|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On October 02 2007 08:20 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 08:16 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 02 2007 08:09 orangedude wrote: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.
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. 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. 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.
no
i was there too, testie wasn't lying. all three of us were talking about it at the time. i also talked to grubby off and on about this in korea.
many pros are very worried about MBS.
i also think it's lame to accuse all the sc players of making up extra evidence as if we didn't have an ass load already to point out that MBS is probably going to hurt competitive SC and make it less of an impressive esport.
|
Anti WC3?? Yes.. i am a Sc competitive gamer.. but i also play wc3... so i in no way am hateing on wc3.. i just want SC to be SC and WC to be WC.. that being said i want to see the same SBS in SC.. why?? becasue it defines SC.. this isnt wc3 so we dont need/want MBS~
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
i also got 6th on Lorderon playing Undead a long time ago.
i like SC better because of the tasks my brain has to juggle. I also don't like microing ultralisks with spells around the map.
|
On October 02 2007 07:09 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Talking about quality of arguments, maybe you actually play game yourself before bringing as fact what other people are saying... c&c3 and dow macro is as important as wc3 one, and in c&c3 unit production mechanics is completely irrelevant to mbs and clicking at buildings...
On October 02 2007 07:38 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 07:35 orangedude wrote: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~~ 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. 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.
Lz wasn't responding. He was bullshitting.
On October 02 2007 07:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:
In conclusion:
I am against anything that simplifies the game.
MBS simplifies the game.
I am, however, pro-MBS in the Beta. It needs to be tested because I'm not confident enough in my opinion on MBS to throw it out without proper testing first.
Oh thanks god. So you are agree that neither pro-MBS nor anti-MBS can be sure about whether UI improvements are good or bad without testing them in game? From all anti-MBSers I didn't expect seeing that from you. I start to understand why you are pretty respected here 
On October 02 2007 08:00 Mora wrote:
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.
They have said many times already, they, with help of progamers, will work very carefully over every noobifaction when Beta test kicks in
|
On October 02 2007 07:17 Lz wrote:
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~ There's not enough to do because the supply cap is a defacto 50, upkeep prevents players from gaining any advantage from expanding at all, and the entire gameplay pace is like playing PvP on slow speed where you can only build one high templar, dark templar, and dark archon at a time, and these units also have 10x the durabilty of other units. Oh, and the DT can't attack while cloaked, and the Dark Archon will never realistically be able to gain his mind control ability.
There's no reason to build more than two of a barracks type in war3 so any argument that "war3 sucks because of MBS" is completely invalid. Play the fucking game before you bash it.
|
On October 02 2007 08:32 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 08:20 orangedude wrote:On October 02 2007 08:16 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 02 2007 08:09 orangedude wrote: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.
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. 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. 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. no i was there too, testie wasn't lying. all three of us were talking about it at the time. i also talked to grubby off and on about this in korea. many pros are very worried about MBS. i also think it's lame to accuse all the sc players of making up extra evidence as if we didn't have an ass load already to point out that MBS is probably going to hurt competitive SC and make it less of an impressive esport.
Okay, nevermind that. I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of lying. I was just saying due to many people's dislike of the game, quotes can often change very much until it's not even close from the original message. Maybe this wasn't the case this time as you point out. Though, I would still appreciate a 1st-hand quote more than anything else.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Oh thanks god. So you are agree that neither pro-MBS nor anti-MBS can be sure about whether UI improvements are good or bad without testing them in game? From all anti-MBSers I didn't expect seeing that from you. I start to understand why you are pretty respected here
Yeah at the very start I didn't think there was any need for a beta or anything like that, it just sounded flat out bad to me, but I think testing it out is for the best. There's been lots of quality posts on both sides, so I'm open to the possibility of being wrong.
And thanks 
On October 02 2007 09:05 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 08:32 MyLostTemple wrote:On October 02 2007 08:20 orangedude wrote:On October 02 2007 08:16 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 02 2007 08:09 orangedude wrote: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.
