraft, there is no way to reclaim the minerals of dead units, buildings, and incomplete buildings (not that there is any debris from buildings, of course, as it "magically disappears"). In Total Annihilation, all destroyed units and buildings leave behind scrap metal which can be extracted and reused. You can even extract the metal from operational units and buildings, friend or foe.
10) In Starcraft, all units see in a circular radius, with small line of sight restrictions from large mountains. In Total Annihilation, you can choose between circular line of sight as in Starcraft, permanent line of sight as in Command & Conquer or true line of sight, where units cannot see through walls or over cliffs.
11) In Starcraft, all units shoot in a circular radius, including through wall and over cliffs. The projectiles are not effected by elevation, wind, or gravity. Total Annihilation uses true physics to determine the path of projectiles.
12) In Starcraft, the only change in elevation is onto plateaus and bridges and such, but you're not really "above" anyone as far as the game is concerned. Total Annihilation has everything from small hills to huge mountains that affect the game dramatically.
13) You can not see the energy of a unit unless it is selected in Starcraft. In Total Annihilation, you can see the remaining armour of all units on the screen at once, or turn that off if you prefer more atmosphere.
14) In Starcraft, aircraft can not land. In Total Annihilation, not only do aircraft land, but some can do so underwater.
15) The music in Starcraft is all played on a synthesizer. The music in Total Annihilation is played by a real orchestra and if you prefer, you can put in different CDs and play anything you want.
16) In Starcraft, you can't deselect your selected unit ever, unless they die or go into a assimilator/extractor! In Total Annihilation, you can always deselect everything by right clicking.
17) Right clicking in Starcraft uses "smart commands," but left clicking only uses commands that have been selected. In Total Annihilation, left clicking uses "smart commands," unless you have a command selected. Then it uses that command. Right clicking deselects. Note that you can change the mouse settings in the options window in TA to mimic that of StarCraft.
18) In Starcraft, the only way to have a unit hold fire is to move him around or to ally with the enemy. In Total Annihilation, you can set units to hold fire, to return fire only, or to fire at will.
19) At a Starcraft unit constructing building, the only command you can give units built there is a rally point. In Total Annihilation, you can tell units where to go and set waypoints; you can have them hold fire, return fire, or fire at will; and you can have them hold position, maneuver, or roam at their destination. You can even set them to a patrol route before they exit the building!
20) StarCraft only has one construction unit. Total Annihilation has nine different construction units. Each of them can build different types of structures at varying speeds.
21) With the spawned version of Starcraft, you can only play a game hosted by the person with the CD that you used to install StarCraft. In Total Annihilation, with the spawn, you can play any multiplayer game, so long as the CDlayer ratio is at least 1:3.
22) With Starcraft online games, you have to play IPX simulated games on the internet, so you cannot use IP addresses. In Total Annihilation, you can be the server which cuts out the middle man and speeds up games, but if you want, you can always choose to play with simulated IPX.
23) In Starcraft, flying units do not fly; they hover. They are more like flying vehicles. All air units in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine the flight path, really bank, and do not stop in mid air like all flying units in Starcraft.
24) Projectiles in Starcraft always hit their target and do damage, whether it appears so or not. Projectiles in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine whether they hit or miss their targets and the damage is determined by how close the explosion was to the target.
25) Units in Starcraft cannot fire while moving. If you set them to, every unit in Total Annihilation will automatically aim and fire at enemy units in range, moving or not. This is great for hit and run missions or 'driveby shootings'.
26) Many weapons in Starcraft do not have projectiles. For example, there is a siege tank with its massive artillery shells and marines' gauss rifles that travel at infinite velocity, and then the explosion just appears on the target. Every weapon in Total Annihilation fires a projectile using a physics engine that determines how to hit the target.
27) In Starcraft the largest maps are 256x256. Total Annihilation has maps at least four times that size, for longer and more thought out strategies.
28) In Starcraft there are only two ways to get resources - mining minerals and vespene gas. In Total Annihilation there are several ways to get resources. You can reclaim plants and rocks, you can use metal extractors, metal makers, many different energy producers, and most units produce a bit of energy themselves.
29) In Starcraft if your hatchery/command center/nexus is destroyed, you keep your resources somehow, so that marine had better have deep pockets. In Total Annihilation your Commander stores all your metal and energy, so if he dies you lose most of your resources. You can also build metal and energy storage facilities so you can have a higher maximum resources capacity. Construction plants and several units also store resources.
30) Starcraft has crystals and vespene geysers growing out of the surface of space stations. Total Annihilation drills the metal out of the space station.
31) The Starcraft storyline in the manual states that the Protoss race teleport all their prebuilt buildings and warriors from the Aiur (The Protoss homeworld). However, when fighting a battle on Aiur, the Protoss gain no advantage whatsoever. In non-campaign maps TA does not include the homeworlds and therefore does not have to deal with this problem.
32) In Starcraft a marine can shoot a burrowed Zergling on the other side of a mountain wall past a barracks behind a tree underneath a Siege tank with pinpoint accuracy! In Total Annihilation you cannot.
33) In Starcraft, you cannot choose your colour. It is selected for you randomly. You are just as likely to get purple or yellow as something you want. In TA, you have a choice of ten different colours, including black.
34) Starcraft has no way at all to get new units/structures into the game, other than expansion sets, because the units are hard coded into the StarCraft engine. Total Annihilation's game engine was built specifically to load units found in the directory. When booting up the game it searches the directory and says "Oh a new unit, I'll just add him in here!" and you can then play with it normally. You can also download new units online that were posted at Cavedog's website weekly, and from many others.
35) Multiplayer lag in Starcraft is presented by the game momentarily pausing and commands being delayed by up to five seconds. Lag in Total Annihilation multiplayer simply slows the game down.
36) In Starcraft it's harder to control your units because of the unsatisfactory unit AI. For example, when trying to move a dragoon up stairs he will move jerkily up the stairs, and then decide to go back down and try to go onto the higher platform in a different way. You have to manually click for each step you want him to take. In Total Annihilation units go where you want, when you want, in the most efficient way possible most of the time.
37) In Starcraft when you initially set up the game to host, you can not change the settings when the game has been hosted. If you decide you want to play a different map, you have to completely rehost the game. IIn Total Annihilation you can change all of the settings (except for game name) while the game is being hosted, and then view the settings even while in the middle of the game.
38) In Starcraft if you want to restrict units from play, must build a custom scenario and disable the desired units for each player. In Total Annihilation, when hosting the game, meaning you can edit the unit restrictions with a few clicks you can limit the number of that unit available in the game at any time by one player, or completely prevent them from being used altogether. Other players in the game can also view the unit limits/restrictions.
39) In Starcraft all of the super weapons (nuclear missiles, psionic storms) are impossible to stop after they are casted/lauched. In Total Annihilation, you can build missile defense systems which fire anti-nukes and takes out the missile in mid air before it reaches your base. Note that the antinukes also take out other ICBMs and you can build mobile versions.
40) In Total Annihilation, most weapons as well as units are an object in the game, meaning that a Big Bertha could very well hit a bomber flying past or a nuke could hit a fighter flying overhead. In Starcraft, all weapons are mere graphical effects, and nothing like this can ever happen. 41) In SC a unit armed with more than one weapon (wraith, goliath, scout) cannot shoot both of them. In TA, units can have up to 3 weapons and can fire all at once.
42) Units do not decrease in spee when going up an incline, neither do they tilt or do anything neat.
43) Units in SC do not explode when they die. They have a pretty graphic placed on them, then they disappear, doing no damage to their surroundings. TA units can give off huge explosions, small explosions or normal explosions, all which send debris and unit pieces flying away, depending on the damage taken.
44) No radar in SC. All that you have to detect things with are LOS. TA has radars to detect units and sonar to actually SEE things underwater aswell as detecting.
45) No REALLY long range units. You cannot shell someone from a long distance (siegtanks come closest, but they really don't shoot that far). In the movies in SC they use artillery against a dragoon.
46) Units in SC cannot self destruct. If you don't want that bunker you have to attack it to destroy it. TA has selfdestruct.
47) TA has more lighting effects. When units get hit, their is light. When units explode there is light on other units. When units fire there is light. In SC the only light effects are when a unit fires, and when a nuke goes off.
List of mods for TA: Engines: Spring TA:3d Unreal Annihilation
Balancers: Uberhack Bugfix XTA TA Works project TA: Devolution TA: Reloaded Thunderball The Pack Warmonger Evolva Models Absolute Annihilation CornCobMan's Mod TA 4.0
TCs: Armoured Typhoon Command and Conquer TA TA Mech wars Axis and Allies TA/Spring Warhammer 40,000 TA Gundam Annihilation Dune TA Operation Barbarossa World Domination Operation Polaris WW2 Reborn Star Wars TA Final Frontier Dark Suns Independance War War at sea Opherium 3 TA: Battle for paradise Total Battletech Epic: Spring Imperial Authority Rock Paper Scissors TA: Method of Desctruction TAAW LOTR: TA Battletanx TA
Races: TLL Talon Rumad Rhyoss TJT Mynn Xect AC/DC Argon Aquarians BioHazard Rogue TA-AK UN The Nafilen Addon
Unit Packs/Addons: Aftermath design Unit pack MAGMA Pack Micro Pack Raven TA UTASP TAUCP TAUIP Ultimate War Seal Pack GMTA UDG 40 Spider Pack Aerial Assault Force Emergency Pack Starship Pack
Total number of Mods: 72 TA has over 5000 single downloadable 3rd party units.
List of mods for Starcraft Action Starcraft Aliens VS predator Aqueous Rift Brutkrieg's TC pack Fury of the Ancient Gundam Century Heidomus Kaladonmus NeoTech Open Rebellion Robotech SC Sickel Team fortress Star Trek Dominion War YoshiCraft Project Revolution StarCraft D6 StarWars Shadows of Vengeance NanoWar WormsCraft
Total number of Mods: 19 Don't know about single downloadable 3rd party units for SC.
TA Awards: Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998 Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer 1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot Best Music 1997, GameSpot 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards 1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award 1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998 Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, Adrenaline Vault Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain 1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews 1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com Game of the Year, Game Review Central Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998 Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998 Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998 Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany Gold Award, PC Action Germany Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK Platin Award, PC Power Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge Hands-On Award, PC GamePro Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play Star Player Award, Games Machine GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997 GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997 Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld
Total: 55
Starcraft Awards: Greatest Game of All Time - GameSpot Number-one selling PC Game of 1998 - PC Data Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Game of the Year -- Computer Gaming World Game of the Year -- European Consumer Trade Show Industry Award Game of the Year -- PC Powerplay Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Game of the Year -- PCFan Taiwan Gamer's Choice of Game of the Year. -- Chinese Edition of PC Gamer or PC Gamer (China) Hall of Fame -- Gamespy Strategy Game of the Year -- Computer Games Strategy Plus Strategy Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) Real Time Strategy Game of The Year -- PC Gamer Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamespot Strategy Game of the Year -- Games Domain Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamesmania Best Real Time Strategy Game - Editor's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamezilla Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamecenter Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Best Real-Time Strategy Title -- PCFan Mulitplayer Game of The Year - 1999 Milia Awards Multiplayer Game of the Year -- Gamecenter Mulitplayer Game of The Year -- The Gamers Net Best Multiplayer Title -- PCFan Best New Multiplayer Online Game -- 1999 Codie Awards Best use of Online Multiplayer Gaming (Editor Award) -- HotGames.com Best Online Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine Special Achievement Award - Best Story -- Gamespot Special Achievement Award - Best Multiplayer Game -- Gamespot Best use of Sound in a Computer Game (Reader Award) -- HotGames.com #1 Reader's Top 50 -- PC Gamer Best Depth -- PC Accelerator 5 out of 5 Stars Editor's Choice-- Computer Gaming World 5 out of 5 Gameworthy Rating -- C/NET Gamecenter 9.4 out of 10 -- Online Game Review 92% Editors Choice -- PC Gamer 4.5 out of 5 star rating - Computer games Strategy Plus 5 out of 5 star rating - Mac 3D Total Action 9.1 out of 10 rating -- Gamespot A+ -- Gameweek 4 out of 4 star rating - USA Today
I think I've read that list before so I won't read it again, but the first posts in the thread linked seemed respectful I'll just save my good humour and not read anymore of it..
That being said, I like TA, used to play it a ton when I was a kid and played a lot with Malmis a few months back, fun stuff despite me being pretty horrible at it
The interface in that game IS inferior to SC tho, I mean you can queue buildings and shit but the hotkeys are.. unusuable? You can't even center on your god damn units!! :D
My analogy fits this perfectly however, since wheelchair baseball use the same rules as normal baseball but with the limitations of wheelchairs. Same is sc2 using the same rules as starcraft but withouth the same UI limitations.
Klockan, this is bullshit. I can just as easily say that MBS is the equivalent of training wheels on a bike or some other handicap-tool.
DUCY? (Sorry I've been reading too much 2+2 so I had to write this at least once..)
All depends on what you view as the natural state/neutral gear.
On September 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote: Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it). SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.
Exactly.
Everyone also needs to remember SC2 is also a sequel of SC, and that RTSes can only deviate so much from it without being a total piece of modern shit. And also remember that your hypothetical "alternative macro tasks" are completely unfleshed out and basically non-existent.
Everyone also need to remember that sequels usually come with the UI enhancements that is proper for its time of release, while keeping the same theme of gameplay as its preceder.
Everyone also needs to remember that every single one of those RTSes and sequels have been POSes compared to SC.
But you know: 1: Blizzard made starcraft. 2: Blizzard hasnt tried to recreate the gameplay of starcraft before, and noone else have the dedication to make a game as good as starcraft so all the starcraft clones failed and are now forgotten. 3: Since we only have starcraft wich plays like starcraft you cant point at any game as proof that its bad since none of them were made by blizzard as a starcraft game, warcraft 3 were made as a rpg/rts with small battles wich is why it plays like it does, it has nothing to do with the UI. 4: Now since we know that we cant know the effects of the UI changes, why shouldnt blizzard go with the option that gives the most sales and largest playerbase? Since we know for a fact that a lot more people will get turned off by the dated UI than hardcore fans wich for some reason wont buy it just beacuse of the UI improvements.
IMO Armies of Exigo played like starcraft and could have succeeded if EA hadn't killed it by not advertising the game - AT ALL.
Although I never played it much it seemed veeeeery good (btw it did have MBS).
MBS and auto mine are not going to add anything to SC2. They will only dumb down the game to appease the masses of newbs who want to be a pro after 1 week of gaming.
I really don't see the point of putting negative features like these into a game for people who won't be good at it with or without MBS (they will marginally improve with MBS and auto-mine).
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.
I disagree, when we first started this debate months ago there were really no good ideas as far as compromises went (well ok, I liked my idea about using tab to cycle through buildings, and some others had the same one).
Now we have several good ones, most especially Luuh's (and was it orangedude or 1esu who also suggested it?) about having to click once per unit you want to produce, ie you select 12 raxes by clicking 5, then go mmmmmmcf and now you've produced a bunch of marines and medics (you could have a counter showing you what rax you are at, ie 7/12 or something).
Which is slicker than the current UI, is more precise than MBS and still is still going to add to the hectic feeling of playing an intense BW game.
On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: 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.
Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it.
Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained.
On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: 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.
Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it.
Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained.
Mate...Blizzard wants the average SC2 game to last 15-20 minutes. If someone can pull off 12+ gateways in that time, I'd like to see it. It would probably be a very small minority. It would be an unrealistic scenario.
Wow, I haven't read through the entire thread yet but I can picture the flames following this post
Sorry, but it's easy to have 12+ gates before 15 minutes, indeed it's almost the standard for PvT.
P.S I don't think I used my pinky for making dragoons before, clearly this is more effecient tho, although my ring finger is retarded so I don't think I'll be using that for the numbers any time soon :D!! (maybe I'll learn some day, but 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d with middle/index finger feels fine). This is directed at tasteless' post.
On September 10 2007 15:15 MyLostTemple wrote: 1esu, this element to starcraft is a feature that completely separates this game from any other rts game that is popular today. I don't see why we would make this games sequal easier so that a bunch of newbs can compete with out learning all the tricks. They can learn like everyone else. Starcraft isn't as popular in major tournaments around the world because most tournaments wont sponsor games unless they have top of the line graphics. It has nothing to do with it's lack of mbs, if that's what your implying. Putting SC2 in the competitive scene with the original UI settings will only help it grow as a spectator sport. I can't believe you'd honestly think SC2 needs to have MBS in order to survive in esports when it's clearly been proven that, when given the chance, this game grows to extremely popular levels like it has in Korea. All it needs is some sexy graphics and some new cool units with THE SAME old interface to be successful. Then you have the looks AND the gameplay.
You're being far too optimistic about this. I've been studying the e-sports industry as a whole for the past two years, because I'm interested in how it works. I can confidently say that SC's graphics aren't a factor in its exclusion from major e-sports tournaments; in fact, SC's isometric graphics make it prettier, clearer, and easier to follow than any e-sport I've seen over a streaming VOD (and that's in 640x480 resolution!), which should be a reason FOR including SC on the basis of graphics. I still hear from gamers and non-gamers alike that the graphics are nice, even 10 years after it's release. It's gameplay is unparalleled among games of its type, a clear model exists for how to broadcast it, and because of its iconic status there's less need to explain every little detail to the viewer for them to understand what's going on. The reason SC doesn't have an American or European market is simple; the e-sports industry thrives primarily on the competitive communities of the games they broadcast, and the SC competitive community in the Americas and Europe is too small to be worth the cost of producing professional SC tournaments or leagues (for verification on this, does anyone know what percentage of ICCUP is from non-asian countries?).
Therefore, the SC2 competitive community must grow significantly beyond the current SC community in order to get the American/European organizers' attention, and the only way it can do it is with new players, especially those who play other RTSs competitively. Unfortunately, they won't see the beauty involved in the keyboard dexterity required by the SC interface like you and I; they'll see an interface that hasn't adopted a single improvement made by the genre in the past decade, all for the benefit of the relative minority of SC elite who felt that the game was "unplayable" without the EXACT SAME interface. And naturally, they'll expect that the SC community wanted the same interface to let them dominate newcomers (regardless of the actual truth) and will hate Blizzard for letting them have their way. It's what I would think if I were them. So only a small minority of those potential competitive gamers will go through the intense frustration of catching up to 10 years worth of muscle memory training, and the SC2 competitive community will be too small in the long run to support an e-sport.
But what about Korea? If you look at the history of SC as an e-sport, you'll see that it was essentially a historical fluke that SC became as popular as it did. The government laid a broadband network across the whole nation, but personal computers were too expensive for most families; thus, PC baangs opened up all over the nation (again with the support of the government). For some reason, the young population of Korea began to go to PC baangs as a social activity. However, also due to the Korean government's actions, FPSs were banned from PC baangs due to their violent content, and many of the best games in those days were FPSs. Thus, there was a dearth of great gameplay in the baangs, and SC ended up filling the gap. Even then, it's potential as an e-sport wasn't realized until a producer for a Korean cartoon network decided it would be a neat idea to broadcast Bnet SC games. The ratings for that show were through the roof, and the producers saw the potential of SC broadcast as a sport in its own right; Korean professional SC was born. That is a lot of coincidental factors that came together to make SC into what it is now: the growth of PC baangs (and with it competitive play), the banning of the single genre that was most likely to compete with SC for gamers' attention, and the random idea to broadcast a show about other people playing a computer game. I'd rather try and limit the amount of luck necessary for SC2 to grow into an e-sport outside of Asia.
But alas, i'm too tired to argue about this any more. Now that i've proven i'm arguing with a bunch of people who have never bothered to learn hotkey combos i don't see any reason to discuss this. I'm sorry new players can't learn this quickly, there's a lot about sc you can't learn quickly, that's what makes this game good.
Lets just make sure this game is putting the Starcraft players needs somewhat higher than the 'other rts gamer's needs. It was our game first right? I'm sure we can spread our love to the next generation.
Tasteless, I respect you both as a seasoned SC gamer, and the best english SC announcer I've had the pleasure of listening to. And I understand where you're coming from, I really do. Unfortunately, in game design you have to be cruel sometimes, you can't let your love for SC cloud your judgement, as you've done time and time again in these two threads. You're asking Blizzard to violate one of the most basic principles of multiplayer game design: Don't make the game too difficult for new players to learn, and protect them from the more experienced players that will eviscerate them for pleasure if given the chance (not that all will, but the 10% that does tends to be the most committed). Any game that has violated this 'Protect the newbies' rule has seen its competitive community dwindle down to a fraction of the size that it was initially, and ironically its also this side that's the most vocal against change in any future products.
I'm personally neutral to MBS's inclusion; customizable hotkeys will let me handle the interface the way I'm most comfortable with anyways. However, I will never be persuaded that MBS should be tossed out before it can be extensively tested in a feature-complete closed beta, as opposed to the two or three days you and others from TL spent with an internal alpha. If once it's been extensively tested, it's determined that MBS (or any of the solutions we've come up with, which I suggest you take a look at) is bad for the game, I'll give you a public apology. But I'm not going to risk the long-term growth of the SC2 competitive community by letting you or any of the others so clearly blinded by your (well-placed) love for SC undermine what may be the single most crucial feature for that growth to occur. That's why I've been arguing for the pro-MBS side.
Good post 1esu but I do think graphics have/had a big part in SCs non-being as an e-sport outside korea.. When War3 was new, lots of money was suddenly pumped into the game from hardware type companies (at least I think so). True, the game is no longer really suitable to show off new hardware but isn't that how it started?
SCs community hasn't dwindled because the interface doesn't protect new players, the game is simply old and many people followed the money outside korea (ie went on to war3). China still has a sizeable SC scene tho (and war3 obviously), it's still thriving/evolving all these years after the release simply because there's money and a fanbase.
SC outside Asia had a fanbase but no money, the e-sports scene was pretty immature outside Korea at the time of War3's release, I'm almost certain the graphics played a big part in which game sponsors felt like investing money into.
Then there's the politics of BW/CPL (iirc the CPL head-honcho pretty much loathes BW).
A huge part of the warcraft 3 community are ex-SCers, I'm uncertain how they feel about MBS however, but between SC and War3 there's definitely enough players to support SC2.
You're being far too optimistic about this. I've been studying the e-sports industry as a whole for the past two years, because I'm interested in how it works. I can confidently say that SC's graphics aren't a factor in its exclusion from major e-sports tournaments; in fact, SC's isometric graphics make it prettier, clearer, and easier to follow than any e-sport I've seen over a streaming VOD (and that's in 640x480 resolution!), which should be a reason FOR including SC on the basis of graphics. I still hear from gamers and non-gamers alike that the graphics are nice, even 10 years after it's release. It's gameplay is unparalleled among games of its type, a clear model exists for how to broadcast it, and because of its iconic status there's less need to explain every little detail to the viewer for them to understand what's going on. The reason SC doesn't have an American or European market is simple; the e-sports industry thrives primarily on the competitive communities of the games they broadcast, and the SC competitive community in the Americas and Europe is too small to be worth the cost of producing professional SC tournaments or leagues
in the united states, hasn't sc consistently had a bigger wcg turnout than all other rts games?
#0 i am 100% agree with you. If MBS would not be included, press will flame it, and many new players would not play SC2 :/ But personnaly, if it would not change anything, i prefer a rts without Multi buildings selection :-) I just hope that SC2: -will need a lot of skill -will be balanced -will be fun -will be played a lot
1esu, I appreciate your concern and care for e-sports. But really, comparing the development and history of SC2 to other games simply isn't accurate. SC is the only e-sport that has really made it big (no I'm not including the cult following of CS as it isn't accepted the way SC is in korea). Your arguments above game design and protecting noobs must be viewed in the context that all the games developed with such an intention have been far inferior to SC. In fact, it is the whole philosophy of ignoring mechanics, reducing micromanagement, making the UI ever easier is precisely why newer RTSes have never been able to dethrone SC. SC2 must walk its own path, free from such preconceptions. It must be, first and foremost, a game great for professional gameplay, as it is the only game with the chance to fill in SC's footsteps. Anything else would be a major blow.
On September 10 2007 22:50 Aphelion wrote: 1esu, I appreciate your concern and care for e-sports. But really, comparing the development and history of SC2 to other games simply isn't accurate. SC is the only e-sport that has really made it big (no I'm not including the cult following of CS as it isn't accepted the way SC is in korea). Your arguments above game design and protecting noobs must be viewed in the context that all the games developed with such an intention have been far inferior to SC. In fact, it is the whole philosophy of ignoring mechanics, reducing micromanagement, making the UI ever easier is precisely why newer RTSes have never been able to dethrone SC. SC2 must walk its own path, free from such preconceptions. It must be, first and foremost, a game great for professional gameplay, as it is the only game with the chance to fill in SC's footsteps. Anything else would be a major blow.
On September 10 2007 22:50 Aphelion wrote: 1esu, I appreciate your concern and care for e-sports. But really, comparing the development and history of SC2 to other games simply isn't accurate. SC is the only e-sport that has really made it big (no I'm not including the cult following of CS as it isn't accepted the way SC is in korea). Your arguments above game design and protecting noobs must be viewed in the context that all the games developed with such an intention have been far inferior to SC. In fact, it is the whole philosophy of ignoring mechanics, reducing micromanagement, making the UI ever easier is precisely why newer RTSes have never been able to dethrone SC. SC2 must walk its own path, free from such preconceptions. It must be, first and foremost, a game great for professional gameplay, as it is the only game with the chance to fill in SC's footsteps. Anything else would be a major blow.
Your argument does not hold up. SC's succes in Korea was a fluke and in other countries CS was a much bigger game. Strategy games have allways improved on the UI (all games have but few games are so hard to controll), and no strategy game has ever been worse of because of it. I find it kind of funny that people who are against MBS hail the "sum of all parts" as what makes SC such a great game but blame the failure of all other strategy games on their limited UI only. Most of them weren't even intended to compete with SC and most of them did infact sell very well (and were quite fun to play too).
Either way this thread is infact over since some people have begun pulling the "STFU n00b" card. I'll just remind those posters that skill is a very minute part of game development and that they have the same experience in that as everyone else here.
Fortunatly UI improvments are one of the holy grails in RTS developments, and it's unlikely (nigh on impossible actually) that Blizzard would cut such a feature before running it through public beta.
Yes. Again, SC's success in progaming in Korea is attributed just to its harder interface. But if you ask progamers (I think Nal_Ra and Boxer said this in interviews), they'll just say that Starcraft was just the right game at the right time, so it might also have been another game instead that got so big there. After all, the South Korean population is quite video game crazy and there are televised and commented matches/tournaments for several crap games as well.
If the interface seems outdated and awkward by today's standard (SC's is), then it must be improved in a new game. Simple as that. The game itself must be rich enough to still overwhelm the players with tasks. If it's not, then the game sucks, but not because of the easy interface. It's Blizzard's responsibility to make the game competitive enough with MBS, and I'm confident that they will achieve it. They know the Starcraft progaming scene and know what players and pros want. Players want easier controls and pros just want to be constantly busy and a game that's impossible to master. Both will get what they want, I'm sure.
On September 11 2007 00:34 Brutalisk wrote: If the interface seems outdated and awkward by today's standard (SC's is), then it must be improved in a new game. Simple as that. The game itself must be rich enough to still overwhelm the players with tasks. If it's not, then the game sucks, but not because of the easy interface. It's Blizzard's responsibility to make the game competitive enough with MBS, and I'm confident that they will achieve it. They know the Starcraft progaming scene and know what players and pros want. Players want easier controls and pros just want to be constantly busy and a game that's impossible to master. Both will get what they want, I'm sure.
Wrong. Today's RTS standard fucking blows. The only standard SC2 needs to measure to is the standard set by SC. Otherwise you go down the same slippery slope and every other RTS goes down. Why not add unlimited selection? Or a UI that automatically sends every unit to attack move at a click of a button? Or a "continual probe production" button that can be toggled on and off globally? These are all INTERFACE IMPROVEMENTS. By your logic, there is no qualitative difference between adding MBS and those changes. They may be further on the scale, but the idea is the same.
The debate is not merely the argument about game mechanics and interface, its about the core philosophy of those games? Who are you catering to? What is the role of speed, APM, and multitasking? If the lack of manual dexterity and mental speed prevents a player from doing what he visualizes, should it be made easier for him to do so? If you feel as I feel, that SC2 is made first and foremost made for the competitive crowd following a professional circuit, and that mechanical training is a core part of such a game, not just a sideshow, a tedious task to be accomplished for the "strategy" - then you will agree that MBS should not be included in SC.
I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that.
Quoting karune here:
Will players be able to select multiple buildings simultaneously?
We are directing much attention to polishing and improving the user interface. On that note, players will definitely be able to select and build from multiple buildings at the same time. You cannot drag-select buildings, but you can shift-click on them and add them to a control-group for ease of unit production.
Will workers auto-gather resources if the rally point is set to a mineral node or a geyser?
Of course.
Will we be able to select more than 12 units at the same time?
Currently, unit selection is unlimited, but this may change with further development and testing.
As you see, MBS and autogather were defenitely in, no doubt at all in the answers. While at the same time you can see that the unit selection limit wasnt finalised wich is seen by the "It may change with further development and testing".
On September 10 2007 12:55 Gandalf wrote: The 1v1 idea was pretty stupid. The thread was doing ok before that. It seems now like people are getting pissed.
Actually no, Nick wanted to gauge his skill level... I watched the first game, there was a pretty clear difference. Tasteless started showing orange some macro or keyboard tricks (or 'secrets' as he kept calling them), he was genuinely trying to help orange get better, although I don't think orange has a very receptive attitude about it, but meh, Nick tried at least...
Anyways, this thread is getting pretty useless, if nothing productive comes after another page I'll close it.
I guess I misread the situation then, I felt tasteless was angry when he asked for a 1v1.
On September 11 2007 00:34 Brutalisk wrote: If the interface seems outdated and awkward by today's standard (SC's is), then it must be improved in a new game. Simple as that. The game itself must be rich enough to still overwhelm the players with tasks. If it's not, then the game sucks, but not because of the easy interface. It's Blizzard's responsibility to make the game competitive enough with MBS, and I'm confident that they will achieve it. They know the Starcraft progaming scene and know what players and pros want. Players want easier controls and pros just want to be constantly busy and a game that's impossible to master. Both will get what they want, I'm sure.
Wrong. Today's RTS standard fucking blows. The only standard SC2 needs to measure to is the standard set by SC. Otherwise you go down the same slippery slope and every other RTS goes down. Why not add unlimited selection? Or a UI that automatically sends every unit to attack move at a click of a button? Or a "continual probe production" button that can be toggled on and off globally? These are all INTERFACE IMPROVEMENTS. By your logic, there is no qualitative difference between adding MBS and those changes. They may be further on the scale, but the idea is the same.
@Unlimited selection: This should be in IMHO, although there's one good reason not to include it: you won't be able to see the health status of all units at the bottom of the screen when selecting too many. Immediately seeing how damaged your units are or how many have died from the group is important. But at least the selection limit should be increased, 12 is just too limiting, especially for zergling groups.
@Continous worker production button: This would not be an improvement as it would eliminate a very important aspect of macro. You must be able to decide whether to build workers or not, this is an important part of the game's macro, especially when playing Zerg. Having such a toggle button would mean: - good players won't use it at all because you need to decide that based on the situation, always - bad players who think it's an improvement leave it on all the time and become even worse players because they spend too many resources/time on workers when they need to shortly cut their production
The debate is not merely the argument about game mechanics and interface, its about the core philosophy of those games? Who are you catering to? What is the role of speed, APM, and multitasking? If the lack of manual dexterity and mental speed prevents a player from doing what he visualizes, should it be made easier for him to do so? If you feel as I feel, that SC2 is made first and foremost made for the competitive crowd following a professional circuit, and that mechanical training is a core part of such a game, not just a sideshow, a tedious task to be accomplished for the "strategy" - then you will agree that MBS should not be included in SC.
Every game is first and foremost made for the general crowd. If not, it wouldn't sell and die. Starcraft was made for the general public, too. It wasn't made for the hardcore WC2 players. It has a much easier interface than WC2. And despite all this (you are behaving like old hardcore WC2 players who flame SC for being a noob game) it is perfectly suited for competitive play due to its balance and tactical and strategical depth. It was already possible, so it can be possible with SC2 too. SBS is in no way necessary so that the game is competitive enough. You can make the gameplay rich enough so that players won't have to use 50-70% of their attention to tedious macro tasks because nothing else needs to be done.
On September 09 2007 10:33 CharlieMurphy wrote: Complicating other things in order to compensate for MBS is retarded imo.Thats just annoying. Just don't allow the MBS in the first place.
Why is it retarded to add more to the game? For example, going from warcraft 2 to starcraft, there were more units/abilities/buildings/etc. Which were allowed because there was a better interface and therefore more time to do different things. It didn't "complicate" the game, just added to it. What is fundamentally wrong with adding even more?
The only way I believe this could be solved is having a player choose the options before games (like game speed, game type, etc.)
I'm very strongly against this. I think everyone needs to play with the same interface. Thats just a basic, fundamental thing. I mean, balancing would literally change depending on whether MBS was on or off.
On September 11 2007 01:59 Klockan3 wrote: I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that.
Will players be able to select multiple buildings simultaneously?
We are directing much attention to polishing and improving the user interface. On that note, players will definitely be able to select and build from multiple buildings at the same time. You cannot drag-select buildings, but you can shift-click on them and add them to a control-group for ease of unit production.
Will workers auto-gather resources if the rally point is set to a mineral node or a geyser?
Of course.
Will we be able to select more than 12 units at the same time?
Currently, unit selection is unlimited, but this may change with further development and testing.
As you see, MBS and autogather were defenitely in, no doubt at all in the answers. While at the same time you can see that the unit selection limit wasnt finalised wich is seen by the "It may change with further development and testing".
You'll have to find someone better to quote than Karune. He's not exactly high up in the process of making SC2...
On September 11 2007 01:59 Klockan3 wrote: I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that.
Quoting karune here:
Will players be able to select multiple buildings simultaneously?
We are directing much attention to polishing and improving the user interface. On that note, players will definitely be able to select and build from multiple buildings at the same time. You cannot drag-select buildings, but you can shift-click on them and add them to a control-group for ease of unit production.
Will workers auto-gather resources if the rally point is set to a mineral node or a geyser?
Of course.
Will we be able to select more than 12 units at the same time?
Currently, unit selection is unlimited, but this may change with further development and testing.
As you see, MBS and autogather were defenitely in, no doubt at all in the answers. While at the same time you can see that the unit selection limit wasnt finalised wich is seen by the "It may change with further development and testing".
You'll have to find someone better to quote than Karune. He's not exactly high up in the process of making SC2...
Karune is the voice of Blizzard. Whether he has a say in making SCII (which he probably doesn't) is irrelevant. He gets the questions, catalogues them (I guess. What else does he get paid for?) and gives them over to dev team. The latter answer and send him back to the SC2 forum to report to the fanbase. Dismissing Karune's answers is pretty much equivalent to dismissing info on the SCII site - it may change, but that's where Bliz stands at the moment.
P.S. I didn't see people questioning Karune, when he said Firebats were back in...
If you've ever played WoW for a period of time and followed the blue posts (posts by Blizzard employees) for any period of time, then you'd know that they're far less than 100% reliable. And they've messed up on major game issues, not just minor ones.
On September 11 2007 02:57 NonY[rC] wrote: If you've ever played WoW for a period of time and followed the blue posts (posts by Blizzard employees) for any period of time, then you'd know that they're far less than 100% reliable. And they've messed up on major game issues, not just minor ones.
Thats different though, these are official stickied posts with specifically chosen questions.
I doubt that Karune just takes a bunch of questions and answers them with his limited knowledge, instead he must go through the dev team to see whats ok to say and what to say.
Notice that on all other questions he says that its open to change, on these matters its an 100% accurate answer wich is "YES", not "Yes, but we might change it" or "probably" or "It could use some tweaking" or "We arent sure yet" but just a pure affirmative of them having autogather and MBS in the game, if that werent the case Karune wouldnt be allowed to say it that clear.
Its not a random answer to a random post on the blizz forum, its the official Q&A, so there arent any slip ups here especially since he did specifically say that unlimited selection was up in the air while the others were defenitely in, making a big difference in how he said it. If he just said "You are able to select and produce from multiple buildings" then it would be another matter, but now he said "You will defenitely be able to select and produce from multiple buildings".
On September 09 2007 11:02 clizz wrote: I think that an important point is being missed here. Even the best starcraft players in the world do not play close to an optimal level. Not even close. At times, pros use control groups of up to 12 units. If they had the time, don't you think they would control each unit individually? MBS will free up some APM to do other, more interesting, things.
No, the thing YOU are missing is that making the game so easy that it's possible to play flawlessly is HORRIBLE for a game. Baseball would suck if every team had a batter that batted 1.000. Not only that, but that's simply not fun, individually controlling every single unit all the time: that's WC3, and it's slower paced. Starcraft is fun because you're constantly overwhelmed with things, and constantly jumping between macro and micro, while making decisions as to how to balance your time most efficiently. Not only is the game not as competitive when you don't have this trade off, it's simply not as fun.
The problem with War3 isn't that you can control individual units often. I think it's mostly the lack of being able to kill units, heroes being overly important, and the amount of running away.
In SC, when it's 8 or 10 zergling vs 2 marines and some SCVs, is it suddenly less fun? Even when you are moving individual marines and zerglings, it's still fast paced, exciting, and fun. When you are attacking drone lines with a shuttle, a goon, and a reaver, is it boring?
When it takes forever to kill units, and you can nearly always run away... then the game loses its fun to me.
Put this in starcraft terms, and once the game gets to mid-game, you are suddenly having to control large numbers of units and your bases. Nobody can do both perfectly in BW, and I just don't think MBS is going to make it so that 400 APM players are going to sit around twiddling their thumbs. Like I said before, it's just going to call for more exact play. More exact play means more demanding, and I think that means more skill needed (albeit, the focus is shifted a little from one area to another compared to the non-MBS BW).
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.
Yeah, if 5zzzz is put in, then there needs to be a 100% clear way to see what you are doing. As I think on it, I sort of like this method b/c it frees up more control hotkeys while still requiring some speed. Hmmm.
An interesting viewpoint for me was the casual gamer friend viewpoint: I was just talking to two of my casual SC gamer friends, and one said MBS is an absolute need in SC2 b/c UI getting in the way of strategy is bad. He was one who purposely avoided playing BW competitively b/c he was frustrated that he felt "rushed", so no surprise on his comment. The other thought about it and had the comment that building individually (non-MBS) allows more precision and was possibly better just for that one fact. But then he thought on it more and said the benefits of MBS outweigh the negatives for him.
Anyway, the OP has a point that new blood is necessary to keep SC2 going for a long time. I started playing SC when I was what... 24? It's obviously the younger generation that had the time to continue to play the game and keep it going for such a long time. Like it or not, the younger generation has to have enough fluff or whatever to get them into the game. But hopefully Blizzard can keep the game highly competitive despite any newb friendly features. Serious players may be upset if their skillset doesn't translate perfectly from SC/BW to SC2, but that is the nature of computer/video games and part of the fun... learning how to play again.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.
I tend to disagree with your main point, but I respect the argument. One of the things I think the difficult decision making (do I micro or macro now?) can cause is a lack of aggressiveness. Players would rather wait till that exact moment when it's most convenient to attack... which sometimes gives us long bouts of waiting. Some notable exceptions are the players who are really good and provide a good show but are inconsistent in wins... July, Boxer, Nal_Ra. They are obviously very good players, but I think their often aggressive and fancy tendencies gets them killed as often as not. With MBS, they can be as fancy as they want and not get as far behind on production.
Obviously MBS isn't the total answer... part of it is the fact that you sacrifice economy for a stronger early army or safety for quick tech or what have you. But I hope you see my point.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.
I tend to disagree with your main point, but I respect the argument. One of the things I think the difficult decision making (do I micro or macro now?) can cause is a lack of aggressiveness. Players would rather wait till that exact moment when it's most convenient to attack... which sometimes gives us long bouts of waiting. Some notable exceptions are the players who are really good and provide a good show but are inconsistent in wins... July, Boxer, Nal_Ra. They are obviously very good players, but I think their often aggressive and fancy tendencies gets them killed as often as not. With MBS, they can be as fancy as they want and not get as far behind on production.
Obviously MBS isn't the total answer... part of it is the fact that you sacrifice economy for a stronger early army or safety for quick tech or what have you. But I hope you see my point.
But now everyone can be as fancy as they want as there won't be a penalty for playing a micro or macro focused style, in terms of worse macro/micro.
Which is boring
Klockan3
I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that.
On September 10 2007 08:05 koryano321 wrote: -snip- but what im trying to say in this winded post is, all elements of sc make sc what it is today. it is an exciting part of competitive starcraft. for example, like when oov, nada, or hwasin is fighting a zerg, when you just saw the armies of lets say savior, the armies clash and all units or a majority are lost you are like wtf right? great battle control or some errors made on whoever's part. but then the camera goes to the newly created terran blob that whoever has managed to macro IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE, ready to move out for a second clash of might, do you not get excited? doesnt it put u in awe, you are like thinking, wow goddamn pros, no wonder they are the top of the top, in the midst of all that, you have another 50 marines/medic + army along with tanks and sci vessels already waiting to roll out. i want to be just like em. its -snip-
OK, you made me realize something. Units can fight on their own. Building facilities won't build jack unless you specifically tell them to. MBS is the locial answer to this without putting in something like infinite "free" queues or slowing down the game speed.
When you are in a situation where you need to micro and macro at the same time, it is more safe to macro if you are beyond early-game. This is whey you see players like OOV still win while throwing away gobs of units late game. He know his units will still fight and do OK even if he ignores them. While if you are a player that micros the hell out of the battle, you may win the battle with less losses, but your gateways didn't remember to build units in an "OK" fashion. Nope, your gateways weren't building anything "good enough" without you telling them to b/c you spent your money before the fight and couldn't queue up extra. You can't ever forget to build units... unless you are relying on larva. B/c without units, you can macro or micro.
I think it comes to this. Since you can't queue units unless you have money, but your units can fight, you are encouraged in BW once the game gets into several bases, is focus on microing as little as possible (micro when it will make a big difference but not a small difference) while building units "no matter what".
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.
I tend to disagree with your main point, but I respect the argument. One of the things I think the difficult decision making (do I micro or macro now?) can cause is a lack of aggressiveness. Players would rather wait till that exact moment when it's most convenient to attack... which sometimes gives us long bouts of waiting. Some notable exceptions are the players who are really good and provide a good show but are inconsistent in wins... July, Boxer, Nal_Ra. They are obviously very good players, but I think their often aggressive and fancy tendencies gets them killed as often as not. With MBS, they can be as fancy as they want and not get as far behind on production.
Obviously MBS isn't the total answer... part of it is the fact that you sacrifice economy for a stronger early army or safety for quick tech or what have you. But I hope you see my point.
But now everyone can be as fancy as they want as there won't be a penalty for playing a micro or macro focused style, in terms of worse macro/micro.
I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that.
They might modify it at least.
More fancy play is boring? Nah! Really, I think more fancy moves from more players will be cool if there are more options in the game... which is still one of my biggest worries (are we getting less options with easier to use units like the Colossus vs the Reaver+shuttle... or Mothership vs Corsair/arbiter?). I'm not totally pro-MBS, but more fancy stuff just sits better with me... as long as a fair bit of it is fairly hard to pull off/requires skill. I dunno... it's so hard to call how the game will be I tell myself every other day I should just avoid the MBS posts and wait for beta. Heh.
On September 10 2007 08:05 koryano321 wrote: -snip- but what im trying to say in this winded post is, all elements of sc make sc what it is today. it is an exciting part of competitive starcraft. for example, like when oov, nada, or hwasin is fighting a zerg, when you just saw the armies of lets say savior, the armies clash and all units or a majority are lost you are like wtf right? great battle control or some errors made on whoever's part. but then the camera goes to the newly created terran blob that whoever has managed to macro IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE, ready to move out for a second clash of might, do you not get excited? doesnt it put u in awe, you are like thinking, wow goddamn pros, no wonder they are the top of the top, in the midst of all that, you have another 50 marines/medic + army along with tanks and sci vessels already waiting to roll out. i want to be just like em. its -snip-
OK, you made me realize something. Units can fight on their own. Building facilities won't build jack unless you specifically tell them to. MBS is the locial answer to this without putting in something like infinite "free" queues or slowing down the game speed.
When you are in a situation where you need to micro and macro at the same time, it is more safe to macro if you are beyond early-game. This is whey you see players like OOV still win while throwing away gobs of units late game. He know his units will still fight and do OK even if he ignores them. While if you are a player that micros the hell out of the battle, you may win the battle with less losses, but your gateways didn't remember to build units in an "OK" fashion. Nope, your gateways weren't building anything "good enough" without you telling them to b/c you spent your money before the fight and couldn't queue up extra. You can't ever forget to build units... unless you are relying on larva. B/c without units, you can macro or micro.
I think it comes to this. Since you can't queue units unless you have money, but your units can fight, you are encouraged in BW once the game gets into several bases, is focus on microing as little as possible (micro when it will make a big difference but not a small difference) while building units "no matter what".
Is this fun to you? because i rather control my army instead of pressing ZZZZZZ or DDDDDDD while all my army gets slaughtered and it doesn't matter because i'll just keep pressing ZZZZ DDDDD is much more fun to micro the army this is a real time strategy game so controling your army should be everyone priority, putting focus on using spells maybe split army, trying to keep units alive, you can't do that in brood war because you are too busy macroing, but on sc2 is going to be completely different micro on long games is going to be much more important because you won't have to be in your base smashing ur keyboard on ur 20 gateways, But blizzard is so good that they add warp gates and add ons to make macro more dinamic.
Im pretty sure that thanks to MBS outmacroing the opponent won't be the cheap way to win that it is in midd lev of play, but you actually have to micro on long games like the korean pros that can do it because they reached a macro perfection, which won't be needed giving them a chance to improve strategy, things like Drop pods and Warp gates are going to increase multitasking because it is a nice way to send units in, all this argument about "not going back to your base to macro" is pointless because u'll have to go back to ur base but to micro, or u'll get pod droped or something else, plus good players spend their money almost instantly so if a noob wants to use his 2000 minerals in marines does he have to click every goddamn barrack? hell i bet he 'll get pissed if he have to, and you need this people to obs the pros, so the sponsors invest more on tournaments, but no tl forums rather go hardcore and keep the noobs away, good logic indeed.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.
I tend to disagree with your main point, but I respect the argument. One of the things I think the difficult decision making (do I micro or macro now?) can cause is a lack of aggressiveness. Players would rather wait till that exact moment when it's most convenient to attack... which sometimes gives us long bouts of waiting. Some notable exceptions are the players who are really good and provide a good show but are inconsistent in wins... July, Boxer, Nal_Ra. They are obviously very good players, but I think their often aggressive and fancy tendencies gets them killed as often as not. With MBS, they can be as fancy as they want and not get as far behind on production.
Obviously MBS isn't the total answer... part of it is the fact that you sacrifice economy for a stronger early army or safety for quick tech or what have you. But I hope you see my point.
But now everyone can be as fancy as they want as there won't be a penalty for playing a micro or macro focused style, in terms of worse macro/micro.
Which is boring
Klockan3
I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that.
They might modify it at least.
More fancy play is boring? Nah! Really, I think more fancy moves from more players will be cool if there are more options in the game... which is still one of my biggest worries (are we getting less options with easier to use units like the Colossus vs the Reaver+shuttle... or Mothership vs Corsair/arbiter?). I'm not totally pro-MBS, but more fancy stuff just sits better with me... as long as a fair bit of it is fairly hard to pull off/requires skill. I dunno... it's so hard to call how the game will be I tell myself every other day I should just avoid the MBS posts and wait for beta. Heh.
But the fancy stuff is only fancy if not everyone does it
On September 10 2007 08:05 koryano321 wrote: -snip- but what im trying to say in this winded post is, all elements of sc make sc what it is today. it is an exciting part of competitive starcraft. for example, like when oov, nada, or hwasin is fighting a zerg, when you just saw the armies of lets say savior, the armies clash and all units or a majority are lost you are like wtf right? great battle control or some errors made on whoever's part. but then the camera goes to the newly created terran blob that whoever has managed to macro IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE, ready to move out for a second clash of might, do you not get excited? doesnt it put u in awe, you are like thinking, wow goddamn pros, no wonder they are the top of the top, in the midst of all that, you have another 50 marines/medic + army along with tanks and sci vessels already waiting to roll out. i want to be just like em. its -snip-
OK, you made me realize something. Units can fight on their own. Building facilities won't build jack unless you specifically tell them to. MBS is the locial answer to this without putting in something like infinite "free" queues or slowing down the game speed.
When you are in a situation where you need to micro and macro at the same time, it is more safe to macro if you are beyond early-game. This is whey you see players like OOV still win while throwing away gobs of units late game. He know his units will still fight and do OK even if he ignores them. While if you are a player that micros the hell out of the battle, you may win the battle with less losses, but your gateways didn't remember to build units in an "OK" fashion. Nope, your gateways weren't building anything "good enough" without you telling them to b/c you spent your money before the fight and couldn't queue up extra. You can't ever forget to build units... unless you are relying on larva. B/c without units, you can macro or micro.
I think it comes to this. Since you can't queue units unless you have money, but your units can fight, you are encouraged in BW once the game gets into several bases, is focus on microing as little as possible (micro when it will make a big difference but not a small difference) while building units "no matter what".
I think you've just pretty much explained the point of us trying to keep MBS out. You are really exaggerating the amount of neglect the pros give their army, for example, oov doesn't throw away units.
Anyway, this is the point of keeping in MBS forcing a play, a decision. Oov knows his units will do ok from experience and so he makes the decision to take time away from his micro to macro instead. All the while a less experienced player would frantically and reflexively try to save his units.
On September 11 2007 05:09 aW]Nevermind wrote: Im pretty sure that thanks to MBS outmacroing the opponent won't be the cheap way to win that it is in midd lev of play, but you actually have to micro on long games like the korean pros that can do it because they reached a macro perfection, which won't be needed giving them a chance to improve strategy, things like Drop pods and Warp gates are going to increase multitasking because it is a nice way to send units in, all this argument about "not going back to your base to macro" is pointless because u'll have to go back to ur base but to micro, or u'll get pod droped or something else, plus good players spend their money almost instantly so if a noob wants to use his 2000 minerals in marines does he have to click every goddamn barrack? hell i bet he 'll get pissed if he have to, and you need this people to obs the pros, so the sponsors invest more on tournaments, but no tl forums rather go hardcore and keep the noobs away, good logic indeed.
Since when was outmacroing someone a "cheap" way to win? That's like someone in street fighter saying "you know how to throw fireballs and I don't, that's a cheap way for you to win" lmao.
Newbs won't be pissed if they have 2000 minerals. Newbs will be like "lol I'm saving my minerals so I can adapt to my opponent's strategy instantly". Back when I was dirt at this game I used to think that. Seriously, people who blow at the game don't start worrying about money piling up (and many of the specifics that high level players worry about) until they actually learn enough about the game, and at that point they stop being n00bs and start playing the game.
In the end, this argument is kinda like politics (in the US at least). Should we let the mob rule or should we let people who actually know how to rule be the rulers? Obviously the mob encompasses the people who are getting ruled, so they should at least have some say. But then they aren't educated or qualified enough to make major policy decisions. In the end some sort of compromise must be made. The mob gives their opinions to representatives who then take those opinions and form policies satisfying them (or at least most of them). I think personally that the n00bs are more worried about storyline and graphics rather than MBS and that SC2 can satisfy them by looking great and sounding great. SC2 will only satisfy the hardcore gamers by playing great and the majority of hardcore gamers believe MBS isn't needed to play great. And there we have a compromise. Fin.
On September 11 2007 06:06 ArC_man wrote: In the end, this argument is kinda like politics (in the US at least). Should we let the mob rule or should we let people who actually know how to rule be the rulers? Obviously the mob encompasses the people who are getting ruled, so they should at least have some say. But then they aren't educated or qualified enough to make major policy decisions. In the end some sort of compromise must be made. The mob gives their opinions to representatives who then take those opinions and form policies satisfying them (or at least most of them). I think personally that the n00bs are more worried about storyline and graphics rather than MBS and that SC2 can satisfy them by looking great and sounding great. SC2 will only satisfy the hardcore gamers by playing great and the majority of hardcore gamers believe MBS isn't needed to play great. And there we have a compromise. Fin.
Unlike politics the long time regular starcraft players arent educated in the field of game creation or havent studied what the effect of different kinds of games have on the success of the game.
However Blizzard does, your analogy works if we change noobs and pros to Starcraft fanatics and Blizzard developers.
Sure sometimes the mob have right, but usually the authorities know better but they still need to take all the shit from people who dont understand anything but thinks that they know everything.
Currently we have 2 masses arguing against each other wich will never end since a mass will never give up its views since each mass is dumb. In such a case you have to go to the authorities, and what did they say about the matter?
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
Great post and I completely agree with you. My brother wont play RTS games cuz hes not even able to go trough the single player campaign without having to restart some levels too many times. I think I can speak for him when I say that he feels he s not enjoying the game if hes not able to achieve the goals in the missions. My Bro is not a dedicated gamer as I am but he does spend alot of leisure time playing them. When I speak to him about war3 wich is nt that hard of a rts to learn , he just tells me that its not worth it for him because he likes multiplayer mode but he just would nt stand logging in on bnet and getting owned in 5 minutes. Hes watched me lay some games and he just feels like its not possible for someone of his caliber to enjoy the game. Im pretty hyped about SC2 but I dont have to tell you that my brother does nt even want to hear about it. He ll just tell me that he does nt like RTS games , even if SC2 is the best game ever made.
Basically, if Blizz listens to the few hardcore players who play SC and start restricting the UI to make it harder for a player to master the game. Then lots of people are gunna stay discouraged with RTS games and thats a shame because those people could be a great part of our comunity.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
On September 10 2007 13:52 orangedude wrote: Ok, so Tasteless showed me some of his keyboard tricks (moving hands all around the keyboard and using pinky fingers for production). He obviously knows the most efficient way to macro early on, and this makes the game a lot more enjoyable for him to play. I can see why he wants MBS in.
Does that mean everyone else is playing it "wrong" though? And Teletubby, why would you close this thread? Just because nothing's productive atm, doesn't mean nothing will be.
I'm not making a 'Starcraft Intelligent design argument.' If i thought starcraft players were playing the game 'wrong' and there was actually something 'wrong' with that, i would be trashing on bgh players and ums players. I'm not. But there is something 'wrong' with telling a bunch of competitive starcraft players that their ladder and tournament games should have MBS forced upon them because a whole bunch of other players never learned all the techniques.
If you want to be the best and you want to play competitively, there is something "wrong" with not utilizing the keyboard since your probably spending 10x the energy on tasks that could be completed without even looking at the screen.
I suggest we make the new players learn what the old already did (and will probably be easier to learn with customizable hotkeys). The players who know this technique enjoy the game more for it. So why take this away?
Tasteless, just for the record, I don't personally dislike macro or the lack of MBS in SC. I don't even find it awkward or difficult to press hotkeys the way I do or click through buildings in the late game. Maybe it's because I started playing SC way back 10 years ago when it was released. It just seems pretty natural to me as I can type about 80-90 WPM, and so I basically type the numbers/letters for my hotkey the same way I would if I was typing normally and I've played this way for about 8 years (went to War3 for a while in between before coming back to SC).
However, I don't believe that it takes 10x the energy for me to go 4z5z6z7z8z9z as you would, even granted that I am doing it the "incorrect" way. I play the game slower than you do and it doesn't look or feel as cool, but it's still a matter of about 1 second to go through all the keys and I am perfectly happy with that. I don't intend to go pro, but I do enjoy watching pros such as the Koreans play quality SC, so it is in my interests to see the SC2 scene succeed. I really do want to see the competitive scene thrive.
I thoroughly respect your love of SC, and I can completely understand your point of view and where you're coming from. Yes indeed, MBS is very important to the existing progamers, because they truly love the game as it is, in its current state of (near) perfection.
Believe me, the only reason why I support MBS is because I think it will help the pro-scene. I am NOT spending all this time to argue for MBS just to make it easier for myself, and destroy SC's progaming's chances in the process. That would be ridiculous, stupid and selfish. I also love the game and especially enjoy watching more highly skilled players than myself duke it out.
The crux of my argument from my OP, and other posts is along the lines of 1esu's. I just want to ensure that other newbies will not dislike SC's UI and start blaming the game for their losses, and end up reducing SC's potential.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and E-Sports was born.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
SC progaming was, and is a fluke, in one country. The pro scene was created because of a lot of circumstances coming together perfectly to create what we have today. But don't overestimate how many real fans SC has that will keep on playing if they don't like the game immediatly. SCII will be *huge* but most people will not continue to play the game just because. We won't have another Korea. There won't be a new proscene if new people don't enjoy the game, and sooner SC will die and we'll have nothing.
SCII can redefine progaming, but it won't be done by alienating 90 % of the user base.
Progaming in Korea was mostly because of:
1. New high speed internet. 2. People not having the cash to buy computers 3. Console imports severly restricted. 4. FPS games banned. 5. Starcraft being one of the few good non FPS games around.
This created the pc bang boom. People going to pc bangs wanted to play games, with the restrictions in place SC was the only real choice. Then someone tried to send it as a TV show = instant succes.
If even one of these factors had been of there would have been no proscene. This will not magically happen again, Blizzard needs to do it themselves this time.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born.
Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it.
I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" necessitate fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born.
Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it.
I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your opinion, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more.
As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the better spectator sport than War3 for many reasons and MBS is not one of them. SC is also more balanced and has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = insane balancing). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the right game was a key ingredient to SC's success.
I never said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has also said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything if you can't disprove my arguments.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born.
Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it.
I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your OPINION, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more.
As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the BETTER SPECTATOR SPORT than WAR3 for many reasons, which I have also stated. It is also more balanced also has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = hard to balance). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the RIGHT GAME was part of the ingredient to SC's success.
I NEVER said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has ALSO said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything, if you can't disprove my arguments.
If they are differentiating the SC and Warcraft Franchises, and most competent SC players believe its a piece of shit they will not play, they had better follow that advice. So whatever is included in Warcraft has no correlation to whether it should be in SC2. In fact, it should probably be a negative correlation. And if you don't use War3 as a role model, then don't use it to somehow justify MBS.
And the "pro scene" of War3 is personally kinda sad. I don't regard it in ANY SHAPE OR FORM what SC2 should try to emulate. SC2 is a far better professional sport, and the majority of us SC players at Teamliquid believe it to be horrible. A sequel of SC meant to capture the original spirit of SC SHOULD NOT ASPIRE TO IT. Have I made my arguments clear enough to you?
Edit: I've said it before, but now I am definitely going to stop posting on this topic. Its not worth it being banned for such a terrible subforum.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born.
Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it.
I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your OPINION, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more.
As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the BETTER SPECTATOR SPORT than WAR3 for many reasons, which I have also stated. It is also more balanced also has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = hard to balance). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the RIGHT GAME was part of the ingredient to SC's success.
I NEVER said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has ALSO said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything, if you can't disprove my arguments.
SC2 is a far better professional sport, and the majority of us SC players at Teamliquid believe it to be horrible.
That is so surprising that the majority of "SC players" who have stuck around for 10 years past its release would judge another game that is not named "SC" to be horrible. If these "SC players" thought "War3" was the better game, then they would BE "War3 players", and not SC. This is not a valid argument. Clearly they have valid reasons for liking one game over another and I AGREE with them.
I AGREE that SC is the better game overall and especially for e-sports. Why else would I be here? On the other hand, I do NOT feel the need to tear apart War3 like you do, because it also has many good things going for it, or else it would NOT be as popular and still kicking 5-6 years after its release (far longer than every other RTS besides SC). Blizzard spent 4 years making War3 just like they did for SC and it shows.
On September 11 2007 08:00 Aphelion wrote: A sequel of SC meant to capture the original spirit of SC SHOULD NOT ASPIRE TO IT. Have I made my arguments clear enough to you?
No you have not, because you are arguing against something that I have never said (straw-man). I have never stated anything close to "SC should aspire to War3". However, I and others like 1esu, have pointed out that MBS is a standard for RTS's today and that their level of shittiness is irrelevant to this fact. I never once claimed SC should incorporate MBS because it should aspire to be the awesomeness of War3. Borrowing MBS from War3 is nowhere even close to 'aspiring' to, because it is incorporating an industry standard. That's like saying if SC is incorporating better graphics like all other RTS's, then it is also aspiring to be like War3. I have argued the exact opposite, and that SC and War3 should obviously be totally different in design.
Conversely, I have only pointed out that your argument of "just because a feature is in War3, it must suck" is completely flawed.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and E-Sports was born.
What? more successful? do you have any proof to back up this claim?
After doing some research I can't find anything definitive, but with sc having over 9.5 million in worldwide sales, warcraft 3 doesn't even seem to be close to starcraft in total sales.
So I find it hard to believe war3 is more successful than the U.S.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself as a Starcraft lover is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born.
Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it.
I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your OPINION, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more.
As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the BETTER SPECTATOR SPORT than WAR3 for many reasons, which I have also stated. It is also more balanced also has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = hard to balance). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the RIGHT GAME was part of the ingredient to SC's success.
I NEVER said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has ALSO said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything, if you can't disprove my arguments.
If they are differentiating the SC and Warcraft Franchises, and most competent SC players believe its a piece of shit they will not play, they had better follow that advice. So whatever is included in Warcraft has no correlation to whether it should be in SC2. In fact, it should probably be a negative correlation. And if you don't use War3 as a role model, then don't use it to somehow justify MBS.
And the "pro scene" of War3 is personally kinda sad. I don't regard it in ANY SHAPE OR FORM what SC2 should try to emulate. SC2 is a far better professional sport, and the majority of us SC players at Teamliquid believe it to be horrible. A sequel of SC meant to capture the original spirit of SC SHOULD NOT ASPIRE TO IT. Have I made my arguments clear enough to you?
Edit: I've said it before, but now I am definitely going to stop posting on this topic. Its not worth it being banned for such a terrible subforum.
Out of all the differences between Starcraft and Warcraft 3, i am shocked that you think MBS played such a big role in how the TL.net community viewed the game. Honestly, if you think about it for half a second, you'd realize that not being able to select all 4 of your 4 production buildings at once in a [i]non-macro, hero-centric, strategically-shallow, tactical-based, strategy game, would have made absolutely no difference on how shitty that game was. Instead of macro being [i]completely negligible it would have been slightly less so, but still completely negligible.
In anycase. I can acknowledge why you can only value the elitist opinion - the love of a game by and from a gamer, but that mentality isn't the best for the masses; if you were to be a lead designer for a video game company, you may in fact make the best game in the world, but it wouldn't matter because no one would play it.
I do not know how Blizzard measures success. However, i would be shocked if they measured success by the happiness of SC1 players, and not by the sheer number of happy SC2 players.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born.
Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it.
I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your OPINION, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more.
As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the BETTER SPECTATOR SPORT than WAR3 for many reasons and MBS is NOT one of them. SC is also more balanced and has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = insane balancing). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the RIGHT GAME was part of the ingredient to SC's success.
I NEVER said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has ALSO said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything if you can't disprove my arguments.
Orangedude, Tasteless said you know how to play Starcraft but obviously he wanted to stay polite. I saw the games and it was quite frightening. It's not only a question of how you use your keyboard, there.
At this level of understanding of the game, it's normal you don't understand everything, i can't even blame you for that. All my noobs friends, who've never played RTS, if i ask them if they prefer war3 or SC, they'll all answer war3. MBS or no : they'll of course say MBS. The problem stays : you (or them) seem to affirm things you cannot even grasp. It's like the new tennis player who wants to change the rules cause he's unable to compete with the bests. Or cause he thinks it will be less tedious for the newbs to learn, thus attract more people. If it's true, is it suitable ?
I'm playing starcraft since 98 ; i bought war3, played it in the beginning as hard as i could, but comparing the two was hurting. Maybe one day you will understand that, even if the player database is bigger for war3 nowadays as you seem to assume, it doesn't mean it's the better game. Especially from an e-sport point of view... There are your two reasons explaining war3 'realtive' success : it's more recent and has fancier graphics. If you think this game is an e-sport success, then you're funny. It's not the case INDEED cause it's a less spectacular game ; there're other reasons as well, and the right balance in SC between micro and macro is certainly one of those.
So, please, why don't you try to play Starcraft more in order to get a significant idea, instead of loosing your time on this forum trying to judge points you have no idea on (no offense). Actually, the Mora's post is very good, and that's an argumentation i would perfectly accept if you were all Blizzard shareholders or developers. But you're the fucking players, and we're not even sure it would hurt the players base size so much.
And even if it hurts the players base size, it's still not a reason since it will be large enough. Less players is obviously better than to have a shitty simplified game, which will not serve e-sport. Remember you have your franchise !
On September 11 2007 07:17 orangedude wrote: The crux of my argument from my OP, and other posts is along the lines of 1esu's. I just want to ensure that other newbies will not dislike SC's UI and start blaming the game for their losses, and end up reducing SC's potential.
I will take a game that gets a good number of hardcore gamers, which lasts for decades, then a game which gets an annourmous amount of gamers then dies off a year later.
I will make this trade any year, month, day, hour or second.
On September 11 2007 07:17 orangedude wrote: The crux of my argument from my OP, and other posts is along the lines of 1esu's. I just want to ensure that other newbies will not dislike SC's UI and start blaming the game for their losses, and end up reducing SC's potential.
I will take a game that gets a good number of hardcore gamers, which lasts for decades, then a game which gets an annourmous amount of gamers then dies off a year later.
I will make this trade any year, month, day, hour or second.
I don't think Blizzard would do that trade.
Besides, if you have an "enormous amount" of gamers, regardless the quality of the game, some will become "hardcore".
I'm all for this MBS idea, because I think it will attract more new players, as well, it's just one of these key features to include by today's standards anyway. It really won't kill the game like many people claim it would.
What I don't understand is why people think a progaming scene will spring up out of nowhere if there is no new fanbase for the game... Seriously, outside of Korea, how big is SC's fanbase? Big enough to merit sponsorships from US companies? If it is, then perhaps Blizz can risk not gaining any new fans by releasing a product tailored only for the competitive-minded gamers. If not, then Blizz must keep everyone in mind, especially if you want the progaming scene for SC2.
I think we could discuss this MBS topic all day. However, at the end of the day MBS will bring Blizzard more $$$. I also don't see what influnce MBS has in the progaming scene, seeing as the cameras aren't even in FP mode for 95% of the time. The players will feel the "sluggish" effect (assuming it does do that), not the spectators.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and E-Sports was born.
What? more successful? do you have any proof to back up this claim?
After doing some research I can't find anything definitive, but with sc having over 9.5 million in worldwide sales, warcraft 3 doesn't even seem to be close to starcraft in total sales.
So I find it hard to believe war3 is more successful than the U.S.
Depends on your definition of successful but wc3 currently has more "professional" gamers than sc outside of korea. Grubby (Dutch) has been living off of wc3 for the past 3-4 years. ToD (French) has been living in China for the past year with SaSe (Swedish). FoV, Sweet and other koreans have been living in China as well. Zacard (korean) lived in Europe for the longest time playing wc3. Creo (Norwegian) took a year off school to play professionally. There is at least 1 big money tournament ($10,000+ total purse) every month in a country outside of Korea. A $10,000 tournament every month is by no means big but compared to starcraft its at least 3-5x greater.
Obviously in Korea its the exact opposite but if SC2 only becomes popular in Korea it will be a huge failure on the part of Blizzard.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and E-Sports was born.
What? more successful? do you have any proof to back up this claim?
After doing some research I can't find anything definitive, but with sc having over 9.5 million in worldwide sales, warcraft 3 doesn't even seem to be close to starcraft in total sales.
So I find it hard to believe war3 is more successful than the U.S.
It's not the sales that he's referring to, it's the non-Korean professional scenes. Here's a breakdown of the professional non-Korean tournaments/leagues for each game:
SC
World Cyber Games (amateur, but professional-level) PGL
WC3
World Cyber Games Electronic Sports World Cup World e-Sports Games World Series of Video Games Warcraft 3 Champions League NGL One proleague
"The computer game Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos has an active professional competition circuit, rooted particularly in China, Germany and South Korea. The game is featured at most, if not all, professional competitive gaming circuits trying to appeal to a global audience including the World Cyber Games, the Electronic Sports World Cup, the World e-Sports Games and the World Series of Video Games. The game has one of the most active competitive circuits, with users at Battle.net ranging between the 70,000 and 100,000 at any given moment. In China, which is considered the number one country in terms of Warcraft III fans and users, most players use an alternative client due to the country's poor connection to the outside world. Around 3,000,000 copies of the game were sold in the country [1] of which a significant portion is competitively active, 500,000 Chinese competed in the Chinese qualifiers for the 2006 World Cyber Games. Recently the amount of prize money to be won monthly in various competitions averages 64,642 USD[2]. Income for players come from various sources however, such as salaried paid by professional gaming teams. Danish competitive gaming organisations Meet Your Makers reportedly pays their players 300,000 USD on an annual basis [3]."
On September 11 2007 11:43 TeRRan`UseR wrote: I think we could discuss this MBS topic all day. However, at the end of the day MBS will bring Blizzard more $$$.
It's hard to tell since we don't know what kind of money is in licensing SC2 out for broadcast on television and other kinds of promotion. With MBS and automining, there might be more box sales in the first year, but the competitive scene will last a significantly shorter amount of time. But without MBS and automining, the game would be set up to have a sustainable competitive scene like SC has right now. Then the game's scene could last 10+ years.
It seems like Blizzard could ask Vivendi for some help creating a business plan for a competitive game rather than one that just relies on box sales. I don't know much about business or about these industries though -- it just seems like it could work out.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born.
Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it.
I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your OPINION, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more.
As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the BETTER SPECTATOR SPORT than WAR3 for many reasons and MBS is NOT one of them. SC is also more balanced and has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = insane balancing). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the RIGHT GAME was part of the ingredient to SC's success.
I NEVER said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has ALSO said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything if you can't disprove my arguments.
Orangedude, Tasteless said you know how to play Starcraft but obviously he wanted to stay polite. I saw the games and it was quite frightening. It's not only a question of how you use your keyboard, there.
At this level of understanding of the game, it's normal you don't understand everything, i can't even blame you for that.
Fuu, you are making use of a logical fallacy called "[I]ad hominem" to prove your point here, which makes it invalid right from the very start.
Regardless I will defend myself. I was very rusty when I played those games vs Tasteless. I have only played about 3-4 games in the past 2 months because I've been very busy this summer with work and studying for the MCAT. Also, watch game 3 of my series vs Tasteless, which is more even then the first two. I may not have the best macro and mechanics, but I do have a very deep and sufficient understanding of the game. Here are three random replays from about a few months ago, when I was in a much better shape (but obviously still not at the same level as Tasteless, and I never claimed to be).
On September 11 2007 10:04 Fuu wrote: All my noobs friends, who've never played RTS, if i ask them if they prefer war3 or SC, they'll all answer war3. MBS or no : they'll of course say MBS. The problem stays : you (or them) seem to affirm things you cannot even grasp. It's like the new tennis player who wants to change the rules cause he's unable to compete with the bests. Or cause he thinks it will be less tedious for the newbs to learn, thus attract more people. If it's true, is it suitable ?
Ironically, you have chosen the exact example that completely nullifies your reasoning, because this actually HAPPENED in tennis.
A while back, tennis players moved from the old and inferior wooden rackets (analagous to UI, since the racket is the player's tool of tennis and UI is the player's tool for SC) to the new more accurate and powerful metal rackets, and in doing so raised the skill level of the sport by a substantial margin for everyone, even the pros. Tennis not only attracted more fans and players, but it also became even more competitive than it was before even if you believe that the total skill gap is lowered. Changing the rules of tennis on the other hand (as you described) is the same as changing the balance and stats of SC (e.g. tech tree, unit HP, attack, speed, etc) and completely different from MBS.
On September 11 2007 10:04 Fuu wrote: Maybe one day you will understand that, even if the player database is bigger for war3 nowadays as you seem to assume, it doesn't mean it's the better game. Especially from an e-sport point of view...
I have agreed with this 100% even in my OP. I have only stated the FACT that the current War3 scene is larger than the SC scene outside of Korea.
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote: i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born.
Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it.
I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" necessitate fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
You're so fanatical I don't even know why you use the term 'debate.' Why do you bother discussing with others unless you come with an open mind?
World Cyber Games Electronic Sports World Cup World e-Sports Games World Series of Video Games Warcraft 3 Champions League NGL One proleague
This list isn't even close to complete.... Even this list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_III_World_Championships is incomplete. (scroll down for team leagues - theres TWO team leagues that run throughout the year in Europe that pay a hefty prize to the top teams)
Various tournaments like EuroCup, inCup, Digital Life, e-Stars are all missing. w3 summer grand prix are missing.
If you want to read up on the international war3 scene got frag probably has the best coverage... http://www.gotfrag.com/war/news/
Don't forget to add, that it is possible for certain top War3 players in Europe even on a minimal contract to earn enough to make a living through winning tournament cash prizes alone (mainly through smaller national level tournaments).
Zacard (A former top Korean War3 player) moved out from Korea to Germany and achieved this for a while. He has since been ordered to do his military service.
Moon (Current #1 Korean War3 player) has also earned hundreds of thousands of dollars through tournament prizes worldwide throughout his career (imagine something like a War3 version of Fatal1ty).
Finally, the Chinese War3 scene is expanding like crazy right now. Televised games, leagues, and etc are getting more and more popular than ever right now.
Does this mean War3 is the better game and more suited to E-Sports than SC?
Hell no. Even starting from the OP, I argued the opposite, that SC is the better competitive game.
As a spectator sport: SC is cleaner to watch, easier to understand for the average viewer, faster paced, better balanced, and much more. Plus, SC even has far more entertaining commentators like Tasteless. He's done more for the SC pro scene than a thousand SC elite players combined.
Now, why you ask is the current SC scene not as successful as War3's outside of Korea?
It's because the player base for SC is smaller outside of Korea than War3's, and the exact opposite is true in Korea (especially when SC is so ingrained into their culture). The direct result from more fans/players is a larger pro-gaming scene, REGARDLESS of how some people may view the quality of the game because face it: the majority rules. This is economics 101.
Same reasoning here applies to the success of FPS's such CS and the like. FPS games are easy as pie to pick up anyone in the world. This allows for a larger initial fanbase to form the pros from.
I hope now you have a sense of how essential MBS will be to the future SC2 progaming scene outside of Korea.
On September 11 2007 14:33 Aphelion wrote: Like I said, I am no longer getting involved in this forum. Its not worth a ban.
Translation: I have nothing to say, so I'll post a one liner "pretending that I have made a point" when I have done nothing but even further disqualify my arguments.
dude. you are so obviously out to "win" a debate it's sickening.
winning a debate is of non-importance. being right is of non-importance. if anything, the only reason you should want to confer with the anti-MBS crowd is to assuage their fears and give them new light as to what SC2 has to look forward to. Not hounding them for a 'logical dispassionate response' so that they compete with you in an arguement. jesus.
If aphelion has nothing else to say - whatever the reasons - leave him be.
seriously, how old are you?
-------
on topic: I am, to be honest, sort of shocked at the deep concern over MBS. The recipe for creating a successful E-Sport is not a simple one. Surely there are bigger fish to worry about.
Starcraft2 will not be successful in any way compared to Starcraft unless they take care of the same elements that so draw a crowd. Such issues/concerns as: Game Pacing, Intuitive Spectating, Hostable Multiplayer Replays, Strategical Depth, The Introduction of Super-Units, Latency (or natural unit response times), Perfect Balance!
Honestly, how does one find time to be concerned with MBS - especially when such a thing does not remove the element of macro, but just somewhat reduce it's importance.
If Blizzard is prioritizing a list of dos and donts i hope that MBS has been signed off (either for or against - who cares!) and will not bother to revisit such a trivial issue! Please, oh Blizzard, make this game a good one.
UI simply won't deter or attract fanbase as strongly as you would imagine. The hype machine is more important for that. Do you think all publications and blogs will instantly complain about outdated UI and instantly halt sales completely? No, cause it'll still be a fast and fun game to play with a slightly harder skill curve. If the rest of the game is perfect, then losing the UI is trivial. However, if you keep the current UI (mbs and autogather and all), making the rest of the game perfect will be a completely different thing, as the feeling of always having something to do must be there. And often not only in micro, so there must be new aspects if you subtract from the resources spent into macro. I mean, if Blizzard goes out and releases their beta with MBS and a slew of new (and effective) ways to spend time/handspeed, SC2 might be fine. Keeping the ways to spend handspeed the same as in BW, however, probably won't kill the fanbase of SC2 either. I mean, part of the whole fanbase generation is on competition. What is SC2's competition? The next CnC and a few new ones coming out of the woodwork? They're different games, catering to (mostly) different audiences. If SC2 tries to cater to all RTS audiences at once, problems may occur. However, if SC2 is truly fun to play and KEEPS THE OLD STYLE OF GAMEPLAY, even with obsolete UI, the UI might play much less of a role than you think.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: UI simply won't deter or attract fanbase as strongly as you would imagine. The hype machine is more important for that. Do you think all publications and blogs will instantly complain about outdated UI and instantly halt sales completely? No, cause it'll still be a fast and fun game to play with a slightly harder skill curve. If the rest of the game is perfect, then losing the UI is trivial. However, if you keep the current UI (mbs and autogather and all), making the rest of the game perfect will be a completely different thing, as the feeling of always having something to do must be there. And often not only in micro, so there must be new aspects if you subtract from the resources spent into macro. I mean, if Blizzard goes out and releases their beta with MBS and a slew of new (and effective) ways to spend time/handspeed, SC2 might be fine. Keeping the ways to spend handspeed the same as in BW, however, probably won't kill the fanbase of SC2 either. I mean, part of the whole fanbase generation is on competition. What is SC2's competition? The next CnC and a few new ones coming out of the woodwork? They're different games, catering to (mostly) different audiences. If SC2 tries to cater to all RTS audiences at once, problems may occur. However, if SC2 is truly fun to play and KEEPS THE OLD STYLE OF GAMEPLAY, even with obsolete UI, the UI might play much less of a role than you think.
SC2's competition as an e-sport game is not only limited to RTS games, but games of all other genres. The point I made about 'protecting the noobs' is universal across all genres, and you can bet that if SC2 doesn't get a large enough competitive community over the long-term, you may see professional competition in the early stages but it'll die out as the competitive community shrinks, and another game that did 'protect its noobs' will take its place. It doesn't have to be an RTS.
Furthermore, I don't think anyone's made this point, but IMHO retaining the original interface will effectively split the community at launch; while the other SC skills will have to be re-learned (to an extent) by the SC veterans due to the new units and mechanics, thus allowing the more skilled noobs to keep within a respectful distance, veterans would come into SC2 having already mastered the interface, while the noobs would have to learn it from scratch. Therefore, since a player who's mastered the SC interface has a huge advantage over one who's still learning it, the competitive community will be split into competitive noobs and SC veterans, with all the problems we've agreed are associated with such a split.
Ok, surgery has been performed on this thread and we all went back in time (to page 16...)
Due to numerous requests, this thread has been reopened. Please lets stay on topic, and remember that each persons opinion is valid, unless they post it in bold and caps.
I think that MBS is a tough, grey area which is another point that seperates the casual SC2 gamer from the oldschool SC player. Both groups demand diffrent things, and it's up to Blizzard to decide on the ideal middle way.
