On September 09 2007 13:26 Aphelion wrote: SC is a economy based macro game. Micro is very spectacular, but its true impact to the game must be measured against the macro foundations : how much you increase the cost-effectiveness of the unit, and as well as how much hurt you did to your opponents multitasking relative to the attention you spent on it yourself.
I'm afraid if you don't realize this, we can't even have a decent discussion, because you are just basically thrashing the competitive community and what we built up. You don't realize how important those 'boring parts' are to the overall game, EVEN WHEN your watching the spectacular moments, they are really only impressive because of these 'boring parts'.
Plus some of us are just prefer to be banana-eating, macro loving, gorilla monsters. We find it fun. Live with it.
Yes, I'm realizing it. And in my first post I said something about the prioritizing part of the game. But if you like it, then so be it.
On September 09 2007 13:27 tufflax wrote: But, there are still some things that I think is boring with the game, and these are the tasks that could be done automatically by a better interface. Just think about it, if it could be done by a better interface, then it doesn't require so much thought/ingeniousness/cleverness in the first place, and those things are boring. When we see BoxeR come up with some new strategy, that is what is fun to watch, not that he can order his SCVs to gather minerals.
Its not boring. You just don't understand the game well enough to appreciate those subtle aspects.
If you don't think I understand, then please explain it to me.
The "boring parts" are not quite so boring sometimes, because it builds up to the "climax". Take an action movie for example. The main point is the action. You watch as people do "boring" things like walk and talk, or drive into a garage, but it's not so boring, because it sets up the movie for the action. (unless you actually do get bored during the non-action parts of an action movie, and then this example wouldn't fit you)
But I still think that MBS shouldn't be completely removed, because it would be nice to get an SC that is updated in both graphics and gameplay, rather than one that is only graphically updated. But I think that MBS should still be tweaked again. There have been a few ideas on how SC2 could be on the middle ground of the two extremes of the MBS debate. Also, as in at least one of the other threads, MBS will aid the newer players, and allow them to stay, and possibly go pro. But this will require that the space removed by MBS is filled, which is why it still needs some tweaking. I think I was impartial to the interface when I first played SC, because that was my first RTS other than a few minutes of Age of Empires 2, and SC is much simpler than AoE2. But when I played warcraft 3, I liked the ability to select multiple buildings, and in UMS it really helps a lot. But I didn't really like the gameplay of WC3 too much. So that means that it could be possible for SC2 to have the current updated interface and sc gameplay and possibly still be good, but with a few changes, Blizzard could achieve a perfect balance again.
I have finally converted to the anti-MBS and now can fully understand the incredible (lack of)logic behind this:
Hwasin queued 5 scvs towards the end. This is not because the game requires too much speed, it's just because Hwasin is such a noob that he makes such newbie maneuvers. In conclusion: MBS and auto mine will help only noobs like Hwasin to macro properly and beat the pros and will destroy the skill needed to play the game. I'm just fucking curious which are these pros that will suffer from these changes and lose the advantage they have over some inferior players. They are obviously WAY above Hwasin's level.
lololol, did you saw how he was completely forgetting about barracks and minerals in the middle of fights? His mineral count raised over 2,5k! Only imagine what advantage this noob will get with MBS and automining. How he'd suddenly start wining WCGs, OSLs, MSLs. This nonsense is intolerable Im soo agree with ya! Will fight to the end with Blizzard's blindness
I don't understand lololol's argument at all. He is being sarcastic but at the same time his point corrected by his sarcasm actually proves the opposite.
This vod proves they can't add MBS and auto-mine because pros don't come even close what one would be able to do with these interface features.
If the MBS system would prevent a top professional like Hwasin from playing so far removed from perfectly then imagine how much it will help out a beginner.
I think your compare Starcraft to chess like it was the same thing, which it isn't. You can't just assume the games are similar, or even should be.
Starcraft is a REAL-TIME Strategy game which should require speed and dexterity to master, and when you take that away you DO take away skill from the game.