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. 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. 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. no i was there too, testie wasn't lying. all three of us were talking about it at the time. i also talked to grubby off and on about this in korea. many pros are very worried about MBS. i also think it's lame to accuse all the sc players of making up extra evidence as if we didn't have an ass load already to point out that MBS is probably going to hurt competitive SC and make it less of an impressive esport. Okay, nevermind that. I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of lying. I was just saying due to many people's dislike of the game, quotes can often change very much until it's not even close from the original message. Maybe this wasn't the case this time as you point out. Though, I would still appreciate a 1st-hand quote more than anything else.
I would be really, really interested in seeing a topic similiar to this in a warcraft 3 forum, especially if there are any war3 forums that are frequented by competitive players (ideally grubby-esque people but doesn't have to be that high tier).
|
On October 02 2007 08:44 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 08:00 Mora wrote:
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. They have said many times already, they, with help of progamers, will work very carefully over every noobifaction when Beta test kicks in
point?
If they turn SC2 into a micro game (or more-so, rather than strictly-so), it won't matter how many progamers they have assisting them.
Being a part of the balance team for 18 months for Company of Heroes (which is the best selling game in north america at the moment! woot!), i can say that developers and 'progamers' don't always see eye to eye. The progamers can point out flaws in balance (or design), and we (the developers) can even agree on their logic - but may simply want it to play that way. From that point on we take the feedback that is relevant to our vision of the game. These progamers may wail at the top of their lungs that macro has been ruined, and they could be promptly ignored (cause it's not relevant to their vision). Now, when that progamer says "look! this is overpowered" blizzard will heed the concern - for it's precisely within the limits of their vision, it's what they are looking for.
I'm not saying that Blizzard is going to do things one way or another - I do not work for blizzard. If i was a part of the blizzard team, i would be screaming at the top of my lungs to cater to the hardcore community. But that's because i feel the game (more specifically, the quality of the game) is more important than the amount of people playing it. I'm confident that Blizzard will cover their developement costs with ease, and so can afford the luxury of catering to that hardcore community. I would urge them to take that opportunity to do so.
However, they didn't do that with Warcraft 3. As much as their goal was to create a different kind of RTS, i believe that part of the foundation of that vision was to appeal to a larger audience (being completely aware that it may alienate their hardcore audience) with the hopes of boosting sales (and, if they were ambitious enough, with hopes of re-stimulating the dying RTS industry).
Will they do that with Starcraft2? Will they think that building a larger audience is more conducive to promoting E-Sport, or will they think that higher and diverse skill ceilings are more conducive? Do they even value E-Sport more than they value sales?
These are some of the questions i'd like to see asked in an interview. Then again, if i was asked these questions in an interview for Company of Heroes, i'd have to settle with an answer that says i love and care about both, and wouldn't disclose anything else. 
|
Canada9720 Posts
|
I'm curious, for those that are anti-MBS:
I would agree entirely that MBS will lower the skill ceiling of the skill of macro. However, i do not see why this is bad (or than the fact that you enjoy macro). Do you think that it is not possible to have an equally high skill ceiling while having a lower macro-skill ceiling? If they had equally as demanding micro mechanics to make up for their lack of macro mechanics, would this be bad? Is your concern simply that by lowering the macro ceiling and increasing the micro ceiling that style will leave the game - that players cannot choose to be either or, but must be the best execution of both? - if so, do you not have faith that blizzard could create a system that allows for a wide range of style within a low macro ceiling and a high micro ceiling? - if this is true as well, is the foundation for such an opinion based off of Warcraft3?