As for MBS, I'm not too sure if it's going to make a big diffrence on the professional scene. It will affect the lower levels tremendously though, and I'm not sure if we would want this to happen. Some somewhat skilled players might feel that they don't have enough of an edge over lesser skilled players in this game, which could lead to as much inactivity as we suffer currently.
Then again, I might just be seeing a danger that isn't there. I trust in the development team of Blizzard to decide on the best route, since they have some of the best programmers and even an ex-progamer in their team.
On September 13 2007 07:38 Artanis[Xp] wrote: I think that MBS is a tough, grey area which is another point that seperates the casual SC2 gamer from the oldschool SC player. Both groups demand diffrent things, and it's up to Blizzard to decide on the ideal middle way.
As for MBS, I'm not too sure if it's going to make a big diffrence on the professional scene. It will affect the lower levels tremendously though, and I'm not sure if we would want this to happen. Some somewhat skilled players might feel that they don't have enough of an edge over lesser skilled players in this game, which could lead to as much inactivity as we suffer currently.
Then again, I might just be seeing a danger that isn't there. I trust in the development team of Blizzard to decide on the best route, since they have some of the best programmers and even an ex-progamer in their team.
Inactivity because you can't horribly bash noobs, but only beat them ? lol good logic. All the sc hardcore players are so worryed about having to re-learn everything and pissed about wasting 5 years to master the UI just to get a new easier UI because they won't have such an edge over their opponents, what about bashing noobs because you have better micro and a better uni mix and timming ? and not because you can mass units from 16 gateways faster than him ?
On September 13 2007 07:38 Artanis[Xp] wrote: Some somewhat skilled players might feel that they don't have enough of an edge over lesser skilled players in this game, which could lead to as much inactivity as we suffer currently.
One of the goals of any ladder system with an (anonymous match-maker) AMM that is currently in place, such as the one in War3, is to match one player to another that is as close to each other as possible. The ability to do this in the least amount of time determines how successful an AMM is, and War3's Battle.net demonstrates this admirably.
For most people who want to go online for a quick game, I'm pretty sure they would like to face someone about equal to their skill for maximum enjoyability and for a fair game. This AMM is one of the big factors that has kept the War3 scene still going. I am sure that the SC2 AMM will be similar or even better than War3's, so I do not believe this will be a problem at all. I highly doubt this will cause any inactivity at all, but will only increase activity at all levels.
I believe the "inactivity" in SC outside Korea is due to the fact that it is so difficult to find an even match in about 10 seconds like you can with a proper AMM.
Now, if some mid-level or highly skilled players would like to do some "noob-stomping" as you are concerned about, they can just create a new account and start at the middle of the ladder again and smurf their heart out (until their ELL rises to the top of ladder after ~10 straight wins).
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: Do you think all publications and blogs will instantly complain about outdated UI and instantly halt sales completely?
No, maybe not all, perhaps only 95% of them (excluding blogs from an SC veteran's viewpoint). No, it won't halt sales completely, but will likely greatly hamper them, which is clearly a very bad thing.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: If the rest of the game is perfect, then losing the UI is trivial.
Maybe trivial to you, since you started playing SC back in 98 or whenever you started. You can't speak the same about others, because they think differently from you. Proof of this is in nearly every SC review and in every other RTS game review, which are catered to the mass market (e.g. Gamespot gave SC only an 8 for gameplay). Where is your proof aside from your own personal opinion?
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: ...If SC2 tries to cater to all RTS audiences at once, problems may occur. However, if SC2 is truly fun to play and KEEPS THE OLD STYLE OF GAMEPLAY, even with obsolete UI, the UI might play much less of a role than you think.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying here that an "obsolete UI" is bad for SC2, but not bad enough to drag it down because the other parts of the game will make up for it (which seems to be based on conjecture and opinion). Now, it is a given that every other part of the game will be improved in a sequel (hopefully), so why not add a more attractive UI to new players as well and make the game even better and more popular (and perhaps additional macro-related tasks)? I'm pretty sure that's the path that Blizzard has in mind.
Finally, if the UI truly plays only a small role (as you claim without proof), then all the more reason to include a noob-friendly UI to attract more sales.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: Do you think all publications and blogs will instantly complain about outdated UI and instantly halt sales completely?
No, maybe not all, perhaps only 95% of them (excluding blogs from an SC veteran's viewpoint). No, it won't halt sales completely, but will likely greatly hamper them, which is clearly a very bad thing.
I really doubt it. I'd say 70% at most. Your conjecture vs mine, you can say you've won this point if you want, I say it's up in the air.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: If the rest of the game is perfect, then losing the UI is trivial.
Maybe trivial to you, since you started playing SC back in 98 or whenever you started. You can't speak the same about others, because they think differently from you. Proof of this is in nearly every SC review and in every other RTS game review, which are catered to the mass market (e.g. Gamespot gave SC only an 8 for gameplay). Where is your proof aside from your own personal opinion?
If anything, that Gamespot review only proved how often wrong game reviewers are. I've played BW melee only since late 2005, not even close to 98. I still don't see how you represent the majority, and I honestly don't believe that (lack of) UI will be a deterrent among any relatively hardcore gamers. And by hardcore, I don't mean hardcore SC players, I don't mean RTS players, I just mean gamers who have experience gaming and are willing to take up the challenge of a game that is hard to learn and master, and to improve in it. There's more of these than you think, IMO. Oh and, could you source some reviews (RTS, preferably) in which UI was blamed as game-breaking? Not games in which the UI actually sucked and was unusuable, just a bit outdated. I'd like to see some of those.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: ...If SC2 tries to cater to all RTS audiences at once, problems may occur. However, if SC2 is truly fun to play and KEEPS THE OLD STYLE OF GAMEPLAY, even with obsolete UI, the UI might play much less of a role than you think.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying here that an "obsolete UI" is bad for SC2, but not bad enough to drag it down because the other parts of the game will make up for it (which seems to be based on conjecture and opinion). Now, it is a given that every other part of the game will be improved in a sequel (hopefully), so why not add a more attractive UI to new players as well and make the game even better and more popular (and perhaps additional macro-related tasks)? I'm pretty sure that's the path that Blizzard has in mind.
Finally, if the UI truly plays only a small role (as you claim without proof), then all the more reason to include a noob-friendly UI to attract more sales.
I'm not saying obsolete UI is bad for SC2. In fact, I think it's very important for the gameplay to be of high quality. The fact that it even can possibly be high quality without the old UI is conjecture, but the fact that it can be a good game with the old UI is proven, through BW. The "even with" was used in tandem with the whole argument against why the UI will deter sales. My previous post stated nothing in the way of actual gameplay. As I've stated, and you know, I believe the new UI will hurt the core gameplay. That wasn't relevant to your argument though, your argument was that it will turn off the prospective fans and destroy the fanbase. And my point is that I think you're underestimating the fanbase's ability to see a good game in a good game, and your guess that the fanbase will be turned off is much conjecture as my guess that they won't.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: Do you think all publications and blogs will instantly complain about outdated UI and instantly halt sales completely?
No, maybe not all, perhaps only 95% of them (excluding blogs from an SC veteran's viewpoint). No, it won't halt sales completely, but will likely greatly hamper them, which is clearly a very bad thing.
If you honestly think 95% of newb game reviewers will even know how to use hotkeys, you are sorely mistaken. You'd be EXTREMELY pushing it to think that half would mention it in a review.
If you honestly think 95% of newb game reviewers will even know how to use hotkeys, you are sorely mistaken. You'd be EXTREMELY pushing it to think that half would mention it in a review.
Unfortunately, those newb game reviewers won't be mentioning hotkeys. Instead, they'll be mentioning how outdated it is to only be able to select one building at a time. (And, of course, as we all know it, Old = Bad. xD ) If they did know about hotkeys, it would probably help the hardcore sc players more, because then they'd know the importance of how much MBS will affect hotkeys and would maybe then start to have opinions like we have, with the pros and cons of new UI features, instead of the simple New is good, Old is bad mentality.
If you honestly think 95% of newb game reviewers will even know how to use hotkeys, you are sorely mistaken. You'd be EXTREMELY pushing it to think that half would mention it in a review.
Unfortunately, those newb game reviewers won't be mentioning hotkeys. Instead, they'll be mentioning how outdated it is to only be able to select one building at a time. If they did know about hotkeys, it would probably help the hardcore sc players more, because then they'd know the importance of how much MBS will affect hotkeys and would maybe then start to have opinions like we have, with the pros and cons of new UI features, instead of the simple New is good, Old is bad mentality.
The main reason I don't think the reviews will be that bad because of one aspect is because of what I've seen of most reviews. All cons are mentioned in passing. I have rarely seen a con that is game-breaking to the point where it's taken from a would be 9.8 to a 6.4 or something ridiculous (unless the con IS actually that game-breaking, which lack of MBS is definitely not). The most likely scenario if most reviewers don't like the lack of MBS is that they mention it as "one complaint we had about the game." How many of these "one complaint"s have you seen break a review? Hardly any. If the rest of the game is good enough, the worst that will happen is maybe a 9.8 to a 9.4. That's my conjecture, orangedude, you have yours.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: Do you think all publications and blogs will instantly complain about outdated UI and instantly halt sales completely?
No, maybe not all, perhaps only 95% of them (excluding blogs from an SC veteran's viewpoint). No, it won't halt sales completely, but will likely greatly hamper them, which is clearly a very bad thing.
I really doubt it. I'd say 70% at most. Your conjecture vs mine, you can say you've won this point if you want, I say it's up in the air.
Fair enough, but even 50% of reviews criticizing the UI (especially by big sites such as IGN, and Gamespot who are known to be very picky about innovation) is very seriously detrimental to sales.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: If the rest of the game is perfect, then losing the UI is trivial.
Maybe trivial to you, since you started playing SC back in 98 or whenever you started. You can't speak the same about others, because they think differently from you. Proof of this is in nearly every SC review and in every other RTS game review, which are catered to the mass market (e.g. Gamespot gave SC only an 8 for gameplay). Where is your proof aside from your own personal opinion?
If anything, that Gamespot review only proved how often wrong game reviewers are. I've played BW melee only since late 2005, not even close to 98. I still don't see how you represent the majority, and I honestly don't believe that (lack of) UI will be a deterrent among any relatively hardcore gamers. And by hardcore, I don't mean hardcore SC players, I don't mean RTS players, I just mean gamers who have experience gaming and are willing to take up the challenge of a game that is hard to learn and master, and to improve in it. There's more of these than you think, IMO. Oh and, could you source some reviews (RTS, preferably) in which UI was blamed as game-breaking? Not games in which the UI actually sucked and was unusuable, just a bit outdated. I'd like to see some of those.
Unfortunately, even if most game reviewers are complete RTS noobs (which is often true, especially for large popular sites), they are still catered to the mass market and are very important to their success among such an audience, which is where the largest amount of sales will be coming from. Basically, it does not matter one bit how "wrong" you think the reviewers are, because they are probably similar to the average gamer, and are thus writing an "accurate" review if you think about it.
Also, I don't see how the burden of proof falls completely on me to provide all the examples when you can also do some research and show me some reviews of SC that did not criticize its UI, but regardless here you are:
Summary: Despite its goregous graphics, this real-time strategy game seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Armies of Exigo is a real-time strategy game that should have Blizzard blushing. This debut offering from developer Black Hole Games borrows quite a bit from Blizzard's classic real-time strategy releases. In making its Blizzard clone, the developer has emulated everything from the 3D look of the units and buildings of Warcraft III to the three-pronged storyline of Starcraft and the Hollywood-quality cutscene movies that Blizzard is known for. The only problem is that while Black Hole has all the ingredients of a great real-time strategy game, the formula in Armies of Exigo comes off as, well, far too formulaic. Armies of Exigo is in many ways a 1999-era real-time strategy game with 2004 production values. It's a beautiful strategy offering that's technically on par with the best games on the market, and you can appreciate the graphical detail on display as armies clash, magical effects rain down, and units are hurled into the air by mighty blows. However, it's disappointing that the gameplay is very much like that of the earliest real-time strategy games. This is a traditional RTS that seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years. ... That said, if you're looking for an old-school real-time strategy game, then you'll most likely enjoy Armies of Exigo, especially since it features a lot of gameplay in its single-player campaign. Just be prepared for some frustration along the way. However, if you're looking for innovation or streamlined or modern gameplay, you won't find it here."
http://pc.ign.com/articles/573/573573p2.html IGN: "7.0 Decent OVERALL (out of 10 / not an average) Armies of Exigo The perfect game for that nostalgic masochist in your life. by Steve Butts
December 15, 2004 - No developer in their right mind would be upset if you compared their game to Starcraft. The Blizzard classic set a new standard for strategy games five years ago and sparked an excessive number of copycats. It took a few years for real-time strategy developers to absorb the model before finally breaking through it in terms of technology and design. While some gamers still hold Starcraft up as the standard by which all other real-time strategy games are judged, none can deny that lots of new features have been introduced in the meantime.
Armies of Exigo hearkens back to the days when every RTS that came our way seemed to be cast in the Starcraft mold. Though this makes it a very traditional and ultimately unsurprising game, it also means that the developers have the benefit of five years of refinement to look back on. Consequently Armies of Exigo seems like an anachronism -- a familiar but finely polished take on the previous generation of strategy games. ... Capping groups at 15 units could potentially create a real headache in terms of controlling the armies. Armies of Exigo allows you to combine these small groups into one of four larger Super Groups. This extra layer of flexibility is definitely welcome but, given the size of the maps and the overall shape of the action, it would be much easier if the designers had just increased the unit cap for the basic groups. Keeping tabs on the status of the units within each individual group is basically impossible without lots of management. ... Closing Comments Since it borrows so heavily from Starcraft, Armies of Exigo definitely has a lot going for it. The three races are balanced nicely and the campaign offers a lengthy challenge. Though the story is a bit forgettable, the cutscenes are almost as good as those we've seen from Blizzard.
Still, this is definitely a game aimed at the hardcore, old school crowd. Newcomers to the real-time strategy genre will find that the campaign is difficult to the point of near total aggravation. I've played almost every RTS released since Starcraft and even I threw up my hands in frustration at times. Veterans who are looking for something new will find that the design holds no surprises. The dual-layer map system is a nice gimmick but I'm looking to Liquid's Dragonshard to actually make something interesting from the concept. "
Needless to say, Armies of Exigo despite its excellent visuals, was NOT a successful game and has literally 0 pro-scene today despite its catering to the hardcore crowd familiar to SC.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: ...If SC2 tries to cater to all RTS audiences at once, problems may occur. However, if SC2 is truly fun to play and KEEPS THE OLD STYLE OF GAMEPLAY, even with obsolete UI, the UI might play much less of a role than you think.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying here that an "obsolete UI" is bad for SC2, but not bad enough to drag it down because the other parts of the game will make up for it (which seems to be based on conjecture and opinion). Now, it is a given that every other part of the game will be improved in a sequel (hopefully), so why not add a more attractive UI to new players as well and make the game even better and more popular (and perhaps additional macro-related tasks)? I'm pretty sure that's the path that Blizzard has in mind.
Finally, if the UI truly plays only a small role (as you claim without proof), then all the more reason to include a noob-friendly UI to attract more sales.
And my point is that I think you're underestimating the fanbase's ability to see a good game in a good game, and your guess that the fanbase will be turned off is much conjecture as my guess that they won't.
Well, true, but I have done my research and am basing my opinions on inductive reasoning from the past. Maybe if you can provide some counter-examples from review quotes then you can say the same.
But for a casual gamer looking for a game, and decides to look on gamefaqs or somewhere will probably look at the cons and weigh them against the pros (during a review I rarely look at the total score, unless it as abysmally low number, or if it is a near perfect score).
If SC2 had no cons, then the gamer would most probably buy the game over other games. But it is still possible that some would buy the game. Especially if SC2 is made so well that it's UI was it's only con (assuming that MBS was taken out) I am hoping that with or without the UI, sc2 can sell above other games.
Unfortunately, if MBS is a flop, then that will be added to the cons, which is why if it is to be added, it will need extensive testing.
But since SC2 is a big issue in gaming (almost everyone I know who plays games knows about sc2), I doubt that too many people will be looking at reviews for years, during which the UI will be outdated anyway, so it's possible reviews won't matter.
Except that there's still word of mouth, and also those people that look at the reviews before buying a game, especially if it's a highly anticipated game (to see if it's worth buying and spending time on).
If some people find the game too hard, then news of a game's difficulty will spread, and some will be driven away. On the other hand, competitiveness might suffer from MBS, we're not sure, seeing as it's never been tested ever, and if that's the case, SC2 will have failed it's purpose (to be a good e-sports game)
And to orangedude: It's always possible that even without MBS, sc2 will be advanced enough with new features and such that it will be innovative and creative enough to have a good rating. There were two main points that lowered Armies of Exigo's rating, one being the UI, the other being that it was too similar to Blizzard's games. Keep that in consideration too.
On September 13 2007 12:28 TheShizno wrote: And to orangedude: It's always possible that even without MBS, sc2 will be advanced enough with new features and such that it will be innovative and creative enough to have a good rating. There were two main points that lowered Armies of Exigo's rating, one being the UI, the other being that it was too similar to Blizzard's games. Keep that in consideration too.
Well what a coincidence we have here SC2 also happens to have a UI similar to SC's if MBS is not kept in, and it will also naturally be very similar to SC (as any sequel should). Being a sequel is not a good enough excuse in most game reviewers' eyes for it to be too similar to the original (without innovation). Armies of Exigo was also praised in the reviews for having innovations in other areas, especially graphics, good cutscenes, and overall high production values. These weren't enough apparently. I wonder if anyone has any data on the total sales of this game?
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft/review.html ^This one rated SC extremely highly, but even then, Gamespot expressed a slight dissatisfaction to the interface. "This safeguard is in the interface, which only allows you to select 12 units at a time. This isn't especially effective, considering six Zealots will smoke a base early in the game. The selectable unit cap does make rushing more difficult, but it also becomes frustrating at times, especially for those used to the ability to select unlimited units at once. Often, selecting the chosen units from a large group becomes a time-consuming effort. During battle, it can be an exercise in frustration. You can assign groups to hotkeys quite easily, however, lessening the frustration of the selectable unit cap - but this system isn't nearly as good as in Total Annihilation or Dark Reign, and units aren't marked by their group number like in said games. Multiplayer battles can often be decided by who has the best manual dexterity and can overcome the built-in limitations of the interface the most quickly" Obviously, they noticed the fact about manual dexterity dominating games, even back then... and thought it was a point of frustration...
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."
I'm just wondering... If the game reviewers cared enough about the interface back then, what would they say now, if Blizz came out with a game with the exact same interface? Granted, you could say that, if the reviewers didn't care then, why would they care now? But I doubt that is the case... (My conjecture.)
I won't quote your post because it would be way too huge, but HUGE THANKS for getting those reviews. I hadn't seen anything like them. (and the reason I didn't do the research was that I wouldn't know where to start, really. Other than looking at all RTS reviews.)
Now, counterpoints: Armies of Exigo lacked something that StarCraft II has: Hype/Name. Some hardcore gamers might have heard of it, but most casual gamers could (and probably did) overlook Armies as a generic RTS by a no-name studio. SC2 is a completely different story. Everybody and their mothers knows about SC2, and many many eyes will be on it. It's simply building on a much stronger foundation. Why didn't the hardcore scene really want to adapt? Because it probably wasn't better than BW. Gamespot and IGN hailed its execution, and the somewhat innovative underground system, but their biggest complaint aside from outdatedness in UI was outdatedness in gameplay. IGN calls its gameplay "uninspiring." Gamespot calls it "formuliac." There was simply nothing awe-inspiring about this game. Will SCII possibly face the same problem? Yes, quite so. Living up to its predecessor is a huge deal, in almost all aspects. Will SCII be a complete flop if it doesn't quite meet expectations? Definitely not, it has the hype machine working for it. Will it be a complete flop if it completely sucks? Yeah, sure it will. Damned if that happens.
I'll try to find counter-examples for the outdatedness thing in a bit, I've got homework to do.
EDIT: Oh, and cases in points for hype machines: New Super Mario Bros. Nintendo has such a good reputation with platformers that I didn't even have to read the reviews to know it was a must-buy. Every Zelda game since Ocarina of Time. I loved Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess. I looked for some convincing on Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons because they were capcom-produced, but all the Nintendo ones were instabuys. Every game made by Nippon Ichi. This is a personal thing, but Disgaea just got me hooked. Every Final Fantasy since 7. Many people my age somewhat agree with me. Kingdom Hearts 2. Fangirl-mania (i'm not a girl if you're wondering) and Disney lovability totally superceded the mediocre reviews. Etc.
xD yup. But since it will be similar to SC, that could be a good point for the review, for keeping the spirit of the original. Maybe. There's lots of things that could go right or wrong xD Maybe the new features could set it apart, yet the UI keep it similar, or other things, I'm sure you can think of situations. Unfortunately, all we can do about reviews is speculate and estimate, and from reviews about other games similar to SC yet don't have MBS, the reviews won't be very good if MBS is taken out. So I'd say I'd side with you on the review argument. There's a lot more that could go wrong in the reviews from taking it out than keeping it in, since majority of the fanbase doesn't care about the pro scene.
And to SpiritoftheTuna:
You had some very good points too. SC2 could very well sell on hype, and still have a good pro scene, therefore rendering reviews pointless until maybe 8 years later when they don't matter much. Once again, there are many variables. But the safer path (financially) is to keep MBS so that the reviews will be good, although it may possibly backfire.
And I've got a lot of hw to do too xD So I should probably go do hw. And stop reading forums for now.
While it is true that hype/name will drive sales of SC2 because it's by Blizzard (although a universally panned score by reviewers may even hurt this greatly), this is not the most important factor in driving a pro-scene. You must KEEP those "newbs" playing for long enough without frustrating them (due to UI or other things) before they can gradually become pros. It's a very fine-line here in many cases and just one little issue can drive many people away.
On September 13 2007 12:40 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: EDIT: Oh, and cases in points for hype machines: New Super Mario Bros. Nintendo has such a good reputation with platformers that I didn't even have to read the reviews to know it was a must-buy. Every Zelda game since Ocarina of Time. I loved Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess. I looked for some convincing on Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons because they were capcom-produced, but all the Nintendo ones were instabuys. Every game made by Nippon Ichi. This is a personal thing, but Disgaea just got me hooked. Every Final Fantasy since 7. Many people my age somewhat agree with me. Kingdom Hearts 2. Fangirl-mania (i'm not a girl if you're wondering) and Disney lovability totally superceded the mediocre reviews. Etc.
These are good examples, BUT remember they were never meant to be a competitive games. Becoming a successful E-Sport has a completely different set of requirements, and even a large amount of initial sales may not be enough if people don't keep playing them (See: C&C franchise).
Also 1esu made a very good post addressing this issue earlier in this thread which I will quote here:
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it.
Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here.
If people have already bought the game (and you admitted many would), reviews are not going to influence how long they play it. The actual game play is.
And the FPS field is a lot more competitive than RTS. Doom is a great franchise, but there were many other popular competitors. Starcraft is head and shoulders above all the rest, and further more benefits from greater product differentiation. Even the "competitors" like supcom or warhammer are so different they are not a viable challenger or product replacement. There are enough people who just play games in the Blizzard mode.
On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote: While it is true that hype/name will drive sales of SC2 because it's by Blizzard, this is not the most important factor in driving a pro-scene. You must KEEP those "newbs" playing for long enough without frustrating them (due to UI or other things) before they can gradually become pros. It's a very fine-line here in many cases and just one little issue can drive many people away.
In my eyes, the pro scene will appear almost no matter what. And it will be dominated in the beginning by veterans of previous games, no matter what. Retired WC3 titans trying it out, retired BW titans trying it out, they'll totally defeat everybody else initially and start the pro scene. It's up to instutitions like WCG to decide whether the game itself gets much facetime as a competitive/tourney game.
EDIT: Or quite possibly up to the general population of Korea. :3
On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote: Also 1esu made a very good post addressing this issue earlier in this thread which I will quote here:
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it.
Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here.
On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote: While it is true that hype/name will drive sales of SC2 because it's by Blizzard, this is not the most important factor in driving a pro-scene. You must KEEP those "newbs" playing for long enough without frustrating them (due to UI or other things) before they can gradually become pros. It's a very fine-line here in many cases and just one little issue can drive many people away.
In my eyes, the pro scene will appear almost no matter what. And it will be dominated in the beginning by veterans of previous games, no matter what. Retired WC3 titans trying it out, retired BW titans trying it out, they'll totally defeat everybody else initially and start the pro scene. It's up to instutitions like WCG to decide whether the game itself gets much facetime as a competitive/tourney game.
EDIT: Or quite possibly up to the general population of Korea. :3
Indeed the pro-scene will appear. But what I've been arguing from the beginning (which I base my arguments on the popularity of the War3 scene outside of Korea vs SC's out of Korea) is that this is not enough to make televised leagues viable (especially if you keep the same UI). It won't reach a critical acceptance rate that will be even close to Korea's if you rely on these same people. It could very well be even smaller than the original SC scene, due to people being turned away. SC2 is one of the few opportunities we have to majorly advance the pro-gaming scene outside of Korea, and it would be terrible if we don't even try to achieve this (by catering to only the current group of pro-gamers, which is nearly insignificant).
I'm not worried about the Korean scene. The goal for Blizzard should be to try to expand E-Sports in the REST of the world, because it is severely lacking right now. If SC2 is only successful in Korea, I would consider it a failure on Blizzard's part.
On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote: Also 1esu made a very good post addressing this issue earlier in this thread which I will quote here:
On September 09 2007 14:08 1esu wrote:
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it.
Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here.
Anyways, refer to my previous post where I edited in some hype-machine examples, please.
Yes spiritofthetuna, but where is the Doom3 pro-gaming scene? No one stuck around long enough for it to form despite its decent sales. I don't recall it ever even having one, whereas most other high-profile FPS games had for at least a while.
On September 13 2007 12:52 Aphelion wrote: If people have already bought the game (and you admitted many would), reviews are not going to influence how long they play it. The actual game play is.
Aphelion, I thought this was a terrible subforum. Anyways, you are welcome to stay, but let's not let this thread to devolve into another flamefest.
Hype/Name is one factor driving sales. Reviews are certainly another large factor. Word of mouth is especially important for long-term acceptance. Which of these are more important and by how much is anyone's guess. I'm sure Blizzard would aim to maximize all of them.
The actual gameplay is exactly what is described by reviews, as these reviewers are playing the game with the same mindset as an RTS noob. If even during their quick playthrough (probably 10-20ish hrs at most) they are frustrated with the UI enough to criticize it, how long do you think the average noob will play for (even those noobs who gradually become better if given the chance until they become pros if they fall in love with the game)?
On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote: While it is true that hype/name will drive sales of SC2 because it's by Blizzard, this is not the most important factor in driving a pro-scene. You must KEEP those "newbs" playing for long enough without frustrating them (due to UI or other things) before they can gradually become pros. It's a very fine-line here in many cases and just one little issue can drive many people away.
In my eyes, the pro scene will appear almost no matter what. And it will be dominated in the beginning by veterans of previous games, no matter what. Retired WC3 titans trying it out, retired BW titans trying it out, they'll totally defeat everybody else initially and start the pro scene. It's up to instutitions like WCG to decide whether the game itself gets much facetime as a competitive/tourney game.
EDIT: Or quite possibly up to the general population of Korea. :3
Indeed the pro-scene will appear. But what I've been arguing from the beginning (which I base my arguments on the popularity of the War3 scene outside of Korea vs SC's out of Korea) is that this is not enough to make televised leagues viable (especially if you keep the same UI). It won't reach a critical acceptance rate that will be even close to Korea's if you rely on these same people. It could very well be even smaller than the original SC scene, due to people being turned away. SC2 is one of the few opportunities we have to majorly advance the pro-gaming scene outside of Korea, and it would be terrible if we don't even try to achieve this (by catering to only the current group of pro-gamers, which is nearly insignificant).
I'm not worried about the Korean scene. The goal for Blizzard should be to try to expand E-Sports in the REST of the world, because it is severely lacking right now. If SC2 is only successful in Korea, I would consider it a failure on Blizzard's part.
I think I totally finally understand your viewpoint now. You want SC2 to be a widely-accessible vehicle for everybody everywhere to get into the pro-scene and break into the whole world, along the same vein as Counter-Strike. I actually don't see many problems with that. With MBS making it easier for people to reach the levels of the koreans (who'll default at a high level), there is room for multiple tournaments everywhere and the game will be more accessible for anyone to play for a year and enter the pro scene, much like in CS.
I just don't want that, for the same reason as any other veteran who's posted here. It'll be less of an elite spectator sport and more of a gain-a-bit-of-fame-and-money-through-video-games, just as CS is/was.
On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote: Also 1esu made a very good post addressing this issue earlier in this thread which I will quote here:
On September 09 2007 14:08 1esu wrote:
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it.
Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here.
Anyways, refer to my previous post where I edited in some hype-machine examples, please.
Yes spiritofthetuna, but where is the Doom3 pro-gaming scene? No one stuck around long enough for it to form despite its decent sales. I don't recall it ever even having one, whereas most other high-profile FPS games had for at least a while.
Er. Doom3 was never meant to be a big multiplayer game. Never. Ever. The focus was on the single-player, much like the original Doom.
If you honestly think 95% of newb game reviewers will even know how to use hotkeys, you are sorely mistaken. You'd be EXTREMELY pushing it to think that half would mention it in a review.
Unfortunately, those newb game reviewers won't be mentioning hotkeys. Instead, they'll be mentioning how outdated it is to only be able to select one building at a time. If they did know about hotkeys, it would probably help the hardcore sc players more, because then they'd know the importance of how much MBS will affect hotkeys and would maybe then start to have opinions like we have, with the pros and cons of new UI features, instead of the simple New is good, Old is bad mentality.
I'm still looking for evidence on this.
Play a game on the maps reviewers play, then check bwchart: 0% hotkeys. Actually, I don't need evidence. You provided 0 evidence to the contrary (the initial claim).
If you honestly think 95% of newb game reviewers will even know how to use hotkeys, you are sorely mistaken. You'd be EXTREMELY pushing it to think that half would mention it in a review.
Unfortunately, those newb game reviewers won't be mentioning hotkeys. Instead, they'll be mentioning how outdated it is to only be able to select one building at a time. If they did know about hotkeys, it would probably help the hardcore sc players more, because then they'd know the importance of how much MBS will affect hotkeys and would maybe then start to have opinions like we have, with the pros and cons of new UI features, instead of the simple New is good, Old is bad mentality.
I'm still looking for evidence on this.
Play a game on the maps reviewers play, then check bwchart: 0% hotkeys. Actually, I don't need evidence. You provided 0 evidence to the contrary (the initial claim).
I was referring to the "New is good, Old is bad mentality" part, which orangedude kindly did actually provide an example for.
I'm not questioning the ineptitude of reviewers, that's totally a given.
On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote: While it is true that hype/name will drive sales of SC2 because it's by Blizzard, this is not the most important factor in driving a pro-scene. You must KEEP those "newbs" playing for long enough without frustrating them (due to UI or other things) before they can gradually become pros. It's a very fine-line here in many cases and just one little issue can drive many people away.
In my eyes, the pro scene will appear almost no matter what. And it will be dominated in the beginning by veterans of previous games, no matter what. Retired WC3 titans trying it out, retired BW titans trying it out, they'll totally defeat everybody else initially and start the pro scene. It's up to instutitions like WCG to decide whether the game itself gets much facetime as a competitive/tourney game.
EDIT: Or quite possibly up to the general population of Korea. :3
Indeed the pro-scene will appear. But what I've been arguing from the beginning (which I base my arguments on the popularity of the War3 scene outside of Korea vs SC's out of Korea) is that this is not enough to make televised leagues viable (especially if you keep the same UI). It won't reach a critical acceptance rate that will be even close to Korea's if you rely on these same people. It could very well be even smaller than the original SC scene, due to people being turned away. SC2 is one of the few opportunities we have to majorly advance the pro-gaming scene outside of Korea, and it would be terrible if we don't even try to achieve this (by catering to only the current group of pro-gamers, which is nearly insignificant).
I'm not worried about the Korean scene. The goal for Blizzard should be to try to expand E-Sports in the REST of the world, because it is severely lacking right now. If SC2 is only successful in Korea, I would consider it a failure on Blizzard's part.
I think I totally finally understand your viewpoint now. You want SC2 to be a widely-accessible vehicle for everybody everywhere to get into the pro-scene and break into the whole world, along the same vein as Counter-Strike. I actually don't see many problems with that. With MBS making it easier for people to reach the levels of the koreans (who'll default at a high level), there is room for multiple tournaments everywhere and the game will be more accessible for anyone to play for a year and enter the pro scene, much like in CS.
I just don't want that, for the same reason as any other veteran who's posted here. It'll be less of an elite spectator sport and more of a gain-a-bit-of-fame-and-money-through-video-games, just as CS is/was.
Your opinions are yours to keep. I however, would very much would like this to happen. Imagine how awesome it would be if you could switch to a TV channel at home and tune into the latest SC2 game between two of the top US SC2 players duking it out for 100K cash prize and glory (this is already somewhat there in Germany for the War3 scene). Finally, casting in ENGLISH, and perhaps with a sense of humor we can understand like Tasteless.
On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote: Also 1esu made a very good post addressing this issue earlier in this thread which I will quote here:
On September 09 2007 14:08 1esu wrote:
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it.
Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here.
Anyways, refer to my previous post where I edited in some hype-machine examples, please.
Yes spiritofthetuna, but where is the Doom3 pro-gaming scene? No one stuck around long enough for it to form despite its decent sales. I don't recall it ever even having one, whereas most other high-profile FPS games had for at least a while.
Er. Doom3 was never meant to be a big multiplayer game. Never. Ever. The focus was on the single-player, much like the original Doom.
Point taken. There may however be other examples of this same idea, but I'm too lazy to think right now.
On September 13 2007 12:52 Aphelion wrote: If people have already bought the game (and you admitted many would), reviews are not going to influence how long they play it. The actual game play is.
Aphelion, I thought this was a terrible subforum. Anyways, you are welcome to stay, but let's not let this thread to devolve into another flamefest.
Hype/Name is one factor driving sales. Reviews are certainly another large factor. Word of mouth is especially important for long-term acceptance. Which of these are more important and by how much is anyone's guess. I'm sure Blizzard would aim to maximize all of them.
The actual gameplay is exactly what is described by reviews, as these reviewers are playing the game with the same mindset as an RTS noob. If even during their quick playthrough (probably 10-20ish hrs at most) they are frustrated with the UI enough to criticize it, how long do you think the average noob will play for (even those noobs who gradually become better until they become pros if they fall in love with the game)?
This is a terrible subforum, simply because posters like you are willing to do anything to win a point, subtling twisting the arguments of others and ignore context and intuition. This is killer because many posters here are so far removed from the SC gaming environment we value. Some don't even play the game much. As a result, the discussion easily becomes just a lot of hot air, detached from the grounding effect that a common gaming understanding and mentality usually produce. When someone posts something wrong in a strategy forum, its obvious. Here, there is no "evidence". Debate becomes formal, theoretical, and requires one to jump too many technical hoops simply to get a point across. Polite words and carefully edited posting can make any terrible argument appear reasonable very well.
The reason I still am posting here is because I care deeply about SC2, simply because it will almost completely destroy the foreign SC scene. There isn't much of an alternative for us. The replacement had better be good. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice any ounce of gameplay simply for improving the popularity of a game among newbs, when the game is already guaranteed to be popular. Has any Blizzard game not been?
And don't "welcome to stay" me. You are just as much a guest here as I am. And frankly, I can't believe the leniency shown you by the staff. You would think you would show some humility after that. But thats approaching flame territory, and another topic for another day.
On September 13 2007 12:52 Aphelion wrote: If people have already bought the game (and you admitted many would), reviews are not going to influence how long they play it. The actual game play is.
Aphelion, I thought this was a terrible subforum. Anyways, you are welcome to stay, but let's not let this thread to devolve into another flamefest.
Hype/Name is one factor driving sales. Reviews are certainly another large factor. Word of mouth is especially important for long-term acceptance. Which of these are more important and by how much is anyone's guess. I'm sure Blizzard would aim to maximize all of them.
The actual gameplay is exactly what is described by reviews, as these reviewers are playing the game with the same mindset as an RTS noob. If even during their quick playthrough (probably 10-20ish hrs at most) they are frustrated with the UI enough to criticize it, how long do you think the average noob will play for (even those noobs who gradually become better until they become pros if they fall in love with the game)?
This is a terrible subforum, simply because posters like you are willing to do anything to win a point, subtling twisting the arguments of others and ignore context and intuition. This is killer because many posters here are so far removed from the SC gaming environment we value. Some don't even play the game much. As a result, the discussion easily becomes just a lot of hot air, detached from the grounding effect that a common gaming understand and mentality usually produce. Debate becomes formal, theoretical, and requires one to jump too many technical hoops simply to get a point across. Polite words and carefully edited posting can make any terrible argument appear reasonable very well.
The reason I still am posting here is because I care deeply about SC2, simply because it will almost completely destroy the foreign SC scene. There isn't much of an alternative for us. The replacement had better be good. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice any ounce of gameplay simply for improving the popularity of a game among newbs, when the game is already guaranteed to be popular. Has any Blizzard game not been?
And don't "welcome to stay" me. You are just as much a guest here as I am. And frankly, I can't believe the leniency shown you by the staff. You would think you would show some humility after that. But thats approaching flame territory, and another topic for another day.
Oh, shut up.
He's made a decent point on why he wants this to happen, he accepts that if it doesn't happen, SC2 may still be as strong as BW, and we've made our points on why we don't want this to happen. He's stopped being rude and I think he's a totally decent poster.
It's two different paths with two different risks and two different best-case outcomes, and while you (and I) don't support the best-case outcome of his ideal SC2, he has understandable reasons of why he doesn't necessarily support the best-case outcomes of a hardcore BW-core SC2.
On September 13 2007 12:52 Aphelion wrote: If people have already bought the game (and you admitted many would), reviews are not going to influence how long they play it. The actual game play is.
Aphelion, I thought this was a terrible subforum. Anyways, you are welcome to stay, but let's not let this thread to devolve into another flamefest.
Hype/Name is one factor driving sales. Reviews are certainly another large factor. Word of mouth is especially important for long-term acceptance. Which of these are more important and by how much is anyone's guess. I'm sure Blizzard would aim to maximize all of them.
The actual gameplay is exactly what is described by reviews, as these reviewers are playing the game with the same mindset as an RTS noob. If even during their quick playthrough (probably 10-20ish hrs at most) they are frustrated with the UI enough to criticize it, how long do you think the average noob will play for (even those noobs who gradually become better until they become pros if they fall in love with the game)?
This is a terrible subforum, simply because posters like you are willing to do anything to win a point, subtling twisting the arguments of others and ignore context and intuition. This is killer because many posters here are so far removed from the SC gaming environment we value. Some don't even play the game much. As a result, the discussion easily becomes just a lot of hot air, detached from the grounding effect that a common gaming understanding and mentality usually produce. When someone posts something wrong in a strategy forum, its obvious. Here, there is no "evidence". Debate becomes formal, theoretical, and requires one to jump too many technical hoops simply to get a point across. Polite words and carefully edited posting can make any terrible argument appear reasonable very well.
The reason I still am posting here is because I care deeply about SC2, simply because it will almost completely destroy the foreign SC scene. There isn't much of an alternative for us. The replacement had better be good. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice any ounce of gameplay simply for improving the popularity of a game among newbs, when the game is already guaranteed to be popular. Has any Blizzard game not been?
And don't "welcome to stay" me. You are just as much a guest here as I am. And frankly, I can't believe the leniency shown you by the staff. You would think you would show some humility after that. But thats approaching flame territory, and another topic for another day.
I see you still have not changed. You now resort to defaming my character rather than addressing my arguments in order to make a point. The mods' decisions (after careful discussion) are not yours to question. All right then. Since you are not planning to leave after all, I do not want to discuss this any further. I don't want to risk ruining this thread again. Truce?
On September 13 2007 13:30 orangedude wrote: I see you still have not changed. All right then. I will not discuss this any further. I don't want to risk ruining this thread. Truce?
Ignore him. You keep chugging little man.
:3
Though tomorrow, I will bring up the subject of why the better UI may not result in such a wide pro scene.
On September 13 2007 13:30 orangedude wrote: I see you still have not changed. All right then. I will not discuss this any further. I don't want to risk ruining this thread. Truce?
Ignore him. You keep chugging little man.
:3
Though tomorrow, I will bring up the subject of why the better UI may not result in such a wide pro scene.
I will look forward to this then
Please try to use as many real examples as you can to strengthen your position. After all, history always repeats itself, and is the best place to learn things to apply for the future. Any argument without solid proof would sadly be only conjecture and we'd be back where we started.
On September 13 2007 07:38 Artanis[Xp] wrote: I think that MBS is a tough, grey area which is another point that seperates the casual SC2 gamer from the oldschool SC player. Both groups demand diffrent things, and it's up to Blizzard to decide on the ideal middle way.
As for MBS, I'm not too sure if it's going to make a big diffrence on the professional scene. It will affect the lower levels tremendously though, and I'm not sure if we would want this to happen. Some somewhat skilled players might feel that they don't have enough of an edge over lesser skilled players in this game, which could lead to as much inactivity as we suffer currently.
Then again, I might just be seeing a danger that isn't there. I trust in the development team of Blizzard to decide on the best route, since they have some of the best programmers and even an ex-progamer in their team.
Inactivity because you can't horribly bash noobs, but only beat them ? lol good logic. All the sc hardcore players are so worryed about having to re-learn everything and pissed about wasting 5 years to master the UI just to get a new easier UI because they won't have such an edge over their opponents, what about bashing noobs because you have better micro and a better uni mix and timming ? and not because you can mass units from 16 gateways faster than him ?
You realize that I can already destroy a worse player micro/timing wise, and that lessening my macro edge IS going to make me destroy him less badly, right?
I don't care super much about this, I'm just saying that destroying him with micro is already there.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: Do you think all publications and blogs will instantly complain about outdated UI and instantly halt sales completely?
No, maybe not all, perhaps only 95% of them (excluding blogs from an SC veteran's viewpoint). No, it won't halt sales completely, but will likely greatly hamper them, which is clearly a very bad thing.
I really doubt it. I'd say 70% at most. Your conjecture vs mine, you can say you've won this point if you want, I say it's up in the air.
Fair enough, but even 50% of reviews criticizing the UI (especially by big sites such as IGN, and Gamespot who are known to be very picky about innovation) is very seriously detrimental to sales.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: If the rest of the game is perfect, then losing the UI is trivial.
Maybe trivial to you, since you started playing SC back in 98 or whenever you started. You can't speak the same about others, because they think differently from you. Proof of this is in nearly every SC review and in every other RTS game review, which are catered to the mass market (e.g. Gamespot gave SC only an 8 for gameplay). Where is your proof aside from your own personal opinion?
If anything, that Gamespot review only proved how often wrong game reviewers are. I've played BW melee only since late 2005, not even close to 98. I still don't see how you represent the majority, and I honestly don't believe that (lack of) UI will be a deterrent among any relatively hardcore gamers. And by hardcore, I don't mean hardcore SC players, I don't mean RTS players, I just mean gamers who have experience gaming and are willing to take up the challenge of a game that is hard to learn and master, and to improve in it. There's more of these than you think, IMO. Oh and, could you source some reviews (RTS, preferably) in which UI was blamed as game-breaking? Not games in which the UI actually sucked and was unusuable, just a bit outdated. I'd like to see some of those.
Unfortunately, even if most game reviewers are complete RTS noobs (which is often true, especially for large popular sites), they are still catered to the mass market and are very important to their success among such an audience, which is where the largest amount of sales will be coming from. Basically, it does not matter one bit how "wrong" you think the reviewers are, because they are probably similar to the average gamer, and are thus writing an "accurate" review if you think about it.
Also, I don't see how the burden of proof falls completely on me to provide all the examples when you can also do some research and show me some reviews of SC that did not criticize its UI, but regardless here you are:
Summary: Despite its goregous graphics, this real-time strategy game seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Armies of Exigo is a real-time strategy game that should have Blizzard blushing. This debut offering from developer Black Hole Games borrows quite a bit from Blizzard's classic real-time strategy releases. In making its Blizzard clone, the developer has emulated everything from the 3D look of the units and buildings of Warcraft III to the three-pronged storyline of Starcraft and the Hollywood-quality cutscene movies that Blizzard is known for. The only problem is that while Black Hole has all the ingredients of a great real-time strategy game, the formula in Armies of Exigo comes off as, well, far too formulaic. Armies of Exigo is in many ways a 1999-era real-time strategy game with 2004 production values. It's a beautiful strategy offering that's technically on par with the best games on the market, and you can appreciate the graphical detail on display as armies clash, magical effects rain down, and units are hurled into the air by mighty blows. However, it's disappointing that the gameplay is very much like that of the earliest real-time strategy games. This is a traditional RTS that seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years. ... That said, if you're looking for an old-school real-time strategy game, then you'll most likely enjoy Armies of Exigo, especially since it features a lot of gameplay in its single-player campaign. Just be prepared for some frustration along the way. However, if you're looking for innovation or streamlined or modern gameplay, you won't find it here."
http://pc.ign.com/articles/573/573573p2.html IGN: "7.0 Decent OVERALL (out of 10 / not an average) Armies of Exigo The perfect game for that nostalgic masochist in your life. by Steve Butts
December 15, 2004 - No developer in their right mind would be upset if you compared their game to Starcraft. The Blizzard classic set a new standard for strategy games five years ago and sparked an excessive number of copycats. It took a few years for real-time strategy developers to absorb the model before finally breaking through it in terms of technology and design. While some gamers still hold Starcraft up as the standard by which all other real-time strategy games are judged, none can deny that lots of new features have been introduced in the meantime.
Armies of Exigo hearkens back to the days when every RTS that came our way seemed to be cast in the Starcraft mold. Though this makes it a very traditional and ultimately unsurprising game, it also means that the developers have the benefit of five years of refinement to look back on. Consequently Armies of Exigo seems like an anachronism -- a familiar but finely polished take on the previous generation of strategy games. ... Capping groups at 15 units could potentially create a real headache in terms of controlling the armies. Armies of Exigo allows you to combine these small groups into one of four larger Super Groups. This extra layer of flexibility is definitely welcome but, given the size of the maps and the overall shape of the action, it would be much easier if the designers had just increased the unit cap for the basic groups. Keeping tabs on the status of the units within each individual group is basically impossible without lots of management. ... Closing Comments Since it borrows so heavily from Starcraft, Armies of Exigo definitely has a lot going for it. The three races are balanced nicely and the campaign offers a lengthy challenge. Though the story is a bit forgettable, the cutscenes are almost as good as those we've seen from Blizzard.
Still, this is definitely a game aimed at the hardcore, old school crowd. Newcomers to the real-time strategy genre will find that the campaign is difficult to the point of near total aggravation. I've played almost every RTS released since Starcraft and even I threw up my hands in frustration at times. Veterans who are looking for something new will find that the design holds no surprises. The dual-layer map system is a nice gimmick but I'm looking to Liquid's Dragonshard to actually make something interesting from the concept. "
Needless to say, Armies of Exigo despite its excellent visuals, was NOT a successful game and has literally 0 pro-scene today despite its catering to the hardcore crowd familiar to SC.
On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: ...If SC2 tries to cater to all RTS audiences at once, problems may occur. However, if SC2 is truly fun to play and KEEPS THE OLD STYLE OF GAMEPLAY, even with obsolete UI, the UI might play much less of a role than you think.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying here that an "obsolete UI" is bad for SC2, but not bad enough to drag it down because the other parts of the game will make up for it (which seems to be based on conjecture and opinion). Now, it is a given that every other part of the game will be improved in a sequel (hopefully), so why not add a more attractive UI to new players as well and make the game even better and more popular (and perhaps additional macro-related tasks)? I'm pretty sure that's the path that Blizzard has in mind.
Finally, if the UI truly plays only a small role (as you claim without proof), then all the more reason to include a noob-friendly UI to attract more sales.
And my point is that I think you're underestimating the fanbase's ability to see a good game in a good game, and your guess that the fanbase will be turned off is much conjecture as my guess that they won't.
Well, true, but I have done my research and am basing my opinions on inductive reasoning from the past. Maybe if you can provide some counter-examples from review quotes then you can say the same.
Not entirely disagreeing, but one reason it did so poorly was that it got NO support from EA, ie no advertizing or anything..
To sum some arguments (and the main opinion of pro MBS up)
If SC2 becomes sells well, becomes a huge hit and furthers the progaming scene in Korea only then it's a failure.
Blizzards goal obviously has to be to expand progaming in the rest of the world, otherwise there would be no progress. So they need a huge ammount of players to not only buy the game but to play it enough to really understand how intricate it is. SC isn't soccer, you need to truly understand what's going on to be impressed by it. Which is why they need to attract new people and keep them playing for a while, which is why they need a good UI. Remember that there was a huge ammount of Koreans allready playing the game before e-sports kicked off, it did NOT start with just a handfull of really skilled players.
Catering to only the hardcore gamers won't work because if there isn't enough people who like and understand the game there's not going to be enough people watching it anyway (not to mention the % argument about pros).
On September 13 2007 16:09 FrozenArbiter wrote: Not entirely disagreeing, but one reason it did so poorly was that it got NO support from EA, ie no advertizing or anything..
But universally damning reviews certainly didn't help at all. Do you want SC2 to risk the same? Armies of Exigo had the potential to receive 9+ from sites, and that alone can boost sales greatly by earning GOTY's for RTS category. Just look at all the positives that the reviews have praised. High production values, gorgeous graphics, great cinematics/cutscenes, three balanced races, some innovations, formula based on SC's success, and all in all a great effort.
What's their reward for all this? A pathetic 7.2 review average.
Before most hardcore players would ever want to invest time into a game, they would probably want to do so on what the majority considers to be a good game.
I don't care super much about this, I'm just saying that destroying him with micro is already there.
So you shouldn't care about MBS, doesn't matter what we think, blizzard already implemented it, as the wc3 player i am, i know a lot of wc3 players who won't change to sc2 if UI isn't as good as the wc3 one, because we don't want to get used to an old UI.
And thats the main reason i quit BW a few months ago i remember my last game, i played it on ICCUP against this protoss player (i'm zerg) well i had a good start i watched a lot of replays, etc i knew the built order quite perfectly and i had in mind what to do to counter his cannon expo (map was reverse temple), at some point we had a big battle i had zerlings and hydras while he had zealots and goons, he tryed to push my second expo but he was so lazzy with micro that i beated his push really bad killing units for free at this point i though well hes dead he lost too much if i push his expo now he will lose, so i did right i was beating him up bad at his expo but i had to go back to my base to babysit my unit production, at the same time i went back to my base in just an eye blink he used his 3 high templars, and killed around 12 hydras with 3 storms, obviously my push failed and then he macro whored me and won, i was so damn pissed i outmicroed him so bad in every battle if i had MBS like in wc3 i wouldn't lose everything to 3 high templars just because i had to go back to my base 3 or4 seconds to mass click some stupid larvas, the funniest thing after showing the replay to a friend of mine who is "good" at BW, he tells me this "you can't copy such a strat because is too hard to use thats why we don't try and copy korean pros because we are not fast enough LOL that is so fucking sad really just because a stupid interfase, doesn't make any sense.
Then i switched to terran because i saw some replays, etc i realized that only koreans are good with terran because terran needs some intense vulture micro / mines micro, using siege tanks properly, building turrets to defend against anti-air etc, terran needs to use this in order to win, but you can't because you must go back in the middle of a battle to your base just to smash ur keyboard pressing V, T on ur 12 factorys, instead of actually microing in the fight, that is so damn boring losing to a guy that doesn't care at all about his units but only about mass clicking his 12 factorys, we wc3 players we are used to fight our battles, trying to outmicro our opponent in every fight, getting the best position, etc but on bw midd lev of play, this doesn't work but only mass clicking ur factorys.
Then i went back to zerg because i though terran was too hard for me, so i've started to beat some of my friends because all i did in midd long game was smashing my keyboard to mass more zerlings, lurkers, ultras or whatever, It was hilarius to beat a wc3 friend who was really putting an insane marine micro just because i massed faster than him, on the long road let's say 30 minutes i always beated him even tho sometimes i could lose my entire army killing a small supply. (we both have + 200 apm in wc3, reaching around 300 - 350 in battle, tho this is not good enough to mass and micro in BW thanks to thar retard'ed UI).
Anyways what i tryed to say is, i want to be in battle trying to vulture mine micro his goons, trying to repair my tanks, trying to drop something, trying to get a perfect positioning, etc i don't want to go back to my base every 15 seconds to mass click some factorys and shit like that i don't find that fun, fun for me, and to the majority of wc3 players is to actually outmicro opponents, and using a better unit mix, not just massing some random units, some friends of mine said that goons are bad vs terran but if you have a good macro u can mass so much zealot goons that it doesn't matter using a bad unit (since you have to be very freaking fast to be good using vulture mines to beat goons & massing from ur 12 factorys, you could actually lose to a retard who was good only at smashing his keyboard on his gateways, if MSB was implemented terrans would try to micro a lot more making goons quite useless but at the same time protoss would be using more HT /drop micro to beat tanks because they won't be using most of their time to mass probes on their 5 expos or massing goons from 15 gateways.
My wc3 clan, we have the Peru wcg winner, argentina best player, and me best venezuelan player, we also have usa players and 2 koreans night elfs, we were going to start playing BW on february before the sc2 hype because we saw some replays and we were quite tired of wc3 imbalance (right now with the new strategies this imbalance is not as bad tho) but after 2 months of BW we all came back to wc3 cuz we got sick of macrowhoring instead of outmicroing, see sc scene could have 8 more players now. And like us theres a lot of people who think the same way.
obviously my push failed and then he macro whored me and won, i was so damn pissed i outmicroed him so bad in every battle if i had MBS like in wc3 i wouldn't lose everything to 3 high templars just because i had to go back to my base 3 or4 seconds to mass click some stupid larvas,
1) 4sh5sh6shs7sh8sh9sh0sh There is no going back to your base, wtf.
2) If you lost the game because you lost 12 hydras to 3 storms (that's pretty standard..) then you were barely ahead/not ahead.
I'm done arguing for or against MBS but I disagree with your reasons for wanting it.
On September 13 2007 22:48 aW]Nevermind wrote: Anyways what i tryed to say is, i want to be in battle trying to vulture mine micro his goons, trying to repair my tanks, trying to drop something, trying to get a perfect positioning, etc i don't want to go back to my base every 15 seconds to mass click some factorys and shit like that i don't find that fun, fun for me, and to the majority of wc3 players is to actually outmicro opponents, and using a better unit mix, not just massing some random units, some friends of mine said that goons are bad vs terran but if you have a good macro u can mass so much zealot goons that it doesn't matter using a bad unit (since you have to be very freaking fast to be good using vulture mines to beat goons & massing from ur 12 factorys, you could actually lose to a retard who was good only at smashing his keyboard on his gateways, if MSB was implemented terrans would try to micro a lot more making goons quite useless but at the same time protoss would be using more HT /drop micro to beat tanks because they won't be using most of their time to mass probes on their 5 expos or massing goons from 15 gateways.
My wc3 clan, we have the Peru wcg winner, argentina best player, and me best venezuelan player, we also have usa players and 2 koreans night elfs, we were going to start playing BW on february before the sc2 hype because we saw some replays and we were quite tired of wc3 imbalance (right now with the new strategies this imbalance is not as bad tho) but after 2 months of BW we all came back to wc3 cuz we got sick of macrowhoring instead of outmicroing, see sc scene could have 8 more players now. And like us theres a lot of people who think the same way.
Whoever told you goons suck vs terran is not very good.
Dragoons are the standard unit vs terran, it's the unit you have the most of pretty much always.
They just can't fight tanks when they reach a certain number, which is why you mix in zealots and shuttles (with templars dropping from them, cause otherwise vultures will rape the templars before you get to the fight), and later arbiters or carriers.
I don't know why your experience with BW was that of every game being a macrowar, when I first started out I always used the most micro intensive strats I could think of cause I found that more fun and my macro was pretty bad.
So I'd be reaver dropping, dt rushing, zealot rushing etcetcetcetc every game. I didn't start playing macro strats until much later.
obviously my push failed and then he macro whored me and won, i was so damn pissed i outmicroed him so bad in every battle if i had MBS like in wc3 i wouldn't lose everything to 3 high templars just because i had to go back to my base 3 or4 seconds to mass click some stupid larvas,
1) 4sh5sh6shs7sh8sh9sh0sh There is no going back to your base, wtf.
2) If you lost the game because you lost 12 hydras to 3 storms (that's pretty standard..) then you were barely ahead/not ahead.
I'm done arguing for or against MBS but I disagree with your reasons for wanting it.
Yes okay sorry for beign a noob, be proud of having less noobs and more pros (like you) in your community, that's the way to go, not like one of us could be good any day because we don't have a brain or a point.
I'm just saying that blaming the UI for your loss instead of blaming yourself is not the way to go..
Maybe we just have different personalities, but when I lost because I couldn't keep my money down while microing I didn't blame the UI, I tried to learn how to do everything faster or more effeciently so I didn't get 2000 minerals all the time.
I did blame things like imbalance for a short period tho, but after a while I just stopped thinking that way cause I realize it wasn't true.
Although I still occasionally blame map balance (or external circumstances cause I'm a sore loser ;D).
But you say you want to micro your vultures, you want to repair your tanks (not much fun doing this with auto-cast imo..) etcetc, well, so do I, and I already do!
To me MBS only represents a step back in terms of how much fun you can have, since I measure fun by how much I have to do pretty much.
I enjoy sending 2 groups of vultures across the map while expanding, scanning, making units from my factories and simultaneously sending my siege tanks towards one of his expansions since he committed too many units to chasing one of my small vulture groups, while the second has now placed a minefield covering their way back etc.
MBS makes it slightly easier so I don't like that.
I had a much better micro than him, but i couldn't beat the UI, and i won't waste my time trying to because on sc2 i won't have to beat the UI and every noob who wants to suicide his entire army won't make a come back macro whoring lol.
On September 13 2007 23:00 FrozenArbiter wrote: I'm just saying that blaming the UI for your loss instead of blaming yourself is not the way to go..
Maybe we just have different personalities, but when I lost because I couldn't keep my money down while microing I didn't blame the UI, I tried to learn how to do everything faster or more effeciently so I didn't get 2000 minerals all the time.
I did blame things like imbalance for a short period tho, but after a while I just stopped thinking that way cause I realize it wasn't true.
Although I still occasionally blame map balance (or external circumstances cause I'm a sore loser ;D).
But you say you want to micro your vultures, you want to repair your tanks (not much fun doing this with auto-cast imo..) etcetc, well, so do I, and I already do!
To me MBS only represents a step back in terms of how much fun you can have, since I measure fun by how much I have to do pretty much.
I enjoy sending 2 groups of vultures across the map while expanding, scanning, making units from my factories and simultaneously sending my siege tanks towards one of his expansions since he committed too many units to chasing one of my small vulture groups, while the second has now placed a minefield covering their way back etc.
MBS makes it slightly easier so I don't like that.
What he means is that at lower levels microing is useless since macroing>>>>Microing and when macro takes up most of your time its impossible to micro well so it becoms a spamfest.
Now, in his oppinion hed rather micro than spend his time spamming units on his enemy, an di think this goes for most average skilled players.
Also note that starcraft got a much higher average skill than other games, just beacuse reasons like this. Its not noob friendly. And also the into to being good to starcraft isnt really fun: First you learn how to spam units, first when you mastered unit spam to a degree were you dont have to think about it can you start with learning how to micro, since micro dont do any good without units.
Now, average skilled players from other games that are used to micro their units will get owned in starcraft simply beacuse in starcraft you earn a lot more per apm building units than microing them. Those will say that they lost due to the UI, and they have the right to say so since the UI makes mundane tasks very time crawing to such a degree that average players hardly have time to do the things they like to do.
For those that can micro+macro at the same time it doesnt matter since you still get the kick out of good micro, but to those that arent used to having a lot of their attention drawn away from the battles will not get the great feeling of good micro and instead will dismiss the game as a spamfest.
The masses wants to be able to micro, and since the masses are many more than the starcraft community Blizzard does the right thing to cater to them instead of making a starcraft expansion with better graphics.
And do you know, now people have a reason to play the old starcraft just like some palys the old warcraft 2.
And the worst thing that can happen to sc2 is revieweres saying: "You can really feel that Blizzard is 10 years behind the rest of the rts industry" People dont like to feel as if they buy a 10 year old game full price, and more than anything the word of noobs and reviewers are very iportant for the success of a game. If you look at CoH, its a sucky as hell game with no depth at all at higher levels, it got piss easy micro and no macro elements whatsoever, however it earned a ton of GOTY awards and is praised by every reviewer and most noobs just beacuse its easy to play and got near to no basebuilding elements.
So as such starcraft 2 needs to be fun at the most basic level to be a huge success, noobs and such dont want a game to force you train a ton before they can come to the fun aspects of it, they want the fun right here and right now. And thats what makes blizzard blizzard, they do give people as much fun as possible at the lower levels without sacrifising much depth at higher levels at all.
Like when starcraft was released it was the most accesable multiplayer rts out there wich was easy to get into for its time but hard to master. Starcraft 2 needs to do the same, it needs to be the most accesable RTS on the market without sacrifising the depth of higher end play.
If you want to play a game with the aspects of '96 UI has to offer, then play a game from '96, making a game with dated controls is a death sentence in the gaming world. Imagine if someone made an fps were you aimed with the keyboard again just like you did in the old FPS games such as doom2 or Dark forces?
Edit: Sorry for the long post, it just grew and grew somehow.
But you say you want to micro your vultures, you want to repair your tanks (not much fun doing this with auto-cast imo..) etcetc, well, so do I, and I already do!
Autocast is for noobs, because i rather be specific at what i want to repair auto repair scv is pretty much usless in battle, ofc if u have like 4 suply damaged thats when auto repair works good, that is on wc3 but is rarely used.
Yes i said i wanted to micro but no matter what i can't because i have to take care of macro wayy too much and i don't care what you say but Long games on BW is all about macro, on the game i want, i want to micro as much as i can, without artificial limitations because micro is one of those things that doesn't have a limit you can't have perfect micro.
But you say you want to micro your vultures, you want to repair your tanks (not much fun doing this with auto-cast imo..) etcetc, well, so do I, and I already do!
Autocast is for noobs, because i rather be specific at what i want to repair auto repair scv is pretty much usless in battle, ofc if u have like 4 suply damaged thats when auto repair works good, that is on wc3 but is rarely used.
Yes i said i wanted to micro but no matter what i can't because i have to take care of macro wayy too much and i don't care what you say but Long games on BW is all about macro, on the game i want, i want to micro as much as i can, without artificial limitations because micro is one of those things that doesn't have a limit you can't have perfect micro.
You can't have perfect macro either.
Well, not without MBS (lol just kidding!! dont kill me)!!
And your point about auto-repair makes me hope they leave that out of the game, if you forget to repair a burning building it should burn down, the AI shouldnt repair it for you.
Anyway, I've played BW for 5 years so I'm obviously not going to feel the same way about macro limiting your micro, it's just natural to me that you can't spend all your energy microing, even though that's what I used to do for a long time when I first started playing.
On September 14 2007 00:05 aW]Nevermind wrote: I had a much better micro than him, but i couldn't beat the UI, and i won't waste my time trying to because on sc2 i won't have to beat the UI and every noob who wants to suicide his entire army won't make a come back macro whoring lol.
Well he obviously had way better macro than you or you wouldn't have lost just because you lost 12 units.
You have to realize that losing 12 units in starcraft is NOTHING. Unlike in warcraft 3, players can trade entire armies with eachother time and time again.
If macro isn't part of SC2 I won't be playing it seriously, if at all, I'll probably just say good bye to gaming and focus on something else.
Klockan:
Also note that starcraft got a much higher average skill than other games, just beacuse reasons like this. Its not noob friendly. And also the into to being good to starcraft isnt really fun: First you learn how to spam units, first when you mastered unit spam to a degree were you dont have to think about it can you start with learning how to micro, since micro dont do any good without units.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I can't really sympathize with it either as I never found it boring at all. And I always microed a lot, meh.
Also note that starcraft got a much higher average skill than other games, just beacuse reasons like this. Its not noob friendly. And also the into to being good to starcraft isnt really fun: First you learn how to spam units, first when you mastered unit spam to a degree were you dont have to think about it can you start with learning how to micro, since micro dont do any good without units.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I can't really sympathize with it either as I never found it boring at all. And I always microed a lot, meh.
I didnt found it boring either when i started but a lot of people arent like that and want more instant gratification.
Blizzard titles are usually the most accessable on the market wich gives them the large fanbases. Then they have a ton of depth also wich gives them their lasting fanbases.
Those 2 in combination gives large and lasting communities, wich is almost exclusive to Blizzard games in general. If you look at D2, D1, SC, WC2, WC3, WOW, they were all the most noobfriendly for its time but still they have more depth than most/all of their concurrents, wich is why they all were the successes they were.
If you look at TA, it got better reviews and more awards than SC, it was a deep game and all that. But it was a total PITA to play the game wich turned most of the game, but the depth of it have kept a small community playing it untill now but as i said the frustration of learning the game is why it never became a real hit.
On September 14 2007 00:05 aW]Nevermind wrote: I had a much better micro than him, but i couldn't beat the UI, and i won't waste my time trying to because on sc2 i won't have to beat the UI and every noob who wants to suicide his entire army won't make a come back macro whoring lol.
That's why there is both macro and micro. You out micro'd him, but he out macro'd you. He wasn't a noob, he just didn't or couldn't micro. You can be a good Starcraft player without really good micromanagement, if you make up for it with very great macromanagement. That's one of the things I like about that game is that if someone is really good at their macro, then I won't be able to win the game on the back of my micro skills alone.
aW]Nevermind: I had a similar experience to you. I started off playing SC in about 97 when it first came out and played it for a couple years as a noob back then, until War3 was released. When I switched to War3, I actually got a bit more serious and found that I also really enjoyed micro and got to a very high level there.
However, because some of my friends were still playing SC (for fun), I eventually switched back to SC in around 2005. When I came back, I was also frustrated for a long time in not having enough time to micro, because the macro took up most of my apm and concentration. Since we kept playing though, after several months I eventually got used to the macro/micro aspects of SC and didn't mind too much.
An important point here I'm trying to make is that if I didn't have an incentive to keep playing SC because some of my buddies were playing there making it fun, I would've never stuck to it and learned how both macro and micro can be enjoyable. I'm sure the vast majority of people who are used to a newer UI from any recent game (including War3) would feel the exact same way after playing SC2 if it didn't include MBS. Many would not keep playing long enough or give it a chance, before they can actually become better at the game.
Funny that you should mention having an incentive (ie in your case friends playing the game) to play, since one of the biggest reasons I quit War3 was that I knew no one I could play with regularly, as opposed to SC where I knew tonnes of people (even though when I first started playing seriously my only incentive was wanting to get good and enjoying the game).
I tried playing War3 several times and never made it past a dozen or so ladder games before returning to BW. I think the two biggest factors were that I just didn't like war3 and that replays were unwatchable online :/
I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines.
I will enjoy multitask on sc2, with the AK system and versatily to deply troops, like Drop pod and Warp in multitask is going to be insane, or thats i hope, that's what you guys arguee about macro, is not really important smashing your keyboard to mass more zealots and goons, is the fact that you need to be on 2 or 3 places at the same time, in that case i find multitask very very entertaining, makes the game feel faster with the new AK system players must be really careful about something like a Reaper harras, so many ideas.
You could send a SCV to built that special rax that builts Reapers, since you can built like 4 of them really fast you could do that to harras your oponnent, and then "salvage" that rax to get your money back.
Drop pods are going to be a pain, in harras and versatility.
The add ons are going to be used on a very special way by pros.
etc etc the game will have more multitask that brood war, and i just hope blizzard puts enphasis on having an insane multitask with battles all over, but not a multitask to built more troops, but to actually fight or something more fun to do.
On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote: I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines.
Everyone knows that, but mastering spidermines when you dont have to think about buildings every 10 seconds is much easier than the other, wich would make the goal of mastering spidermines something not as distant wich would take out the "Im so awsome since i can micro spidermines" from those that really can.
In short, more apm to micro= Old microfeats that were impressive wont be impressive anylonger.
Thats a fact, then you can argue about a ton of sensless shit on if there will be more harder micro feats than before or if everyone will micro at the same degree now etc, but since theres no concluding arguments to that i wont take them up here.
On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote: I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines.
Everyone knows that, but mastering spidermines when you dont have to think about buildings every 10 seconds is much easier than the other, wich would make the goal of mastering spidermines something not as distant wich would take out the "Im so awsome since i can micro spidermines" from those that really can.
In short, more apm to micro= Old microfeats that were impressive wont be impressive anylonger.
Thats a fact, then you can argue about a ton of sensless shit on if there will be more harder micro feats than before or if everyone will micro at the same degree now etc, but since theres no concluding arguments to that i wont take them up here.
Yes okay im pretty sure the average gamer will have a spider mine micro as good as boxer if we just implement MBS sir you got a point here.
Micro doesn't have a limit on how much you can improv.
On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote: I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines.
Everyone knows that, but mastering spidermines when you dont have to think about buildings every 10 seconds is much easier than the other, wich would make the goal of mastering spidermines something not as distant wich would take out the "Im so awsome since i can micro spidermines" from those that really can.
In short, more apm to micro= Old microfeats that were impressive wont be impressive anylonger.
Thats a fact, then you can argue about a ton of sensless shit on if there will be more harder micro feats than before or if everyone will micro at the same degree now etc, but since theres no concluding arguments to that i wont take them up here.
Yes okay im pretty sure the average gamer will have a spider mine micro as good as boxer if we just implement MBS sir you got a point here.
Micro doesn't have a limit on how much you can improv.
Yeah i know, but the difference between good and bad micro will get lessened if you remove the apm drain called macro.
I dont really care if its in or not, but i respect blizzards choice and i dont like when people ignore the positive aspects of having mbs in the game.
Sorry if this has been asked before, but, does anyone know if Blizzard intentionally left out "MBS" in the original Starcraft? Or was it just never thought of before, or difficult to implement. I'm sure the idea of selecting multiple buildings wasn't some wildly unheard of idea when they were designing the original game...
For me, I have given up really caring whether or not the game has MBS or not. I played SC for years before War3, I enjoy both games immensely, I am pretty good at both games (probably better at War3 though, didn't take SC as 'seriously', I was younger etc.)
I will play SC2 regardless. I also think it's extremely difficult to say that the game MUST or MUST NOT have MBS until beta arrives and people are actually playing it seriously. I think the whole "oh, I played it for 4 hours at Blizzcon so I know the game will suck with MBS" is a bit silly (not pointing out anyone in particular). I mean, those games were solely 2v2 right? With a 15-20 minute game limit? And 99% of your opponents were shitty? With unfinished races? You really cannot say with solid evidence what the game will be like with or without MBS.
- Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers.
- "stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines." This is a matter of opinion. Of course building units alone would be boring, but the challenge comes from being able to keep up your macro while microing at the same time. This is simply a difference of game taste though. If you want to micro all the time and ignore macro entirely, perhaps you are playing the wrong game. Starcraft had a balance of macro and micro. WC3 leaned more on micro. If you want ALL micro, perhaps you should play DotA? Then you've got 1 unit to control most of the time and it's entirely micro. Please don't argue about making SC2 cater to an entirely different audience. That's like trying to argue that in SC2 you should be able to go into first person view of a unit and strafe/aim/snipe with it to appeal to the Unreal/CounterStrike gamers. I've got a friend that really likes C&C3 and he complains that Starcraft should have C&C's signature vertical UI. They are different games, let them cater to their respective audiences.
- People that complain that noobs will get bored because SC boils down to macro wars confuse me. The vast majority of noobs do not know how to macro well and they will simply micro. As long as they play against players of similar skill there will be plenty of low unit count micro wars. When I didn't know about the pro scene and just played friendly games with my nooby friends the focus was mainly on micro. Think back to when you just started Starcraft, just finished the campaign and play mainly against friends on BGH. The game was SIMPLE. No macro involved, just basic base building and trying to micro as best you could. At the low levels you will continue to see this trend of micro > macro provided the game is simple enough to learn and play initially. Starcraft did this nicely as it did not have very complex systems to learn and play but the depth was there once you mastered those basics.
When you get to higher levels of competition why shouldn't there be more to do? The addition of macro raises the bar on what is possible, preventing a player from hitting a point where they really can't get better. This keeps competition healthy and ongoing. Without this very high upper bound we probably wouldn't see new up and coming pros in the Starcraft pro scene. There is a reason why the WC3 pro scene seems very stagnant in comparison. From what I'm told, practically every tournament in WC3 worth mentioning has largely the same collection of pros. This is one reason why SC's proscene kicks the crap out of the WC3 scene.
On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote: I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines.
Everyone knows that, but mastering spidermines when you dont have to think about buildings every 10 seconds is much easier than the other, wich would make the goal of mastering spidermines something not as distant wich would take out the "Im so awsome since i can micro spidermines" from those that really can.
In short, more apm to micro= Old microfeats that were impressive wont be impressive anylonger.
Thats a fact, then you can argue about a ton of sensless shit on if there will be more harder micro feats than before or if everyone will micro at the same degree now etc, but since theres no concluding arguments to that i wont take them up here.
Yes okay im pretty sure the average gamer will have a spider mine micro as good as boxer if we just implement MBS sir you got a point here.
Micro doesn't have a limit on how much you can improv.
Maybe they should remove dribbling from basketball or let you carry the ball in your hands in soccer (football) so they can focus on the important fun stuff like shooting goals. In fact, we should have all the players line up, stand still, and take shots at the goal/hoop. This way they can focus entirely in the more important stuff and ignore all the tedious stuff like actually getting to the goal/hoop...
On September 09 2007 13:29 KaRnaGe[cF] wrote: I agree with Nony's post 100%. Starcraft's UI is a blank canvass on which the player creates art. Adding MBS and automining takes much of the fun and competitiveness out of the game.
Same here and also agree with TLT and LonelyMargarita
On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote: I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines.
Everyone knows that, but mastering spidermines when you dont have to think about buildings every 10 seconds is much easier than the other, wich would make the goal of mastering spidermines something not as distant wich would take out the "Im so awsome since i can micro spidermines" from those that really can.
In short, more apm to micro= Old microfeats that were impressive wont be impressive anylonger.
Thats a fact, then you can argue about a ton of sensless shit on if there will be more harder micro feats than before or if everyone will micro at the same degree now etc, but since theres no concluding arguments to that i wont take them up here.
Yes okay im pretty sure the average gamer will have a spider mine micro as good as boxer if we just implement MBS sir you got a point here.
Micro doesn't have a limit on how much you can improv.
Maybe they should remove dribbling from basketball or let you carry the ball in your hands in soccer (football) so they can focus on the important fun stuff like shooting goals. In fact, we should have all the players line up, stand still, and take shots at the goal/hoop. This way they can focus entirely in the more important stuff and ignore all the tedious stuff like actually getting to the goal/hoop...
Why not make SC players juggle 10 grenades while playing, it will surely require skill!
Seriously, these awfully stupid arguments(if you can call them arguments at all) have no place here.
On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote: - Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers.
I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP.
I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good.
And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
Guys... all of these arguments that are appearing from both sides have been addressed far earlier in the thread. Read the OP and perhaps the first 3-5 pages please before commenting. This is just a complete rehash of what has already been thoroughly discussed. Especially about the "more skill" required argument.
On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote: - People that complain that noobs will get bored because SC boils down to macro wars confuse me. The vast majority of noobs do not know how to macro well and they will simply micro. As long as they play against players of similar skill there will be plenty of low unit count micro wars. When I didn't know about the pro scene and just played friendly games with my nooby friends the focus was mainly on micro. Think back to when you just started Starcraft, just finished the campaign and play mainly against friends on BGH. The game was SIMPLE. No macro involved, just basic base building and trying to micro as best you could. At the low levels you will continue to see this trend of micro > macro provided the game is simple enough to learn and play initially. Starcraft did this nicely as it did not have very complex systems to learn and play but the depth was there once you mastered those basics.
Um... when I started off as a BGH noob about 10 years ago, myself and everyone I knew focused at least 95% on macro. I don't know where you are getting the "noobs only know how to micro" part from. We didn't even know what the concept of micro was, but we did mass our huge hordes of goons, zeals, tanks, hydras, or w/e we wanted to and spent most of our scarce apm on that. Our micro consisted of at most a-attack and going back to mass more units. Ask any noob what "micro" is and they'll have no clue. Even in War3, the lower you go, the more macro focused the games are with barely any micro involved. Micro can only be learned through experience, while macro is simply building units, which is what every noob is taught when they first start off.
Even now, go join some fastest or BGH map in SC and I'll guarantee you that you will find micro is extremely lacking and that the game is almost purely macro based the lower you go (as can be evidenced by the lack of hotkey usage).
If you make macro a bit easier, then this frees up a bit of time for the slowest of players and could entice them into actually controlling their troops instead of suiciding a-attack, which then let's them gradually build up skill and understanding of the game.
On September 14 2007 04:11 SoleSteeler wrote: Sorry if this has been asked before, but, does anyone know if Blizzard intentionally left out "MBS" in the original Starcraft? Or was it just never thought of before, or difficult to implement. I'm sure the idea of selecting multiple buildings wasn't some wildly unheard of idea when they were designing the original game...
Actually I think it was a pretty novel concept at the time. I don't believe any other RTS from the same period had MBS allowed in it. The only other major competitors were Age of Empires, C&C and TA. None of them had this feature as far as I'm aware.
On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote: I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines.
Everyone knows that, but mastering spidermines when you dont have to think about buildings every 10 seconds is much easier than the other, wich would make the goal of mastering spidermines something not as distant wich would take out the "Im so awsome since i can micro spidermines" from those that really can.
In short, more apm to micro= Old microfeats that were impressive wont be impressive anylonger.
Thats a fact, then you can argue about a ton of sensless shit on if there will be more harder micro feats than before or if everyone will micro at the same degree now etc, but since theres no concluding arguments to that i wont take them up here.
Yes okay im pretty sure the average gamer will have a spider mine micro as good as boxer if we just implement MBS sir you got a point here.
Micro doesn't have a limit on how much you can improv.
Maybe they should remove dribbling from basketball or let you carry the ball in your hands in soccer (football) so they can focus on the important fun stuff like shooting goals. In fact, we should have all the players line up, stand still, and take shots at the goal/hoop. This way they can focus entirely in the more important stuff and ignore all the tedious stuff like actually getting to the goal/hoop...
Why not make SC players juggle 10 grenades while playing, it will surely require skill!
Seriously, these awfully stupid arguments(if you can call them arguments at all) have no place here.
It's an analogy dumbass and it's true. You don't see the pretty stuff in soccer without the fundamentals. Same for broodwar. It's really nto a hard concept...
Taking any example and making an analogy so far-fetched usually doesn't work. If you didn't need to dribble or just held the ball in soccer you're fundamentally changing the rules of the game (making it impossible to be a non-contact sport) and not just one aspect of the UI like in SC. UI should be analagous to the type of ball, stick, or w/e object the sport uses to play the game as it is the tool of the game, much like in SC. Rules from sports on the other hand are analagous to the tech tree and unit stats in SC. Macro is still there in SC even with MBS, but it's just made more streamlined and takes less repeated clicks (positive or negative depends on your personal view). Juggling grenades has nothing to do with the game at all. If you wanted a better example, see my OP where I explained why adding a War2 interface to SC would not be a good thing even though it raised skill, because it's due to artificial limitations.