Imagine a PvT where a totally noob toss just has to press a button for building a worker all the time and the worker mines automatically etc. Then build alot of gateways, and then just select all and press "z" or "d" until you have a 200/200 army. Then attack-move on the terran and with a bit of luck you kill off his army.
Now where is the skill in this?
Btw, you sound like a starcraft noob, and newbs tend to want an easier game that they can be good at. Like Aphelion said, you don't seem to have a very deep understanding of SC, which makes your arguments kind of irrelevant.
There's nothing boring about macro.
It's also ironic that you say that you're no fan of dexterity. Why are you even discussing SC then, which obviously is a game which perhaps requires the most dexterity of any game.
Yeah, beginners will beat Hwasin, too, because of MBS ! And Hwasin will beat the ultimate pros, that will never exist, again because of the same reason!
Jens, so now noobs suddenly have skill, because there is no MBS? LOL WTF are you talking about? MBS does not change the player, it changes the interface and MBS will be implemented in SC2, not BW.
On September 10 2007 01:40 JensOfSweden wrote: I think your compare Starcraft to chess like it was the same thing, which it isn't. You can't just assume the games are similar, or even should be.
Starcraft is a REAL-TIME Strategy game which should require speed and dexterity to master, and when you take that away you DO take away skill from the game.
Imagine a PvT where a totally noob toss just has to press a button for building a worker all the time and the worker mines automatically etc. Then build alot of gateways, and then just select all and press "z" or "d" until you have a 200/200 army. Then attack-move on the terran and with a bit of luck you kill off his army.
Now where is the skill in this?
Btw, you sound like a starcraft noob, and newbs tend to want an easier game that they can be good at. Like Aphelion said, you don't seem to have a very deep understanding of SC, which makes your arguments kind of irrelevant.
There's nothing boring about macro.
It's also ironic that you say that you're no fan of dexterity. Why are you even discussing SC then, which obviously is a game which perhaps requires the most dexterity of any game.
Ok, so you mean that zealots are overpowered and that toss can beat terran wo any expos? If those arent the case the toss player cant do that, wich shows that you dont really understand starcraft well enough to make a good decision on why mbs and automining is bad.
The games macro have a bit more depth than queing units and sending workers to mine, and if you dont see that then im sorry for you.
On September 10 2007 01:40 JensOfSweden wrote: I think your compare Starcraft to chess like it was the same thing, which it isn't. You can't just assume the games are similar, or even should be.
Starcraft is a REAL-TIME Strategy game which should require speed and dexterity to master, and when you take that away you DO take away skill from the game. Imagine a PvT where a totally noob toss just has to press a button for building a worker all the time and the worker mines automatically etc. Then build alot of gateways, and then just select all and press "z" or "d" until you have a 200/200 army. Then attack-move on the terran and with a bit of luck you kill off his army.
Now where is the skill in this?
Btw, you sound like a starcraft noob, and newbs tend to want an easier game that they can be good at. Like Aphelion said, you don't seem to have a very deep understanding of SC, which makes your arguments kind of irrelevant.
There's nothing boring about macro.
It's also ironic that you say that you're no fan of dexterity. Why are you even discussing SC then, which obviously is a game which perhaps requires the most dexterity of any game.
So you mean that just making zealots and dragoons to 200/200 is a recipe for success? And this is what everyone should be doing if we were skilled and dextruos enough? And I sound like a noob?
On September 09 2007 12:13 tufflax wrote: Hey all!
I thought I might write a little bit about the "noob friendly" interface of StarCraft 2 (rallying workers to minerals, unlimited selection of units, selecting more than one building and casting spells while having several casters selected etc.) because a lot of you think that this is, for some reason, a bad idea. But I strongly believe that an improved interface is not a bad thing.
I personally think StarCraft is a great game. But I do not really like playing it because of the interface. So what do I not like about it? Among other things: it's just frustrating not being able to do what one wants. I appreciate the need for a lot of things that "takes skill". The more things that can separate the good players from the bad the better; but not always.
Hold on to your butts.