As a game designer, these are important questions to me.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On October 02 2007 09:58 Mora wrote:
I'm curious, for those that are anti-MBS:
I would agree entirely that MBS will lower the skill ceiling of the skill of macro. However, i do not see why this is bad (or than the fact that you enjoy macro). Do you think that it is not possible to have an equally high skill ceiling while having a lower macro-skill ceiling? If they had equally as demanding micro mechanics to make up for their lack of macro mechanics, would this be bad? Is your concern simply that by lowering the macro ceiling and increasing the micro ceiling that style will leave the game - that players cannot choose to be either or, but must be the best execution of both? - if so, do you not have faith that blizzard could create a system that allows for a wide range of style within a low macro ceiling and a high micro ceiling? - if this is true as well, is the foundation for such an opinion based off of Warcraft3?
As a game designer, these are important questions to me.
i believe one of the primary issues here for the anti-mbs crowd is that the title "Starcraft" is recognized as a micro/macro RTS game. With that being said many of it's gamers here do not want to see this micro/macro RTS sequel to favor micro over macro. They want a game with a similar balance of micro and macro within the game thus keeping it Starcraftesque. If this was a new blizzard title that did not have "Starcraft" in the name i would feel fine with Blizzard experimenting with MBS. Bare in mind Starcraft is the most successful heavily macro oriented game that exists, and there is obviously an audience for it.
It's an issue of weather or not the game is congruent to it's older brother. At the same time there is a fear that this MBS feature will also hurt the competitive scene. Now, if the game is given the right interface competitve gamers will jump on this as they have with the original Starcraft. If they attract those types of people they can be confident that their competitive scene will last.
Since SC shines MOST in it's sucess as an esport, it seems illogical to cater the game to a newbier crowd. MBS should be a setting at the very most, one that you can not use competitively. But on competitive levels, the game must have competitive elements.
|
On October 02 2007 09:15 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I would be really, really interested in seeing a topic similiar to this in a warcraft 3 forum, especially if there are any war3 forums that are frequented by competitive players (ideally grubby-esque people but doesn't have to be that high tier).
I think that if you go to any other game forum on the net (including War3), it's basically accepted that MBS and automining are in the game, due to what was shown at Blizzcon. I'm not 100% on this, but this is what I'm led to believe.
|
On October 02 2007 09:58 Mora wrote:
I'm curious, for those that are anti-MBS:
I would agree entirely that MBS will lower the skill ceiling of the skill of macro. However, i do not see why this is bad (or than the fact that you enjoy macro). Do you think that it is not possible to have an equally high skill ceiling while having a lower macro-skill ceiling? If they had equally as demanding micro mechanics to make up for their lack of macro mechanics, would this be bad? Is your concern simply that by lowering the macro ceiling and increasing the micro ceiling that style will leave the game - that players cannot choose to be either or, but must be the best execution of both? - if so, do you not have faith that blizzard could create a system that allows for a wide range of style within a low macro ceiling and a high micro ceiling? - if this is true as well, is the foundation for such an opinion based off of Warcraft3?
As a game designer, these are important questions to me.
by raising the demand on micro you could make a game that was equally hard and competetive as bw, yes. but it wouldnt be starcraft2, it would be some other game. a massive part of what makes sc sc, and what makes sc so succesful for progaming in korea, is that it is made of a very equal balance of macro, micro, and strategy. this, imo, makes it more fun, and definetly makes it more diverse. you are not forced to play the game a certain way (within reason), even at the highest level, because there are different, but equally important, aspects to the game.
|
|
|
On October 02 2007 10:22 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 09:15 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I would be really, really interested in seeing a topic similiar to this in a warcraft 3 forum, especially if there are any war3 forums that are frequented by competitive players (ideally grubby-esque people but doesn't have to be that high tier). I think that if you go to any other game forum on the net (including War3), it's basically accepted that MBS and automining are in the game, due to what was shown at Blizzcon. I'm not 100% on this, but this is what I'm led to believe.
The fact is that actually War3 doesn't really use the potential of MBS, you don't build as many buildings there and you keep them under different hotkeys anyway (Lucifer hotkeys his main with ziggurats though, I'm not sure why, maybe he likes to know how many he has or to focus fire the enemy if he would ever upgrade them - which doesn't happen all too often). For example take a look at my typical building hotkeying in War3:
3 - rax
4 - advanced rax
5 - altar
9 - upgrade building
0 - main
Wow, 5 hotkeys for 5 buildings.