On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote: - Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers.
I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP.
I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good.
And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
Again, it's like how it was said before. Macro is the dribbling in soccer, while micro is the shooting. To be a great player, like the ones in Korea, you get good at both. Some get good relying just on micro, while others get good relying on their macro. But that's just it, they will be one dimensional and will never be as good as the guys who can do both.
A better example: football. Look at the Falcons when Vick was around. Now if running the football was the only way to score points, the Falcons probably would have won the last three SB's. But football—like Starcraft—is multidimensional. That's why the Falcons were never better than a mediocre team, they have no air game. Negate their run game and you basically won. That's why teams like the Patriots are contenders each year... they can play conservatively and run run run, or they can blow you out of the water by putting up 400 yards passing.
Marginalizing macro with MBS makes means diluting the game. No more varied styles of play... it's just gonna be a micro game, heads up, every-single-time. It would be liek going back to the old style of football, where the only things quarterbacks did was hand off to a running back all game. Sure, it might be kind of interesting at first, but it's one dimensional and grows old fast. Players will only have one way of winning the game, instead of many.
On September 14 2007 04:45 aW]Nevermind wrote: it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast
It's not too fun to watch 2 guys killing creeps following the same pattern and using the same damn units for 10 minutes each game of War3 and just TP out as soon as anyone smells trouble. What, I don't have a clue about what War3 is all about? Probably, but then you don't have a clue what Starcraft is all about if you've played it for 6 weeks.
My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
If you respect your grandfather so much, why don't YOU follow his words in the first place?
As pointed out by quite many here already; Blizz will most likely keep MBS in sc2 in order to have a well functioning interface for new players, anything else would greatly surprise me. In order for a game to be good, it has to be challenging for players at all levels. This means that if the game is too hard it will lead to frustration (which is especially bad for gamers at low and average level), and if the game isn't challenging enough it would end up being boring. Some examples are chess and poker, easy to learn the rules but always challenging, going by the concept "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master". The interface should be as friendly and intuitive as possible to newcomers, but still not made too easy for the experienced players.
MBS will thus be almost a necessity in order to satisfy the masses, but it brings up problems for high level players. To the posters who refered to wc3: I can confirm that wc3 is in many ways "too easy" for progamers. In sc there's seemingly always something which could be done better or faster, in wc3 many things are so easy to do (on semipro to pro level) that the only aspect which distinguish players are just how perfect they execute a strat. At such a level in wc3 when both players plays close to perfection, the small things matters more, and randomness takes over (item drops, map pos etc). For professional wc3 players this is quite a headache, as the chance of losing to a "decent but worse player" will always be quite high when the macro is so easy to execute. This is relevant to the arguments about MBS shrinking the gap between players, it's hard to win an easy game (it's for example hard to have a 90% winrate in rock-scissor-paper). Of course if a less skilled player could never beat a better player then it wouldn't be that exciting, but it shouldn't occur that often.
I've tested sc2 and I must say that some of the "fear" that the game might become too easy in terms of macro seems reasonable. For example with terran you can have 10 rax with reactors and 10 fac+reactors in group1, and 10 rax+tech and 10 fac+tech in group2. You could then macro 40 buildings with 1mm[tab]vv, 2c[tab]t. For protoss it's even easier if you are just massing one unit from all gateways. However there is a chance that it will still be impossible to reach perfection in macro and micro multitasking. Maybe it was just the low unit count in wc3 which made that game too easy (i.e too small gap between players), and that progamers practicing sc2 all day long will always have something in their game which could have been done faster and better. Maybe the new standard for example will add a new dimension to the use of split armies, doing 4-5 battles at the same time on different places while constantly building units\structures\expands and keep scouting.
To sum it up it seems determined that sc2 will have MBS. Personally I think it's good to have MBS as it helps new gamers quite a lot, but it might lead to an oversimplified game for the progamers. It would be nice if someone managed to come up with an idea of new aspects in the game which gamers had to spend time. Something which the new gamers didn't have to care much about (because they have enough going on already), but which kept challenging the top players and distinguished the semipro's from the pro's.
On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote: I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines.
I will enjoy multitask on sc2, with the AK system and versatily to deply troops, like Drop pod and Warp in multitask is going to be insane, or thats i hope, that's what you guys arguee about macro, is not really important smashing your keyboard to mass more zealots and goons, is the fact that you need to be on 2 or 3 places at the same time, in that case i find multitask very very entertaining, makes the game feel faster with the new AK system players must be really careful about something like a Reaper harras, so many ideas.
You could send a SCV to built that special rax that builts Reapers, since you can built like 4 of them really fast you could do that to harras your oponnent, and then "salvage" that rax to get your money back.
Drop pods are going to be a pain, in harras and versatility.
The add ons are going to be used on a very special way by pros.
etc etc the game will have more multitask that brood war, and i just hope blizzard puts enphasis on having an insane multitask with battles all over, but not a multitask to built more troops, but to actually fight or something more fun to do.
Thank you for telling me what's fun, I certainly wasn't capable of deciding what I find fun on my own.
On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote: - Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers.
I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP.
I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good.
And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
Again, it's like how it was said before. Macro is the dribbling in soccer, while micro is the shooting. To be a great player, like the ones in Korea, you get good at both. Some get good relying just on micro, while others get good relying on their macro. But that's just it, they will be one dimensional and will never be as good as the guys who can do both.
A better example: football. Look at the Falcons when Vick was around. Now if running the football was the only way to score points, the Falcons probably would have won the last three SB's. But football—like Starcraft—is multidimensional. That's why the Falcons were never better than a mediocre team, they have no air game. Negate their run game and you basically won. That's why teams like the Patriots are contenders each year... they can play conservatively and run run run, or they can blow you out of the water by putting up 400 yards passing.
Marginalizing macro with MBS makes means diluting the game. No more varied styles of play... it's just gonna be a micro game, heads up, every-single-time. It would be liek going back to the old style of football, where the only things quarterbacks did was hand off to a running back all game. Sure, it might be kind of interesting at first, but it's one dimensional and grows old fast. Players will only have one way of winning the game, instead of many.
Hawk, I can see that you've put a decent amount of thought into this and have come up with a well-reasoned argument. I just want to make a few comments about them.
Firstly, macro being equivalent to the dribbling in soccer actually does make a lot of sense. You are saying that dribbling is a minimum requirement to be able to play soccer. However, I would also say that dribbling is a very basic and easily learned skill with a very low learning curve so this is very helpful in teaching kids the game of soccer. They won't be confused or frustrated by dribbling (unless they're too young) because it's very natural, intuitive and easy to pick up. There is also definitely a finite limit to how well you can dribble and most every soccer player can perform this very well. This is similar to many competitive sports out there (dribbling in basketball, skating in hockey, etc). So in this sense, I think the game of soccer and its dribbling is closer to macro in a game with MBS, where dribbling skill takes a backseat to other attributes of a player, such as endurance, running speed, shooting skill and game sense.
Macro in SC without MBS in the game, however, is very hard to master for most people except for the highest level of Korean pros and even they have imperfect macro. I guess, it could be analagous to forcing all soccer players to wear 50-kilo lead-plated shoes, as this definitely ups the challenge of the game by a lot (but also seems artificial). Only the best soccer players would become proficient in dribbling, but this could also become a barrier to entry for many new players wanting to play the game and decrease the player base.
As for the football example, I think this is more of describing strategies in the game. If the Falcons only knew how to win by passing the ball to Vick and making him run for the touchdowns, this would be analagous to a player who only knows how to win in SC by rushing the other player. He has no late game and no strategical sense, but does happen to be highly skilled in rushing. This however, only makes him a mediocre player and he only wins against players who cannot even handle an early game rush. Fortunately, both SC and football are not as one-dimensional as this and require a multitude of skills and tactics, otherwise they would be very shallow games. I don't think MBS would change this aspect of this game.
On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote: I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines.
Everyone knows that, but mastering spidermines when you dont have to think about buildings every 10 seconds is much easier than the other, wich would make the goal of mastering spidermines something not as distant wich would take out the "Im so awsome since i can micro spidermines" from those that really can.
In short, more apm to micro= Old microfeats that were impressive wont be impressive anylonger.
Thats a fact, then you can argue about a ton of sensless shit on if there will be more harder micro feats than before or if everyone will micro at the same degree now etc, but since theres no concluding arguments to that i wont take them up here.
Yes okay im pretty sure the average gamer will have a spider mine micro as good as boxer if we just implement MBS sir you got a point here.
Micro doesn't have a limit on how much you can improv.
Maybe they should remove dribbling from basketball or let you carry the ball in your hands in soccer (football) so they can focus on the important fun stuff like shooting goals. In fact, we should have all the players line up, stand still, and take shots at the goal/hoop. This way they can focus entirely in the more important stuff and ignore all the tedious stuff like actually getting to the goal/hoop...
Why not make SC players juggle 10 grenades while playing, it will surely require skill!
Seriously, these awfully stupid arguments(if you can call them arguments at all) have no place here.
It's an analogy dumbass and it's true. You don't see the pretty stuff in soccer without the fundamentals. Same for broodwar. It's really nto a hard concept...
And the fundamentals of SC are clicking 5 factories? THAT'S what makes BW the best RTS ever made and the most popular esport? Comparing non-MBS to dribbling in basketball or using hands in soccer are the most retarded analogies ever. Don't pretend to play sports when you have no idea what you're talking about. And don't call that guy a dumbass, he was just pointing out your idiocy. Seriously, kill yourself now dude. Uninstall StarCraft and then uninstall life, you fail so hard.
Everyone, stop the flaming please. Attacking the other person doesn't make your argument more true. We may disagree with each other, but we are still entitled to our own opinions, as long as they are not offensive to anyone else.
Also remember that if a flame war, or a flame skirmish breaks out, this thread would likely be closed, and most people would no longer be able to see both sides of the argument. A good example of a good debate would be the one between SpiritoftheTuna and orangedude yesterday. There was no anger, and each side actually got their points across.
On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote: - Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers.
I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP.
I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good.
And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
Again, it's like how it was said before. Macro is the dribbling in soccer, while micro is the shooting. To be a great player, like the ones in Korea, you get good at both. Some get good relying just on micro, while others get good relying on their macro. But that's just it, they will be one dimensional and will never be as good as the guys who can do both.
Good point, but my problem with using dribbling soccer/basketball as an analogy, as I've said, is that dribbling in both sports isn't an optional feature; it's required for those sports to be non-contact sports, since it's practically impossible to steal a ball from someone holding it without contact. Basketball and soccer were created as non-contact sports, but Starcraft was created as a real-time strategy game. Now, I accept that MBS might screw up the balance between macro and micro on the higher levels of play (and imo, might fix the imbalance towards macro in the lower levels, if this thread is any indication), but I don't see how MBS makes SC2 any less 'real-time' or less of a 'strategy' game.
For a competitive game to be considered as a title for MLG's roster of games, here are some base characteristics/requirements:
- huge following - appeals to both new and experienced players alike--i.e. easy enough to pick up, but plenty of depth to make a veteran continue playing - an attempt at reducing the concept of slippery slope - skill-based (in one form or another) more than based on luck (though luck always has at a least a small factor due to the nature of life) - long lifetime, which is determined by the players or community for the game - the huge following is actually willing to come out to tournaments (this can be demonstrated through consistent tournament turnouts over time, with numbers that exceed minimal ones) - good showcase for media purposes (not necessarily but can be innovation? updated graphically? etc.)
Unless it can be demonstrated that a game can meet most of these prerequisites, a game will probably not be considered by MLG to be included in the roster.
Relevant statistics (tournament turnouts, demographics--regions with highest concentrations of players--and so on) should also be gathered and organized into presentable form.
Furthermore, most tournament-worthy games, at least the successful ones, have strong hardcore communities. For the most part, these communities also hold local, player-run tournaments all around the country (in the US, for instance), and should the size of the community grow to a sufficient size, the community painstakingly organizes larger, national tournaments or majors.
It was done with Halo 1 (and still is, to a lesser extent). It was and still is being done with Smash (Super Smash Bros. Melee as well as its predecessor). It was and still is being done with "traditional" fighting games.
This strong community presence and dedication is a necessary characteristic for a competitive game to be successful, as it demonstrates with certainty the level of dedication of many of the game's players. Otherwise, holding national tournaments for a competitive game without precedence will most likely result in failure. After all, it is unrealistic to expect that MLG, or any other league or organization, can hold national events for a game and subsequently create or organize its community--no, MLG can only further and benefit the competitive game and its community, potentially by leaps and bounds. The community must be established and organized beforehand, even if only to a moderate degree.
The question, then, is, does this particular game you refer to have this sort of community? Or is it a game that has a large fan base but consisting of primarily casual players, content with single-player and online play, without a strong and large hardcore community? Or a game with a small fan base, regardless of its makeup (hardcore or casual)?
Major League Gaming, for those of you who don't know, is the home of the Halo 2, Gears of War, and Super Smash Bros. Melee professional tournaments/leagues. They easily rank among the most respected e-sports organizations in the USA, if not the world.
Isn't MBS just like mass larva select? If that's the case MBS should be okay. Pros probably won't use it much to any advantage and the masses will mass
On September 14 2007 09:36 Vietnam_Oi wrote: Isn't MBS just like mass larva select? If that's the case MBS should be okay. Pros probably won't use it much to any advantage and the masses will mass
You can't hotkey mass-selected larvae IIRC, but you can hotkey mass-selected buildings.
On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote: - Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers.
I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP.
I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good.
And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
For someone that only played a game for 6 weeks you seem awfully sure of your judgements on the game. I played WC3 for 2-3 years and I don't feel fully qualified to cast concrete judgements about what a sequel should be, especially not against the opinions of the people that do still actively play.
If you don't find it fun to "macro whore" then stay away from Starcraft? If I don't like a game I see no reason to push for that game's sequel to be a different game than it's predecessor just to suit me. I don't see Counter Strike players going to Unreal forums saying that the next Unreal game should feature present day weapons or vice versa. If you disliked SC1 then why would you want to ruin SC2 for it's core fan base to suit your needs?
I was the guy who suggested that perhaps DotA might be more your thing. This wasn't meant as an insult by the way. Also, would you mind explaining to me what your definition of micro is? Just so we're on the same page in that regard.
Your grandfather sounds like a wise person. I'll try to stay away from telling people that have played a game for years and enjoy it greatly how their sequel should be after playing it for 6 weeks. Seems like it would keep me out of trouble.
On September 14 2007 06:22 Mergesort wrote: As pointed out by quite many here already; Blizz will most likely keep MBS in sc2 in order to have a well functioning interface for new players, anything else would greatly surprise me. In order for a game to be good, it has to be challenging for players at all levels. This means that if the game is too hard it will lead to frustration (which is especially bad for gamers at low and average level), and if the game isn't challenging enough it would end up being boring. Some examples are chess and poker, easy to learn the rules but always challenging, going by the concept "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master". The interface should be as friendly and intuitive as possible to newcomers, but still not made too easy for the experienced players.
MBS will thus be almost a necessity in order to satisfy the masses, but it brings up problems for high level players. To the posters who refered to wc3: I can confirm that wc3 is in many ways "too easy" for progamers. In sc there's seemingly always something which could be done better or faster, in wc3 many things are so easy to do (on semipro to pro level) that the only aspect which distinguish players are just how perfect they execute a strat. At such a level in wc3 when both players plays close to perfection, the small things matters more, and randomness takes over (item drops, map pos etc). For professional wc3 players this is quite a headache, as the chance of losing to a "decent but worse player" will always be quite high when the macro is so easy to execute. This is relevant to the arguments about MBS shrinking the gap between players, it's hard to win an easy game (it's for example hard to have a 90% winrate in rock-scissor-paper). Of course if a less skilled player could never beat a better player then it wouldn't be that exciting, but it shouldn't occur that often.
I've tested sc2 and I must say that some of the "fear" that the game might become too easy in terms of macro seems reasonable. For example with terran you can have 10 rax with reactors and 10 fac+reactors in group1, and 10 rax+tech and 10 fac+tech in group2. You could then macro 40 buildings with 1mm[tab]vv, 2c[tab]t. For protoss it's even easier if you are just massing one unit from all gateways. However there is a chance that it will still be impossible to reach perfection in macro and micro multitasking. Maybe it was just the low unit count in wc3 which made that game too easy (i.e too small gap between players), and that progamers practicing sc2 all day long will always have something in their game which could have been done faster and better. Maybe the new standard for example will add a new dimension to the use of split armies, doing 4-5 battles at the same time on different places while constantly building units\structures\expands and keep scouting.
To sum it up it seems determined that sc2 will have MBS. Personally I think it's good to have MBS as it helps new gamers quite a lot, but it might lead to an oversimplified game for the progamers. It would be nice if someone managed to come up with an idea of new aspects in the game which gamers had to spend time. Something which the new gamers didn't have to care much about (because they have enough going on already), but which kept challenging the top players and distinguished the semipro's from the pro's.
Very good post. This pretty much sums up a lot of points from both sides of the MBS debate (including my OP) in a more compact form.
I personally found it interesting that you mention Poker as an example of a game that is easy to learn, but nearly impossible to achieve perfection and contrasted this to War3. I agree that Poker is very easy to pick up and learn the rules (almost deceptively easy), and that this is one ingredient of its success. Now I don't follow the Poker scene very closely, but as far as I'm aware doesn't luck play a huge factor in determining the winners in Poker (due to its very nature as a game of chance)? Sure, there are a lot of subtleties with reading tells, making the right calls and so on, but I don't believe there would be an very big difference between a pro-poker player and a semi-pro. Also, very rarely does the same player win the WPT more than once.
I think the reason why the pro-Poker scene is so competitive is because the game is itself founded from a background of gambling, and thus has a ridiculous amount of cash flowing in the game. This allows the few top players who are just minutely better than the rest to win slightly more often than everyone else and thus manage to make a large enough net surplus in money to earn a living by playing Poker. The massive amount of $$$ and large public interest in Poker is what really keeps the scene competitive rather than the large difference in skills between the players if you think about it.
Furthermore, I don't believe the problem that you state among War3 players is as huge as it really is. I mean I would never doubt Grubby's opinion if he thinks that sometimes skill level isn't as differentiated as he would like it to be, but I don't think this is anywhere near the biggest problem with the game as an E-Sport. There are other major issues that I've mentioned before that make War3 less suitable for a spectator sport than SC. Advantages for SC include these: it's cleaner to watch, easier to understand for the average viewer, faster paced, better balanced, has less chasing rather than battles, and more.
If you look at this list of recent winners of major Warcraft 3 tournaments over recent years (not a complete list), you may notice that Grubby has won 6 and placed in the top 4, for 16 of the past 29 international tournaments (2004-2007), and Moon also something similar. Clearly, there is still enough room for the top players to comfortably dominate the rest more often than not, and this cannot possibly be due to luck alone.
You also said that you have tried SC2 and that these "fears" may be reasonable, but you have to keep in mind that all of you people played only a few hours on an early alpha build of SC2 facing mostly noobs. Also remember that you were likely playing with the SC mindset, when SC2 could make major changes to up the difficulty in several areas that we are not even aware of yet. I don't believe this can be taken as conclusive evidence yet, to either support or reject MBS and we'd have to wait until beta to see for sure when it is tested thoroughly.
I guess my overall point I'm trying to make is that the #1 most important factor in determining the success of a game or sport is whether or not if it can continually attract new players into the game over the long-term and maintain the interest of these players for long enough to go pro. While a large difference of skill is certainly desirable, it is not necessarily the most important factor (e.g. as evidenced by the Poker scene).
Thus, if MBS is necessary to attract a large amount of people for a game released in the year 2008 and keep them playing, then it would be foolish for Blizzard not to implement it if they are concerned with the future of E-Sports (outside of Korea).
On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote: - Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers.
I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP.
I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good.
And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
Errr.... Anyone can have similar to Boxer-esque micro if all they did was micro. Don't whine because you love micro so much.
Massing to 200/200 may happen in TvP but I doubt you will find it in any other matchup or in games of higher caliber players. The Koreans aren't able to micro because they are "too good", they are "too good" because they can micro AND macro.
You bring the crowns and heads of conquered players to my city steps. You insult my macro. You threaten my people with monotony and micro! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, WarCrafter. Perhaps you should have done the same!
On September 11 2007 10:04 Fuu wrote: All my noobs friends, who've never played RTS, if i ask them if they prefer war3 or SC, they'll all answer war3. MBS or no : they'll of course say MBS. The problem stays : you (or them) seem to affirm things you cannot even grasp. It's like the new tennis player who wants to change the rules cause he's unable to compete with the bests. Or cause he thinks it will be less tedious for the newbs to learn, thus attract more people. If it's true, is it suitable ?
Ironically, you have chosen the exact example that completely nullifies your reasoning, because this actually HAPPENED in tennis.
A while back, tennis players moved from the old and inferior wooden rackets (analagous to UI, since the racket is the player's tool of tennis and UI is the player's tool for SC) to the new more accurate and powerful metal rackets, and in doing so raised the skill level of the sport by a substantial margin for everyone, even the pros. Tennis not only attracted more fans and players, but it also became even more competitive than it was before even if you believe that the total skill gap is lowered. Changing the rules of tennis on the other hand (as you described) is the same as changing the balance and stats of SC (e.g. tech tree, unit HP, attack, speed, etc) and completely different from MBS.
Dude, you actually make a lot of good points. It seems in fact we disagree on something more subtle, that's why the example of tennis appears accurate for both of us.
Actually i DO agree with interface improving !!! That's incredible you assume i think differently. Of course I want to allow MBS to set up the rally point, for example.
Although the real point is very simple to understand, i will put it in bold this time, if that helps : I strongly disagree with everything which radically changes the way the only successful game for e-sport is played, the core of the thing, the balance micro / macro ! For sure newbs have different views on the core of the game than veterans.
So maybe i will take the example of tennis once again : its no problem they improve the racket interface, and i would perfectly agree with this kind of things in SC. However, I would not agree they fucking change the height of the net to make it easier. If you don't understand the difference between the two 'improvements', then i think you indeed can't understand my point.
So now, just try to discuss the part in bulk, to see your views on the question. You think it won't change this balance ? You think it won't be bad for the game ? For most knowledged starcraft player the answer is clear. On these SC2 forums we have a bunch of noobs and war3 players. Now go to ask this question to the people who actually play the game and are interested in progaming. And give me also your opinion. You're not on the blizzard side, i want to know what you think as a player !
On September 14 2007 14:15 Fuu wrote: I strongly disagree with everything which radically changes the way the only successful game for e-sport is played, the core of the thing, the balance micro / macro !
If you changed it to I strongly disagree with anything which substantially changes the balance of micro and macro on the higher levels of SC play for the worse, I would accept your point.
However, I don't believe that you, or I, or anyone here has the right to say that such a change would necessarily be negative, or even have any effect at all; that could only be determined through extensive testing of a feature-complete version of SC2. It's exceedingly difficult, if not practically impossible, to figure out the effects of adding/removing/altering a mechanic from the ruleset of any game on the gameplay dynamics without actually playing the new version. If testing comes to the conclusion that MBS is harmful for gameplay, then it will have to be refined into something similar yet requiring more skill, like Luuh's suggestion for a unit-hotkey press for each unit of that type you wish to build. However, that's the point we are trying to make: SC2 can't have the same interface as SC if it is going to have any significant chance of becoming a professional e-sport outside of Asia, because the long-term competitive community will be too small to support it.
Sorry about the italics, but those seem to be the details of our argument that are most often missed by critics.
On September 09 2007 13:29 KaRnaGe[cF] wrote: I agree with Nony's post 100%. Starcraft's UI is a blank canvass on which the player creates art. Adding MBS and automining takes much of the fun and competitiveness out of the game.
so essentially Sc2 (with MBS)
Sc1
In summation... you can still have a good time coloring within the lines - but it's nothing compared to the fun and satisfaction of creating a piece of art
On September 14 2007 14:15 Fuu wrote: I strongly disagree with everything which radically changes the way the only successful game for e-sport is played, the core of the thing, the balance micro / macro !
If you changed it to I strongly disagree with anything which substantially changes the balance of micro and macro on the higher levels of SC play for the worse, I would accept your point.
However, I don't believe that you, or I, or anyone here has the right to say that such a change would necessarily be negative, or even have any effect at all; that could only be determined through extensive testing of a feature-complete version of SC2. It's exceedingly difficult, if not practically impossible, to figure out the effects of adding/removing/altering a mechanic from the ruleset of any game on the gameplay dynamics without actually playing the new version. If testing comes to the conclusion that MBS is harmful for gameplay, then it will have to be refined into something similar yet requiring more skill, like Luuh's suggestion for a unit-hotkey press for each unit of that type you wish to build. However, that's the point we are trying to make: SC2 can't have the same interface as SC if it is going to have any significant chance of becoming a professional e-sport outside of Asia, because the long-term competitive community will be too small to support it.
Sorry about the italics, but those seem to be the details of our argument that are most often missed by critics.
I totally agree on the points you raise.
I also share this point of view, even if i have some strong beliefs that it will necesseraly mess up the balance, cause macro will be too easy. The worse point imo : multi selection on command centers or hatches, coupled with auto mining.
Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
The end of the reasonning is NO newb features dangerous for the gameplay.
On September 14 2007 09:36 Vietnam_Oi wrote: Isn't MBS just like mass larva select? If that's the case MBS should be okay. Pros probably won't use it much to any advantage and the masses will mass
You can't hotkey mass-selected larvae IIRC, but you can hotkey mass-selected buildings.
You can, and I often do when I want mutalisks or something, but there's not much point since the hotkeys transfer to the units after they are finished building.
For most knowledged starcraft player the answer is clear. On these SC2 forums we have a bunch of noobs and war3 players. Now go to ask this question to the people who actually play the game and are interested in progaming. And give me also your opinion. You're not on the blizzard side, i want to know what you think as a player !
How skilled you are at games have little to do with how good games you make. You can call game designers noobs all you want but they still know more about making games than you do.
Good gamers are nice when you want to balance something but they still aren't the one doing the balancing, they just test the stuff for the real developers.
On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote: Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2.
If the game isnt fundamentally better than starcraft in a lot of ways it would just split the sc community between the 2 titles since they are to equal, the 10 years must show or we can just aswell play sc1. This way if MBS is a success they will take both the whole new crowd and the sc crowd+ wc3 crowd, while if its not a success they will still take a large chunk of the sc players and still get all the new player + wc3 players.
However wo mbs they will almost only have the sc crowd.
Its like gambling like this: A: You get 50 dollars. B: 50% to get 200 dollars, if you loose you get 150 dollars.
Wich do you think is the best to choose?
Edit: And as another note, if Blizzard made a game like the long time starcraft veterans here want their reputation would go down to hell and people would talk so much trash about Blizzard only catering to the pro players that wants to dominate everyone in the game, wich would crush their sales a ton.
You cant live on a repuation if you dont keep it up.
On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote: Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2.
On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote: Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2.
On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote: Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2.
ever play counter strike 1.6 and cs:s?
CS:S were almost a CS clone with better graphics, wonder why it failed?
On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote: Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2.
ever play counter strike 1.6 and cs:s?
CS:S were almost a CS clone with better graphics, wonder why it failed?
If it's practically the same game with better graphics then why would it fail? If the gameplay was kept perfectly the same and the only thing that changed was the graphics then there really wouldn't be a reason to stay with the old version right?
The vast majority of my friends that play CS say they tried Source and went back to 1.6 despite the better graphics, not because of them. Perhaps you could elaborate why a perfect clone with better graphics could somehow be worse than the older version?
On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote: Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2.
ever play counter strike 1.6 and cs:s?
CS:S were almost a CS clone with better graphics, wonder why it failed?
If it's practically the same game with better graphics then why would it fail? If the gameplay was kept perfectly the same and the only thing that changed was the graphics then there really wouldn't be a reason to stay with the old version right?
The vast majority of my friends that play CS say they tried Source and went back to 1.6 despite the better graphics, not because of them. Perhaps you could elaborate why a perfect clone with better graphics could somehow be worse than the older version?
You can never make a perfect clone since the engine is different, thats why they didnt stay, everything feels different in that game so why play it when you can play the same game but with the good old feel?
The same would happen to sc2 if it were a clone, every unit would feel different and people would rush back to sc1 just beacuse nothing is really what it was just beacuse its in a different engine. However if starcraft 2 can deliver a lot of new things compared to sc1 then theres a reason to switch and go through those annoying moments were everything feels alien, and for those that dont want to switch they would stay with starcraft 1 anyway.
So its like if they go sc1 clone they get ~half the sc community just beacuse theres no real reason to switch. If they do something new they will get a ton more, partly starcraft players that are up for some refreshing new stuff, partly new players, partly players from other games and partly old time starcraft players that got bored of old starcraft.
On September 11 2007 10:04 Fuu wrote: All my noobs friends, who've never played RTS, if i ask them if they prefer war3 or SC, they'll all answer war3. MBS or no : they'll of course say MBS. The problem stays : you (or them) seem to affirm things you cannot even grasp. It's like the new tennis player who wants to change the rules cause he's unable to compete with the bests. Or cause he thinks it will be less tedious for the newbs to learn, thus attract more people. If it's true, is it suitable ?
Ironically, you have chosen the exact example that completely nullifies your reasoning, because this actually HAPPENED in tennis.
A while back, tennis players moved from the old and inferior wooden rackets (analagous to UI, since the racket is the player's tool of tennis and UI is the player's tool for SC) to the new more accurate and powerful metal rackets, and in doing so raised the skill level of the sport by a substantial margin for everyone, even the pros. Tennis not only attracted more fans and players, but it also became even more competitive than it was before even if you believe that the total skill gap is lowered. Changing the rules of tennis on the other hand (as you described) is the same as changing the balance and stats of SC (e.g. tech tree, unit HP, attack, speed, etc) and completely different from MBS.
Although the real point is very simple to understand, i will put it in bold this time, if that helps : I strongly disagree with everything which radically changes the way the only successful game for e-sport is played, the core of the thing, the balance micro / macro ! For sure newbs have different views on the core of the game than veterans.
Newbs have different views on the core of the game because they essentially are playing a different game. SC is a totally different core game to a BGH noob than to a mid-level player than to a progamer. The noob will probably spend 95% of his time on macro then a-attack, the mid-level player will probably spend the majority of his time on macro and add a bit of micro into the mix, while the progamer will have a very good balance of juggling both. The problem is, the population will be arranged in a pyramid fashion, with the noobs vastly outnumbering the mid-levels, and even those greatly outnumbering the pros. That's why it is crucial to make the game as friendly to the noobs as possible, in order to let them gradually rise up their chain over the long-term. I'm sure that Blizzard will also find ways to make it challenging at the upper levels if experience has taught us anything.
On September 14 2007 14:15 Fuu wrote: So maybe i will take the example of tennis once again : its no problem they improve the racket interface, and i would perfectly agree with this kind of things in SC. However, I would not agree they fucking change the height of the net to make it easier. If you don't understand the difference between the two 'improvements', then i think you indeed can't understand my point.
I can understand any example if its clarified and reasonably argued. In this case, I can see your point. Changing the height of the net is a bit different from "changing the rules". Then again, you do sometimes see this kind of thing happening in sports to make the sport friendlier for kids to learn. For example, basketball nets are placed at a lower height than NBA standard for kids and there are different sizes of basketball, footballs, etc.
On September 14 2007 14:15 Fuu wrote: So now, just try to discuss the part in bulk, to see your views on the question. You think it won't change this balance ? You think it won't be bad for the game ? For most knowledged starcraft player the answer is clear. On these SC2 forums we have a bunch of noobs and war3 players. Now go to ask this question to the people who actually play the game and are interested in progaming. And give me also your opinion. You're not on the blizzard side, i want to know what you think as a player !
My own view is similar to 1esu's. I'll quote one of them here. While I am not on Blizzard's side per-say, I tend to try to think things through as realistically as possible. I try to look at the whole picture rather than think about myself and whether I will enjoy the game or not (because this doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things).
On September 14 2007 11:03 orangedude wrote: You also said that you have tried SC2 and that these "fears" may be reasonable, but you have to keep in mind that all of you people played only a few hours on an early alpha build of SC2 facing mostly noobs. Also remember that you were likely playing with the SC mindset, when SC2 could make major changes to up the difficulty in several areas that we are not even aware of yet. I don't believe this can be taken as conclusive evidence yet, to either support or reject MBS and we'd have to wait until beta to see for sure when it is tested thoroughly.
On September 14 2007 02:27 orangedude wrote: I started off playing SC in about '97 when it first came out and played it for a couple years as a noob back then, until War3 was released. When I switched to War3, I actually got a bit more serious and found that I also really enjoyed micro and got to a very high level there.
However, because some of my friends were still playing SC (for fun), I eventually switched back to SC in around 2005. When I came back, I was also frustrated for a long time in not having enough time to micro, because the macro took up most of my apm and concentration. Since we kept playing though, after several months I eventually got used to the macro/micro aspects of SC and didn't mind too much.
An important point here I'm trying to make is that if I didn't have an incentive to keep playing SC because some of my buddies were playing there making it fun, I would've never stuck to it and learned how both macro and micro can be enjoyable. I'm sure the vast majority of people who are used to a newer UI from any recent game (including War3) would feel the exact same way after playing SC2 if it didn't include MBS. Many would not keep playing long enough or give it a chance, before they can actually become better at the game.
MBS: Do we need this? select all producing building and hotkey them? Starcraft has been plaing for years and nobody cares about this, only some freaking noobs. Even dragndrop production buildings (not hotkeyable ofc) will be better than select & hotkey all. in sc pros can start building in 9 barracks in a second, i can do it in 3 seconds... with mbs everybody can do this in half a second without any skill
Automining: I dont see why should be sending peons mining should be removed. its important part of building base, u cant build anything if u dont have minerals, u cant have minerals without peons, it\'s so big deal? to build a peon and send another to crystal? who cares about w3? it\'s stupid in same way as \"idle worker\" button ... people forget, some more, some less, why make them equal? i dont care about w3 and lazy w3 players who want to play sc2! sc2 can\'t be w3 in space! u can remove peon sending and then think: hm but these player forgot to build units... let\'s add some automacro button ... hm lets add better unit intelligence so players dont have to micro! oh and remove supply coz some players forget to build them? NO WAY!
Besides it really disadvantages zerg (i assume similar unit production like in sc, larvae and hatcheries) coz zerg usually builds drones in bursts in same occations like after winning a battle etc. from all hatcheries and then sending them, even with special \"rally drone\" button its complication instead of \"rally the nearest crystal&forget\" for toss and terran
building queues: works in w3 where each race has similar building system, wont work in balanced way in sc with warp/build/mutating. zerg once again gains no advantage, but protoss can EASILY build the whole new base with one probe very very very easily. It isnt so bad feature like smartcast but must be used in balanced way.
smartcast: remember boxer\'s famous 6 battlecruisers lockdown? or blinding observers with optical flare? this was awesome ... but now this can be done by everyone ... every noob can select 8 or so ghost and shift-click everything ... even toss newbie will be stormin like a pro, what will further differenciate players? using special abilities will be quite easy with smartcast and with hotkeyable MBS it wont be macro neither ... we will have many players at same \"skill\" level beating each other radomly with automining, smartcast and 2keys MBS macro with building queues, nobody will be top coz there wont be a space to apply specific skill, noobs will be happy, but its fair? it was said it\'s to encourage newplayers but can i as a newbie expect this advantages? when i m starting playin new game i cant expect i ll top in next week, month or even year ... has everybody seen terran gameplay vid? how the commentator sniped 3 marines easily in half a second? I dont want to make someone angry but i think he doesnt have \"skill\" and still he can snipe like pro. Remember Nada\'s mass irradiating? now it can be done by everyone! just select 12 vessels and shift-click! this model seems like communism in online gaming... arent you skilled enough? who cares! play like a pro with new features!
Same as autocast-building scarabs and interceptors, carrier is really powerful unit with smal \"disadvantage\" you have to build interceptors, this will make carrier normal unit. Now you dont have to care if u forgot build scarabs, interceptors because u just cant forgot
NOBODY WHO PLAYS SC AT DECENT LEVEL WANT THIS ... only some not-so-good players who wants to have a better chance to beat skilled players, this isn\'t future of sc and proplayin. Many people just cant run 100meters under 10s and some people will never play sc well ... this cant be changed by making game easier! U have said \"skilled player can use blink ...\" but skilled player can do MORE than use a few units at time while 2keys macroing... with easy macro, ease smartcast micro and atocast and automining, will we have enough space to fine divide skill levels? i dont think so.
It really isnt about making game harder for every chance but it also isnt about makin game easier!
You have said many times you DO care about community and progaming ... so why are you implementing these features? What\'s better for sc2? More hardcore fans and progamers who will be playin sc2 for years, decades or some \"money maps, stupid ums (sunken defence, zergling madness etc.) players playin once a week who does really care about units, balance, expanding, micro/macro; only enjoying graphics effects and gettin another new game after a few weeks? In fact after years will progaming make more money than a few more copies sold to vacancy gamers...
On September 15 2007 03:11 IntoTheWow wrote: CS:S is not CS 1.6 with better graphics hahah
No, but its CS 1.7 with better graphics.
Only 1.7 changed how every single gun works and made grenades retarded.
So, its still equal enough to not be called a new game and not all patches are well recieved, such as the 1.6 patch.
If blizzard made sc2 a copy of sc1 with updated pathfindings, graphics and refined stats with no other changes it would be comparable to cs vs cs:s, but now thats not the case and theyre making a whole new game.
I think all you guys arguing against mbs smartcasting etc. are failing to see the big picture. Sure boxer 12 BC lockdown won't be as impressive but since the scale of battle will be so much larger, the interface easier to use battles will look insane. 12 bc lockdown, emp being thrown, restoration being use on those lockdown BC, relocking the BC, focus firing with wraiths, yamamoto being flung left and right, etc etc. Same with the macro aspect. OOV macro won't be as impressive, but macro is going to be evolve, and larger in scale and OOV will instead have 20 facs producing constantly, scv being made instantly, no hiccups on supply, great unit balance, strategic and great building placements etc. SC2 will be a different game not just SC1 with a nicer skin, we should wait and see on how all these UI changes fit in, but try to look at it as SC2 not SC1 with nicer graphics. In the end of the day games more often than not benefit from improve interfaces.
On September 23 2007 06:25 YinYang69 wrote: I think all you guys arguing against mbs smartcasting etc. are failing to see the big picture. Sure boxer 12 BC lockdown won't be as impressive but since the scale of battle will be so much larger, the interface easier to use battles will look insane. 12 bc lockdown, emp being thrown, restoration being use on those lockdown BC, relocking the BC, focus firing with wraiths, yamamoto being flung left and right, etc etc. Same with the macro aspect. OOV macro won't be as impressive, but macro is going to be evolve, and larger in scale and OOV will instead have 20 facs producing constantly, scv being made instantly, no hiccups on supply, great unit balance, strategic and great building placements etc. SC2 will be a different game not just SC1 with a nicer skin, we should wait and see on how all these UI changes fit in, but try to look at it as SC2 not SC1 with nicer graphics. In the end of the day games more often than not benefit from improve interfaces.
even if the battles look insane the game will be worthless if its too easy to do everything. it'll look cool, but if its not hard to do the game has 0 competetive value.
Who say it'll be easy to do. What I'm saying is the old 12 BC lockdown might not as insane, but what I just posted will be the new benchmark for insane.
Why should it be easy to do? Macroing in SC1 is very brainless and is only hard because you have so many other things to do. Should that be any different in SC2? You'll just control your units much better instead of having to switch to base to click through crap all the time. I don't see how this is easier or worse... it just emphasizes a different, IMHO more important, aspect of the game. We'll see much more spectacular and intense battles because the players finally have the time for it. Instead of saying "whoa he has 10 new tanks standing there!!!!1111 i think i just came" you'll say "whoa wtf did he just do this and that and that?"
Players who think the SC1 UI is necessary will either have to adapt and learn to play the game instead of playing the UI, or just keep on playing SC1 (no one is forced to switch to SC2). I'm happy about the current SC2 status because I've always liked the "oldschool" style of BW, and am not as happy about the current macro war style.
On September 15 2007 03:11 IntoTheWow wrote: CS:S is not CS 1.6 with better graphics hahah
No, but its CS 1.7 with better graphics.
Only 1.7 changed how every single gun works and made grenades retarded.
So, its still equal enough to not be called a new game and not all patches are well recieved, such as the 1.6 patch.
If blizzard made sc2 a copy of sc1 with updated pathfindings, graphics and refined stats with no other changes it would be comparable to cs vs cs:s, but now thats not the case and theyre making a whole new game.
On September 15 2007 03:11 IntoTheWow wrote: CS:S is not CS 1.6 with better graphics hahah
No, but its CS 1.7 with better graphics.
Only 1.7 changed how every single gun works and made grenades retarded.
So, its still equal enough to not be called a new game and not all patches are well recieved, such as the 1.6 patch.
If blizzard made sc2 a copy of sc1 with updated pathfindings, graphics and refined stats with no other changes it would be comparable to cs vs cs:s, but now thats not the case and theyre making a whole new game.
Source is a totally different game from 1.6
They rebalanced the guns, edited the map layouts a bit and beacuse its in a new engine it got better physics and graphics.
Aside from the physics and graphics, how is that not a patch?
And didnt 1.6 make huge changes to the game for the worse? They didnt make a lot of changes, but those they did shake the game a lot, and even there you can see that they want more automatic weapons and in source they did take the full step and buffed automatic weapons a lot, wich people didnt like beacuse sprayweapons = less skill than the bursting needed for cs since theres a bigger chance to hit without aiming correctly.
They couldve done exactly the same changes to original cs, and as such i see it as a patch, eventhough they did it in a new engine.
SC2 should be about making the right decisions, timing, recon, deception (faints/fakes), not about apm. The aspect I like about the old interface? It is timemanagement. Pro's make decisions on when to switch back to base to macro. They have to consider what is the best to spend their time and attention to all the time. Think about spending 1,5 sec on macro while youre doing it your rines walk into lurkerspines and the lurkers get of a second volley of spines before you can do anything about it because you where macroing in the wrong time. Pro's have better timing for their macro to minimize these risks. The limmiting UI brings in an aspect of timemanagement. This may be reduced by the new interface. Management of other aspect of the game will improve because time management will be less demanding, so for me it is hard to say if a advanced UI will make a better game. My arguments can be used to both old and new UI. I think with the old UI SC2 will be to much the same as SCBW.
On September 23 2007 10:55 YinYang69 wrote: Who say it'll be easy to do. What I'm saying is the old 12 BC lockdown might not as insane, but what I just posted will be the new benchmark for insane.
everything you described is likely to be quite easy given the new interface. oov already has nearly flawless macro, the new interface with mbs and automining dumbs it down to the point where oov macro will be commonplace. 4-8 keystrokes can produce a round of scvs (which will go to mine on their own) and the next batch of units, without ever looking away from the battle. the only thing left will be building depots (which can now be qued) and when/where to expo. it almost entirely eliminates macro from the game.
as for micro, watch the battles in one of the hour long epic progamer pvz games where both sides use every unit in the game. the players already use their units to near-perfection. the reason those games are so entertaining and amazing is because it is so hard for them to do that, and everyone watching knows how hard it is. implement smart casting and improved unit ai, as well as giving the players all the time in the world since they dont need to worry about macro, and anyone will be able to do it, meaning it wont be special anymore.
if you eliminate the importance of mechanics you eliminate any chance sc2 has of becoming the next starcraft, progaming-wise. theres not going to be a strong competetive scene for a game that is easy to play mechanically. sc is where it is because being really good at it requires mastering both parts of gameplay, the mechanics of the game itself, and the strategy of the game. taking out the mechanics is basically chopping sc in half.
People keep saying that if you make the game easier the level of pros will just increase.
Has ANYONE played fpm here? Its easy, and there are REALLY good people at it, but it seems anyone competent at normal sc quickly becomes a dominant fpm player and get bored. Im worried something similar will happen. The macro will ridiculouisly easy, you can conentrate easily on micro.
On September 15 2007 03:11 IntoTheWow wrote: CS:S is not CS 1.6 with better graphics hahah
No, but its CS 1.7 with better graphics.
Only 1.7 changed how every single gun works and made grenades retarded.
So, its still equal enough to not be called a new game and not all patches are well recieved, such as the 1.6 patch.
If blizzard made sc2 a copy of sc1 with updated pathfindings, graphics and refined stats with no other changes it would be comparable to cs vs cs:s, but now thats not the case and theyre making a whole new game.
Source is a totally different game from 1.6
They rebalanced the guns, edited the map layouts a bit and beacuse its in a new engine it got better physics and graphics.
Aside from the physics and graphics, how is that not a patch?
And didnt 1.6 make huge changes to the game for the worse? They didnt make a lot of changes, but those they did shake the game a lot, and even there you can see that they want more automatic weapons and in source they did take the full step and buffed automatic weapons a lot, wich people didnt like beacuse sprayweapons = less skill than the bursting needed for cs since theres a bigger chance to hit without aiming correctly.
They couldve done exactly the same changes to original cs, and as such i see it as a patch, eventhough they did it in a new engine.
A new engine is NOT a patch. Recoil works different for each gun, the hitboxes are a joke compared to 1.6.
Its like comparing Starcraft to Armies of Exigo. They are 2 completely different games. I can be good at 1.6 and totally suck in source. That doesn't happen when you patch a game.
I've been wondering as I read the last page (other than the cs analogy replies), how many people here read the debates instead of reading maybe the first 2 pages then jumping to the end to post a reply?
And to LuisMl8: It's not like communism, it's more like capitalism. The tools needed to are cheap and easy to use, but those with better skill will still rise to the top. Just because someone can lockdown 12 carriers doesn't mean that they'll instantly win (and so far lockdown or irradiate is not in, so those arguments don't quite work, although smart casting will definitely make lockdown and irradiate a bit overpowered). MBS can still be implemented, and it will mainly only affect the lower tiers, because the upper tiers are already so good, and it will really only improve the upper tier, because, as orangedude said, it will allow the pros to achieve closer to perfect micro (or something along those lines, I don't quite remember xD ). Also, remember that this is about MBS, not automining or smart casting.
In my opinion, both sides of MBS have already debated their sides completely in the first 19-20 pages, and mostly it's up to Blizzard to find the middle ground. But I could be wrong. But that's what it seems like, considering how the topic was dead for a while.
On September 24 2007 04:20 IntoTheWow wrote: Its like comparing Starcraft to Armies of Exigo. They are 2 completely different games. I can be good at 1.6 and totally suck in source. That doesn't happen when you patch a game.
Tthis can certainly happen when you patch a game, its just Blizzard patches that are so seamless that you hardly would notice them if you didnt look directly at the stats.
And saying that exigo to starcraft is like source to cs is far from true. Eventhough CS playstyle isnt copied as far as i know except for some UT mod so i cant get a better example. But you got the same weapons, same money system, same maps, same missions only thing is that they tweaked all of them and then left original CS and just continued to update source.
Im pretty sure that if they werent to make source they wouldve updated CS to play a lot like source do eventhough some engine limits wouldnt allow the penetration physics to be as advanced.
Also im pretty sure that a player that were pro at 1.3 would get owned at 1.5, same as how they changed 1.6 a lot.
Now i know that you think source changed "EVERYTHING" and that its nothing like cs 1.6/1.5, however theyre basically the same game with a bit different tweakings. If they fixed the hitboxes and reduced the accuracy of spraying it would be exactly the same game, wich is why its more a patch(A failed patch if you wish) than a new game.
I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but whatever. I'll be damned to sift through 21 pages of, well, stuff.
How would the new Toss cannons be affected if MBS were not present? I think this proposes an interesting dilemma, as being able to bind only one cannon at a time to a hotkey would seriously nerf their potential or effectiveness as a dynamic base defense. If cannons were static as in BW, this would not be an issue, but one must wonder whether having mobile cannons would even be worth it without some sort of MBS.
From what I gather, a lot of forumers eschew MBS for the precise reason that it simplifies and dumbs down unit production, but if we see more buildings like the new Toss cannons, i.e. buildings not at all concerned with fielding armies, how would players react?
Well it wouldn't be a tower war game only, because siege tanks and dragoons own cannons because cannons need time to set up. And pylons.
And also, 2 of the toss building functions require MBS. One being the warpgate, the other being the cannon (and to bottomtier, cannons actually have not been mentioned. ) But we just need more terran mechanics like that, as well as zerg. But terrans are good at mass producing objects, and zerg are all about mass production, so possibly those are how they are separated. Terrans can mass produce from factory like buildings (now that we learn that a barracks is like a factory), but zerg can hatch much faster. MBS only complements those ideas.
On September 23 2007 10:55 YinYang69 wrote: Who say it'll be easy to do. What I'm saying is the old 12 BC lockdown might not as insane, but what I just posted will be the new benchmark for insane.
if you eliminate the importance of mechanics you eliminate any chance sc2 has of becoming the next starcraft, progaming-wise. theres not going to be a strong competetive scene for a game that is easy to play mechanically. sc is where it is because being really good at it requires mastering both parts of gameplay, the mechanics of the game itself, and the strategy of the game. taking out the mechanics is basically chopping sc in half.
Just wanted to point out that the second most popular e-sport in Korea is Kart Rider, a casual racing game whose mechanics are much easier to pick up than the mechanics required to manipulate the SC interface. Granted, it has been played by at least a quarter of the South Korean population, but its professional scene has been around for a while, and KR has some pretty wide skill differentiation for a kart racing game. Helluva lot more fun to watch than PGR3, to boot.
On September 23 2007 10:55 YinYang69 wrote: Who say it'll be easy to do. What I'm saying is the old 12 BC lockdown might not as insane, but what I just posted will be the new benchmark for insane.
if you eliminate the importance of mechanics you eliminate any chance sc2 has of becoming the next starcraft, progaming-wise. theres not going to be a strong competetive scene for a game that is easy to play mechanically. sc is where it is because being really good at it requires mastering both parts of gameplay, the mechanics of the game itself, and the strategy of the game. taking out the mechanics is basically chopping sc in half.
Just wanted to point out that the second most popular e-sport in Korea is Kart Rider, a casual racing game whose mechanics are much easier to pick up than the mechanics required to manipulate the SC interface. Granted, it has been played by at least a quarter of the South Korean population, but its professional scene has been around for a while, and KR has some pretty wide skill differentiation for a kart racing game. Helluva lot more fun to watch than PGR3, to boot.
that's great... CS is way more popular than kart rider, 1.6 is, not source. Not that it matters, these are diffrent game generas anyways, don't compare kart rider to sc, sc is still more popular, and the UI trumps the difficulty of kart rider. The great concept behind kart rider is that it's a remake of mario kart, a game simple but fun enough that no one is intimidated to pick it up. It's an incompareable esport compared to sc. i don't see the point in making the game with the most intimidating UI part of the next step in UI upgrading, why not take advantage of a part that's made it successful? I don't see more harm than good. I don't see the game dying by any means with the lack of an esport component, one of the biggest ones and one that will presurve it.
Either way it doesn't make sense to compare two different game genera's UI's. Just because their multiplayer doesn't mean they share the same elements. different game genera's call for different focuses on control.
He said 'a game', not 'a RTS game', so I was giving an example of a competitive e-sport game that had relatively simple mechanics. CS 1.6 or Source would be another example.
In regards to the RTS genre, when SC came out, its UI wasn't that intimidating compared to others in its genre. It's only with the shift to fastest speed and the rise of other RTSs with comparatively easier to use interfaces that the SC interface has become intimidating. However, if SC2 adopts a large part of the 'intimidating' parts of the SC interface, that's going to cripple the flow of new players into the competitive community. If you don't mind the SC2 long-term competitive community almost entirely consisting of the SC community, then I don't really have much more to say; commenting on how MBS might affect a game that hasn't even reached a feature-complete state is highly speculative, on the verge of pointlessness.
So this is just a tiny list of things i've seen that I did not like when it comes to competative SC. It has mostly to do with the user interface, as that is what concerns me the most. I want SC2 to be a great sucsessor to StarCraft. And not a game that feels more like WC3 playing, as I dident like that game at all.
Mostly it has to do with not makeing SC2 easier than StarCraft to play. I do not belive Starcraft is about micro. That is not what makes Starcraft great, the battles are a sideshow of what is really going on under the hood.
It's about speed, and should not be made easier and slower to play, just so everyone can feel like they can play good. It should take massive amounts of dedication to reach the top level. And at the top level macro and legendary multitasking is the job, everything else is flavour.
Ofcourse great sc2 players will always be better than average ones. But if it gets reduced to who can micro units the best, and the exreeme macro that we know is needed for Starcraft at the top level is cut from the game, I won't be interested in following it.
I could explain all of this and why I have theese views. But im not interested in spending more time on this unless someone from blizzard would want me to explain it.
My biggest concern is ofcourse that SC2 wont play and feel like Starcraft. Starcraft was a huge sucess befor it boomed in Korea, and going away from the gameplay feel of Starcraft would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
anyways... heres the thingies that comes to mind right now.
- smartcasting (should be off, shift-cloneing needed)
- mixed group spellcasting (should be off, like m&m in same ctrl-group should not be stimmable)
- selecting multiple buildings at once (should not be possible)
- selecting unlimited units at once (should not be possible)
- rallying to mineral line and automatically harvesting (should not be possible)
- Worker "overlapping" (when you send a worker to mine it should ignore other units in it's path, and cause "confusion" when overridden, currently this is not possible?)
- Dropships should still be able to unload while moveing.
- some units should be able to fire while moveing useing "patrol trick" or similar.
- game looks messy, very pretty but too much overlapping graphics = headache for micro.
- no autobuilding on interceptors or scarabs, etc..
- no autorepair
- no unit rank increace (veterancy, no-no..)
- No smart "worker split" ai
- No holding in alt for health display on units.
- Dead units should look clean and quick when dieing, no parts flying everywhere blocking view.
- minimap should be 100% black befor explored (no showing of minerals on it)
On September 27 2007 01:20 LuisMl8 wrote: So this is just a tiny list of things i've seen that I did not like when it comes to competative SC. It has mostly to do with the user interface, as that is what concerns me the most. I want SC2 to be a great sucsessor to StarCraft. And not a game that feels more like WC3 playing, as I dident like that game at all.
Mostly it has to do with not makeing SC2 easier than StarCraft to play. I do not belive Starcraft is about micro. That is not what makes Starcraft great, the battles are a sideshow of what is really going on under the hood.
It's about speed, and should not be made easier and slower to play, just so everyone can feel like they can play good. It should take massive amounts of dedication to reach the top level. And at the top level macro and legendary multitasking is the job, everything else is flavour.
Ofcourse great sc2 players will always be better than average ones. But if it gets reduced to who can micro units the best, and the exreeme macro that we know is needed for Starcraft at the top level is cut from the game, I won't be interested in following it.
I could explain all of this and why I have theese views. But im not interested in spending more time on this unless someone from blizzard would want me to explain it.
My biggest concern is ofcourse that SC2 wont play and feel like Starcraft. Starcraft was a huge sucess befor it boomed in Korea, and going away from the gameplay feel of Starcraft would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
anyways... heres the thingies that comes to mind right now.
- smartcasting (should be off, shift-cloneing needed)
- mixed group spellcasting (should be off, like m&m in same ctrl-group should not be stimmable)
- selecting multiple buildings at once (should not be possible)
- selecting unlimited units at once (should not be possible)
- rallying to mineral line and automatically harvesting (should not be possible)
- Worker "overlapping" (when you send a worker to mine it should ignore other units in it's path, and cause "confusion" when overridden, currently this is not possible?)
- Dropships should still be able to unload while moveing.
- some units should be able to fire while moveing useing "patrol trick" or similar.
- game looks messy, very pretty but too much overlapping graphics = headache for micro.
- no autobuilding on interceptors or scarabs, etc..
- no autorepair
- no unit rank increace (veterancy, no-no..)
- No smart "worker split" ai
- No holding in alt for health display on units.
- Dead units should look clean and quick when dieing, no parts flying everywhere blocking view.
- minimap should be 100% black befor explored (no showing of minerals on it)
I can see the point against mbs and other ergonomic ui features, but especially in the case of mbs I don't think it changes the game very much for pro gamers. Of course it has a huge impact on low level players, making the game more enjoyable for them.
Lets take the case, that you want to build up a medic and marine force out of 5 barracks. You could just select them all, build 5 marines, again 5 marines, then 5 medics and then continue to build marines. But thats not very efficient, 10 marines without medics are much weaker, and after the medics are done you have more medics than you would need in that group. Any decent player would quickly click/press through the barracks and build up marines and medics simultaneously, which will definately give you a stronger army at most points. Another point is that building from all buildings at once requires you to have minerals saved up for that.
Pro players will of course make use of mbs every now and then, but in my opinion it won't affect their game as much as alot of others see it. No matter how much the game ui will help the players, the pro players will always be able to get ahead by just beeing faster/more efficient.
On September 27 2007 11:31 h3r1n6 wrote: I can see the point against mbs and other ergonomic ui features, but especially in the case of mbs I don't think it changes the game very much for pro gamers. Of course it has a huge impact on low level players, making the game more enjoyable for them.
Lets take the case, that you want to build up a medic and marine force out of 5 barracks. You could just select them all, build 5 marines, again 5 marines, then 5 medics and then continue to build marines. But thats not very efficient, 10 marines without medics are much weaker, and after the medics are done you have more medics than you would need in that group. Any decent player would quickly click/press through the barracks and build up marines and medics simultaneously, which will definately give you a stronger army at most points. Another point is that building from all buildings at once requires you to have minerals saved up for that.
Pro players will of course make use of mbs every now and then, but in my opinion it won't affect their game as much as alot of others see it. No matter how much the game ui will help the players, the pro players will always be able to get ahead by just beeing faster/more efficient.
On September 27 2007 01:20 LuisMl8 wrote: So this is just a tiny list of things i've seen that I did not like when it comes to competative SC. It has mostly to do with the user interface, as that is what concerns me the most. I want SC2 to be a great sucsessor to StarCraft. And not a game that feels more like WC3 playing, as I dident like that game at all.
Mostly it has to do with not makeing SC2 easier than StarCraft to play. I do not belive Starcraft is about micro. That is not what makes Starcraft great, the battles are a sideshow of what is really going on under the hood.
It's about speed, and should not be made easier and slower to play, just so everyone can feel like they can play good. It should take massive amounts of dedication to reach the top level. And at the top level macro and legendary multitasking is the job, everything else is flavour.
Ofcourse great sc2 players will always be better than average ones. But if it gets reduced to who can micro units the best, and the exreeme macro that we know is needed for Starcraft at the top level is cut from the game, I won't be interested in following it.
I could explain all of this and why I have theese views. But im not interested in spending more time on this unless someone from blizzard would want me to explain it.
My biggest concern is ofcourse that SC2 wont play and feel like Starcraft. Starcraft was a huge sucess befor it boomed in Korea, and going away from the gameplay feel of Starcraft would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
anyways... heres the thingies that comes to mind right now.
- smartcasting (should be off, shift-cloneing needed)
- mixed group spellcasting (should be off, like m&m in same ctrl-group should not be stimmable)
- selecting multiple buildings at once (should not be possible)
- selecting unlimited units at once (should not be possible)
- rallying to mineral line and automatically harvesting (should not be possible)
- Worker "overlapping" (when you send a worker to mine it should ignore other units in it's path, and cause "confusion" when overridden, currently this is not possible?)
- Dropships should still be able to unload while moveing.
- some units should be able to fire while moveing useing "patrol trick" or similar.
- game looks messy, very pretty but too much overlapping graphics = headache for micro.
- no autobuilding on interceptors or scarabs, etc..
- no autorepair
- no unit rank increace (veterancy, no-no..)
- No smart "worker split" ai
- No holding in alt for health display on units.
- Dead units should look clean and quick when dieing, no parts flying everywhere blocking view.
- minimap should be 100% black befor explored (no showing of minerals on it)
- and i don't remember more right now..
But the big problem with that is that that would basically be bw with new units and graphics, rather than starcraft 2. It would be starcraft 1.5 or starcraft graphics expansion, and essentially a modded starcraft, as the engine would be nearly the same, due to the UI being identical. At least a few things should be changed to update the game, even if MBS isn't implemented. But I do agree that SC2 should feel like SC, but that doesn't mean to make it identical.
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote: What new RTS games have such skilled, competitive players? You speak as though there is this great pool of competitive players that require MBS and automining, but who are they? SC has been at WCG for years now as other RTS's come and go. The competition level for non-SC and non-WC3 RTS's is low.
I think you're overestimating the RTS crowd. There just aren't that many North Americans that play RTS's or would be interested in playing RTS's competitively. If you combine all of the current competitive RTS players in North America and force them all to play SC2, it'll still have less players than the FPS games. SC2 has to attract new players to the genre and to the competitive scene of the genre. To new players of the genre it is irrelevant what other games have or don't have.
I don't think that a future professional SC2 player will quit the game because there is no MBS or automining. In the end, the competitive scene will only flourish if there are a lot of players interested in competition. Initially, many casual players will play "competitively" but it won't take long for casual players to separate themselves out by sticking to money maps, UMS, public 3v3's and 4v4's, vs computers, etc. And then their existence does not matter for competitive players at all.
So how big is this crowd of people who would straight-up quit the game if there is no MBS or automining, but would love the game so much if those things are present that they'd eventually become competitive players? I just don't think there are that many and you've made no argument for their magnitude. What percentage of the non-SC non-WC3 competitive players are like that?
You speak as though MBS and automining and reviews are the only things that will attract players, but I think we all know that the new 3d graphics and the names StarCraft and Blizzard are going to be the main draws of the game. There is really no precedent to a game like SC2 coming out so I don't know what you're basing your speculation on.
Your argument featuring a comparison of the concerns of WC2 players prior to the release of SC doesn't hold. Balancing the UI is a very important aspect of building a long-term competitive RTS. SC hit upon a very successful formula for competition pretty much by accident/luck. Just because WC2 had a "harder" UI than SC does not mean that continuing to make the UI "easier" will result in an even better game. Like I've mentioned before, SC has been the most successful competitive RTS. Copying other RTS's that have failed to live up to SC is not a good way to improve the game.
The concern about MBS/automining at TL.net is that it will make the game worse for competitive players. You seem to accept this argument but you think that the attraction of extra players will more than make up for any damage MBS/automining causes. But again, you don't support this claim. Of course it would be ideal for the game to be at least as good for the competitive scene AND attract extra players, but it seems like it'll be good for competition OR attract extra players. It's important to know which side of the OR you land on. You seem to argue that the OR doesn't exist but then say that we have to do extra work for the AND. So do you really think MBS/automining will be better for the competitive scene overall or not?
Finally, you should consider the image of SC. Why can't manual macro be a definitive aspect of SC? Every RTS has to have unique aspects that separate it somehow and why can't SC be set apart by not hopping on the MBS/automining bandwagon? People know that SC has been wildly successful, even if they don't actually play it anymore. People see the sales numbers, hear about Korea, hear about the numbers still on battle.net. They've already set SC behind them and go onto other games, but SC2 will be a chance to revisit the franchise and see what all the craze is about. There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it.
i could not have said it better nony~ i Think MBS is a joke.. Why Do we want SC TO BE LIKE EVERY OTHER SUCKY RTS??? WHERE IS THE LOGIC IN THAT?? who wants to play sc2 competitively if the game sucks like 99% of all the other RTS's out there.. When Blizzard FIRST ANNOUNCED SC2 They Said it was going to be sticking to the roots Of Starcraft brood war.. well then if thats the case why are they decideing now.. they want to be like CC3 AoE WC3 ?? THIS IS NOT WARCRAFT 3.. WE DONT WANT HerO's in sc... just like we Dont want MBS .. and i think i speak for EVERY NONE NEWB AMERICAN STARCRAFT PLAYER..
MBS is not going to help the Game.. its not going to bring more ppl to play the game... Sc2 is the most hyped RTS game of all time.. it has a name and company Behind it.. thats going to attract GAMERS and Competitive play~ the Automine / MBS is not whats going to Make the E-Sports Backbone.. its going to make things alot simpler and boring.. take it from me.. and alot of american top SC WC3 players who i am friends with.. we all agree that Wc3 is too easy. WHY?? becasue the interface practally does everything for them... so why do we want SC2 like that??? not only do i a (great american sc player) hate that but Even THE WC3 Players talk about how dumb MBS/Automine is ~
also If MBS IS WHATS GOING TO ATTRACT SOOOO MANY PLAYERS.... WHY IS CC3 WC3 AOE Ect. RTS games All Smaller and less secessful in the Progaming scene?? I WIll Tell You Why, Sc Is a game you have to work at to be good.. but if automine/mbs is in the game.. the game is going to be a joke~ how exciting would it be to watch a guy with 50 apm do everything a guy with 300 apm would do?? Pritty sad and not impressive~ thats my 2 cents on the matter..
Blizzard i Beg You from a Competitive gamer to the Next.. Please leave MBS/Automine .. out of the game.. or What i would Pre-fer is make it a Game option just like Melee or UMS that way the newbs can use it if they want.. but competitve play still stays hard and Challenging and Imposible to master ~~ !!
So this is just a tiny list of things i've seen that I did not like when it comes to competative SC. It has mostly to do with the user interface, as that is what concerns me the most. I want SC2 to be a great sucsessor to StarCraft. And not a game that feels more like WC3 playing, as I dident like that game at all.
Mostly it has to do with not makeing SC2 easier than StarCraft to play. I do not belive Starcraft is about micro. That is not what makes Starcraft great, the battles are a sideshow of what is really going on under the hood.
It's about speed, and should not be made easier and slower to play, just so everyone can feel like they can play good. It should take massive amounts of dedication to reach the top level. And at the top level macro and legendary multitasking is the job, everything else is flavour.
Ofcourse great sc2 players will always be better than average ones. But if it gets reduced to who can micro units the best, and the exreeme macro that we know is needed for Starcraft at the top level is cut from the game, I won't be interested in following it.
I could explain all of this and why I have theese views. But im not interested in spending more time on this unless someone from blizzard would want me to explain it.
My biggest concern is ofcourse that SC2 wont play and feel like Starcraft. Starcraft was a huge sucess befor it boomed in Korea, and going away from the gameplay feel of Starcraft would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
anyways... heres the thingies that comes to mind right now.
- smartcasting (should be off, shift-cloneing needed)
- mixed group spellcasting (should be off, like m&m in same ctrl-group should not be stimmable)
- selecting multiple buildings at once (should not be possible)
- selecting unlimited units at once (should not be possible)
- rallying to mineral line and automatically harvesting (should not be possible)
- Worker "overlapping" (when you send a worker to mine it should ignore other units in it's path, and cause "confusion" when overridden, currently this is not possible?)
- Dropships should still be able to unload while moveing.
- some units should be able to fire while moveing useing "patrol trick" or similar.
- game looks messy, very pretty but too much overlapping graphics = headache for micro.
- no autobuilding on interceptors or scarabs, etc..
- no autorepair
- no unit rank increace (veterancy, no-no..)
- No smart "worker split" ai
- No holding in alt for health display on units.
- Dead units should look clean and quick when dieing, no parts flying everywhere blocking view.
- minimap should be 100% black befor explored (no showing of minerals on it)
- and i don't remember more right now..
I think you forgot a few things: -Colossus is a bad unit concept, lasers blocking the view and cliffclimbing ground units dont fit starcraft. Please remove.
-Reaver got to be back, its so important to so many strats in starcraft.
-Reapers are useless units with just cheesy things to do, plz remove, instead add firebat wich is much better.
-Science vessel>Nomad, why would you scrap one of terrans most important units and add this useless pos?
-Terran needs a dedicated aa ground unit eventhough they were the only race to have such a unit they were a very important part of terran play.
-You shouldnt be able to instant deploy units, only producing them from buildings and not teleporting them around, that would just cause a lot of confusion and would invalidate a lot of older strats.
-You shouldnt be able to move/sell turrets, imagine all the cheesy turret push strats people will use??
-Cliffwalking in general is bad, how will terran/toss now be able to stop early pushes when the enemy can just walk around the ramp??
-Theres many more but i cant care to list them.
Now, look! We will get the perfect game if we just follow this way of thinking!
If MBS makes SC2 too much WC3-like (as in, heavily favours micro with oversimplified macro, though I doubt that will happen as there will be much larger armies, among other reasons), remove it in the beta. Easy.
LuisMl8 just needs to go play Starcraft since he is so afraid of change.
So this is just a tiny list of things i've seen that I did not like when it comes to competative SC. It has mostly to do with the user interface, as that is what concerns me the most. I want SC2 to be a great sucsessor to StarCraft. And not a game that feels more like WC3 playing, as I dident like that game at all.
Mostly it has to do with not makeing SC2 easier than StarCraft to play. I do not belive Starcraft is about micro. That is not what makes Starcraft great, the battles are a sideshow of what is really going on under the hood.
It's about speed, and should not be made easier and slower to play, just so everyone can feel like they can play good. It should take massive amounts of dedication to reach the top level. And at the top level macro and legendary multitasking is the job, everything else is flavour.
Ofcourse great sc2 players will always be better than average ones. But if it gets reduced to who can micro units the best, and the exreeme macro that we know is needed for Starcraft at the top level is cut from the game, I won't be interested in following it.
I could explain all of this and why I have theese views. But im not interested in spending more time on this unless someone from blizzard would want me to explain it.
My biggest concern is ofcourse that SC2 wont play and feel like Starcraft. Starcraft was a huge sucess befor it boomed in Korea, and going away from the gameplay feel of Starcraft would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
anyways... heres the thingies that comes to mind right now.
- smartcasting (should be off, shift-cloneing needed)
- mixed group spellcasting (should be off, like m&m in same ctrl-group should not be stimmable)
- selecting multiple buildings at once (should not be possible)
- selecting unlimited units at once (should not be possible)
- rallying to mineral line and automatically harvesting (should not be possible)
- Worker "overlapping" (when you send a worker to mine it should ignore other units in it's path, and cause "confusion" when overridden, currently this is not possible?)
- Dropships should still be able to unload while moveing.
- some units should be able to fire while moveing useing "patrol trick" or similar.
- game looks messy, very pretty but too much overlapping graphics = headache for micro.
- no autobuilding on interceptors or scarabs, etc..
- no autorepair
- no unit rank increace (veterancy, no-no..)
- No smart "worker split" ai
- No holding in alt for health display on units.
- Dead units should look clean and quick when dieing, no parts flying everywhere blocking view.
- minimap should be 100% black befor explored (no showing of minerals on it)
- and i don't remember more right now..
I think you forgot a few things: -Colossus is a bad unit concept, lasers blocking the view and cliffclimbing ground units dont fit starcraft. Please remove.
-Reaver got to be back, its so important to so many strats in starcraft.
-Reapers are useless units with just cheesy things to do, plz remove, instead add firebat wich is much better.
-Science vessel>Nomad, why would you scrap one of terrans most important units and add this useless pos?
-Terran needs a dedicated aa ground unit eventhough they were the only race to have such a unit they were a very important part of terran play.
-You shouldnt be able to instant deploy units, only producing them from buildings and not teleporting them around, that would just cause a lot of confusion and would invalidate a lot of older strats.
-You shouldnt be able to move/sell turrets, imagine all the cheesy turret push strats people will use??
-Cliffwalking in general is bad, how will terran/toss now be able to stop early pushes when the enemy can just walk around the ramp??
-Theres many more but i cant care to list them.
Now, look! We will get the perfect game if we just follow this way of thinking!
He was arguing about overall features and feel, not specific unit choice. Your attempt to stereotype his position is flawed.
So this is just a tiny list of things i've seen that I did not like when it comes to competative SC. It has mostly to do with the user interface, as that is what concerns me the most. I want SC2 to be a great sucsessor to StarCraft. And not a game that feels more like WC3 playing, as I dident like that game at all.
Mostly it has to do with not makeing SC2 easier than StarCraft to play. I do not belive Starcraft is about micro. That is not what makes Starcraft great, the battles are a sideshow of what is really going on under the hood.
It's about speed, and should not be made easier and slower to play, just so everyone can feel like they can play good. It should take massive amounts of dedication to reach the top level. And at the top level macro and legendary multitasking is the job, everything else is flavour.
Ofcourse great sc2 players will always be better than average ones. But if it gets reduced to who can micro units the best, and the exreeme macro that we know is needed for Starcraft at the top level is cut from the game, I won't be interested in following it.
I could explain all of this and why I have theese views. But im not interested in spending more time on this unless someone from blizzard would want me to explain it.
My biggest concern is ofcourse that SC2 wont play and feel like Starcraft. Starcraft was a huge sucess befor it boomed in Korea, and going away from the gameplay feel of Starcraft would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
anyways... heres the thingies that comes to mind right now.
- smartcasting (should be off, shift-cloneing needed)
- mixed group spellcasting (should be off, like m&m in same ctrl-group should not be stimmable)
- selecting multiple buildings at once (should not be possible)
- selecting unlimited units at once (should not be possible)
- rallying to mineral line and automatically harvesting (should not be possible)
- Worker "overlapping" (when you send a worker to mine it should ignore other units in it's path, and cause "confusion" when overridden, currently this is not possible?)
- Dropships should still be able to unload while moveing.
- some units should be able to fire while moveing useing "patrol trick" or similar.
- game looks messy, very pretty but too much overlapping graphics = headache for micro.
- no autobuilding on interceptors or scarabs, etc..
- no autorepair
- no unit rank increace (veterancy, no-no..)
- No smart "worker split" ai
- No holding in alt for health display on units.
- Dead units should look clean and quick when dieing, no parts flying everywhere blocking view.
- minimap should be 100% black befor explored (no showing of minerals on it)
- and i don't remember more right now..
I think you forgot a few things: -Colossus is a bad unit concept, lasers blocking the view and cliffclimbing ground units dont fit starcraft. Please remove.
-Reaver got to be back, its so important to so many strats in starcraft.
-Reapers are useless units with just cheesy things to do, plz remove, instead add firebat wich is much better.
-Science vessel>Nomad, why would you scrap one of terrans most important units and add this useless pos?
-Terran needs a dedicated aa ground unit eventhough they were the only race to have such a unit they were a very important part of terran play.
-You shouldnt be able to instant deploy units, only producing them from buildings and not teleporting them around, that would just cause a lot of confusion and would invalidate a lot of older strats.
-You shouldnt be able to move/sell turrets, imagine all the cheesy turret push strats people will use??
-Cliffwalking in general is bad, how will terran/toss now be able to stop early pushes when the enemy can just walk around the ramp??
-Theres many more but i cant care to list them.
Now, look! We will get the perfect game if we just follow this way of thinking!
He was arguing about overall features and feel, not specific unit choice. Your attempt to stereotype his position is flawed.
The guy's position hardly needs stereotyping. It only goes to show how accurately Luis captures the feelings of veteran players, that you would defend him.
So this is just a tiny list of things i've seen that I did not like when it comes to competative SC. It has mostly to do with the user interface, as that is what concerns me the most. I want SC2 to be a great sucsessor to StarCraft. And not a game that feels more like WC3 playing, as I dident like that game at all.
Mostly it has to do with not makeing SC2 easier than StarCraft to play. I do not belive Starcraft is about micro. That is not what makes Starcraft great, the battles are a sideshow of what is really going on under the hood.
It's about speed, and should not be made easier and slower to play, just so everyone can feel like they can play good. It should take massive amounts of dedication to reach the top level. And at the top level macro and legendary multitasking is the job, everything else is flavour.
Ofcourse great sc2 players will always be better than average ones. But if it gets reduced to who can micro units the best, and the exreeme macro that we know is needed for Starcraft at the top level is cut from the game, I won't be interested in following it.
I could explain all of this and why I have theese views. But im not interested in spending more time on this unless someone from blizzard would want me to explain it.
My biggest concern is ofcourse that SC2 wont play and feel like Starcraft. Starcraft was a huge sucess befor it boomed in Korea, and going away from the gameplay feel of Starcraft would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
anyways... heres the thingies that comes to mind right now.
- smartcasting (should be off, shift-cloneing needed)
- mixed group spellcasting (should be off, like m&m in same ctrl-group should not be stimmable)
- selecting multiple buildings at once (should not be possible)
- selecting unlimited units at once (should not be possible)
- rallying to mineral line and automatically harvesting (should not be possible)
- Worker "overlapping" (when you send a worker to mine it should ignore other units in it's path, and cause "confusion" when overridden, currently this is not possible?)
- Dropships should still be able to unload while moveing.
- some units should be able to fire while moveing useing "patrol trick" or similar.
- game looks messy, very pretty but too much overlapping graphics = headache for micro.
- no autobuilding on interceptors or scarabs, etc..
- no autorepair
- no unit rank increace (veterancy, no-no..)
- No smart "worker split" ai
- No holding in alt for health display on units.
- Dead units should look clean and quick when dieing, no parts flying everywhere blocking view.
- minimap should be 100% black befor explored (no showing of minerals on it)
- and i don't remember more right now..
I think you forgot a few things: -Colossus is a bad unit concept, lasers blocking the view and cliffclimbing ground units dont fit starcraft. Please remove.
-Reaver got to be back, its so important to so many strats in starcraft.
-Reapers are useless units with just cheesy things to do, plz remove, instead add firebat wich is much better.
-Science vessel>Nomad, why would you scrap one of terrans most important units and add this useless pos?
-Terran needs a dedicated aa ground unit eventhough they were the only race to have such a unit they were a very important part of terran play.
-You shouldnt be able to instant deploy units, only producing them from buildings and not teleporting them around, that would just cause a lot of confusion and would invalidate a lot of older strats.
-You shouldnt be able to move/sell turrets, imagine all the cheesy turret push strats people will use??
-Cliffwalking in general is bad, how will terran/toss now be able to stop early pushes when the enemy can just walk around the ramp??
-Theres many more but i cant care to list them.
Now, look! We will get the perfect game if we just follow this way of thinking!
He was arguing about overall features and feel, not specific unit choice. Your attempt to stereotype his position is flawed.
The guy's position hardly needs stereotyping. It only goes to show how accurately Luis captures the feelings of veteran players, that you would defend him.
So ignore us then. We'll stick with BW in that case.
I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this.
Ok, The best tennis players in the world can play tennis at a rediculously good level. The rest of the world cannot. Does this make tennis not fun? Of course not. Tennis is still enjoyed by millions around the world. You dont have to be top level players to have fun. A huge portion of games played on battlenet are BGH/FASTEST/UMS games, that are enjoyed by casual gamers. Gamers that wouldnt know how to go about locking down 10 carriers or running a 4 gas economy. But they still have heaps of fun.
The point im trying to make here is simple, as long as the game is fun, it will be loved. Having MBS or not will not effect this fun level at all. However having MBS WILL effect the competative scene, and therefore should be turned off.
On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote: I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this.
This thread should be over now. The nail is in the coffin as far as I am concerned.
So this is just a tiny list of things i've seen that I did not like when it comes to competative SC. It has mostly to do with the user interface, as that is what concerns me the most. I want SC2 to be a great sucsessor to StarCraft. And not a game that feels more like WC3 playing, as I dident like that game at all.
Mostly it has to do with not makeing SC2 easier than StarCraft to play. I do not belive Starcraft is about micro. That is not what makes Starcraft great, the battles are a sideshow of what is really going on under the hood.
It's about speed, and should not be made easier and slower to play, just so everyone can feel like they can play good. It should take massive amounts of dedication to reach the top level. And at the top level macro and legendary multitasking is the job, everything else is flavour.