If the things that separate the good players from the bad are things that are boring, then it's not helping the game. For example: Chess is (probably; since I'm not good at it I can not really tell) a pretty good game. But one could add additional elements to the game that makes it take more skill. Imagine that in Chess, after every move you make, you have to juggle five balls in the air for ten seconds (thanks Sirlin), otherwise your move doesn't count. That would make the game "harder" and "take more skill". But is it something that would be good? It most certainly would not. Why? Because first of all juggling is not as fun as playing a strategy game (of course some may argue with that, but I think most of you agree, more on that later). And second the juggling part of this new Chess is out of place; players who want to play Chess do most likely not want to have to juggle the balls. So, even if something makes the game "take more skill" it is not always a good thing.
I see what you're saying here, regardless of how bad the analogy is. You're saying that macro in SC is redundant and you have to go out of your way to do it. I can agree it's a bit repetitive, but surely not redundant. The entire point of macro is that it forces you to go out of your way to do it, hence forcing you to choose between microing or macroing, which is a very important decision that can lead to winning or losing. Also, note that these decisions are being made constantly throughout the game.
This is the essence of making a better interface in SC2. The macro part of SC:BW is not really fun. Just clicking a lot of buildings (because you can not select many) etc. and "fighting the interface" is like juggling in the above example. It takes skill, but it's a boring skill. So, why is it boring? There is really no interaction with the opponent. You just have to do it. Micro and strategy, on the other hand, depends on what your opponent is doing. Every battle is like a mini strategy game. You have to get inside the mind of your opponent, and counter his moves. This kind of thing is much more fun than just clicking your buildings.
Yes, you interact with your opponent but how is micro less repetitive than macro? You still need speed and dexterity. Also, don't try to tell me there is more strategy in micro than macro, quite frankly, the difference is negligible. Where are you going to cast your storm? All over his units. Where are you going to move your marines? Away from the death spikes. In fact, I'd say micro takes even more speed and dexterity than macro does.
Of course when I say that it is more fun, I'm just expressing my own opinion. But I think most of you actually agree with me on this. Otherwise, you would not be playing SC in the first place. SC is a game of strategy. You have to get into the mind of the opponent, and come up with counters to what he is doing right now. There is no best strategy all the time. The fact that you like SC shows that you like this kind of strategy and mind games more than juggling. There are all kinds of games that focus on dexterity that you could play instead, but you chose SC.
The are plenty of other games that involve massive amounts of strategy and little to no dexterity, yet you choose SC. Chess, Go, or Poker just to name a few.
One of the most popular arguments against an improved interface is that it makes the game require less skill. And that the gap between pro gamers and others will narrow. I'm not convinced by this argument, because there will always be things that the player can do instead of fighting the interface. For example micro even better, attack on multiple fronts etc. No one has ever played a perfect game of SC, and no one will ever play a perfect game of SC2. There will always be lots of things that could be done even better.
Of course it takes less skill, there is no arguing this. The reason many people want to keep macro the way it is now is because the need to multitask. With MBS and auto-mine there is hardly a reason to go back to your base at all. You can micro as you please.
There are some other arguments against the noob friendly interface. And I'm going to respond to some of them now.
Hold on to your butts, again.
1. "If a BW game goes long enough, even the pros known for their perfect mechanics have to make decisions with regard to BW's third resource: time. The top players have to decide how much time to spend with each pressing issue, knowing that the issues ignored will suffer. A computer game shouldn't be built such that if you know what to do, you can automatically do it. That's a board game. For example, in Chess, or Risk, it does not take any skill to move a piece. Simplifying a computer game's interface to the point that the action on screen is just an extension of your thoughts is a big mistake. How much of your decisions actually come through on-screen should be mitigated by hand speed."
The first part of this argument is valid. The skill of prioritizing is real. I can even agree on that there is a little bit of a mind game and strategy involved. But I don't think that it makes up for the boring part after you have decided that you must focus on macro: fighting the interface. And this prioritizing skill is not lost if the game has a better interface. Players will still have to make decisions about what to focus on. For example if fighting multiple battles or even one non-trivial battle.
