|
On October 04 2007 04:05 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 03:51 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
The major problem I think that everyone sees is the fact that you are taking this system of mechanics and purposely declining it just to welcome new faces. This would be like removing a great deal of keys from a piano in order to get more people interested in playing it. Yes, you might attract more people to learn since it will be easier to get good at but look how many tones you will be leaving out.
You will be sacrificing potential for short term success. Dont come with analogies people, even if you think that just your analogy is ubersmart and everyone will get it. All these analogies are based on either the thoughts of anti mbs, wich in essence says that sbs is the norm and mbs is the strange way to do the thing. Likewise you can just as well set mbs as the norm and sbs as the strange way. Just as this analogy, i can say "Its more like you optimise the pianos, before a pianist would have to press 5 keys at once to get a tone, now you only have to press one giving the pianists a lot more room to play good music". And just to end, perfect micro execution dont excist in starcraft, noone got it, but people can have perfect macro execution. Macro clicks are per definition simpler than micro clicks, wich means that a person that micros with 300 apm is doing something harder than the person macroing with 100 and microing with 200. This is also why warcraft 3 can have a huge skill spectrum eventhough the game itself is extremely simple. MBS wont kill the proscene, it will change it from what we have now but it certainly wont die and it certainly wont be smaller than now. And to those that says that mbs doesnt matter for the game growth and that the rts market is already full, i say BS. Do you know what people said before wow was released? That the mmorpg quote was already full, 1 million total mmorpg player was all you had in the world and more than that arent interested in that kind of games. The bam! WOW enters and gets a following many times larger than the other games together, crushing this "Limit" many times over. Dont underestimate what small UI enhancements can do for the community size, UI enhancements and ease of play is the only things that differs wow from the other mmorpgs, if you equalise them wow dont got much at all vs the other games except for generally much better balance.(Yes, wow got much better balance than other mmorpgs, eventhough the balance in wow aint perfect.)
I am not saying my analogy because I think it's "ubersmart". I'm saying it to get my point across. If you can play a song that easily is it really as beautiful as it use to be when it took more effort and motivation to learn? It may sound a little similar but is it really the same? No, It is a diluted version of its old self. Whats the point of playing a game that is a reduction of what it once was? What is the point of playing a song that even a beginner has the opportunity to match the intermediate or the intermediate match the expert? The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top. It will involve less execution, less discipline, and a few timed build orders. Whoever is ahead will have a hard time falling behind due to the fact they will not have a problem macroing while being harassed or while in a battle. They will be able to pay more attention to drops and harassment that could have possibly turned the game around. It will become much more simpler, a much reduced multitask requirement, and much less starcraft.
|
On October 04 2007 04:29 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top.
This wont happen unless there is no money to fight for, you will always have to work harder than your opponents to win. The skill spectrum will be just as large as before since micro has as much potential to create a skill diverse plattform as macro.
On October 04 2007 04:25 Aphelion wrote:
Around here, and as far as SCII is concerned, it is fact. And graphics is an entirely separate matter from UI. The former is decoration, the later affects core gameplay.
According to Blizzard, those that makes the game and thus sets the standard, its the other way around and sbs is the outdated and mbs is the norm. Not that mbs is taking away and sbs is the norm.
Do you even play SC? Do you follow the proscene? I don't feel like you really even like the game, and you certainly don't respect it very much. In which case, why are you even here? Don't make Blizzard think that you are one of the "TL.net hardcore community" and make them receive input from you. You clearly aren't.
Why would Blizzard think that my 300 posts would make me a part of team liquids pro community? On quite many occasions ive given quite strong evidence of not being as in touch with the pro scene of starcraft as many others here.
Also why do i have to shut my eyes for the flaws starcraft had? Starcraft had flaws, theres no arguing about that, however different people think that different parts of starcraft is its flaws. By todays standards the UI of starcraft would be a heavy flaw for example, but compared to other games of the same time the UI werent much flawed at all.
|
Norway28784 Posts
ive been reading these "artificial interface hinderances arent what make the sport good" things and while I sort of agree, I think those artificial hinderances are good to differentiate competitors of their sport
and then I thought about downhill skiing
and about how there, the goal is to drive down the hill as quickly as possible
but then, because this is not that difficult of a thing to do, to increase the skill-differentiating between different competitors, they decided to add all those poles in the ground to make it more difficult
while this is somewhat of a retarded analogy, I think it's way better than any of those "h 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. " analogies to show why adding interface hinderances is a bad thing.
everything is interface. there has to be something some people can do and others cant do for there to be any competition.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
Aphelion, there is no need to be a dick now. Klockan3 did point out one of the flaws that are inherent in all analogies. I am semi-arguing for MBS (not truly, but I do want anti-MBS players to consider the advantages that MBS offers), and I've been following the pro-scene since its conception. Having a different opinion from you is not necessarily the same as being a retard.
