|
Canada5062 Posts
"Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example.
|
On October 04 2007 16:10 mensrea wrote:
"Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example.
Thanks for replying.
Anyways, a better Basketball analogy would be, well...Everyone from 1st grade to grandfathers can shoot a basketball. It's the percentages that vary. The defensive effort of the other team still matters. However low the hoop is, the defensive ability and/or offensive prowess would be a more tangible effect on your ability to shoot that basketball. Not the height of the hoop. Besides, if you put it too low, kids would have the upper hand, no?
About soccer and baseball (and even your example with basketball)...they're a bit different. They are standards and rules that you have to follow. Standards and rules for basketball. In games, there are no standards, no standard UI, no standard way of making games. Sure there are genres but those are just terms to help us distinguish one from the other. Rules in computer gaming, on the other hand, are mostly there to ensure that there will be no cheating or giving an unfair advantage to the other player.
And you talk about artificial...an outdated, crippled UI is IMHO more unnatural than the helping hand that MBS provides non-pro gamers because a cripple UI has a bigger effect on non-pros when compared to the effect that MBS brings to pro-gamers (which is negligible).
Anyway, I'll tackle Gates and Jobs later as I'm at work right now. See you later.
|
On October 04 2007 15:51 ForAdun wrote:
@ xtian15: You are completely right - assuming that players agree to battle/harass all the time, which won't be the case in up to 99% of the games. This alone makes all your theory useless.
And no, don't even think about it, we will not change our nature, we need to rest.
I'm no expert/pro-gamer but what do you do if you don't battle AND harass 99% of the time? How will you win with just battling for just 1% of the time? One battle decides it all? You turtle? You expand without opposition? Eh. That would be boring with or w/o MBS.
Besides, they (the opposing players) don't need to agree to battle/harass all the time. An intelligent player will pick his spots. A true Pro gamer would exploit all possible advantages and if that means overloading the other player in his capability to handle multiple avenues of attack, then so be it.
And you saying (assuming you are a pro) that Pros need to rest in between 15-30 minute games? They practice everyday. They (you) can handle it.
Thanks for reading.
|
On October 04 2007 16:09 Aphelion wrote:
Eh, constant battle isn't that great anyways. Sure an action packed game is fun to watch, but so is the subtle maneuvering, the positioning of forces, the guessing of tech and counter tech, and the expansions to critical locations, and of course the hectic macro in preparation for the next battle. Sometimes the best part of SC is the calm before the storm.
You said it yourself, it would be fun to watch. What else matters more in e-sports? If it isn't fun to watch then no one will watch and everything falls apart. Of course there will still be maneuvering and positioning of forces (how would they get into battle?), guessing of tech and counter tech (although this will happen while you're in battle as opposed to after the battle) and of course the hectic macro (not the numberlettercombination type though.) The constant, no, the simultaneous and continuous battles will be all the macro that you'll ever need.
|
CA10831 Posts
On October 04 2007 18:20 xtian15 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 16:09 Aphelion wrote:
Eh, constant battle isn't that great anyways. Sure an action packed game is fun to watch, but so is the subtle maneuvering, the positioning of forces, the guessing of tech and counter tech, and the expansions to critical locations, and of course the hectic macro in preparation for the next battle. Sometimes the best part of SC is the calm before the storm. You said it yourself, it would be fun to watch. What else matters more in e-sports? If it isn't fun to watch then no one will watch and everything falls apart. Of course there will still be maneuvering and positioning of forces (how would they get into battle?), guessing of tech and counter tech (although this will happen while you're in battle as opposed to after the battle) and of course the hectic macro (not the numberlettercombination type though.) The constant, no, the simultaneous and continuous battles will be all the macro that you'll ever need. is starcraft not the most spectator-friendly RTS?
last time i checked starcraft has periods of rest where battles do not occur and yet a LOT of people watch it.
i don't know about you but i find pro-gamer matches a lot of fun to watch.
the way that you're stating things makes it seems like the foundations of SC2 need to be different from SC1 because SC1 is inadequate as an e-sport.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On October 04 2007 17:57 xtian15 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 16:10 mensrea wrote:
"Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example. Thanks for replying. Anyways, a better Basketball analogy would be, well...Everyone from 1st grade to grandfathers can shoot a basketball. It's the percentages that vary. The defensive effort of the other team still matters. However low the hoop is, the defensive ability and/or offensive prowess would be a more tangible effect on your ability to shoot that basketball. Not the height of the hoop. Besides, if you put it too low, kids would have the upper hand, no? About soccer and baseball (and even your example with basketball)...they're a bit different. They are standards and rules that you have to follow. Standards and rules for basketball. In games, there are no standards, no standard UI, no standard way of making games. Sure there are genres but those are just terms to help us distinguish one from the other. Rules in computer gaming, on the other hand, are mostly there to ensure that there will be no cheating or giving an unfair advantage to the other player. And you talk about artificial...an outdated, crippled UI is IMHO more unnatural than the helping hand that MBS provides non-pro gamers because a cripple UI has a bigger effect on non-pros when compared to the effect that MBS brings to pro-gamers (which is negligible). Anyway, I'll tackle Gates and Jobs later as I'm at work right now. See you later.
