|
On October 02 2007 06:39 Skew wrote:
Well that doesn't make any sense at all. No matter how an RTS is, competitive players from StarCraft are going to dominate it becuase these new RTS are all 10x easier and StarCraft players just pick it up and belt it in weeks. I've done it myself, so have many others. Know why? Because the game basically plays itself.
Tell that to Savior who lost to Moon. 
Also your point about people for MBS wanting to be pros with the help of MBS is like saying people against it just worry they ll lose their advantage against non sc players. Neither is correct, is just generalization.
Also to people saying low posters = noobs or with little understanding of SC and RTS:
low post number may mean more playing less talking
low post number may mean more reading less talking
low post number may mean thinking before talking
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Mm, did savior really actually play moon? I thought that was just a misconception when someone posted a vod of both of them playing - SEPARATELY.
Anyway, Warcraft 3 doesn't count as one of the other RTSes, it's a highly competitive/good game. Skew is talking about games like Dawn of War / CnC3.. etc.
On October 02 2007 06:38 CTStalker wrote:
Orangedude makes a good point. It is natural that players who have cultivated a skill, and recognize that that skill is of the utmost importance for a game, would want to see the need for that skill to be carried over to the game's sequel.
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
I haven't yet formulated an opinion about MBS, however, I think that saying that a game feature which will make an aspect of macroing easier will result in a skill-blow to the game is polarizing the argument.
Put focus on the wrong word man.
Who cares if it's not macro in its entirety, anything becoming easier is bad. The word you should put in italics is EASIER.
|
On October 02 2007 06:09 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 04:32 Failsafe wrote:
1) because MBS is the wave of the future (obviously a pretty shitty argument)
It's a far more complicated argument than how you phrased it and it spawned 30 pages of points from both sides. If you want to argue against it, you'd better at least read more into it and post a response there..
orly?
On October 02 2007 06:02 blabber wrote:
I think people want multiple building select because basically every other RTS out right now has it and it'd look stupid to not have it...
I say just have a max of how many you can select at once. Like 4 or 6.
two posts above yours.
maybe you misunderstood what i was doing, but my point with that sentence was just to show that there really were idiots making the argument that a great reason for having MBS in the game is because other new games have it. your misunderstanding wouldn't be too annoying except that the only way it could have come about, judging by your responses (which is to say you don't seem to be an idiot), is that you just didn't sincerely read the thread.
|
On October 02 2007 06:59 Failsafe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 06:09 orangedude wrote:On October 02 2007 04:32 Failsafe wrote:
1) because MBS is the wave of the future (obviously a pretty shitty argument)
It's a far more complicated argument than how you phrased it and it spawned 30 pages of points from both sides. If you want to argue against it, you'd better at least read more into it and post a response there.. orly? Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 06:02 blabber wrote:
I think people want multiple building select because basically every other RTS out right now has it and it'd look stupid to not have it...
I say just have a max of how many you can select at once. Like 4 or 6. two posts above yours. maybe you misunderstood what i was doing, but my point with that sentence was just to show that there really were idiots making the argument that a great reason for having MBS in the game is because other new games have it. your misunderstanding wouldn't be too annoying except that the only way it could have come about, judging by your responses (which is to say you don't seem to be an idiot), is that you just didn't sincerely read the thread.
Yes, there are idiots making that argument. Then again, there are idiots from both sides. I can't even begin to count the number of anti-MBS posts like "obviously MBS sucks" with zero backing at all.
However, you generalized the entire pro-MBS side into three exaggerated statements. I have indeed carefully read this thread, although I'm not sure if you've read the one I linked to, as I don't see any of your posts there.
|
Has anybody named an RTS that is "ruined" but would be better simply by taking MBS away from it? Didn't think so.
|
On October 02 2007 06:38 CTStalker wrote:
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
any validity?
every single good player who has posted on the topic on these forums has been anti-mbs
the fact that every player (who posted) who plays the game competetively thinks that adding mbs would remove some of the competetive aspect of the game surely means something. its not just a coincidence.
it obviously does not put the issue beyond argument, but you cant simply disregard it.
|
I think Blizzard is well aware of this and are using MBS to integrate new means of competitive play. You simply cannot say "MBS on broodwar sucks" because its preposterous..
|
On October 02 2007 07:06 lugggy wrote:
Has anybody named an RTS that is "ruined" but would be better simply by taking MBS away from it? Didn't think so.
im pretty sure the quality of your arguments actually does the pro-mbs side a disservice.
read skew, lazerflip(might be in the other mbs thread), and artosis' posts. all have played other rts' on a competetive level. all have said the other games theyve played (c&c3, dow, aoe3, etc) would be better without mbs.
|
On October 02 2007 07:08 zizou21 wrote:
I think Blizzard is well aware of this and are using MBS to integrate new means of competitive play. You simply cannot say "MBS on broodwar sucks" because its preposterous..
it seems far more likely that blizzard is implementing mbs because it will make the game more newb friendly (more casual players will buy/play it) and because all other recent rts' have it.
hell i think theyve even said one of the reasons for mbs/automining is to make it more accessible to the average gamer.
|
Canada9720 Posts
On October 02 2007 07:07 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 06:38 CTStalker wrote:
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
any validity? every single good player who has posted on the topic on these forums has been anti-mbs the fact that every player (who posted) who plays the game competetively thinks that adding mbs would remove some of the competetive aspect of the game surely means something. its not just a coincidence. it obviously does not put the issue beyond argument, but you cant simply disregard it.
