On October 02 2007 23:35 Daigomi wrote:Show nested quote +And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
Yip. Starcraft will die relatively soon after Starcraft 2 is released, just like Quake 4 killed Quake 3, even though it was inferior in multiplayer, or at the very least it will cause a split in the scene, just like CS:S and CS 1.6 is now split. Because of this, it is very important that SC2 is a success.
As to the whole MBS debate, I find it very hard to make up my mind. My biggest worry with MBS is MBS combined with auto-mining. Hotkey'ing 6 command centres and having them all auto-mine will make building a strong economy very easy, I doubt anyone would argue with this. Unit production might be made easier with MBS, but not as significantly as most people believe.
On the other hand, I also feel that MBS is necessary in the evolution of RTS games, and I do not doubt that it is absolutely essential to SC2. Not having MBS would be like a Formula 1 team deciding that they do not need the newest automobile technology because it takes some of the skill out of racing. It is essential for SC2 to have MBS even if it is just to keep it on par with other RTS games.
So, I believe we are stuck in a situation where MBS is so to speak a necessary evil. Now this has been rehashed multiple times, and I'm just stating it at the start so that it will be clear where I'm coming from.
What I am wondering is whether the decrease in macro will not simply increase efficiency in pro-gaming. So far everyone seems to argue as if SC2 will be played in much the same way as SC1, but with an easier interface. I believe that the easier macro will greatly change the way the game is played, so that a map can be mined clean after 20-30 minutes of play, rather than 40-50 minutes.
For those that remember the start of progaming, I'm sure that if you look past your nostalgia you'll remember games where half the mineral spots on a map were left untouched after 60 minutes into the game. With the ever strengthening macro (forced on players by Oov), the game has changed to such an extent that a map can easily be mined out after 50 minutes. Because of this, macro changed from simply being able to build and mine from expansions, to being able to secure expansions, and to fight over those expansions.
MBS to me would have the same effect. The increased ease with which macro can now be done will simply place higher macro demands on the player (perhaps not physically, but in the game itself). Players would be able to expand much more rapidly, and would need to increase the speed at which they do everything, in order to keep up with the opponent. Bases would need to be secured more quickly, units manuevered more quickly, and even production facilities set up more quickly, to keep up with the greater income of players.
I can't see a game played competitively without players being pushed to the limit, and having an easier way to build units would force players to spend the "energy" usually spent on building units elsewhere, such as taking even more expansions. I'll try to illustrate this with an example:
Lets take TvT on Python, with SC2:
The start of the game should progress in much the same way, as progamers have more than enough time to do what needs to be done in the beginning in SC1, thus they are already functioning at 100% efficiency in the beginning.
Once the game reaches 10 minutes, both players have taken their naturals, and there are a few small skirmishes across the map. Usually in SC1 this is where players take their first expansions. So, both players take their first expansions. Now, the first expansion will be up and running a bit sooner, because players are able to get miners there efficiently, and have more time to spend on the base due to the smaller constraints of unit production being placed on them. So, 1 minute after the Command Centre finishes, both players have a fully functional expansion up, decently protected with turrets and tanks. This is where the game changes.
Both players now have minerals sooner than they usually would in SC1, so they have a choice, either build more units, or expand again. If they choose to expand again, 2 minutes later that expansion could be fully up and running, and they would have the choice of expanding yet again, or building more production facilities. This choice which is already very important in SC1, would be much more common because of the increased efficiency the players are playing at. Thus macro'ing will in a certain sense, still be about deciding when to do what in the game. Should I expand now, or would I be over-extending, do I need an additional 2 factories, or will my opponent have too great an economic advantage. Similar choices to that of SC1, but much more frequent.
But the increased strain does not end there. With more bases being built, more bases will also need to be defended, or alternatively, more bases will need to be attacked. Players will need to find ways of increasing the mobility of their forces, either by standard means found in SC1 (dropships, nydus canals, arbiters), or by ways that may only be possible with MBS, like spreading out production facilities, something that is impractical in SC1, because buildings need to be individually selected to build units, thus each new location increases the time it takes to build units.
This is simply a small example of the changes that MBS could bring to the game, and I think that if you consider the situation described in depth you will find that it probably will still require a strong macro sense to play.
So, while I believe that auto-mining when used in conjunction with MBS can make having a strong economy easier in SC1 terms, I also believe that the definition of a "strong economy" might change in SC2, due to the increased ease with which macro is executed.
As a final example I will use CnC3, a game I have only seen played a few times, but seems to be a decent strategy game. CnC3 has MBS (so to speak), yet the apm of the players I saw play was comfortably over 200. Because buildings build faster, and more units can be build, players are simply forced to do twice as much as they previously did. It is no longer sufficient to expand once every five minutes, you have to constantly be busy expanding, and finding new mineral spots, and building new production facilities. The game shocked me at how high paced it was, rushes happened in the first minute of the game, yet expansions were built while the units were being microed, and expansions were being killed a rebuilt.
As I said, I've only seen a few games of CnC3, but it made me feel that SC2 will perhaps be even more macro dependent than SC1 was, or at least similarly so, even though MBS is implemented. If my final example doesn't hold water, please don't disregard the whole argument, I have only seen a few games of CnC3.
PS. No I don't want SC2 to be the next CnC, don't even try to throw that at me.
EPT
