Lets imagine SC1 with MBS. - Page 14

On October 02 2007 07:15 CTStalker wrote:

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.

On October 02 2007 07:29 Lz wrote:
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~~

On October 02 2007 07:26 Gobol wrote:


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.

On October 02 2007 07:35 orangedude wrote:

Grubby, Moon and Tod are the current top 3 as far as I remember, so it's not surprising that they would be winning games from each other.

On October 02 2007 07:38 Aphelion wrote:
Pro MBS people are never going to be convinced. Please can all the known players in this thread just write a petition to Blizzard? Then those of us who agree can sign it.

At least let Blizzard known where we stand on the matter, wasting time convincing these SC2 forum posters is not worth it.

On October 02 2007 07:38 IdrA wrote:

he was just responding to the guy saying that moon dominated everything
which would then make grubby's statement that theres not enough to do in wc3 kinda funny.

On October 02 2007 07:38 Aphelion wrote:
Pro MBS people are never going to be convinced. Please can all the known players in this thread just write a petition to Blizzard? Then those of us who agree can sign it.

At least let Blizzard known where we stand on the matter, wasting time convincing these SC2 forum posters is not worth it.

On October 02 2007 07:26 Gobol wrote:


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.

On October 02 2007 07:31 IdrA wrote:
that still doesnt address the point that simplifying the macro aspect of the game would remove part the diversity from high level gaming (the original point of this thread).
also doesnt account for the fact that people who have been among the best at other games(games with mbs) also dont want mbs in sc2.
hell even if we do just want mbs because its a skill we've developed, it doesnt change the fact that adding mbs would lower the skill cap and so make sc2 less valuable as an esport/competetive game.

On October 02 2007 07:45 orangedude wrote:

Can anyone seriously give me a link to that statement of this from Grubby or "any" pro War3 player? I've honestly never seen anything of the sort before, but it's still commonly used by the SC community to justify why War3 sucks competitively (there are other reasons for sure).

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.

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.

On October 02 2007 08:03 Gobol wrote:
Look I didn't even respond to it being about MBS. I only pointed out that your reasoning is wrong by giving you an example like this that you know is wrong, yet follows from your reasoning.

On October 02 2007 07:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:
The Grubby quote, I believe, comes from Testie, I don't remember how it went exactly but it was from talking with grubby at blizzcon.

On October 02 2007 08:09 orangedude wrote:

Considering how so many people here on TL.net adamantly hate War3, it's very possible that the original quote could've been taken out of context and been warped into its current form. I'm not going to doubt that the overall skill ceiling is lower in War3 than SC, but I still find it very hard to believe this kind of opinion from a top War3 player who has dominated for years. I was a Grubby fan for several years myself, while I was following the War3 scene, before I more recently returned to SC.

On October 02 2007 08:16 FrozenArbiter wrote:

Oh it wasn't anti-war3, as I remember it it was mostly.. War3 having a bit higher luck factor and being less suitable as a spectator sport or something.

I'll try to find it.

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.

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.

On October 02 2007 08:00 Mora wrote:


This is ultimately what it boils down to.

MBS is bad for competitive play. (that being =/= with bad for the competitive scene).
MBS is good for everyone else.

The amount of people who will be attracted to SC2 because of better UI functionality is [b]far greater than those who will be turned off of it. Sales will be better for better UI functionality than otherwise.

However, blizzard has to figure out whether MBS will hurt competitive play so badly that it will in turn hurt the competitive scene (something i have not yet been convinced of, but certainly willing to accept as possible).

At this point, assuming MBS is in fact anticipated to hurt the competitive scene (just to clarify: the strength of a competitive scene is judged solely on how much attention and support it gets), does Blizzard care more about Starcraft as an E-Sport, or do they care more about sales.

Regardless of which they choose, i think the majority of tl.net members think that they are considerably more important than they are in reality. The whole of TL.net could quit buying blizzard products altogether, and blizzard would be foolish to even bat an eyelash.

On October 02 2007 08:20 orangedude wrote:

Thanks, that would make a lot more sense, and I agree with both of these (there are many clear reasons anyone can see). So it's true how much the quote got warped from its original intentions to what some TL.net posters have been using to prove their points.

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.