That said, I'd like to point out that the organ was invented before the piano, and the piano was indeed seen as a simplified organ. Yet today, most classical music is composed for the piano, rather than for the organ, and the organ is mostly seen as excessively complicated.
So just for argumentative purposes:
+ Show Spoiler [Open for horrible analogy] +
EDIT: Drone, you make a good analogy. I think we differ on one point and that is that SC2 will be too easy. While it should be fairly easy to maximise the speed at which you can travel in a straight line downhill, it probably won't be as easy to do the same in SC2, especially since SC2 has a strong mental aspect to it.
If you disagree with me, and you honestly believe that after a year of play all professional players will be exactly the same strength then that is simply a difference of opinion, and we will have to wait and see what happens, but if you believe like me that after 10 years of play, even with MBS, the great will still be great, while the good will remain just good, then you must agree that making the game as user friendly as possible should be an advantage.
|
On October 04 2007 04:37 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 04:29 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top. This wont happen unless there is no money to fight for, you will always have to work harder than your opponents to win. The skill spectrum will be just as large as before since micro has as much potential to create a skill diverse plattform as macro.
By being forced to macro and micro there is much more room for mistakes. The game can be turned around by brilliant play. By making macro so easy you are reducing the chances of the game being turned around and therefore limiting the skill of the players. The skill can be diverse with micro but imagine having to do both.
|
On October 04 2007 04:42 1sd2sd3sd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 04:37 Klockan3 wrote:On October 04 2007 04:29 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top. This wont happen unless there is no money to fight for, you will always have to work harder than your opponents to win. The skill spectrum will be just as large as before since micro has as much potential to create a skill diverse plattform as macro. By being forced to macro and micro there is much more room for mistakes. The game can be turned around by brilliant play. By making macro so easy you are reducing the chances of the game being turned around and therefore limiting the skill of the players. The skill can be diverse with micro but imagine having to do both.
Lack of mistakes is a definition of skill, you dont really diminish the skill spectrum punishing people for mistakes, its more the other way around.
|
On October 04 2007 04:40 Daigomi wrote:Aphelion, there is no need to be a dick now. Klockan3 did point out one of the flaws that are inherent in all analogies. I am semi-arguing for MBS (not truly, but I do want anti-MBS players to consider the advantages that MBS offers), and I've been following the pro-scene since its conception. Having a different opinion from you is not necessarily the same as being a retard. That said, I'd like to point out that the organ was invented before the piano, and the piano was indeed seen as a simplified organ. Yet today, most classical music is composed for the piano, rather than for the organ, and the organ is mostly seen as excessively complicated. So just for argumentative purposes: + Show Spoiler [Open for horrible analogy] +
In this case of Brood War versus SC2 I beg to differ because you are taking a piano and turning it into this
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 04 2007 04:47 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 04:42 1sd2sd3sd wrote:On October 04 2007 04:37 Klockan3 wrote:On October 04 2007 04:29 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top. This wont happen unless there is no money to fight for, you will always have to work harder than your opponents to win. The skill spectrum will be just as large as before since micro has as much potential to create a skill diverse plattform as macro. By being forced to macro and micro there is much more room for mistakes. The game can be turned around by brilliant play. By making macro so easy you are reducing the chances of the game being turned around and therefore limiting the skill of the players. The skill can be diverse with micro but imagine having to do both. Lack of mistakes is a definition of skill, you dont really diminish the skill spectrum punishing people for mistakes, its more the other way around.
You are saying that if a game doesn't allow you to mess up then you must need an amazing amount of skill to play it? I'm pretty sure that the great games like chess and go are riddled with mistakes too be made. However there is one game that doesn't require much skill where very few mistakes can be made.