Ofcourse great sc2 players will always be better than average ones. But if it gets reduced to who can micro units the best, and the exreeme macro that we know is needed for Starcraft at the top level is cut from the game, I won't be interested in following it.
I could explain all of this and why I have theese views. But im not interested in spending more time on this unless someone from blizzard would want me to explain it.
My biggest concern is ofcourse that SC2 wont play and feel like Starcraft. Starcraft was a huge sucess befor it boomed in Korea, and going away from the gameplay feel of Starcraft would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
anyways... heres the thingies that comes to mind right now.
- smartcasting (should be off, shift-cloneing needed)
- mixed group spellcasting (should be off, like m&m in same ctrl-group should not be stimmable)
- selecting multiple buildings at once (should not be possible)
- selecting unlimited units at once (should not be possible)
- rallying to mineral line and automatically harvesting (should not be possible)
- Worker "overlapping" (when you send a worker to mine it should ignore other units in it's path, and cause "confusion" when overridden, currently this is not possible?)
- Dropships should still be able to unload while moveing.
- some units should be able to fire while moveing useing "patrol trick" or similar.
- game looks messy, very pretty but too much overlapping graphics = headache for micro.
- no autobuilding on interceptors or scarabs, etc..
- no autorepair
- no unit rank increace (veterancy, no-no..)
- No smart "worker split" ai
- No holding in alt for health display on units.
- Dead units should look clean and quick when dieing, no parts flying everywhere blocking view.
- minimap should be 100% black befor explored (no showing of minerals on it)
- and i don't remember more right now..
I think you forgot a few things: -Colossus is a bad unit concept, lasers blocking the view and cliffclimbing ground units dont fit starcraft. Please remove.
-Reaver got to be back, its so important to so many strats in starcraft.
-Reapers are useless units with just cheesy things to do, plz remove, instead add firebat wich is much better.
-Science vessel>Nomad, why would you scrap one of terrans most important units and add this useless pos?
-Terran needs a dedicated aa ground unit eventhough they were the only race to have such a unit they were a very important part of terran play.
-You shouldnt be able to instant deploy units, only producing them from buildings and not teleporting them around, that would just cause a lot of confusion and would invalidate a lot of older strats.
-You shouldnt be able to move/sell turrets, imagine all the cheesy turret push strats people will use??
-Cliffwalking in general is bad, how will terran/toss now be able to stop early pushes when the enemy can just walk around the ramp??
-Theres many more but i cant care to list them.
Now, look! We will get the perfect game if we just follow this way of thinking!
I know you are making a mocking post, but.. I want the reaver back because I think shuttle+reaver micro is one of the most fun things to do in SC and I hope it returns in Sc2.
The science vessel looks a lot better than the nomad so far (but we have seen VERY little of the nomad, I've basically only seen a poor screenshot of it where it looked like a flying toaster).
So this is just a tiny list of things i've seen that I did not like when it comes to competative SC. It has mostly to do with the user interface, as that is what concerns me the most. I want SC2 to be a great sucsessor to StarCraft. And not a game that feels more like WC3 playing, as I dident like that game at all.
Mostly it has to do with not makeing SC2 easier than StarCraft to play. I do not belive Starcraft is about micro. That is not what makes Starcraft great, the battles are a sideshow of what is really going on under the hood.
It's about speed, and should not be made easier and slower to play, just so everyone can feel like they can play good. It should take massive amounts of dedication to reach the top level. And at the top level macro and legendary multitasking is the job, everything else is flavour.
Ofcourse great sc2 players will always be better than average ones. But if it gets reduced to who can micro units the best, and the exreeme macro that we know is needed for Starcraft at the top level is cut from the game, I won't be interested in following it.
I could explain all of this and why I have theese views. But im not interested in spending more time on this unless someone from blizzard would want me to explain it.
My biggest concern is ofcourse that SC2 wont play and feel like Starcraft. Starcraft was a huge sucess befor it boomed in Korea, and going away from the gameplay feel of Starcraft would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
anyways... heres the thingies that comes to mind right now.
- smartcasting (should be off, shift-cloneing needed)
- mixed group spellcasting (should be off, like m&m in same ctrl-group should not be stimmable)
- selecting multiple buildings at once (should not be possible)
- selecting unlimited units at once (should not be possible)
- rallying to mineral line and automatically harvesting (should not be possible)
- Worker "overlapping" (when you send a worker to mine it should ignore other units in it's path, and cause "confusion" when overridden, currently this is not possible?)
- Dropships should still be able to unload while moveing.
- some units should be able to fire while moveing useing "patrol trick" or similar.
- game looks messy, very pretty but too much overlapping graphics = headache for micro.
- no autobuilding on interceptors or scarabs, etc..
- no autorepair
- no unit rank increace (veterancy, no-no..)
- No smart "worker split" ai
- No holding in alt for health display on units.
- Dead units should look clean and quick when dieing, no parts flying everywhere blocking view.
- minimap should be 100% black befor explored (no showing of minerals on it)
- and i don't remember more right now..
I think you forgot a few things: -Colossus is a bad unit concept, lasers blocking the view and cliffclimbing ground units dont fit starcraft. Please remove.
-Reaver got to be back, its so important to so many strats in starcraft.
-Reapers are useless units with just cheesy things to do, plz remove, instead add firebat wich is much better.
-Science vessel>Nomad, why would you scrap one of terrans most important units and add this useless pos?
-Terran needs a dedicated aa ground unit eventhough they were the only race to have such a unit they were a very important part of terran play.
-You shouldnt be able to instant deploy units, only producing them from buildings and not teleporting them around, that would just cause a lot of confusion and would invalidate a lot of older strats.
-You shouldnt be able to move/sell turrets, imagine all the cheesy turret push strats people will use??
-Cliffwalking in general is bad, how will terran/toss now be able to stop early pushes when the enemy can just walk around the ramp??
-Theres many more but i cant care to list them.
Now, look! We will get the perfect game if we just follow this way of thinking!
I know you are making a mocking post, but.. I want the reaver back because I think shuttle+reaver micro is one of the most fun things to do in SC and I hope it returns in Sc2.
The science vessel looks a lot better than the nomad so far (but we have seen VERY little of the nomad, I've basically only seen a poor screenshot of it where it looked like a flying toaster).
It's not much, but Colossuss can now be carried by a Phase Prism. One of the latest Q&As said that.
But the colossus, which is a nice unit, has absolutely no apeal as a droppable unit, especially given that it can, you know, walk over cliffs on its own.
The reaver is cool cause its effectiveness increases like 10 times when you have a shuttle with it and can dodge attacks while cooling down and shit
On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote: I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this.
This thread should be over now. The nail is in the coffin as far as I am concerned.
I thougth the same thing when Mora posted way back but obviously that didn't happen. So no, thread is not over.
On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote: I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this.
Lazerflip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is very right. MBS and other features that might be added into SC2 will ruin it. That one feature by itself significantly closes the gap from top players to intermediate, etc. Add a couple more and you have another game that lasts 1 year and then dies in eSports because everyone is extremely good at it (again, take it from Lazerflip or anyone else that plays the 'other rts' competitively -- they're all ruined by easy buttons).
On September 28 2007 04:08 FrozenArbiter wrote: But the colossus, which is a nice unit, has absolutely no apeal as a droppable unit, especially given that it can, you know, walk over cliffs on its own.
The reaver is cool cause its effectiveness increases like 10 times when you have a shuttle with it and can dodge attacks while cooling down and shit
Yes, its cliff-walking ability does make Phase Prisms somewhat irrelevant. It has a prolonged attack, though, so good timing is necessary to keep it from getting stuck firing its lasers. I agree that doesn't make up for the loss of micro with the Reaver's departure.
On September 28 2007 05:52 Stegosaur wrote: So is this Lazerflip a famous player?
Well, he opposes MBS, so he must be. After all, what are the odds someone would make 400 accounts to troll the boards with pro-MBS propaganda, inciting flamewars between the two sides?
On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote: I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this.
Lazerflip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is very right. MBS and other features that might be added into SC2 will ruin it. That one feature by itself significantly closes the gap from top players to intermediate, etc. Add a couple more and you have another game that lasts 1 year and then dies in eSports because everyone is extremely good at it (again, take it from Lazerflip or anyone else that plays the 'other rts' competitively -- they're all ruined by easy buttons).
Yeah, any feature that benefits noobs will instantly ruin a game by itself. You know that game Starcraft? The micro in there was completely ruined and made everyone extremely good at it in one year because of two ridiculous noobifying features: multiple unit select and auto-attack. Not only could you select more than one unit at once, they could all attack by themselves with no input from the player! Talk about the game playing itself instead of the player playing! Micro then became a non-factor in the game that was now all-macro oriented, which is the reason why everybody in the world could micro as well as Boxer a year after the game was released. Starcraft subsequently died due to its noob-helping interface. And don't even get me started on auto-mining. With just one click, you can tell the worker to automate itself! Workers even find micro themselves in a mineral line by finding empty minerals after the one it went to was already being mined! Where's the fun in playing if the worker plays the game and not you? In order for Starcraft 2 to be a success, it will have to remove these noob features and once again make the player play the game, not an interface that does it for him.
On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote: I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this.
Lazerflip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is very right. MBS and other features that might be added into SC2 will ruin it. That one feature by itself significantly closes the gap from top players to intermediate, etc. Add a couple more and you have another game that lasts 1 year and then dies in eSports because everyone is extremely good at it (again, take it from Lazerflip or anyone else that plays the 'other rts' competitively -- they're all ruined by easy buttons).
Yeah, any feature that benefits noobs will instantly ruin a game by itself. You know that game Starcraft? The micro in there was completely ruined and made everyone extremely good at it in one year because of two ridiculous noobifying features: multiple unit select and auto-attack. Not only could you select more than one unit at once, they could all attack by themselves with no input from the player! Talk about the game playing itself instead of the player playing! Micro then became a non-factor in the game that was now all-macro oriented, which is the reason why everybody in the world could micro as well as Boxer a year after the game was released. Starcraft subsequently died due to its noob-helping interface. And don't even get me started on auto-mining. With just one click, you can tell the worker to automate itself! Workers even find micro themselves in a mineral line by finding empty minerals after the one it went to was already being mined! Where's the fun in playing if the worker plays the game and not you? In order for Starcraft 2 to be a success, it will have to remove these noob features and once again make the player play the game, not an interface that does it for him.
good point. hell we might as well just go ahead and have the game play itself, all you have to do is input what strategy you want it to execute! these arguments can be made for both sides and they are ridiculous for both sides. a good game needs a balance, hard enough to play to be competetive (everyone cant be godly on a weeks practice), but not so hard that its no fun to play. the argument lies in what balance fits sc2, but making idiotic over-simplified statements trying to demean the position you dont agree with accomplishes nothing. come up with a real argument or shut up.
On September 28 2007 12:37 IdrA wrote: a good game needs a balance, hard enough to play to be competetive (everyone cant be godly on a weeks practice), but not so hard that its no fun to play.
Yes. And this balance isn't given in SC1, because the better you get, the more important macro is. You will do some micro tasks, sure, depending on their importance (some micro tasks are so important that you can't just ignore them, for example running a group of M&M from lurkers or a psi storm), but nonetheless you'll be busy 75% of the time with macroing.
And this is just wrong, even though there is skill needed for it. The skill itself is "wrong". It shouldn't be a deciding factor in the game who is the fastest keyboard jockey. I know that some of the pro-SBS people like that skill, would like to keep it and think that it makes the game richer. But the pro-MBS people think that the skill is too stupid to have in the game again.
Also, remember that macro consists of other factors, which are more important than just the keyboard speed. For example, pick any non-Korean gamer with the same APM as iloveoov or Savior (to name two well-known macro monsters). Does he have the same unbelievable macro now? Nope. So we see that macro is much more than just clicking. It's deciding when to build what, when to expand, when to focus on worker or unit production as Z, and so on. And all that is still present if you include MBS. It's just the tedious factor that gets removed, and that in turn allows the player to do more micro tasks which previously were too unimportant to do. And units or abilities, which are just too hard to use in SC1 (e.g. ghosts, restoration, mind control, parasite) will maybe become more common. So there's the potential for more variety. In SC1, everyone (including pro gamers) is so busy with macro and controlling the usual few units in combination that many things are just too hard to do, so they aren't done. Ever.
Things to consider: - Macro is more important than micro in SC1 ==> SC2 should fix the balance again by making micro more important or macro less important, or both. This is my most important point. It also gives creative players like Boxer and Nal_Ra better chances again.
- Being fast with the keyboard is a skill, but one that is considered tedious by many players
- Blizzard games have always been about being easy to learn but hard to master. If you make a game without MBS now, it won't be easy to learn, because all other games don't have SBS anymore. This is against Blizzard philosophy. Plus, it might prevent these newbies from becoming future gosus just because the UI ruined the fun for them, so they stop playing it.
- Without MBS, It will be very hard for newbies who are used to the "better" interfaces of newer RTS games to get at least better than the "total noob" level. With MBS, this will help them and also make BattleNet more interesting for the better players. I bet many of you who are at least of average skill hate playing a random 1v1 and notice after 6 or 7 minutes that your opponent is so extremely bad that you'll just walk over him shortly. It was just a waste of time. And when you think that this was the worst player you've ever played against, then soon you will run into one who is even worse. And this goes on and on.
If you make macro less time consuming by introducing MBS, players can concentrate more on micro. Previously unimportant actions will become important again if you want to have an edge over your opponent. So, in theory, there should still be enough to do for you. If everyone is macroing less, then everyone will be microing more. I don't understand why this would require less skill. I guess most of you just immediately think of WC3, but it's bad to compare these two games. WC3 is all about having small groups of units around one hero, and the units don't die fast. So the game is much slower and easier to overview than Starcraft. And this leads to progamers being "bored". But I don't see how SC2 could possibly become like that. I think it's just vastly exaggerated to say that MBS will make the game boring because there will be "nothing left to do". Of course all SC1 hardcore gamers will think that SC2 is easier when they are first confronted with MBS, but this will just be temporarily because they will soon learn that they have to start concentrating more on the OTHER things, because if they don't, they will start losing soon once everyone knows the basics of SC2.
You'll need to adapt and change your game style. It's a new game after all, not SC1 with new graphics and units. Blizzard has progamers testing the game, and they know that SC2 must be a competitive game. It would be silly to think that it will become a noob game, and it's just as silly to think that SBS is a requirement for having a competitive RTS game. If you seriously think that, then just read iamke55's post for ideas on how to make the game even more competitive. WOW!
I can't believe you people don't think SC is better than C&C 3 and so many other RTS games simply because there's no MBS & auto-mine. There's way more to the game. They can please the masses AND add things to make the game more difficult at the same time.
Personally I think they should make upgrades & upgrade timing a bit more important in this game (to pull attention from the player in a way other than unit production). Their also making macro a bit harder by making gas scarcer, so there's probably going to be a constant slew of action between the low gas units, but choosing how many and what gas heavy units to produce will important too. You don't want production slots to be taken up. I mean, MBS is nice when you need 5 zealots, but what if you need that one extra templar? If you just pressed z then the production slot is taken.
On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote: I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this.
Lazerflip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is very right. MBS and other features that might be added into SC2 will ruin it. That one feature by itself significantly closes the gap from top players to intermediate, etc. Add a couple more and you have another game that lasts 1 year and then dies in eSports because everyone is extremely good at it (again, take it from Lazerflip or anyone else that plays the 'other rts' competitively -- they're all ruined by easy buttons).
So both of you are prepared to say that if you took MBS, automine, and autocast for unit actions that did not require a player's judgement (like building interceptors for carriers), and any other SC2 interface "noobifiers" that I forgot to mention offhand out of Dawn of War, or C&C3, or WC3, that they would be just as competitive as SC? Unless you're prepared to back that statement, you haven't proven that the interface is the sole reason those games are uncompetitive, or even that it has a factor in such.
Honestly, iirc there are only two reasons that I agree with the anti-MBS side on why MBS/automine might negatively affect competitive gameplay:
1) It takes out the negative feedback loop in macro.
As you got more buildings in SC, the interface would make it progressively harder to order units. Therefore, the advantage you got from having more buildings was partially nullified by the increased difficulty of building them, thus giving the player behind an opportunity to catch back up. SC has a very large positive feedback loop, in that being significantly ahead in resources makes it very difficult for one's opponent to come back in the game, and so removing a mechanic that helps mitigate this effect and allow more comebacks is certainly important. However, in the highest levels of SC play most players have roughly equal macro mechanics, so this negative feedback loop is not very effective at that level anyways. I'd personally be more worried on its effect on lower-level games, as it makes errors or losses increasingly difficult to recoup; for example, losing a handful of workers to harrass is much more of a disadvantage with MBS enabled than without. However, if this turns out to be an issue, then we already have a couple of solutions handy: the 'one unit, one click' idea, and the 'selection within a certain radius' idea, to name two.
2) It takes out a considerable portion of multitasking, since you don't have to return to your base as often.
Personally, this is more of an issue with automining, because I think there's plenty of returning to your base to be done with MBS, as every time you want to change the composition of the units you're building from a building type you have to go back to your base and "shift-click, shift-click, shift-click...ctrl-#". However, if that's still not enough, keep in mind that even those who have played SC2 on these forums have played a considerably incomplete alpha version of SC2. Would you make judgements on SC as a game based on the SC alpha? There's still plenty of features and mechanics to come, some of which will likely bring SC2 multitasking back up on par with SC. If Blizzard doesn't do this, then some quick fixes would be to replace automining with an idle worker button, and MBS ideas like 'select but don't hotkey'.
Regardless, judging from these discussions I'm sure that if MBS is included in the final version of the game, no matter what form it is in or whether it affects the competitiveness of the game, that a certain percentage of SC veterans will hate its inclusion. For those people, I'd just like to point out that modding the engine so that it implements a SC1 interface is definitely possible (I'd say practically inevitable), as shown by Project Revolution, which did it for the WC3 engine; even easier, in fact, since it appears Blizzard is putting updated models of ALL the SC1 units in the level editor, thus only requiring a coder. Think of it as a 'CS promod' for SC2.
I consider it likey that Blizzard will include the original with SC2, or add it on in the inevitable expansion (since it'd be a good business decision).
On September 28 2007 03:03 Fen wrote: Ok, The best tennis players in the world can play tennis at a rediculously good level. The rest of the world cannot. Does this make tennis not fun? Of course not. Tennis is still enjoyed by millions around the world. You dont have to be top level players to have fun. A huge portion of games played on battlenet are BGH/FASTEST/UMS games, that are enjoyed by casual gamers. Gamers that wouldnt know how to go about locking down 10 carriers or running a 4 gas economy. But they still have heaps of fun.
The point im trying to make here is simple, as long as the game is fun, it will be loved. Having MBS or not will not effect this fun level at all. However having MBS WILL effect the competative scene, and therefore should be turned off.
you speak the truth man.... couldnt state it better myself.
whether or not mbs/automine will be implemented into sc2, there will be a ridiculous amount of people drawn to this franchise. why you ask? with the old school UI system that is so hard to use? because sc is a fucking amazing RTS game. there is no other game that compares with this on a competitive level. all the people (which isn't as much as other genres here in the us with MMORPGs and FPS), they will give it a shot. with the name of starcraft and blizzard behind this release, i dont think having a few features that make the game easier will hurt the industry at all. anyways, you all keep talking bout a need to draw in a vast amounts of new players to build a competitive scene, however, how many of these new players become pros? how many of them move on from playing the addictingly fun madness, defense, control, rpg, money maps and other more entertaining features from sc that doesn't require a pro level mechanic of the game? most dont, so appealing to the fucking reviewers of games who dont know jack shit about rts shouldn't be a factor when producing this game that has the perfect forumula of micro and macro.
to the people who said micro isn't important in sc.... WTF ARE YOU THINKING? in t v z late game, try losing all your science vessels due to a micro mistake in battle. say your marines are focus firing on zlings, lurks and mutas while 20 scourges fly in and destroy all ur vessels. THAN tell me that micro isnt important. or what bout losing your first reaver in p v t? BOTH micro and macro is an essential part of the game. dont try to just say that macro is the only important feature in sc... you are just exclaiming to everyone all these forums how much of a dumbass you are.
Instead of arguing about this narrow point that is MBS or any mechanism that EXECUTES, how about do a mental step-back and think of the OTHER elements of sc that made it what it is today? Surely there's more to sc than execution, since this is a strategy game as well! Some of you really attribute too much to the competitive aspect. Granted it is what made us care today, but the (potentially) added complexities of unit interactions and map dynamics for example, would (and dare I say should) change the feel of sc2 significantly from sc.
After all, this is a new game being made almost 10 years later. It is reasonable to expect the 'core' premise to remain true (IMHO, crisp unit AI, intuitive interface and useful tech-tree throughout) but at same time fans should open up to new possibilities, and with faith, hope that Bilizzard can complement the (Differences, NOTE, difference != worse) and come up with a BETTER game overall. As long as there will be Pimpest plays that feature innovative PLAYS (which is a combination of execution and thought) many years after the release, I'll be a happy camper).
OK this thread is really long, so I aint read the whole 23 pages, just the first page!
I just wanna say one thing regarding this MBS thing. I agree with the OP. I just wanna add. Some people think that because you can select lots of buildings at once, that this is the end if macro. Not at all. Put it this way. Say you have 7 factories, and you want 4 tanks, 2 vultures and one Goliath. You cant exactly pick all 7 factories and do this. You will have to select 4 factories for the tanks, 2 factories for the vultures and another factory for the Goliath. There is still macro...
Also in regards to unit selection. I don't know about you, but in war3 i find it harder when you can select more units. Especially when you have 1 hero, lots of normal guys and maybe other guys that have spells too. I would still hot key my spell casters on different numbers. Still lots of micro selecting units etc.
So MBS, is not bad. It is a good thing. Embrace it and love it.
not at all chewits WC3 MBS is like say u have 7 factory's 4 with add on's 2 without.. u could have them all selected and hit T 4 times and V 2 times and Boom all fac's producing lol its a dumb system mbs will make SC2 a CC3 remake T.T dont screw up my dreams blizzard leave mbs and automine out of the game Keep Oldschool Like All the Good Gamers want screw these newbs.. there going to buy the game anyways rather it has it in there or not.. but.. u want to see the game last?? like scbw?? then u cant have mbs in it --a gogo 10 years of SC2 Fighting!~
On September 28 2007 15:37 koryano321 wrote: to the people who said micro isn't important in sc.... WTF ARE YOU THINKING? in t v z late game, try losing all your science vessels due to a micro mistake in battle. say your marines are focus firing on zlings, lurks and mutas while 20 scourges fly in and destroy all ur vessels. THAN tell me that micro isnt important. or what bout losing your first reaver in p v t? BOTH micro and macro is an essential part of the game. dont try to just say that macro is the only important feature in sc...
Yes. Of course. I can also name at least 20 situations where micro is important. But most of the time you're doing macro, not micro. You're not using all available units. You're not using all available spells (Okay, maybe part of that is also the fault of the game because some of these units/spells maybe should be better). And the longer the game lasts, the worse you're controlling your units, because it's more rewarding to just pump more of them instead of take good care (important note here: taking care != taking good care) of your existing ones. This is especially true in the matchups known as macro matchups: PvT and ZvP. Obviously I'm almost only talking about late game, because the earlier it is in a game, the easier macro is, so you can also in turn micro quite well. In early and mid game there's almost no point in having MBS. But in late game, it will remove the burden that is constant clicking through your factories/gateways/hatcheries and instead allow you to focus on better control of your units. Do you get it now?
On September 28 2007 19:32 Brutalisk wrote: Yes. Of course. I can also name at least 20 situations where micro is important. But most of the time you're doing macro, not micro. You're not using all available units. You're not using all available spells (Okay, maybe part of that is also the fault of the game because some of these units/spells maybe should be better). And the longer the game lasts, the worse you're controlling your units, because it's more rewarding to just pump more of them instead of take good care (important note here: taking care != taking good care) of your existing ones. This is especially true in the matchups known as macro matchups: PvT and ZvP. Obviously I'm almost only talking about late game, because the earlier it is in a game, the easier macro is, so you can also in turn micro quite well. In early and mid game there's almost no point in having MBS. But in late game, it will remove the burden that is constant clicking through your factories/gateways/hatcheries and instead allow you to focus on better control of your units. Do you get it now?
The longer the game lasts in starcraft, the tougher it gets. THIS IS BRILLIANT. I think that if I was playing well, I would be able to survive early game with a progamer. Heck in the first minute of a game, there would be no differentiation of skill between a progamer and myself. However as the game gets goin further, it gets harder and harder to keep up. No longer am I playing with a single hatchery, im now forced to be running multiple expansions, controlling much larger armies and using complex spells. Suddenly the better player has the advantage, he is able to control all of this, in my case with the progamer, I stand zero chance of winning.
However with MBS and Automine, Smartcast, Unlimited selection. Suddenly I'm given all these new tools that automates parts of the game, parts that I would usually be unable to control. Suddenly, it becomes a hell of a lot easier to keep up. In early game it takes 3 buttons to make a drone and tell him to go mine. (select hatchery, select larva, morph drone). Fast forward to later game, it takes me 3 buttons to make all 5 of my expansions build drones and make them mine. The game has lost its scale. No longer does this game get harder to play the longer the game goes on. The only differnce is the amount of units your using and the different unit types.
Now broodwar hit the perfect combo, where a player could last a little while against a better player, but ultimately stood no chance. In earlier games without the additions that starcraft had, players would have fallen behind earlier, and with more additions, players wil be able to keep up for much longer. With these additions people should be able to keep up for the entire game, making micro the only real defining difference between players.
In starcraf games where players were of equal skill, they would usually go all the way to very late game. When two players had similar skill, but one was better, the game would be intense until late game when the difference in skill allowed the better player to win. In games where one player was much better than the other, the game was over before mid game. This is how starcraft should be. If you think back to your most memorable games, they'll be the ones where you went late game and you were still equal skill with your opponent.
The more you have, the harder it should be to control and the larger the scale of the game, the larger the advantage the better player should have.
On September 28 2007 12:37 IdrA wrote: a good game needs a balance, hard enough to play to be competetive (everyone cant be godly on a weeks practice), but not so hard that its no fun to play.
Yes. And this balance isn't given in SC1, because the better you get, the more important macro is. You will do some micro tasks, sure, depending on their importance (some micro tasks are so important that you can't just ignore them, for example running a group of M&M from lurkers or a psi storm), but nonetheless you'll be busy 75% of the time with macroing.
And this is just wrong, even though there is skill needed for it. The skill itself is "wrong". It shouldn't be a deciding factor in the game who is the fastest keyboard jockey. I know that some of the pro-SBS people like that skill, would like to keep it and think that it makes the game richer. But the pro-MBS people think that the skill is too stupid to have in the game again.
Also, remember that macro consists of other factors, which are more important than just the keyboard speed. For example, pick any non-Korean gamer with the same APM as iloveoov or Savior (to name two well-known macro monsters). Does he have the same unbelievable macro now? Nope. So we see that macro is much more than just clicking. It's deciding when to build what, when to expand, when to focus on worker or unit production as Z, and so on. And all that is still present if you include MBS. It's just the tedious factor that gets removed, and that in turn allows the player to do more micro tasks which previously were too unimportant to do. And units or abilities, which are just too hard to use in SC1 (e.g. ghosts, restoration, mind control, parasite) will maybe become more common. So there's the potential for more variety. In SC1, everyone (including pro gamers) is so busy with macro and controlling the usual few units in combination that many things are just too hard to do, so they aren't done. Ever.
Things to consider: - Macro is more important than micro in SC1 ==> SC2 should fix the balance again by making micro more important or macro less important, or both. This is my most important point. It also gives creative players like Boxer and Nal_Ra better chances again.
- Being fast with the keyboard is a skill, but one that is considered tedious by many players
- Blizzard games have always been about being easy to learn but hard to master. If you make a game without MBS now, it won't be easy to learn, because all other games don't have SBS anymore. This is against Blizzard philosophy. Plus, it might prevent these newbies from becoming future gosus just because the UI ruined the fun for them, so they stop playing it.
- Without MBS, It will be very hard for newbies who are used to the "better" interfaces of newer RTS games to get at least better than the "total noob" level. With MBS, this will help them and also make BattleNet more interesting for the better players. I bet many of you who are at least of average skill hate playing a random 1v1 and notice after 6 or 7 minutes that your opponent is so extremely bad that you'll just walk over him shortly. It was just a waste of time. And when you think that this was the worst player you've ever played against, then soon you will run into one who is even worse. And this goes on and on.
If you make macro less time consuming by introducing MBS, players can concentrate more on micro. Previously unimportant actions will become important again if you want to have an edge over your opponent. So, in theory, there should still be enough to do for you. If everyone is macroing less, then everyone will be microing more. I don't understand why this would require less skill. I guess most of you just immediately think of WC3, but it's bad to compare these two games. WC3 is all about having small groups of units around one hero, and the units don't die fast. So the game is much slower and easier to overview than Starcraft. And this leads to progamers being "bored". But I don't see how SC2 could possibly become like that. I think it's just vastly exaggerated to say that MBS will make the game boring because there will be "nothing left to do". Of course all SC1 hardcore gamers will think that SC2 is easier when they are first confronted with MBS, but this will just be temporarily because they will soon learn that they have to start concentrating more on the OTHER things, because if they don't, they will start losing soon once everyone knows the basics of SC2.
You'll need to adapt and change your game style. It's a new game after all, not SC1 with new graphics and units. Blizzard has progamers testing the game, and they know that SC2 must be a competitive game. It would be silly to think that it will become a noob game, and it's just as silly to think that SBS is a requirement for having a competitive RTS game. If you seriously think that, then just read iamke55's post for ideas on how to make the game even more competitive. WOW!
(Long post again... meh.)
the entire problem with the 'remove macro and everything else becomes more important' argument is.. look at the top progamers. they ALREADY do everything else almost perfect. there are hundreds, probably thousands of semi pros who have near perfect macro, just as good as any of the top pros. but you're never gonna hear their name, because to be a top progamer takes way, way more than macro. however there are also many semi pros who play just as cheesy and creative and aggressive as ra, but you're never gonna hear of them either, because that alone isnt enough either. that is why the skill ceiling in bw is so high, at the highest level you have to be able to do everything on a near-perfect level to be competetive, and thats a major reason the korean bw scene developed. whos gonna pay to watch people play a game that anyone can be really good at? removing macro will make bw easier, its not possible to argue that, every person who played sc2 at blizzcon commented on how easy production was. make it easier and you're gonna end up with just another rts that gets some hype when it comes out, people will play it professionally for a little bit, then everyone will move on. it wont end up as a 10 year old game with a massive pro scene.
On September 28 2007 12:37 IdrA wrote: a good game needs a balance, hard enough to play to be competetive (everyone cant be godly on a weeks practice), but not so hard that its no fun to play.
Yes. And this balance isn't given in SC1, because the better you get, the more important macro is. You will do some micro tasks, sure, depending on their importance (some micro tasks are so important that you can't just ignore them, for example running a group of M&M from lurkers or a psi storm), but nonetheless you'll be busy 75% of the time with macroing.
And this is just wrong, even though there is skill needed for it. The skill itself is "wrong". It shouldn't be a deciding factor in the game who is the fastest keyboard jockey. I know that some of the pro-SBS people like that skill, would like to keep it and think that it makes the game richer. But the pro-MBS people think that the skill is too stupid to have in the game again.
Also, remember that macro consists of other factors, which are more important than just the keyboard speed. For example, pick any non-Korean gamer with the same APM as iloveoov or Savior (to name two well-known macro monsters). Does he have the same unbelievable macro now? Nope. So we see that macro is much more than just clicking. It's deciding when to build what, when to expand, when to focus on worker or unit production as Z, and so on. And all that is still present if you include MBS. It's just the tedious factor that gets removed, and that in turn allows the player to do more micro tasks which previously were too unimportant to do. And units or abilities, which are just too hard to use in SC1 (e.g. ghosts, restoration, mind control, parasite) will maybe become more common. So there's the potential for more variety. In SC1, everyone (including pro gamers) is so busy with macro and controlling the usual few units in combination that many things are just too hard to do, so they aren't done. Ever.
Things to consider: - Macro is more important than micro in SC1 ==> SC2 should fix the balance again by making micro more important or macro less important, or both. This is my most important point. It also gives creative players like Boxer and Nal_Ra better chances again.
- Being fast with the keyboard is a skill, but one that is considered tedious by many players
- Blizzard games have always been about being easy to learn but hard to master. If you make a game without MBS now, it won't be easy to learn, because all other games don't have SBS anymore. This is against Blizzard philosophy. Plus, it might prevent these newbies from becoming future gosus just because the UI ruined the fun for them, so they stop playing it.
- Without MBS, It will be very hard for newbies who are used to the "better" interfaces of newer RTS games to get at least better than the "total noob" level. With MBS, this will help them and also make BattleNet more interesting for the better players. I bet many of you who are at least of average skill hate playing a random 1v1 and notice after 6 or 7 minutes that your opponent is so extremely bad that you'll just walk over him shortly. It was just a waste of time. And when you think that this was the worst player you've ever played against, then soon you will run into one who is even worse. And this goes on and on.
If you make macro less time consuming by introducing MBS, players can concentrate more on micro. Previously unimportant actions will become important again if you want to have an edge over your opponent. So, in theory, there should still be enough to do for you. If everyone is macroing less, then everyone will be microing more. I don't understand why this would require less skill. I guess most of you just immediately think of WC3, but it's bad to compare these two games. WC3 is all about having small groups of units around one hero, and the units don't die fast. So the game is much slower and easier to overview than Starcraft. And this leads to progamers being "bored". But I don't see how SC2 could possibly become like that. I think it's just vastly exaggerated to say that MBS will make the game boring because there will be "nothing left to do". Of course all SC1 hardcore gamers will think that SC2 is easier when they are first confronted with MBS, but this will just be temporarily because they will soon learn that they have to start concentrating more on the OTHER things, because if they don't, they will start losing soon once everyone knows the basics of SC2.
You'll need to adapt and change your game style. It's a new game after all, not SC1 with new graphics and units. Blizzard has progamers testing the game, and they know that SC2 must be a competitive game. It would be silly to think that it will become a noob game, and it's just as silly to think that SBS is a requirement for having a competitive RTS game. If you seriously think that, then just read iamke55's post for ideas on how to make the game even more competitive. WOW!
(Long post again... meh.)
the entire problem with the 'remove macro and everything else becomes more important' argument is.. look at the top progamers. they ALREADY do everything else almost perfect. there are hundreds, probably thousands of semi pros who have near perfect macro, just as good as any of the top pros. but you're never gonna hear their name, because to be a top progamer takes way, way more than macro. however there are also many semi pros who play just as cheesy and creative and aggressive as ra, but you're never gonna hear of them either, because that alone isnt enough either. that is why the skill ceiling in bw is so high, at the highest level you have to be able to do everything on a near-perfect level to be competetive, and thats a major reason the korean bw scene developed. whos gonna pay to watch people play a game that anyone can be really good at? removing macro will make bw easier, its not possible to argue that, every person who played sc2 at blizzcon commented on how easy production was. make it easier and you're gonna end up with just another rts that gets some hype when it comes out, people will play it professionally for a little bit, then everyone will move on. it wont end up as a 10 year old game with a massive pro scene.
I think I've said it at least ten times allready but not even the best macro progamers are anywhere close to having perfect macro. It's not humanly possible to have close to perfect macro in SC. It won't be humanly possible to have perfect macro in SC2 either even though everyone will certainly have better macro. Perfect macro is building what you want and getting it to the point that you want it the instant you can. As long as progamers have to go back and use several production buildings at one time and send whole groups of units as reinforcements they don't have perfect macro. After a few minutes of gametime I haven't seen any gamer instantly build and send reinforcements no matter how good they are.
I imagine oov could come pretty close to it with MBS tho.
well, it would be a good thing if it was near impossible to having perfect macro, because that means there would always be room for growth and improvement, even among the best players.
but your definition of macro is flawed, perfect macro is having as many units as possible. what kinds of units and when/where you have them is part of strategy and timing. in terms of having as many units as possible, yes stork, oov, bisu, maybe savior and some others, are all close. they rarely ever accumulate more resources than necessary, they all time expos and production buildings very well, especially oov and savior. and i dont know what you mean by "I haven't seen any gamer instantly build and send reinforcements no matter how good they are", almost all pros make production rounds as soon as the previous one finishes and send units as soon as theyre built. given their speed that is only difficult to do in late game when theres a massive amount of stuff going on.
That's all true, but completely misses the point. With MBS, what you wrote will still be true. It's normal that the game gets harder and harder as time goes on because you have to take care of more and more things at the same time.
However, in SC1 things tend to get really messy in late game, for any gamer... while some progamers have close to perfect macro nowadays, they are constantly doing sacrifices in the micro department in order to have their macro machinery running at all times. And that is the point. You can never micro and macro perfectly. You can at best do one of the two things perfectly, and even that is pretty much impossible (perfect means no flaw at all, not even idle workers).
So if you simplify macro in late game, players will be able to control their units better instead of wasting many of them in order to build new ones. I'm not talking about huge micro mistakes, because these rarely happen in the progaming world, no, it's all the small things that add up.
In early and mid game, players rarely have problems with macroing and microing at the same time. MBS will not really change this, unless you're only building one unit type. But in late game, macroing becomes more important, because you're getting a big steady stream of income that must be used, and you have a ton of buildings (often in different places) to click through and produce new units from. MBS should help there by making it less time intensive, so that macro can be almost as easy again as it was in the early and mid game. No one is complaining that macro is too easy at these stages, right? With your free APM you will be able to control your units better. Why should these free APM be unused?
I think a lot of people here confuse progamers with Korean progamers. SC1 will never become a sport outside South Korea, because nobody outside South Korea can get anywhere near their level of play. Now if SCII were to enable the best of us, primitive people, to macro like Korean pros - maybe, just maybe it would take off as a sport.
But that, of course, is my inherently flawed, pro-MBS opinion.
Yeah, that's a problem with bad players... computer games are always improving in some way, contrary to a real sport like soccer or tennis which stays the same "for all eternity". Casual players always want some kind of improvement in computer games. They wouldn't understand a decision like making the UI worse in order to make it more competitive. They always want it as easy as possible, and if other games are easier, then every new game must be easier as well.
If we lose these casual players (there are many of them), SC2 also won't make e-sport big outside of Korea, although it has the potential. The hardcore crowd like here in this thread is just too insignificant (and will stop playing at some point anyway, so there's only the "new school" gamers left who only know easy UIs).
.... its not like theres some genetic barrier preventing non koreans from playing as well as koreans. its a cultural difference. sc1 happened to catch just right in korean culture so that it became the massive mainstream media giant it is today, that much attention and money going into it allows/encourages lots and lots of players to play 24/7 with the hope of becoming the best. given that environment any country could produce korean-equivalent talent and ability.
if you honestly want there to be a non-korean progaming scene that can rival what korea has for bw, you should want sc2 to be as close to sc as possible and for blizzard/other sponsors to hype the shit out of it when it comes out. starcraft has shown it can maintain a high profile, mainstream progaming scene. other games have shown that.. they cant. if sc2 comes out as a game that is as good as starcraft in terms of gameplay and entertainment, but gets the publicity and sponsorship that all the other new shitty rts' get, it will be huge. but if what you want is a newb friendly game that people only play until the next 'big game' comes out, then go ahead and dumb it down to match the rest of the games.
On September 29 2007 06:03 Brutalisk wrote:If we lose these casual players (there are many of them), SC2 also won't make e-sport big outside of Korea, although it has the potential. The hardcore crowd like here in this thread is just too insignificant (and will stop playing at some point anyway, so there's only the "new school" gamers left who only know easy UIs).
If we cater to those casual players, it won't be a e-sport, period. In fact, I for one would quickly revert to Broodwar after the intial months.
On September 29 2007 06:11 IdrA wrote: .... its not like theres some genetic barrier preventing non koreans from playing as well as koreans. its a cultural difference. sc1 happened to catch just right in korean culture so that it became the massive mainstream media giant it is today, that much attention and money going into it allows/encourages lots and lots of players to play 24/7 with the hope of becoming the best. given that environment any country could produce korean-equivalent talent and ability.
if you honestly want there to be a non-korean progaming scene that can rival what korea has for bw, you should want sc2 to be as close to sc as possible and for blizzard/other sponsors to hype the shit out of it when it comes out. starcraft has shown it can maintain a high profile, mainstream progaming scene. other games have shown that.. they cant. if sc2 comes out as a game that is as good as starcraft in terms of gameplay and entertainment, but gets the publicity and sponsorship that all the other new shitty rts' get, it will be huge. but if what you want is a newb friendly game that people only play until the next 'big game' comes out, then go ahead and dumb it down to match the rest of the games.
Duude... are you saying the world should adapt to StarCraft?
what? theres nothing special about koreans. way more people play, meaning those with natural talent are more likely to get into progaming, and they play a shitload more, which has obvious effects. stick 30 non koreans into progaming and give them all the resources upcoming korean gamers have and at least a few of them will become high-calibre pros, probably a few starleaguers. its not a matter of adapting, theres just no motivation outside korea because no sponsors will touch a 10 year old game.
On September 29 2007 06:11 IdrA wrote: .... its not like theres some genetic barrier preventing non koreans from playing as well as koreans. its a cultural difference. sc1 happened to catch just right in korean culture so that it became the massive mainstream media giant it is today, that much attention and money going into it allows/encourages lots and lots of players to play 24/7 with the hope of becoming the best. given that environment any country could produce korean-equivalent talent and ability.
if you honestly want there to be a non-korean progaming scene that can rival what korea has for bw, you should want sc2 to be as close to sc as possible and for blizzard/other sponsors to hype the shit out of it when it comes out. starcraft has shown it can maintain a high profile, mainstream progaming scene. other games have shown that.. they cant. if sc2 comes out as a game that is as good as starcraft in terms of gameplay and entertainment, but gets the publicity and sponsorship that all the other new shitty rts' get, it will be huge. but if what you want is a newb friendly game that people only play until the next 'big game' comes out, then go ahead and dumb it down to match the rest of the games.
Duude... are you saying the world should adapt to StarCraft?
SC is the best game ever made. It has no reason to adapt to the short-lived whims of teenage kids wanting to play with pew-pew lasers or the shitty precedent set by old games. This is fucking Starcraft II, goddamnit. Make it worthy of its name.
I trust Blizzard to make a game competative on all levels without stilting themselves with a 10 year old UI. You're right, this is Starcraft II and it's going to be much more than kids playing with pew pew lasers, and it's going to be that even with MBS.
I think Blizzard would be doing a huge disservice to the gaming community by relying on the crutch of outdated UI to produce a competative game.
I look forward to fast, furious games with MBS because it's coming. You'll see in hindsight that it won't be so bad
Why do people argue that perfect macro is unattainable and therefore must be changed? It baffles me. If you can do everything you want to do, the game becomes pointless. The fact that it is impossible to achieve what you want is what you want in a game (lol thats an amusing sentence).
Casual gamers care about graphics and explosions. They wont care either way. Competative gamers care about making the game tough to play and rewarding when you take the time to learn it well. The map editor that comes with broodwar will spawn some very interesting maps, most likely we will see BGH2 and Fastest Map 2. We will also see some innovative new UMS games that people will play for a long time (like dota). As far as the main game goes, as soon as the coolness of the graphics wear off, a casual gamer is going to move on. Most likely they'll move on to UMS games or Moneymap games. The competative gamer is going to stick with it. While for the first few months the ladder will be dominated by casual gamers and comepetative gamers alike, this will change and it will soon become domitated by competative gamers. It is then very important for the game to have the competative value that it's predecessor had. Without it, SC2 will turn into one of those games that are only played for the fun user made maps because the ladder offers a poor competative experience.
On September 29 2007 03:20 IdrA wrote: well, it would be a good thing if it was near impossible to having perfect macro, because that means there would always be room for growth and improvement, even among the best players.
but your definition of macro is flawed, perfect macro is having as many units as possible. what kinds of units and when/where you have them is part of strategy and timing. in terms of having as many units as possible, yes stork, oov, bisu, maybe savior and some others, are all close. they rarely ever accumulate more resources than necessary, they all time expos and production buildings very well, especially oov and savior. and i dont know what you mean by "I haven't seen any gamer instantly build and send reinforcements no matter how good they are", almost all pros make production rounds as soon as the previous one finishes and send units as soon as theyre built. given their speed that is only difficult to do in late game when theres a massive amount of stuff going on.
No it's not flawed. Macro is about getting as many units as possible as fast and as efficently as possible. It's allways better to build and send units as fast as you can and if the pro's could do it they would, and infact in the early game when they have the option they do exactly that because it's useless to have many units if they aren't in the frontline. And yeah pro's spend their money very well and build a lot of units but they build them in batches. Nada goes back and activates 8 barracks and usually send his waiting 8 marines to his army. But if he could (as shown as what he does in the early game when he only has 2 rax) he would build each and every marine when he has exactly 50 minerals and rally them to his forces because then he would have more marines than his enemy untill the enemies entire batch of marines arrived.
This is common sense. We see it being done in early games all the time. If perfect macro would be to just spend the money to get units the pro's wouldn't carefully time when they build supplies and barracks (still a part of macro although it includes timing and strategy as well) because they could just build more barracks and build the marines later, rigth? Or that kind of strategy would get them killed. Macro is allways about using your minerals as efficently as possible which in an RTS means getting as many units as fast as possible. Strategy is about which unit to build, timing is about sacrificing certain things to get other things faster in a certain timeframe. MBS would allow people to get units faster regardless of timing or strategy and is therfore purely macro related. A real pro would use his APM to build every unit individually with MBS instead of using the same ammount of clicks to build them in a batch. A noob would use 1 click to build exactly the same ammount of units but he would get all of his units when the last unit of his opponent came out which would be a delay proprtional to how fast his minerals were gathered.
Which means that during that time he would have been outnumbered in every battle.
everyone is argueing over this still.. lets all just face it.. Good gamers dont want MBS and Newbs do.. thats just how it is.. the newbs will come and go. leaving for new games only months after sc2 is released.. while the good gamers would stick around and play competitively as possible (if blizzard doesnt screw it up) -Lz~
IMO, the most meaningful arguments were made back around page 1-2 and 16-20 and one from page 23 that I will quote here (everyone should read this). The rest are mostly rehashes of previous points or are made without truly understanding the reasons for the opposing side's beliefs. Meanwhile, the anti-MBS side is simply proclaiming victory due to their side outnumbering the others (unsurprising since this is a site focusing on pro-gaming of the current SC).
On September 28 2007 14:45 1esu wrote: Honestly, iirc there are only two reasons that I agree with the anti-MBS side on why MBS/automine might negatively affect competitive gameplay:
1) It takes out the negative feedback loop in macro.
As you got more buildings in SC, the interface would make it progressively harder to order units. Therefore, the advantage you got from having more buildings was partially nullified by the increased difficulty of building them, thus giving the player behind an opportunity to catch back up. SC has a very large positive feedback loop, in that being significantly ahead in resources makes it very difficult for one's opponent to come back in the game, and so removing a mechanic that helps mitigate this effect and allow more comebacks is certainly important. However, in the highest levels of SC play most players have roughly equal macro mechanics, so this negative feedback loop is not very effective at that level anyways. I'd personally be more worried on its effect on lower-level games, as it makes errors or losses increasingly difficult to recoup; for example, losing a handful of workers to harrass is much more of a disadvantage with MBS enabled than without. However, if this turns out to be an issue, then we already have a couple of solutions handy: the 'one unit, one click' idea, and the 'selection within a certain radius' idea, to name two.
2) It takes out a considerable portion of multitasking, since you don't have to return to your base as often.
Personally, this is more of an issue with automining, because I think there's plenty of returning to your base to be done with MBS, as every time you want to change the composition of the units you're building from a building type you have to go back to your base and "shift-click, shift-click, shift-click...ctrl-#". However, if that's still not enough, keep in mind that even those who have played SC2 on these forums have played a considerably incomplete alpha version of SC2. Would you make judgements on SC as a game based on the SC alpha? There's still plenty of features and mechanics to come, some of which will likely bring SC2 multitasking back up on par with SC. If Blizzard doesn't do this, then some quick fixes would be to replace automining with an idle worker button, and MBS ideas like 'select but don't hotkey'.
Regardless, judging from these discussions I'm sure that if MBS is included in the final version of the game, no matter what form it is in or whether it affects the competitiveness of the game, that a certain percentage of SC veterans will hate its inclusion. For those people, I'd just like to point out that modding the engine so that it implements a SC1 interface is definitely possible (I'd say practically inevitable), as shown by Project Revolution, which did it for the WC3 engine; even easier, in fact, since it appears Blizzard is putting updated models of ALL the SC1 units in the level editor, thus only requiring a coder. Think of it as a 'CS promod' for SC2.
i think all 25 pages have good arguments. I also think the anti MBS side is definitely making more legitimate points. And yes, since Tl.net is a pro gaming web site and most of the high level players and long time tl.net members disagree with MBS it\'s a fair representation of how the pro sc community will react to MBS in the game: Not well. Bare in mind many of these posters have already played the game and were unimpressed.
I think you\'d see the same reaction with all the pro basketball players being told they didn\'t have to dribble the ball any more and instead could focus more on shooting hoops. As if they didn\'t love dribbling the ball as much as passing, stealing and dunking. They loved all the parts.
The Pro MBS side has failed to explain what will occupy the gamer while he is not macroing. As if good SC players can\'t macro, micro, out position and out think their opponent all at the same time. It\'s challenging of course, but sexy at the same time. The pro MBS side seems to assert (with no backing) that the game will somehow be better with simpler macro. As if no one was using strategy while they macroed in the last 10 years this game has been out. I have played this game competitively since the beginning, i have talked to players from all over the world, good and bad, and i have never ONCE heard a player say they wished macro was easier. It seems almost as if this group of pro mbs players have never attended lans or tournaments. That they never played Starcraft competitively at all. As i\'ve said before: They will probably be happy playing Starcraft their way in non competitive public games.
Adding MBS is like adding another button for kens Hiduken punch in Street fighter (as if Street Fighter players complain about the difficulty of combos) Then adding another button for his Spin Kick (Now we have another combo move simplified). It\'s as if people stopped playing Street fighter because doing special moves was too intimidating when in fact people still play street fighter today.
Your vision of what pro gaming is supposed to be like SHOULD have occurred in another RTS game already. Go look at the ass load of MBS RTS games that exist, even read LazerFlips post about how MBS has made those games terrible. If MBS was all an RTS needed by now then esports would have flourished across the globe, but it hasn\'t. This is like hearing George Bush\'s \'Stay the Course\' crap when it\'s obvious we need to get the fuck out of iraq.
The only RTS game with close (but not that close) success in esports was War3, a game that had hardly any macro but an INTENSE amount of micro. Most SC players still wanted macro and micro ballance and that\'s why there are more people playing SC than War3 today.
Blizzard will have a powerful esports scene IMMEDIATELY with a similar UI and that will be more than enough to fuel a world wide competitive esports scene. We COULD have have games on TV everywhere, but you need competitive people who are insane and want to play that shit for 10 hours a day just to be the best. The graphics will be good enough for major companies to take interest in it, especially when looking at the korean scene. Those people need as many features as possible to be the best. The evidence is overwhelming, MBS\'s is nonexistent.
On September 29 2007 06:11 IdrA wrote: .... its not like theres some genetic barrier preventing non koreans from playing as well as koreans. its a cultural difference. sc1 happened to catch just right in korean culture so that it became the massive mainstream media giant it is today, that much attention and money going into it allows/encourages lots and lots of players to play 24/7 with the hope of becoming the best. given that environment any country could produce korean-equivalent talent and ability.
if you honestly want there to be a non-korean progaming scene that can rival what korea has for bw, you should want sc2 to be as close to sc as possible and for blizzard/other sponsors to hype the shit out of it when it comes out. starcraft has shown it can maintain a high profile, mainstream progaming scene. other games have shown that.. they cant. if sc2 comes out as a game that is as good as starcraft in terms of gameplay and entertainment, but gets the publicity and sponsorship that all the other new shitty rts' get, it will be huge. but if what you want is a newb friendly game that people only play until the next 'big game' comes out, then go ahead and dumb it down to match the rest of the games.
Duude... are you saying the world should adapt to StarCraft?
yes, many have, and many more will.
it's a fun interactive way to play (by limiting someones complete control over the game), someone who isn't competitive will probably not enjoy it, then again... they probably wouldn't enjoy esports to begin with.
I have now been converted to the anti-MBS side, due to the good points that MBS would possible reduce the high tension competitiveness of SC2 ( or at least I think that was the gist of what I skimmed). I now believe that although not having MBS may reduce a large part of the audience, I'd much rather enjoy trying my best to multitask 4 things at once, and watching pros do it all almost flawlessly.
But it's still really a gamble. Take out MBS and lose a (possibly big) audience, but keep it in and possibly lose the good pro scene. If we're lucky, it'll be another starcraft, a good casual game(or at least that's what it seems like to me, as it isn't too hard to learn to play casually on b.net), and still good for pro games. So, my question to you is, Do you feel lucky?
Great post Tasteless. One of the best in this whole thread as it captures the whole gist of the anti-MBS side without marginalizing the other. While I disagree with a few points, on the whole I believe you are mostly correct.
On September 29 2007 12:15 MyLostTemple wrote: The Pro MBS side has failed to explain what will occupy the gamer while he is not macroing. As if good SC players can\'t macro, micro, out position and out think their opponent all at the same time. It\'s challenging of course, but sexy at the same time. The pro MBS side seems to assert (with no backing) that the game will somehow be better with simpler macro. As if no one was using strategy while they macroed in the last 10 years this game has been out.
I agree with you here. If macro is only simplified and nothing is added to increase the amount of multitasking and mechanical skill required to play SC2 at a competitive level, then MBS may not be a positive feature for SC2's pro-scene.
However, some of the more sensible pro-MBS supporters are trusting that Blizzard will be designing SC2 with MBS/automining already being in the game. Some early developments (to back this up) would be the addition of warp gates to Protoss, which requires MBS to function well and still takes a bit of effort to use.
Another way to promote increased macro even with the presence of MBS is to make differing unit combinations necessary throughout the game. So, if the strategical depth in the game succeeds to the point where the ideal macro would be to make marines, medics, reapers, tanks, cobras and vikings in different ratios at various periods of the game, then MBS would not necessarily be the best way to manage production. Lesser players will simply use MBS to mass produce units, but the very best will manually tweak their unit combinations to suit their strategy and adapt to their opponent throughout the game. This is just hoping of course, but I will give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt and we will see later on when the game reaches beta if this is actually the case.
I definitely want the mechanical skill requirement (apm) to be extremely high for SC at the competitive level, but I am not convinced that an artificially limiting UI is the best way to resolve this issue. It is definitely the easiest solution (and worked great in SC), but implementing it in a game to be released into the RTS market in 2008 brings along a host of its own problems as I'm sure you are aware (e.g. poor reviews, negative word of mouth, frustrated noobs, etc; see Armies of Exigo). It's all up to Blizzard in the end to make a sequel worthy of being passed SC's pro-gaming torch and become the next great E-Sport worldwide and in Korea.
On September 29 2007 12:15 MyLostTemple wrote: Adding MBS is like adding another button for kens Hiduken punch in Street fighter (as if Street Fighter players complain about the difficulty of combos) Then adding another button for his Spin Kick (Now we have another combo move simplified). It\'s as if people stopped playing Street fighter because doing special moves was too intimidating when in fact people still play street fighter today.
You make a good point here. I'd just like to point out that under the ideal conditions (what I'm hoping from Blizzard), SC2 with MBS will be like the Street Fighter you described. Hopefully, the lesser players will simply use MBS (kinda like using normal punches, kicks, etc) while the better players will manually alter their unit combinations and such throughout the game (using "difficult combos") because simple MBS just won't cut it. Again, this is the best-case scenario.
On September 29 2007 12:15 MyLostTemple wrote: Your vision of what pro gaming is supposed to be like SHOULD have occurred in another RTS game already. Go look at the ass load of MBS RTS games that exist, even read LazerFlips post about how MBS has made those games terrible. If MBS was all an RTS needed by now then esports would have flourished across the globe, but it hasn\'t. This is like hearing George Bush\'s \'Stay the Course\' crap when it\'s obvious we need to get the fuck out of iraq.
The fact that most RTS's have failed is not due to MBS and automining. 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. This should be clear in their design process for SC2.
Every other RTS from every other company released so far (excluding mirror races) has major imbalances in their game (e.g. C&C tank rushes, superweapons, etc). Any patches often only fix only 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. People start building the same mix of units every game, because it is the strongest/most effective/least counterable. This is pretty much a death sentence to any game at the competitive level, and causes players and audience to quickly lose interest.
On September 29 2007 12:15 MyLostTemple wrote: The only RTS game with close (but not that close) success in esports was War3, a game that had hardly any macro but an INTENSE amount of micro. Most SC players still wanted macro and micro ballance and that\'s why there are more people playing SC than War3 today.
I also hope SC will retain a similar balance, even with MBS (due to addition of other macro tasks and manual tweaking). If in fact, the balance is completely lost when the game reaches beta, then we can rightly complain and try to make Blizzard change it.
On September 29 2007 12:15 MyLostTemple wrote: Blizzard will have a powerful esports scene IMMEDIATELY with a similar UI and that will be more than enough to fuel a world wide competitive esports scene. We COULD have have games on TV everywhere, but you need competitive people who are insane and want to play that shit for 10 hours a day just to be the best. The graphics will be good enough for major companies to take interest in it, especially when looking at the korean scene. Those people need as many features as possible to be the best. The evidence is overwhelming, MBS\'s is nonexistent.
Yes, it's true that we would immediately have a decent E-Sports scene even if MBS is removed, but are you really satisfied with just that? IMO, the scene will not expand greatly beyond the current SC scene due to the aforementioned problems with keeping an "archaic interface". It likely won't reach a critical acceptance rate to make televised leagues viable outside of Korea if you rely on these same people. SC2 is one of those rare opportunities to significantly advance the pro-gaming scene outside of Korea, and the only real way to do so is to attract as much fresh blood as possible.
Firstly, remember that most people who become pro-gamers generally start off when they are still in their teens and when they have plenty of free time. Assuming that SC gets released sometime in 2009-2010 (it's Blizzard), a lot of these new players would have been about 5-8 years old when SC was originally released. Most of them have not even played SC before, so of course they wouldn't understand why the UI is so limiting after being "spoiled" by the modern UI of RTS's from 2000 onwards. So when they lose, they'll hear about how Blizzard removed MBS only to please the SC veterans. Rather than blaming themselves for their losses, they'll instead lay the blame on the game for its outdated interface and how the other player only won by clicking buildings faster than them.
I would not underestimate how many potential pros could be turned away due to this kind of scenario, because everyone starts off as a newb before they start seriously gaming. It would be a shame if we lost this chance because not enough new players (or pros from other games) stuck around long enough to become competitive due to becoming frustrated with the game.
I'm not worried about the Korean scene. The goal for Blizzard should be to try to expand E-Sports in the rest of the world, because it is currently severely lacking. If SC2 is only successful in Korea, I would consider it a failure on Blizzard's part.
MBS = screwed up.. somone explain how are u going to catch ur oppenet off gaurd.. when all he does is watch his army 99% of the time.. while he uses 2 hot keys (1: Command Center) (2: Barracks) .. serious how the in the world could lurkers/lings ever stand a chance vs. a terran like nada or boxer??? who would only have to micro the entire game?? its gay and should never be in ANY RTS GAME .. unless they want to suck~
Lz, the lurker/MM example wouldn't hold maybe because it's SC2 and not SC with MBS added on (which would be broken)? I am also not advocating making SC2 micro-based rather than macro-based, and Blizzard doesn't intend this as well as they have stated in more than one interview. Saying the other side is gay doesn't help your point at all, except make your post look more immature. Please read my post and think before commenting.
On September 29 2007 16:46 orangedude wrote: Lz, the lurker/MM example wouldn't hold maybe because it's SC2 and not SC with MBS added on (which would be broken)? I am also not advocating making SC2 micro-based rather than macro-based, and Blizzard doesn't intend this as well as they have stated in more than one interview. Saying the other side is gay doesn't help your point at all, except make your post look more immature. Please read my post and think before commenting.
This is the argument I can't stand: that it will be balanced because blizzard is designing it with MBS in mind. Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game. Unfortunately, with MBS included, it's very unlikely anything can balance the game in a competitive manner than allows for both macro and micro players.
On September 29 2007 16:46 orangedude wrote: Lz, the lurker/MM example wouldn't hold maybe because it's SC2 and not SC with MBS added on (which would be broken)? I am also not advocating making SC2 micro-based rather than macro-based, and Blizzard doesn't intend this as well as they have stated in more than one interview. Saying the other side is gay doesn't help your point at all, except make your post look more immature. Please read my post and think before commenting.
This is the argument I can't stand: that it will be balanced because blizzard is designing it with MBS in mind. Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game. Unfortunately, with MBS included, it's very unlikely anything can balance the game in a competitive manner than allows for both macro and micro players.
Right, Blizzard doesn't balance their games even when they have pro-gamers testing them during development and a former pro (Pillars) in charge of balancing. SC probably went through countless revisions before it was released. Even though the original wasn't perfectly balanced, adding on BW and all those 20+ patches helped a great deal. Who made Lost Temple, one of the most widely played and balanced maps of all time?
I'll admit that map makers have helped the game remain fresh through the years and helps certain racial imbalances, but this only happened after the game had already caught on in Korea. They do not really determine the general macro/micro ratio in a game either, although they can make a more macro- or micro-oriented map. Regardless, SC will always be far more macro-based than micro because of the way Blizzard designed the game.
Anyways, if you don't have any faith in Blizzard at all then this is your opinion, and we'll just have to disagree. Have fun on BW when the rest of us will be playing SC2.
On September 30 2007 00:55 Juglinjugglo wrote: hmmm also what about the zerg? how would their mbs work..
Not sure, but I would assume it to be a lot harder to use MBS with zerg efficiently since they have to balance different unit types with drones in various ratios throughout the game depending on what the situation calls for. Early on with only 1-5 hatches in the game, I'd guess that a pro would hotkey each hatch individually to maximize their precise control over production. Later on, with 6+ hatches they would probably separate them into control groups of 2 or 3 hatches each in order to retain that preciseness while also making it a bit more manageable. This is just what I predict though, so we'll really have to see later on.
On September 29 2007 03:20 IdrA wrote: well, it would be a good thing if it was near impossible to having perfect macro, because that means there would always be room for growth and improvement, even among the best players.
but your definition of macro is flawed, perfect macro is having as many units as possible. what kinds of units and when/where you have them is part of strategy and timing. in terms of having as many units as possible, yes stork, oov, bisu, maybe savior and some others, are all close. they rarely ever accumulate more resources than necessary, they all time expos and production buildings very well, especially oov and savior. and i dont know what you mean by "I haven't seen any gamer instantly build and send reinforcements no matter how good they are", almost all pros make production rounds as soon as the previous one finishes and send units as soon as theyre built. given their speed that is only difficult to do in late game when theres a massive amount of stuff going on.
No it's not flawed. Macro is about getting as many units as possible as fast and as efficently as possible. It's allways better to build and send units as fast as you can and if the pro's could do it they would, and infact in the early game when they have the option they do exactly that because it's useless to have many units if they aren't in the frontline. And yeah pro's spend their money very well and build a lot of units but they build them in batches. Nada goes back and activates 8 barracks and usually send his waiting 8 marines to his army. But if he could (as shown as what he does in the early game when he only has 2 rax) he would build each and every marine when he has exactly 50 minerals and rally them to his forces because then he would have more marines than his enemy untill the enemies entire batch of marines arrived.
This is common sense. We see it being done in early games all the time. If perfect macro would be to just spend the money to get units the pro's wouldn't carefully time when they build supplies and barracks (still a part of macro although it includes timing and strategy as well) because they could just build more barracks and build the marines later, rigth? Or that kind of strategy would get them killed. Macro is allways about using your minerals as efficently as possible which in an RTS means getting as many units as fast as possible. Strategy is about which unit to build, timing is about sacrificing certain things to get other things faster in a certain timeframe. MBS would allow people to get units faster regardless of timing or strategy and is therfore purely macro related. A real pro would use his APM to build every unit individually with MBS instead of using the same ammount of clicks to build them in a batch. A noob would use 1 click to build exactly the same ammount of units but he would get all of his units when the last unit of his opponent came out which would be a delay proprtional to how fast his minerals were gathered.
Which means that during that time he would have been outnumbered in every battle.
that doesnt contradict anything i said. do you think its impossible for progamers to make production buildings at the most efficient times and to produce rounds of units as quickly as possible? because they can.. and for the most they part do.
It's is impossible for pro gamers to do it yes. Especially with the current interface. They are the cream of the crop when it comes to maximizing what is possible with the current interface, but it's no where near optimal macro.
how is it impossible? there is nothing about the macro process that is impossible to perfect, and yes current progamers are very close to it. the most difficult part is timing expansions and production buildings properly. expansion timing is only a matter of reading the game and playing as risky as possible without dying, adding production buildings is only a matter of experience, knowing when your expansions are going to kick in and how many buildings an expansion can support. given that they practice 12-14 hours a day... progamers are pretty adept at reading game situations.
the other part of macro, the production of units, is the easy part, going back to your production buildings and making the actual units every time the previous round of units finish.
i dont see where the impossibility lies in either part.
On September 30 2007 05:45 IdrA wrote: how is it impossible? there is nothing about the macro process that is impossible to perfect, and yes current progamers are very close to it. the most difficult part is timing expansions and production buildings properly. expansion timing is only a matter of reading the game and playing as risky as possible without dying, adding production buildings is only a matter of experience, knowing when your expansions are going to kick in and how many buildings an expansion can support. given that they practice 12-14 hours a day... progamers are pretty adept at reading game situations.
...
i dont see where the impossibility lies in either part.
Impossibility lies in the part, that there are scouting, minimap at the corner and battles at multiple fronts. Macro alone isn't hard in SC, but let's not take it alone when we are talking about whole game.
On September 30 2007 05:45 IdrA wrote: the other part of macro, the production of units, is the easy part, going back to your production buildings and making the actual units every time the previous round of units finish.
Ok. We are talking about MBS and MBS affects *only* this part. How would competition reduce if the improvements affects only the part that's already "easy" and therefore have no impact over competition from the beginning?
On September 29 2007 18:56 LonelyMargarita wrote: This is the argument I can't stand: that it will be balanced because blizzard is designing it with MBS in mind. Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game.
If you don't believe blizzard is able to balance then why the heck are you waiting sc2? They removed half of units and added things which affect gameplay and balance much greater than MBS. If they don't know how to balance, what are you doing here?
On September 30 2007 05:45 IdrA wrote: how is it impossible? there is nothing about the macro process that is impossible to perfect, and yes current progamers are very close to it. the most difficult part is timing expansions and production buildings properly. expansion timing is only a matter of reading the game and playing as risky as possible without dying, adding production buildings is only a matter of experience, knowing when your expansions are going to kick in and how many buildings an expansion can support. given that they practice 12-14 hours a day... progamers are pretty adept at reading game situations.
...
i dont see where the impossibility lies in either part.
Impossibility lies in the part, that there are scouting, minimap at the corner and battles at multiple fronts. Macro alone isn't hard in SC, but let's not take it alone when we are talking about whole game.
please read the discussion before you try to comment on it, we were talking only about the possibility of 'perfect macro'
On September 30 2007 05:45 IdrA wrote: the other part of macro, the production of units, is the easy part, going back to your production buildings and making the actual units every time the previous round of units finish.
Ok. We are talking about MBS and MBS affects *only* this part. How would competition reduce if the improvements affects only the part that's already "easy" and therefore have no impact over competition from the beginning?
i meant easy relative to the decision making involved in the first part, but being easy does not mean that it can be removed without having a significant effect on the game. even if it is not a difficult to perform, it is something very important that you have to do quite often. you still have to pop back to your base every 20 seconds, even if all you do is clicktclicktclicktclickvclickv and so on, as compared to sc2 macro where you would have to hit 7t8v and never look away from your units. its significantly easier, but more importantly it means you dont need to multitask as much, takes out the decision making involved in leaving your units to go back and produce more.
On September 29 2007 18:56 LonelyMargarita wrote: This is the argument I can't stand: that it will be balanced because blizzard is designing it with MBS in mind. Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game.
If you don't believe blizzard is able to balance then why the heck are you waiting sc2? They removed half of units and added things which affect gameplay and balance much greater than MBS. If they don't know how to balance, what are you doing here?
not trusting blizz's competence is all the more reason to voice concerns here, in the hopes that they will see it and take it into consideration and so make a better game.
On September 30 2007 07:15 IdrA wrote: not trusting blizz's competence is all the more reason to voice concerns here, in the hopes that they will see it and take it into consideration and so make a better game.
And let's say Blizzard was reading this post right now. You think they would ever take it seriously with quotes like this?
On September 29 2007 18:56 LonelyMargarita wrote: Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game.
There's a big difference between constructive criticism and feedback that they can take into consideration when designing SC2 and just plain negativity/cynicism that doesn't help anyone. All past evidence has demonstrated that Blizzard balances their games better than any other company in the world, and this just shows utter disrespect for their work (including SC). I don't know why you are defending him.
A good post on the other hand would be like Tasteless' post. He takes into account both sides of the issue and demonstrates in great detail why he believes MBS should be removed from the game to preserve the current pro-scene. Anyone reading that can actually learn something from it.
lost temple is balanceD??? since when???? i thought it was advantageous for fucking terran, the other races cant fucking expand with a terran drop on their gay expansion cliff. impossible to break through the defense in a frontal assulat, forced to wait for terran to move out from their gay ledge with tanks shooting down on their army. when protoss is at 12, and terran is at 3, tell me its balanced when RIGHT WHEN PROTSS EXITS BASE, THEY ARE HIT BY TANKS BECAUSE OF THAT GAY LEDGE EXTENDING TO THEIR ENTRANCe. on a competitive level, people DO NOT play LT nemore, it is casually played, it is a fun map, it is still popular, but it is in NO WAY balanced.
On September 30 2007 07:15 IdrA wrote: not trusting blizz's competence is all the more reason to voice concerns here, in the hopes that they will see it and take it into consideration and so make a better game.
And let's say Blizzard was reading this post right now. You think they would ever take it seriously with quotes like this?
On September 29 2007 18:56 LonelyMargarita wrote: Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game.
There's a difference between constructive criticism and feedback that they can take into consideration and just plain negativity/cynicism that doesn't help anyone.
A good post on the other hand would be like Tasteless' post. He takes into account both sides of the issue and demonstrates in great detail why he believes MBS should be removed from the game to preserve the current pro-scene. Anyone reading that can actually learn something from it.
your post is more insulting to them than his was. you're basically implying they would ignore well thought out, meaningful arguments just because some random guy hurt their feelings.
it was unecessary, but whatever. its a forum, you're gonna have to take the bad with the good.
On September 30 2007 07:46 koryano321 wrote: lost temple is balanceD??? since when???? i thought it was advantageous for fucking terran, the other races cant fucking expand with a terran drop on their gay expansion cliff. impossible to break through the defense in a frontal assulat, forced to wait for terran to move out from their gay ledge with tanks shooting down on their army. when protoss is at 12, and terran is at 3, tell me its balanced when RIGHT WHEN PROTSS EXITS BASE, THEY ARE HIT BY TANKS BECAUSE OF THAT GAY LEDGE EXTENDING TO THEIR ENTRANCe. on a competitive level, people DO NOT play LT nemore, it is casually played, it is a fun map, it is still popular, but it is in NO WAY balanced.
Oh come on, it was one of the more balanced maps in the past. Yes, I'm fully aware that they don't use it ANYMORE, because they made better maps. Notice how LT was used in WCG and several important tournies back in the day. If it was as utterly imbalanced as you state, it never would've reached the popularity that it had.
On September 30 2007 07:15 IdrA wrote: not trusting blizz's competence is all the more reason to voice concerns here, in the hopes that they will see it and take it into consideration and so make a better game.
And let's say Blizzard was reading this post right now. You think they would ever take it seriously with quotes like this?
On September 30 2007 07:51 IdrA wrote: Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game.
There's a difference between constructive criticism and feedback that they can take into consideration and just plain negativity/cynicism that doesn't help anyone.
A good post on the other hand would be like Tasteless' post. He takes into account both sides of the issue and demonstrates in great detail why he believes MBS should be removed from the game to preserve the current pro-scene. Anyone reading that can actually learn something from it.
your post is more insulting to them than his was. you're basically implying they would ignore well thought out, meaningful arguments just because some random guy hurt their feelings.
it was unecessary, but whatever. its a forum, you're gonna have to take the bad with the good.
I insulted them? Well thought-out, meaningful? Are you kidding me? A 5-line rant is meaningful criticism now?
No, LonelyMargarita was more or less right. Blizzard really didn't know how to balance BW that well, it mostly went to the mapmakers. It's a question of how Blizzard does this time, and right now, we have no indication of how well they're balancing it.
On September 30 2007 07:46 koryano321 wrote: lost temple is balanceD??? since when???? i thought it was advantageous for fucking terran, the other races cant fucking expand with a terran drop on their gay expansion cliff. impossible to break through the defense in a frontal assulat, forced to wait for terran to move out from their gay ledge with tanks shooting down on their army. when protoss is at 12, and terran is at 3, tell me its balanced when RIGHT WHEN PROTSS EXITS BASE, THEY ARE HIT BY TANKS BECAUSE OF THAT GAY LEDGE EXTENDING TO THEIR ENTRANCe. on a competitive level, people DO NOT play LT nemore, it is casually played, it is a fun map, it is still popular, but it is in NO WAY balanced.
Oh come on, it was one of the more balanced maps in the past. Yes, I'm fully aware that they don't use it ANYMORE, because they made better maps. Notice how LT was used in WCG and several important tournies back in the day. If it was as utterly imbalanced as you state, it never would've reached the popularity that it had.
On September 30 2007 07:15 IdrA wrote: not trusting blizz's competence is all the more reason to voice concerns here, in the hopes that they will see it and take it into consideration and so make a better game.
And let's say Blizzard was reading this post right now. You think they would ever take it seriously with quotes like this?
On September 30 2007 07:51 IdrA wrote: Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game.
There's a difference between constructive criticism and feedback that they can take into consideration and just plain negativity/cynicism that doesn't help anyone.
A good post on the other hand would be like Tasteless' post. He takes into account both sides of the issue and demonstrates in great detail why he believes MBS should be removed from the game to preserve the current pro-scene. Anyone reading that can actually learn something from it.
your post is more insulting to them than his was. you're basically implying they would ignore well thought out, meaningful arguments just because some random guy hurt their feelings.
it was unecessary, but whatever. its a forum, you're gonna have to take the bad with the good.
I insulted them? Well thought-out, meaningful? Are you kidding me? A 5-line rant with obvious false statements is meaningful criticism now?
Okay.....
That's why the bad gets ignored, understand?
obviously they would ignore posts like his, that goes without saying your post implied they would ignore the rest of the thread when they saw quotes like his. "And let's say Blizzard was reading this post right now. You think they would ever take it seriously with quotes like this?" and if you did mean that, then what i said still applies. if you didnt, i misunderstood you.
So Tuna, you are saying that the Korean map makers who came in after SC became extremely popular throughout the country and worldwide and SC was well known as the most balanced RTS ever made, is all because of their efforts? Yes, like I said map-makers did make maps to fix certain racial imbalances that existed, but that's only after-the-fact tweaking that built off of an incredible base that was already given to them in SC. Ask any person about their opinions of SC compared to any other RTS out there, and chances are they will say SC is far better balanced than the others. This is regardless of whether they have ever touched a Korean/WGT league map or not. It's not just by luck. BW and patches were all produced by Blizzard. But if you really believe so, then I can't change your opinion.
EDIT: Yes Idra, I was referring to just that one post (never said thread). That's why I even said they would definitely consider a well-reasoned post like Tasteless and others.
On September 30 2007 07:46 koryano321 wrote: lost temple is balanceD??? since when???? i thought it was advantageous for fucking terran, the other races cant fucking expand with a terran drop on their gay expansion cliff. impossible to break through the defense in a frontal assulat, forced to wait for terran to move out from their gay ledge with tanks shooting down on their army. when protoss is at 12, and terran is at 3, tell me its balanced when RIGHT WHEN PROTSS EXITS BASE, THEY ARE HIT BY TANKS BECAUSE OF THAT GAY LEDGE EXTENDING TO THEIR ENTRANCe. on a competitive level, people DO NOT play LT nemore, it is casually played, it is a fun map, it is still popular, but it is in NO WAY balanced.
Oh come on, it was one of the more balanced maps in the past. Yes, I'm fully aware that they don't use it ANYMORE, because they made better maps. Notice how LT was used in WCG and several important tournies back in the day. If it was as utterly imbalanced as you state, it never would've reached the popularity that it had.
On September 30 2007 07:51 IdrA wrote:
On September 30 2007 07:44 orangedude wrote:
On September 30 2007 07:15 IdrA wrote: not trusting blizz's competence is all the more reason to voice concerns here, in the hopes that they will see it and take it into consideration and so make a better game.
And let's say Blizzard was reading this post right now. You think they would ever take it seriously with quotes like this?
On September 30 2007 07:51 IdrA wrote: Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game.
There's a difference between constructive criticism and feedback that they can take into consideration and just plain negativity/cynicism that doesn't help anyone.
A good post on the other hand would be like Tasteless' post. He takes into account both sides of the issue and demonstrates in great detail why he believes MBS should be removed from the game to preserve the current pro-scene. Anyone reading that can actually learn something from it.
your post is more insulting to them than his was. you're basically implying they would ignore well thought out, meaningful arguments just because some random guy hurt their feelings.
it was unecessary, but whatever. its a forum, you're gonna have to take the bad with the good.
I insulted them? Well thought-out, meaningful? Are you kidding me? A 5-line rant with obvious false statements is meaningful criticism now?
Okay.....
That's why the bad gets ignored, understand?
obviously they would ignore posts like his, that goes without saying your post implied they would ignore the rest of the thread when they saw quotes like his. "And let's say Blizzard was reading this post right now. You think they would ever take it seriously with quotes like this?" and if you did mean that, then what i said still applies. if you didnt, i misunderstood you.
I believe he meant the individual post, not the entire thread.
i just noticed that you misquoted the flame, i didnt say it. someone else did.
of course theyre going to ignore a post like that, theres no content to it. your post seemed irrelevant if it didnt apply to the rest of the thread.
yes, alot of the balancing was through the map makers, professional map makers did not appear very long after the first progaming leagues, and at that point the game was so un-refined, strategically and mechanically, that balance was much less of an issue. balance is a massive issue now because the players have everything so fine-tuned that any little imbalance in the map/game becomes very magnified, but back when everyone was still trying to figure out what worked and what didnt, game imbalance wasnt nearly as apparent.
On September 30 2007 08:17 orangedude wrote: So Tuna, you are saying that the Korean map makers who came in after SC became extremely popular throughout the country and worldwide and SC was well known as the most balanced RTS ever made, is all because of their efforts? Yes, like I said map-makers did make maps to fix certain racial imbalances that existed, but that's only after-the-fact tweaking that built off of an incredible base that was already given to them in SC. Ask any person about their opinions of SC compared to any other RTS out there, and chances are they will say SC is far better balanced than the others. This is regardless of whether they have ever touched a Korean/WCG league map or not. It's not just by luck. BW and patches were all produced by Blizzard. But if you really believe so, then I can't change your opinion.
EDIT: Yes Idra, I was referring to just that one post (never said thread). That's why I even said they would definitely consider a well-reasoned post like Tasteless and others.
