|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
On September 30 2007 21:56 lugggy wrote:countless things can be done to counterbalance it
Like what exactly? I'm all for adding macrotasks to keep it fun, but I haven't really seen many concrete examples of 'extra things' you can do in the time you're not spending on macro. Warpgates are a nice start but apart from them what exactly is there to fill up the gap? And you're not forced to build warpgates anyway.
Macro is an essential and FUN part of the game because it's so rewarding, don't you love steamrolling some dumbass opponent because he's too slow to make more units, and seeing all his factories light up 1 by 1 with 2 second intervals when you're shooting up his base? Don't take it away =(
tl;dr: 'new options to keep players busy' are OK but please don't focus everything on micro. We want ways to make bigger armies than noobs and crush them.
|
On September 30 2007 22:08 Artosis3 wrote:
luggy : what? you keep saying things without anything to back it up. "there can be just as much or even more of a macro aspect at higher levels of play". macro would be like warcraft3 which is infact LESS not as much or more as you put it. apparently according to you countless things can be done to counter balance something that takes away from variety of skills at the top levels. please name just a small 15 of these countless things for me please.
You're 100% wrong here - MBS has NOTHING to do with there being very little macro in W3. It's due to the upkeep system (which penalises expanding) and because the major resource is the w3 equivalent of gas (fixed income).
The fact is MBS WILL be in SC2 and so all of this debate is pretty pointless.
|
Artosis
United States2140 Posts
Gobol : yes it isnt all because of MBS that there is little macro in wc3. but the macro will be a similar level of easiness if it is MBS. "1z". i am not saying it is exactly the same. im drawing parallels is all. unless you personally own blizzard and run the sc2 project then perhaps you shouldn't end debates by telling us what will and will not be in SC2.
|
On September 30 2007 20:56 Artosis3 wrote:
At low levels MBS won't make a difference. The smarter player will still win. Both newbies will still forget depots and make strategic blunders. They will attack poorly into a well defended position. The game will in essence be the same. MBS does not make the game more fun. No one has ever played SC1 and thought "well if this had MBS I would really like it".
At high levels MBS will ruin competition. SC2 will be WarCraft 4. Have you played WC3? The supply limit is 90. Units are like 2 to 4 supply a piece. Every single competitive player can get the same amount of units in the same time. StarCraft is much older and much more well developed. Korea supports 300 progamers and all of them are at different levels of play. Not one player can macro like iloveoov except for iloveoov. There is no other protoss like Pusan. There is not another Reach. While we have a diverse and interesting pro scene that allows players to be macro style (oov and pusan) or to be micro style (boxer and casy) war3 does not. MBS makes games easier. Every time you make a game easier you hurt the competitive scene. Newbies will have fun either way.
Please say no to MBS.
"MBS does not make the game more fun."
Were you at BlizzCon? I was. Fun is a matter of opinion, not fact, so please speak for yourself.
You say "at high levels MBS will ruin competition" then go onto an off-topic rant that talks about Warcraft III supply limits and has nothing to do with MBS. You don't have an argument, just anger. Find and put down that argument if you want to win the argument.
Besides, the decision has already been made. People can bitch, moan, whine and complain about it and Blizzard will not listen to them.
|
Norway28781 Posts
i totally agree with artosis too.
i just don't care that much cause i'm prolly not gonna play sc2 on a competitive level. but I can't picture any game with mbs being as fun, competitively, as bw has been. and, brood war was the most fun any game has ever been when I was a casual gamer too.
and the difference between 4z5d and 3d4d5d6d7z8z9z0z is incredible. maybe it wouldn't affect pusan or oov much as they're able to do that in 1 second, but that's just the thing, they make pusan and oov no longer special because any random non-idiot can mimic them.
remember that blizzard argued that brood war should be played on fast speed, not fastest, for about 7 or so years. (this was why they refused to change the ladder speed, they felt that brood war was a superior game on fast compared to fastest. in fact i believe gfrazier or whatever said that fastest was mostly implemented as a kind of joke-speed not meant for serious gaming. )
how many actually agree with this?
|
On September 30 2007 20:56 Artosis3 wrote:
Savior doesn't have enough sunkens. Nada rushes in with his marine medic force. Savior grabs all his sunkens at once and targets perfectly. Bam medic gone. Bam medic gone. Bam marine gone. Bam marine gone. here come the drones. Sorry Nada, Savior doesn't need enough sunkens anymore.
excellent example 
|
Canada5062 Posts
I would have to agree with Artosis's analysis.