+ Show Spoiler +
Maybe you should try it out.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
1sd2sd3sd, that is where we differ in opinion. I believe SC2 will still be competitive, and require a lot of skill, and you disagree. I believe that SC2 will be a great game, and one day the masters of SC2 (probably some 15 year old prodigy) will laugh at SC1 for being so hard to play, just like most pianists cannot play organ because it is too complicated and they weren't trained in it. Great music can still be composed on both, but for popular appeal the easier one wins.
You disagree with me, and that is your opinion. I used my analogy to point out how your analogy is simply an opinion, just like mine is.
|
On October 04 2007 04:49 1sd2sd3sd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 04:40 Daigomi wrote:Aphelion, there is no need to be a dick now. Klockan3 did point out one of the flaws that are inherent in all analogies. I am semi-arguing for MBS (not truly, but I do want anti-MBS players to consider the advantages that MBS offers), and I've been following the pro-scene since its conception. Having a different opinion from you is not necessarily the same as being a retard. That said, I'd like to point out that the organ was invented before the piano, and the piano was indeed seen as a simplified organ. Yet today, most classical music is composed for the piano, rather than for the organ, and the organ is mostly seen as excessively complicated. So just for argumentative purposes: + Show Spoiler [Open for horrible analogy] + In this case of Brood War versus SC2 I beg to differ because you are taking a piano and turning it into this
Wich is why as i said all these analogies are useless, they only work for those that have the same PoV as you. The problem here isnt that one side are to dumb to understand the other, its that the sides got totally different oppinions on how important the macro part is to the essence of starcraft.
On October 04 2007 04:56 1sd2sd3sd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 04:47 Klockan3 wrote:On October 04 2007 04:42 1sd2sd3sd wrote:On October 04 2007 04:37 Klockan3 wrote:On October 04 2007 04:29 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top. This wont happen unless there is no money to fight for, you will always have to work harder than your opponents to win. The skill spectrum will be just as large as before since micro has as much potential to create a skill diverse plattform as macro. By being forced to macro and micro there is much more room for mistakes. The game can be turned around by brilliant play. By making macro so easy you are reducing the chances of the game being turned around and therefore limiting the skill of the players. The skill can be diverse with micro but imagine having to do both. Lack of mistakes is a definition of skill, you dont really diminish the skill spectrum punishing people for mistakes, its more the other way around. You are saying that if a game doesn't allow you to mess up then you must need an amazing amount of skill to play it? I'm pretty sure that the great games like chess and go are riddled with mistakes too be made. However there is one game that doesn't require much skill where very few mistakes can be made. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should try it out.
Um, i dont think you understood. Not making mistakes is a skill, thats what i said. Not that a game that doesnt allow you to make mistakes per deffinition takes more skill than a game that does.
Also just like in chess if both you and your opponents make the same amounth of mistakes neighter will win. Making so a game is won with a lesser misstake advantage speeds it up and makes it more suitable for progaming since lower matchtime average makes it easier to broadcast.
However its not all good making the games go faster since potentially a lesser player can more often beat a greater player than before due to chance and that players arent robots. But with the higher speed in this hypothetical setting you should be able to play a bo5 as fast as a bo3 b4 making it even harder for the lesser player to win now than before.
|
On October 04 2007 04:58 Daigomi wrote:
1sd2sd3sd, that is where we differ in opinion. I believe SC2 will still be competitive, and require a lot of skill, and you disagree. I believe that SC2 will be a great game, and one day the masters of SC2 (probably some 15 year old prodigy) will laugh at SC1 for being so hard to play, just like most pianists cannot play organ because it is too complicated and they weren't trained in it. Great music can still be composed on both, but for popular appeal the easier one wins.
You disagree with me, and that is your opinion. I used my analogy to point out how your analogy is simply an opinion, just like mine is.
I understand where you are coming from but I do not know how you can find satisfaction in getting really good at something if it involves little effort.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
The problem here isnt that one side are to dumb to understand the other, its that the sides got totally different oppinions on how important the macro part is to the essence of starcraft.
Sorry, I don't agree with you there. Macro is critical to SC. Macro is what makes SC a RTS game rather than a FPS, or an RPG. SC is in essence a strategy game in which you have to build up a base, use your prowess in building a base to build more units than your opponent, and then outsmart him on the battlefield. Macro is concerned with base building, while micro is concerned with the battlefield. There is not SC without macro.