I deleted my previous post about this because I promised myself not to get into a flame war, but LonelyMargarita was exactly right. Blizzard really had no idea how to balance the game. Ever take a look at the strategic advice they gave on their battle.net website? Or every map besides LT? Only a few were actually playable. And they had absolutely NO CLUE that TvP was going to turn out largely metal based, or that muta ling would be the end all be all of ZvZ. BW being balanced was a function of the later patches coming out, korean mapmakers and happy chance. Vanilla SC is horrifically imbalanced.
Any case, something relating to macro / micro balanced simply cannot be fixed by patches or mapmaking. Its something built into the interface. Blizzard HAS to get the balance of macro / micro right before the launch. And having little gee-whiz things like warpgates and different building addons aren't going to do it. It needs to be something very core, very basic which needs to be constantly performed. Make SC2 too easy, and watch competitive gaming die in 1-2 years. And no amount of noob fanbases will stop that.
On September 30 2007 07:46 koryano321 wrote: lost temple is balanceD??? since when???? i thought it was advantageous for fucking terran, the other races cant fucking expand with a terran drop on their gay expansion cliff. impossible to break through the defense in a frontal assulat, forced to wait for terran to move out from their gay ledge with tanks shooting down on their army. when protoss is at 12, and terran is at 3, tell me its balanced when RIGHT WHEN PROTSS EXITS BASE, THEY ARE HIT BY TANKS BECAUSE OF THAT GAY LEDGE EXTENDING TO THEIR ENTRANCe. on a competitive level, people DO NOT play LT nemore, it is casually played, it is a fun map, it is still popular, but it is in NO WAY balanced.
The modern iterations of lost temple are more or less balanced. The original lost temple has serious positional imbalances, unlike the modern ones where they are very minor.
On September 30 2007 08:33 Aphelion wrote: I deleted my previous post about this because I promised myself not to get into a flame war, but LonelyMargarita was exactly right. Blizzard really had no idea how to balance the game. Ever take a look at the strategic advice they gave on their battle.net website? Or every map besides LT? Only a few were actually playable. And they had absolutely NO CLUE that TvP was going to turn out largely metal based, or that muta ling would be the end all be all of ZvZ. BW being balanced was a function of the later patches coming out, korean mapmakers and happy chance. Vanilla SC is horrifically imbalanced.
Any case, something relating to macro / micro balanced simply cannot be fixed by patches or mapmaking. Its something built into the interface. Blizzard HAS to get the balance of macro / micro right before the launch. And having little gee-whiz things like warpgates and different building addons aren't going to do it. It needs to be something very core, very basic which needs to be constantly performed. Make SC2 too easy, and watch competitive gaming die in 1-2 years. And no amount of noob fanbases will stop that.
Let me ask you this then. Do you think SC (before pro-league maps) is more balanced than say C&C or any other RTS out there (with unique races)? Because I remember nearly every review out there for praising the three completely unique yet intricately balanced races in Starcraft. Broodwar and the patches were only further refinements to the basic game.
Of course the evolution of all the specific unit combinations and game metatypes of the various racial matchups in the mature game couldn't have been forseen by Blizzard (there's just too many factors involved). I don't think they set out with the goal of Terran making only tanks + vults vs Protoss, because they would want more strategies to be viable. But for various reasons this is how it turned out, and yet you still have an interesting and balanced matchup.
The mutaling in ZvZ is one of the few failures in balancing that resulted in a somewhat strategically stale matchup, but again it's due to many reasons that are quite complex. I'm sure Blizzard would have thought that hydra/lurk is the perfect counter or at least had a fighting chance, but alas timing, harassment, and other intricacies prevent this from being possible.
Now look at the PvZ matchup. All the different viable strategies that could be used by the P or the Z definitely had to be built in by Blizzard. Nearly every unit from both races fits into specific roles (templars, reavers, lurkers, defilers, ultralisks, etc) just as Blizzard had intended them. No map maker could've made these unit mixes work. Only careful balancing through design and patching could've made this match-up the way it is today.
I think it's totally unfair to deny that Blizzard had a large part to do with the incredible balance that SC enjoys now. The patches were all released by them, and they also had no idea that SC would become as competitive as it is today when they were first designing it. However, now that they have 10 years of experience and have seen what works and what doesn't, and they actually have pro-gamers to test for them it's a whole new ball game. Even their lead balancer is a former SC pro-gamer so I will give them the benefit of the doubt. You can be less optimistic if you want, but you have to give them some credit for the successes of SC.
On your second point, I've agreed with this sentiment that Blizzard is responsible for perfecting this balance, and only time will tell if they can achieve it. Keep in mind that we've only played an early pre-alpha build of SC2 for a few hours (remember how much SC changed from its alpha build?). It's just that removing MBS causes a ton of unpleasant side effects in a game released today (e.g. poor reviews, negative word of mouth, frustrated noobs, etc; see Armies of Exigo), so I'm not convinced that it's the best way to resolve this issue (although it's definitely the easiest way).
Aphelion, LonelyMargarita said Blizz has no idea how to balance. Would he say "had" that could be discussed but he rather insulted than anything else. Now Blizz has huge experience they hadn't while making starcraft, it has very experienced RTS Player at the core of balance team and won't hesitate to get pro-gamers to help refining game, so hearing Blizzard has no idea how to balance from someone who never worked at the game balancing -- I can apologise to LonelyMargarita if he did, but I don't think so -- is pretty disgusting.
I'll respond to the Idra's post after sleep... probably
On September 30 2007 12:07 InRaged wrote: Aphelion, LonelyMargarita said Blizz has no idea how to balance. Would he say "had" that could be discussed but he rather insulted than anything else. Now Blizz has huge experience they hadn't while making starcraft, it has very experienced RTS Player at the core of balance team and won't hesitate to get pro-gamers to help refining game, so hearing Blizzard has no idea how to balance from someone who never worked at the game balancing -- I can apologise to LonelyMargarita if he did, but I don't think so -- is pretty disgusting.
I'll respond to the Idra's post after sleep... probably
no offense to pillars or anything, i know he has a great reputation in rts gaming and whatnot, but he quit playing bw professionally a _long_ time ago. having him on the staff is certainly a big benefit but its not a guarantee that the game will come out balanced.
On September 30 2007 09:14 orangedude wrote: It's just that removing MBS causes a ton of unpleasant side effects in a game released today (e.g. poor reviews, negative word of mouth, frustrated noobs, etc; see Armies of Exigo)).
I don't even consider those huge problems. In fact, I don't consider some of them problems at all. Armies of Exigo is a moot point. SC2 already has a million times more hype and name going for it than Armies of Exigo ever had. Its like how a shitty movie sequel will sell even if it sucks. Starcraft 2 isn't; so make it the best progaming game it can possibly be. And for that to happen, remove MBS.
To take the movie analogy a further, compare Starcraft to Star Wars. BW is like episodes 4-6. Adding MBS to SC2 is like George Lucas adding fancy computer animation and Jar Jar Binks to the prequels. Don't sacrifice long term gameplay for a few month-long playing noobs and to wow the retarded reviewers.
On September 30 2007 09:14 orangedude wrote: It's just that removing MBS causes a ton of unpleasant side effects in a game released today (e.g. poor reviews, negative word of mouth, frustrated noobs, etc; see Armies of Exigo)).
I don't even consider those huge problems. In fact, I don't consider some of them problems at all. Armies of Exigo is a moot point. SC2 already has a million times more hype and name going for it than Armies of Exigo ever had. Its like how a shitty movie sequel will sell even if it sucks. Starcraft 2 isn't; so make it the best progaming game it can possibly be. And for that to happen, remove MBS.
To take the movie analogy a further, compare Starcraft to Star Wars. BW is like episodes 4-6. Adding MBS to SC2 is like George Lucas adding fancy computer animation and Jar Jar Binks to the prequels. Don't sacrifice long term gameplay for a few month-long playing noobs and to wow the retarded reviewers.
So what you're saying is that you're fine with the long-term SC2 competitive community remaining at roughly the same size as the SC community, with mostly the same people, regardless of what effect that might have on its marketability to e-sports organizations that aim towards a more mainstream market?
And furthermore, do you believe that anyone who thinks that retaining the SC interface is a bad idea, regardless of their experience in other RTSs, would never become competitive players in the first place?
Because if you retain the interface by kicking out common features of all RTS games, like MBS, automine, and smartcasting, you're alienating the vast majority of new players, whether they're new to the RTS genre or well experienced in contemporary RTSs. And that's a large portion of the long-term SC2 competitive community you're willing to give up in order to assert beliefs that you can't prove on its effect on the feature-complete SC2 gameplay (mainly because a feature-complete SC2 doesn't exist right now).
Sorry if I seemed harsh, but this is how multiplayer games work, and SC2 is no exception to the rule. Hype alone doesn't make a competitive community, but gameplay and smooth learning curves do.
For an example of a game that remained mostly the same through its sequel and didn't flourish like everyone expected, take Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142. The latter's mechanics were so similar to the former's that veterans totally dominated everyone else, and then went back to Battlefield 2, killing 2142's e-sport potential.
Let me put this straight out there: I don't believe there can be much of a competitive professional RTS community in the West as of right now. The very fact that you believe not having MBS will cripple its chances among the newer fans proves my point - they simply want games too easy, they're not willing to train and work for games the way Koreans are for SC. There is also too much of a nerd stereotype to fight for us to have full leagues and TV sponsorships the Koreans do now. So yes, I will be content if SC2 is just as popular professionally in Korea, and with the foreign fanbase that SC and War3 had when it came out at first. That is I believe, the best realistic scenario.
And I don't think that all pro-MBS people are newbs, but people who hold on to the idea that not having MBS would ruin the game for them, and that there is "no skill in mass clicking", yes those people cannot be good at a game like SC.
Furthermore, I can't prove anything, other than from personal experience, from good gamers playing SC, and from people like Tasteless testing out SC2. But that is really as good as it gets at this point. Its disingenous to suggest that I can't comment "on a feature complete SC2". After all, for there to be a feature complete SC2, it takes people commenting and balancing an incomplete game.
Anti-MBS people don't have the onus to prove anything anyways - we have the best game ever made without MBS, with established gosus affirming their anti-MBS position. Its you pro-MBS people that have to prove something. List one game with MBS that is better than BW. Go on, the ball is in your court.
people who hold on to the idea that not having MBS would ruin the game for them, and that there is "no skill in mass clicking", yes those people cannot be good at a game like SC.
I don't think it's as much as not having MBS ruins the game, it's more that a large portion of the initial competitive community will have 5-9 years of experience on new players, and thus the barriers of entry into the competitive community will be (imho) excessively high for most potential competitive players.
By feature-complete, I mean at the very least an SC2 with Zerg in it, and all of the currently-planned units and abilities functional. In other words, a version worthy of an early closed beta run.
List one game with MBS that is better than BW.
You know perfectly well I can't, but it's not because of MBS: it's because no other RTS has the gameplay balance developed from years of patches (which didn't affect the interface, as you said) that SC does, mostly because those developers work under publishers who will only allow them X number of changes. Blizzard is its own publisher, and thus has no one to answer to. The only game even close to the balance of SC is, naturally, WC3, Blizzard's other RTS. And while it is very popular in its own right, its inferiority to SC is due to intrinsic factors of its core gameplay, such as heroes, creeps, high-HP units, etc., not necessarily because of its interface.
Anti-MBS people don't have the onus to prove anything anyways - we have the best game ever made without MBS, with established gosus affirming their anti-MBS position.
Again, Quake 4 had Quake 3, the best game with strafe jumping, and established players who were against bunnyhopping like Painkiller offered. And what happened? Only Quake players ended up playing Quake 4 competitively, despite all the hype, and when they went back to Quake 3, the Q4 competitive scene was crippled. (I think WSVG was the last major e-sports organization that supported Q4 professional play)
You know perfectly well I can't, but it's not because of MBS: it's because no other RTS has the gameplay balance developed from years of patches (which didn't affect the interface, as you said) that SC does, mostly because those developers work under publishers who will only allow them X number of changes. Blizzard is its own publisher, and thus has no one to answer to. The only game even close to the balance of SC is, naturally, WC3, Blizzard's other RTS. And while it is very popular in its own right, its inferiority to SC is due to intrinsic factors of its core gameplay, such as heroes, creeps, high-HP units, etc., not necessarily because of its interface.
That is your own speculation. We claim that MBS is bad, and we have the record of history on our side. We have experienced players, some of the best foreign players, to weigh in on the subject. We have people who have played as much SC2 as you can without being part of the Blizzard team. We gave out concrete, in game examples of what made SC so fun because it has no MBS.
You have conjecture and guesswork against a backdrop of failed games. Your very argument, appealing to noobs who won't play without MBS, evinces a type of non-competitive attitude which is completely against what took BW to because the biggest professional video scene and the only kind of its type in Korea. You suggest that Starcraft II will somehow suffer from bad reviews and lack of sales, and that the best RTS out there (9 years after its release !) is somehow accountable for reviewers who evidently never played RTS at any good level. You want SC2 to adhere to a standard set by far inferior games, and that the SC community (built up by years of dedication and work to such and old game!) be wrecked in order to appease those who never appreciated it in its first place. You know it as well as I - SC2 will kill the foreign community of SC. If you going to take away the only game of its kind, the sequel damn well live up to some standards. You would dilute it for the possibility of attracting a few fair-weather noobs.
Forgive me if I don't find your argument appealing.
If blizzard takes the MBS out of competitive gameplay(as in tournaments and ladder etc.), but makes it possible to implement MBS with the editor using triggers, then the newbs that find normal starcraft macro gameplay too difficult could play UMS starcraft with MBS, or possibly a SC2 version of DotA, after all, many people I know got WC3 just for DotA. Also, if it's possible to make MBS in sc2 with triggers, and assuming MBS is not part of the default UI, then the UMS map makers would be happy too, as certain custom maps play better with MBS.
And, those who are serious about playing to win in sc2 would play normal games, instead of MBS games.
I'd say the biggest flaw in my suggestion would probably be whether or not it would actually be possible to make MBS triggerable.
You know perfectly well I can't, but it's not because of MBS: it's because no other RTS has the gameplay balance developed from years of patches (which didn't affect the interface, as you said) that SC does, mostly because those developers work under publishers who will only allow them X number of changes. Blizzard is its own publisher, and thus has no one to answer to. The only game even close to the balance of SC is, naturally, WC3, Blizzard's other RTS. And while it is very popular in its own right, its inferiority to SC is due to intrinsic factors of its core gameplay, such as heroes, creeps, high-HP units, etc., not necessarily because of its interface.
That is your own speculation. We claim that MBS is bad, and we have the record of history on our side. We have experienced players, some of the best foreign players, to weigh in on the subject. We have people who have played as much SC2 as you can without being part of the Blizzard team. We gave out concrete, in game examples of what made SC so fun because it has no MBS.
Correlation is not causation: just because there have been many "failed" RTSs out there that happened to have MBS, does not necessarily mean that MBS is the cause, or even a factor.
You have conjecture and guesswork against a backdrop of failed games. Your very argument, appealing to noobs who won't play without MBS, evinces a type of non-competitive attitude which is completely against what took BW to because the biggest professional video scene and the only kind of its type in Korea. You suggest that Starcraft II will somehow suffer from bad reviews and lack of sales, and that the best RTS out there (9 years after its release !) is somehow accountable for reviewers who evidently never played RTS at any good level and will be held to a standard set by far inferior games, and that the only community (built up by years of dedication and work to such and old game!) be wrecked in order to appease those who never appreciated it in its first place. You know it as well as I - SC2 will kill the foreign community of SC. If you going to take away the only game of its kind, the sequel damn well live up to some standards. You would dilute it for the possibility of attracting a few fair-weather noobs.
Forgive me if I don't find your argument appealing.
That's because it's not my argument, it's a straw man. I want SC2 to appeal to noobs who aren't likely to play competitively without interface updates like MBS; of course they're going to play UMS maps and the like, but it's the potential competitive players I'm concerned with. Furthermore, I know SC2 will have great sales even with non-optimal reviews (I'd be surprised if IGN or Gamespot gave SC2 a 9 or higher if it lacked MBS), but I'm worried about the effect that a lack of MBS will likely have on the growth of the SC2 competitive community.
In regards to making MBS triggerable, why not leave MBS in and then make it possible for someone to remove it? The veterans who hate MBS will be much more likely to mod the engine in order to take MBS out than the noobs will to put it in.
Oh, and as for this little jab:
And, those who are serious about playing to win in sc2 would play normal games, instead of MBS games.
There's a large difference between competitive spirit and masochism. I'm a competitive, hardcore gamer, but I'm pragmatic enough to know when I'm wasting my time trying to catch up to people who are almost a full decade ahead of me. So don't insult me by saying that people who think removing MBS is a bad idea means they don't want to 'play to win'.
On September 30 2007 07:46 koryano321 wrote: lost temple is balanceD??? since when???? i thought it was advantageous for fucking terran, the other races cant fucking expand with a terran drop on their gay expansion cliff. impossible to break through the defense in a frontal assulat, forced to wait for terran to move out from their gay ledge with tanks shooting down on their army. when protoss is at 12, and terran is at 3, tell me its balanced when RIGHT WHEN PROTSS EXITS BASE, THEY ARE HIT BY TANKS BECAUSE OF THAT GAY LEDGE EXTENDING TO THEIR ENTRANCe. on a competitive level, people DO NOT play LT nemore, it is casually played, it is a fun map, it is still popular, but it is in NO WAY balanced.
The modern iterations of lost temple are more or less balanced. The original lost temple has serious positional imbalances, unlike the modern ones where they are very minor.
well the original poster WAS talking about the Lost temple map that blizzard came out with, so i stand by my point.
How is that a strawman? As I said, we cannot really prove anything. But the correlation is damn well on ourside. It also helps that SC is without MBS, and we know that at least that works. You haven't shown me a working example of a comparable game with MBS yet.
If people won't play competitively without MBS - its not a huge loss. A lot of them won't play competitively for a long time with that kind of attitude anyways, at most a few months and they will be gone. I am not prepared to sacrifice the only game that has a shot of matching SC in the off hope that it will expand the community a little more. Especially when it will kill the existing SC community.
Edit: 1esu, your previous 2 posts seem to suggest that attracting noobs with MBS isn't the real issue, its rather removing the pre-existing advantage that current SCers have. Isn't that completely different from the philosophy of Blizzard, which is to make a game that good players CAN show their skill? Not only is that a slap in the face at the community, how can you significantly tamper with the final gameplay of a game just to remove a few learning hurdles? And this is going to be the sequel for SC, and a foray by Blizzard to cater to professional gaming?
Edit 2: I have a question. Which of you pro-MBS people will not be playing SC2 if it had no MBS. Fess up.
First, it's a straw man because it's an overgeneralized position that I don't, and have never, supported.
Secondly, there is no comparable game with MBS to SC, as I explained, because the only RTS that has received anywhere close to the amount of refinement SC had is WC3, and that's incomparable because it's as much a competitive RPG as it is an RTS. But that doesn't mean that MBS causes a game to fail; SC2 could easily be the exception to the correlation.
Third, as I explained above, there's a difference between a healthy competitive attitude and sheer masochism - competitive, pragmatic players will see that there's little point in spending hours upon hours trying to catch up to people years ahead of them, with little reward in doing so.
Finally, I can almost guarantee that someone will try to recreate SC in SC2 within a year of its release. SC is simply too well balanced of a game to just discard in favor of what will likely be an imbalanced vanilla SC2. I have a feeling Blizzard knows this, and that's why they've gone into the effort of making the SC1 units available in the editor. So no, I don't htink it will kill the SC community; in fact, I'd be happiest if the two could coexist.
On September 30 2007 14:18 1esu wrote: First, it's a straw man because it's an overgeneralized position that I don't, and have never, supported.
Secondly, there is no comparable game with MBS to SC, as I explained, because the only RTS that has received anywhere close to the amount of refinement SC had is WC3, and that's incomparable because it's as much a competitive RPG as it is an RTS. But that doesn't mean that MBS causes a game to fail; SC2 could easily be the exception to the correlation.
Its not a strawman. List to me exactly how different your argument is different from what I said. And your second point is just conjecture - you can't really prove that MBS isn't a factor in games being bad. The best you can say is that there isn't prove to the contrary - and history isn't on your side.
On September 30 2007 14:18 1esu wrote: Finally, I can almost guarantee that someone will try to recreate SC in SC2 within a year of its release. SC is simply too well balanced of a game to just discard in favor of what will likely be an imbalanced vanilla SC2. I have a feeling Blizzard knows this, and that's why they've gone into the effort of making the SC1 units available in the editor. So no, I don't htink it will kill the SC community; in fact, I'd be happiest if the two could coexist.
Too many things in SC depend on its 2Dness and quirks in its engine. Its not nearly the same. And if the community would split, well both would die. I'm afraid its one or the other.
I further reiterate my original question, how many of you pro MBS people would not play SC2 if it had no MBS? This is ad hominem, but it is also very pertinent.
You know perfectly well I can't, but it's not because of MBS: it's because no other RTS has the gameplay balance developed from years of patches (which didn't affect the interface, as you said) that SC does, mostly because those developers work under publishers who will only allow them X number of changes. Blizzard is its own publisher, and thus has no one to answer to. The only game even close to the balance of SC is, naturally, WC3, Blizzard's other RTS. And while it is very popular in its own right, its inferiority to SC is due to intrinsic factors of its core gameplay, such as heroes, creeps, high-HP units, etc., not necessarily because of its interface.
That is your own speculation. We claim that MBS is bad, and we have the record of history on our side. We have experienced players, some of the best foreign players, to weigh in on the subject. We have people who have played as much SC2 as you can without being part of the Blizzard team. We gave out concrete, in game examples of what made SC so fun because it has no MBS.
The record of history to compare why newer RTS games weren't as good as SC can't really be used to prove why MBS is bad, unless MBS was a defining feature of all of these games. There is in fact so much more that defines the quality of an RTS game as an E-Sport than just "MBS". Just to list a couple: strategical depth, balance, and mechanical skill requirements. I would assume those three aspects of any RTS are far more important as defining features of a game than "MBS.
If you want to use an argument like this as proof, I could say look at all the new RTS's that all have 3-D graphics vs SC's 2-D graphics. All of those games are failures compared to SC competitively, so therefore we should stick with what works and make SC2 a 2-D isometric game as well. However, this doesn't really hold because we all know there is far more to an RTS game than just its graphics. Same deal with MBS. There could be a hundred other reasons why X game is worse than SC competitively, with balance being one of the most important ones. It's pretty clear evidence that nearly every other RTS in existence is less balanced than Blizzard's games.
On September 30 2007 13:48 Aphelion wrote: You have conjecture and guesswork against a backdrop of failed games. Your very argument, appealing to noobs who won't play without MBS, evinces a type of non-competitive attitude which is completely against what took BW to because the biggest professional video scene and the only kind of its type in Korea. You suggest that Starcraft II will somehow suffer from bad reviews and lack of sales, and that the best RTS out there (9 years after its release !) is somehow accountable for reviewers who evidently never played RTS at any good level.
I think you're forgetting one of Blizzard's key mottos that has led them to become the most successful PC developer in the world. Easy to learn, but difficult to master. This philosophy is actually at the root of every widely competitive sport or game in existence. If MBS is removed in this day and age, SC2 would simply be focusing on the second part (difficult to master), while skipping over the first (easy to pick up). That could be a recipe for disaster.
On September 30 2007 13:48 Aphelion wrote: You want SC2 to adhere to a standard set by far inferior games, and that the SC community (built up by years of dedication and work to such and old game!) be wrecked in order to appease those who never appreciated it in its first place. You know it as well as I - SC2 will kill the foreign community of SC. If you going to take away the only game of its kind, the sequel damn well live up to some standards. You would dilute it for the possibility of attracting a few fair-weather noobs.
But you are looking at this from the worst-case scenario. What about the best-case scenario? If SC2 keeps its competitive qualities even after MBS is implemented, because Blizzard is designing and adding new features to the game with MBS in mind, then you end up attracting all those noobs AND you get a far more competitive and larger pro-scene than you would ever have without MBS. We simply don't know which is going to happen yet, until we see at least a somewhat complete featured SC2 build. If you take out MBS, you will never even get the chance to increase the pro-scene far beyond its present size.
You said play. I said play competitively. There's a vast difference between players who go straight for casual or UMS play, and potential competitive players. I'm not worried about the former, but am worried about the latter.
As for SC in SC2, we'll have to see how Project Revolution (SC as exactly as possible in the WC3 engine) turns out, as its currently in closed beta.
I personally would play SC2 if it had no MBS (customizable hotkeys are really all I need to be happy), but its inclusion or exclusion (along with other interface changes) would significantly affect my decision on whether to devote myself competitively to it. And I say this as someone who is a competitive gamer.
On September 30 2007 14:22 Aphelion wrote: I further reiterate my original question, how many of you pro MBS people would not play SC2 if it had no MBS? This is ad hominem, but it is also very pertinent.
That's not going to be very useful, because this question is posed to a community on TL.net focused on competitive SC gaming. If I didn't enjoy SC and its SBS macro, I wouldn't even be posting here. So of course I would still be playing SC2 if it didn't have MBS. I can't speak for other potential pros who may be dissuaded due to being used to newer interfaces. The only way you would get a more accurate/useful answer here, is if you posted this question to an E-Sports site that focused on many different RTSs.
On September 30 2007 14:38 orangedude wrote: But you are looking at this from the worst-case scenario. What about the best-case scenario? If SC2 keeps its competitive qualities even after MBS is implemented, because Blizzard is designing and adding new features to the game with MBS in mind, then you end up attracting all those noobs AND you get a far more competitive and larger pro-scene than you would ever have without MBS. We simply don't know which is going to happen yet, until we see at least a somewhat complete featured SC2 build. If you take out MBS, you will never even get the chance to increase the pro-scene far beyond its present size.
EDIT: Crap, I'm way too slow here.
I never said prove anything. I'm saying that there is a huge correlation, and you can't prove that MBS isn't indicative of a shitty game. The burden of proof is on you. I'm simply pointing to the historical correlation. Its up to you to prove that that correlation isn't true.
And I disagree with you risk- reward accessment. You are failing to note that what we believe, that even if SC2 does all you say it would with MBS, it would still be a worse competitive game overall. I'm absolutely convinced that removing MBS would lower its quality, EVEN IF it is still good enough to completely achieve what SC has and more.
The reward part isn't that great anyways. I don't believe e-sports will boom significantly in the West no matter what game comes out. The culture and circumstances simply don't permit it. And the Korean proscene is still growing, and its spreading to China as well. Only age of the game and graphics are standing in the way.
If you look from it from the perspective of a gamble - I think the expected gains are far outweighed by the risks. And from an absolute standpoint, I believe that the game w/o MBS is better in terms of pure gameplay too. The reward is that a somewhat inferior game would be vastly more popular. The risk is that it will be inferior, kill the SC community, and achieve nothing. If you can't live with the risks - don't gamble.
On September 30 2007 14:22 Aphelion wrote: I further reiterate my original question, how many of you pro MBS people would not play SC2 if it had no MBS? This is ad hominem, but it is also very pertinent.
That's not going to be very useful, because this question is posed to a community on TL.net focused on competitive SC gaming. If I didn't enjoy SC and its SBS macro, I wouldn't even be posting here. So of course I would still be playing SC2 if it didn't have MBS. I can't speak for other potential pros who may be dissuaded due to being used to newer interfaces. The only way you would get a more accurate/useful answer here, is if you posted this question to an E-Sports site that focused on many different RTSs.
You'd be surprised; one of the TL threads regarding MBS had a poll that had 54 in favor of the interface changes and 34 against them (with 6 'not sure's, one of them mine). I'd also be interested to see who among the anti-MBS people would not play SC2 competitively if it had MBS (or the interface change of your choice).
I can't say, but I don't think I would. I think I'll end up playing a few months, then go back to BW, or quit gaming all together since the community is dead.
That question doesn't answer as much as mine anyways. Foreign BW players might play SC2 even if its an inferior game, simply because the BW community died off. But people who wont play without MBS - they are clearly those who never appreciated the original SC anyways. There are those who support MBS, but they can live without it because they are playing without right now. But those who won't, that ruins their credibility.
On September 30 2007 14:22 Aphelion wrote: I further reiterate my original question, how many of you pro MBS people would not play SC2 if it had no MBS? This is ad hominem, but it is also very pertinent.
That's not going to be very useful, because this question is posed to a community on TL.net focused on competitive SC gaming. If I didn't enjoy SC and its SBS macro, I wouldn't even be posting here. So of course I would still be playing SC2 if it didn't have MBS. I can't speak for other potential pros who may be dissuaded due to being used to newer interfaces. The only way you would get a more accurate/useful answer here, is if you posted this question to an E-Sports site that focused on many different RTSs.
You'd be surprised; one of the TL threads regarding MBS had a poll that had 54 in favor of the interface changes and 34 against them (with 6 'not sure's, one of them mine). I'd also be interested to see who among the anti-MBS people would not play SC2 competitively if it had MBS (or the interface change of your choice).
And how many of those are TL veterans, not just people who just joined for the SC2 forum?
Both sides are pretty much set in their views, arguments keep getting repeated over and over again. We really have to wait to see an almost complete version of SC2 which probably includes MBS anyway, and then approach it as open-minded and objective as possible, to decide whether MBS "kills" the game or not. We'll probably need even more time to decide that, because no one is going to play SC2 at a perfect level when it is released. After some time we'll see the real impact of MBS.
Until then, both sides, anti-MBS and pro-MBS, are mostly doing guesswork. You simply can't say that SBS is an important reason for Starcraft's success and the lack of SBS is the reason why other RTS games have failed, because there are a lot more aspects in a game.
I'm much more on the pro-MBS side because I do not think that SBS is a requirement for a competitive game. Balance, variety in gameplay and a large fanbase is much more important. If MBS turns out to be really bad, I'll accept it of course. But I just can't imagine this to happen.
I also don't want the game to be possible to master, even progamers playing 12-14 hours a day should always have room to improve their play, but I don't think that MBS is going to change that, I merely think that MBS is going to shift the priority in late game from macroing to microing more. But we'll have to wait until we actually see the impact of MBS in the final game.
with MBS in SC2, its not going to be much if any that seperates the LzGaMeR\'s Froz\'s Incontrol\'s from the Nada\'s Boxer\'s Nal_ra.. which is bullcrap becasue we all know group B destroy\'s Group A. i dont think MBS will ever help a game become more competitive.. i dont think thats posible.. all its going to do.. is please all the other rts gamers who will be coming from AoE WC3 CC3 ect. its not going to matter to the NEW RTS players.. for the fact.. how would they know what MBS was like if they never experianced it?? the reviews and crap yall talk about is bullcrap.. With SC2 and blizzard... there is no way a game review would be negitive.. and this is coming first hand from a friend i know who works with EGM (electronic\'s gaming monthly) so using that as a reason to put MBS in a game that actually wants to go some where.. is pointless in my eye\'s~
On September 30 2007 15:11 Brutalisk wrote: Both sides are pretty much set in their views, arguments keep getting repeated over and over again. We really have to wait to see an almost complete version of SC2 which probably includes MBS anyway, and then approach it as open-minded and objective as possible, to decide whether MBS "kills" the game or not. We'll probably need even more time to decide that, because no one is going to play SC2 at a perfect level when it is released. After some time we'll see the real impact of MBS.
Until then, both sides, anti-MBS and pro-MBS, are mostly doing guesswork. You simply can't say that SBS is an important reason for Starcraft's success and the lack of SBS is the reason why other RTS games have failed, because there are a lot more aspects in a game.
None of us can actually prove anything, but the guesswork is more on your part. As I said, we have the experience of good SC players and the precedent of SBS set by SC. We have the example that games with MBS have all been worse than SC. You are free to argue that MBS isn't a cause or a factor in these games being worse, but the historical correlation is firmly on our side.
On September 30 2007 14:38 orangedude wrote: But you are looking at this from the worst-case scenario. What about the best-case scenario? If SC2 keeps its competitive qualities even after MBS is implemented, because Blizzard is designing and adding new features to the game with MBS in mind, then you end up attracting all those noobs AND you get a far more competitive and larger pro-scene than you would ever have without MBS. We simply don't know which is going to happen yet, until we see at least a somewhat complete featured SC2 build. If you take out MBS, you will never even get the chance to increase the pro-scene far beyond its present size.
EDIT: Crap, I'm way too slow here.
I never said prove anything. I'm saying that there is a huge correlation, and you can't prove that MBS isn't indicative of a shitty game. The burden of proof is on you. I'm simply pointing to the historical correlation. Its up to you to prove that that correlation isn't true.
The correlation is true, but like 1esu pointed out, correlation does NOT mean causation. This would be a logical fallacy. If you want to play this game, then disprove my 3-D/2-D argument.
All the new RTS's that have 3-D graphics are failures compared to SC competitively (2-D game), therefore Blizzard should stick with what works and make SC2 a 2-D isometric game as well.
This doesn't hold because we all know there is far more to an RTS game than just its graphics. Same deal with MBS. There could be a hundred other reasons why X game is worse than SC competitively, with balance being one of the most important ones. There is pretty clear evidence that nearly every other RTS in existence is less balanced than Blizzard's games.
On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote: And I disagree with you risk- reward accessment. You are failing to note that what we believe, that even if SC2 does all you say it would with MBS, it would still be a worse competitive game overall. I'm absolutely convinced that removing MBS would lower its quality, EVEN IF it is still good enough to completely achieve what SC has and more.
Why would SC2 be a worse competitive game overall with MBS if the high mechanical skill requirements are still kept in the game? You are free to your beliefs, but it doesn't automatically make them the truth. It will be when SC2 comes to beta and we actually see that you are correct, and nothing has been added to make up for the MBS.
On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote: The reward part isn't that great anyways. I don't believe e-sports will boom significantly in the West no matter what game comes out. The culture and circumstances simply don't permit it. And the Korean proscene is still growing, and its spreading to China as well. Only age of the game and graphics are standing in the way.
And what about Europe? How is it possible that Germany has a semi-thriving pro-scene there when they probably have similar attitudes as us. It all happens step-by-step and that image will only change if games like SC2 can become popular.
China probably has an even more negative view of gaming than any other country in the world, with the government actively speaking out against MMO's and the like. There are hard caps to stop people from gaming too long and so on. Yet, the E-sports scene is still steadily growing.
On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote: If you look from it from the perspective of a gamble - I think the expected gains are far outweighed by the risks. And from an absolute standpoint, I believe that the game w/o MBS is better in terms of pure gameplay too. The reward is that a somewhat inferior game would be vastly more popular casually and competitively. The risk is that it will be inferior, kill the SC community, and achieve nothing. If you can't live with the risks - don't gamble.
Again, you're still taking the reward/risk with the worst-case scenario in mind. I'll fix this for what I envision could happen.
I don't think you meant it this way, but it's not like SC is the only game that used SBS, as it was common at the time. So you could say that the pro-MBS side has historical correlations in the sense that there are many RTSs that use SBS that are inferior to SC. That's why I believe that it's not MBS alone that's causing other games to fail, but primarily other factors.
And Lz, wouldn't people who play other RTSs competitively be exactly what the SC2 competitive community will be looking for in 'potential competitive players' to expand it beyond the SC veterans?
EDIT: OD, aren't the Chinese gaming restrictions only for MMOs, because of their addictive nature?
On September 30 2007 14:38 orangedude wrote: But you are looking at this from the worst-case scenario. What about the best-case scenario? If SC2 keeps its competitive qualities even after MBS is implemented, because Blizzard is designing and adding new features to the game with MBS in mind, then you end up attracting all those noobs AND you get a far more competitive and larger pro-scene than you would ever have without MBS. We simply don't know which is going to happen yet, until we see at least a somewhat complete featured SC2 build. If you take out MBS, you will never even get the chance to increase the pro-scene far beyond its present size.
EDIT: Crap, I'm way too slow here.
I never said prove anything. I'm saying that there is a huge correlation, and you can't prove that MBS isn't indicative of a shitty game. The burden of proof is on you. I'm simply pointing to the historical correlation. Its up to you to prove that that correlation isn't true.
The correlation is true, but like 1esu pointed out, correlation does NOT mean causation. If you want to play this game, then disprove my 3-D/2-D argument.
All the new RTS's that have 3-D graphics are failures compared to SC competitively (2-D game), so therefore Blizzard should stick with what works and make SC2 a 2-D isometric game as well.
This doesn't hold because we all know there is far more to an RTS game than just its graphics. Same deal with MBS. There could be a hundred other reasons why X game is worse than SC competitively, with balance being one of the most important ones. There is pretty clear evidence that nearly every other RTS in existence is less balanced than Blizzard's games.
On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote: And I disagree with you risk- reward accessment. You are failing to note that what we believe, that even if SC2 does all you say it would with MBS, it would still be a worse competitive game overall. I'm absolutely convinced that removing MBS would lower its quality, EVEN IF it is still good enough to completely achieve what SC has and more.
Why would SC2 be a worse competitive game overall with MBS if the high mechanical skill requirements are still kept in the game? You are free to your beliefs, but it doesn't automatically make them the truth. It will be when SC2 comes to beta and we actually see that you are correct, and nothing has been added to make up for the MBS.
On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote: The reward part isn't that great anyways. I don't believe e-sports will boom significantly in the West no matter what game comes out. The culture and circumstances simply don't permit it. And the Korean proscene is still growing, and its spreading to China as well. Only age of the game and graphics are standing in the way.
And what about Europe? How is it possible that Germany has a semi-thriving pro-scene there when they probably have similar attitudes as us. It all happens step-by-step and that image will only change if games like SC2 can become popular.
China probably has an even more negative view of gaming than any other country in the world, with the government actively speaking out against MMO's and the like. There are hard caps to stop people from gaming too long and so on. Yet, the E-sports scene is still steadily growing.
On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote: If you look from it from the perspective of a gamble - I think the expected gains are far outweighed by the risks. And from an absolute standpoint, I believe that the game w/o MBS is better in terms of pure gameplay too. The reward is that a somewhat inferior game would be vastly more popular casually and competitively. The risk is that it will be inferior, kill the SC community, and achieve nothing. If you can't live with the risks - don't gamble.
Again, you're still taking the reward/risk with the worst-case scenario in mind. I'll fix this for what I envision could happen.
1.) Don't confuse the Chinese government's speaking out with popular gaming. It is completely different from the popular nerd stereotype Americans have. I live in both countries and experienced it personally.
2.) The European "pro" scenes are completely off the track of how Korea developed. They're not even on the path to being a mainstream mature scene. Its a fringe movement. Its not step by step - its going an entirely different path, one that I believe is dead-end. As for America - no RTS progaming for the next 10 years. Book it.
3.) I don't believe its possible that the mechanical skill would be kept the same without MBS. Even if it were, the multitasking and macro balance would be gone.
4.) No one said correlation is causation. But I have a strong correlation, arguments from good players, and personal experience. MBS is also has a strong logical argument for it affecting the game - unlike 3D (you still need to be careful with that though). The combination of that is strong evidence you cannot ignore, even if it doesn't constitute perfect proof.
5.) Our risk-reward accessments are off because we differ about the impact of MBS on actual play and the gaming scene. Its not that I am myopically focused on the worst possible aspects - I'm just saying the expected value is negative. And my arguments for that are given above.
Yes, they are for MMO's. But still, Chinese culture in general really looks down on gaming. Most Asian parents feel it's a complete waste of time that could be better spent on studying and getting into a better university, and so on.
All parents everywhere are against gaming. But asian students don't have the same ostracizing attitude against computer games, especially RTSes. In US, you get ridiculed as a nerd.
In China and Korea, students would find a pure gaming channel cool. In US, they're a fringe minority immediately stuck with the nerd label. Companies wouldn't want to be associated with it.
We have that nerd stereotype in Europe, too. It will still take a lot of time until progaming becomes a "real" sport which is respected and liked by the public, like in Korea. If you are the best in a video game, you're no prominent person except in the gaming scene. You'll probably be laughed at by normal people, because anyone who sits on the computer too much is often considered to be a useless nerd, even though that person might be a really good and competitive player and still a normal human after all. But you're just a nothing compared to a good player from a normal sport. For this attitude to change, it'll take many more years. SC2 most probably won't change anything here.
On September 30 2007 15:31 Aphelion wrote: 1.) Don't confuse the Chinese government's speaking out with popular gaming. It is completely different from the popular nerd stereotype Americans have. I live in both countries and experienced it personally.
2.) The European "pro" scenes are completely off the track of how Korea developed. They're not even on the path to being a mainstream mature scene. Its a fringe movement. Its not step by step - its going an entirely different path, one that I believe is dead-end. As for America - no RTS progaming for the next 10 years. Book it.
3.) I don't believe its possible that the mechanical skill would be kept the same without MBS. Even if it were, the multitasking and macro balance would be gone.
4.) No one said correlation is causation. But I have a strong correlation, arguments from good players, and personal experience. MBS is also has a strong logical argument for it affecting the game - unlike 3D (you still need to be careful with that though). The combination of that is strong evidence you cannot ignore, even if it doesn't constitute perfect proof.
5.) Our risk-reward accessments are off because we differ about the impact of MBS on actual play and the gaming scene. Its not that I am myopically focused on the worst possible aspects - I'm just saying the expected value is negative. And my arguments for that are given above.
1) Okay.
2) You have to realize that most major sports/games started off as a fringe movement as well. How did basketball, hockey, baseball and the like start off? They didn't catch on like wildfire, but just slowly developed interest until they hit a critical point and then it just took off until it became mainstream. Or take poker as an example. It started off as an underground game and had the stigma of being a game played by shady people. Gradually though, it grew in acceptance and is now even considered a sport.
3) In the game's current state, I would have to agree with you. But, this is still too early to tell IMO, because we don't even have 3 races in and there is just a lot more than Blizzard can add to the game before it goes into beta.
4) Regardless of how strong the correlation is, it doesn't prove anything. On the other hand, the arguments from good players, however, are indeed favoring the anti-MBS side currently. I believe there are also some who have taken the wait-and-see approach. While I would never discount their opinions, you have to admit that it would be in their interest to have SC2 turn out as close to SC as possible. This way, all that time they've spent on training SC would be directly transferable to its sequel and they can continue to dominate all the newer migrating SC2 pros from other games. Anyways, this is still no proof that MBS will in fact suck.
5) But this "expected value" is from your judgments of only the current build of SC2. I am saying it may turn out a lot better than this and we will see whether this is the case come beta and at least when Zerg is finished. Project Revolution is another chance for solid evidence of the impacts of MBS on an exact copy of SC.
I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say. Changes have to be made to the game based upon imperfect knowledge of the final situation, that is the enduring fact of it. And really the game has to be decided as MBS or not before beta - too much other balance work is dependent on that. Such a core decision can't be changed that late in game design.
Oh, and I don't have much hope for Project Revolution. The smart money now is that SC2 comes out before it does.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say. Changes have to be made to the game based upon imperfect knowledge of the final situation, that is the enduring fact of it. And really the game has to be decided as MBS or not before beta - too much other balance work is dependent on that. Such a core decision can't be changed that late in game design.
There is, however, the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away from SC2 though due to the UI. This point cannot be denied, and we can see examples like that War3 player who complained about how he felt the "unnecessary macro" in SC cost him games. I'm sure there are many others highly skilled players like him from the War3 and other communities. Even if it's true that SC2 will never reach mainstream outside of Korea, I still think it has plenty of room to expand (like in Europe) and taking away MBS would be eliminating this possibility. This is basically taking the safe route (in E-Sports terms), but an important opportunity for growth is lost here in exchange for immediate comfort.
Forget beta for SC2 then, we can see when it reaches full feature completion, which could be far sooner than that.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: Oh, and I don't have much hope for Project Revolution. The smart money now is that SC2 comes out before it does.
Nah, Project Revolution is going well actually. Go check out the site. It's in closed beta, with all units, structures and interface finished. It'll at least beat SC2 by a long shot.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say. Changes have to be made to the game based upon imperfect knowledge of the final situation, that is the enduring fact of it. And really the game has to be decided as MBS or not before beta - too much other balance work is dependent on that. Such a core decision can't be changed that late in game design.
There is, however, also the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away though from SC2 though. Even if it's true that SC2 will never reach mainstream outside of Korea, I still think it has plenty of room to expand (like in Europe) and taking away MBS would be eliminating this possibility. This is basically taking the safe route (in E-Sports terms), but an important opportunity for growth is lost here in exchange for immediate comfort.
Forget beta for SC2 then, we can see when it reaches full feature completion, which could be far sooner than that.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: Oh, and I don't have much hope for Project Revolution. The smart money now is that SC2 comes out before it does.
Nah, Project Revolution is going well actually. Go check out the site. It's in closed beta, with all units, structures and interface finished. It'll at least beat SC2 by a long shot.
I believe that if you are turned away from SC2 due to lack of MBS, you aren't a would-be-competitive player anyways. This room for expansion isn't worth it.
Popularity issues aside, I believe that MBS would make SC2 at its core, a worse game. I'm not willing for that to happen, no matter how popular it would make the game.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say. Changes have to be made to the game based upon imperfect knowledge of the final situation, that is the enduring fact of it. And really the game has to be decided as MBS or not before beta - too much other balance work is dependent on that. Such a core decision can't be changed that late in game design.
There is, however, also the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away though from SC2 though. Even if it's true that SC2 will never reach mainstream outside of Korea, I still think it has plenty of room to expand (like in Europe) and taking away MBS would be eliminating this possibility. This is basically taking the safe route (in E-Sports terms), but an important opportunity for growth is lost here in exchange for immediate comfort.
Forget beta for SC2 then, we can see when it reaches full feature completion, which could be far sooner than that.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: Oh, and I don't have much hope for Project Revolution. The smart money now is that SC2 comes out before it does.
Nah, Project Revolution is going well actually. Go check out the site. It's in closed beta, with all units, structures and interface finished. It'll at least beat SC2 by a long shot.
I believe that if you are turned away from SC2 due to lack of MBS, you aren't a would-be-competitive player anyways. This room for expansion isn't worth it.
Popularity issues aside, I believe that MBS would make SC2 at its core, a worse game. I'm not willing for that to happen, no matter how popular it would make the game.
But he was a competitive player. He said he had 200+ apm and was the top War3 player in his country. That is not an easy feat. His whole clan ended up sharing the same sentiments after trying out SC for a while.
You are free to believe that and have your reasons for reaching this conclusion, but I would value the relative importance of expansion much more highly than you do. This all comes down to personal beliefs, as I do think Blizzard will be able to implement MBS with other features and keep a similar core game. The potential benefits are basically higher IMO than how you see them. I guess we can't really change each others' views in this regard.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say. Changes have to be made to the game based upon imperfect knowledge of the final situation, that is the enduring fact of it. And really the game has to be decided as MBS or not before beta - too much other balance work is dependent on that. Such a core decision can't be changed that late in game design.
There is, however, also the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away though from SC2 though. Even if it's true that SC2 will never reach mainstream outside of Korea, I still think it has plenty of room to expand (like in Europe) and taking away MBS would be eliminating this possibility. This is basically taking the safe route (in E-Sports terms), but an important opportunity for growth is lost here in exchange for immediate comfort.
Forget beta for SC2 then, we can see when it reaches full feature completion, which could be far sooner than that.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: Oh, and I don't have much hope for Project Revolution. The smart money now is that SC2 comes out before it does.
Nah, Project Revolution is going well actually. Go check out the site. It's in closed beta, with all units, structures and interface finished. It'll at least beat SC2 by a long shot.
I believe that if you are turned away from SC2 due to lack of MBS, you aren't a would-be-competitive player anyways. This room for expansion isn't worth it.
Popularity issues aside, I believe that MBS would make SC2 at its core, a worse game. I'm not willing for that to happen, no matter how popular it would make the game.
But he was a competitive player. He said he had 200+ apm and was the top War3 player in his country. That is not an easy feat. His whole clan ended up sharing the same sentiments after trying out SC for a while.
You are free to believe that and have your reasons for reaching this conclusion, but I would value the relative importance of expansion much more highly than you do. This all comes down to personal beliefs, as I do think Blizzard will be able to implement MBS with other features and keep a similar core game. The potential benefits are basically higher IMO than how you see them. I guess we can't really change each others' views in this regard.
He also showed zero appreciation for macro at all. He is a competitive player - but not for SC, and not a good SC player. He is the fanbase that should be going to War3, period. Blizzard has already agreed that SC would be a different type of game.
Make no mistake about it: SC2 will KILL the foreign SC community. BW for us will be a shadow of its former self. If you don't design SC2 as a suitable replacement - you might as well not make it at all. Experiment with new concepts in another franchise. Don't fuck with this one game that is working so well.
"There is, however, the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away though from SC2 though. This point cannot be denied, and we can see examples like that War3 player who complained about how he felt the "unnecessary macro" in SC cost him games. I'm sure there are many others highly skilled players like him from the War3 community, as well as others." Rofl...
If they dont like Macro then there playing the wrong game.. simple as that.. im sorry that starcraft takes more skill then all the other rts's (hell everyone at wcg would have told you that including the wc3 cc3 aoe gamers) but thats the only reason its been fun and competitive for so many years.. who here still plays duck hunt EVERY DAY??? no one.. guess why.. there's more challenging things out there.. you put MBS/automine in SC2 Ladder/competitive play and your opening the door to newbified~
i say you have mbs as a game type that way the newbs can enjoy playing in the sandbox while the hardcore gamers like myself can enjoy millions of hours of True Gaming~
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say. Changes have to be made to the game based upon imperfect knowledge of the final situation, that is the enduring fact of it. And really the game has to be decided as MBS or not before beta - too much other balance work is dependent on that. Such a core decision can't be changed that late in game design.
There is, however, also the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away though from SC2 though. Even if it's true that SC2 will never reach mainstream outside of Korea, I still think it has plenty of room to expand (like in Europe) and taking away MBS would be eliminating this possibility. This is basically taking the safe route (in E-Sports terms), but an important opportunity for growth is lost here in exchange for immediate comfort.
Forget beta for SC2 then, we can see when it reaches full feature completion, which could be far sooner than that.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: Oh, and I don't have much hope for Project Revolution. The smart money now is that SC2 comes out before it does.
Nah, Project Revolution is going well actually. Go check out the site. It's in closed beta, with all units, structures and interface finished. It'll at least beat SC2 by a long shot.
I believe that if you are turned away from SC2 due to lack of MBS, you aren't a would-be-competitive player anyways. This room for expansion isn't worth it.
Popularity issues aside, I believe that MBS would make SC2 at its core, a worse game. I'm not willing for that to happen, no matter how popular it would make the game.
But he was a competitive player. He said he had 200+ apm and was the top War3 player in his country. That is not an easy feat. His whole clan ended up sharing the same sentiments after trying out SC for a while.
You are free to believe that and have your reasons for reaching this conclusion, but I would value the relative importance of expansion much more highly than you do. This all comes down to personal beliefs, as I do think Blizzard will be able to implement MBS with other features and keep a similar core game, making the downsides much less significant. The potential benefits are basically higher IMO than how you see them. I guess we can't really change each others' views in this regard.
He also showed zero appreciation for macro at all. He is a competitive player - but not for SC, and not a good SC player. He is the fanbase that should be going to War3, period. Blizzard has already agreed that SC would be a different type of game.
I don't think there is any real difference between a competitive player and a competitive player that is "suited for SC". Both War3 and SC require similar skills and mindsets, but its just that their actions are used on different areas of the game (War3 = micro, SC = macro). The only thing really stopping that high-level War3 player or any other potential pros from becoming better at SC if they gave it a try is frustration and/or disinterest with the game, which he blames on the limiting UI. It would be far better to attract all kinds of potentially competitive players than just those who already are competitive "SC players".
On September 30 2007 16:53 Aphelion wrote: Make no mistake about it: SC2 will KILL the foreign SC community. BW for us will be a shadow of its former self. If you don't design SC2 as a suitable replacement - you might as well not make it at all. Experiment with new concepts in another franchise. Don't fuck with this one game that is working so well.
For a lot of people though, the current foreign BW scene is already a shadow of its former self. It still has a lot of dedicated players and fans as TL.net shows and interest remains steady due to the successful Korean scene, but I think it used to be much larger. Anyways, SC2 can either revitalize the scene or destroy it, but for reasons I've stated I'm still going with an optimistic view and siding more towards the first.
On September 30 2007 17:11 Lz wrote: "There is, however, the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away though from SC2 though. This point cannot be denied, and we can see examples like that War3 player who complained about how he felt the "unnecessary macro" in SC cost him games. I'm sure there are many others highly skilled players like him from the War3 community, as well as others." Rofl...
If they dont like Macro then there playing the wrong game.. simple as that.. im sorry that starcraft takes more skill then all the other rts's (hell everyone at wcg would have told you that including the wc3 cc3 aoe gamers) but thats the only reason its been fun and competitive for so many years.. who here still plays duck hunt EVERY DAY??? no one.. guess why.. there's more challenging things out there.. you put MBS/automine in SC2 Ladder/competitive play and your opening the door to newbified~
i say you have mbs as a game type that way the newbs can enjoy playing in the sandbox while the hardcore gamers like myself can enjoy millions of hours of True Gaming~
Lz, you can rat on the C&C players all you want, but trust me War3 is not as easy as you think. Decent apm is required throughout and during major battles it can escalate up to 500-600 apm. Yes, SC is probably still the tougher game overall, but War3 is no cakewalk. Even if you spent 2 months on it, you wouldn't be anywhere near pro level.
A good dose of fancy graphics will convince the noobs and WCG sponsors to revitalize the community. Plus with a new game the top players will become much more active.
On September 09 2007 09:25 orangedude wrote: Why Multiple Building Select (MBS) Is Essential To The Success of SC2 On a Competitive Level
1) SC2 must have a good interface to attract the initial fanbase who will then spread good word and gather an even larger one. If it didn't, the negative press (from both reviews and word of mouth) will quickly kill off the game's potential and it'll never even be given the chance to form a thriving pro community. So only if the initial player base is kept pleased, will a small percentage of this large pool of newbs become the loyal SC veterans/progamers that will keep the game alive and kicking (i.e. TL.net). As discussed, the option to turn off MBS/automine can also be included in either maps or game types depending on how things turn out. However, my prediction is that very few new SC2 players will make the switch once they are "spoiled" by MBS, and this again severely limits the pro-scene.
But the key point here to emphasize is that the large newb pool is a prerequisite to a large competitive community and thus CANNOT be overlooked/ignored. They simply must be catered to, or the second part will not even be possible. Everyone here started off as a noob at one point. To say "screw the noobs, let them learn the hard way like I did" after you have passed that stage already is not only being selfish but also narrow-minded because you're ultimately hurting the game by lowering the potential skill pool.
2) SC2 must have a very high skill curve in both mechanical and mental aspects in order to keep the competitive scene happy. The mechanistic side (high apm) can be achieved in a number of ways, such as emphasizing the importance of micro (the War3 way), but the easiest would be to limit the interface. Back in 1997, when SC was released I believe a lot of these restrictions were unintentional, as even other RTS games from the same period had similar UI limitations. However, now that every single RTS from the past 8 years (including Bliz's own War3) has some form of MBS or equivalent, leaving this out of a game released in 2008+ will feel very artificial and awkward, as it is breaking the RTS standard and will become a huge disappointment to many potential fans (see point 1).
Kudos for taking the time to think about the issue and laying out your thoughts.
I disagree with your assertion that catering to the newb fanbase is a prerequisite to making SC2 viable as a professional game. Catering to the fanbase will only ensure that the game will be mediocre and forgettable. This isn't theory - this is a practical lesson learned from the WC3 experience.
Dumbing down the interface is not the answer. Making the gameplay "user friendly" is not the answer. Better graphics is not the answer. Giving people what they say they want (which is very different from what they actually want) is not the answer. Don't think - just observe the sorry state of affairs that is the WC3 professional scene, even in a gaming madhouse like Korea.
Do not cater to anyone. Forget the fanbase. The road to greatness is marked by courage, innovation and loneliness. Greatness is an autocracy, not a democracy. Greatness is disdainful of the conventional. Hear what the professional players and others involved in the professional scene have to say, but otherwise turn an arrogant deaf ear to the newbs. At the end of the day, the newbs will thank you for it.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say.
No you dont have any proof at all that mbs will destroy starcraft. I can easily counter proove it.
Aside from starcraft and warcraft, mbs games are a lot better in competetive gaming than non mbs games. Since there are no other game like starcraft with the same thought in factions and strategy you cant say that it will be bad for starcraft, since in any case were the transition sbs->mbs have occured in other parts of the genre it have been good for the games.
Therefore, all your "proofs" are just hypothesises, just like our "Proofs" are also hypothesises.
However, since Blizard have already added mbs into their game, they have stated that they want to go with it clearly and have never given a "We might change it" responce ever to this question. Therefore the burden to proove this lies on the anti-mbs side, if you dont proove anything Blizzard will go with mbs.
But as i said, since there is no proof of what will happen concerning these UI changes you got nothing, and unless theres some hidden argument not already brought up there is no chance Blizzard will change this untill after heavy playtesting with all negative feeback on it.
But if you think that its the pro-mbs side that should "Proove" why its good, then be my guest and play defensively but you wont change the game that way since Blizzard already thinks that its good. Status quo = pro mbs wins, therefore we can play defensively in this argumentation.
Also note that if Blizzard had choosed to not include mbs i'd stand by them in that also, if they for some unlikely reason decides to remove it now i wont mourn, i will only ask why and then not question the answer since this is just a game of chance were noone can know for certain whats best.
Nal_rA (or was it some other pro?) never mentioned a word about MBS or SBS in the coverage from Blizzcon. If MBS would be so bad as some anti-MBS posters here think it is, he would certainly have brought it up. But he only said that he liked what he saw from SC2. (IIRC, I might have confused something)
MBS will make macro a little easier.. The anti-MBS people just don't believe that Blizzard could manage a way to compensate that easier macro with other kind of actions (example, multitasking, multiple attacks, more micro..)
so, in short:
MBS - Gives room for a more "intelligent" game, with less "useless" clicks. It's dangerous if that "useless" clicks are not transformed into important actions (micro, multitasking, multiple attacks, etc)
SBS - Safe way to get a working product. The formula worked on SC and everyone hopes it will work on SC2 the same way.
In my opinion, I think blizzard will go for the MBS choice and automining. I just hope they can obtain that extra stuff to keep the learning curve similar to SC.
I am now completely convinced that mbs shouldn't be the default in sc. As stated before it's all about balance. Blizzard could easily make sc2 much much more automated than just mbs automining and smartcast. In they same way they could make it much less automated than even sc. However, it's not about taking things to the extremes, but to strike a good balance of micro and macro because of the interface. Sc is a game like no other and while obviously the UI isn't the only factor to it's competitiveness it's a large factor.
Also, personally none of my friend's who have ever tried sc quit/complained about the lack of mbs. Although they might not have gotten really into it it was still enjoyable so I doubt mbs will be as much as a turnoff as some pro-mbs people may think. The only thing I am afraid about are the dumbass game reviewers, but I think these are usually kinda hesitant to give big names low scores, and with the amazing production values put into it i think Sc2 would score high regardless.
On September 30 2007 18:37 Brutalisk wrote: Nal_rA (or was it some other pro?) never mentioned a word about MBS or SBS in the coverage from Blizzcon. If MBS would be so bad as some anti-MBS posters here think it is, he would certainly have brought it up. But he only said that he liked what he saw from SC2. (IIRC, I might have confused something)
It's much more likely he didn't even know it existed, and didn't use it.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say. Changes have to be made to the game based upon imperfect knowledge of the final situation, that is the enduring fact of it. And really the game has to be decided as MBS or not before beta - too much other balance work is dependent on that. Such a core decision can't be changed that late in game design.
There is, however, also the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away though from SC2 though. Even if it's true that SC2 will never reach mainstream outside of Korea, I still think it has plenty of room to expand (like in Europe) and taking away MBS would be eliminating this possibility. This is basically taking the safe route (in E-Sports terms), but an important opportunity for growth is lost here in exchange for immediate comfort.
Forget beta for SC2 then, we can see when it reaches full feature completion, which could be far sooner than that.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: Oh, and I don't have much hope for Project Revolution. The smart money now is that SC2 comes out before it does.
Nah, Project Revolution is going well actually. Go check out the site. It's in closed beta, with all units, structures and interface finished. It'll at least beat SC2 by a long shot.
I believe that if you are turned away from SC2 due to lack of MBS, you aren't a would-be-competitive player anyways. This room for expansion isn't worth it.
Popularity issues aside, I believe that MBS would make SC2 at its core, a worse game. I'm not willing for that to happen, no matter how popular it would make the game.
But he was a competitive player. He said he had 200+ apm and was the top War3 player in his country. That is not an easy feat. His whole clan ended up sharing the same sentiments after trying out SC for a while.
You are free to believe that and have your reasons for reaching this conclusion, but I would value the relative importance of expansion much more highly than you do. This all comes down to personal beliefs, as I do think Blizzard will be able to implement MBS with other features and keep a similar core game. The potential benefits are basically higher IMO than how you see them. I guess we can't really change each others' views in this regard.
Well, if you are talking about Aw]nevermind or whatever, assuming he's telling the truth about his War3 status.. Since being banned on TL he spends his time making troll topics on the battle.net forums (unless someone is using his name but eh, it sounds like him). I wouldn't really pay much heed to anything he has to say. I think he's an idiot -.-
Maybe I'm wrong and he's not but he's always been really annoying on here..
New poster here but long time fans of both War3 and SC...
Anyway, I think MBS or smart casting or other interface improvements will be IMHO the only option for SC2 if it is to uphold the name of its predecessor. The following are my reasons:
1. A smarter, more intuitive interface doesn't mean a dumber game. It might be easier to get in to, easier to learn, but as with all Blizzard games, it will still be very difficult to master. 2. The influx of more skills, spells etc. to SC2 units will require a more efficient interface to have a better control over them. 3. For players of newer RTS games (War3, CoH etc.) and media people (who gives the ratings for this game), SC2 without the aforementioned UI improvements would seem to be a very huge step back. Which could lead to a number of unpleasant conclusions like: Blizzard released an unpolished game (which would be a first) and that the game is so 1998 (which I kinda agree with) 4. The amount of macro that SC players did was never optimal; with a rather gloomy point of view, one can say that the best SC players are those who macro less inefficiently. A more intuitive UI would definitely help gamers to be more efficient. The SC interface would be, in our context today, would be unnaturally limiting.
I'll add to this later as I'm at work right now. Feel free to reply, thanks.
I agree with everything you said xtian. But your points were brought up before and there's no convincing anyone otherwise. Everyone is set in their opinion, and we don't have a final product to see who's right, who's wrong, just an endless debate.
Also I think we need to stop imagining SC1 with SC2 interface. SC1 was build with the archaic interface in mind, while SC2 was build and is being balance completely around the new interface. Comparing and contrasting the two games is counter productive.
You can make a game as brilliant as it gets with smart spells, great unit variety, balance, huge amount of strategies... But if you don\'t add the actual \"syzyphic\" aspect which seperates someone who practices 20 hours from someone who practices 4 hours, it will pretty fast Reach a deadly balance where too many people are on the top and people will lose interest.
The game needs to give you the feeling that you are climbing a huge mountain. There are quite a lot of people here that understand nearly all the aspects of the game. But they are still amazingly far away from the highest levels. And this is what makes it a sport.
If you think that \"understanding\" and \"thinking\" is the only aspect a game should focus around and that banal things like clicking 1a2a3a 4t5t6t or remembering to tell your scvs to mine should be left out. You should understand that in game like this legends like BoxeR or NaDa could never rise.
The difference between knowing what you need to do and actually getting there is what makes people practice SC, analyze their replays etc.. Eliminating things like this so people \"don\'t need to worry about them\" will make it easier to get good at the game but also ruin it in the long run.
On October 01 2007 19:20 Locke. wrote: Good post nony.
You can make a game as brilliant as it gets with smart spells, great unit variety, balance, huge amount of strategies... But if you don\'t add the actual \"syzyphic\" aspect which seperates someone who practices 20 hours from someone who practices 4 hours, it will pretty fast Reach a deadly balance where too many people are on the top and people will lose interest.
The game needs to give you the feeling that you are climbing a huge mountain. There are quite a lot of people here that understand nearly all the aspects of the game. But they are still amazingly far away from the highest levels. And this is what makes it a sport.
If you think that \"understanding\" and \"thinking\" is the only aspect a game should focus around and that banal things like clicking 1a2a3a 4t5t6t or remembering to tell your scvs to mine should be left out. You should understand that in game like this legends like BoxeR or NaDa could never rise.
The difference between knowing what you need to do and actually getting there is what makes people practice SC, analyze their replays etc.. Eliminating things like this so people \"don\'t need to worry about them\" will make it easier to get good at the game but also ruin it in the long run.
But then, how can grubby and moon be so much better than most other wc3 pro's if there is no skill differentiation at the high levels in that game? Wouldnt you have hundreds of people competing for the first price that were roughly the same skill and it would be around random on who won?
But instead its the same peoples going for the top over and over. And even then wc3 is a much easier game than sc2 ever will be.
On October 01 2007 21:55 Aphelion wrote: Actually, according to Tasteless Grubby did complain that wc3 devolves into randomness too much, simply because players can play too perfectly.
Yup, but still its the same few persons that comes out on top. Warcraft 3 plucked away a TON of what made starcraft competetive, starcraft 2 will preserve much more of that and it will scrap all the randomness warcraft 3 put into the genre.
Then we can conclude that there will still be a few pros much better than the others and can have a ranking even at the top of the top, you wont have thousands of people on about the same skill that all competes for the top.
Warcraft 3 went a bit to far, i agree on that, but starcraft 2 will not have the randomness or the lack of strategy or the lack of harras or the lack of ambushes or the lack of terrain advantages or the lack of army importance.
Hmm, maybe people are overly afraid of any "Noobifications" after what blizzard did to warcraft 3? I can almost guarantee that it wont have an as big impact on the game wich most anti mbs persons believe, you will fight/defend more than before and you will click buildings less. The skill will be shifted a bit, it wont be gone and we will still have large skill differentiations between the players.
On October 01 2007 17:10 xtian15 wrote: 2. The influx of more skills, spells etc. to SC2 units will require a more efficient interface to have a better control over them.
Ok im going to debate this point because it seems to be the basis of most of the pro-MBS people. Over and over again I keep seeing, SC2 will have more features more spells more macro options and therefore MBS will be needed else the game will be too hard. I like to work with the facts. And here they are:
Protoss in SC2 currently has 14 units These are the Probe, Zealot, Stalker, Immortal, High templar, Dark templar, Archon, Collossus, Observer, Phase Prism, Phoenix, Warp Ray, Carrier, Mothership
In the original Starcraft Protoss had 14 Probe, Zealot, Goon, High templar, Dark templar, Archon, Dark Archon, Shuttle, Reaver, Observer, Scout, Corsair, Carrier, Arbitar
Going by what blizzard said about keeping the same numbers of units, I doubt the protoss army will be changed much until release.
Currently, In SC2, 3 Protoss units will have more than 1 spell (High templar, Mothership, Archon), and 4 units have a single spell/ability (Phoenix, Stalker, Phase Prism, Carrier)
In SC1, Protoss had 3 Spellcaster units (High templar, Dark Archon, Arbitar), and 3 units with an active ability (Corsair, Carrier, Reaver)
New protoss mechanics over SC1 are, Ability for cannons to move. Warp gates being able to warp new units across the map.
So what awsome new features that will take up soo much of everyones time are being implemented so far? Protoss have 1 new spell, the ability to move their cannons around, and Warp gates. The question is, are these actions going to require the large amounts of time that macro usually took up to use? I think not.
If blizzard implements some new ideas or units or something, then we change how we discuss the game. However we cannot just say "oh blizzard will add something". The anti-MBS people look at the current state of the game and say, look this is no good and something must be done. If blizzard comes out tommorrow and shows us a crazy new gameplay mechanic, we'll change our opinions and form them around what we have then seen about SC2. However you must judge the game on what is there, not what we are hoping will be there when its done, especially when we have heard no news from blizzard about new mechanics.
Well Fen, the way I look at it, we should not expect to know. The balance in SC2 will be new. This means the matchups will be foreign to us and can vary at least as much as any matchups in RTS.
Imagine, if you will, the level of demand on players for each of the following matchups:
ZvZ ZvT ZvP TvT TvP PvP
Are any of these "too easy to play perfectly?" Would any of these still be good if MBS was added?
Now ask yourself, do you know what SC2's 6 matchups will be like? The answer is "no." They could all be of the same pace and quality of, ANY of the above 6, not to mention other games or past SC or BW balances--not to mention maps. Therefore it remains to be seen whether SC2 "needs" MBS or not. You are talking about the amount of casters, but I don't think we can predict how a matchup plays out based on number of casters. Try doing that to predict something meaningful about SCBW's matchups. It doesn't work. So why should your method work on equating SCBW and SC2? It shouldn't.
SC2 is a new game, with matchups we don't know, maps we don't know, which may already be demanding more or less macro than any matchup of SCBW on any given map.
On October 01 2007 17:10 xtian15 wrote: 2. The influx of more skills, spells etc. to SC2 units will require a more efficient interface to have a better control over them.
Ok im going to debate this point because it seems to be the basis of most of the pro-MBS people. Over and over again I keep seeing, SC2 will have more features more spells more macro options and therefore MBS will be needed else the game will be too hard. I like to work with the facts. And here they are:
Facts: 1:Starcraft 2 will most probably have more units than starcraft, toss still have more units since you forgot the stasis orb.
2: Casters were hardly used to their full potential, casters are theoretically extremely strong units but since they take so much time to use noone builds more than a handfull of them. In starcraft 2 we can see more casters due to people having more time and casters needing less.
3: Starcraft had a lot of semi useless spells, it seem slike starcraft 2 will fix this wich effectively more than doubbles the viable spells aviable to the player.
4: Zealots charge is microable due to it having a cooldown so you dont always want to trigger it, this together with the micro of stalkers will make the core toss army having specials while the core toss army were just a-move units in sc1.
5: A lot of units/spells were redundant in many of the matchups making the game easier, if we make more units viable in each matchup the game skill factor will go up.
6: With less time on macro you will have more time to harras your opponent, meaning that he will have to spend more time on turrets/defense than before. The more expos you have the easier its to harras and harder its to defend, creating the same "Larger base is harder to manage" as before. A noob wont be able to have 4 bases at once since he will lose them to fast since his micro/strategy/multitasking isnt enough to defend them all, and on top of that keeping up and killing your expos will be impossible for him in that situation.
On October 01 2007 17:10 xtian15 wrote: 2. The influx of more skills, spells etc. to SC2 units will require a more efficient interface to have a better control over them.
Ok im going to debate this point because it seems to be the basis of most of the pro-MBS people. Over and over again I keep seeing, SC2 will have more features more spells more macro options and therefore MBS will be needed else the game will be too hard. I like to work with the facts. And here they are:
Facts: 1:Starcraft 2 will most probably have more units than starcraft, toss still have more units since you forgot the stasis orb.
2: Casters were hardly used to their full potential, casters are theoretically extremely strong units but since they take so much time to use noone builds more than a handfull of them. In starcraft 2 we can see more casters due to people having more time and casters needing less.
3: Starcraft had a lot of semi useless spells, it seem slike starcraft 2 will fix this wich effectively more than doubbles the viable spells aviable to the player.
4: Zealots charge is microable due to it having a cooldown so you dont always want to trigger it, this together with the micro of stalkers will make the core toss army having specials while the core toss army were just a-move units in sc1.
5: A lot of units/spells were redundant in many of the matchups making the game easier, if we make more units viable in each matchup the game skill factor will go up.
6: With less time on macro you will have more time to harras your opponent, meaning that he will have to spend more time on turrets/defense than before. The more expos you have the easier its to harras and harder its to defend, creating the same "Larger base is harder to manage" as before. A noob wont be able to have 4 bases at once since he will lose them to fast since his micro/strategy/multitasking isnt enough to defend them all, and on top of that keeping up and killing your expos will be impossible for him in that situation.
There are so many things wrong with ths post it hurts my head.
On October 01 2007 17:10 xtian15 wrote: 2. The influx of more skills, spells etc. to SC2 units will require a more efficient interface to have a better control over them.
Ok im going to debate this point because it seems to be the basis of most of the pro-MBS people. Over and over again I keep seeing, SC2 will have more features more spells more macro options and therefore MBS will be needed else the game will be too hard. I like to work with the facts. And here they are:
Facts: 1:Starcraft 2 will most probably have more units than starcraft, toss still have more units since you forgot the stasis orb.
2: Casters were hardly used to their full potential, casters are theoretically extremely strong units but since they take so much time to use noone builds more than a handfull of them. In starcraft 2 we can see more casters due to people having more time and casters needing less.
3: Starcraft had a lot of semi useless spells, it seem slike starcraft 2 will fix this wich effectively more than doubbles the viable spells aviable to the player.
4: Zealots charge is microable due to it having a cooldown so you dont always want to trigger it, this together with the micro of stalkers will make the core toss army having specials while the core toss army were just a-move units in sc1.
5: A lot of units/spells were redundant in many of the matchups making the game easier, if we make more units viable in each matchup the game skill factor will go up.
6: With less time on macro you will have more time to harras your opponent, meaning that he will have to spend more time on turrets/defense than before. The more expos you have the easier its to harras and harder its to defend, creating the same "Larger base is harder to manage" as before. A noob wont be able to have 4 bases at once since he will lose them to fast since his micro/strategy/multitasking isnt enough to defend them all, and on top of that keeping up and killing your expos will be impossible for him in that situation.
There are so many things wrong with ths post it hurts my head.
Can you point them out? saying something like this is just trolling and doesnt contribute anything at all.
1. A few more units for a race won't do much at all. Blizzard does say they want to keep it roughly the same anyways, give or take.
2. Its good that casters should not be used to their full potential. Otherwise it would be ordinary. SC should not be a spell slinging game.
3. Good, but the spell usage shouldn't significantly increase. SC simply isn't that kind of game. Spells should remain difficult to use and spectacular, and there will be a cost of getting spellcasters you can't handle.
4. Not all micro is fancy effects with a button. Have you seen free[gm] micro goon zeal? Its fucking insane. Step drag vs mines, moving shot by zealots vs lings. A combination of basic movement and attack can yield incredible results. Even most pros can't do it.
5. Unit choice should differ with matchups. This gives each matchups a flavor, or they would all feel the same. With the discover of dominant strategies, its only natural that certain unit combos would be favored in matchups. A TvZ army should look and handle differently from a TvT army. Building one of every unit doesn't equal more skill.
6. With less time on macro harassing will be less important, because the thing about harass is what it does to the enemy's macro ability. And you still forget - SC is a macro game. SC2 should remain that way.
Edit: My biggest problem with your post is that you are over enthused by flash, and don't appreciate the beauty and subtley behind the mundane tasks of BW. You know what my sig comes from? Let me show you this highlight of Garimto: no flashy lights or fancy explosions, just good, hardcore manly multitasking and micro:
On October 01 2007 22:48 Fen wrote: So what awsome new features that will take up soo much of everyones time are being implemented so far? Protoss have 1 new spell, the ability to move their cannons around, and Warp gates. The question is, are these actions going to require the large amounts of time that macro usually took up to use?
All macro that goes away is "pop back to your base every 20 seconds" to click at factories and send workers to minerals. Even without all these features Starcraft itself offers tons of actions that can easily replace "skill that goes away", but anyway let's count again. Warp gates are exactly "clicking at gateways" turned into thoughtful process instead of pure mechanical. We have gold minerals witch increase speed of Macro machine, but you should fight for them. We have cliff-jumping units which increase importance of scouting. And if Blizzard pull of "perfect balance" or at least better one than Brood War one, we'd get tons of new ways in which we should develop our skill.
I think not.
Think twice
On October 01 2007 23:31 Aphelion wrote: 3. Good, but the spell usage shouldn't significantly increase. SC simply isn't that kind of game. Spells should remain difficult to use and spectacular, and there will be a cost of getting spellcasters you can't handle.
Wrong. Spell usage will significantly increase and SC is that kind of game. Look at amount of crappy (especially compared to psi-storm) spells in SC. Even Protoss alone - hallucination, feedback, maelstrom, mind control, d-web (for the company). When player use most of them in one game -- heck, even when simply adds DArchon in unit mix -- match easily become more spectacular, when according to you it shouldn't.
5. Unit choice should differ with matchups. This gives each matchups a flavor, or they would all feel the same. With the discover of dominant strategies, its only natural that certain unit combos would be favored in matchups. A TvZ army should look and handle differently from a TvT army. Building one of every unit doesn't equal more skill.
When one of every unit requires different type of control it does equal more skill. And again wrong! >_< All units should be viable in all matchups - that's the perfect balance which is aim of Blizz. What differs is units' roles. Look at PvP, PvZ and PvT. Mostly same units for Protoss with little exceptions, but matchups aren't same, cause for example role of HT and Reaver changes with match-ups.
6. With less time on macro harassing will be less important, because the thing about harass is what it does to the enemy's macro ability. And you still forget - SC is a macro game. SC2 should remain that way.
Importance of macro does not reduce. MBS doesn't suddenly removes advantage of the bigger economy >_> Harass is important even in WC3, where economy doesn't play huge part.
Edit: My biggest problem with your post is that you are over enthused by flash, and don't appreciate the beauty and subtley behind the mundane tasks of BW. You know what my sig comes from? Let me show you this highlight of Garimto: no flashy lights or fancy explosions, just good, hardcore manly multitasking and micro
By the way, reminds me a bit - every pro now can micro like Garimto, game still awesome, right?
On October 02 2007 00:01 InRaged wrote: All macro that goes away is "pop back to your base every 20 seconds" to click at factories and send workers to minerals. Even without all these features Starcraft itself offers tons of actions that can easily replace "skill that goes away", but anyway let's count again. Warp gates are exactly "clicking at gateways" turned into thoughtful process instead of pure mechanical. We have gold minerals witch increase speed of Macro machine, but you should fight for them. We have cliff-jumping units which increase importance of scouting. And if Blizzard pull of "perfect balance" or at least better one than Brood War one, we'd get tons of new ways in which we should develop our skill.
Nothing you have said there indicates that there will be anything extra that will replace macro apart from Warpgates, which I already noted. I can spout on about the graphical wonders of the collossus and how its gorgeous lasers cut through enemys like a hot knife through butter. Doesnt mean that the collossus now counters macro. Read what youve read again because you havent even answered the question.
On October 01 2007 23:31 Aphelion wrote: 3. Good, but the spell usage shouldn't significantly increase. SC simply isn't that kind of game. Spells should remain difficult to use and spectacular, and there will be a cost of getting spellcasters you can't handle.
Wrong. Spell usage will significantly increase and SC is that kind of game. Look at amount of crappy (especially compared to psi-storm) spells in SC. Even Protoss alone - hallucination, feedback, maelstrom, mind control, d-web (for the company). When player use most of them in one game -- heck, even when simply adds DArchon in unit mix -- match easily become more spectacular, when according to you it shouldn't.
Actually Aphelions logic would mean that when added specialised spellcasters to the game it DOES become more exciting because they are not commonly used. Spellcasters in SC1 were situational and deadly, but damn dangerous to use (Large costs, Vunrable, Sheer difficulty to execute manouvers). So when they came out it made the game really tense. If spells are going the way they look like they are going, spells are going to be about as exciting as they are in warcraft 3 (ever heard a commentator being wow'ed by someones ability to polymorph an army in warcraft 3? Its pretty standard)
5. Unit choice should differ with matchups. This gives each matchups a flavor, or they would all feel the same. With the discover of dominant strategies, its only natural that certain unit combos would be favored in matchups. A TvZ army should look and handle differently from a TvT army. Building one of every unit doesn't equal more skill.