The second part of the argument is not really an argument at all. It's just an opinion. But nevertheless, I'm somewhat against it. Why shouldn't computer games try to eliminate the dexterity required? I think it would be wonderful, for the reasons stated above. And why should there be some arbitrary difference between board games and computer games? It's true that the actual moving of the pieces in Risk or Chess doesn't take much skill, but the thought behind the moves does. If you think that Chess is somehow too simple then try to beat a grand master.
Another thing about board games: Not many people play board games. Most people think that they are boring. But it's not for this reason (no dexterity required). I believe the reason why many people think they are boring is because they simply are less intense, not being real-time games, among other reasons. The gameplay of Risk, for example, is not that good in the first place.
The first part is opinion, the second part is utterly stupid. How can you compare SC to a board game at all? The third part is the very reason we want to stray away from MBS, it makes things less intense and would probably make things, dare I say, boring.
2. "All games require decision-making but sports also require physical fitness, computer games require hand dexterity, and board games require nothing in addition at all. A tennis player can decide to hit the ball into the far corner, but he can still fail if his body is not capable of such strength and accuracy. It would be silliness to alter the game of tennis in some way such that players are not limited by their physical capabilities. Tennis fans know that the strategical requirements and the physical requirements of the game are already well-balanced."
This is all true. It would be pretty silly to somehow remove the physical skill in Tennis. But it's Tennis, not StarCraft. If the physical skill is removed from Tennis not a whole lot would be left. If dexterity, in some way, was removed from StarCraft on the other hand, the things left that require skill are still abundant.
It's funny how you can think his analogy with Tennis is retarded but your Chess + ball juggling isn't. Here's the difference, the physical aspect of Tennis is accepted to be essentially a requirement, it's part of Tennis. Your example with Chess brings juggling balls out of no where to make it seem stupid and redundant (which it is, but it makes no sense).
The main difference, again, is that you see macro (I mean non-MBS macro) is something that's unessecary and I see it as something that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the SC name for reasons I have given and will give.
3. "Other RTS's have been going that [noob friendly] direction and their games hold interest for less than a year."
I don't know what games you are talking about. But it's not the noob friendliness that makes them bad, it's the balance and gameplay.
Macro isn't part of gameplay? What? SC's gameplay is unique due to balance. Balance between races, macro and micro, and mental and physical. This is why we still play to this day.
4. "Massive groups of unlimited or even over 20 units is a pretty bad idea. It takes away from a lot of micro aspects."
This argument is true in a way. But micro is really about two things. Dexterity and knowing what to do. And as you probably guessed by now, I'm not a big fan of dexterity. But nevertheless, SC2, with the interface improvements, will still require dexterity. And players will not be able to micro properly with all of their units in one big group anyway.
Units sure can attack move though. There's a huge difference between mindlessly attack moving all of your units and only being able to send 3 groups because you're too slow. Just like there is a huge difference in mindlessly producing Zealots and not producing Zealots at all. Regardless, I wouldn't mind a bigger control group, just not unlimited.
5. "From personal talks with many of the best Warcraft 3 players they complain that many of their players can take a year off, not practice, come back and get 1st or 2nd in a prestigious tournament.
Even if that really is the case, I don't see anything wrong with it. If the player is really good and can pull it off, then he deserves to win. It's still a game of skill and there is nothing to complain about. Unless of course they can win because of imbalance or something like that. But that's something else.
Please apply this logic to any other sport or game. "Oh, you know, I took a year off and just won the tourney." ?
6. "Starcraft 2 is making it easier to decrease skill gaps between players. Which is a bad thing. Because you do not respect the players as much, there is less to do, and the game becomes much less intense, thus less fun."
As discussed above, I think there will always be plenty of things to do. Just less boring things.
Fully opinion and very untrue. People seem to thing micro is some super strategic aspect of the game. All you're doing is moving units. When we see Boxer micro his mnm against lurkers do we say "oh how strategic"? No, we say "What a goddamn pimp". Anyone can think of doing what Boxer does, but it's the physical part of it that makes it impressive.
7. "All professional gamers I have talked to agree that you shouldn't be able to take months off practice then win a prestigious tournament with all the best players nor place 2nd in it. With the simplifying of SC into SC2, thus far it feels like this is what they are doing."