I just disagree on the amount of difference MBS will make to macro. I believe that the players will adapt to MBS and be forced to work harder to stand out, but a strong player will stand out.
EDIT: I understand where you are coming from but I do not know how you can find satisfaction in getting really good at something if it involves little effort.
That is exactly my point, and exactly where we differ. Consider for a moment my analogy of the organ and the piano. In my eyes you are someone arguing for the organ. The piano still requires immense skill to play, and you are still able to make beautiful music with the piano, but it does take less technical mastery (it is still incredibly hard to play, just less hard than an organ). The organ on the other hand requires great technical mastery, and you are also able to produce fabulous music from it, but it does not have mass appeal, which in the end made the piano more popular.
|
On October 04 2007 04:59 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 04:49 1sd2sd3sd wrote:On October 04 2007 04:40 Daigomi wrote:Aphelion, there is no need to be a dick now. Klockan3 did point out one of the flaws that are inherent in all analogies. I am semi-arguing for MBS (not truly, but I do want anti-MBS players to consider the advantages that MBS offers), and I've been following the pro-scene since its conception. Having a different opinion from you is not necessarily the same as being a retard. That said, I'd like to point out that the organ was invented before the piano, and the piano was indeed seen as a simplified organ. Yet today, most classical music is composed for the piano, rather than for the organ, and the organ is mostly seen as excessively complicated. So just for argumentative purposes: + Show Spoiler [Open for horrible analogy] + In this case of Brood War versus SC2 I beg to differ because you are taking a piano and turning it into this Wich is why as i said all these analogies are useless, they only work for those that have the same PoV as you. The problem here isnt that one side are to dumb to understand the other, its that the sides got totally different oppinions on how important the macro part is to the essence of starcraft.
Maybe its because I have been playing the game for a long time that I cannot imagine starcraft being the same with MBS. It just takes too many factors out to enjoy it as thoroughly. How can the skill grow if they make the game easier to play? Does that matter to you or do you think that it won't be easier to play? (which if you do think that it will be just as difficult please explain why)
I am assuming you will say that since it is taken out of the game everyone will be on an even foot which I agree but isn't it disappointing to play at a lower level altogether then?
|
On October 04 2007 05:05 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
I am assuming you will say that since it is taken out of the game everyone will be on an even foot which I agree but isn't it disappointing to play at a lower level altogether then?
Well, it wont be easier to play since micro can draw almost an endless amounth of apm and on top of that micro apm is harder for the mind than macro apm since micro apm are reactions to what happened the last split second while macro apm is just a long sequence of predefined clicks.
The only real skill you lose is the ability to judge when its good to be away for a few seconds to build units instead of microing, but that can be exactly the same skill as deciding wich units to micro.
Edit: But ofcourse there are people that likes macro, i dont blame them since its relaxing in a way and its fun to create huge armies that you are more attached to since you clicked them all out manually. However i dont see this as a necessary part of the game, i can respect if you do but i demand that people respect my oppinion also.
|
stop trying to Newbiefie SC2 with MBS/automine.. its pointless this isnt WC3 i dont want to just micro.. i want to macro and 4z 5d is not what i call macro'ing --a
|
On October 04 2007 05:09 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 05:05 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
I am assuming you will say that since it is taken out of the game everyone will be on an even foot which I agree but isn't it disappointing to play at a lower level altogether then? Well, it wont be easier to play since micro can draw almost an endless amounth of apm and on top of that micro apm is harder for the mind than macro apm since micro apm are reactions to what happened the last split second while macro apm is just a long sequence of predefined clicks. The only real skill you lose is the ability to judge when its good to be away for a few seconds to build units instead of microing, but that can be exactly the same skill as deciding wich units to micro.
From my experiences I can tell you that deciding what units to micro is in no way as tough as choosing the best time to macro in the heat of the game. It builds your multitasking up and allows you to make split second decisions then learn from them. If all you have to do is focus on choosing what units to micro won't the game be turned into more of a micro map? It just sounds way to much like warcraft 3 to me.