MBS will make macroing easier. There is no fudging that conclusion. Will that make SC2 worse? Personally, I believe so.
Btw, I have yet to read anyone in this thread post a plausible counter argument - so far, all I have read are guesses, speculation and outright wishful thinking.
|
Please allow me to recast what I was saying, in light of the intention: responding to Artosis's OP. Please remember what I was really responding to, and not what it has been distorted into.
In the OP, Artosis uses examples from SC1 to show problems with MBS: Savior could grab all his sunkens at once and target perfectly, and stop a rush by Nada with "not enough" sunkens. "Sorry Nada, Savior doesn't need enough sunkens anymore."
My point was to specifically refute a point like this. The amount of sunkens that is "enough" can be easily changed to fit whatever people are capable of under MBS, or what ever. See my earlier posts in this light, please.
When Artosis (in OP) goes on, saying "Pusan can max in 12 to 14 minutes", but with MBS "suddenly hungtran" "can too max in 12 to 14 minutes."...
I question the validity of this, too (his remaining examples follow this pattern). I don't think it is pure speed that determines who maxes and how fast. It has to do with skills in his play. Skills besides "macro", besides the raw ability to use gateways perfectly, for instance. He is doing many other things right, that most of us can't do, to pull off the macro.
And even if more people can do this, Pusan isn't the end-all of progaming. There are so many differences between top players and if all of them macroed like Pusan this wouldn't change.
So #1, if you think a balance is going to be messed up by MBS you are mistaken (that is what most of my other posts are about), but also #2, maybe there will be more players who can macro, but that alone does not ruin progaming. We have no reason to even think of SC2 in a SC-like light as far as macro goes. Are the maps going to be "macro" like Luna? It is a ridiculous question, and talking about styles of iloveoov or Pusan are equally ridiculous in regards to SC2. So there is no reason to think this point applies to SC2, which is Artosis's implication. And in SC1, obviously adding MBS would probably introduce some imbalances between the races and possibly make progaming boring if everyone can win that way, but that would be a problem with the maps and the balance and not MBS itself.
|
|
|
Artosis
United States2140 Posts
lugggy : im not sure how many times you need me to say the same thing but i am using sc1 as an example. i am not talking about MBS messing up balance for a game ive never played im not an idiot. i am saying that it takes away from the variety we will see at the top in playstyles. that much is certain. casy cant macro like oov. oov cant micro like casy. there isnt enough time in starcraft to do both. MBS makes it so everything will boil down to less different styles as the game progresses. please stop talking about game balance. thats not what im talking about.
Kimera : as i said before there has never been and never will be someone who quit SC1 because there is no MBS. if you are that newbie then you do not know what MBS is. you accuse me of going into an off topic rant about supply limits. its clear that you don't at all understand what i wrote. you should go back and reread it. i draw parallels with warcraft3 to show some downfalls of MBS. the macro style would be the same. you never hear about wc3 macro gods like you do in starcraft. i pointed out that even though there is a small supply limit in the game there is no room for skilled macro partially because of MBS. there was nothing angry whatsoever. i am in the most calm manner replying to posts trying to wipe away some of the ignorance about what MBS does to the top level of RTS gaming. i felt that my entire post was a good arguement for this. please point out how it was not and dont waste time flaming me. thanks.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
Agreed with artosis, drone and mensrea.
|
Yep, we are all sure that making all of the same units from all of your production buildings is a good thing. Under no circumstances would a pro player need to change his key groupings, or even go back to individual selection because he needs a mix of units for that particular point in time. Especially in the late game, where everyone knows in every matchup that you only need one unit to win.