It might be that Blizzard has put MBS into War3 just to check it out and improve for the SC2 (the game is in development for quite a time now).
Besides all of that:
SC1 "macro" as you call it: 1t2v3m4m5c6v
SC2 "macro" with mbs: 1tTABv2m,mTABc3v
It's just a one click difference... Assuming that:
SC1
1t2v = tank + vult from 2 different facts
3m4m5c = 2 marines and medic from 3 rax
6v = 1 science vessel (or whatever) from starport
SC2
1tTAB2v = tank + vult from 2 different factories (my experience with wc3 MBS tells me that buildings with different addons will be treated differently and you will have to tab between them)
2m,mTABc = 2x marine + medic from 3 different rax
3v = science vessel from starport
So, if you assume this way of thinking, you will notice that the macroing difficulty doesn't change all that much (click-wise) but frees up some hotkeys and allows you for more flexibility and control (you can now hotkey all your buildings, not just 10 which means intensive macro during intensive battles which I think should appeal to most of you mbs haters).
|
On October 02 2007 10:10 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 09:58 Mora wrote:
I'm curious, for those that are anti-MBS:
I would agree entirely that MBS will lower the skill ceiling of the skill of macro. However, i do not see why this is bad (or than the fact that you enjoy macro). Do you think that it is not possible to have an equally high skill ceiling while having a lower macro-skill ceiling? If they had equally as demanding micro mechanics to make up for their lack of macro mechanics, would this be bad? Is your concern simply that by lowering the macro ceiling and increasing the micro ceiling that style will leave the game - that players cannot choose to be either or, but must be the best execution of both? - if so, do you not have faith that blizzard could create a system that allows for a wide range of style within a low macro ceiling and a high micro ceiling? - if this is true as well, is the foundation for such an opinion based off of Warcraft3?
As a game designer, these are important questions to me. i believe one of the primary issues here for the anti-mbs crowd is that the title "Starcraft" is recognized as a micro/macro RTS game. With that being said many of it's gamers here do not want to see this micro/macro RTS sequel to favor micro over macro. They want a game with a similar balance of micro and macro within the game thus keeping it Starcraftesque. If this was a new blizzard title that did not have "Starcraft" in the name i would feel fine with Blizzard experimenting with MBS. Bare in mind Starcraft is the most successful heavily macro oriented game that exists, and there is obviously an audience for it. It's an issue of weather or not the game is congruent to it's older brother. At the same time there is a fear that this MBS feature will also hurt the competitive scene. Now, if the game is given the right interface competitve gamers will jump on this as they have with the original Starcraft. If they attract those types of people they can be confident that their competitive scene will last. Since SC shines MOST in it's sucess as an esport, it seems illogical to cater the game to a newbier crowd. MBS should be a setting at the very most, one that you can not use competitively. But on competitive levels, the game must have competitive elements.
Why should Blizzard heed such desires? If all you can say is "if it's not broken, don't fix it", they would be betraying themselves to cave into the desires of such a narrow-minded fan base - one that gives little but bitching, demands, and slander, to the company that is so devoted to providing for their games (and gamers!).
You did not answer any of my questions. As long as Starcraft has Terran, Zerg, Protoss, and takes place in space, it will be 'starcraftesque'. If they can make this game a better e-sport, more fun, and more accessible to the entire fanbase by incorporating MBS into their game, why should they not do so?
If you want to play Starcraft, play Starcraft. If changing part of the foundation of Starcraft is part of the recipe to making Starcraft 2 a superior game, why should they hesitate in doing so? Why make a cheap replica when you could transform it into something more amazing?
Your whole arguement doesn't even reside on the basis that 'SBS is better than MBS' - it's that MBS is not 'Starcraftesque'? How persuasive.