If I were a pro gamer, I would not have any problem with someone taking months off and then still win. If I were the one beaten it would be a little embarrassing. But I don't think this will be a real issue in SC2 because, as I have said earlier, it will still require dexterity etc.
What I would find frustrating though is if I would be forced to take a few months off and lose much of my skill (happens even if one is not a pro). That is a bigger problem in my opinion.
Apply this logic to any other sport or game. Maybe if the guy taking time off is already considered to be way above the rest, but that doesn't happen too much in SC.
8. "RTS should have a mix of many characteristics. If someone's going to bullshit and say it should be all about strategy, and lower skilled people should be able to keep up and nearly be able to macro like Reach by pressing 4z on 10 gateways... then they might as well make it a turn based game."
It's not just the fingers that have a hard time performing. The mind is also pressed for time. And again, SC2 is going to require dexterity.
Stop saying "SC2 is going to require dexterity" like it actually satisfies the argument. The mind is pressed for time? To do what? Decide which units to move or where to micro? That's the same effect as macro, but without the macro.
9. "Games should be difficult and take skill. It should take speed, strategy, timing, economy management, game control, etc... and many other factors that make the game great and intense. SC2 still takes skill, but it's not nearly as difficult or intense as playing SC. Thus, comes off as less fun in general."
If it truly is less intense and less difficult for the fingers, I would be very happy. But I don't believe it until I see it for myself.
What you quoted has nothing to do with fingers. It's a very good point that you just dismissed, a game that doesn't have all of that is not StarCraft.
10. "As has been said by testie and nony, the execution difficulty is vital for the game to be fun to watch and have great potential for skill. Making the UI so forgiving for new players removes this execution difficulty. Imagine if you had the same shooting skill in golf as Tiger Woods, and all you had to do was know what club to select."
Golf is not StarCraft. (This might be the worst argument I've heard so far.)
I shouldn't but I will. Chess + juggling balls, enough said. Again, this boils down to whether macro a part of SC (the franchise) or not.
11. "Blizzard tried to make skill difference show in micro with warcraft3 - they noobified the macro/base management process. Result? Well...I believe that we have a general consensus of how the war3 gameplay feels like, and I would say that many of the people reading this forum do not like it."
I don't like WC3. But it's because of the gameplay, with the heroes and all, not that the interface is more noob friendly. Even if you want a less "noob friendly" interface, you have to admit that it is the gameplay that sets the games apart in this case, not the interface.
How can you even say this? Macro contributes so much to SC's gameplay.
12. "Even if micro is going to become harder in SC2, by making the macro just as hard as BW you will have to achieve even a higher level of skill to master SC2 rather then BW."
But even the very best players, after 10 years, can not do all the things they would like to do. So there is absolutely no need for this extra potential for skill.
There is plenty of need, this is why the game lasted so long in the first place. A game that doesn't continue to evolve, dies.
Another thing I would like to point out at this point is that the people at TL.net are obviously biased. People like me who doesn't like that there is a big dexterity requirement has left SC for other games. Even if StarCraft is very popular, maybe it would have been even more popular if the interface would have been better. I know I certainly would have liked it more.
Of course TL is biased, do you understand your audience? We are the people who have collectively been keeping the foreign SC scene alive. It has surpassed the status of an ordinary game to more of a hobby.
I'm just going to say this, I don't care whether you implent MBS or automine or not as it doesn't effect me directly. What I am concerned about is the longevity, competitiveness, and just plain fun of SC's successor.
What you have to understand it's not one defining characteristic that makes SC, it's the way all of these characteristics combine that make it great game. What you propose we do is add more creme and brew a lighter coffee.
On September 09 2007 13:27 tufflax wrote: But, there are still some things that I think is boring with the game, and these are the tasks that could be done automatically by a better interface. Just think about it, if it could be done by a better interface, then it doesn't require so much thought/ingeniousness/cleverness in the first place, and those things are boring. When we see BoxeR come up with some new strategy, that is what is fun to watch, not that he can order his SCVs to gather minerals.