And again wrong! >_< All units should be viable in all matchups - that's the perfect balance which is aim of Blizz. What differs is units' roles. Look at PvP, PvZ and PvT. Mostly same units for Protoss with little exceptions, but matchups aren't same, cause for example role of HT and Reaver changes with match-ups.
So you would rather watch and play games that follow the same tech tree, regardless of the race of your opponent. One of the most exciting things about starcraft is that a PvZ plays totally different to a PvT and Likewise again totally different to a PvP. It really looks to me like you dont think before posting.
6. With less time on macro harassing will be less important, because the thing about harass is what it does to the enemy's macro ability. And you still forget - SC is a macro game. SC2 should remain that way.
Importance of macro does not reduce. MBS doesn't suddenly removes advantage of the bigger economy >_> Harass is important even in WC3, where economy doesn't play huge part.
Harrassment disrupts your gameplay. It causes you to focus heavily on the units that are attacking your base/mineral lines/Units. When your focussing everything you have on them, your less likely to to go back to your base to tell drones to mine, your less likely to go back to your barracks and build more units. It works because there are manual dexterity tasks required in macro, and you cannot perform these tasks when your forced to micro against a harrass.
So you would rather watch and play games that follow the same tech tree, regardless of the race of your opponent. One of the most exciting things about starcraft is that a PvZ plays totally different to a PvT and Likewise again totally different to a PvP. It really looks to me like you dont think before posting.
No, you think.
Just beacuse all units are viable dont mean that the same tech options are viable and it certainly doesnt mean that the units are as viable/common to be seen in all matchups. If all matchups used as many units as the toss in their matchups the game would overall get harder since its harder to micro diverse armies and its also harder to macro diverse tech trees.
Ideally all units should be viable in all matchups, meaning that they have an important use, not meaning that they must be used every time in that matchup though.
On October 02 2007 00:41 Fen wrote: Harrassment disrupts your gameplay. It causes you to focus heavily on the units that are attacking your base/mineral lines/Units. When your focussing everything you have on them, your less likely to to go back to your base to tell drones to mine, your less likely to go back to your barracks and build more units. It works because there are manual dexterity tasks required in macro, and you cannot perform these tasks when your forced to micro against a harrass.
No, since the harrasser uses the same amounth of time so they cancels out.
However since expanding is easier people will have more expansions making it easier to harrass and thus more powerfull to harrass, and also harder to defend vs the harrass.
On October 02 2007 00:45 Klockan3 wrote: No, since the harrasser uses the same amounth of time so they cancels out.
The attacker should still have the advantage. He gets to call the shots. He chooses when he moves his units in. He can free up time by backing off for a second. He is also at the advantage where he can do damage when he is successful so the other player MUST focus on defense while he can half-ass his harrass
On October 01 2007 23:31 Aphelion wrote: 1. A few more units for a race won't do much at all. Blizzard does say they want to keep it roughly the same anyways, give or take.
2. Its good that casters should not be used to their full potential. Otherwise it would be ordinary. SC should not be a spell slinging game.
3. Good, but the spell usage shouldn't significantly increase. SC simply isn't that kind of game. Spells should remain difficult to use and spectacular, and there will be a cost of getting spellcasters you can't handle.
4. Not all micro is fancy effects with a button. Have you seen free[gm] micro goon zeal? Its fucking insane. Step drag vs mines, moving shot by zealots vs lings. A combination of basic movement and attack can yield incredible results. Even most pros can't do it.
6. With less time on macro harassing will be less important, because the thing about harass is what it does to the enemy's macro ability. And you still forget - SC is a macro game. SC2 should remain that way.
Hmm. Number 1 is correct. However, what is your basis when you say that casters shouldn't be used to their full potential? Define "ordinary". Sure, Psi Storm would be very strong if SC has smart casting, however, one must take into account that it was designed that way partly because of the interface which prevents its abuse. With that in mind, I don't think that blizzard intended the interface to be limiting or to be a hindrance to the players. The SCBW interface was the class of the world by that time, same with War3/FT and surely in SC2, blizzard would yet again trump the interface of War3. It's just the same with War2 and SCBW and a lot of people complained because of the UI improvements that SC brings to the table would somehow "noobify" SC.
Spells should be spectacular, if used right in the proper context. Not because "Psi Storm is so strong because you cannot just instruct a group of 12 Templars to fire Psi Storms in 12 different areas at the same time because it is just not possible with the interface. The argument that spells should be spectacular because you'll need godly micro to have it reach maximum potential is IMHO a load of BS. Spells shouldn't be limited by a (for lack of a better term) "dumb" interface but by the ability of your opponent to respond to your spell or by your ability to use the spell correctly. Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
On October 02 2007 00:01 InRaged wrote: All macro that goes away is "pop back to your base every 20 seconds" to click at factories and send workers to minerals. Even without all these features Starcraft itself offers tons of actions that can easily replace "skill that goes away", but anyway let's count again. Warp gates are exactly "clicking at gateways" turned into thoughtful process instead of pure mechanical. We have gold minerals witch increase speed of Macro machine, but you should fight for them. We have cliff-jumping units which increase importance of scouting. And if Blizzard pull of "perfect balance" or at least better one than Brood War one, we'd get tons of new ways in which we should develop our skill.
Nothing you have said there indicates that there will be anything extra that will replace macro apart from Warpgates, which I already noted. I can spout on about the graphical wonders of the collossus and how its gorgeous lasers cut through enemys like a hot knife through butter. Doesnt mean that the collossus now counters macro. Read what youve read again because you havent even answered the question.
Oh my... There is no need to replace Macro, since clicking at barracks and sending workers to minerals is just a part of mechanical skill of the Macro. All what goes away is the Part of the macro (I won't say how big is that part since people like nitpicking about that). If they balance warp-gates properly and it'll become a must to use them in mid-late phase, than, at least for Protoss, auto-mining and MBS will be fully justified. And, the heck? You don't see how different income from different locations makes macro more complicated? You don't see how importance of constant scouting and controlling ways to your base will increase, with units that can freely jump over cliffs? You don't see how better unit balance will force you to put more attention in your unit choice and in scouting enemy's unit choice, instead of spamming pure marines or tanks whole game? If that's not mechanical for you - look at the terran's addon system. It's not me who didn't answered the question, it's you who believes that the only way to return "skill" taken away with MBS is to drop MBS from game to Hell.
Actually Aphelions logic would mean that when added specialised spellcasters to the game it DOES become more exciting because they are not commonly used. Spellcasters in SC1 were situational and deadly, but damn dangerous to use (Large costs, Vunrable, Sheer difficulty to execute manouvers). So when they came out it made the game really tense. If spells are going the way they look like they are going, spells are going to be about as exciting as they are in warcraft 3 (ever heard a commentator being wow'ed by someones ability to polymorph an army in warcraft 3? Its pretty standard)
That seems like you don't get what I said or screwing up meaning on purpose just for the sake of winning discussion. What's harder to control: Psi-storm+Stasis field or Psi-storm+Stasis field+Hallucination+Feedback+Maelstrom+D-Web and so on. With better balance of spells players will use more of them and to be successful you will have to use as much as possible and that's deeper skill than clicking at factories.
On October 02 2007 00:45 Klockan3 wrote: No, since the harrasser uses the same amounth of time so they cancels out.
The attacker should still have the advantage. He gets to call the shots. He chooses when he moves his units in. He can free up time by backing off for a second. He is also at the advantage where he can do damage when he is successful so the other player MUST focus on defense while he can half-ass his harrass
whatta... Try to half-ass muta/DT/HT/Reaver harass. Both must focus, heck, even marine drop or vulture/zergling slip should be controlled or harasser rather screw himself than get advantage.
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
Actually, I hope you won't discuss sc2 anymore and stick to broodwar if you think That will destroy progaming.
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
But without multiple front battles you have wc3, and look how that got in pro gaming...
The most exciting moments of starcraft is the multiple front battles were things happen at more than one place at once really, the commentators are able to move around the map through the attack locations and explain what happens. Even macro happens at atleast 2 points at any one time, in each players base.
On October 02 2007 02:08 InRaged wrote: Oh my... There is no need to replace Macro, since clicking at barracks and sending workers to minerals is just a part of mechanical skill of the Macro. All what goes away is the Part of the macro (I won't say how big is that part since people like nitpicking about that). If they balance warp-gates properly and it'll become a must to use them in mid-late phase, than, at least for Protoss, auto-mining and MBS will be fully justified. And, the heck? You don't see how different income from different locations makes macro more complicated? You don't see how importance of constant scouting and controlling ways to your base will increase, with units that can freely jump over cliffs? You don't see how better unit balance will force you to put more attention in your unit choice and in scouting enemy's unit choice, instead of spamming pure marines or tanks whole game? If that's not mechanical for you - look at the terran's addon system. It's not me who didn't answered the question, it's you who believes that the only way to return "skill" taken away with MBS is to drop MBS from game to Hell.
Yes there is a need to replace the loss of macro actions. Warpgates will not entirely make up for the loss of the macro actions. Macro is not more complicated because some spots are better to expand to than others. Scouting is already important, cliff jumping or not. This wont change Starcraft is already considered extremely balanced don't argue that SC2 will be more balanced The terrans addons will add a bit of macro, but not even as much as warpgates. See point 2.
That seems like you don't get what I said or screwing up meaning on purpose just for the sake of winning discussion. What's harder to control: Psi-storm+Stasis field or Psi-storm+Stasis field+Hallucination+Feedback+Maelstrom+D-Web and so on. With better balance of spells players will use more of them and to be successful you will have to use as much as possible and that's deeper skill than clicking at factories.
Maybe I did not understand your post, I still doubt people will use lots of different spells, they are going to have to pay the tech cost to get them all. Smartcasting looks like it will force the weakening of many spells to well below starcraft level unfortuantly.
whatta... Try to half-ass muta/DT/HT/Reaver harass. Both must focus, heck, even marine drop or vulture/zergling slip should be controlled or harasser rather screw himself than get advantage.
Yes they should be payed attention to if you want to be successful. However the attacker has the advantage, this is a fact. If your going to reaver drop, the person dropping the reavers chooses when the best time to fight is, not the defender. He is able to handle his macro because he is ready and prepared, the defender has to stop everything and focus on the attack. The harrasser can also grab his reaver in his shuttle, take it to a safe spot and macro before coming back. The defender is still forced to be defensive because the threat is still so imminant.
Actually, I hope you won't discuss sc2 anymore and stick to broodwar if you think That will destroy progaming.
Well it very well could destroy the progaming that we have now. Sure people will play it competatively, but the progaming scene in korea relies on much more than just people playing. It relys on sponser, fans, advertisements. For the players to get their rediculous salaries their sponsers must be getting something in return. What they get is thousands of people tuning in and seeing their product. If people cant follow the game because everything is going on outside of their view, its going to be bad for the scene.
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
But without multiple front battles you have wc3, and look how that got in pro gaming...
The most exciting moments of starcraft is the multiple front battles were things happen at more than one place at once really, the commentators are able to move around the map through the attack locations and explain what happens. Even macro happens at atleast 2 points at any one time, in each players base.
Yes, its exciting when battles happen on multiple fronts, but most fights in starcraft happen in the one localised area. Its logical to have your army attack one point, your whole army is stronger than a portion of it and therefore the attack is more likely to be successful. When there is only one front, people can see the action and can visually tell whos winning. This allows people to easily see how the game is progressing. If it becomes the norm to be attacking 5 spots at a time, then the crowd is going to miss a lot of the action and it will not be as enjoyable to watch.
MBS in my eyes is a natural progression in RTS games. Its like from warcraft 1 you could'nt select more than 1 unit at a time and in warcraft 2 you could. Its just the next step
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now?
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now?
They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes.
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now?
They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes.
They tried that shit early on, it blows. The human mind naturally likes to just focus on one thing at a time.
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now?
They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes.
They tried that shit early on, it blows. The human mind naturally likes to just focus on one thing at a time.
Ah well, but i guess they can do like starcraft and focus on the major army movements and have the commentator say what happens around the map.
Eventhough a multifront battle is fought there will be concentrated forces on both sides since you will always lose more to a concentrated force than a spread one. Just that having small parts of your force out harrasing wont diminish your concentraded force much but they will still be able to kill a lot of undefended units due to sc being sc with high lethality.
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now?
They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes.
They tried that shit early on, it blows. The human mind naturally likes to just focus on one thing at a time.
The thing is, new methods of viewing/broadcasting games will be developed in order to keep pace with the action in SC2, if my dream of multiple battlefronts can be accomplished with SC2 with MBS freeing significant time for it.
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now?
They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes.
They tried that shit early on, it blows. The human mind naturally likes to just focus on one thing at a time.
The thing is, new methods of viewing/broadcasting games will be developed in order to keep pace with the action in SC2, if my dream of multiple battlefronts can be accomplished with SC2 with MBS freeing significant time for it.
There's only that many ways you can present something to an audience that is acceptable. The reason for SC's success of a spectator sport is that its easy to tell whats going on even for a player who has never seen it.
And its not a dream as far as I'm concerned, more like a nightmare.
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now?
They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes.
They tried that shit early on, it blows. The human mind naturally likes to just focus on one thing at a time.
The thing is, new methods of viewing/broadcasting games will be developed in order to keep pace with the action in SC2, if my dream of multiple battlefronts can be accomplished with SC2 with MBS freeing significant time for it.
There's only that many ways you can present something to an audience that is acceptable. The reason for SC's success of a spectator sport is that its easy to tell whats going on even for a player who has never seen it.
And its not a dream as far as I'm concerned, more like a nightmare.
I guess we have to agree to disagree then.
As soon as I finish my 10 day trial period, I'm probably gonna start a thread about how to best make SC2 perfect for eSports (with a bias towards MBS). Oh well. G'night!
Well think of it from the perspective of the person at home watching on their tv. If they split the screen up, everything will be small and hard to see. Itll also be confusing as hell trying to work out where on the map you are looking. If the screen keeps jumping to a different view, its no different from the commentator just jumping quickly through all the battle locations, still very hard to know whats going on. Its not going to be possible to show all the action on the one screen.
Counterstrike is a great esport, but awful to watch a vod from, you miss the action nearly every time due to the camera not being on the correct player at the correct time.
However that being said, I dont think youll see more than 2 attacks at a time very often at all. Its too hard for players to control and weak if you split your forces too much so it wont be a problem.
You already have multiple front battles in SC1. I don't see how MBS is going to help with them.
The point of attacking in different places at the same time is that your opponent can't keep all the attacks away (unless some pros who sometimes are prepared for them).
If you can check all the places, what would be the purpose of dividing your army knowing that your enemy has no a higher chance of stopping it?
The computer frees up time because the player no longer needs to calculate on the short term. Instead the player imagines positional play and strategy far ahead into the game.
It really reduced the influence of the skill of the player on the outcome of the game. An mediocre amateur player can barely add anything to what the computer does. He can never really 'overrule' the computer or make a long term positional judgment about several candidate moves proposed by the computer.
Only on the top level of the super grandmasters computers have weaknesses and humans have strengths. Players compete on the basis of a very narrow set of skills; operating the chess engine and long term positional/strategical thinking.
No real grandmaster-level mistakes are made and once one player gets a position that is a little stronger the game is basically over.
I don't think anyone prefers advanced chess over normal chess where humans are merely humans and really have to fight mind to mind and where mistakes are made, players crumble under the pressure, etc.
Where normally players range from 1000 to 2850 in elo. When it comes to advanced chess players range from the rating of the chess engine, now around 2800, towards 3100.
So that's a big difference. The spectrum of skill is narrowed even though the computer frees up time for the player to think about things more important than preventing blunders.
Also, the chess isn't more exiting or spectacular either.
On October 03 2007 01:34 BlackStar wrote: The 'MBS freeing up time'-thing can be compared to chess games where the top grandmasters get to use a chess engine to assist them.
The computer frees up time because the player no longer needs to calculate on the short term. Instead the player imagines positional play and strategy far ahead into the game.
It really reduced the influence of the skill of the player on the outcome of the game. An mediocre amateur player can barely add anything to what the computer does. He can never really 'overrule' the computer or make a long term positional judgment about several candidate moves proposed by the computer.
Only on the top level of the super grandmasters computers have weaknesses and humans have strengths. Players compete on the basis of a very narrow set of skills; operating the chess engine and long term positional/strategical thinking.
No real grandmaster-level mistakes are made and once one player gets a position that is a little stronger the game is basically over.
I don't think anyone prefers advanced chess over normal chess where humans are merely humans and really have to fight mind to mind and where mistakes are made, players crumble under the pressure, etc.
Where normally players range from 1000 to 2850 in elo. When it comes to advanced chess players range from the rating of the chess engine, now around 2800, towards 3100.
So that's a big difference. The spectrum of skill is narrowed even though the computer frees up time for the player to think about things more important than preventing blunders.
Also, the chess isn't more exiting or spectacular either.
These analogies never work, i can just as well say that mbs is like playing with small woodpieces instead of lifelike statues in time based chess. Moving the statues in a fast fashion can take skill and youd have large brutish players in the competition simply beacuse they can move fast. Now if we removed this the spectrum of players would lessen since these guys skill wouldnt have any place anylonger now that anyone can move the pieces.
his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves. and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote: his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves. and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility.
However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2.
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote: his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves. and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
My analogy is a lot better though since mbs doesnt automate any thought processes at all, while instead it makes some actions less demanding on your mechanical skills. And contrary to what some here believes starcraft will still take a lot of mechanical skill to play and starcraft isnt all about mechanical skill either.
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote: his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves. and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility.
However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2.
just because theyre different aspects of the game doesnt mean they arent comparable. in chess, all of the moves available for a single turn are there available to you, an average player who understands the game should be able to judge the relative merit of each move given enough time. the real strategy comes into play in linking the individual moves together to achieve various end goals. automating the process of reviewing individual moves just saves time.. right? just like anyone can go back and click on all their buildings. just because you think its an unecessary artificial limitation doesnt mean it doesnt have a massive impact on the game. if every player can go 5d6z and have essentially the same unit production capabilities as reach and pusan, reach and pusan are no longer special. you eliminate a third of the game. no one will give a shit about macro players because everyone (whos already a decent player) can macro just as good as anyone else. so youre left with micro and strategy players, the game is no longer so multi dimensional, so widely varied. the main reason bw has survived 10 years is because it is so entertaining and so versatile. every game is different, even 'standard' games vary depending on each players style, because there are 3 main components, each very important, that go into the game. taking away one of those chops off a third of the game, makes it like every other rts where one game is pretty much like the next. and it just so happens that all those other games have had nowhere near the competetive success that bw has. why on earth would you want to remove what makes bw what it is just because bad players dont want to take the time to learn another skill?
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote: his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves. and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
My analogy is a lot better though since mbs doesnt automate any thought processes at all, while instead it makes some actions less demanding on your mechanical skills. And contrary to what some here believes starcraft will still take a lot of mechanical skill to play and starcraft isnt all about mechanical skill either.
no it isnt his analogy is automating a component of the game that bad players suck at, most decent-good players can do reasonably well, and that the best players can do very well. which is exactly what mbs would do. whereas your analogy would be like removing multiple unit selection, having to control all of 200 lings one by one. it doesnt add anything to the game (dont say clicking on buildings adds nothing to the game. we've been over that.).
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote: his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves. and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility.
However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2.
just because theyre different aspects of the game doesnt mean they arent comparable. in chess, all of the moves available for a single turn are there available to you, an average player who understands the game should be able to judge the relative merit of each move given enough time. the real strategy comes into play in linking the individual moves together to achieve various end goals. automating the process of reviewing individual moves just saves time.. right? just like anyone can go back and click on all their buildings. just because you think its an unecessary artificial limitation doesnt mean it doesnt have a massive impact on the game.
I never said they weren't comparable. You are indeed right, that there are many similarities between the two situations, but I still stand by my point here.
On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote: Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
I'm also quite aware that SBS has a massive impact of the game. I appreciate you restating all those reasons for its importance, but I've already read them 100 times and do understand them. However, that still doesn't mean that SBS is not an artificial limitation, because this is a fact. SBS is artificial because there no difference in conscious decision making for SBS vs MBS production, only an extra # of clicks as required by a UI limitation. It's also a fact that the majority of gamers dislike artificial limitations (e.g. but they wouldn't mind the extra clicks required to use a warpgate, because it appears to be most reasonably efficient way to use them).
On the other hand as I pointed out already, the Chess example of automation is eliminating actual strategical thought (even short-term plays require this), which is the entire basis of Chess (a turn-based game requiring no mechanics). Again, this would be like the computer planning out BO's for you and spitting them back at you throughout the game.
On October 03 2007 06:40 fight_or_flight wrote: I think the basic assumption is that starcraft has the ideal combination of strategy and repetitive tasks to make it successful.
Sure it might be "better" according to some people if this is changed, but there are other games for those people.
The main question right now is how should it be the current setup be tweaked to improve upon the original.
Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first.
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote: his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves. and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility.
However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2.
just because theyre different aspects of the game doesnt mean they arent comparable. in chess, all of the moves available for a single turn are there available to you, an average player who understands the game should be able to judge the relative merit of each move given enough time. the real strategy comes into play in linking the individual moves together to achieve various end goals. automating the process of reviewing individual moves just saves time.. right? just like anyone can go back and click on all their buildings. just because you think its an unecessary artificial limitation doesnt mean it doesnt have a massive impact on the game.
I never said they weren't comparable. You are indeed right, that there are many similarities between the two situations, but I still stand by my point here.
On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote: Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
I'm also quite aware that SBS has a massive impact of the game. I appreciate you restating all those reasons for its importance, but I've already read them 100 times and do understand them. However, that still doesn't mean that SBS is not an artificial limitation, because this is a fact. SBS is artificial because there no difference in conscious decision making for SBS vs MBS production, only an extra # of clicks as required by a UI limitation. It's also a fact that the majority of gamers dislike artificial limitations (e.g. but they wouldn't mind the extra clicks required to use a warpgate, because it appears to be most reasonably efficient way to use them).
On the other hand as I pointed out already, the Chess example of automation is eliminating actual strategical thought (even short-term plays require this), which is the entire basis of Chess (a turn-based game requiring no mechanics). Again, this would be like the computer planning out BO's for you and spitting them back at you throughout the game.
..... so you acknowledge that sbs has a massive impact on the game, and you acknowledge the reasons it is important, and realize that removing it would have a negative effect on the game.. but you disagree with it just because its an artificial limitation? who fucking cares if its an artificial limitation, it has a massively positive effect on the game.
you focus too much on whether or not something is thought based, that isnt necessarily relevant to the impact on the game, which is what matters in the long run. in both the chess and bw example, mbs and computer assistance are automating processes that bad people suck at, good people are decent at, and great people are near perfect at. and in both cases it removes a whole lot of diversity from the game and greatly shrinks the differential between good and bad players.
now of course, the bad players like that. it makes it easier for them to beat good players, or become good players themselves. but for a game that is intended for competetive play (so they say), and has the potential to revolutionize non korean competetive gaming (if its done right), that is fucking horrible. to take something intended for competetive play and remove the competetiveness... not that smart.
On October 03 2007 06:40 fight_or_flight wrote: I think the basic assumption is that starcraft has the ideal combination of strategy and repetitive tasks to make it successful.
Sure it might be "better" according to some people if this is changed, but there are other games for those people.
The main question right now is how should it be the current setup be tweaked to improve upon the original.
Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first.
yes, it would be alot worse. as has been stated many times. even if you refuse to believe it makes the game easier, and it would, you cannot argue that it would kill the diversity of the game at high levels.
as it stands now, top players can choose to focus more on micro, more on macro, or more on strategy (with the overall goal of perfecting all 3). oov and pusan and whatnot devote the majority of their attention to unit production, at the sacrifice of micro in alot of cases. oov's mm micro was notoriously bad, even during his period of dominance, pusan is known for sending near-unmicroed streams of zealots. and then you have boxer who builds up 2k minerals microing 1 small group of mm to take out 2 expos. or upmagic, who has mediocre micro and macro but does off the wall shit that catches his opponents off guard and wins him games anyway.
the fact that players can play so differently and still be so successful is what makes the korean pro scene, it keeps the game interesting even after 10 years. the fact that people have been playing professionally for 9 years and every game is still different, that play is not standardized and nearing overall perfection, is what keeps it interesting, what makes it playable on such a high level. making it so everyone can macro as well as oov and pusan hurts that diversity, severely. it essentially removes a third of it. you cannot argue that that will not have a MAJOR impact on the game.
On October 03 2007 06:40 fight_or_flight wrote: I think the basic assumption is that starcraft has the ideal combination of strategy and repetitive tasks to make it successful.
Sure it might be "better" according to some people if this is changed, but there are other games for those people.
The main question right now is how should it be the current setup be tweaked to improve upon the original.
Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first.
Lets say SC was at 100/100 in gameplay and 0/100 in terms of popularity with noobs.
I wouldn't countenance a change to 99/100 in game play and 100/100 in terms of popularity with noobs.
It seems to me that calculation in chess and controlling bases and units in SC are quite comparable in how important they are and what role they play in the whole range of different kind of skills the game requires.
Calculation in chess is the core skill of the game. Controlling your units and buildings is the core skill of Starcraft.
On October 03 2007 06:54 orangedude wrote: Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first.
I think it would be better competitively with MBS. I want the game to have more strategic skill and less physical skill - MBS does this. And I think it would create a better and more interesting competitive scene if it was this way.
A lot of people are thinking that implementing MBS will make skill levels max out. This is just wrong - a game needs hardly any complexity for there to be nearly unlimited skill. Look at how simple chess is - hell look at how simple donkey kong is (and it's vs a computer) and people are still getting better at it to this day. SC2 will be way more complex than either of these even if you implemented every noob friendly ui improvement you could think of and played the game on slow speed. There's no chance that someone will be able to play perfectly and so there's always going to be a skill differential between two players.
On October 03 2007 06:40 fight_or_flight wrote: I think the basic assumption is that starcraft has the ideal combination of strategy and repetitive tasks to make it successful.
Sure it might be "better" according to some people if this is changed, but there are other games for those people.
The main question right now is how should it be the current setup be tweaked to improve upon the original.
Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first.
Lets say SC was at 100/100 in gameplay and 0/100 in terms of popularity with noobs.
I wouldn't countenance a change to 99/100 in game play and 100/100 in terms of popularity with noobs.
Well then, I'm glad you weren't in charge of Blizzard over the past 10 years, cause they wouldn't still be around today making an SC2 if they had followed that kind of mindset. You gotta remember that Blizzard is still a business first and foremost, and are not making the game solely for the pro-gaming scene, although it would be awesome if they were 100% focused on that. Their magic comes following the "easy to learn, difficult to master" philosophy and by making their games more polished than any other in the world.
easy to learn, difficult to master? mbs does neither someone learning the game is not aware of how much he has to do or going so fast that the difference between 5z and clickzclickzclickzclickz even matters for him. and it makes it easier to master, for obvious reasons.
where mbs makes the most difference is the mediocre player who has started to learn whats going on and has a general idea of what to do but cant accomplish it, mbs allows them to catch up with the better players. so really its "irrelevant to learning, easier to master"
On October 03 2007 06:54 orangedude wrote: Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first.
I think it would be better competitively with MBS. I want the game to have more strategic skill and less physical skill - MBS does this. And I think it would create a better and more interesting competitive scene if it was this way.
A lot of people are thinking that implementing MBS will make skill levels max out. This is just wrong - a game needs hardly any complexity for there to be nearly unlimited skill. Look at how simple chess is - hell look at how simple donkey kong is (and it's vs a computer) and people are still getting better at it to this day. SC2 will be way more complex than either of these even if you implemented every noob friendly ui improvement you could think of and played the game on slow speed. There's no chance that someone will be able to play perfectly and so there's always going to be a skill differential between two players.
Ugh, getting tired of repeating this one, but I'll do it once more:
Player A is playing player B.
Player A's SC Skillset is as follows:
Macro (physical) - 5 Micro - 5 Theory (strategy, knowledge of how the game works etc) - 5
Player B
Macro (physical) - 3 Micro - 5 Theory - 5
Suddenly with MBS the edge that A has on B in macro is going to be waaaaaaaaaaaay smaller, I'm not saying it will neccessarily make Player B a 5 in macro, but it's going to decrease the game.
Now A and B are already pretty evenly matched, B is going to take games from A - MBS or no MBS. But I'm of the opinion that the increased "variance" that comes from removing an aspect of the game where someone can dominate their opponent, is a bad thing.
On October 03 2007 09:42 IdrA wrote: easy to learn, difficult to master? mbs does neither someone learning the game is not aware of how much he has to do or going so fast that the difference between 5z and clickzclickzclickzclickz even matters for him. and it makes it easier to master, for obvious reasons.
where mbs makes the most difference is the mediocre player who has started to learn whats going on and has a general idea of what to do but cant accomplish it, mbs allows them to catch up with the better players. so really its "irrelevant to learning, easier to master"
Oh really, MBS doesn't make SC easier to learn? Why don't you poll 100 random gamers and ask their opinion on that. Part of learning the game is becoming efficient with macro you know.
Seems to me that having to spend less time clicking production buildings will only intensify the game in other ways. It also seems like a reasonable solution to the problem of having to choose whether you want to hotkey units (which takes 6 groups on average late game as P/T) or hotkey production buildings - which isn't even an option late game as T when you have comsats and units keyed.
One thing that I do wonder about though is the logic that will go into MBS in a situation where... say you have racked up 2000 minerals in a fight and have two groups of ten gateways, and you hit one group to start one unit type, and the other for a different unit type. But what if half the gates are already making units? Will the unused gates get activated or will it go down the list, stacking units in queue in the first gates of the groups?
I am wondering how much attention will be required as a result of MBS to make sure the right units are building in the right places. And what if you only have 1000 minerals, but 2 groups of 10 gates, and you need zeals and goons? Do you just make 10 zeals, even though you maybe need 6 zeals and 4 goons to join a battle right away? You're going to have to either put fewer gates in your groups to make sure you can spread your spending or you'll have to manually click the gates.
It will still require macro skill, just in a different way, maybe with less mass clicking but with more attention to what's building where and how many.
You're list is obviously completely arbitrary though. You could put anything on that list and almost every feature in any game would decrease the value of something. For example:
Player A Skillset: Micro - 5 Theory - 5 Clicking agility - 2 Juggling ability - 10
Player B Skillset: Micro - 5 Theory - 5 Clicking agility - 15 Juggling ability - 5
By allowing you to select 12 units in SC1 (instead of 4 in wc2? I never played the game) the edge that B has over A is waaaaaaaaaaaay smaller because suddenly A can control his army almost as well as this freak who can click every unit on the screen in half a second.
And the stupid example of juggling ability the edge A has over B in this regard is completely reduced to 0 in SC1, SC2 and every game.
The arguement just doesn't work. The whole point of MBS is that it does reduce this skill. This does not imply that the skill gap between players reduces though.
On October 03 2007 10:17 IdrA wrote: no, becoming efficient is about becoming good at the game figuring out what you're supposed to do in the first place is learning the game.
The learning process IS becoming good at the game up to a certain point. That requires becoming efficient to a certain degree, for example, to be able to beat the AI in a match. Please don't pick at my semantics. If you try asking some other gamers, they would tell you that MBS would make the early learning curve smoother.
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote: his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves. and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility.
However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2.
just because theyre different aspects of the game doesnt mean they arent comparable. in chess, all of the moves available for a single turn are there available to you, an average player who understands the game should be able to judge the relative merit of each move given enough time. the real strategy comes into play in linking the individual moves together to achieve various end goals. automating the process of reviewing individual moves just saves time.. right? just like anyone can go back and click on all their buildings. just because you think its an unecessary artificial limitation doesnt mean it doesnt have a massive impact on the game.
I never said they weren't comparable. You are indeed right, that there are many similarities between the two situations, but I still stand by my point here.
On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote: Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
I'm also quite aware that SBS has a massive impact of the game. I appreciate you restating all those reasons for its importance, but I've already read them 100 times and do understand them. However, that still doesn't mean that SBS is not an artificial limitation, because this is a fact. SBS is artificial because there no difference in conscious decision making for SBS vs MBS production, only an extra # of clicks as required by a UI limitation. It's also a fact that the majority of gamers dislike artificial limitations ( e.g. but they wouldn't mind the extra clicks required to use a warpgate, because it appears to be most reasonably efficient way to use them).
On the other hand as I pointed out already, the Chess example of automation is eliminating actual strategical thought (even short-term plays require this), which is the entire basis of Chess (a turn-based game requiring no mechanics). Again, this would be like the computer planning out BO's for you and spitting them back at you throughout the game.
who fucking cares if its an artificial limitation
Ask Blizzard that. I think this is the #1 question that they go through when designing the UI.
On October 03 2007 07:08 IdrA wrote: you focus too much on whether or not something is thought based, that isnt necessarily relevant to the impact on the game, which is what matters in the long run. in both the chess and bw example, mbs and computer assistance are automaticing processes that bad people suck at, good people are decent at, and great people are near perfect at. and in both cases it removes a whole lot of diversity from the game and greatly shrinks the differential between good and bad players.
Whether something is thought based or not really does matter more than you think. It's the reason why you can't have auto-micro or auto-macro, because a human can simply do something that takes thought better than the computer 9 times out of 10. That's why you can easily outmicro the computer AI in SC and War3, no matter how complex it is. Also, people like to feel in control of the game, so automating any area that takes human thought would make it feel like the game is in control instead.
On October 03 2007 07:08 IdrA wrote: but for a game that is intended for competetive play (so they say), and has the potential to revolutionize non korean competetive gaming (if its done right), that is fucking horrible. to take something intended for competetive play and remove the competetiveness... not that smart.
but for a game that has the potential to revolutionize non-Korean competitive gaming (if it's done right), it would never happen if it frustrated potential pros and caused them to ditch the game before reaching a competitive level. That is fucking horrible. To take something intended to expand the competitive scene, but fail to attract new talent.... not that smart.
Look, all I'm saying is that there's two sides to this MBS coin. No one knows for sure which is going to have a bigger impact on the pro-scene. We can all theorize about the possible negative consequences of having it in SC2, but it's not black and white right now. We also aren't even close to a feature-complete version of SC2 as the Blizzcon build was a pre-pre alpha build.
I am going to be optimistic about MBS and hope that Blizzard designs SC2 ground-up with it in mind. You are free to believe otherwise and that would be your opinion, but until beta comes and SC2 is indeed shown to be too shallow to be played competitively, neither of us are right. I am taking a wait-and-see approach for now.
On October 03 2007 10:22 Gobol wrote: You're list is obviously completely arbitrary though. You could put anything on that list and almost every feature in any game would decrease the value of something. For example:
Player A Skillset: Micro - 5 Theory - 5 Clicking agility - 2 Juggling ability - 10
Player B Skillset: Micro - 5 Theory - 5 Clicking agility - 15 Juggling ability - 5
By allowing you to select 12 units in SC1 (instead of 4 in wc2? I never played the game) the edge that B has over A is waaaaaaaaaaaay smaller because suddenly A can control his army almost as well as this freak who can click every unit on the screen in half a second.
And the stupid example of juggling ability the edge A has over B in this regard is completely reduced to 0 in SC1, SC2 and every game.
The arguement just doesn't work. The whole point of MBS is that it does reduce this skill. This does not imply that the skill gap between players reduces though.
Lol yes it does reduce the skill gap. Just as that ridiculous juggling thing does, but you have to find a balance, I think MBS is most likely taking it too far.
Btw, SC2 has no maximum unit selection cap, which I haven't complained about much cause I don't think it's going to have as big of an impact as you'll probably still need to key your units in several groups to be effective. With MBS it suddenly becomes by far superior to anything else in the late game.
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
But without multiple front battles you have wc3, and look how that got in pro gaming...
The most exciting moments of starcraft is the multiple front battles were things happen at more than one place at once really, the commentators are able to move around the map through the attack locations and explain what happens. Even macro happens at atleast 2 points at any one time, in each players base.
xtian15 or Klockan3 answer me please.
On October 03 2007 01:06 IntoTheWow wrote: You already have multiple front battles in SC1. I don't see how MBS is going to help with them.
The point of attacking in different places at the same time is that your opponent can't keep all the attacks away (unless some pros who sometimes are prepared for them).
If you can check all the places, what would be the purpose of dividing your army knowing that your enemy has no a higher chance of stopping it?
On October 03 2007 10:17 IdrA wrote: no, becoming efficient is about becoming good at the game figuring out what you're supposed to do in the first place is learning the game.
The learning process IS becoming good at the game up to a certain point. That requires becoming efficient to a certain degree, for example, to be able to beat the AI in a match. Please don't pick at my semantics. If you try asking some other gamers, they would tell you that MBS would make the early learning curve smoother.
its not semantics.. learning is about figuring out whats going on, you dont care about doing something a few seconds faster when you dont know what kind of units you're supposed to make.
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote: his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves. and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility.
However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2.
just because theyre different aspects of the game doesnt mean they arent comparable. in chess, all of the moves available for a single turn are there available to you, an average player who understands the game should be able to judge the relative merit of each move given enough time. the real strategy comes into play in linking the individual moves together to achieve various end goals. automating the process of reviewing individual moves just saves time.. right? just like anyone can go back and click on all their buildings. just because you think its an unecessary artificial limitation doesnt mean it doesnt have a massive impact on the game.
I never said they weren't comparable. You are indeed right, that there are many similarities between the two situations, but I still stand by my point here.
On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote: Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
I'm also quite aware that SBS has a massive impact of the game. I appreciate you restating all those reasons for its importance, but I've already read them 100 times and do understand them. However, that still doesn't mean that SBS is not an artificial limitation, because this is a fact. SBS is artificial because there no difference in conscious decision making for SBS vs MBS production, only an extra # of clicks as required by a UI limitation. It's also a fact that the majority of gamers dislike artificial limitations ( e.g. but they wouldn't mind the extra clicks required to use a warpgate, because it appears to be most reasonably efficient way to use them).
On the other hand as I pointed out already, the Chess example of automation is eliminating actual strategical thought (even short-term plays require this), which is the entire basis of Chess (a turn-based game requiring no mechanics). Again, this would be like the computer planning out BO's for you and spitting them back at you throughout the game.
who fucking cares if its an artificial limitation
Ask Blizzard that. I think this is the #1 question that they go through when designing the UI.
i doubt it, and it really shouldnt be. there are artificial limitations all over the game, all for the purpose of making the game playable/fun/challenging. you cant see the entire map, you can only make 200 supply, etc. artificial limitations is a loaded term anyway, you're trying to make it sound like its a bad thing. the limitations are put in place to make the game better.
On October 03 2007 07:08 IdrA wrote: you focus too much on whether or not something is thought based, that isnt necessarily relevant to the impact on the game, which is what matters in the long run. in both the chess and bw example, mbs and computer assistance are automaticing processes that bad people suck at, good people are decent at, and great people are near perfect at. and in both cases it removes a whole lot of diversity from the game and greatly shrinks the differential between good and bad players.
Whether something is thought based or not really does matter more than you think. It's the reason why you can't have auto-micro or auto-macro, because a human can simply do something that takes thought better than the computer 9 times out of 10. That's why you can easily outmicro the computer AI in SC and War3, no matter how complex it is. Also, people like to feel in control of the game, so automating any area that takes human thought would make it feel like the game is in control instead.
no, you're missing the point. you focus too much on the minor(insignificant) details instead of the end outcome. thats the same reason you get hung up on 'artificial limitations' even though their effect on the game is obviously positive. in terms of this case it really is irrelevant if its thought based because both actions would have roughly the same outcome. basic analysis of moves is something all decent chess players can do, at varying levels. just like macro is something all decent bw players can do, at varying levels. it doesnt matter, at all, what the defining characteristic is in determining how good they are. it only matter that automating it would make everyone very good at it, and that both things have significant effects on how the game is played, so the end results are the same either way.
On October 03 2007 07:08 IdrA wrote: but for a game that is intended for competetive play (so they say), and has the potential to revolutionize non korean competetive gaming (if its done right), that is fucking horrible. to take something intended for competetive play and remove the competetiveness... not that smart.
but for a game that has the potential to revolutionize non-Korean competitive gaming (if it's done right), it would never happen if it frustrated potential pros and caused them to ditch the game before reaching a competitive level. That is fucking horrible. To take something intended to expand the competitive scene, but fail to attract new talent.... not that smart.
Look, all I'm saying is that there's two sides to this MBS coin. No one knows for sure which is going to have a bigger impact on the pro-scene. We can all theorize about the possible negative consequences of having it in SC2, but it's not black and white right now. We also aren't even close to a feature-complete version of SC2 as the Blizzcon build was a pre-pre alpha build.
I am going to be optimistic about MBS and hope that Blizzard designs SC2 ground-up with it in mind. You are free to believe otherwise and that would be your opinion, but until beta comes and SC2 is indeed shown to be too shallow to be played competitively, neither of us are right. I am taking a wait-and-see approach for now.
of course theres two sides, there wouldnt be an argument otherwise. but its not true that we cant know what will have a bigger impact. fact is ONE game has formed the basis for a substantial, long term progaming scene. lack of mbs is, in no small part, responsible for that. the reasoning has been explained already and neither you nor any other pro-mbs person has tried to refute it, hell you even left that part out while quoting me. so you can either address that or stop saying that we have no way of knowing what mbs might do to the game.
On October 03 2007 10:22 Gobol wrote: You're list is obviously completely arbitrary though. You could put anything on that list and almost every feature in any game would decrease the value of something. For example:
Player A Skillset: Micro - 5 Theory - 5 Clicking agility - 2 Juggling ability - 10
Player B Skillset: Micro - 5 Theory - 5 Clicking agility - 15 Juggling ability - 5
By allowing you to select 12 units in SC1 (instead of 4 in wc2? I never played the game) the edge that B has over A is waaaaaaaaaaaay smaller because suddenly A can control his army almost as well as this freak who can click every unit on the screen in half a second.
And the stupid example of juggling ability the edge A has over B in this regard is completely reduced to 0 in SC1, SC2 and every game.
The arguement just doesn't work. The whole point of MBS is that it does reduce this skill. This does not imply that the skill gap between players reduces though.
he just simplified the list to make the point. assuming everything else stays the same, macro is the only thing mbs will effect. obviously it will allow bad people to macro better, since they dont have to do as much to achieve good results, and it wont change anything for good people since they already macro well. everything else constant (which is a reasonable assumption since we are only talking about mbs), obviously the skill gap reduces if the bad player becomes better and the good player stays the same.
On October 03 2007 11:24 IdrA wrote: he just simplified the list to make the point. assuming everything else stays the same, macro is the only thing mbs will effect. obviously it will allow bad people to macro better, since they dont have to do as much to achieve good results, and it wont change anything for good people since they already macro well. everything else constant (which is a reasonable assumption since we are only talking about mbs), obviously the skill gap reduces if the bad player becomes better and the good player stays the same.
I beg to differ. Moving to MBS will not just make the macro aspect easier. It is all good to say 'everything else being equal' but just like all simplified theoretical frameworks there are also the 'assumptions' that allows this simplification.
Many has already touched the notion that there's a balance between macro and micro, which is situation dependent, and to a large extent is reliant on the player's better judgement in a given situation. What MBS will do is shift the balance somewhat, so that at certain situations macro becomes more important because there's less cost to accomplish the same task.
True, MBS may reduce the skill difference, as some of you fear. An alternative and no less justified 'advantage' would be to provide a more 'spectactor friendly' game since it will be easier as a whole to produce while microing => ensuring more frequent battles and less 'rebuilding phases. These are however speculations and no one side is better than the other, and certainly basing experience on starcraft is not valid given sc2 is a DIFFERENT game. (though many of us seems to assume sc2 will be mostly the same game)
May I add the wc3 comparison as a failure of MBS is not valid either (in case someone will brought this up to refute this post). The macro element of WC3 is a lot simpler due to the lower limit and army dynamics is vastly different to sc. WC3 has the centralized army theme that applies to sc late game stalemates. Its failing is not a direct result of MBS because MBS should have a smaller effect on WC3 than on a SCesque game.
[QUOTE]On October 03 2007 12:10 potchip wrote: [QUOTE]On October 03 2007 11:24 IdrA wrote: he just simplified the list to make the point. assuming everything else stays the same, macro is the only thing mbs will effect. obviously it will allow bad people to macro better, since they dont have to do as much to achieve good results, and it wont change anything for good people since they already macro well. everything else constant (which is a reasonable assumption since we are only talking about mbs), obviously the skill gap reduces if the bad player becomes better and the good player stays the same. [/QUOTE]
I beg to differ. Moving to MBS will not just make the macro aspect easier. It is all good to say 'everything else being equal' but just like all simplified theoretical frameworks there are also the 'assumptions' that allows this simplification. [quote] its also all good to say 'mbs will not just make the macro aspect easier' say that all you want it still will [quote] Many has already touched the notion that there's a balance between macro and micro, which is situation dependent, and to a large extent is reliant on the player's better judgement in a given situation. What MBS will do is shift the balance somewhat, so that at certain situations macro becomes more important because there's less cost to accomplish the same task.[/quote] shifting the balance in itself is a problem, bw has a very delicate balance between macro/micro/strategy, and it works well. why fuck with it for the very very minor gain of appeasing reviewers who dont know what theyre talking about [quote] True, MBS may reduce the skill difference, as some of you fear. An alternative and no less justified 'advantage' would be to provide a more 'spectactor friendly' game since it will be easier as a whole to produce while microing => ensuring more frequent battles and less 'rebuilding phases. These are however speculations and no one side is better than the other, and certainly basing experience on starcraft is not valid given sc2 is a DIFFERENT game. (though many of us seems to assume sc2 will be mostly the same game) [/QUOTE] its not a matter of mbs providing an advantage, everyone has it so obviously thats not the case. the concern with mbs making macro easier is that it lessens the skill gap. right now pros already dont need a 'rebuilding phase', because they are capable of macroing while managing armies and harassing and whatnot. mbs will allow the average player to do the same thing, lessening the gap between pro and newb(which is bad for competetive gameplay, as already discussed)
On October 03 2007 12:10 fight_or_flight wrote: I think most of the limitations from bw are there because the game came out 10 years ago and it had to run on those computers.
There will be new limitations, they will just be different. Don't worry.
they are not technological limitations, there is nothing about computers from 1998 that could not have supported mbs they are limitations imposed, purposefully, by the game designer to effect the way the game is played.
On October 03 2007 10:17 IdrA wrote: no, becoming efficient is about becoming good at the game figuring out what you're supposed to do in the first place is learning the game.
The learning process IS becoming good at the game up to a certain point. That requires becoming efficient to a certain degree, for example, to be able to beat the AI in a match. Please don't pick at my semantics. If you try asking some other gamers, they would tell you that MBS would make the early learning curve smoother.
its not semantics.. learning is about figuring out whats going on, you dont care about doing something a few seconds faster when you dont know what kind of units you're supposed to make.
I think its pretty clear that MBS results in a smoother early learning curve. Even the lowliest noob knows that in order to win, you have to construct a large army (macro). Part of that macro is clicking on buildings and ordering those units to be built. If you make it easier for the low-skill noob to construct a decent army in order to combat the AI, the game becomes more friendly and he'll have an easier time to then go on to further learn the intricacies of the game. I think we are just disagreeing on the subtle meanings of the word "learn", so I don't want to argue about this anymore.
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote: his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves. and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility.
However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2.
just because theyre different aspects of the game doesnt mean they arent comparable. in chess, all of the moves available for a single turn are there available to you, an average player who understands the game should be able to judge the relative merit of each move given enough time. the real strategy comes into play in linking the individual moves together to achieve various end goals. automating the process of reviewing individual moves just saves time.. right? just like anyone can go back and click on all their buildings. just because you think its an unecessary artificial limitation doesnt mean it doesnt have a massive impact on the game.
I never said they weren't comparable. You are indeed right, that there are many similarities between the two situations, but I still stand by my point here.
On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote: Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
I'm also quite aware that SBS has a massive impact of the game. I appreciate you restating all those reasons for its importance, but I've already read them 100 times and do understand them. However, that still doesn't mean that SBS is not an artificial limitation, because this is a fact. SBS is artificial because there no difference in conscious decision making for SBS vs MBS production, only an extra # of clicks as required by a UI limitation. It's also a fact that the majority of gamers dislike artificial limitations ( e.g. but they wouldn't mind the extra clicks required to use a warpgate, because it appears to be most reasonably efficient way to use them).
On the other hand as I pointed out already, the Chess example of automation is eliminating actual strategical thought (even short-term plays require this), which is the entire basis of Chess (a turn-based game requiring no mechanics). Again, this would be like the computer planning out BO's for you and spitting them back at you throughout the game.
who fucking cares if its an artificial limitation
Ask Blizzard that. I think this is the #1 question that they go through when designing the UI.
i doubt it, and it really shouldnt be. there are artificial limitations all over the game, all for the purpose of making the game playable/fun/challenging. you cant see the entire map, you can only make 200 supply, etc. artificial limitations is a loaded term anyway, you're trying to make it sound like its a bad thing. the limitations are put in place to make the game better.
These other artificial limitations are rules of the game, just like how a unit's HP is a rule in the game. They are understandable and can be easily explained to most players. However, even they can still cause problems when taken too far exactly because they are artificial in nature (e.g. many people hated the low supply cap and unit upkeep in War3). Taking away MBS from SC2 when every other RTS includes it is an artificial limitation of the UI, and it just won't make sense to most players. Telling them "we're doing it for the SC veterans" isn't going to make them any happier. It'll just sound even more like a cop-out to them. They don't understand SC to the extent that we do.
On October 03 2007 07:08 IdrA wrote: you focus too much on whether or not something is thought based, that isnt necessarily relevant to the impact on the game, which is what matters in the long run. in both the chess and bw example, mbs and computer assistance are automaticing processes that bad people suck at, good people are decent at, and great people are near perfect at. and in both cases it removes a whole lot of diversity from the game and greatly shrinks the differential between good and bad players.
Whether something is thought based or not really does matter more than you think. It's the reason why you can't have auto-micro or auto-macro, because a human can simply do something that takes thought better than the computer 9 times out of 10. That's why you can easily outmicro the computer AI in SC and War3, no matter how complex it is. Also, people like to feel in control of the game, so automating any area that takes human thought would make it feel like the game is in control instead.
no, you're missing the point. you focus too much on the minor(insignificant) details instead of the end outcome. thats the same reason you get hung up on 'artificial limitations' even though their effect on the game is obviously positive. in terms of this case it really is irrelevant if its thought based because both actions would have roughly the same outcome. basic analysis of moves is something all decent chess players can do, at varying levels. just like macro is something all decent bw players can do, at varying levels. it doesnt matter, at all, what the defining characteristic is in determining how good they are. it only matter that automating it would make everyone very good at it, and that both things have significant effects on how the game is played, so the end results are the same either way.
Insignificant and irrelevant is your opinion. Regardless of the positive outcome, most people won't see this or understand why on earth this could be positive and you'll have a tough time trying to convince them of this. They'll just think "This archaic interface won't even let me control my production properly. Blizzard is so behind the times", and not give the game a proper chance.
To illustrate why artificial limitations matter, I don't think anyone will ever complain about the difficulty of using warp-gates effectively. They take just as many clicks as the original SC macro and even require you to position the units on the battlefield. However, this seems reasonable because all of those steps are pretty much required and don't feel like the game is trying to limit you.
People being turned away, because they dislike artificial UI limitations is a negative outcome. You are completely ignoring this and continue to argue only your side.
On October 03 2007 07:08 IdrA wrote: but for a game that is intended for competetive play (so they say), and has the potential to revolutionize non korean competetive gaming (if its done right), that is fucking horrible. to take something intended for competetive play and remove the competetiveness... not that smart.
but for a game that has the potential to revolutionize non-Korean competitive gaming (if it's done right), it would never happen if it frustrated potential pros and caused them to ditch the game before reaching a competitive level. That is fucking horrible. To take something intended to expand the competitive scene, but fail to attract new talent.... not that smart.
Look, all I'm saying is that there's two sides to this MBS coin. No one knows for sure which is going to have a bigger impact on the pro-scene. We can all theorize about the possible negative consequences of having it in SC2, but it's not black and white right now. We also aren't even close to a feature-complete version of SC2 as the Blizzcon build was a pre-pre alpha build.
I am going to be optimistic about MBS and hope that Blizzard designs SC2 ground-up with it in mind. You are free to believe otherwise and that would be your opinion, but until beta comes and SC2 is indeed shown to be too shallow to be played competitively, neither of us are right. I am taking a wait-and-see approach for now.
of course theres two sides, there wouldnt be an argument otherwise. but its not true that we cant know what will have a bigger impact. fact is ONE game has formed the basis for a substantial, long term progaming scene.
Only in Korea. In fact, War3 has a bigger pro-gaming scene outside of Korea than SC, despite all of its disadvantages as a spectator sport.
lack of mbs is, in no small part, responsible for that. the reasoning has been explained already and neither you nor any other pro-mbs person has tried to refute it, hell you even left that part out while quoting me. so you can either address that or stop saying that we have no way of knowing what mbs might do to the game.
Plenty of people have tried to refute it, but I'm not trying to here. I'm looking at the OTHER SIDE, the necessity of MBS in a game released today to capture and maintain interest in SC2 in order to expand the pro-scene. You continue to ignore this and leave it out of your response yet again and haven't even tried to refute it. This could just as easily have a larger positive impact than the negative impact of removing MBS. You can either address that or stop repeating the same argument for the 100th time, as I already understand it and I'm tired of reading it again.
It's the magnitudes of these these two pros and cons that no one really knows for sure, and why I am again taking a wait and see approach. If you can't accept the fact that I have a different opinion on this than you, then I don't know what more I can say.
Okay, but these other artificial limitations are rules of the game, just like how a unit's HP is a rule in the game. They are understandable and can be easily explained to most players. However, even they can still cause problems when taken too far exactly because they are artificial in nature (e.g. many people hated the low supply cap and unit upkeep in War3). Taking away MBS from SC2 when every other RTS includes it is an artificial limitation of the UI, and it just won't make sense to most players. Telling them "we're doing it for the SC veterans" isn't going to make them any happier. It'll just sound even more like a cop-out to them. They don't understand SC to the extent that we do.
well then they can give a real answer "we're including it because its a defining feature of the starcraft franchise and it adds depth and entertainment value to the gameplay" if it is a good game and it gets sponsor money behind it the competetive rts players will move to it. if a competetive scene develops people will play the game regardless of the interface.
Insignificant and irrelevant is your opinion. Regardless of the positive outcome, most people won't see this or understand why on earth this could be positive and you'll have a tough time trying a tough time convincing them of this. They'll just think "This archaic interface won't even let me control my production properly. Blizzard is so behind the times", and maybe not give it their full effort. To illustrate why artificial limitations matter, I don't think anyone will ever complain about the difficulty of using warp-gates effectively. They take just as many clicks as the original SC macro and even require you to position the units on the battlefield. However, this seems reasonable because all of those steps are pretty much required and don't feel like the game is trying to limit you.
People being turned away, because they dislike artificial UI limitations is a negative outcome. You are completely ignoring this and continue to argue only your side.
no, in the case we were discussing irrelevance is not an opinion. it is a fact. i demonstrated why i was correct, you provided no argument as to why it was relevant, besides saying that it was.
once again, catering to retards or newbs is not going to get the game anywhere except the discount bin 2 months after its release. competetive players will play if its a good game and sponsors get behind it. if a competetive scene develops lots more players will start playing, regardless of a slightly modified interface from what theyre used to.
Only in Korea. In fact, War3 has a bigger pro-gaming scene outside of Korea than SC.
that matters why? in absolute terms war3 progaming is nothing compared to korean progaming. starcraft has shown that it can support a mainstream entertainment industry. war3 cant. unfortunately starcraft cannot get a foothold outside of korea because no sponsors want to put up money for a 10 year old game. that will be very different for sc2, so either you can make it like sc(a game that has the capability of supporting a real professional gaming industry) except now it will have all the sponsors it wants and so can become something real, or you can make it like war3 and you can have fucking microsoft sponsor it and no one will give a rats ass.
Plenty of people have tried to refute it, but I'm not trying to here. I'm looking at the OTHER SIDE, the necessity of MBS in a game released today to capture and maintain interest in SC2 in order to expand the pro-scene, which you continue to ignore and leave out of your response yet again. You haven't even tried to refute it. This could just as easily have a larger positive impact than the negative impact of removing MBS. You can either address that or stop repeating the same argument for the 100th time, as I already understand it and I'm tired of reading it again. It's the magnitudes of these these two pros and cons that no one knows for sure, and why I am again taking a wait and see approach. If you can't accept the fact that I have a different opinion on this than you, then I don't know what more I can say.
no, actually. no one has addressed the fact that mbs will decrease diversity. every 'response' to it has danced around it or said that it will be compensated for with vague references to 'multi front battles' and other features starcraft1 gameplay already has.
on the other hand, your point HAS been addressed, multiple times. bunches of newbs who play every rts that comes out will not make a pro scene, they will buy their copy of the game, play it once in a while, and forget about it when the next game comes out. competetive players and a game that is actually capable of supporting a progaming industry (by producing entertaining games and being able to accomodate a professional attitude, in terms of skill and whatnot) will make a pro scene, and if you have a popular pro scene your player base will grow more than any newb-friendly features will encourage. just look at how many people play in korea. think that would happen if they didnt have progaming on 2 big tv networks?
having opinions is fine. however you post your opinion on a forum that blizzard reads, that means your opinion can effect me, if blizz reads what you post and thinks 'oh cool they like mbs keep it in'. therefore i will argue with you if you post your opinion.
Orangedude, I can post a very lengthy rebuttal (which I will when I have time), but the basic impression of your post is that your are saying we should dumb down the only acceptable RTS game for many experts in favor of noobs, which is essentially what all other RTSes have long done. You have a noble reasoning to increase the player base to support a proscene. I do not believe that is necessary as SC2 will have a huge player base anyways, and also I believe that making a e-sports game for noobs is self contradictory. Neither do I believe that SC2 can make a big difference in the non-Korean proscene, as the culture and other factors simply aren't ready for it in the Western world.
But even without those caveats to your logic - even assuming your logic is correct, and that a slight dumbing down of the game would greatly increase its e-sports success - I vote no in principle to taking the one really competitive, really successful expert RTS community and compromising it for noobs. With those qualifications and doubts I listed to your logic, its a complete, unequivocal, "hell no".
Okay, but these other artificial limitations are rules of the game, just like how a unit's HP is a rule in the game. They are understandable and can be easily explained to most players. However, even they can still cause problems when taken too far exactly because they are artificial in nature (e.g. many people hated the low supply cap and unit upkeep in War3). Taking away MBS from SC2 when every other RTS includes it is an artificial limitation of the UI, and it just won't make sense to most players. Telling them "we're doing it for the SC veterans" isn't going to make them any happier. It'll just sound even more like a cop-out to them. They don't understand SC to the extent that we do.
well then they can give a real answer "we're including it because its a defining feature of the starcraft franchise and it adds depth and entertainment value to the gameplay" if it is a good game and it gets sponsor money behind it the competetive rts players will move to it. if a competetive scene develops people will play the game regardless of the interface.
They won't understand this kind of explanation whatsoever. Even if it's the truth, it'll just sound to them like "screw you, we don't care about new players, we just want to satisfy the hardcore crowd". I think 90% of people who bought and played SC don't even know how huge the Korean E-Sports scene really is.
Insignificant and irrelevant is your opinion. Regardless of the positive outcome, most people won't see this or understand why on earth this could be positive and you'll have a tough time trying a tough time convincing them of this. They'll just think "This archaic interface won't even let me control my production properly. Blizzard is so behind the times", and maybe not give it their full effort. To illustrate why artificial limitations matter, I don't think anyone will ever complain about the difficulty of using warp-gates effectively. They take just as many clicks as the original SC macro and even require you to position the units on the battlefield. However, this seems reasonable because all of those steps are pretty much required and don't feel like the game is trying to limit you.
People being turned away, because they dislike artificial UI limitations is a negative outcome. You are completely ignoring this and continue to argue only your side.
no, in the case we were discussing irrelevance is not an opinion. it is a fact. i demonstrated why i was correct, you provided no argument as to why it was relevant, besides saying that it was.
once again, catering to retards or newbs is not going to get the game anywhere except the discount bin 2 months after its release. competetive players will play if its a good game and sponsors get behind it. if a competetive scene develops lots more players will start playing, regardless of a slightly modified interface from what theyre used to.
Did you even read a word of what I wrote? All of it was about why artificial limitations are important, because it leads to a negative outcome. Okay, feel free to continue to ignore my points.
Only in Korea. In fact, War3 has a bigger pro-gaming scene outside of Korea than SC.
that matters why? in absolute terms war3 progaming is nothing compared to korean progaming. starcraft has shown that it can support a mainstream entertainment industry. war3 cant. unfortunately starcraft cannot get a foothold outside of korea because no sponsors want to put up money for a 10 year old game. that will be very different for sc2, so either you can make it like sc(a game that has the capability of supporting a real professional gaming industry) except now it will have all the sponsors it wants and so can become something real, or you can make it like war3 and you can have fucking microsoft sponsor it and no one will give a rats ass.
War3 can't, because it's a crappy spectator sport. SC2 won't have any of the problems that War3 suffered that caused it to fail in Korea.
Plenty of people have tried to refute it, but I'm not trying to here. I'm looking at the OTHER SIDE, the necessity of MBS in a game released today to capture and maintain interest in SC2 in order to expand the pro-scene, which you continue to ignore and leave out of your response yet again. You haven't even tried to refute it. This could just as easily have a larger positive impact than the negative impact of removing MBS. You can either address that or stop repeating the same argument for the 100th time, as I already understand it and I'm tired of reading it again. It's the magnitudes of these these two pros and cons that no one knows for sure, and why I am again taking a wait and see approach. If you can't accept the fact that I have a different opinion on this than you, then I don't know what more I can say.
no, actually. no one has addressed the fact that mbs will decrease diversity. every 'response' to it has danced around it or said that it will be compensated for with vague references to 'multi front battles' and other features starcraft1 gameplay already has.
The reason I'm not addressing it, is because I'm not trying to focus on the downsides of MBS. I'll leave that up to other people if they choose to do so. For the last time, I'm looking at the OTHER side, the positive side that necessitates MBS in SC2, which you keep ignoring. I've been trying to argue this ever since the OP if you've ever read it.
On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: on the other hand, your point HAS been addressed, multiple times.
It has been addressed, but not when you were responding to me. It has never been proven wrong, because we simply don't know exactly how big of a turnoff a game lacking MBS in 2008-9 will be to new players and potential pros. Much the same way as how we don't know the exact magnitude of the impact of taking out MBS in SC2.
On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: bunches of newbs who play every rts that comes out will not make a pro scene, they will buy their copy of the game, play it once in a while, and forget about it when the next game comes out. competetive players and a game that is actually capable of supporting a progaming industry (by producing entertaining games and being able to accomodate a professional attitude, in terms of skill and whatnot) will make a pro scene, and if you have a popular pro scene your player base will grow more than any newb-friendly features will encourage.
What do you think came first in Korea? The E-Sports scene or the large fanbase of SC noobs? You don't get a huge thriving pro-scene unless you start off with a huge number of newbs with a continued interest in the game. The competitive players will arise naturally, only when given the appropriate game AND a large enough fanbase. BOTH of these are key ingredients to a successful E-Sports scene, and you can't neglect either one. Many modern RTS's fail in the first part, while games like Armies of Exigo fail in the second. Removing MBS would be detrimental to the second part and this is also fact, although the magnitude of this we don't know for sure yet. I believe it will be to a far greater extent than you do, and that's where our opinions differ.
On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: just look at how many people play in korea. think that would happen if they didnt have progaming on 2 big tv networks?
Yes, see you got the cause and effect part of this backwards. Think SC had pro-gaming channels and pro-leagues when it first caught on in Korea? No, it only happened as a consequence of the already large player base.
On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: having opinions is fine. however you post your opinion on a forum that blizzard reads, that means your opinion can effect me, if blizz reads what you post and thinks 'oh cool they like mbs keep it in'. therefore i will argue with you if you post your opinion.
You can argue, but do realize that opinions can differ over areas where neither can solidly win, because there's just not enough concrete evidence on either side right now. It's kind of like the science vs religion debate. However, I have every right to express that I am favoring a wait-and-see approach to MBS and I hope you can respect this.
On October 03 2007 11:02 BlackStar wrote: 'Clicking agility' is not part of SC.
"Clicking agility" definitely is a part of SC, just like clicking precision, clicking speed, mouse speed, and keyboard speed is.
This isn't an opinion, this is a fact.
Your statement is very ignorant and is akin to saying "leg speed is not a part of soccer."
Please do not make blanket ignorant statements without sufficient evidence. Making arguments with inferior or incomplete knowledge is just as bad as making incorrect arguments.
On October 03 2007 11:02 BlackStar wrote: 'Clicking agility' is not part of SC.
"Clicking agility" definitely is a part of SC, just like clicking precision, clicking speed, mouse speed, and keyboard speed is.
This isn't an opinion, this is a fact.
Your statement is very ignorant and is akin to saying "leg speed is not a part of soccer."
Please do not make blanket ignorant statements without sufficient evidence. Making arguments with inferior or incomplete knowledge is just as bad as making incorrect arguments.
Hot_Bid, I think he was just trolling. You can feel free to delete his post, the response, and my post here.
On October 03 2007 09:42 IdrA wrote: easy to learn, difficult to master? mbs does neither someone learning the game is not aware of how much he has to do or going so fast that the difference between 5z and clickzclickzclickzclickz even matters for him. and it makes it easier to master, for obvious reasons.
where mbs makes the most difference is the mediocre player who has started to learn whats going on and has a general idea of what to do but cant accomplish it, mbs allows them to catch up with the better players. so really its "irrelevant to learning, easier to master"
Thats just assuming that there are only two kinds of players, noobs and pro-gamers. I am no pro-gamer but I do care that I can produce units in all my gateways with just "5z" as opposed to clickzclickzclickz etc. Creating zealots on 5 different Gateways on the same time doesn't make the game easier to master...you still have to know where to deploy them, to micro their "lunge" (i forgot what its called) skill, etc. It just makes it more convenient for beginners to quickly build a large army. That's all. MBS, doesn't really affect Pro-gamers but it gives non-pro-gamers (which includes noobs and non-noobs) a chance to play the strategic part of the game without too much sacrifice for the so-called "macro" (0z9z8z7z6z).
I'm going to make a baseless assertation regarding the MBS and RTS failures argument: The single most important succes factor for Blizzard RTS (including WC3) was battle.net.
Oh, and how many of you would petition to have the right mouse rally 'feature' removed in a future sc patch? It also kind of bridges the gap between newbs and pros.
On October 03 2007 13:57 potchip wrote: I'm going to make a baseless assertation regarding the MBS and RTS failures argument: The single most important succes factor for Blizzard RTS (including WC3) was battle.net.
Oh, and how many of you would petition to have the right mouse rally 'feature' removed in a future sc patch? It also kind of bridges the gap between newbs and pros.
I think having graphical representations of the game is bad. Real pros play with binary code.
To be serious, I don't use right click. I use 'R' as a matter of habit, and can't get myself to change it.
On October 03 2007 13:17 Aphelion wrote: Orangedude, I can post a very lengthy rebuttal (which I will when I have time), but the basic impression of your post is that your are saying we should dumb down the only acceptable RTS game for manya few experts in favor of many noobs and potential experts
Please do.
On October 03 2007 13:17 Aphelion wrote: I do not believe that is necessary as SC2 will have a huge player base anyways, and also I believe that making a e-sports game for noobs is self contradictory. Neither do I believe that SC2 can make a big difference in the non-Korean proscene, as the culture and other factors simply aren't ready for it in the Western world.
Making a game accessible to noobs is not self-contradictory. It's one of the foundations of every sport in the world. I'm not going to kid myself here. I'm not expecting SC2 matches to start showing up on my TV anytime soon like in Korea, but that doesn't mean it can't experience a large amount of growth. I think it can at the very least expand and overtake the CS pro-scene if Blizzard does it right. However, again it must attract a large fanbase first of all before this will be possible.
On October 03 2007 13:17 Aphelion wrote: But even without those caveats to your logic - even assuming your logic is correct, and that a slight dumbing down of the game would greatly increase its e-sports success - I vote no in principle to taking the one really competitive, really successful expert RTS community and compromising it for noobs. With those qualifications and doubts I listed to your logic, its a complete, unequivocal, "hell no".
That's fine if you think this way and I will respect your opinion if you will respect mine. Guess that's a big NO to the "Are you willing?" thread. In the end, it will be Blizzard's decision as to which side to favor.
On October 03 2007 13:17 Aphelion wrote: Orangedude, I can post a very lengthy rebuttal (which I will when I have time), but the basic impression of your post is that your are saying we should dumb down the only acceptable RTS game for many experts in favor of many noobs and potential experts, which is essentially what all other RTSes have long done. You have a noble reasoning to increase the player base to support a proscene.
Please do.
When a player cannot play a game because of lack of mechanical skill and feels unwilling to put in the effort to overcome that, he is not a "potential expert". He is noob through and through. He might eventually get good at the game, but not before he changes that kind of attitude entirely. That attitude which you support is wholy noob.
On October 03 2007 13:17 Aphelion wrote: Orangedude, I can post a very lengthy rebuttal (which I will when I have time), but the basic impression of your post is that your are saying we should dumb down the only acceptable RTS game for many experts in favor of many noobs and potential experts, which is essentially what all other RTSes have long done. You have a noble reasoning to increase the player base to support a proscene.
Please do.
When a player cannot play a game because of lack of mechanical skill and feels unwilling to put in the effort to overcome that, he is not a "potential expert". He is noob through and through. He might eventually get good at the game, but not before he changes that kind of attitude entirely. That attitude which you support is wholy noob.
That's not necessarily true. A lot of these "potential experts" could have 150-200+ apm (e.g. aw]nevermind and his clanmates from War3), so they definitely have the mechanical skill required and the competitive attitude or they never would have reached that level of skill. They could just be turned off by the limitations of the UI. Even Grubby expressed this kind of sentiment in an interview, when he talked about what defines skill between the two games. I think a large portion of the mid-level to pro-War3 players could feel the same way, and if that's not a large portion of the RTS skill base, then I don't know what is.
Here, I'll copy/paste this from 1esu's post: thoughts from arguably the top War3 player in the world.
bunny: Who do you think is most successful at doing this right now at top level play? For most part, at high level gaming, sometimes executing the right strategy won't always win it for you.
Grubby: The difficult thing about this is what you should judge "skill" on. Do you judge skill only by the quality of someone's gameplay, or also on how *HARD* it is to execute that gameplay? This is a very hot topic with most people not even realising it. There have been soooooo many BW vs WC3 discussions about which game is better and I've found that the disagreements mostly spawn from different ways to measure skill. It can, for example, be extremely challenging to play Tetris with a ball-mouse where the ball is missing, but that doesn't make it a better or harder game than wc3. Just the same, I think most comparisons of BW and WC3 don't do justice to either of the games. Most people who advertise the superiority of BW do so because it's a harder game to play, using APM as an example. But another example that is given, is that for example spell-casters need to be selected seperately while casting, because otherwise you'll get 10 psionic storms in 1 location which doesn't do more damage than 1 psionic storm. However, I fail to see how an obsoleted game engine proves that it requires more skill, or how that's something to be proud of.
To me, BroodWars seems to be much harder to control partly because the game engine is so obsolete. Control groups respond less readily and units have lower AI. If that's what it takes to give a game quality, I say remove every single hotkey there is for WC3 and let's see how much harder WC3 is than BW. However, that would just be stupid, and perhaps it would also be stupid to condemn "1-strat-wonders" or "low-micro-strats", because it's not about how hard a strategy is to execute, but about how effective it is and how well it works in a situation. A lot of people seem to care even more about how hard it is to execute a strategy than about the result of it. It might be very hard to stand on one hand with your foot in your mouth, but it's more impressive to see someone do a spin on the floor with both legs in the air; while that may be a much easier move. That's why I think the animosity towards low-micro-strategies is unfair.
and this, from the following fan Q&A:
Prime.zeroth: Have you ever played or seen people played Starcraft? If yes, how do you think WC compare to SC as a RTS game? If Blizzard releases a new RTS game in few years, would you switch or would you still play WC?
Grubby: I've played Starcraft for about 5 years on and off, more off than on. It's an exciting game with infinite possibility for 'perfection' when it comes to handling several things at a time. The 'always build more worker units' concept appealed to me, but the low variety of strategies was less interesting and made it boring, unless i was messing around with Queens and such. If Blizzard releases a new RTS game, I'd DEFINITELY try it out and try to see if it's better.
No, BS. aw]nevermind NEVER appreciated the game of SC for what is, so that question is completely moot. His claims of War3 greatness are suspect anyways, together with the rest of his story? A B.net troll is hardly the best evidence to support your argument.
I guarantee you that at least 90% of anyone who has an idea of APM would play SC2, even if they wanted MBS and didn't get it. What are they going to turn to? WC3? Most WC3 and SC players would DEFINITELY not be deterred by a lack of MBS. From what Lazerflip says, neither will most truly competitive RTS players.
And if you think any other "potential experts" with 150+apm will not play the game - your delusional.
Grubby is just feeling defensive that we call War3 players noobs - with good reason I might add :p.
Seriously, posters like you are making me feel less and less enthusiastic about SC2 by the day. If you talk about potential experts and alienate the current ones - causing them to actually not play the game competitively - well won't that be sad. From what it sounds like, your encouraging Blizzard to ignore us hardcore SC addicts because hey - they'll play the game anyways, right?
After all these posts and all these arguments it seems evident that there will obviously be a large chunk of the macro game missing in SC2 with MBS. There has been no evidence to support otherwise. We've already proven that pros do not struggle with strategic thinking while macroing/microing so MBS will add nothing to the competitive scene. The pro MBS side fears bad reviews and a smaller crowd for the game overall because it will differ inherently from other RTS games.
With that being said i think it's completely fair to put MBS as a setting for non competitive games. That way players who don't wish to master as many aspects of the game can still play on an easier setting and learn/enjoy the game. I can't possibly imagine newbs will be less impressed or completely turned off by pro players who can't use MBS in their games... if anything they'll be MORE impressed and want to play even more so they can master the game with out the crutch of MBS. if they don't/can't it's no problem since they can just play with friends online. I have yet to see a good argument to why MBS as a setting can't please both crowds and assure SC2's success as an esport and as a pass time game for fun. (and i don't think masturbating the ego of a random newbie is reason enough)
also, orangedude, stop asserting that there is NO WAY a pc game magazine couldn't understand Blizzards explanation as to why SC2 needs SBS due to the korean proscene and keeping the game competitive. Any rational person can see this argument as a sound one. and if MBS is kept only as a setting for non competitive games i don't understand how some PC magazine is going to grade SC2 down because easy features like MBS aren't allowed on ladders, these people have brains too. Blizzard could put it in the single player:
easy mode: MBS/auto mining on hard mode: MBS/auto mining off
On October 03 2007 14:23 Aphelion wrote: No, BS. aw]nevermind NEVER appreciated the game of SC for what is, so that question is completely moot. His claims of War3 greatness are suspect anyways, together with the rest of his story? A B.net troll is hardly the best evidence to support your argument.
Why did aw]nevermind not appreciate the game of SC? It was the UI. He gave very clear examples of exactly what pissed him off initially at first, until finally he couldn't take it anymore. I'll post his explanation here if you want to read it again. He IS a competitive player and so was his whole clan. That's the point I made and you haven't refuted this.
I am quite sure that many other War3 players will think the same way. READ Grubby's post if you still don't believe me. He has one of the best attitudes out there of any War3 player.
On October 03 2007 14:23 Aphelion wrote: I guarantee you that at least 90% of anyone who has an idea of APM would play SC2, even if they wanted MBS and didn't get it. What are they going to turn to? WC3? Most WC3 and SC players would DEFINITELY not be deterred by a lack of MBS. From what Lazerflip says, neither will most truly competitive RTS players.
But how many of that 90% will stay and try to play competitively? That's a totally different story, and it could be far lower due to lacking of MBS. Where is your solid proof that allows you to use the words "DEFINITELY" here?
Lazerflip has never even played SC, so that's not exactly someone to take the most objective stand point from.
On October 03 2007 14:23 Aphelion wrote: And if you think any other "potential experts" with 150+apm will not play the game - your delusional.
There's already a whole clan to prove you wrong, so maybe I'm not the one that's delusional. That's hard evidence, which you don't have.
On September 13 2007 22:29 aW]Nevermind wrote: So you shouldn't care about MBS, doesn't matter what we think, blizzard already implemented it, as the wc3 player i am, i know a lot of wc3 players who won't change to sc2 if UI isn't as good as the wc3 one, because we don't want to get used to an old UI.
And thats the main reason i quit BW a few months ago i remember my last game, i played it on ICCUP against this protoss player (i'm zerg) well i had a good start i watched a lot of replays, etc i knew the built order quite perfectly and i had in mind what to do to counter his cannon expo (map was reverse temple), at some point we had a big battle i had zerlings and hydras while he had zealots and goons, he tryed to push my second expo but he was so lazzy with micro that i beated his push really bad killing units for free at this point i though well hes dead he lost too much if i push his expo now he will lose, so i did right i was beating him up bad at his expo but i had to go back to my base to babysit my unit production, at the same time i went back to my base in just an eye blink he used his 3 high templars, and killed around 12 hydras with 3 storms, obviously my push failed and then he macro whored me and won, i was so damn pissed i outmicroed him so bad in every battle if i had MBS like in wc3 i wouldn't lose everything to 3 high templars just because i had to go back to my base 3 or4 seconds to mass click some stupid larvas, the funniest thing after showing the replay to a friend of mine who is "good" at BW, he tells me this "you can't copy such a strat because is too hard to use thats why we don't try and copy korean pros because we are not fast enough LOL that is so fucking sad really just because a stupid interfase, doesn't make any sense.
Then i switched to terran because i saw some replays, etc i realized that only koreans are good with terran because terran needs some intense vulture micro / mines micro, using siege tanks properly, building turrets to defend against anti-air etc, terran needs to use this in order to win, but you can't because you must go back in the middle of a battle to your base just to smash ur keyboard pressing V, T on ur 12 factorys, instead of actually microing in the fight, that is so damn boring losing to a guy that doesn't care at all about his units but only about mass clicking his 12 factorys, we wc3 players we are used to fight our battles, trying to outmicro our opponent in every fight, getting the best position, etc but on bw midd lev of play, this doesn't work but only mass clicking ur factorys.
Then i went back to zerg because i though terran was too hard for me, so i've started to beat some of my friends because all i did in midd long game was smashing my keyboard to mass more zerlings, lurkers, ultras or whatever, It was hilarius to beat a wc3 friend who was really putting an insane marine micro just because i massed faster than him, on the long road let's say 30 minutes i always beated him even tho sometimes i could lose my entire army killing a small supply. (we both have + 200 apm in wc3, reaching around 300 - 350 in battle, tho this is not good enough to mass and micro in BW thanks to thar retard'ed UI).
1. While I personally believe that MBS will lessen the game, I also acknowledge the possibility that, in the context of SC2, it may also have the opposite effect. Time will tell.
2. You appear to assume that an easier game will be more popular. That is not always the case. And remember: the original SC had no problems whatsoever becoming popular and developing a fanbase without MBS. That is reality, not theory.