You're right, I chose my words incorrectly. It is just as likely that a good player could be a great anaylyzer, while another good player could have poor game-analytical skills.
What I meant to draw attention to was orangedude's point, that the appearance of a potential loss in an investment, the mastering of single-building-selection macro, would motivate a player to argue against MBS.
|
MBS can ADD NOTHING to competitive play.. only take from.. and yes u can look at every "PRO-RTS" game besides SC like WC3.. even Grubby said "there's just not enough to do" and thats his comment about WC3 so why do u want sc2 like that??
All the Good Players dont like MBS and its.. not so we have a advantage becasue lets face it.. there are other gamers from other games who are just as fast as SC players.. Take moon from WC3 for example.. but putting MBS in SC2 Ladder is like adding a Easy Button. which would destroy SC2 competitivly~
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Can we also add a system that automatically micros units too? That shit is hard.
|
On October 02 2007 07:19 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Can we also add a system that automatically micros units too? That shit is hard.
If we have MBS we might aswell control.. I mean Hell lets just Get in a ladder match then go afk and watch the units fight for them... thats the next step after mbs/automine... Newbified~
|
Canada9720 Posts
On October 02 2007 07:19 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Can we also add a system that automatically micros units too? That shit is hard.
And yet you complain about poor posts and trolling in the SC2 forum
|
On October 02 2007 06:38 CTStalker wrote:
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
in absolute terms, as i've said before, you'd be right. neither of those arguments are 'valid' arguments, but of course if you had any appreciation for logic, you'd recognize that the world you live in sorely lacks valid arguments for pretty much anything. to avoid being too philosophical, my point is that most of what you know is taken on some authority that is not absolute 'sound' deductive logical fact. that being said, obviously some authorities are better than others. additionally, when every good authority is in unanimous agreement, if you're still saying 'of course not!' chances are that you need to reconsider your position.
so, for all practical purposes you are wrong.
it's certainly true that not every good player is also a good analyzer, however, it is much more likely for a good player to be a good analyzer than some random sample subject. coincidentally the analytical quality of posts on one side of the issue is impressively higher than that of the other side... but i digress, anyway, as the argument must obviously go, if the better authorities are in unanimous agreement, and you disagree with them, you need a much more convincing argument than the 'fallacy' of inductive logic. your style of thinking would deny us even causation and then we'd be in a world of trouble
|
On October 02 2007 02:47 Aphelion wrote:
Faith in Blizzard? They are the best company out there, but they made War3. SC fans have always been the most neglected and forgotten of Blizzard's sons, yet we've built up the most out of any of the other fanbases. After the WGT debacle and the endless hacks, won't it be ironic if Starcraft II ends up killnig SC?
If your not going to help us, at least don't fucking kill us.
So what if they made war3? Sure it "sucked" compared to SCBW but it was a great game nonetheless. War3 has it shortcommings but it definitely had a better interface than SCBW could ever dream of; it aint the UI that made War3 suck but it was how the game was built: low unit count, high hp, dependence to heroes etc. SCBW with improved War3 controls would be a dream come true, just like when SC was released with all the UI improvements as compared to War2.
|
On October 02 2007 07:15 CTStalker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 07:07 IdrA wrote:On October 02 2007 06:38 CTStalker wrote:
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
any validity? every single good player who has posted on the topic on these forums has been anti-mbs the fact that every player (who posted) who plays the game competetively thinks that adding mbs would remove some of the competetive aspect of the game surely means something. its not just a coincidence. it obviously does not put the issue beyond argument, but you cant simply disregard it. You're right, I chose my words incorrectly. It is just as likely that a good player could be a great anaylyzer, while another good player could have poor game-analytical skills. What I meant to draw attention to was orangedude's point, that the appearance of a potential loss in an investment, the mastering of single-building-selection macro, would motivate a player to argue against MBS.
yeah you can establish some motive for arguing against MBS, like the loss of a useful skill, but another possible explanation that a lot of people have been putting forth, and one which i think should be preferred, is that the reason a lot of people don't want MBS is because it really does seem like it would suck.
|
On October 02 2007 06:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:
anything becoming easier is bad.
How many examples do you need to be provided with before you realise this is completely bullshit (and I'm sure you've read like at least 100 by now). I'll give you another one anyway.
Have you every tried to dodge storms in heavy lag conditions? It is fucking hard. Dodging storms in 0 lag conditions is in fact much EASIER. Now applying the quoted rule above -> having 0 lag is bad.
By the way can anybody give me a link to Grubby saying there is not enough to do in W3? Because at the moment Moon is completely dominating every single tournament he enters. If there wasn't enough to do and the matches were basically decided on luck then this would not be possible.
|
gobol maybe u dont follow wc3 but .. grubby just 2-0'ed moon in the PGL(or w/e the wc3 tounry was called) in china lol so maybe u want to recheck that~~
|
maybe war3 is so boring because of MBS that some kid with a lot of adderral and asian genes can conquer it and no one cares to oppose him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