Its not boring. You just don't understand the game well enough to appreciate those subtle aspects.
eliminate the time it takes to do simple and repetitive tasks and you get pros spending more time on extremely complex manouvers. imagine the pimpest plays of today being a staple in every game. and the pimpest plays of sc2 being unfathomable feats in sc1. does anybody really think that by improving the interface people will automatically play slowly? hell no, it means they'll focus their speed on more important matters.
I agree that Tufflax is obviously missing the whole point to the anti-MBS side. Tearing apart his arguments doesn't prove anything. Try countering mine from the other thread then you can say that you've made a point.
On the other hand, I also think that the average player will agree with Tufflax's mindset than the anti-MBS crowd (the polls are in favor EVEN ON TL.net). Thus, regardless of how "flawed" you think they are, Blizzard must respect this when designing SC2.
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 06:45 orangedude wrote: Mahnini:
This is too easy for you.
I agree that Tufflax is obviously missing the whole point to the anti-MBS side. Tearing apart his arguments doesn't prove anything. Try countering mine from the other thread then you can say that you've made a point.
On the other hand, I also think that the average player will agree with Tufflax's mindset than the anti-MBS crowd (the polls are in favor EVEN ON TL.net). Thus, regardless of how "flawed" you think they are, Blizzard must respect this when designing SC2.
Your thread has nothing to counter, if they can have MBS but also require you to spend as much time macroing as microing I'm all for it.
As for the poll results, a good portion of TL avoids the SC2 section like aids.
What matters is how flawed Blizzard thinks these arguments are, in this case the OP think we want to keep macro because we can't let go or something. Like I said before, come up with something that can replace the actual building of units but takes the same amount of attention and essentially "distraction" and I'll welcome MBS with open arms. The only problem is, I doubt anything can actually fill that role.
My above post also says this (read it carefully): the best option by far is to keep MBS in and create new macro options (and that requires good ideas). However, even if the second part doesn't happen, its still not the end of the world. Its possible that even then, this will improve SC competition as a whole.
But either way, new macro options are what we should be focusing on.
There's already a good example of this: Warpgates. Tech addons for Terran may also play a role? Also any ideas at all for the zerg are good, since it's completely in the open atm.
If we don't have anything yet, then we need to keep thinking. It seems like the people who do not want MBS are more interested in somehow convincing Blizzard to remove it from the game (which IMO is not going to happen), rather than coming up with ideas.
EDIT: Make MBS an official TL.net poll then (without biased wording).
Orangedude: I like seeing imperfection even in the top ranks of progaming, and even more I like to see progamers taking advantage of that fact. Imperfection allows for improvement, it allows for a human element of distraction, psychological frustration, it allows for style. Perfection has no style, it is bland and conformist.
Nalra and Boxer are exciting precisely because they sacrifice macro, they take risks, and sacrifice solid play. Without that factor, everyone would be Nal_ra and Boxer, and there would be nothing special about what they do. I don't want every game to be a wanna-be pimpest play. Again, stuff like Pimpest Plays, micro feats , they are only impressive IN CONTEXT of the solid macro mechanics and overall subtext which goes on around them.
Furthermore, pros don't win "because" their opponent played sloppily. They exert incredible pressure and force the game to a situation where their opponents, even with their super mechanics, breakdown. This imperfection actually allows for more comebacks though, because when people start playing too perfectly the slightest mistake becomes crippling. Every game would be like a ZvZ.
People keep bringing up "pimpest plays", "strategy" and "warp gate multi-directional micro" to somehow browbeat the anti-MBS side. Unique strategy and "pimpest plays" cannot be common in a balanced game which allows mass gaming. In fact, I've thought a long time about it, and for a long-term, balanced game, there will be increasingly less situations which allow for the above. Its a sign of a solid game. It doesn't mean that it is boring. It just means that all scenarios have been very much explored and understood, and that there's a reason for action one takes, even if they seem rote and memorized. Noobs don't understand that. They see pros do similar BOs every game and assume its mindless and non-strategic. They cry out that "SC needs more strategy". They could not be more wrong. There are reasons for every small move when a game has evolved to that level. A balanced game which does not rely on luck eventually will settle to such a steady state.
EPT