3. Your argument that noobs are necessary to create a fanbase for SC2 in order to make the game viable as a professional sport is just silly. You keep beating that dog over the head (which is why I finally decided to address you directly), but it's a patently absurd argument in the context of SC2. SC2 already has a fanbase. It will have a critical mass of players from the get-go regardless of whether MBS is implemented or not. Whether you are for or against MBS, that feature will not determine the formation of a fanbase for SC2. Give me a break.
4. If you had the experience I have speaking with players in PC rooms all over Korea, you would realize that the average non-professional player of the game in that video game madhouse prefers a more difficult game and that nerf features like MBS would be a turnoff for most fans - not a selling point. I am already hearing gripes from the Koreans who have heard about the feature, but have yet to hear any substantial numbers put forth a favorable view of MBS. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence nonetheless.
5. What about those players outside of Korea? They are irrelevant. NBA basketball has a global following precisely because its rules cater to a limited fanbase (fans based in major urban centers in the United States) who are already knowledgeable about the game, who are experienced and who want a game that has standards of excellence that the average person cannot hope to attain. No one wants to see Michael Jordan dunking on a hoop that's been shortened to accomodate the average fan. People outside the core basketball centers (fans in China, South America, Europe, Mongolia, wherever) don't complain - they marvel and aspire. Same deal with any of the major spectator sports with a global fanbase.
For SC pro gaming, Korea is the gold standard. It is the Majors. That is just the way it is. SC 2 should be built with that market in mind - and the rest of the world will follow and, in the end, the fans will thank you for it.
6. If Blizzard is serious about releasing a game designed with professional gaming built into its DNA, then introducing a feature that, at least in isolation (and we have no other way of analysis at this point) makes the game play easier, seems counterintuitive.
Of course, reality is weird. It has a way of confounding logic and disrupting a priori analysis. Reality sets its own rules and determines its own outcomes. So, MBS may, in fact, turn out to be the best thing to happen to the game. Like I said, time will tell.
But, my point is, ORANGEDUDE, you have no rational basis for being so certain. You are too certain of your conclusions and you should not be. I know I'm not.
I hope you do not respond. Best to channel your energies on others. Kudos again for setting out your thoughts to begin with. That's more contribution than most.
p.s. Some of you may not know me too well since I have been away for sime time. SC2 has brought me back. Let me remind you of my propensity - I am different from the other mods and admins. I do not mind a good argument, but if I find your response juvenile, deficient and/or obviously (to me) the product of an immature mind, I may ban you. Free speech is for democracies. I require a modicum of standards here. Think carefully before you write and choose your words wisely. Sometimes, I eat crow and will acknowledge it. But, 98 times out of 100, it is best simply not to respond to my ramblings and move on.
Maybe I can raise the level of this discussion by claiming that even the best performing progamers like Savior, Stork or Iris cannot even come close to perfection in sc:bw. My personal guess is ~70% efficiency when they have a good day. But this is exactly what makes them so good, because we average people are probably at 20-50%. Maximum. I guess progamers would come close to 100% if SC2 has MBS and automining and no option to turn it off (and we could come close to 95% in my opinion). How many Bisus and Hwasins do you guys need? In 2 years we may have hundreds of them all over the world. Imagine! Does anybody like to see the same games happen over and over again? OSL Game No. 2759 we present you the Beesuit strategy pulled out perfectly for the 500th time *yawn*.
On October 03 2007 14:23 Aphelion wrote: No, BS. aw]nevermind NEVER appreciated the game of SC for what is, so that question is completely moot. His claims of War3 greatness are suspect anyways, together with the rest of his story? A B.net troll is hardly the best evidence to support your argument.
Why did aw]nevermind not appreciate the game of SC? It was the UI. He gave very clear examples of exactly what pissed him off initially at first, until finally he couldn't take it anymore. I'll post his explanation here if you want to read it again. He IS a competitive player and so was his whole clan. That's the point I made and you haven't refuted this.
I am quite sure that many other War3 players will think the same way. READ Grubby's post if you still don't believe me. He has one of the best attitudes out there of any War3 player.
On October 03 2007 14:23 Aphelion wrote: I guarantee you that at least 90% of anyone who has an idea of APM would play SC2, even if they wanted MBS and didn't get it. What are they going to turn to? WC3? Most WC3 and SC players would DEFINITELY not be deterred by a lack of MBS. From what Lazerflip says, neither will most truly competitive RTS players.
But how many of that 90% will stay and try to play competitively? That's a totally different story, and it could be far lower due to lacking of MBS. Where is your solid proof that allows you to use the words "DEFINITELY" here?
Lazerflip has never even played SC, so that's not exactly someone to take the most objective stand point from.
On October 03 2007 14:23 Aphelion wrote: And if you think any other "potential experts" with 150+apm will not play the game - your delusional.
There's already a whole clan to prove you wrong, so maybe I'm not the one that's delusional. That's hard evidence, which you don't have.
Have you even read his posts? Complaining about him microing his ass off while the "D- macro noob just made more units and won?". You call that understanding the game of SC? And a bunch of proclaimed War3 clan members is hard evidence? Puh-leeze. What about some of the best foreign SC players in the world posting here just to state their page long complaints against MBS? Even some who rarely post at all?
And what makes me think that a 150apm+ player will play competitively? Its because he already showed initiative in to the competitive scene. 150-200apm players are ALREADY playing competitively. If they play SC2 - they will play competitively. That you even question this point shows you are either a idiot or just here for the sake of winning a debate, one which you devoted your ONLY posts to on this forum.
And Lazerflip not playing SC is now ruining his credibility? Weren't you dismissing SC veterans a while back because "they haven't played much other RTS games and only played SC?" With all the talk about comparing to the precedent set by other RTSes, won't Lazerflip have even MORE credibility by being a competitive RTS player from a non-SC background.
On October 03 2007 14:45 mensrea wrote: Orangedude,
1. While I personally believe that MBS will lessen the game, I also acknowledge the possibility that, in the context of SC2, it may also have the opposite effect. Time will tell.
2. You appear to assume that an easier game will be more popular. That is not always the case. And remember: the original SC had no problems whatsoever becoming popular and developing a fanbase without MBS. That is reality, not theory.
3. Your argument that noobs are necessary to create a fanbase for SC2 in order to make the game viable as a professional sport is just silly. You keep beating that dog over the head (which is why I finally decided to address you directly), but it's a patently absurd argument in the context of SC2. SC2 already has a fanbase. It will have a critical mass of players from the get-go regardless of whether MBS is implemented or not. Whether you are for or against MBS, that feature will not determine the formation of a fanbase for SC2. Give me a break.
4. If you had the experience I have speaking with players in PC rooms all over Korea, you would realize that the average non-professional player of the game in that video game madhouse prefers a more difficult game and that nerf features like MBS would be a turnoff for most fans - not a selling point. I am already hearing gripes from the Koreans who have heard about the feature, but have yet to hear any substantial numbers put forth a favorable view of MBS. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence nonetheless.
5. What about those players outside of Korea? They are irrelevant. NBA basketball has a global following precisely because its rules cater to a limited fanbase (fans based in major urban centers in the United States) who are already knowledgeable about the game, who are experienced and who want a game that has standards of excellence that the average person cannot hope to attain. No one wants to see Michael Jordan dunking on a hoop that's been shortened to accomodate the average fan. People outside the core basketball centers (fans in China, South America, Europe, Mongolia, wherever) don't complain - they marvel and aspire. Same deal with any of the major spectator sports with a global fanbase.
For SC pro gaming, Korea is the gold standard. It is the Majors. That is just the way it is. SC 2 should be built with that market in mind - and the rest of the world will follow and, in the end, the fans will thank you for it.
6. If Blizzard is serious about releasing a game designed with professional gaming built into its DNA, then introducing a feature that, at least in isolation (and we have no other way of analysis at this point) makes the game play easier, seems counterintuitive.
Of course, reality is weird. It has a way of confounding logic and disrupting a priori analysis. Reality sets its own rules and determines its own outcomes. So, MBS may, in fact, turn out to be the best thing to happen to the game. Like I said, time will tell.
But, my point is, ORANGEDUDE, you have no rational basis for being so certain. You are too certain of your conclusions and you should not be. I know I'm not.
I hope you do not respond. Best to channel your energies on others. Kudos again for setting out your thoughts to begin with. That's more contribution than most.
I will respond in a straightforward manner, so I hope you don't have any reason to be upset with me.
1) Agreed.
2) But SC had the easiest UI to use when it was released compared to all other RTS at the time. It was easier than AOE, TA and whatever else was available at the time. As was War3 when it was released a few years later.
There's also inductive evidence all over the world that a game or sport that is easier to pick up is often more popular than a harder game to learn. For example, poker is extremely easy to learn and is also more popular than bridge. Basketball, soccer, football are more popular than curling, golf, and chess.
3) Indeed, there will be a critical mass of noobs for SC2, but how many of those will stay long enough to go pro? Many could be turned away from competitive play due to lack of MBS. That's my main argument, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this as well.
4) I do not doubt this, nor am I surprised at this. Koreans would probably love everything about SC considering that they've embraced it as a national sport.
5) But what if you can capture both with SC2 by including MBS? Or at least greatly expand the non-Korean scene? In the end it's up to Blizzard to decide.
6) Agreed.
Mensrea, I am not certain at all. I have repeatedly stated that I am taking a wait-and-see approach towards SC2 much like you are. However, many other posters have taken a 100% belief that MBS will be the worst thing to ever happen to SC2. So I sometimes feel compelled to bring a sense of balance here.
And before you bring up the "broaden the pro scene" argument again - I challenge you, do you honestly think that an RTS can make it as a serious e-sport in USA or even Europe? A scene that is worth us losing our 10 year old perfect game for? This is obviously the crux of your argument, the sacrificing of gameplay to achieve some noble goal in esports. You've been bringing it up as a deux ex machina for your arguments for so long now - its time to back it up.
We can make a separate topic for this if you want, specifically addressing this possibility. And be forewarned - teams like MYM paying players $100 a year to play in online clan leagues don't count. I want to see a feasible scenario to lead to something similar to that in Korea: the booming of mainstream industry. I do not see this happening within 5 years of SC2's release. I will debate this to the death with you if you want. Pick up the gauntlet if you dare.
On October 03 2007 15:03 Aphelion wrote: And before you bring up the "broaden the pro scene" argument again - I challenge you, do you honestly think that an RTS can make it as a serious e-sport in USA or even Europe? A scene that is worth us losing our 10 year old perfect game for? This is obviously the crux of your argument, the sacrificing of gameplay to achieve some noble goal in esports. You've been bringing it up as a deux ex machina for your arguments for so long now - its time to back it up.
We can make a separate topic for this if you want, specifically addressing this possibility. And be forewarned - teams like MYM paying players $100 a year to play in online clan leagues don't count. I want to see a feasible scenario to lead to something similar to that in Korea: the booming of mainstream industry. I do not see this happening within 5 years of SC2's release. I will debate this to the death with you if you want. Pick up the gauntlet if you dare.
On October 03 2007 13:59 orangedude wrote: I'm not going to kid myself here. I'm not expecting SC2 matches to start showing up on my TV anytime soon like in Korea, but that doesn't mean it can't experience a large amount of growth. I think it can at the very least expand and overtake the CS pro-scene if Blizzard does it right. However, again it must attract a large fanbase first of all before this will be possible.
Anyways, let's calm down here. We can do this without losing our tempers. It seems like you are the one who would like to win a debate more than me here.
to me.. a Warcraft 3 players oppenion doesnt mean much.. for the fact he plays wc3 for a reason.. this is not WC4.. this is SC2 so its disregarded to me.. Yes i have made my mind set up 100% .. i agree with tasteless, Blizzard should have MBS in the game.. but not in the Competitive ladder games.. that way the newbs who feel they need it to play, can have it and be pleased~ and then the Real competitive players can show there skill for years and years to come~
Its a Win Win Situation ~ Blizzard should really think about applying this~
Seriously, this is not a good way to go Aphelion. I share many of your thoughts but this is just going to get ridiculous now.
On October 03 2007 15:09 Lz wrote: to me.. a Warcraft 3 players oppenion doesnt mean much.. for the fact he plays wc3 for a reason.. this is not WC4.. this is SC2 so its disregarded to me.. Yes i have made my mind set up 100% .. i agree with tasteless, Blizzard should have MBS in the game.. but not in the Competitive ladder games.. that way the newbs who feel they need it to play, can have it and be pleased~ and then the Real competitive players can show there skill for years and years to come~
Its a Win Win Situation ~ Blizzard should really think about applying this~
Or how about making 2 different ladders, one with MBS/automining and one without?
On October 03 2007 14:45 mensrea wrote: Orangedude,
1. While I personally believe that MBS will lessen the game, I also acknowledge the possibility that, in the context of SC2, it may also have the opposite effect. Time will tell.
2. You appear to assume that an easier game will be more popular. That is not always the case. And remember: the original SC had no problems whatsoever becoming popular and developing a fanbase without MBS. That is reality, not theory.
3. Your argument that noobs are necessary to create a fanbase for SC2 in order to make the game viable as a professional sport is just silly. You keep beating that dog over the head (which is why I finally decided to address you directly), but it's a patently absurd argument in the context of SC2. SC2 already has a fanbase. It will have a critical mass of players from the get-go regardless of whether MBS is implemented or not. Whether you are for or against MBS, that feature will not determine the formation of a fanbase for SC2. Give me a break.
4. If you had the experience I have speaking with players in PC rooms all over Korea, you would realize that the average non-professional player of the game in that video game madhouse prefers a more difficult game and that nerf features like MBS would be a turnoff for most fans - not a selling point. I am already hearing gripes from the Koreans who have heard about the feature, but have yet to hear any substantial numbers put forth a favorable view of MBS. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence nonetheless.
5. What about those players outside of Korea? They are irrelevant. NBA basketball has a global following precisely because its rules cater to a limited fanbase (fans based in major urban centers in the United States) who are already knowledgeable about the game, who are experienced and who want a game that has standards of excellence that the average person cannot hope to attain. No one wants to see Michael Jordan dunking on a hoop that's been shortened to accomodate the average fan. People outside the core basketball centers (fans in China, South America, Europe, Mongolia, wherever) don't complain - they marvel and aspire. Same deal with any of the major spectator sports with a global fanbase.
For SC pro gaming, Korea is the gold standard. It is the Majors. That is just the way it is. SC 2 should be built with that market in mind - and the rest of the world will follow and, in the end, the fans will thank you for it.
6. If Blizzard is serious about releasing a game designed with professional gaming built into its DNA, then introducing a feature that, at least in isolation (and we have no other way of analysis at this point) makes the game play easier, seems counterintuitive.
Of course, reality is weird. It has a way of confounding logic and disrupting a priori analysis. Reality sets its own rules and determines its own outcomes. So, MBS may, in fact, turn out to be the best thing to happen to the game. Like I said, time will tell.
But, my point is, ORANGEDUDE, you have no rational basis for being so certain. You are too certain of your conclusions and you should not be. I know I'm not.
I hope you do not respond. Best to channel your energies on others. Kudos again for setting out your thoughts to begin with. That's more contribution than most.
3) Indeed, there will be a critical mass of noobs for SC2, but how many of those will stay long enough to go pro? Many could be turned away from competitive play due to lack of MBS. That's my main argument, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this as well.
what if the newbs can't go pro? what?... if they can't figure out how to use a keyboard and hotkeys i'm fairly sure they're going to be terrible in other areas as well. Using the keyboard isn't a magical god given gift, you just learn it by playing a lot, just like you do with micro and strategy. Those newbs who wont go pro will still remember SC2 as a challenging mind game that was a great spectator sport.
The important thing for an esport to grow is not to get as many progamers as possible, it's to get a game that is incredible to watch and very very difficult to master. Then you get a big fan base because they can be impressed by what's happening. It should be INCREDIBLY hard to become a progamer for SC2, that way it looks even more impressive as an esport.
I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time.
On October 03 2007 13:59 orangedude wrote: I'm not going to kid myself here. I'm not expecting SC2 matches to start showing up on my TV anytime soon like in Korea, but that doesn't mean it can't experience a large amount of growth. I think it can at the very least expand and overtake the CS pro-scene if Blizzard does it right. However, again it must attract a large fanbase first of all before this will be possible.
Your not getting away with such a vague argument. The casual FPS fanbase in U.S. is much broader and more skilled than the average RTS player. Competitive RTS is almost an alien concept. Just consider the game reviewers complaining about rushes and gushing about Superior Commander. It is still the idea of "big guns flashy lasers". FPS players here have mostly evolved beyond that.
Give me a plausible scenario where CS will be overtaken as a competitive sport within the opening years of SC2 release. That is a point which your argument has relied upon again and again - being something so far fetched and out of the way that no one had seriously challenged until Mensrea. Support it. Show me where, outside the current War3 / SC2 community, is this large pool of RTS players suddenly going to come from. Show me these amazing 150 apm players who won't play without MBS. Show these players with so much natural competitiveness to devote into a complex, game like RTS, yet without the devotion to over come MBS. List the companies that will battle the RTS nerd image to start up a solid competitive RTS industry. Convince me that the conservative, coorporate potbellies will buy into an idea of marketting a nerd game. Even Korea had it as a fluke. Show me U.S. and Europe can do so.
Lastly, illustrate to me that these pool of players is largely enough to sacrifice the competitiveness of the only worthwhile competitive RTS ever for. We're not giving up our precious game for your smokes and mirrors.
On October 03 2007 15:10 ForAdun wrote: Seriously, this is not a good way to go Aphelion. I share many of your thoughts but this is just going to get ridiculous now.
You are certainly right. But I am sick of watching him smother the points made by numerous well known players of the community by nitpicking their logical presentation and referring to unprovable and vague ideas. Some of the top players in the game make amazing post after amazing post, drawing from real-life examples of their playing experiences - yet he confounds the argument with thing air and zero substance.
On October 03 2007 14:45 mensrea wrote: Orangedude,
1. While I personally believe that MBS will lessen the game, I also acknowledge the possibility that, in the context of SC2, it may also have the opposite effect. Time will tell.
2. You appear to assume that an easier game will be more popular. That is not always the case. And remember: the original SC had no problems whatsoever becoming popular and developing a fanbase without MBS. That is reality, not theory.
3. Your argument that noobs are necessary to create a fanbase for SC2 in order to make the game viable as a professional sport is just silly. You keep beating that dog over the head (which is why I finally decided to address you directly), but it's a patently absurd argument in the context of SC2. SC2 already has a fanbase. It will have a critical mass of players from the get-go regardless of whether MBS is implemented or not. Whether you are for or against MBS, that feature will not determine the formation of a fanbase for SC2. Give me a break.
4. If you had the experience I have speaking with players in PC rooms all over Korea, you would realize that the average non-professional player of the game in that video game madhouse prefers a more difficult game and that nerf features like MBS would be a turnoff for most fans - not a selling point. I am already hearing gripes from the Koreans who have heard about the feature, but have yet to hear any substantial numbers put forth a favorable view of MBS. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence nonetheless.
5. What about those players outside of Korea? They are irrelevant. NBA basketball has a global following precisely because its rules cater to a limited fanbase (fans based in major urban centers in the United States) who are already knowledgeable about the game, who are experienced and who want a game that has standards of excellence that the average person cannot hope to attain. No one wants to see Michael Jordan dunking on a hoop that's been shortened to accomodate the average fan. People outside the core basketball centers (fans in China, South America, Europe, Mongolia, wherever) don't complain - they marvel and aspire. Same deal with any of the major spectator sports with a global fanbase.
For SC pro gaming, Korea is the gold standard. It is the Majors. That is just the way it is. SC 2 should be built with that market in mind - and the rest of the world will follow and, in the end, the fans will thank you for it.
6. If Blizzard is serious about releasing a game designed with professional gaming built into its DNA, then introducing a feature that, at least in isolation (and we have no other way of analysis at this point) makes the game play easier, seems counterintuitive.
Of course, reality is weird. It has a way of confounding logic and disrupting a priori analysis. Reality sets its own rules and determines its own outcomes. So, MBS may, in fact, turn out to be the best thing to happen to the game. Like I said, time will tell.
But, my point is, ORANGEDUDE, you have no rational basis for being so certain. You are too certain of your conclusions and you should not be. I know I'm not.
I hope you do not respond. Best to channel your energies on others. Kudos again for setting out your thoughts to begin with. That's more contribution than most.
3) Indeed, there will be a critical mass of noobs for SC2, but how many of those will stay long enough to go pro? Many could be turned away from competitive play due to lack of MBS. That's my main argument, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this as well.
what if the newbs can't go pro? what?... if they can't figure out how to use a keyboard and hotkeys i'm fairly sure they're going to be terrible in other areas as well. Using the keyboard isn't a magical god given gift, you just learn it by playing a lot, just like you do with micro and strategy. Those newbs who wont go pro will still remember SC2 as a challenging mind game that was a great spectator sport.
Would you rather those noobs remember SC2 as a challenging mind game or actually play competitively and contribute directly to the pro-scene? A larger scene directly results in more competition, more tournaments, more sponsors, and consequently more skill.
On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote: The important thing for an esport to grow is not to get as many progamers as possible, it's to get a game that is incredible to watch and very very difficult to master. Then you get a big fan base because they can be impressed by what's happening. It should be INCREDIBLY hard to become a progamer for SC2, that way it looks even more impressive as an esport.
They are both necessary requirements for a true thriving pro-scene. Tell me, Tasteless, if the exact circumstances in Korea with the large number of net-cafe's and FPS being banned hadn't occurred, do you honestly think SC would have grown to become the successful E-Sports scene we have today?
If it was only necessary to have an awesome game like SC (which I agree with) to become a successful E-Sport without attracting a large number of pros, then why has SC not completely dominated all other games outside of Korea including War3, CS, and so on?
On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote: I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time.
There is a large fundamental difference between being outmicroed by the other player and losing because the player felt the game was limiting him. In case one, he clearly knows that his opponent was simply a better player and used skill to defeat him. He will accept the loss (if he is a competitive player), because he knows he can improve if he keeps playing and it is entirely his own fault that he has lost.
On the other hand, if he thinks the game is at fault, he will not blame himself or the opponent, but only become pissed at the game for having an "archaic interface" designed by Blizzard to favor the SC veterans over any newer players. He will become increasingly frustrated as time goes on, and he may or may not quit playing competitively as a result.
This is what happened to someone like aw]nevermind if you read his post. Even though the player is the one truly at fault, it will not seem that way to him, because it is human nature to always find something to place blame on other than himself. That's why you get some bad-mannered players screaming at his opponent for being a "cheesing noob" or "got fucking lucky" whenever he loses to say a proxy-strat, even though it's perfectly legitimate and his own fault for not scouting it.
On October 03 2007 15:10 ForAdun wrote: Seriously, this is not a good way to go Aphelion. I share many of your thoughts but this is just going to get ridiculous now.
You are certainly right. But I am sick of watching him smother the points made by numerous well known players of the community by nitpicking their logical presentation and referring to unprovable and vague ideas. Some of the top players in the game make amazing post after amazing post, drawing from real-life examples of their playing experiences - yet he confounds the argument with thing air and zero substance.
When have I ever nitpicked their logical presentation? I go directly towards the meat, and I always use as many detailed real-life examples as I can. Thin air and zero substance is your opinion, perhaps because you do not agree with me. I can't draw from personal experience because I'm not a pro-gamer, but I can draw from others' experiences. Please don't falsely accuse me of not using logical argument, when I always try to make sure I do. If I have ever committed any logical fallacies, you are welcome to point them out. You also just shrugged away the most respected and intelligent War3 players' opinion like a noob's when I brought it up.
On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote: With that being said i think it's completely fair to put MBS as a setting for non competitive games. That way players who don't wish to master as many aspects of the game can still play on an easier setting and learn/enjoy the game. I can't possibly imagine newbs will be less impressed or completely turned off by pro players who can't use MBS in their games... if anything they'll be MORE impressed and want to play even more so they can master the game with out the crutch of MBS. if they don't/can't it's no problem since they can just play with friends online. I have yet to see a good argument to why MBS as a setting can't please both crowds and assure SC2's success as an esport and as a pass time game for fun. (and i don't think masturbating the ego of a random newbie is reason enough)
I think it's one possible solution, but it also brings a number of problems. Firstly, the community would be split right off the bat, with possibly every non-hardcore SC player starting off with MBS in the game (99:1?). When looking for games, would you rather play on a ladder with 1000s of people with equal skill level to you or play on a second ladder (with a more difficult UI), with far less due to it being made up of mainly the SC vets? As people get used to MBS, most will likely find it difficult to switch, as they would be used to the higher micro, less macro style of game and simply choose to stick with it.
Anyways, it could still work. I'm just a little bit skeptical if two modes will actually increase the # of pros who actively play SBS much beyond the current numbers in SC. Sponsors will basically go to whichever side has more competition, so you might end up with something like Korea (SBS) vs. rest of world (MBS). That's not necessarily a bad thing, if that's what you want.
On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote: also, orangedude, stop asserting that there is NO WAY a pc game magazine couldn't understand Blizzards explanation as to why SC2 needs SBS due to the korean proscene and keeping the game competitive. Any rational person can see this argument as a sound one. and if MBS is kept only as a setting for non competitive games i don't understand how some PC magazine is going to grade SC2 down because easy features like MBS aren't allowed on ladders, these people have brains too. Blizzard could put it in the single player:
easy mode: MBS/auto mining on hard mode: MBS/auto mining off
I've never asserted that a game magazine couldn't understand Blizzard's explanation. However, the actual people and potential pros playing might not buy it, especially when they're looking for a reason to blame for their losses. Even the competitive players migrating from other games like War3 could be turned away, and that's a very large RTS skill pool that SC2 could be missing out on.
On October 03 2007 14:45 mensrea wrote: Orangedude,
1. While I personally believe that MBS will lessen the game, I also acknowledge the possibility that, in the context of SC2, it may also have the opposite effect. Time will tell.
2. You appear to assume that an easier game will be more popular. That is not always the case. And remember: the original SC had no problems whatsoever becoming popular and developing a fanbase without MBS. That is reality, not theory.
3. Your argument that noobs are necessary to create a fanbase for SC2 in order to make the game viable as a professional sport is just silly. You keep beating that dog over the head (which is why I finally decided to address you directly), but it's a patently absurd argument in the context of SC2. SC2 already has a fanbase. It will have a critical mass of players from the get-go regardless of whether MBS is implemented or not. Whether you are for or against MBS, that feature will not determine the formation of a fanbase for SC2. Give me a break.
4. If you had the experience I have speaking with players in PC rooms all over Korea, you would realize that the average non-professional player of the game in that video game madhouse prefers a more difficult game and that nerf features like MBS would be a turnoff for most fans - not a selling point. I am already hearing gripes from the Koreans who have heard about the feature, but have yet to hear any substantial numbers put forth a favorable view of MBS. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence nonetheless.
5. What about those players outside of Korea? They are irrelevant. NBA basketball has a global following precisely because its rules cater to a limited fanbase (fans based in major urban centers in the United States) who are already knowledgeable about the game, who are experienced and who want a game that has standards of excellence that the average person cannot hope to attain. No one wants to see Michael Jordan dunking on a hoop that's been shortened to accomodate the average fan. People outside the core basketball centers (fans in China, South America, Europe, Mongolia, wherever) don't complain - they marvel and aspire. Same deal with any of the major spectator sports with a global fanbase.
For SC pro gaming, Korea is the gold standard. It is the Majors. That is just the way it is. SC 2 should be built with that market in mind - and the rest of the world will follow and, in the end, the fans will thank you for it.
6. If Blizzard is serious about releasing a game designed with professional gaming built into its DNA, then introducing a feature that, at least in isolation (and we have no other way of analysis at this point) makes the game play easier, seems counterintuitive.
Of course, reality is weird. It has a way of confounding logic and disrupting a priori analysis. Reality sets its own rules and determines its own outcomes. So, MBS may, in fact, turn out to be the best thing to happen to the game. Like I said, time will tell.
But, my point is, ORANGEDUDE, you have no rational basis for being so certain. You are too certain of your conclusions and you should not be. I know I'm not.
I hope you do not respond. Best to channel your energies on others. Kudos again for setting out your thoughts to begin with. That's more contribution than most.
3) Indeed, there will be a critical mass of noobs for SC2, but how many of those will stay long enough to go pro? Many could be turned away from competitive play due to lack of MBS. That's my main argument, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this as well.
what if the newbs can't go pro? what?... if they can't figure out how to use a keyboard and hotkeys i'm fairly sure they're going to be terrible in other areas as well. Using the keyboard isn't a magical god given gift, you just learn it by playing a lot, just like you do with micro and strategy. Those newbs who wont go pro will still remember SC2 as a challenging mind game that was a great spectator sport.
Would you rather those noobs remember SC2 as a challenging mind game or actually play competitively and contribute directly to the pro-scene. A larger scene directly results in more competition, more tournaments, more sponsors, and consequently more skill.
On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote: The important thing for an esport to grow is not to get as many progamers as possible, it's to get a game that is incredible to watch and very very difficult to master. Then you get a big fan base because they can be impressed by what's happening. It should be INCREDIBLY hard to become a progamer for SC2, that way it looks even more impressive as an esport.
They are both necessary requirements for a true thriving pro-scene. Tell me, Tasteless, if the exact circumstances in Korea with the large number of net-cafe's and FPS being banned hadn't occurred, do you honestly think SC would have grown to become the successful E-Sports scene we have today?
If it was only necessary to have an awesome game like SC (which I agree with) to become a successful E-Sport without attracting a large number of pros, then why has SC not completely dominated all other games outside of Korea including War3, CS, and so on.
On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote: I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time.
There is a large fundamental difference in being outmicroed by the other player than losing to another because he felt the game was limiting him. In case one, he clearly knows that his opponent was simply a better player and used skill to defeat him. He will accept the loss (if he is a competitive player), because he knows he can improve if he keeps playing and it is entirely his own fault that he has lost.
On the other hand, if he thinks the game is at fault, he will not blame himself or the opponent, but only become pissed at the game for having an "archaic interface" designed by Blizzard to favor the SC veterans over any newer players. He will become increasingly frustrated as time goes on, and he may or may not quit playing competitively as a result.
This is what happened to someone like aw]nevermind if you read his post. Even though the player is the one truly at fault, it will not seem that way to him, because it is human nature to always find something to place blame on other than himself. That's why you get some bad-mannered players screaming at his opponent for being a "cheesing noob" or "got fucking lucky" whenever he loses to say a proxy-strat, even though it's perfectly legitimate and his own fault for not scouting it.
1) if we had to start hosting SC ladders as BGH only to get more people to play would it really be a good thing? If we had to have more tee ball tournaments instead of baseball ones because everyone can hit a teeball would it really benefit the sports scene? Are these incredibly stubborn players who refuse to learn challenging games really going to contribute to the esports scene? No.
2) you are wrong and misinformed, firstly, SC is not in other major tournaments because of it's out dated graphics, this is what i have been told by SO many people that actually work in the esports scene, and it doesn't surprise me. Esports tournaments outside korea are light years behind right now, if SC1 was remade with SC2's graphics it would be in every esports tournament in the world.
FPS games are not banned in korea, i went to several PC bangs and saw CS being played, i even saw CS on the big screen at the Olympic stadium during WEG. they won't really put FPS games on TV because it's too violent, just like they wont put FPS games on TV anywhere...
3) this is a category you've arbitrarily imposed on the game. the difficulty of micro has just as high a chance of scaring players away as the difficulty of macro, you can not prove otherwise since both require incredible skill to utilize. By your logic we should get rid of the option of rushes all together so new players wont get mad if they lose to fast. I really don't care if stubborn crappy players blame the difficult UI as a reason not to master the game. I have no problem with aw]nevermind playing war3 because the interface is easier. SC is a scary and intimidating game thus making it the ultimate esport, it should stay that way.
Also, i'm growing tired of repeating these arguments and correcting completely incorrect facts in this MBS thread. You realize you didn't even know how to go 4d5d6d on the keyboard when you started this thread. Yet after learning some hand positions i taught you on battle.net you've tossed them aside (like most of tl.nets good arguments against you) and continued babbling about how crucial MBS is with incoherent facts and illogical assertions. This feels much like arguing about golf with a player who never even bothered to hold a golf club right and instead argues that we need a special machine we can program a golf stroke into that will hit the ball for us, and then golf will be improved (when it obviously won't).
i still don't see why MBS can't just be a setting for non competitve play.
We're at the point where we're starting to reduce the credibility of the others (e.g. "noob", "no experience", "close-minded") instead of providing real arguments. This discussion is pretty much dead.
I'll just add that I think the following method would be the best Blizzard can do:
Keep MBS in the game until beta, then test the game thoroughly, and if it turns out to be genuinely bad and there's no way that you could compensate for it, then remove it altogether.
If MBS has to be removed (I hope not, because I like micro much more than macro, but I'll accept it anyway), they could advertise SBS as being an important and good feature easily (by saying that the game needs to be competitive enough etc. blah). When the reviewers and newbies (who can't play) know this, they'll probably not give SC2 worse ratings because of no MBS.
On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote: With that being said i think it's completely fair to put MBS as a setting for non competitive games. That way players who don't wish to master as many aspects of the game can still play on an easier setting and learn/enjoy the game. I can't possibly imagine newbs will be less impressed or completely turned off by pro players who can't use MBS in their games... if anything they'll be MORE impressed and want to play even more so they can master the game with out the crutch of MBS. if they don't/can't it's no problem since they can just play with friends online. I have yet to see a good argument to why MBS as a setting can't please both crowds and assure SC2's success as an esport and as a pass time game for fun. (and i don't think masturbating the ego of a random newbie is reason enough)
I think it's one possible solution, but it also brings a number of problems. Firstly, the community would be split right off the bat, with possibly every non-hardcore SC player starting off with MBS in the game (99:1?). When looking for games, would you rather play on a ladder with 1000s of people with equal skill level to you or play on a second ladder (with a more difficult UI), with far less due to it being made up of mainly the SC vets? As people get used to MBS, most will likely find it difficult to switch, as they would be used to the higher micro, less macro style of game and simply choose to stick with it.
Anyways, it could still work. I'm just a little bit skeptical if two modes will actually increase the # of pros who actively play SBS much beyond the current numbers in SC. Sponsors will basically go to whichever side has more competition, so you might end up with something like Korea (SBS) vs. rest of world (MBS). That's not necessarily a bad thing, if that's what you want.
On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote: also, orangedude, stop asserting that there is NO WAY a pc game magazine couldn't understand Blizzards explanation as to why SC2 needs SBS due to the korean proscene and keeping the game competitive. Any rational person can see this argument as a sound one. and if MBS is kept only as a setting for non competitive games i don't understand how some PC magazine is going to grade SC2 down because easy features like MBS aren't allowed on ladders, these people have brains too. Blizzard could put it in the single player:
easy mode: MBS/auto mining on hard mode: MBS/auto mining off
I've never asserted that a game magazine couldn't understand Blizzard's explanation. However, the actual people and potential pros playing might not buy it, especially when they're looking for a reason to blame for their losses. Even the competitive players migrating from other games like War3 could be turned away, and that's a very large RTS skill pool that SC2 could be missing out on.
1) ,there are an assload of split communities in SC, ums, bgh, etc, making another one for all the high strung, stubborn UI blaming newbies your talking about won't be a problem. i know many bgh players who find normal maps too hard to play, that's fine. MBS wouldn't be an option at tournaments with my hypothesis because it won't be allowed for competitive play, only casual play. This seem like a failsafe way to keep newbies happy and progamers competitive.
2) I don't think most pc magazines and potential progamers are as blame hungry as you say, true competitive players want challenge (as i see it) and if they can't handle it, they can go play MBS in casual play and still have fun.
Blizzard will find a way to make the game more macro intensive while retaining MBS. However if anti-MBS people cannot accept that macro is much more than pressing 0z9z8z7z every few seconds or treat that (0z9z8z7z) as an essential, indispensable part of macro, then I guess both camps should just agree to disagree as the argument just keeps going and going without getting somewhere, anywhere. Which is pretty unfortunate.
Test MBS in beta. Then see if it works or not. Then argue.
On October 03 2007 16:18 MyLostTemple wrote: 1) ,there are an assload of split communities in SC, ums, bgh, etc, making another one for all the high strung, stubborn UI blaming newbies your talking about won't be a problem. i know many bgh players who find normal maps too hard to play, that's fine. MBS wouldn't be an option at tournaments with my hypothesis because it won't be allowed for competitive play, only casual play. This seem like a failsafe way to keep newbies happy and progamers competitive.
No need to split the community even further. Normal melee 1v1/2v2 on normal-money maps should be the same for everyone. Let the splits, if they happen, come naturally, not because you designed two fundamentally different modes of gameplay.
As I've said previously, it would be extremely hard for a new player who starts out with MBS to adapt to SBS once it turns out that all leagues and the whole competitive scene plays SBS. Or the other way round, you all start out with SBS, then after some time all leagues change to MBS because it has a bigger following. Suddenly you have to learn the game again...
Blizzard should not let that happen. The fundamental game should be the same for everyone. Either MBS is in, or it's out. No toggle.
The other splits happen naturally. Some players will stick with UMS games, some with BGH style money maps. But the fundamental "rules" of the game (MBS/SBS is very fundamental/important) in melee mode should be the same for everyone, so that there is always "one true way" of playing the game, not multiple "true ways".
On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote: With that being said i think it's completely fair to put MBS as a setting for non competitive games. That way players who don't wish to master as many aspects of the game can still play on an easier setting and learn/enjoy the game. I can't possibly imagine newbs will be less impressed or completely turned off by pro players who can't use MBS in their games... if anything they'll be MORE impressed and want to play even more so they can master the game with out the crutch of MBS. if they don't/can't it's no problem since they can just play with friends online. I have yet to see a good argument to why MBS as a setting can't please both crowds and assure SC2's success as an esport and as a pass time game for fun. (and i don't think masturbating the ego of a random newbie is reason enough)
I think it's one possible solution, but it also brings a number of problems. Firstly, the community would be split right off the bat, with possibly every non-hardcore SC player starting off with MBS in the game (99:1?). When looking for games, would you rather play on a ladder with 1000s of people with equal skill level to you or play on a second ladder (with a more difficult UI), with far less due to it being made up of mainly the SC vets? As people get used to MBS, most will likely find it difficult to switch, as they would be used to the higher micro, less macro style of game and simply choose to stick with it.
Anyways, it could still work. I'm just a little bit skeptical if two modes will actually increase the # of pros who actively play SBS much beyond the current numbers in SC. Sponsors will basically go to whichever side has more competition, so you might end up with something like Korea (SBS) vs. rest of world (MBS). That's not necessarily a bad thing, if that's what you want.
That's one interesting thing to talk about. I'd like to compare this directly to some learning stuff in sc:bw. Specifically about hotkeys and I'll be talking about my experience. When I started playing sc:bw 5 1/2 years ago I prefered the Zerg. It was natural for me to use hotkeys on hatcheries as much as on units. I had a logical system which started from 0 for the hatcheries and from 1 for the units so the hotkeys meet. This is logical because it is simple and easy to understand. But it was impossible for me to use 7 to 0 with the left hand only so every time I went through my hatcheries I used my right hand for 7 to 0 and my left hand for sd/sz/sh/whatever. That was no problem for me since I have been a musician - means I was using both hands doing different things at the same time. Later I saw replays where the Zerg players used the hotkeys from 4 to 0 for the hatcheries and some of them were progamers so I was confused. How the hell could they do that? I tried around but I never had a clue. I could not forget it, but I didn't want to think about it anymore and went back to my old system. Then I switched to the Terran and you all know what that means: new hotkey system. For example I had to learn to use m&ms correctly. I never really made it. Out of interest I took a look into the Help Menu and found out that I can use the F-keys to my advantage so that I can improve my macro. Of course that took quite some time and after every game I asked myself if I actually used the F-keys?? Some of you may know what I'm talking about haha I kept training Terran for some years with small jumps to Protoss and back, then someday I realised that my hotkey system for Terran was not good enough! Especially my old TvZ 1marine2marine3marine4medic5tank6vessel7dropship8scan9scan0scan system was just mad. I wasn't lazy so I worked out a new system and learned it, it was much better but it took me about 3 or more months to delete my knowledge and renew it. I need to improve my english, the last sentence is horrible. For TvP I had to learn a different system. For TvT too. It was real hard work. In the end I had a good system for each matchup but as a whole it took me 4 years to work them out and learn to use them automatically in game.
My point is simple: If I can relearn hotkey systems every half a year then anyone can relearn once in his life that he has to live without MBS or automining. No kidding.
On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote: I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time.
There is a large fundamental difference between being outmicroed by the other player and losing because the player felt the game was limiting him. In case one, he clearly knows that his opponent was simply a better player and used skill to defeat him. He will accept the loss (if he is a competitive player), because he knows he can improve if he keeps playing and it is entirely his own fault that he has lost.
On the other hand, if he thinks the game is at fault, he will not blame himself or the opponent, but only become pissed at the game for having an "archaic interface" designed by Blizzard to favor the SC veterans over any newer players. He will become increasingly frustrated as time goes on, and he may or may not quit playing competitively as a result.
This is what happened to someone like aw]nevermind if you read his post. Even though the player is the one truly at fault, it will not seem that way to him, because it is human nature to always find something to place blame on other than himself. That's why you get some bad-mannered players screaming at his opponent for being a "cheesing noob" or "got fucking lucky" whenever he loses to say a proxy-strat, even though it's perfectly legitimate and his own fault for not scouting it.
orangedude,
You are just not making any sense. I thought of trying to logically explain to you where you are wrong but looking at your recent posts and the very good posters that tried to talk to you, it looks like you are just "locked" on your views and that you wish to avoid a logical discussion.
Nearly everything that can be said about this subject has already been written. Honestly I recommend that you just sit down and calmly read this thread with a cold glass of lemonade.
On October 03 2007 11:02 BlackStar wrote: 'Clicking agility' is not part of SC.
Hahaha, this is hilarious. I just received this PM:
This is a Warning!
On October 03 2007 11:02 BlackStar wrote: 'Clicking agility' is not part of SC.
"Clicking agility" definitely is a part of SC, just like clicking precision, clicking speed, and keyboard speed is.
Your statement is very ignorant and is akin to saying "leg speed is not a part of soccer."
Please do not make blanket ignorant statements without sufficient evidence. Making arguments with inferior or incomplete knowledge is just as bad as making incorrect arguments.
Thank you.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, The Mod Staff
(Do not reply to this message. No one will receive it.)
No offense but I think talking about 'clicking agility' when you mean much more than that is very degrading and inaccurate wording talking about the skills required to play Starcraft.
I am sure that the best players use exactly the same technique, if you can even speak of that, to click their mouse button as everyone else does. Aiming, sure. Keyboard, sure. But clicking? Huh?
It's very ignorant?
This is not the first time. A mod earlier tried to ban me because he misunderstood what I said very badly. Luckily he was overruled or realized his mistake. But what is up with this?
What is 'clicking speed'? Who writes all these things? This has been written by the mod staff? Is this a hoax? I would expect some more respect for the skill required to plat SC from the mod staff of a competitive SC site.
On October 03 2007 17:45 Brutalisk wrote: As I've said previously, it would be extremely hard for a new player who starts out with MBS to adapt to SBS once it turns out that all leagues and the whole competitive scene plays SBS. Or the other way round, you all start out with SBS, then after some time all leagues change to MBS because it has a bigger following. Suddenly you have to learn the game again...
I didnt get into starcraft until 2005. After playing many MBS RTS games. I didnt have any problem learning. You seem to overestimate the difficulty of clicking individual barracks. People will learn very fast.
However that being said, I still agree to have 2 modes of play. Easy and Hard mode. Hard mode will be where all the competative players will be, because its challenging and the competition will be that much higher. Easy mode will be where everyone else is. When someone tops the easy mode ladder, chances are they are competative players in the wrong ladder and will move across for more competition. Or they might be happy and stay. A player that gets frustrated at the Hard mode ladder will turn around and blame the game (because they cant handle the fact that they are crap) and justify playing on the easy ladder because its (more natural progression, no pointless clicks etc) Either way, the competative players arent going to be playing the noobs anyway. AMM will match people of similar skill, no player that has bought the game is going to get matched up with Savior. People will find their ladder and be happy. If Everyone ends up on the one ladder, then so be it, it was the more popular option. But people should have a choice. Blizzard shold treat both ladders as equally important. Competition organisers can choose which ruleset they want. EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY.
EDIT:
What is 'clicking speed'? Who writes all these things?
Clicking speed in starcraft is the speed at which you can move the mouse to the position you want it to be and click. Someone with fast clicking speed can quickly flick their mouse to a barracks and hit a hotkey, then flick to another and hit another hotkey etc. In FPS clicking speed is the same as your reaction time (the time it takes to move the mouse and blow someones head off)
On October 03 2007 19:52 Fen wrote: Clicking speed in starcraft is the speed at which you can move the mouse to the position you want it to be and click.
That's mouse speed, of better; 'mouse agility'. 'Clicking' isn't moving, of course. But I can also see the reaction time thing.
Also, I wouldnt reccommend[sic] pissing off the mods.
Nope, you are right. They have a bit of a temper. So I better be careful.
On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote: I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time.
There is a large fundamental difference between being outmicroed by the other player and losing because the player felt the game was limiting him. In case one, he clearly knows that his opponent was simply a better player and used skill to defeat him. He will accept the loss (if he is a competitive player), because he knows he can improve if he keeps playing and it is entirely his own fault that he has lost.
On the other hand, if he thinks the game is at fault, he will not blame himself or the opponent, but only become pissed at the game for having an "archaic interface" designed by Blizzard to favor the SC veterans over any newer players. He will become increasingly frustrated as time goes on, and he may or may not quit playing competitively as a result.
This is what happened to someone like aw]nevermind if you read his post. Even though the player is the one truly at fault, it will not seem that way to him, because it is human nature to always find something to place blame on other than himself. That's why you get some bad-mannered players screaming at his opponent for being a "cheesing noob" or "got fucking lucky" whenever he loses to say a proxy-strat, even though it's perfectly legitimate and his own fault for not scouting it.
orangedude,
You are just not making any sense. I thought of trying to logically explain to you where you are wrong but looking at your recent posts and the very good posters that tried to talk to you, it looks like you are just "locked" on your views and that you wish to avoid a logical discussion.
Nearly everything that can be said about this subject has already been written. Honestly I recommend that you just sit down and calmly read this thread with a cold glass of lemonade.
I posted that exactly because I want a logical discussion. If I didn't, why I would even post it here. By writing this post and attacking me, you are stating that you do not want to start one. Honestly, please tell me where you think my logic doesn't hold here. I can just as easily say others are "locked" onto their views as well and everything has already been written.
Neither of you two is clearly wrong or right, you have your points and you made them clear so nothing's wrong. You don't need to fight. You both should re-read what you both posted or you should quit posting. For the topic and for us.
On October 03 2007 15:03 Aphelion wrote: And before you bring up the "broaden the pro scene" argument again - I challenge you, do you honestly think that an RTS can make it as a serious e-sport in USA or even Europe? A scene that is worth us losing our 10 year old perfect game for? This is obviously the crux of your argument, the sacrificing of gameplay to achieve some noble goal in esports. You've been bringing it up as a deux ex machina for your arguments for so long now - its time to back it up.
We can make a separate topic for this if you want, specifically addressing this possibility. And be forewarned - teams like MYM paying players $100 a year to play in online clan leagues don't count. I want to see a feasible scenario to lead to something similar to that in Korea: the booming of mainstream industry. I do not see this happening within 5 years of SC2's release. I will debate this to the death with you if you want. Pick up the gauntlet if you dare.
You do realise MYM pay moon ~150k a year at the moment to play W3 for them? And he's not an isolated case. It's not as big as what Korean companies are paying SC players, but it's not insignificant. Assuming SC2 is a decent game, the interest in it in Europe and China will expand the current W3 e-sport scene immensely. I can easily see hundreds of gamers on decent salaries sponsored by European and Chinese companies within a year of SC2's release.
MBS is stupid, period. It's for newb games, made for newbie gamers.
SC is a competative / skilled game.
If you are too crappy to give good players a good game on Starcraft and it's unacceptable to you.
Here are your options. 1. Practice harder 2. Play War3
Don't post a "im pissed off" thread and try and ruin (potentially) a great game, so that you can be as unskilled in SC2 as you are in SC1 and actually win some games.
I don't care about your reasoning, I don't care about your debate skills. MBS is newbie and if you think it has a place in SC2, get the fuck off tl.net, gg.net, wgtour.com, uninstall sc and make sure I never see your ID again because you don't belong in this community.
now be manner and say GG and GTFO cuss you don't get a re when it comes to this subject and Starcraft.
I just want to state that lazerflip is hardly one of the best CnC3 players, he didnt even make it out of the US regionals. He is also a balance whiner and from his posts about cnc3 he had really no understanding at all about that game. And most cnc3 players, even the top ones, DO want mbs in sc2 also.
Btw, just to note, ive looked around on other forums and this is the only one ive seen were the discussion didnt end a long time ago with the pro anti mbs side giving up due to the mass of pro mbs posts. You are alone in this fight, or probably a lot of koreans are with you but i cant look up their boards since they dont talk english.
You know, if Blizzard had thought of how the game would be played, and the idea of MBS, they would have had it in Warcraft 1, day one. Let alone War2, SC, BW, etc. Are we really to believe that their lack of foresight and diligence in providing an optimal interface has by sheer luck provided the perfect game?
This all reminds me of how people always say SC:BW is perfectly balanced, despite that those same people said the same thing about significantly different balances, and despite the thousands of signs of the balance's lack of divinity. We know Blizzard didn't do any of this. The players did, the map authors did. So why do you think one feature is going to make it impossible?
edit: And it was listening to "authorities" at the time that got us War3. Let's not assume people know what makes a good game just because they became good at one.
On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote: Btw, just to note, ive looked around on other forums and this is the only one ive seen were the discussion didnt end a long time ago with the pro anti mbs side giving up due to the mass of pro mbs posts. You are alone in this fight, or probably a lot of koreans are with you but i cant look up their boards since they dont talk english.
btw, just to note, starcraft sold around 10 million copies worldwide. 3.5 million of those copies sold were in korea, and due to the nature of pc bang culture, much more than 3.5 million people have played starcraft in south korea.
On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote: I just want to state that lazerflip is hardly one of the best CnC3 players, he didnt even make it out of the US regionals. He is also a balance whiner and from his posts about cnc3 he had really no understanding at all about that game. And most cnc3 players, even the top ones, DO want mbs in sc2 also.
Why would anyone here care about what someone who doesn't even play the game thinks?
That's like adding body checking into soccer in America, because most Americans think it's boring, too hard, etc.
On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote: Btw, just to note, ive looked around on other forums and this is the only one ive seen were the discussion didnt end a long time ago with the pro anti mbs side giving up due to the mass of pro mbs posts. You are alone in this fight, or probably a lot of koreans are with you but i cant look up their boards since they dont talk english.
btw, just to note, starcraft sold around 10 million copies worldwide. 3.5 million of those copies sold were in korea, and due to the nature of pc bang culture, much more than 3.5 million people have played starcraft in south korea.
and no, koreans do not like MBS.
i would hardly call that "alone".
What is the basis for saying koreans don't like MBS? Because they prefer SC1 over War3? Because they don't think MBS would be good in SC1? Neither of those things tell us whether MBS is right for SC2: there are many reasons why SC1 can be preferred to War3, and MBS is not one of them; MBS in SC1 would obviously ruin it because it has grown up without it. If SC1 had MBS at the start would it be a horrible game now, approaching a decade later? We don't know. And we also don't know how MBS effects SC2, because we don't know SC2. MBS fits in perfectly with many, many RTS's, and taking it away from those games would not make them better. Most others, taking away MBS would not really change much. So why do we think taking MBS out of SC2 is going to "save" it? Completely fallacious. Unless the millions of koreans you're talking about have played SC2 with and without MBS, for about 10 years, we are jumping to conclusions.
On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote: Btw, just to note, ive looked around on other forums and this is the only one ive seen were the discussion didnt end a long time ago with the pro anti mbs side giving up due to the mass of pro mbs posts. You are alone in this fight, or probably a lot of koreans are with you but i cant look up their boards since they dont talk english.
On October 04 2007 00:37 G5 wrote: this thread is still going on? wow...
MBS is stupid, period. It's for newb games, made for newbie gamers.
SC is a competative / skilled game.
If you are too crappy to give good players a good game on Starcraft and it's unacceptable to you.
Here are your options. 1. Practice harder 2. Play War3
Don't post a "im pissed off" thread and try and ruin (potentially) a great game, so that you can be as unskilled in SC2 as you are in SC1 and actually win some games.
I don't care about your reasoning, I don't care about your debate skills. MBS is newbie and if you think it has a place in SC2, get the fuck off tl.net, gg.net, wgtour.com, uninstall sc and make sure I never see your ID again because you don't belong in this community.
now be manner and say GG and GTFO cuss you don't get a re when it comes to this subject and Starcraft.
Well Put Eric, this is how i feel.. Let SC be SC with no mbs/automine .. and WC be WC.. with automine/mbs thats the way it should be.. Blizzard said when they first announced it.. that it was going to be Like the First one.. so if thats the case.. keep automine/mbs out of the freakin game.. if CC3 players or WC3 players dont like it becasue its to hard.. Ship them over to WC3 the newb friendly game.. becasue we dont want any newb friendly game.. if we did.. we would be WC3,CC3,AoE3 gamers instead of SC. even tho im all for the idea.. of having MBS in SC as a game Type.. that way the newbs can enjoy there mbs and the Ladder/competitive play.. with NO MBS~
On October 03 2007 14:45 mensrea wrote: Orangedude,
1. While I personally believe that MBS will lessen the game, I also acknowledge the possibility that, in the context of SC2, it may also have the opposite effect. Time will tell.
2. You appear to assume that an easier game will be more popular. That is not always the case. And remember: the original SC had no problems whatsoever becoming popular and developing a fanbase without MBS. That is reality, not theory.
3. Your argument that noobs are necessary to create a fanbase for SC2 in order to make the game viable as a professional sport is just silly. You keep beating that dog over the head (which is why I finally decided to address you directly), but it's a patently absurd argument in the context of SC2. SC2 already has a fanbase. It will have a critical mass of players from the get-go regardless of whether MBS is implemented or not. Whether you are for or against MBS, that feature will not determine the formation of a fanbase for SC2. Give me a break.
4. If you had the experience I have speaking with players in PC rooms all over Korea, you would realize that the average non-professional player of the game in that video game madhouse prefers a more difficult game and that nerf features like MBS would be a turnoff for most fans - not a selling point. I am already hearing gripes from the Koreans who have heard about the feature, but have yet to hear any substantial numbers put forth a favorable view of MBS. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence nonetheless.
5. What about those players outside of Korea? They are irrelevant. NBA basketball has a global following precisely because its rules cater to a limited fanbase (fans based in major urban centers in the United States) who are already knowledgeable about the game, who are experienced and who want a game that has standards of excellence that the average person cannot hope to attain. No one wants to see Michael Jordan dunking on a hoop that's been shortened to accomodate the average fan. People outside the core basketball centers (fans in China, South America, Europe, Mongolia, wherever) don't complain - they marvel and aspire. Same deal with any of the major spectator sports with a global fanbase.
For SC pro gaming, Korea is the gold standard. It is the Majors. That is just the way it is. SC 2 should be built with that market in mind - and the rest of the world will follow and, in the end, the fans will thank you for it.
6. If Blizzard is serious about releasing a game designed with professional gaming built into its DNA, then introducing a feature that, at least in isolation (and we have no other way of analysis at this point) makes the game play easier, seems counterintuitive.
Of course, reality is weird. It has a way of confounding logic and disrupting a priori analysis. Reality sets its own rules and determines its own outcomes. So, MBS may, in fact, turn out to be the best thing to happen to the game. Like I said, time will tell.
But, my point is, ORANGEDUDE, you have no rational basis for being so certain. You are too certain of your conclusions and you should not be. I know I'm not.
I hope you do not respond. Best to channel your energies on others. Kudos again for setting out your thoughts to begin with. That's more contribution than most.
3) Indeed, there will be a critical mass of noobs for SC2, but how many of those will stay long enough to go pro? Many could be turned away from competitive play due to lack of MBS. That's my main argument, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this as well.
what if the newbs can't go pro? what?... if they can't figure out how to use a keyboard and hotkeys i'm fairly sure they're going to be terrible in other areas as well. Using the keyboard isn't a magical god given gift, you just learn it by playing a lot, just like you do with micro and strategy. Those newbs who wont go pro will still remember SC2 as a challenging mind game that was a great spectator sport.
Would you rather those noobs remember SC2 as a challenging mind game or actually play competitively and contribute directly to the pro-scene. A larger scene directly results in more competition, more tournaments, more sponsors, and consequently more skill.
On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote: The important thing for an esport to grow is not to get as many progamers as possible, it's to get a game that is incredible to watch and very very difficult to master. Then you get a big fan base because they can be impressed by what's happening. It should be INCREDIBLY hard to become a progamer for SC2, that way it looks even more impressive as an esport.
They are both necessary requirements for a true thriving pro-scene. Tell me, Tasteless, if the exact circumstances in Korea with the large number of net-cafe's and FPS being banned hadn't occurred, do you honestly think SC would have grown to become the successful E-Sports scene we have today?
If it was only necessary to have an awesome game like SC (which I agree with) to become a successful E-Sport without attracting a large number of pros, then why has SC not completely dominated all other games outside of Korea including War3, CS, and so on.
On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote: I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time.
There is a large fundamental difference in being outmicroed by the other player than losing to another because he felt the game was limiting him. In case one, he clearly knows that his opponent was simply a better player and used skill to defeat him. He will accept the loss (if he is a competitive player), because he knows he can improve if he keeps playing and it is entirely his own fault that he has lost.
On the other hand, if he thinks the game is at fault, he will not blame himself or the opponent, but only become pissed at the game for having an "archaic interface" designed by Blizzard to favor the SC veterans over any newer players. He will become increasingly frustrated as time goes on, and he may or may not quit playing competitively as a result.
This is what happened to someone like aw]nevermind if you read his post. Even though the player is the one truly at fault, it will not seem that way to him, because it is human nature to always find something to place blame on other than himself. That's why you get some bad-mannered players screaming at his opponent for being a "cheesing noob" or "got fucking lucky" whenever he loses to say a proxy-strat, even though it's perfectly legitimate and his own fault for not scouting it.
1) if we had to start hosting SC ladders as BGH only to get more people to play would it really be a good thing? If we had to have more tee ball tournaments instead of baseball ones because everyone can hit a teeball would it really benefit the sports scene? Are these incredibly stubborn players who refuse to learn challenging games really going to contribute to the esports scene? No.
2) you are wrong and misinformed, firstly, SC is not in other major tournaments because of it's out dated graphics, this is what i have been told by SO many people that actually work in the esports scene, and it doesn't surprise me. Esports tournaments outside korea are light years behind right now, if SC1 was remade with SC2's graphics it would be in every esports tournament in the world.
FPS games are not banned in korea, i went to several PC bangs and saw CS being played, i even saw CS on the big screen at the Olympic stadium during WEG. they won't really put FPS games on TV because it's too violent, just like they wont put FPS games on TV anywhere...
3) this is a category you've arbitrarily imposed on the game. the difficulty of micro has just as high a chance of scaring players away as the difficulty of macro, you can not prove otherwise since both require incredible skill to utilize. By your logic we should get rid of the option of rushes all together so new players wont get mad if they lose to fast. I really don't care if stubborn crappy players blame the difficult UI as a reason not to master the game. I have no problem with aw]nevermind playing war3 because the interface is easier. SC is a scary and intimidating game thus making it the ultimate esport, it should stay that way.
Also, i'm growing tired of repeating these arguments and correcting completely incorrect facts in this MBS thread. You realize you didn't even know how to go 4d5d6d on the keyboard when you started this thread. Yet after learning some hand positions i taught you on battle.net you've tossed them aside (like most of tl.nets good arguments against you) and continued babbling about how crucial MBS is with incoherent facts and illogical assertions. This feels much like arguing about golf with a player who never even bothered to hold a golf club right and instead argues that we need a special machine we can program a golf stroke into that will hit the ball for us, and then golf will be improved (when it obviously won't).
I don't really want to argue with you Tasteless, so I'll stop after this. Anyways, I'll post my last few opinions on these points.
1) I'm quoting you here: "Using the keyboard isn't a magical god given gift, you just learn it by playing a lot, just like you do with micro and strategy." That means every noob can potentially become a pro, assuming they have sufficient motivation to do so. This can be due to love of the game, the fact that they enjoy a challenge or both. My point is that frustrations with the UI can cause many potential pros to lose motivation, even if they have a competitive attitude (such as pros from another RTS, or they never would've become pro). We can disagree with how significant this will be, but I think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show this will at least happen to some degree if MBS was not included.
2) CS has equally dated graphics as SC, but it's still going strong today. Anyways, I don't disagree with you here. I was just posing an actual question there (not rhetorical), since you should be quite knowledgeable about the E-sports scene. I'm not sure what you thought I implied.
I believe FPS games were banned from net cafes at the time of when SC gained popularity, so a game like CS never had the same chance to truly catch on in Korea. (I read this from someone else, so I'm not 100% sure if this was true. I apologize if I am wrong about this). Anyways, I just wanted to ask a question (was not intended to be rhetorical). Do you not agree, that both establishing a large player base and a suitable competitive game are necessary requirements for a true thriving pro-scene?
3) That's fine if you think they're just stubborn and shouldn't be playing SC at all. I'm just illustrating how we could be losing out on a large pool of RTS skill by turning away many potential competitive players if MBS was not included. Also my point was not that the "difficulty" of macro turning away players, but more that they believe the UI is at fault and is limiting them rather than their own inherent abilities. Again, this is human nature that we always try to find anything else to blame before our own skills, ranging from "hacks, cheese, luck, lag, imbalance, etc". However, anytime it appears to the player that the game is at fault, this is always a very bad thing and can cause people to lose their motivation to play competitively.
People will never go on the BNet forums and complain about how "omg, I lost again because this guy beat me by outmicroing me. this game sucks." and expect to be taken seriously. However, post the same topic with "omg, I lost again because of the outdated UI and this guy just clicked buildings faster than me. this game sucks" when SC2 is released, and many people could be in agreement.
4) As am I, so that's why I'm going to leave these points with you and stop arguing, as it's clearly not leading anywhere. I appreciate you trying to teach the hand positions, but I don't plan on going pro with SC anytime soon. I tried to use them and it just put me out of my comfort zone that I established from years of play. I more enjoy watching entertaining high-skill level SC matches atm, because I don't have that much time to practice.
People will never go on the BNet forums and complain about how "omg, I lost again because this guy beat me by outmicroing me. this game sucks." and expect to be taken seriously. However, post the same topic with "omg, I lost again because of the outdated UI and this guy just clicked buildings faster than me. this game sucks" when SC2 is released, and many people could be in agreement.
Actually, that was precisely my thoughts about the game when I first started playing. I thought micro was retarded, and took away strategy. I thought that micro players were just people abusing the game mechanics, and that battles should always reflect unit choice and unit cost.
Not proud of it, but just shows that noobs will complain about anything - micro or macro, justified or not. Just ignore them, like people did me - and they will appreciate it and learn. Like Mensrea said, the noobs will thank you for it.
People will never go on the BNet forums and complain about how "omg, I lost again because this guy beat me by outmicroing me. this game sucks." and expect to be taken seriously. However, post the same topic with "omg, I lost again because of the outdated UI and this guy just clicked buildings faster than me. this game sucks" when SC2 is released, and many people could be in agreement.
Actually, that was precisely my thoughts about the game when I first started playing. I thought micro was retarded, and took away strategy. I thought that micro players were just people abusing the game mechanics, and that battles should always reflect unit choice and unit cost.
Not proud of it, but just shows that noobs will complain about anything - micro or macro, justified or not. Just ignore them, like people did me - and they will appreciate it and learn. Like Mensrea said, the noobs will thank you for it.
I agree that noobs will complain about anything, but I'm talking about even potential pros and actual pros switching over from other RTS's could have that kind of complaint about an outdated UI (e.g. Grubby made very clear mention of this).
Also, I've never seen any posts like this about micro as an official complaint to Blizzard. I also don't think anyone else will take it seriously if you did. You can bet that you would see a ton of the second kind if SC2 was released without MBS and you might get a lot of agreement from all sorts of players, especially those who haven't played SC competitively all these years.
So why take macro complaints seriously? Both are retarded, macro and micro are equally important parts of SC - even if the noobs don't perceive it to be so.
On October 04 2007 03:44 Aphelion wrote: So why take macro complaints seriously? Both are retarded, macro and micro are equally important parts of SC - even if the noobs don't perceive it to be so.
That's why I was trying to explain the fundamental differences between the two in that post. Most people aside from complete noobs will eventually realize that micro is not a fault of the game, because the game is giving you every tool (UI) to allow you to micro as efficiently as possible (e.g. hotkeys). They'll most likely simply understand that they got outplayed by someone more skilled than themselves.
Macro can also be difficult, but I think it's the fact that they can lay the blame on the outdated UI that gives the player (even someone who has 150-250 apm, and is far from being noob) the reassurance that they're absolutely right in their opinion and you will never convince them otherwise. Again, read aw]nevermind's comments for this exact mindset (although he certainly could've presented himself better) and Grubby's for a more professional opinion.
Thats their problem. I was blaming the AI. There is no DIFFERENCE between one and the other, just that one has more people complaining about it. Both are wrong, and both should be ignored.
Anyways, I recall a few months back there being a link posted to one of the superior commander forums, and the the topic was them argueing about SupCom > SC. Macro wasn't a major problem for most of these casual RTS players, but they had a huge huge problem with micro. Micro was viewed the way I used to viewed it, as an abuse of AI which took away from true battlefield simulation strategy. One of their exact quotes was "in real life battle you don't tell your soldiers to take cover, they do so automatically. I don't want to lose to some no life geek just because he can click faster and more accurately. Thats not strategy".
There are people who will quit over the presence and difficulty of micro, just as there will be people displeased over the difficulty of macro without MBS. Ignore them. SC has shown unequivocably that both are fun, skill based tasks for a competitive game. March bravely forward without these noobs. You can't please all the people all the time - make the best game you can, and the noobs will thank you for it.
On October 04 2007 03:48 orangedude wrote: Macro can also be difficult, but I think it's the fact that they can lay the blame on the outdated UI that gives the player (even someone who has 150-200 apm, and is far from being noob) the reassurance that they're absolutely right in their opinion and you will never convince them otherwise.
Even if they wish for their to be MBS, the vast majority of players competitive enough to train for 200 apm will not quit due to lack of MBS. Moot point.
this is pretty sad. It really is about making the game easier isnt it? How can you sit there and think that a game that is STILL this big with professionals etc could somehow benefit from a dumbed down version of itself?
On October 04 2007 03:58 Aphelion wrote: Thats their problem. I was blaming the AI. There is no DIFFERENCE between one and the other, just that one has more people complaining about it. Both are wrong, and both should be ignored.
Anyways, I recall a few months back there being a link posted to one of the superior commander forums, and the the topic was them argueing about SupCom > SC. Macro wasn't a major problem for most of these casual RTS players, but they had a huge huge problem with micro. Micro was viewed the way I used to viewed it, as an abuse of AI which took away from true battlefield simulation strategy. One of their exact quotes was "in real life battle you don't tell your soldiers to take cover, they do so automatically. I don't want to lose to some no life geek just because he can click faster and more accurately. Thats not strategy".
There are people who will quit over the presence and difficulty of micro, just as there will be people displeased over the difficulty of macro without MBS. Ignore them. SC has shown unequivocably that both are fun, skill based tasks for a competitive game. March bravely forward without these noobs. You can't please all the people all the time - make the best game you can, and the noobs will thank you for it.
Good of you to bring in a real example, but I think there there is a difference here. These players who made those complaints are probably simply casual players with no intention of competing whatsoever, so a game like SupCom is fine for their personal preferences. However, the issue with MBS is that not only noobs, but even a decent to good player or potential pro may believe that he has legitimate grounds to complain about an outdated UI in SC2.
Again, there is anecdotal evidence to support this case. Just like you have anecdotal evidence to support that some people will not like MBS.
On October 04 2007 03:48 orangedude wrote: Macro can also be difficult, but I think it's the fact that they can lay the blame on the outdated UI that gives the player (even someone who has 150-200 apm, and is far from being noob) the reassurance that they're absolutely right in their opinion and you will never convince them otherwise.
Even if they wish for their to be MBS, the vast majority of players competitive enough to train for 200 apm will not quit due to lack of MBS. Moot point.
How sure are you of this, because there is evidence to suggest this is true in some cases (e.g. aw]nevermind + his clan) and not necessarily true in others. It's not a moot point. I think there would need to be a real poll on a pro-gaming related website, like GGL or something to find out.
On October 04 2007 03:44 Aphelion wrote: So why take macro complaints seriously? Both are retarded, macro and micro are equally important parts of SC - even if the noobs don't perceive it to be so.
lol are you serious? Even when people didn't do this fast exp strategy and had to deal with pro-maps that didn't look like BGH, the common consensus was that macro was far more important than micro in Starcraft. You could get much further with 1sd2sh3sh5sh even during the Boxer/Nada era than you could with great unit control, and the importance of micro has been diminishing ever since.
No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to overcome.
And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, I think you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked.
If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for. Burden of proof would mean that you need to make convincing enough arguments as to convince Blizzard to turn back all the UI changes made to SC2 back to BW's.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to overcome.
And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, I think you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
You are certainly underestimating the power of userfriendlyness, just like many many others.
You know why WoW broke the barrier of ~1 mil total mmorpg players that people thought before wow it was impossible to break, and not only did wow break it, it did break it with an extremely large margin making it much larger than all other mmorpgs together. It was not beacuse of the graphics, it was not beacuse the game required skill, it was not beacuse of the lore or that blizzard made it or that it was a very deep game. It all boils down to that the whole game was designed to be userfriendly, with some deep stuff tacked on to that.
When starcraft were released not many played computer games, they were much less mainstream than they are today. If starcraft 2 can reach the new masses wich arent blessed with the divinity of starcraft gameplay it can revolutionise the RTS competetive scene just like WoW set a totally new mmorpg standard.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked. If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
1.) Well, everyone thinks their point is legitimate. But it either is or isn't, no matter how they feel about it. And it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more.
2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus. Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to:
-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm
-doesn't have devotion to play without MBS
-motivated enough to be a "potential pro"
-appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS
A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked. If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
1.) Well, it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more.
2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus. Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to:
-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm
-doesn't have devotion to play without MBS
-motivated enough to be a "potential pro"
-appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS
A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.
And I feel that the anti-MBS people want to hurt the quality of the game so that the game is more suitable for THEM to play. With no MBS and no automine, you can stay on top with the exact same skillset that let you be good at SC1. Why then, do you even care about SC2 if you're perfectly satisfied with SC1 and think it is the definitive, perfect game that cannot be eclipsed? A pro who wants certain features that will allow him to win more easily isn't any less biased than a newb who wants certain features so that he can win more easily.
I would be the first to benefit from MBS, I can tell you that. My multitasking in battles is horrendous, and I end up with a lot of money after. Given that I am a mostly macro style of player, you can see this really, really hurts me.
And there is no cause to say no MBS hurts the quality of the game. SC is the best game ever made, and I feel it to be perfect. SC2 cannot suffer from emulating it.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked. If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
1.) Well, it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more.
No you don't, because they are not applying those changes to SC. They are creating a new game with its own new UI, many new units, and a new name, SC2. It may in fact hold up to SC's standard in RTS quality, even it uses a brand new UI. It might work out, or it might not. I don't claim to know for sure, so we will see in beta.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: 2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus.
You are right, maybe my definitions are a bit vague so I'll try to define them in a clearer way then. The way I envision the player base works is like a pyramid or hierarchy. Only certain players move up a step in the ladder if they enjoy the game (not frustrated) and are kept motivated and playing for a long enough time.
I believe it's more likely that these micro-hating noobs will realize in time that it's their own fault rather than the game's, because it's not the UI that is really limiting their micro. I do see your point though, but I think that these micro-complaints are far less pronounced and short-term than complaints about a UI that is limiting their macro. Again I say this, because you will see this type of behavior on boards and whatnot from anyone, noob to even from decent players, while you will rarely ever see a decent player finding fault in the game for allowing micro. Anyways, this is what I think and you can disagree with me if you want.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to:
-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm
-doesn't have devotion to play without MBS
-motivated enough to be a "potential pro"
-appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS
A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.
I think any decent player from any other RTS out there (including War3) could potentially fall into the above category. Since SC2 is a new game, there will of course be a lot of decent people migrating from other games as well. That's nothing to laugh at, considering there are more War3 players outside of Korea than SC players. That's an already established skill pool, which can immediately jumpstart the competitive scene.
But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" from the newbie level that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.
Also, could you please stop with the personal remarks? I could just as easily turn around and say that you want SBS in the game at least somewhat to retain your macro skill from SC and transfer them to SC2 and you are afraid to diminish this advantage over other players. But personal attacks don't lead anywhere.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: -competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm
lol, noone have 150-200 apm untill they train it up, and when they have trained it up very few cant have that kind of apm. Anyone that likes a game enough to continue playing it is a potential pro, only already established pros go to a game with the intention to be pro at it.
And this isnt only about making as many pros as possible, its more about getting an as large fanbase as possible. More fans = more money = more tournaments = more gamers trying to go pro = more pro gamers = success in all parts. It doesnt matter if the fans are noobs or starcraft oldies, they both counts for just as much for sponsor money.
And its small things such as mbs that makes the difference of a great impression of the game or a super impression of the game for a new player, and thats not a joke these things matter a ton.
orangedude, you don't have an accurate idea of bw's skill hierarchy, and that casts some doubt on to your ability to project what sc2 needs in order to live up to it. ultimately what's important is that sc2 be a great game, not a 'different' game. starcraft, after all, is clearly a great game, and when you're following in the footesteps of something great, it seems like a pretty poor idea to deliberately do things differently unless you've got a very accurate idea about what actually can be improved.
most pro-MBS arguments have simply ignored all the indirect consequences of MBS, and are happy to go on pretending that those consequences just don't exist.
the other problem with your analysis is that your potential player base is decidedly skewed in favor of your pro-MBS argument. two of your four criterion end in 'but will not play without MBS.' it's the height of circularity to approach the subject that way, especially when you're yet to provide any evidence that the number of these diehard MBS-demanders are really such an impotant fraction of potential customers.
competitiveness in starcraft has an absolutely huge negative correlation with being for MBS. not a single good player in any of these MBS threads has said anything in favor of MBS. the group of people you're arguing that SC2 should cater to may not even exist. it may be that most competitive RTS gamers don't think MBS should be in the game, and thus would definitely play the game if it didn't have MBS.
On October 04 2007 06:20 Failsafe wrote: the group of people you're arguing that SC2 should cater to may not even exist.
Are you serious? In every other english speaking forum ive seen the pro mbs side wins this argumentation hands down due to the general population being very skewed towards it. Sure on every forum theres a few who argues for it, but theyre all overrun in the end by the sheer spam of the mass pro mbs posters.
On October 04 2007 06:20 Failsafe wrote: orangedude, you don't have an accurate idea of bw's skill hierarchy, and that casts some doubt on to your ability to project what sc2 needs in order to live up to it. ultimately what's important is that sc2 be a great game, not a 'different' game. starcraft, after all, is clearly a great game, and when you're following in the footesteps of something great, it seems like a pretty poor idea to deliberately do things differently unless you've got a very accurate idea about what actually can be improved.
most pro-MBS arguments have simply ignored all the indirect consequences of MBS, and are happy to go on pretending that those consequences just don't exist.
the other problem with your analysis is that your potential player base is decidedly skewed in favor of your pro-MBS argument. two of your four criterion end in 'but will not play without MBS.' it's the height of circularity to approach the subject that way, especially when you're yet to provide any evidence that the number of these diehard MBS-demanders are really such an impotant fraction of potential customers.
competitiveness in starcraft has an absolutely huge negative correlation with being for MBS. not a single good player in any of these MBS threads has said anything in favor of MBS. the group of people you're arguing that SC2 should cater to may not even exist. it may be that most competitive RTS gamers don't think MBS should be in the game, and thus would definitely play the game if it didn't have MBS.
1) Yes, my pyramid was just an approximate model of the way I envision it. I never claimed it was a perfectly accurate representation (APMs are just included as an arbitrary guideline and may not apply). If there's something majorly wrong with it (other than requiring additional steps), then please correct me. I will gladly change it if necessary.
2) Also, I believe you are missing one significant point in your reasoning. Ultimately, in order to be successful as an E-Sport, a game has to be both a great game AND be able to attract a large fanbase WHILE keeping them happy and moving up the pyramid. I am emphasizing the point that removing MBS may be quite detrimental to keeping many players happy (and advancing upwards) as they get frustrated by an artificially limiting UI.
3) I am aware of the indirect consequences of MBS and I will leave the others to argue that side, however I am focusing on a different matter.
4) Those criterion were phrased by Aphelion. The fourth is redundant IMO and can be removed or combined with second. However, it's not circular logic at all if you think about it, because there's plenty of evidence to support the existence of such a group of people. If there was not a significant proportion of the customers that prefer MBS in an RTS game today, then it would have been foolish for Blizzard to have replied with such certainty to the question concerning MBS.
The fact is that it's almost a non-existent issue anywhere else and people have pretty much accepted MBS as a feature. This is evidence supporting that the fanbase is largely pro-MBS, or else there should be public outrage throughout the Blizzard's own SC2 forums where they can exchange direct feedback from reps.
Finally, assuming that game developers design their games to suit their audience, is it just a coincidence that all RTS games in the past 10 years have featured MBS? This is strong evidence to show that the majority prefer MBS for unit production in their UI.
On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote: I just want to state that lazerflip is hardly one of the best CnC3 players, he didnt even make it out of the US regionals. He is also a balance whiner and from his posts about cnc3 he had really no understanding at all about that game. And most cnc3 players, even the top ones, DO want mbs in sc2 also.
i dont think many people took your arguments very seriously to begin with, but flat out lying isnt gonna help. im pretty sure lazerflip made it past regionals as i met him at nationals.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked. If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
1.) Well, it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more.
No you don't, because they are not applying those changes to SC. They are creating a new game with its own new UI, many new units, and a new name, SC2. It may in fact hold up to SC's standard in RTS quality, even it uses a brand new UI. It might work out, or it might not. I don't claim to know for sure, so we will see in beta.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: 2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus.
You are right, maybe my definitions are a bit vague so I'll try to define them in a clearer way then. The way I envision the player base works is like a pyramid or hierarchy. Only certain players move up a step in the ladder if they enjoy the game (not frustrated) and are kept motivated and playing for a long enough time.
I believe it's more likely that these micro-hating noobs will realize in time that it's their own fault rather than the game's, because it's not the UI that is really limiting their micro. I do see your point though, but I do think that these micro-complaints will be far less pronounced and short-term than complaints about a UI that is limiting their macro. Again I say this, because you will see this type of behavior on boards and whatnot even from decent players. Anyways, this is what I think and you can disagree with me if you want.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to:
-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm
-doesn't have devotion to play without MBS
-motivated enough to be a "potential pro"
-appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS
A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.
I think any decent player from any other RTS out there (including War3) could potentially fall into the above category. Since SC2 is a new game, there will of course be a lot of decent people migrating from other games as well. That's nothing to laugh at, considering there are more War3 players outside of Korea than SC players. That's an already established skill pool, which can immediately jumpstart the competitive scene.
But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.