Since SC shines MOST in it's sucess as an esport, it seems illogical to cater the game to a newbier crowd.
Why is it illogical? How is expanding the accessibility of the audience - at no cost of fun, skill ceiling, excitement, or transparency - possibly going to hurt the competitive scene? The impression that i get from you is that 'newbying' the game down must be exclusive to being competitively stimulating (as stimulating as Starcraft!). Why do you believe this to be so? The questions which i asked (and you ignored) were trying to get at this premise.
|
On October 02 2007 10:23 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 09:58 Mora wrote:
I'm curious, for those that are anti-MBS:
I would agree entirely that MBS will lower the skill ceiling of the skill of macro. However, i do not see why this is bad (or than the fact that you enjoy macro). Do you think that it is not possible to have an equally high skill ceiling while having a lower macro-skill ceiling? If they had equally as demanding micro mechanics to make up for their lack of macro mechanics, would this be bad? Is your concern simply that by lowering the macro ceiling and increasing the micro ceiling that style will leave the game - that players cannot choose to be either or, but must be the best execution of both? - if so, do you not have faith that blizzard could create a system that allows for a wide range of style within a low macro ceiling and a high micro ceiling? - if this is true as well, is the foundation for such an opinion based off of Warcraft3?
As a game designer, these are important questions to me. by raising the demand on micro you could make a game that was equally hard and competetive as bw, yes. but it wouldnt be starcraft2, it would be some other game. a massive part of what makes sc sc, and what makes sc so succesful for progaming in korea, is that it is made of a very equal balance of macro, micro, and strategy. this, imo, makes it more fun, and definetly makes it more diverse. you are not forced to play the game a certain way (within reason), even at the highest level, because there are different, but equally important, aspects to the game.
the premise of my questions assumed that it was possible to create a game that was even more fun than Starcraft without relying on this 'perfect' balance of micro/macro/strategy.
I, without deviation, agree that this perfect balance is part of what makes Starcraft so fun. Which is irrelevant. If Blizzard - who can do their job a hell of alot better than you can do it - knows otherwise, who are you to be so certain that they are wrong? If you have more reason than your gut feeling, share it. It's that reasoning that i'm so curious about.
|
because i think they are quite willing to put higher guaranteed profits over making a quality game that satisfies hardcore fans, if their goal was to make a true sc2 and only to make it as high quality as possible, i dont think they would put mbs in.
sacrificing the micro/macro/strategy balance in favor of an easy to use interface would definetly make the game more appealing to newbs, and the hardcore fans are gonna buy the game either way. so mbs would guarantee higher sales right off the bat.
to aim for esports success might promise higher sales later, after it catches on. but that is taking the risk that it will catch on at all, and it is sacrificing some of the initial sales assuming reviewers say its too hard/complex to play and cause alot of casual gamers to not want to buy it.
|
On October 02 2007 08:58 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 07:17 Lz wrote:
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~ There's not enough to do because the supply cap is a defacto 50, upkeep prevents players from gaining any advantage from expanding at all, and the entire gameplay pace is like playing PvP on slow speed where you can only build one high templar, dark templar, and dark archon at a time, and these units also have 10x the durabilty of other units. Oh, and the DT can't attack while cloaked, and the Dark Archon will never realistically be able to gain his mind control ability. There's no reason to build more than two of a barracks type in war3 so any argument that "war3 sucks because of MBS" is completely invalid. Play the fucking game before you bash it.
Maybe u should think about reading my post above your's??? I do play Wc3 Lolz... so dont try to explain the game.. to me.. but maybe i should explain somthing of my game to you, u cant just build Dark Archons from gateways there fused by 2 dark templars.. so maybe u should rethink ur statement~
|
also i was thinking.. MBS is not even really ballenced.. with zerg in the mix... becasue they wont get to use MBS system to the fullest, like terran or protoss~ due to zerg's larva turns into all units~
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