Edit: I respect your opinion and thats why I am debating with you. I am just trying to show you exactly why I think you are underestimating the concept of macro.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
Ok, I'm going to withdraw from this argument. This is why I tried not getting involved in the first place. Oh well, like I said in my very first post, I'm not specifically for or against MBS, I just want the anti-MBS crowd to consider the possible positive changes MBS could have on the game. If some at least considered this them I'm happy 
|
On October 04 2007 05:16 1sd2sd3sd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 05:09 Klockan3 wrote:On October 04 2007 05:05 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
I am assuming you will say that since it is taken out of the game everyone will be on an even foot which I agree but isn't it disappointing to play at a lower level altogether then? Well, it wont be easier to play since micro can draw almost an endless amounth of apm and on top of that micro apm is harder for the mind than macro apm since micro apm are reactions to what happened the last split second while macro apm is just a long sequence of predefined clicks. The only real skill you lose is the ability to judge when its good to be away for a few seconds to build units instead of microing, but that can be exactly the same skill as deciding wich units to micro. From my experiences I can tell you that deciding what units to micro is in no way as tough as choosing the best time to macro in the heat of the game. It builds your multitasking up and allows you to make split second decisions then learn from them. If all you have to do is focus on choosing what units to micro won't the game be turned into more of a micro map? It just sounds way to much like warcraft 3 to me.
Well, it will be tougher the more unit types wich are in play at any one time.
But i agree that the choice of when to macro is a skill that will be forever lost, its a great skill requiring the player to have a very good game reading skills.
But micro can be really hard, imagine a micromap were both of you start off with 1 of each caster unit in starcraft, all start with full energy and with a quite large spacing so you cant storm rush.
Medic, ghost, sci vessel, templar, DA, arb, queen, defiler, thats just 8 units but still it would be extremely hard to micro them properly and the skill gap on such a map could become almost infinitely large.
|
On October 04 2007 03:51 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
The major problem I think that everyone sees is the fact that you are taking this system of mechanics and purposely declining it just to welcome new faces. This would be like removing a great deal of keys from a piano in order to get more people interested in playing it. Yes, you might attract more people to learn since it will be easier to get good at but think of all the tones you will be leaving out.
You will be sacrificing potential for short term success.
Piano pedals weren't intended from the beginning and there are no piano players who don't use pedals.
Sustain Pedal (damper pedal) and Sostenuto pedal - thanks to these pedals you can play simple but beautiful passages with one finger and more complicated using only one hand. At the same time pianists get the way to play compositions that without these pedals would never exist.
There is even no need to bring piano comparison. Look at rally points. Without them you had to go back to the base every time units were completed and that required multitasking and timing. Rally points didn't make game worser but quite otherwise and that's exactly how MBS could work. That's my opinion. You and others can disagree, that's fine. But the Real Problem is some people don't think that's fine. They think the only valid opinion is theirs or even think that their guess-work aren't opinion but facts. They think just through discussion and by calling noobs those who disagree they can force their opinion on someone and that's what's sad.
Dont come with analogies people, even if you think that just your analogy is ubersmart and everyone will get it.
exactly
On October 04 2007 05:15 Lz wrote:
stop trying to Newbiefie SC2 with MBS/automine.. its pointless this isnt WC3 i dont want to just micro.. i want to macro and 4z 5d is not what i call macro'ing --a
WE ALL GET YOUR OPINION ALREADY
|
On October 04 2007 05:20 Daigomi wrote:Ok, I'm going to withdraw from this argument. This is why I tried not getting involved in the first place. Oh well, like I said in my very first post, I'm not specifically for or against MBS, I just want the anti-MBS crowd to consider the possible positive changes MBS could have on the game. If some at least considered this them I'm happy
I respect your opinion. I shouldn't think that just because I play brood war and the fact that the discipline it requires appeals to me doesn't necessarily mean it appeals to everyone else. I am sure that the people that play to win and get better agree that brood war is special because of its unique difficulty.However there are also people that just play casually and for fun more than a quest for mastering it. The question then becomes who is blizzard really targeting the game towards? Unfortunately for the many people that love the game for its difficulty of playing there are quite a few more that would probably rather it be just another game to play. It is a sad realization that Blizzard will appeal to the masses (people that just want to have fun with it) while ignoring the ones that consider the difficulty of getting good worthwhile. I really hope that blizzard can find a way to leave out MBS or maybe even add in an option where you can turn it on or off before the game starts (and not toggle it during the game!) so that the high skill involved in competition can contain the same high maintenance it does now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/OrgueRembrandt4090.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/FortepianoByMcNultyAfterWalter1805.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/1014/973052.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.e-oss.net/albums/album09/pong.sized.png)