Also, could you please stop with the personal remarks? I could just as easily turn around and say that you want SBS in the game at least somewhat to retain your macro skill from SC and transfer them to SC2 and you are afraid to diminish this advantage over other players. But personal attacks don't lead anywhere.
1.) Hatred of macro and micro are not just restricted to SC - but SC2 and any RTS. In all these cases they are illegitimate. This even more as SC2 must be made based upon successes and features from SC, which also happens to be the pinnacle and defining RTS. Your arbitrary "oh thats just SC1" argument holds no water here.
2.) Your pyramid is fucked and just wrong. You overestimate the people in the middling two categories by FAR and underestimate the number of people who are already very good or very bad. Those are also the two groups that your MBS doesn't really cater to. The people who fit the criteria of those benefitting from MBS are just another niche, just a less skilled one. They also happen to have mostly not appreciated SC enough to stuck with it over other games.
3.) We SC players hate WC3. Blizzard has defined them to be separate genres. Don't give up our ONLY game, a BETTER game, to appease them.
I am toneing down the personal remarks to an absolute minimum. But after 30 pages of nonsensical fillibustering and spewing out flawed argument after flawed argument, of ignoring Tasteless's advice and nitpicking the heartfelt arguments of several highly skilled players - all by a poster who has come and posted on almost exclusively this topic - your motivations must be called into question. This is especially since you fit a profile which would benefit most, selfishly speaking, from MBS. TL is this way: your standing in this community will affect how your argument is taken. Don't mistake it for a formal debate.
You can turn the ad hominem on me if you wish. Just you know, several posters here can attest to my horrible multitasking and macro, and that I would benefit greatly from MBS, more than the average player. And if its a question of personal credentials, the credibility who are anti-MBS far outweighs those who are for it.
On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote: I just want to state that lazerflip is hardly one of the best CnC3 players, he didnt even make it out of the US regionals. He is also a balance whiner and from his posts about cnc3 he had really no understanding at all about that game. And most cnc3 players, even the top ones, DO want mbs in sc2 also.
i dont think many people took your arguments very seriously to begin with, but flat out lying isnt gonna help. im pretty sure lazerflip made it past regionals as i met him at nationals.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked. If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
1.) Well, it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more.
No you don't, because they are not applying those changes to SC. They are creating a new game with its own new UI, many new units, and a new name, SC2. It may in fact hold up to SC's standard in RTS quality, even it uses a brand new UI. It might work out, or it might not. I don't claim to know for sure, so we will see in beta.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: 2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus.
You are right, maybe my definitions are a bit vague so I'll try to define them in a clearer way then. The way I envision the player base works is like a pyramid or hierarchy. Only certain players move up a step in the ladder if they enjoy the game (not frustrated) and are kept motivated and playing for a long enough time.
I believe it's more likely that these micro-hating noobs will realize in time that it's their own fault rather than the game's, because it's not the UI that is really limiting their micro. I do see your point though, but I do think that these micro-complaints will be far less pronounced and short-term than complaints about a UI that is limiting their macro. Again I say this, because you will see this type of behavior on boards and whatnot even from decent players. Anyways, this is what I think and you can disagree with me if you want.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to:
-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm
-doesn't have devotion to play without MBS
-motivated enough to be a "potential pro"
-appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS
A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.
I think any decent player from any other RTS out there (including War3) could potentially fall into the above category. Since SC2 is a new game, there will of course be a lot of decent people migrating from other games as well. That's nothing to laugh at, considering there are more War3 players outside of Korea than SC players. That's an already established skill pool, which can immediately jumpstart the competitive scene.
But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.
Also, could you please stop with the personal remarks? I could just as easily turn around and say that you want SBS in the game at least somewhat to retain your macro skill from SC and transfer them to SC2 and you are afraid to diminish this advantage over other players. But personal attacks don't lead anywhere.
1.) Hatred of macro and micro are not just restricted to SC - but SC2 and any RTS. In all these cases they are illegitimate. This even more as SC2 must be made based upon successes and features from SC, which also happens to be the pinnacle and defining RTS. Your arbitrary "oh thats just SC1" argument holds no water here.
No, you're missing my point again. There's a difference between "hating micro" or "hating macro" and "hating macro due to limited UI". The former two cannot be reconciled at all if the game is to be called SC2, while the third can be easily alleviated by adding MBS to the game's UI. If you're going to tell me there's no more macro in SC2 after adding MBS, then go argue with the other people, as I'm not about to get into that.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: 2.) Your pyramid is fucked and just wrong. You overestimate the people in the middling two categories by FAR and underestimate the number of people who are already very good or very bad. Those are also the two groups that your MBS doesn't really cater to. The people who fit the criteria of those benefitting from MBS are just another niche, just a less skilled one. They also happen to have mostly not appreciated SC enough to stuck with it over other games.
Of course, its just a fucking representation made in Paint. Of course I know that there are a LOT fewer people as you move up the pyramid. Have you ever seen a pyramid diagram before? The levels aren't necessarily to scale, since it's really only important that it decreases as you move up. Plus, I had to fit all that text in.
I just realized that you must've totally missed this paragraph, so read my post more carefully before making baseless comments.
On October 04 2007 04:29 orangedude wrote: But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" from the newbie level that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.
I never said MBS caters to every group, but it will obviously be preferred by the lower levels more than any other. You are saying that the lower level of newbies that can be potential pros are just a "niche"? I will straight out disagree with you, because this is a significant group of people and contains a large proportion of pro-MBS players. Until you can show some evidence that it's only a "niche", you are just writing empty statements with zero backing. You just claimed that the mid and upper levels are being far overrepresented in my "not-to-scale" diagram, so that makes the lower group even larger.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: 3.) We SC players hate WC3. Blizzard has defined them to be separate genres. Don't give up our ONLY game, a BETTER game, to appease them.
Why should you not want to appeal to them? You don't want more competitive players to be added to the SC skill pool? Do you hate the actual RTS players just because they play War3? Giving up and/or dumbing down the game would be the focus of the other argument, and it's still an ongoing debate so stop acting like you've already won that and use that here.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: I am toneing down the personal remarks to an absolute minimum. But after 30 pages of nonsensical fillibustering and spewing out flawed argument after flawed argument, of ignoring Tasteless's advice and nitpicking the heartfelt arguments of several highly skilled players - all by a poster who has come and posted on almost exclusively this topic - your motivations must be called into question. This is especially since you fit a profile which would benefit most, selfishly speaking, from MBS. TL is this way: your standing in this community will affect how your argument is taken. Don't mistake it for a formal debate.
You can turn the ad hominem on me if you wish. Just you know, several posters here can attest to my horrible multitasking and macro, and that I would benefit greatly from MBS, more than the average player. And if its a question of personal credentials, the credibility who are anti-MBS far outweighs those who are for it.
No comment, other than it's your opinion and you should keep it to your damn self. And no, I do not want to get started with turning ad hominems on each other, and I don't understand why you want to promote this.
On October 04 2007 07:32 IdrA wrote: ya, top 2 advanced from regionals. he got top 2. good to see you make sure you're informed before you post about something.
Ah well, but anyway i know the others that got top spots also and they arent anti mbs at all like he is. And they even reached the world finals while laser got stuck on the national.
All im saying is that the argument "Other progamers also want mbs out" doesnt hold just beacuse lazer said it, since firstly he isnt a top player, more a normally skilled player, and most others dont agree with him.
yes, it does hold. other competetive gamers do indeed want mbs out, his statement alone proves that. no one ever said EVERY other competetive player wants it out, i would guess alot of them would want to keep it because it would make the transition between games easier for them. however if you look at their motives, he has no underlying motive to say mbs would make sc2 worse. the games he plays have mbs, adding mbs to sc2 would make it easier for him to play. however he says mbs/automine would dumb sc2 down in spite of that. i doubt many of the pro-mbs gamers honestly believe mbs/automine would make sc2 a better quality game, they just want it in to make things easier for themselves.
On October 04 2007 07:55 IdrA wrote: yes, it does hold. other competetive gamers do indeed want mbs out, his statement alone proves that. no one ever said EVERY other competetive player wants it out, i would guess alot of them would want to keep it because it would make the transition between games easier for them. however if you look at their motives, he has no underlying motive to say mbs would make sc2 worse. the games he plays have mbs, adding mbs to sc2 would make it easier for him to play. however he says mbs/automine would dumb sc2 down in spite of that. i doubt many of the pro-mbs gamers honestly believe mbs/automine would make sc2 a better quality game, they just want it in to make things easier for themselves.
Well, knowing lazerflip, he is very baised towards his own success from his balance discussion about cnc3. He probably thinks that he can gain superior mechanical skill than most players wich mean that to him it would be benefitial. But ofcourse i dont know, its just that he knows nothing about starcraft so its a bit suspect that he just comes and say that he wants mbs out.
And just like that not everyone playing starcraft at a semi high level wants mbs out not everyone else wants mbs in. And, can you find me one other forum than this were the anti mbs site isnt getting heavily hammered?
well, apparently you dont know lazerflip, you posted that he didnt go to wcg usa when he did, so your opinions on his judgement arent likely to be very worthwhile.
every other non korean forum is full of newbs. tl.net is the only site where some competetive players actually post, with the odd exception on gg.net. the fact that a bunch of people who cannot play the game want mbs, while all (yes ALL) of the semi high level bw players who have published an opinion are against it, doesnt exactly support your point.
On October 04 2007 06:39 Klockan3 wrote: Are you serious? In every other english speaking forum ive seen the pro mbs side wins this argumentation hands down due to the general population being very skewed towards it.
You mean they are just with more and scream louder.
Those people that don't want to practice with patient dedication are going to be the top players in SCII?
Those people that want MBS will either change their mind or play the single player, play fastest, play BGH 3v3, etc. Fine, let them play that. But keep real SCII without MBS.
Most of the people on boards you speak off are WC3 players or people that play neither..
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked. If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
1.) Well, it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more.
No you don't, because they are not applying those changes to SC. They are creating a new game with its own new UI, many new units, and a new name, SC2. It may in fact hold up to SC's standard in RTS quality, even it uses a brand new UI. It might work out, or it might not. I don't claim to know for sure, so we will see in beta.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: 2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus.
You are right, maybe my definitions are a bit vague so I'll try to define them in a clearer way then. The way I envision the player base works is like a pyramid or hierarchy. Only certain players move up a step in the ladder if they enjoy the game (not frustrated) and are kept motivated and playing for a long enough time.
I believe it's more likely that these micro-hating noobs will realize in time that it's their own fault rather than the game's, because it's not the UI that is really limiting their micro. I do see your point though, but I do think that these micro-complaints will be far less pronounced and short-term than complaints about a UI that is limiting their macro. Again I say this, because you will see this type of behavior on boards and whatnot even from decent players. Anyways, this is what I think and you can disagree with me if you want.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to:
-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm
-doesn't have devotion to play without MBS
-motivated enough to be a "potential pro"
-appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS
A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.
I think any decent player from any other RTS out there (including War3) could potentially fall into the above category. Since SC2 is a new game, there will of course be a lot of decent people migrating from other games as well. That's nothing to laugh at, considering there are more War3 players outside of Korea than SC players. That's an already established skill pool, which can immediately jumpstart the competitive scene.
But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.
Also, could you please stop with the personal remarks? I could just as easily turn around and say that you want SBS in the game at least somewhat to retain your macro skill from SC and transfer them to SC2 and you are afraid to diminish this advantage over other players. But personal attacks don't lead anywhere.
1.) Hatred of macro and micro are not just restricted to SC - but SC2 and any RTS. In all these cases they are illegitimate. This even more as SC2 must be made based upon successes and features from SC, which also happens to be the pinnacle and defining RTS. Your arbitrary "oh thats just SC1" argument holds no water here.
No, you're missing my point again. There's a difference between "hating micro" or "hating macro" and "hating macro due to limited UI". The former two cannot be reconciled at all if the game is to be called SC2, while the third can be easily alleviated by adding MBS to the game's UI. If you're going to tell me there's no more macro in SC2 after adding MBS, then go argue with the other people, as I'm not about to get into that.
I missed nothing. You have no point to begin with, and playing with semantics isn't going to change that. You are a retard for thinking that Blizzard can take into account all the factors and recreate a monumental coincidence like SC without closely adhering to the formulas of the original game. I don't know if even if they can even without MBS. To think you can predict the results of a game like SC from scratch, through all these years - impossible. Remember, the original game speed was set to fast and mmf and EMP were excepted to be TvP mainstays. I have no confidence in Blizzard's ability to "take MBS into account and make SC2 just as competitive", mainly because no one really knew the magical formula for SC to begin with. Its no knock on them as a company - not even Einstein can figure this out.
Secondly, macro and micro are universal concepts of RTS, not restricted to SC2. Just because its a new game doesn't mean criticism of the old UI is valid. And nice use of the loaded phrase "limited UI". All games are based upon limitations. RTS is about how well you can use the tools the game gives you, be it 12 unit selection maximum, needing to order every individual CC to make scvs, and so on. There was nothing wrong with the UI in SC - so there is no reason it is now "limited" when making SC2.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: 2.) Your pyramid is fucked and just wrong. You overestimate the people in the middling two categories by FAR and underestimate the number of people who are already very good or very bad. Those are also the two groups that your MBS doesn't really cater to. The people who fit the criteria of those benefitting from MBS are just another niche, just a less skilled one. They also happen to have mostly not appreciated SC enough to stuck with it over other games.
Of course, its just a fucking representation made in Paint. Of course I know that there are a LOT fewer people as you move up the pyramid. Have you ever seen a pyramid diagram before? The levels aren't necessarily to scale, since it's really only important that it decreases as you move up. Plus, I had to fit all that text in.
No, I was going by your text descriptions completely. You ignore the vast skill differentiation even among progamers, and you give sub 200apm ppl too much credit. Those middling people who have some idea of what SC but aren't very good - the only real people who would benefit from MBS - aren't that terribly many or important. And your <100apm noobs: I've already proven that they will complain no matter what. And I'm telling you, micro hating noobs don't hate the UI that much as they hate the AI (units don't micro themselves). Just like macro haters, they will always exist. Ignore them.
I just realized that you must've totally missed this paragraph, so read my post more carefully before making baseless comments.
On October 04 2007 04:29 orangedude wrote: But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" from the newbie level that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.
I never said MBS caters to every group, but it will obviously be preferred by the lower levels more than any other. You are saying that the lower level of newbies that can be potential pros are just a "niche"? I will straight out disagree with you, because this is a significant group of people and contains a large proportion of pro-MBS players. Until you can show some evidence that it's only a "niche", you are just writing empty statements with zero backing. You just claimed that the mid and upper levels are being far overrepresented in my "not-to-scale" diagram, so that makes the lower group even larger.
Twisting my words once again. I've proven many times, that those true casual noobs are players who would complain about everything anyways, and you have already dimissed a significant portion of them when you said we should not listen to micro-haters. We have also shown that those players know so little about hotkeys that they won't realize MBS was missing. You yourself insisted that you are interested in "potential pros" with between 150 to 200 apm. These people, people who an idea of what to do but can't do them, are the true beneficiaries of MBS. And among those people, the number who actually won't play SC2 without MBS real real insignificant. You didn't even misunderstand me either. You saw my detailed list. You deliberately tried to twist my argument.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: 3.) We SC players hate WC3. Blizzard has defined them to be separate genres. Don't give up our ONLY game, a BETTER game, to appease them.
Why should you not want to appeal to them? You don't want more competitive players to be added to the SC skill pool? Do you hate the actual RTS players just because they play War3? Giving up and/or dumbing down the game would be the focus of the other argument, and it's still an ongoing debate so stop acting like you've already won that and use that here.
We shouldn't appeal to them because we are two separate niches, and satisfying one comes at the cost of the other. Not enough of them would actually not play SC without MBS. But even if they did, they have their own genre. Let us have ours. We like totally different kinds of game, and even Blizzard recognizes that. Appealing to them comes at the cost of alienating the original fanbase.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: I am toneing down the personal remarks to an absolute minimum. But after 30 pages of nonsensical fillibustering and spewing out flawed argument after flawed argument, of ignoring Tasteless's advice and nitpicking the heartfelt arguments of several highly skilled players - all by a poster who has come and posted on almost exclusively this topic - your motivations must be called into question. This is especially since you fit a profile which would benefit most, selfishly speaking, from MBS. TL is this way: your standing in this community will affect how your argument is taken. Don't mistake it for a formal debate.
You can turn the ad hominem on me if you wish. Just you know, several posters here can attest to my horrible multitasking and macro, and that I would benefit greatly from MBS, more than the average player. And if its a question of personal credentials, the credibility who are anti-MBS far outweighs those who are for it.
No comment, other than it's your opinion and you should keep it to your damn self. And no, I do not want to get started with turning ad hominems on each other, and I don't understand why you want to promote this.
No, it is my opinion that you are a disingenous, terrible poster who uses a good debate formatting ability to obscure real content and substance put forward by respected members of the community. I call you out as a new poster who is clearly focused upon just one agenda, and very likely dissembling your own selfish interests in the debate. This is a private house, I believe your a bad guest and I am stating my opinion out to the world.
"When starcraft were released not many played computer games, they were much less mainstream than they are today. If starcraft 2 can reach the new masses wich arent blessed with the divinity of starcraft gameplay it can revolutionise the RTS competetive scene just like WoW set a totally new mmorpg standard."
"And this isnt only about making as many pros as possible, its more about getting an as large fanbase as possible. More fans = more money = more tournaments = more gamers trying to go pro = more pro gamers = success in all parts. It doesnt matter if the fans are noobs or starcraft oldies, they both counts for just as much for sponsor money."
Klockan3, your idiocy is actually a liability to orangedude's cause. Your statements here are plain silly. You are theorizing without knowledge or experience.
Yeah, this is a flame, but I only resort to it when I feel the counterparty is incapable of engaging in discourse at a reasonably intelligent level. Your heart's probably in the right place - you just need to grow up a bit.
I'm in a forgiving mood today (actually, "nonchalant" is the better word). Feel free to flame back.
inControl's post basically echoes my own feelings about this (why dumb down an already successful game - and preach that you are creating a game built for competitive play?). MBS (coupled with automining) will probably ruin the game. Is that a fact? No. Reality can turn out very differently. But, it is bizarre logic to champion MBS on the basis that SC2 is a "different game" and that "Blizzard will probably get the gameplay/balance issues right". How the fuck do you know that AT THIS POINT IN TIME? Even Blizzard doesn't know that for a fact AT THIS POINT IN TIME. This is pure speculation, nothing more. At least the anti-MBS camp has some bases for their argument (look at the disastrous state of competitive WC3, for example). Like I said, wishful thinking and the stuff of dreams (which could come true, of course).
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked. If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
1.) Well, it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more.
No you don't, because they are not applying those changes to SC. They are creating a new game with its own new UI, many new units, and a new name, SC2. It may in fact hold up to SC's standard in RTS quality, even it uses a brand new UI. It might work out, or it might not. I don't claim to know for sure, so we will see in beta.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: 2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus.
You are right, maybe my definitions are a bit vague so I'll try to define them in a clearer way then. The way I envision the player base works is like a pyramid or hierarchy. Only certain players move up a step in the ladder if they enjoy the game (not frustrated) and are kept motivated and playing for a long enough time.
I believe it's more likely that these micro-hating noobs will realize in time that it's their own fault rather than the game's, because it's not the UI that is really limiting their micro. I do see your point though, but I do think that these micro-complaints will be far less pronounced and short-term than complaints about a UI that is limiting their macro. Again I say this, because you will see this type of behavior on boards and whatnot even from decent players. Anyways, this is what I think and you can disagree with me if you want.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to:
-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm
-doesn't have devotion to play without MBS
-motivated enough to be a "potential pro"
-appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS
A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.
I think any decent player from any other RTS out there (including War3) could potentially fall into the above category. Since SC2 is a new game, there will of course be a lot of decent people migrating from other games as well. That's nothing to laugh at, considering there are more War3 players outside of Korea than SC players. That's an already established skill pool, which can immediately jumpstart the competitive scene.
But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.
Also, could you please stop with the personal remarks? I could just as easily turn around and say that you want SBS in the game at least somewhat to retain your macro skill from SC and transfer them to SC2 and you are afraid to diminish this advantage over other players. But personal attacks don't lead anywhere.
1.) Hatred of macro and micro are not just restricted to SC - but SC2 and any RTS. In all these cases they are illegitimate. This even more as SC2 must be made based upon successes and features from SC, which also happens to be the pinnacle and defining RTS. Your arbitrary "oh thats just SC1" argument holds no water here.
No, you're missing my point again. There's a difference between "hating micro" or "hating macro" and "hating macro due to limited UI". The former two cannot be reconciled at all if the game is to be called SC2, while the third can be easily alleviated by adding MBS to the game's UI. If you're going to tell me there's no more macro in SC2 after adding MBS, then go argue with the other people, as I'm not about to get into that.
I missed nothing. You have no point to begin with, and playing with semantics isn't going to change that. You are a retard for thinking that Blizzard can take into account all the factors and recreate a monumental coincidence like SC without closely adhering to the formulas of the original game. I don't know if even if they can even without MBS. To think you can predict the results of a game like SC from scratch, through all these years - impossible. Remember, the original game speed was set to fast and mmf and EMP were excepted to be TvP mainstays. I have no confidence in Blizzard's ability to "take MBS into account and make SC2 just as competitive", mainly because no one really knew the magical formula for SC to begin with. Its no knock on them as a company - not even Einstein can figure this out.
Secondly, macro and micro are universal concepts of RTS, not restricted to SC2. Just because its a new game doesn't mean criticism of the old UI is valid. And nice use of the loaded phrase "limited UI". All games are based upon limitations. RTS is about how well you can use the tools the game gives you, be it 12 unit selection maximum, needing to order every individual CC to make scvs, and so on. There was nothing wrong with the UI in SC - so there is no reason it is now "limited" when making SC2.
It's not semantics. Just because you aren't able to see the difference between the two, doesn't mean there isn't a point in the comparison. The point again is that someone who hates macro and micro hates RTS period (or at least Blizzard-style RTS), since these two aspects are common to all of its genre, making this totally different from someone who dislikes one specific instance of artificial UI limitation that affects their ability to macro. There is nothing wrong with placing SC's UI in a game in 2009, except that most people tend to dislike such a limited UI for production due to breaking modern standards and will see it as discarding all the UI advances in the past 10 years.
Okay, I'm a retard for thinking it's a good idea to at least wait until beta before making absolutely certain judgments on one feature of a game that is still under debate.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: 2.) Your pyramid is fucked and just wrong. You overestimate the people in the middling two categories by FAR and underestimate the number of people who are already very good or very bad. Those are also the two groups that your MBS doesn't really cater to. The people who fit the criteria of those benefitting from MBS are just another niche, just a less skilled one. They also happen to have mostly not appreciated SC enough to stuck with it over other games.
Of course, its just a fucking representation made in Paint. Of course I know that there are a LOT fewer people as you move up the pyramid. Have you ever seen a pyramid diagram before? The levels aren't necessarily to scale, since it's really only important that it decreases as you move up. Plus, I had to fit all that text in.
No, I was going by your text descriptions completely. You ignore the vast skill differentiation even among progamers, and you give sub 200apm ppl too much credit. Those middling people who have some idea of what SC but aren't very good - the only real people who would benefit from MBS - aren't that terribly many or important. And your <100apm noobs: I've already proven that they will complain no matter what. And I'm telling you, micro hating noobs don't hate the UI that much as they hate the AI (units don't micro themselves). Just like macro haters, they will always exist. Ignore them.
The only real people who benefit from MBS are the mid-ranged level? So that's how Blizzard decided to go with it, just to satisfy one small group of people? Your assumptions don't hold any water because the resulting decision is clearly illogical based on this reasoning, and thus you have just refuted your own argument. There must be something huge that you're missing out on or flat out wrong about.
The fallacy in your argument is this: Just because noobs will always find something to complain about, that doesn't mean they will do so concerning every topic with equal intensity. Do you honestly think Blizzard thinks "Hmm, noobs don't care about anything we do, so screw their thoughts. All they do is complain anyways." when designing SC2? No, as a company, they have to listen to their customers, because every newb is a customer too. So, if a large number of them all want the same feature, it will most likely be implemented.
How many so-called micro-hating noobs do you find screaming about it on Blizzard's forums? Last I checked, zero. Micro ability simply comes from being given the ability to control your units and is an integral part of RTS games, especially Blizzard's. On the other hand, artificial caps on unit selection have indeed been given attention, and thus the selection caps have been lifted in SC2 for now.
However, if Blizzard were to remove MBS from SC2, their forums would probably turn into a permanent war-zone. You might find a HUGE number of threads popping up complaining about the "outdated UI", and a few people defending it like you. Too bad, the overwhelming majority consisting of noobs and some decent players will be pro-MBS and Blizzard may end up revising their decisions due to the strong customer feedback.
In fact it's pretty clear and logical to see how MBS will benefit noobs, because it will smooth the early learning curve. Even the lowliest noob knows that in order to win, you have to construct a large army (macro). Part of that macro is clicking on buildings and ordering those units to be built. If you make it easier for the low-skill noob to construct a decent army in order to combat the AI, the game becomes more friendly and he'll have an easier time to then go on to further learn the intricacies of the game. I don't know what blinded you from this type of thinking but I thought it was pretty obvious.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: I just realized that you must've totally missed this paragraph, so read my post more carefully before making baseless comments.
On October 04 2007 04:29 orangedude wrote: But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" from the newbie level that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.
I never said MBS caters to every group, but it will obviously be preferred by the lower levels more than any other. You are saying that the lower level of newbies that can be potential pros are just a "niche"? I will straight out disagree with you, because this is a significant group of people and contains a large proportion of pro-MBS players. Until you can show some evidence that it's only a "niche", you are just writing empty statements with zero backing. You just claimed that the mid and upper levels are being far overrepresented in my "not-to-scale" diagram, so that makes the lower group even larger.
Twisting my words once again. I've proven many times, that those true casual noobs are players who would complain about everything anyways, and you have already dimissed a significant portion of them when you said we should not listen to micro-haters. We have also shown that those players know so little about hotkeys that they won't realize MBS was missing. You yourself insisted that you are interested in "potential pros" with between 150 to 200 apm. These people, people who an idea of what to do but can't do them, are the true beneficiaries of MBS. And among those people, the number who actually won't play SC2 without MBS real real insignificant. You didn't even misunderstand me either. You saw my detailed list. You deliberately tried to twist my argument.
See above, you used illogical reasoning to prove your points. I said the mid-level players in addition to the noob players would benefit from MBS. I've never said exclusively mid-level benefit from MBS, because this is what you've argued. I pointed out that by also removing criteria one (the apm requirement) from your list, this would describe another larger and more important group who may be largely pro-MBS (newbs who have a competitive attitude).
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: 3.) We SC players hate WC3. Blizzard has defined them to be separate genres. Don't give up our ONLY game, a BETTER game, to appease them.
Why should you not want to appeal to them? You don't want more competitive players to be added to the SC skill pool? Do you hate the actual RTS players just because they play War3? Giving up and/or dumbing down the game would be the focus of the other argument, and it's still an ongoing debate so stop acting like you've already won that and use that here.
We shouldn't appeal to them because we are two separate niches, and satisfying one comes at the cost of the other. Not enough of them would actually not play SC without MBS. But even if they did, they have their own genre. Let us have ours. We like totally different kinds of game, and even Blizzard recognizes that. Appealing to them comes at the cost of alienating the original fanbase.
It only alienates the original fanbase IF the assumption that the game will totally suck competitvely holds true. Again, no one has proved this to be the case anywhere beyond a doubt.
Last I checked, War3 and SC2 games are in the same genre, an RTS. Both games also require similar skill sets, namely a high mechanical skill component (apm) and both short and long-term strategical thinking abilities. There is absolutely no reason why a player cannot enjoy and play well in both SC and War3, and in fact many do.
IMO, there is no real difference between a competitive "War3" player and a competitive "SC" player, assuming they have about equal mechanical skills. If having MBS in the game could help attract and keep additional talent in the game without compromising the quality of the game, then it would be foolish not to do add it. Until we know how significant MBS changes are to the game in beta, this all comes down to opinion.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: I am toneing down the personal remarks to an absolute minimum. But after 30 pages of nonsensical fillibustering and spewing out flawed argument after flawed argument, of ignoring Tasteless's advice and nitpicking the heartfelt arguments of several highly skilled players - all by a poster who has come and posted on almost exclusively this topic - your motivations must be called into question. This is especially since you fit a profile which would benefit most, selfishly speaking, from MBS. TL is this way: your standing in this community will affect how your argument is taken. Don't mistake it for a formal debate.
You can turn the ad hominem on me if you wish. Just you know, several posters here can attest to my horrible multitasking and macro, and that I would benefit greatly from MBS, more than the average player. And if its a question of personal credentials, the credibility who are anti-MBS far outweighs those who are for it.
No comment, other than it's your opinion and you should keep it to your damn self. And no, I do not want to get started with turning ad hominems on each other, and I don't understand why you want to promote this.
No, it is my opinion that you are a disingenous, terrible poster who uses a good debate formatting ability to obscure real content and substance put forward by respected members of the community. I call you out as a new poster who is clearly focused upon just one agenda, and very likely dissembling your own selfish interests in the debate. This is a private house, I believe your a bad guest and I am stating my opinion out to the world.
I said I didn't want to exchange ad hominem attacks, but I guess you leave me no choice.
Have you ever tried to think from another's viewpoint? You speak of all this proof, but I don't see much, except that to you, any and every kind of change from SC is bad, and nothing good will ever come of SC2. You then use this basis to repeatedly disprove every other argument. I don't know why you bother to discuss SC2, when you think it's already hell-bent on becoming a piece of garbage that will alienate SC fans, since Blizzard has no idea what they're doing.
I've never predicted anything, aside from the fact that it's too early to tell if SC2 will actually work or not (better to wait until beta).
In my opinion, when you fail to understand my points, you then turn around and tell me I haven't made any. You then make false claims (without proof) such as how people who want MBS are a "niche". On top of it all, you invent a selfish agenda for me, then "call" me out based on your own self-created views of someone who disagrees with your points.
Well, orangedude, you accuse other people of not thinking about your arguments. So I ask you, have you ever thought about the idea of having 2 different modi in SC2? It seems not, all that comes from you is that MBS will only kill 50% of the community and the other half will be happy. Or since we don't know the exact numbers how can you think of a better scenario? Only 30% will be lost? 20%? Do you know how many hardcore-fans sc:bw has? Or do you know the pro-MBS speakers personally? To me it seems like you think you're having a big fanbase behind you which is not the case. And why do you respond to the same arguments over and over again but when a new one pops up you simply ignore it? Do you maybe realize the amount of the con's so you just close your eyes?
On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote: With that being said i think it's completely fair to put MBS as a setting for non competitive games. That way players who don't wish to master as many aspects of the game can still play on an easier setting and learn/enjoy the game. I can't possibly imagine newbs will be less impressed or completely turned off by pro players who can't use MBS in their games... if anything they'll be MORE impressed and want to play even more so they can master the game with out the crutch of MBS. if they don't/can't it's no problem since they can just play with friends online. I have yet to see a good argument to why MBS as a setting can't please both crowds and assure SC2's success as an esport and as a pass time game for fun. (and i don't think masturbating the ego of a random newbie is reason enough)
I think it's one possible solution, but it also brings a number of problems. Firstly, the community would be split right off the bat, with possibly every non-hardcore SC player starting off with MBS in the game (99:1?). When looking for games, would you rather play on a ladder with 1000s of people with equal skill level to you or play on a second ladder (with a more difficult UI), with far less due to it being made up of mainly the SC vets? As people get used to MBS, most will likely find it difficult to switch, as they would be used to the higher micro, less macro style of game and simply choose to stick with it.
Anyways, it could still work. I'm just a little bit skeptical if two modes will actually increase the # of pros who actively play SBS much beyond the current numbers in SC. Sponsors will basically go to whichever side has more competition, so you might end up with something like Korea (SBS) vs. rest of world (MBS). That's not necessarily a bad thing, if that's what you want.
On October 04 2007 14:01 ForAdun wrote: MBS will only kill 50% of the community and the other half will be happy. Or since we don't know the exact numbers how can you think of a better scenario? Only 30% will be lost? 20%? Do you know how many hardcore-fans sc:bw has? Or do you know the pro-MBS speakers personally?
Maybe it won't kill any of the community, but only increase it by attracting more new SC2 players. It might result in a less intense game or it might actually be similar the original. I don't claim to know the answers, so I will wait until beta to see the impacts first hand.
On October 04 2007 14:01 ForAdun wrote: And why do you respond to the same arguments over and over again but when a new one pops up you simply ignore it? Do you maybe realize the amount of the con's so you just close your eyes?
Which new arguments though? Why can't I leave the argument for the pros of MBS (in-game) to other people who may come up with better points than me? I think MBS might be slightly detrimental to gameplay, but I don't know by how much exactly.
How about an intermediate solution? Rather than having the MBS in the normal sense, allow players to select multiple buildings but must Cycle through them to produce individual units? It will be bagged by wc3 players as a step backward but it still allows grainularity of control on what to produce + force player to produce one at a time.
The main concern I have for not using MBS is the number of hotkeys required in late game sc games. Simply put, 1 to 0 is not enough for all single select building hotkey + units nor are they any easier to access. But we have limited keys on our keyboards so we need to maximize the output of what we've got.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked. If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote: And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
1.) Well, it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more.
No you don't, because they are not applying those changes to SC. They are creating a new game with its own new UI, many new units, and a new name, SC2. It may in fact hold up to SC's standard in RTS quality, even it uses a brand new UI. It might work out, or it might not. I don't claim to know for sure, so we will see in beta.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: 2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus.
You are right, maybe my definitions are a bit vague so I'll try to define them in a clearer way then. The way I envision the player base works is like a pyramid or hierarchy. Only certain players move up a step in the ladder if they enjoy the game (not frustrated) and are kept motivated and playing for a long enough time.
I believe it's more likely that these micro-hating noobs will realize in time that it's their own fault rather than the game's, because it's not the UI that is really limiting their micro. I do see your point though, but I do think that these micro-complaints will be far less pronounced and short-term than complaints about a UI that is limiting their macro. Again I say this, because you will see this type of behavior on boards and whatnot even from decent players. Anyways, this is what I think and you can disagree with me if you want.
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote: Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to:
-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm
-doesn't have devotion to play without MBS
-motivated enough to be a "potential pro"
-appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS
A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.
I think any decent player from any other RTS out there (including War3) could potentially fall into the above category. Since SC2 is a new game, there will of course be a lot of decent people migrating from other games as well. That's nothing to laugh at, considering there are more War3 players outside of Korea than SC players. That's an already established skill pool, which can immediately jumpstart the competitive scene.
But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.
Also, could you please stop with the personal remarks? I could just as easily turn around and say that you want SBS in the game at least somewhat to retain your macro skill from SC and transfer them to SC2 and you are afraid to diminish this advantage over other players. But personal attacks don't lead anywhere.
1.) Hatred of macro and micro are not just restricted to SC - but SC2 and any RTS. In all these cases they are illegitimate. This even more as SC2 must be made based upon successes and features from SC, which also happens to be the pinnacle and defining RTS. Your arbitrary "oh thats just SC1" argument holds no water here.
No, you're missing my point again. There's a difference between "hating micro" or "hating macro" and "hating macro due to limited UI". The former two cannot be reconciled at all if the game is to be called SC2, while the third can be easily alleviated by adding MBS to the game's UI. If you're going to tell me there's no more macro in SC2 after adding MBS, then go argue with the other people, as I'm not about to get into that.
I missed nothing. You have no point to begin with, and playing with semantics isn't going to change that. You are a retard for thinking that Blizzard can take into account all the factors and recreate a monumental coincidence like SC without closely adhering to the formulas of the original game. I don't know if even if they can even without MBS. To think you can predict the results of a game like SC from scratch, through all these years - impossible. Remember, the original game speed was set to fast and mmf and EMP were excepted to be TvP mainstays. I have no confidence in Blizzard's ability to "take MBS into account and make SC2 just as competitive", mainly because no one really knew the magical formula for SC to begin with. Its no knock on them as a company - not even Einstein can figure this out.
Secondly, macro and micro are universal concepts of RTS, not restricted to SC2. Just because its a new game doesn't mean criticism of the old UI is valid. And nice use of the loaded phrase "limited UI". All games are based upon limitations. RTS is about how well you can use the tools the game gives you, be it 12 unit selection maximum, needing to order every individual CC to make scvs, and so on. There was nothing wrong with the UI in SC - so there is no reason it is now "limited" when making SC2.
It's not semantics. Just because you aren't able to see the difference between the two, doesn't mean there isn't a point in the comparison. The point again is that someone who hates macro and micro hates RTS period (or at least Blizzard-style RTS), since these two aspects are common to all of its genre, making this totally different from someone who dislikes one specific instance of artificial UI limitation that affects their ability to macro. There is nothing wrong with placing SC's UI in a game in 2009, except that most people tend to dislike such a limited UI for production due to breaking modern standards and will see it as discarding all the UI advances in the past 10 years.
Okay, I'm a retard for thinking it's a good idea to at least wait until beta before making absolutely certain judgments on one feature of a game that is still under debate.
Even in a post where you claim “it’s not semantics”, that’s all you have to offer. Let me say it for one more time: SC’s UI is not “artificially limited”, rather, it is optimum for competitive play. UI’s have limitations by definition, and since we agree that SC is a manual game as much as it is a mental game, these limitations must be chosen for best degree of competitive gameplay. Years of experience have shown that SC’s UI works, and that MBS in other games has not had much success. It is certainly true that there are many, many more reasons why these games are not as good as SC, but the track record isn’t good. At the very most, you cannot claim that MBS will likely have a good effect on SC. Neither can you use those games as a standard for UI – instead of being advancements of RTS, they are very far behind. Blizzard has no reason to look to them for example, or feel obligated to include what they introduced. Let me be very clear about this fact.
I think you admitted as much, but you think that the corresponding expansion in the professional scene will more than compensate for that. That is worth debating, but I want to say reiterate that there is no inherent quality in SBS that mandates its replacement, not its supposedly artificialness, not its being a supposed “standard” for the RTS genre. The standard is Starcraft: Brood War. Nothing else matters.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: 2.) Your pyramid is fucked and just wrong. You overestimate the people in the middling two categories by FAR and underestimate the number of people who are already very good or very bad. Those are also the two groups that your MBS doesn't really cater to. The people who fit the criteria of those benefitting from MBS are just another niche, just a less skilled one. They also happen to have mostly not appreciated SC enough to stuck with it over other games.
Of course, its just a fucking representation made in Paint. Of course I know that there are a LOT fewer people as you move up the pyramid. Have you ever seen a pyramid diagram before? The levels aren't necessarily to scale, since it's really only important that it decreases as you move up. Plus, I had to fit all that text in.
No, I was going by your text descriptions completely. You ignore the vast skill differentiation even among progamers, and you give sub 200apm ppl too much credit. Those middling people who have some idea of what SC but aren't very good - the only real people who would benefit from MBS - aren't that terribly many or important. And your <100apm noobs: I've already proven that they will complain no matter what. And I'm telling you, micro hating noobs don't hate the UI that much as they hate the AI (units don't micro themselves). Just like macro haters, they will always exist. Ignore them.
The only real people who benefit from MBS are the mid-ranged level? So that's how Blizzard decided to go with it, just to satisfy one small group of people? Your assumptions don't hold any water because the resulting decision is clearly illogical based on this reasoning, and thus you have just refuted your own argument. There must be something huge that you're missing out on or flat out wrong about.
The major fallacy in your argument is this: Just because noobs will always find something to complain about, that doesn't mean they will do so concerning every topic with equal intensity. Do you honestly think Blizzard thinks "Hmm, noobs don't care about anything we do, so screw their thoughts. All they do is complain anyways." when designing SC2? How many so-called micro-hating noobs do you find screaming about it on Blizzard's forums? Last I checked, zero. Micro ability simply comes from being given the ability to control your units and is an integral part of RTS games, especially Blizzard's. On the other hand, artificial caps on unit selection have indeed been given attention, and thus the selection caps have been lifted in SC2 for now.
However, if Blizzard were to remove MBS from SC2, their forums would probably turn into a permanent war-zone. You might find a HUGE number of threads popping up complaining about the "outdated UI", and a few people defending it like you. Too bad, the overwhelming majority consisting of noobs and some decent players will be pro-MBS and Blizzard may end up revising their decisions due to the strong customer feedback.
In fact it's pretty clear and logical to see how MBS will benefit noobs, because it will smooth the early learning curve. Even the lowliest noob knows that in order to win, you have to construct a large army (macro). Part of that macro is clicking on buildings and ordering those units to be built. If you make it easier for the low-skill noob to construct a decent army in order to combat the AI, the game becomes more friendly and he'll have an easier time to then go on to further learn the intricacies of the game. I don't know what blinded you from this type of thinking but I thought it was pretty obvious.
Two problems have to be addressed in your above segment, first of all, we are here arguing about what course Blizzard should take. Therefore, it makes no sense to say, obviously your argument is incorrect because Blizzard’s current stance reflects this. If we agreed about the validity of Blizzard putting MBS in, we wouldn’t be in this argument in the first place.
Second of all, you argue that if noobs complain loud enough and often enough, their points should be taken into account. That’s how you wish to differentiate from my micro-hating example and the current pro-MBSers. That makes sense from your perspective – you want to make SC2 a more popular game to possibly foster an e-sports scene. I disagree with this approach.
I believe that SC2 should be made the best game it possibly can be, simply because it is feeling the shoes of the best, and some would say only great professional RTS game of its kind. Noobs can always run to other games. We have absolutely nothing when SC2 strips us of our community and gives us nothing in return. From this point, in consideration of “fairness” to our community, SC2 should be catered to us. It will be a popular, fun game, regardless of MBS.
Also, it is a matter of principle. If noobs don’t appreciate SBS and whine about it, does it really matter that there’s more of them than those who complain about say, lack of automatic unit retreat? Does the quantity of illegitimate points by the uninformed really matter? For the purposes of making a good game, definitely not. For the purposes of sales, quite possibly, but then again SC2 will sell regardless. But we are here only to provide Blizzard input about how to make a good game first and foremost – then they can decide to ignore that advice in favor of the greenbacks. But if we, the gamers, don’t take into account gaming considerations first, who will?
Lastly, I want to correct a few misconceptions you have. First of all, its not a given that micro is accepted by the casual RTS fan as a big part of the sport. In fact, I’d say probably less than half accept that. The common RTS fan still sees it as a war simulation, a game of playing commander. Hence you have games like Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation. Micro is a defining trait of Blizzard’s games, and macro, micro, and multitasking is the defining trait of Starcraft, the greatest RTS game ever. When making Starcraft II, all these must be treated equally.
Your second misconception is that all noobs will appreciate MBS. Only those who are somewhat aware of the conceptual groundwork behind RTSes will actually realize the importance of macro in gameplay. While everyone realizes more units are better than few, that is not always reflected in the actual implementation. Hence you have noobs building a carrier fleet out of 1 stargate! So the actual amount of players affected by MBS is truly smaller than you think: they have to lack the mechanics or the will to improve those mechanics, as well as have the theorycraft to at least realize they want to constantly produce units out of many production facilities. That group is quite smaller than you think.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: I just realized that you must've totally missed this paragraph, so read my post more carefully before making baseless comments.
On October 04 2007 04:29 orangedude wrote: But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" from the newbie level that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.
I never said MBS caters to every group, but it will obviously be preferred by the lower levels more than any other. You are saying that the lower level of newbies that can be potential pros are just a "niche"? I will straight out disagree with you, because this is a significant group of people and contains a large proportion of pro-MBS players. Until you can show some evidence that it's only a "niche", you are just writing empty statements with zero backing. You just claimed that the mid and upper levels are being far overrepresented in my "not-to-scale" diagram, so that makes the lower group even larger.
Twisting my words once again. I've proven many times, that those true casual noobs are players who would complain about everything anyways, and you have already dimissed a significant portion of them when you said we should not listen to micro-haters. We have also shown that those players know so little about hotkeys that they won't realize MBS was missing. You yourself insisted that you are interested in "potential pros" with between 150 to 200 apm. These people, people who an idea of what to do but can't do them, are the true beneficiaries of MBS. And among those people, the number who actually won't play SC2 without MBS real real insignificant. You didn't even misunderstand me either. You saw my detailed list. You deliberately tried to twist my argument.
See above, you used illogical reasoning to prove your points.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: 3.) We SC players hate WC3. Blizzard has defined them to be separate genres. Don't give up our ONLY game, a BETTER game, to appease them.
Why should you not want to appeal to them? You don't want more competitive players to be added to the SC skill pool? Do you hate the actual RTS players just because they play War3? Giving up and/or dumbing down the game would be the focus of the other argument, and it's still an ongoing debate so stop acting like you've already won that and use that here.
We shouldn't appeal to them because we are two separate niches, and satisfying one comes at the cost of the other. Not enough of them would actually not play SC without MBS. But even if they did, they have their own genre. Let us have ours. We like totally different kinds of game, and even Blizzard recognizes that. Appealing to them comes at the cost of alienating the original fanbase.
It only alienates the original fanbase IF the assumption that the game will totally suck competitvely holds true. Again, no one has proved this to be the case anywhere beyond a doubt.
Last I checked, War3 and SC2 games are in the same genre, an RTS. Both games also require similar skill sets, namely a high mechanical skill component (apm) and both short and long-term strategical thinking abilities. There is absolutely no reason why a player cannot enjoy and play well in both SC and War3, and in fact many do.
IMO, there is no real difference between a competitive "War3" player and a competitive "SC" player, assuming they have about equal mechanical skills. If having MBS in the game could help attract and keep additional talent in the game without compromising the quality of the game, then it would be foolish not to do add it. Until we know how significant MBS changes are to the game in beta, this all comes down to opinion.
First of all, War3 and Starcraft are not the same genre. SC is a RTS through and through, War3 is a RTRPG. Dustin Browder and Chris Sigaty stated as much, that they wish to differentiate the franchises, and that each has different focus: SC will be the mass army macro game, War3 will have more heroes and focus on micro. Because the genres are not quite same, War3 fans and SC fans are not the same. Going beyond the chauvinism we feel against War3, we simply appreciate different kinds of games with varying characteristics. There really isn’t much to argue here.
And while “testing MBS” is good in theory, there are problems with you bringing it up to stifle debate. We are here to debate the possible merits of including it in the final game, not its temporary inclusion in a specific build of the game. We are arguing with the knowledge we have right now.
I furthermore doubt that that balancing of MBS can be done that late. I suspect that it will greatly affect the unit stats, tech tree, research times etc in testing, and that the latter cannot be fully tested without the UI being fixed. The largest impact of MBS will also be shown not in beta testing, but 1-3 years down the line, as Nony so well argued. The depths of the game will suffer from MBS reducing mechanics, and that simply is too vast to be beta tested.
So while experiment is always the best way to find things out in theory, I doubt in this case it can be reliable without an exorbitantly long development cycle and test time.
On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: I am toneing down the personal remarks to an absolute minimum. But after 30 pages of nonsensical fillibustering and spewing out flawed argument after flawed argument, of ignoring Tasteless's advice and nitpicking the heartfelt arguments of several highly skilled players - all by a poster who has come and posted on almost exclusively this topic - your motivations must be called into question. This is especially since you fit a profile which would benefit most, selfishly speaking, from MBS. TL is this way: your standing in this community will affect how your argument is taken. Don't mistake it for a formal debate.
You can turn the ad hominem on me if you wish. Just you know, several posters here can attest to my horrible multitasking and macro, and that I would benefit greatly from MBS, more than the average player. And if its a question of personal credentials, the credibility who are anti-MBS far outweighs those who are for it.
No comment, other than it's your opinion and you should keep it to your damn self. And no, I do not want to get started with turning ad hominems on each other, and I don't understand why you want to promote this.
No, it is my opinion that you are a disingenous, terrible poster who uses a good debate formatting ability to obscure real content and substance put forward by respected members of the community. I call you out as a new poster who is clearly focused upon just one agenda, and very likely dissembling your own selfish interests in the debate. This is a private house, I believe your a bad guest and I am stating my opinion out to the world.
I said I didn't want to exchange ad hominem attacks, but I guess you leave me no choice.
Have you ever tried to think from another's viewpoint? You speak of all this proof, but I don't see much, except that to you, any and every kind of change from SC is bad, and nothing good will ever come of SC2. You then use this basis to repeatedly disprove every other argument. I don't know why you bother to discuss SC2, when you think it's already hell-bent on becoming a piece of garbage that will alienate SC fans, since Blizzard has no idea what they're doing.
I've never predicted anything, aside from the fact that it's too early to tell if SC2 will actually work or not (better to wait until beta).
In my opinion, when you fail to understand my points, you then turn around and tell me I haven't made any. You then make false claims (without proof) such as how people who want MBS are a "niche". On top of it all, you invent a selfish agenda for me, then "call" me out based on your own self-created views of someone who disagrees with your points.
Trust me, I know the MBS argument really well – primarily because when I was learning the game, I was always frustrated by the lack of it, and always complained about needing it. I know the feeling of a noob well, because, well, I am one.
You can refute your agenda for as long as you care, but the facts don’t support you. This is pretty much the only topic you have created, and your games with Tasteless show you to be of the skill level to mostly benefit from MBS. And you don’t have to go pro for that to happen either – everyone would love to be good at a game.
The fact is, while you accuse me of being close minded, you have simply ignored or made a strawman of every argument that many well-known players here have made against MBS. You claim that their views were too narrow, their reasoning was too inductive rather than of a strictly deductive nature, and that their experiences were pertinent to only SC. You are quick to dismiss their scenarios as SC specific, to say that we can’t know what will transpire in SC2 – yet you are willing to go out on a limb to say that Blizzard can design SC2 with so and so in mind. You point of many possible “alternatives” to macro, yet without stating a single example beyond vague references to warp gates or blinking.
None of us knows what SC2 will be like for sure. But drawing from experiences, especially those of good players, is very pertinent, because it is the game that Blizzard is trying to recreate, to imagine. SC2 is definitely made with capturing the feel of SC in mind. The very fact that Blizzard comes to TL is a recognition of the validity of expert opinion. While their ideas may be somewhat restricted, they are still much, much, much more indicative of SC2’s probable development than your theoretical assumptions.
"Also, it is a matter of principle. If noobs don’t appreciate SBS and whine about it, does it really matter that there’s more of them than those who complain about say, lack of automatic unit retreat? Does the quantity of illegitimate points by the uninformed really matter?"
Wow. Sorry but I think this is just way too arrogant for my tastes. Share the game, will ya? While I do appreciate AND enjoy watching pro-games, some of us want to enjoy casual games. Fighting the opposing player while fighting with the UI (selecting each building to build units, choosing 1 templar at a time to cast psi storm) might be the definition of casual gaming a decade ago (as there was nothing else better), casual gaming today is very different and MBS is one of those changes. While the debate whether MBS is better for tournaments or not is still on the table, the standard of casual gaming right now and in the near future is irrefutable. It may be right or wrong, it may be good or bad for the game, but casual gamers will expect that double clicking a building will choose all buildings of the same sort. And that templars don't stupidly cast all their Psi Storms in one place where it wont stack. They (casual gamers) will expect it to be implemented.
You have a different focus than I do. I want the best professional gameplay possible. SC2 is the only game with the credentials to achieve that. You have dozens of noob games coming out every year. Play one of those instead. Don't take away the one game we have.
Blizzard stated they want to cater to the professional community, and that is what you have to do. If they want to make a noob game, fine. Start some other franchise instead. Call it by another name. Don't pretend to bother with us. Don't kill our community, and just leave us be.
Edit: Also read the thread title. OP states "MBS is necessary for a competitive SC2". Not, lets add MBS for fun casual players. I can accept the later logic, even if I don't agree with its goal. On the other hand, I feel the OP statement is just flat out wrong.
On October 04 2007 12:24 mensrea wrote: At least the anti-MBS camp has some bases for their argument (look at the disastrous state of competitive WC3, for example)
I've seen this argument come up numerous times in this thread and elsewhere and it find it very odd.
How could you argue that having Multiple Building Selection in a game like Warcraft III has anything to do with its competitive state.
A StarCraft and Warcraft III comparison - or why using Warcraft III as an example of why MBS is bad is bad.
Warcraft III focuses on small armies - StarCraft focuses on larger armies.
Warcraft III has upkeep to discourage unit massing - StarCraft does not.
In Warcraft III "zerging" your opponent with weak units feeds them experience, making them stronger - StarCraft lacks this mechanic.
In Warcraft III players rarely build more than two unit producing buildings of the same kind - in StarCraft players build as many as their economy can support.
When Warcraft III was in development, the team said they wanted to lessen the emphasis on base management, in contrast to StarCraft. They purposefully made it easier to manage.
So how can you argue that in Warcraft III, a game which focuses on small armies, deemphasizes base management, where you rarely see more than two of the same unit producing buildings and where unit management more often than not trumps unit count (read: macro ability), how could you argue that in such a game, being able to select multiple buildings had any impact on its success as a competitive e-sport.
Remember the "Let's imagine SC1 with MBS"-thread? WarCraft III without MBS would have played almost exactly like it does with MBS. The macro is so deemphasized through non-interface mechanics that interface improvements does very little - if anything at all - to affect that aspect of the overall gameplay.
We're not saying that War3 shows MBS is bad. We're just saying you can't say War 3 was fine (some posters think so), so MBS isn't bad. We are also pointing out that War3 has a dearth of macro , a style which we don't want to see in SC. We're using War3 to show why constant base management and hectic unit production should be kept in SC, and one of the prerequisites for that is to disinclude MBS.
On October 04 2007 12:24 mensrea wrote: At least the anti-MBS camp has some bases for their argument (look at the disastrous state of competitive WC3, for example)
I've seen this argument come up numerous times in this thread and elsewhere and it find it very odd.
How could you argue that having Multiple Building Selection in a game like Warcraft III has anything to do with its competitive state.
A StarCraft and Warcraft III comparison - or why using Warcraft III as an example of why MBS is bad is bad.
Warcraft III focuses on small armies - StarCraft focuses on larger armies.
Warcraft III has upkeep to discourage unit massing - StarCraft does not.
In Warcraft III "zerging" your opponent with weak units feeds them experience, making them stronger - StarCraft lacks this mechanic.
In Warcraft III players rarely build more than two unit producing buildings of the same kind - in StarCraft players build as many as their economy can support.
When Warcraft III was in development, the team said they wanted to lessen the emphasis on base management, in contrast to StarCraft. They purposefully made it easier to manage.
So how can you argue that in Warcraft III, a game which focuses on small armies, deemphasizes base management, where you rarely see more than two of the same unit producing buildings and where unit management more often than not trumps unit count (read: macro ability), how could you argue that in such a game, being able to select multiple buildings had any impact on its success as a competitive e-sport.
Remember the "Let's imagine SC1 with MBS"-thread? WarCraft III without MBS would have played almost exactly like it does with MBS. The macro is so deemphasized through non-interface mechanics that interface improvements does very little - if anything at all - to affect that aspect of the overall gameplay.
like you said, macro has very little importance in war3 gameplay. it doesnt matter if thats because of mbs or not, the fact is macro is a very minor aspect of war3, if mbs makes macro a minor part of sc2 gameplay it could have the same effect on its value as a competetive game.
On October 04 2007 12:24 mensrea wrote: At least the anti-MBS camp has some bases for their argument (look at the disastrous state of competitive WC3, for example)
I've seen this argument come up numerous times in this thread and elsewhere and it find it very odd.
How could you argue that having Multiple Building Selection in a game like Warcraft III has anything to do with its competitive state.
A StarCraft and Warcraft III comparison - or why using Warcraft III as an example of why MBS is bad is bad.
Warcraft III focuses on small armies - StarCraft focuses on larger armies.
Warcraft III has upkeep to discourage unit massing - StarCraft does not.
In Warcraft III "zerging" your opponent with weak units feeds them experience, making them stronger - StarCraft lacks this mechanic.
In Warcraft III players rarely build more than two unit producing buildings of the same kind - in StarCraft players build as many as their economy can support.
When Warcraft III was in development, the team said they wanted to lessen the emphasis on base management, in contrast to StarCraft. They purposefully made it easier to manage.
So how can you argue that in Warcraft III, a game which focuses on small armies, deemphasizes base management, where you rarely see more than two of the same unit producing buildings and where unit management more often than not trumps unit count (read: macro ability), how could you argue that in such a game, being able to select multiple buildings had any impact on its success as a competitive e-sport.
Remember the "Let's imagine SC1 with MBS"-thread? WarCraft III without MBS would have played almost exactly like it does with MBS. The macro is so deemphasized through non-interface mechanics that interface improvements does very little - if anything at all - to affect that aspect of the overall gameplay.
like you said, macro has very little importance in war3 gameplay. it doesnt matter if thats because of mbs or not, the fact is macro is a very minor aspect of war3, if mbs makes macro a minor part of sc2 gameplay it could have the same effect on its value as a competetive game.
Mm, I think his point was that MBS isn't what made War3 a worse spectator/competitive game than SC (assuming it is, I think so but for the sake of not starting any debates I wanna make it clear that it's just my opinion). Nor is MBS what made macro a minor part of War3, it's just the way the game is - favours small armies via upkeep and heroes etc. Which I agree with.
But when making this point he also shows how huge the impact of MBS in SC1/SC2 would be, IMO.
ya i know, hence "it doesnt matter if thats because of mbs or not" my point was that if you eliminate the macro in sc2 it'll end up like war3. it doesnt really matter why war3 ended up like that, just that it would be an equivalent effect.
On October 05 2007 04:57 IdrA wrote: ya i know, hence "it doesnt matter if thats because of mbs or not" my point was that if you eliminate the macro in sc2 it'll end up like war3. it doesnt really matter why war3 ended up like that, just that it would be an equivalent effect.
No it wouldnt, large parts of macro doesnt have anything to do with mbs.
Sure it would play a bit more like wc3, since the mechanical parts of macro is easier, but the mental parts of macro is just as it was in starcraft and the physical parts of macro is still more than in wc3.
Also microing armies in starcraft is a lot different from warcraft 3.
Klockan you are a moron. If you can just unconsciously tap 5d6z every now and then instead of going back to your base and click on 15 gates and macro, the mental part is vastly different too. You have to consciously realize you have to go back and make sure that your units are in okay position and shape while your going back. The physical part says without saying.
Microing armies in starcraft is different it is a lot faster, and you never know when your mm might die to mass lurks or vessels get scourged when your back macroing. Hence that support anti-MBS, not discourage it.
On October 05 2007 04:57 IdrA wrote: ya i know, hence "it doesnt matter if thats because of mbs or not" my point was that if you eliminate the macro in sc2 it'll end up like war3. it doesnt really matter why war3 ended up like that, just that it would be an equivalent effect.
No it wouldnt, large parts of macro doesnt have anything to do with mbs.
Sure it would play a bit more like wc3, since the mechanical parts of macro is easier, but the mental parts of macro is just as it was in starcraft and the physical parts of macro is still more than in wc3.
Also microing armies in starcraft is a lot different from warcraft 3.
On October 05 2007 04:38 Aphelion wrote: We're not saying that War3 shows MBS is bad. We're just saying you can't say War 3 was fine (some posters think so), so MBS isn't bad. We are also pointing out that War3 has a dearth of macro , a style which we don't want to see in SC. We're using War3 to show why constant base management and hectic unit production should be kept in SC, and one of the prerequisites for that is to disinclude MBS.
The lessening of Macro is War3 was in no way connected to MBS. In War3, there will be a maximum of 3 battlefronts as fighting without your hero is nonsense (infact, the best harassers are heroes like the Blademaster). The game mechanics itself prevents macro. Not MBS. The number of required peasants in War3 (which is quite low compared to SC) mainly dictates how much you can harass. Not MBS. High cost per unit and upkeep has the general effect of limiting the number of units in battle therefore lessening the action in the game. Not MBS.
I thought there was a general consensus that Luhh's idea (was it him?) was the most promising: having multiple gateways selected and pressing "z" only starts the production of one zealot. If you want 3 zealots press "zzz"; if you need 4 zeals, 2 goons and 2 high templars - "zzzddtt". Everyone seems to have fogotten that idea.
In any case, arguments on both sides are only as good as our experience with SC2, which is very very slim, including those that have been to BlizzCon. Think about it, what does a player know about SC BW after playing only 20 games? Is he in any position to make judgements about how anything will affect the way the game is played when thousands of people have been playing it for thousands of games?
Why is it so clear to us that theorycrafting about a particular build is useless until it's tested against experienced adversaries multiple times, and yet we readily spew out certainties about how this UI change will play out in the long run? These questions can only be settled by testing again and again, by different players of different styles, until the conclusion is clear to all. If it really is that easy to draw conclusions now, why bother with beta testing at all?
On October 05 2007 04:38 Aphelion wrote: We're not saying that War3 shows MBS is bad. We're just saying you can't say War 3 was fine (some posters think so), so MBS isn't bad. We are also pointing out that War3 has a dearth of macro , a style which we don't want to see in SC. We're using War3 to show why constant base management and hectic unit production should be kept in SC, and one of the prerequisites for that is to disinclude MBS.
The lessening of Macro is War3 was in no way connected to MBS. In War3, there will be a maximum of 3 battlefronts as fighting without your hero is nonsense (infact, the best harassers are heroes like the Blademaster). The game mechanics itself prevents macro. Not MBS. The number of required peasants in War3 (which is quite low compared to SC) mainly dictates how much you can harass. Not MBS. High cost per unit and upkeep has the general effect of limiting the number of units in battle therefore lessening the action in the game. Not MBS.
But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3.
On October 05 2007 04:38 Aphelion wrote: We're not saying that War3 shows MBS is bad. We're just saying you can't say War 3 was fine (some posters think so), so MBS isn't bad. We are also pointing out that War3 has a dearth of macro , a style which we don't want to see in SC. We're using War3 to show why constant base management and hectic unit production should be kept in SC, and one of the prerequisites for that is to disinclude MBS.
The lessening of Macro is War3 was in no way connected to MBS. In War3, there will be a maximum of 3 battlefronts as fighting without your hero is nonsense (infact, the best harassers are heroes like the Blademaster). The game mechanics itself prevents macro. Not MBS. The number of required peasants in War3 (which is quite low compared to SC) mainly dictates how much you can harass. Not MBS. High cost per unit and upkeep has the general effect of limiting the number of units in battle therefore lessening the action in the game. Not MBS.
But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3.
You didn't really understand my post, did you?
There will be no los in macro stupid, only in macro clicks. You still do exactly the same things as before, just with less clicks. Nothing is automated, popcap isnt lowered, workers arent capped, expos arent capped, income isnt capped, structures arent capped and there is no extra penality losing units other than not having it anymore.
The only thing you are missing is the choice of when to have the macro blindspots.
On October 05 2007 04:38 Aphelion wrote: We're not saying that War3 shows MBS is bad. We're just saying you can't say War 3 was fine (some posters think so), so MBS isn't bad. We are also pointing out that War3 has a dearth of macro , a style which we don't want to see in SC. We're using War3 to show why constant base management and hectic unit production should be kept in SC, and one of the prerequisites for that is to disinclude MBS.
The lessening of Macro is War3 was in no way connected to MBS. In War3, there will be a maximum of 3 battlefronts as fighting without your hero is nonsense (infact, the best harassers are heroes like the Blademaster). The game mechanics itself prevents macro. Not MBS. The number of required peasants in War3 (which is quite low compared to SC) mainly dictates how much you can harass. Not MBS. High cost per unit and upkeep has the general effect of limiting the number of units in battle therefore lessening the action in the game. Not MBS.
But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3.
You didn't really understand my post, did you?
There will be no los in macro stupid, only in macro clicks. You still do exactly the same things as before, just with less clicks. Nothing is automated, popcap isnt lowered, workers arent capped, expos arent capped, income isnt capped, structures arent capped and there is no extra penality losing units other than not having it anymore.
The only thing you are missing is the choice of when to have the macro blindspots.
On October 05 2007 04:38 Aphelion wrote: We're not saying that War3 shows MBS is bad. We're just saying you can't say War 3 was fine (some posters think so), so MBS isn't bad. We are also pointing out that War3 has a dearth of macro , a style which we don't want to see in SC. We're using War3 to show why constant base management and hectic unit production should be kept in SC, and one of the prerequisites for that is to disinclude MBS.
The lessening of Macro is War3 was in no way connected to MBS. In War3, there will be a maximum of 3 battlefronts as fighting without your hero is nonsense (infact, the best harassers are heroes like the Blademaster). The game mechanics itself prevents macro. Not MBS. The number of required peasants in War3 (which is quite low compared to SC) mainly dictates how much you can harass. Not MBS. High cost per unit and upkeep has the general effect of limiting the number of units in battle therefore lessening the action in the game. Not MBS.
But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3.
You didn't really understand my post, did you?
There will be no los in macro stupid, only in macro clicks. You still do exactly the same things as before, just with less clicks. Nothing is automated, popcap isnt lowered, workers arent capped, expos arent capped, income isnt capped, structures arent capped and there is no extra penality losing units other than not having it anymore.
The only thing you are missing is the choice of when to have the macro blindspots.
Fuck off moron.
To fill in for you: You can argue that the skill to click buildings really fast (wich should be noted is the only thing that dissapears from macro other than the decision of when to do these clicks) is a skill that you value very highly. Its impossible to argue against that ofcourse, ill just say that most want to do other things than click buildings just for the sake of clicking buildings wich is essentailly the argument the anti mbs side has.
Taking out mbs now is about as dumb as instead making so that all your structures self destruct if you dont click them once per minute, creating hectic "high skill" building clicking. This would get almost the same effect on pro games, just that it would carry on through the whole game and not just as long as theres minerals on the map wich means that its better than removing mbs by your definition.
Do you ever fucking read anything? The fast clicking is a part of it, but even more is the conscious effort of having to leave your army and returning to your base.
Goddamn wtf, if you want to do it I can say the same about micro too, its just about clicking really fast while having to decide which units to move. And that follows a simple pattern of minimzing dmg taken and maximizing dmg dealt. Or even any fucking strategy. No skill involved in memorizing BOs. Preprogramme them in wtf!
Jesus fucking christ I don't even know how you can be so stupid. Tell me, do you even play the goddamn game?
Didn't want to have to post this but enough is enough: that kid is the same retard who was trolling in the other MBS threads who I - obviously I didn't put him in his place.
Cynic or whatever the hell his fucking name is decided to 'warn' me instead (rofl - some people really need to learn how to read - too funny).
He's a troll just ignore him or you might get banned for a dumb reason.
On October 05 2007 04:38 Aphelion wrote: We're not saying that War3 shows MBS is bad. We're just saying you can't say War 3 was fine (some posters think so), so MBS isn't bad. We are also pointing out that War3 has a dearth of macro , a style which we don't want to see in SC. We're using War3 to show why constant base management and hectic unit production should be kept in SC, and one of the prerequisites for that is to disinclude MBS.
The lessening of Macro is War3 was in no way connected to MBS. In War3, there will be a maximum of 3 battlefronts as fighting without your hero is nonsense (infact, the best harassers are heroes like the Blademaster). The game mechanics itself prevents macro. Not MBS. The number of required peasants in War3 (which is quite low compared to SC) mainly dictates how much you can harass. Not MBS. High cost per unit and upkeep has the general effect of limiting the number of units in battle therefore lessening the action in the game. Not MBS.
But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3.
You didn't really understand my post, did you?
Actually, this guy is right. In War3 you have 11-20 workers and 2-4 production buildings usually hotkeyed under different hotkeys anyway. MBS and automining have absolutely NO influence on how War3 is being played, if they removed it there it wouldn't make any difference at all. And with large amounts of unit producing buildings and massive armies you can't really compare War3 macro to SC2 macro for that matter.
Edit: I'd really appreciate it when people would stop pointing out how War3 was ruined by MBS and automining. Use other examples please.
NO ONE said War3 sucked because of MBS. We said if you add MBS in SC, it will suck like War3 in that you never have to look at your base when microing and all your attention is focused on the units.
On October 05 2007 23:13 Aphelion wrote: NO ONE said War3 sucked because of MBS. We said if you add MBS in SC, it will suck like War3 in that you never have to look at your base when microing and all your attention is focused on the units.
War3 is completely different game that is being played differently. You can't really ever compare SC and War3 because this games have almost nothing to do with each other. C&C would be a better comparison to SC than War3.
On October 05 2007 22:54 Aphelion wrote: Do you ever fucking read anything? The fast clicking is a part of it, but even more is the conscious effort of having to leave your army and returning to your base.
Goddamn wtf, if you want to do it I can say the same about micro too, its just about clicking really fast while having to decide which units to move. And that follows a simple pattern of minimzing dmg taken and maximizing dmg dealt. Or even any fucking strategy. No skill involved in memorizing BOs. Preprogramme them in wtf!
Jesus fucking christ I don't even know how you can be so stupid. Tell me, do you even play the goddamn game?
Lol, you dont understand anything!
MBS = You do the exact same macro as before, only with fewer clicks!
If you can find any micro thing that lets you have exactly the same control over your armies as without it but with fewer clicks, can you tell me them here? Automicro things removes playercontrol just like automacro things. Mbs isnt automacro, it however makes parts of macro take less clicks, it doesnt remove those parts, it doesnt automates those parts, just makes them take less clicks.
If we only look at the macro parts of starcraft with and wo mbs the only difference is that it will take less clicks. So all your arguing for is to add more clicks to the game.
And as i said, you cant remove anymore micro clicks without automating things, as such you cant draw that parallell.
And now on to the point, mbs removes some of the macro clicks. Those macro clicks were very easy to do and takes no thinking at all, just go through the same series of clicks every time. The actual thinking doesnt get removed by mbs wich is why i didnt include it here, since its in no way a part of the mbs debate. Now, if we remove those mindless clicks, and add mindfull clicks were you have to think for each one we make the game HARDER and not easier.
And as said before, you do loose the skill needed to choose when to have these blackout times, but really that skill isnt that interesting and imo if done right blizzard can easily make up for it with more smart apm.
On October 05 2007 23:30 Aphelion wrote: Ergo, we don't want MBS in SC2 because we think it will make SC2 suck like WC3.
Ergo you dont have a clue of what you are talking about since mbs doesnt make the game come even close to wc3. Yes i read your points and they are dumb, i can make just as dumb points:
*warcraft 2 didnt have hotkeys. *warcraft 2 had much more macro than starcraft. *Starcraft do have hotkeys, aka better UI. *Starcraft is a better game than warcraft 2. Ergo, better UI = better game, warcraft 2 and starcraft is basically the same game macro wise, just that in starcraft its easier.
how would adding something that is in War3 and NOT in SC NOT make it closer to War3? It litterally is a tangible step in that direction since its a direct fucking link between the two games (if you add MBS).
On October 05 2007 23:30 Aphelion wrote: 1.) We think War3 sucks.
2.) We feel a huge reason for that is because you don't have to look away from the army and are focused on it all day long.
3.) We think MBS in SC2 will cause the same thing.
4.) We think that would suck ass.
5.) We don't want SC2 to suck.
6.) We don't want MBS in SC2.
Ergo, we don't want MBS in SC2 because we think it will make SC2 suck like WC3.
I think you overuse "we" too much. And if you read my post you would know that MBS has nothing to do with "not looking away from your army" in WC3. It's the low building/unit count that makes it, not MBS.
And InControl: Yes, MBS is something that will connect WC3 and SC2, just like the fact they're both RTSs and made by Blizzard. It will also connect it to a bunch of other games where you have MBS. It doesn't mean anything at all. And adding 3 things from WC3 (mbs + automining + togglable autocast) still leaves SC2 closer to SC.
What's important here is how will SC2 really play with MBS because only very few people here know that. In WC3 you don't use MBS and SC doesn't have it so it's more or less like it would be the first Blizzard game that will actually incorporate it and make use of it, it's a big unknown.
On October 06 2007 01:34 {88}iNcontroL wrote: how would adding something that is in War3 and NOT in SC NOT make it closer to War3? It litterally is a tangible step in that direction since its a direct fucking link between the two games (if you add MBS).
You really are dense.
It makes it more like warcraft 3, the question is if that part of warcraft 3 is bad or not.
Its impossible to answer that question since mbs didnt affect warcraft 3 much at all.
i dont feel like quoting you but look at the bottom of your post above mine.. you litterally say what I was talking about. Not how good the game is or whether or not sc becomes as "good" as war3 by adding mbs.
uh having the ability to que up all your buildings and having your miners macro for themselves is a big difference.. if you do not grasp that you do not understand the differences between war3 and sc which would mean you are seriously illequipped to even be discussing this subject.
On October 06 2007 01:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote: i dont feel like quoting you but look at the bottom of your post above mine.. you litterally say what I was talking about. Not how good the game is or whether or not sc becomes as "good" as war3 by adding mbs.
I said that mbs wouldnt make it come close to wc3, not that it wouldnt make it come closer.
Close=|=closer.
Like, if i took a step to the west i would be closer to new york than before, but i still wouldnt be close would i?
On October 06 2007 01:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: uh having the ability to que up all your buildings and having your miners macro for themselves is a big difference.. if you do not grasp that you do not understand the differences between war3 and sc which would mean you are seriously illequipped to even be discussing this subject.
Um, sure automining is a quite big thing, but the topic title is mbs.
And warcraft 3 didnt need mbs, you hardly ever used it except to focus fire with towers.
Trust me, you dont get warcraft 3 gameplay by adding mbs and worker rally to starcraft, same as you dont get starcraft by removing those from warcraft 3. If warcraft 3 didnt have them it would play exactly like its done now since you hardly make workers or multiple buildings in that game.
On October 06 2007 01:34 {88}iNcontroL wrote: how would adding something that is in War3 and NOT in SC NOT make it closer to War3? It litterally is a tangible step in that direction since its a direct fucking link between the two games (if you add MBS).
You really are dense.
maybe if you played warcraft 3 for like a day you'd see why war3 macro can't be compared to sc macro. war3 is a game where it's a BAD IDEA to expand. that says enough.
Zanno you went past iNc's point. He was saying that SC2 is getting closer to WC3 and now you're saying that WC3 macro can't be compared to SC macro. iNc: SC2 goes WC3. You: WC3 is not SC.
How can your statement be a counter-argument for iNc's statement? Says enough what? If there is a connection between the two statements you may find it and explain it to us.
On October 06 2007 01:51 Manit0u wrote: What's important here is how will SC2 really play with MBS because only very few people here know that.
Sorry to not quote the rest of your post, I don'thave enough time. These few people who know how MBS plays were complaining about it, all of them. They say it makes SC2 boring.
On October 06 2007 01:51 Manit0u wrote: What's important here is how will SC2 really play with MBS because only very few people here know that.
Sorry to not quote the rest of your post, I don'thave enough time. These few people who know how MBS plays were complaining about it, all of them. They say it makes SC2 boring.
The other day i played a person in starcraft. I could expand everywere, try whatever goofy strat i wanted and i owned the whole map with units everywere. It was boring as hell tbh, why dont this game "Starcraft" put pressure on me?
Or is it really so that the pressure is not from the game but also a big part from the other player? Nah, that sounds to logical...
On October 06 2007 01:51 Manit0u wrote: What's important here is how will SC2 really play with MBS because only very few people here know that.
Sorry to not quote the rest of your post, I don'thave enough time. These few people who know how MBS plays were complaining about it, all of them. They say it makes SC2 boring.
The other day i played a person in starcraft. I could expand everywere, try whatever goofy strat i wanted and i owned the whole map with units everywere. It was boring as hell tbh, why dont this game "Starcraft" put pressure on me?
Or is it really so that the pressure is not from the game but also a big part from the other player? Nah, that sounds to logical...
Hehe and this is why I agree we need the beta before we make any final decisions
I just think that at the current time, evidence speaks against MBS.
On October 06 2007 01:51 Manit0u wrote: What's important here is how will SC2 really play with MBS because only very few people here know that.
Sorry to not quote the rest of your post, I don'thave enough time. These few people who know how MBS plays were complaining about it, all of them. They say it makes SC2 boring.
The other day i played a person in starcraft. I could expand everywere, try whatever goofy strat i wanted and i owned the whole map with units everywere. It was boring as hell tbh, why dont this game "Starcraft" put pressure on me?
Or is it really so that the pressure is not from the game but also a big part from the other player? Nah, that sounds to logical...
Your example shows that you were clearly better than your opponent in a game of SC. I will follow your point and claim that you will have harder times beating the same guy in SC2 because with MBS he can lack some of the skill he needed in SC which makes him a more dangerous opponent for you in SC2. My conclusion is that your example didn't refute anything, instead my opinion seems even more obvious.
On October 05 2007 04:38 Aphelion wrote: We're not saying that War3 shows MBS is bad. We're just saying you can't say War 3 was fine (some posters think so), so MBS isn't bad. We are also pointing out that War3 has a dearth of macro , a style which we don't want to see in SC. We're using War3 to show why constant base management and hectic unit production should be kept in SC, and one of the prerequisites for that is to disinclude MBS.
The lessening of Macro is War3 was in no way connected to MBS. In War3, there will be a maximum of 3 battlefronts as fighting without your hero is nonsense (infact, the best harassers are heroes like the Blademaster). The game mechanics itself prevents macro. Not MBS. The number of required peasants in War3 (which is quite low compared to SC) mainly dictates how much you can harass. Not MBS. High cost per unit and upkeep has the general effect of limiting the number of units in battle therefore lessening the action in the game. Not MBS.
But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3.
You didn't really understand my post, did you?
SC2 with MBS can be closely related to War3 by virtue of having the same controls (as well as being both highly successful real time strategy games and both being made by Blizzard). However, no one outside of Blizzard knows exactly for sure (well, not even Blizzard themselves, I think) how SC2 will play with MBS. No one. SC2 might have taken its roots from SC1 but the controls being different (which would be a big factor, I know), the play style in SC2 would be a lot more different. We know (and agree) as much as that. However, what we won't know until Beta (or even a few years after release) is if the difference will be for the better or for the worse. Beta might be too late (I don't think so, for Blizzard kills projects that they aren't satisfied with, however late in to development) for you but until then...that is the reason why most people here use analogies...and why my theory that more action will replace the old macro seem hard to believe. Yes, the new UI improvements will affect SC2 playstyle big time but as to what kind of effect...we could use more and more analogies or theories but those will always be just analogies and theories.
all we can do is hope for the best... blzzards response to frozen has given me SOME hope they will retain the balance achieved in sc between macro vs micro... pray to the gods and cross ur finger they wont mess up this awesome franchise..
I have no idea why people think that SC2 would have more strategical depth and tactics involved with MBS. If you want strategical depth and tactics, without having to make decisions in a matter of seconds, go play chess without time limit. It's called REAL TIME strategy for a reason...
Because the other thread got deleted (talk about arbitrariness):
MBS will probably reduce the need of cheats. In SC1, many newbs can't handle the "real game", that's why they either cheat or play on money maps. If you help them somewhat (MBS will), there will hopefully be less cheating overall.
EPT
NaDa ever consistently break 400+ apm in games. When we see 
Nal_rA's of today would NOT be possible. 
![[image loading]](http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2981659/2/istockphoto_2981659_coloring_in_book.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM/0285-0609-2005-5836_SM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/tasteless9/baseball.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/tasteless9/teeball.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mdravens.org/softb11.jpg)
.![[image loading]](http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7896/graphthing2lj4.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/Notes/Neural/Bitmaps/sigmoid.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i15.tinypic.com/6b08od1.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7375/progamerheirarchyqf5.png)
![[image loading]](http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/3979/scwc3zp7.jpg)