And we are all certain that SC2 isn't going to have other stuff to do in a battle to make up for the 3 seconds saved with MBS. Let's assume we are fine with our whole army being Zealots, and we are fine looking at our resource go zero gas one moment and zero mineral the next. So for these pockets of 3 seconds saved, we absolutely CAN'T focus more on micro instead of the mechanical 4z5z6z7dclickdclickdclickTclickT.
And of course, we all know what sets pro players aside from each other is the ability to clickTclickT in under half a second! Never mind the experience and practice needed to KNOW when you want to make units, never mind the experience and practice needed to know when to make WHAT, in WHAT proportions. We are all going to take it at face value that "watching a replay with a pencil and paper" is going to teach us EXACTLY when to expo, when to add gates, when to do this, when to do that. No, that isn't attributed to experience, practice, and game awareness. It's all in clickZclickZclickZclickZ.
Basically, everyone knows that to become a progamer, all you need is to train hitting your location F key really quick, and then scroll through all your gates hitting Z and D in under a second, and then doubletapping your army hotkey. If I practice this 5 hours a day for a month, I'm the next freakin' iloveoov! Because with MBS, EVERYONE IS ILOVEOOV!
I'll agree that it takes a degree of excitement down from lategame battles, and it definitely makes the game easier. But this takes it ten degrees too far. Hell, who knows Blizzard isn't going to make it customizable, making everyone in this thread idiots?
|
Artosis
United States2140 Posts
uriel- : for the perhaps 10th time in this post i must repeat that i was using SC1 as an example for how MBS is bad for a game competitively. this is simply an example. things are not so exact and simple but i think everyone else understood that i didn't mean for people to believe that. so please take your sarcasm elsewhere and post something a bit more useful if you disagree with the principles i've stated.
|
I don't disagree with your general point that MBS takes away a dimension of SCBW, only the kinds of arguments in the OP. Obviously if macro is super easy for everyone then we no longer have a game that requires us to learn how to press keys really fast for years on end before we can be competitive, a true tragedy.
|
Perhaps the sarcasm was a little excessive, but I believe these are valid counters to the points you bring up.
MBS does not give everyone Pusan micro. It definitely makes >>SC1<<< an easier game, but Blizzard has already mentioned that SC2 will have greater potential in other areas to make up for the removal of this purely MECHANICAL action, that depended on your experience in the first place. Saying that MBS will blur the gap between pro players, or "make everyone oov", is silly.
|
This is actually one of the worst posts on that topic. Way too many obvious exaggerations and personal opinion in it. And SC2 is not going to be SC1 with MBS anyway.
But it's entertainingly written, that's why many anti-MBS posters will agree with you. 
Besides, it's not worth an extra thread.
|
Artosis
United States2140 Posts
lugggy : the sarcasm really isnt needed. taking variety from the top of progaming is a BAD THING for everyone. other RTS games do not have a progaming scene like starcraft because they are boring to watch. its the same crap over and over. anything that takes away from a games variety at the top will take away viewers. take away people who are interested in it. its bad.
uriel- : it absolutely will blur the gap. every single RTS game out there. and i mean EVERY one. look at them. watch the very best of the best play. they will all have the same macro. games will be very similar. one reason why sc is so diverse is the lack of shortcuts such as MBS. there is so much to do and you cannot do it all. the more that is made easy for you to do...the less variety we have. SC2 would have more potential as a competitive game without a function like MBS.
|
MBS would change the balance in SC1. The game would need to be rebalanced. New maps would probably cover it, if not, Blizzard is the god of balancing and would save us.
I am really offended if you think SC1 wouldn't be a good game if macroing was easier. Is that all that's keeping people playing? The challenge to press 1t2t3t4v5v6v7v 8a9a0a really fast? I like to think it's more than that...
|
Artosis
United States2140 Posts
Brutalisk : i believe im approaching the subject in a way probably not approached yet. i'm taking time to read every post in the thread carefully and discuss it. i won't put this into another thread where it will get brushed over. for the 19th time i never said that SC2 is SC1 with MBS. i am using SC1 as an example as to how MBS can harm an RTS game. thank you though for deciding that on a forum with thousands of topics that this is not worth its own thread.
|
That is true.
MBS makes pros way lame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