Sigh.
I think you've lost touch with reality.
My "analogies" were not meant to be perfect ones (is there even such a creature?) nor intended to be taken literally. You clearly do not know me very well.
For the record, since at least one imbecile didn't get it the first time, the "analogies" were meant to illustrate the point that pandering to popular demand is not necessarily the answer if you want to produce something great. If that were the case, every business concern on the planet would be spending 100% of their budget on market research and nothing else.
Stop wasting everyone's time with your comically misguided dissections (a poor, sophomoric attempt at that, even if it were in any way relevant). And take a hard look at your post count and think twice about irritating me any more than you already have.
|
On October 04 2007 18:27 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 18:20 xtian15 wrote:On October 04 2007 16:09 Aphelion wrote:
Eh, constant battle isn't that great anyways. Sure an action packed game is fun to watch, but so is the subtle maneuvering, the positioning of forces, the guessing of tech and counter tech, and the expansions to critical locations, and of course the hectic macro in preparation for the next battle. Sometimes the best part of SC is the calm before the storm. You said it yourself, it would be fun to watch. What else matters more in e-sports? If it isn't fun to watch then no one will watch and everything falls apart. Of course there will still be maneuvering and positioning of forces (how would they get into battle?), guessing of tech and counter tech (although this will happen while you're in battle as opposed to after the battle) and of course the hectic macro (not the numberlettercombination type though.) The constant, no, the simultaneous and continuous battles will be all the macro that you'll ever need. is starcraft not the most spectator-friendly RTS? last time i checked starcraft has periods of rest where battles do not occur and yet a LOT of people watch it. i don't know about you but i find pro-gamer matches a lot of fun to watch. the way that you're stating things makes it seems like the foundations of SC2 need to be different from SC1 because SC1 is inadequate as an e-sport.
It doesn't need to be different. My points are geared to improve and not drastically change SC. It needs to improve because, well, there is still room for improvement. It SC2 will be more spectator-friendly, then it will be for the better, right?
|
On October 04 2007 18:36 mensrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 17:57 xtian15 wrote:On October 04 2007 16:10 mensrea wrote:
"Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example. Thanks for replying. Anyways, a better Basketball analogy would be, well...Everyone from 1st grade to grandfathers can shoot a basketball. It's the percentages that vary. The defensive effort of the other team still matters. However low the hoop is, the defensive ability and/or offensive prowess would be a more tangible effect on your ability to shoot that basketball. Not the height of the hoop. Besides, if you put it too low, kids would have the upper hand, no? About soccer and baseball (and even your example with basketball)...they're a bit different. They are standards and rules that you have to follow. Standards and rules for basketball. In games, there are no standards, no standard UI, no standard way of making games. Sure there are genres but those are just terms to help us distinguish one from the other. Rules in computer gaming, on the other hand, are mostly there to ensure that there will be no cheating or giving an unfair advantage to the other player. And you talk about artificial...an outdated, crippled UI is IMHO more unnatural than the helping hand that MBS provides non-pro gamers because a cripple UI has a bigger effect on non-pros when compared to the effect that MBS brings to pro-gamers (which is negligible). Anyway, I'll tackle Gates and Jobs later as I'm at work right now. See you later. Sigh. I think you've lost touch with reality. My "analogies" were not meant to be perfect ones (is there even such a creature?) nor intended to be taken literally. You clearly do not know me very well. For the record, since at least one imbecile didn't get it the first time, the "analogies" were meant to illustrate the point that pandering to popular demand is not necessarily the answer if you want to produce something great. If that were the case, every business concern on the planet would be spending 100% of their budget on market research and nothing else. Stop wasting everyone's time with your comically misguided dissections (a poor, sophomoric attempt at that, even if it were in any way relevant). And take a hard look at your post count and think twice about irritating me any more than you already have.
I didn't mean to irritate you, if I did, then sorry. And no, I am not after the analogy (I know there is no perfect analogy), but the idea behind it. And certainly I'm not after you and your lofty post count. I am here to argue the point, not against you or anybody else. I would have responded no differently if it were another person making that post. Post count = 1 million or total noob.
My point is that, well, every business spends something on Market research. Not 100% (I know) but a significant amount nonetheless.
|
Norway28814 Posts
the thing is just that.. all good sports have rules that make them harder to play. football is impressive because you use your feet, accomplishing what a football player can accomplish with his hands is just significantly less fun because it's easier. (hence why handball, while more action filled and "exciting" than football, still sucks as a sport. )
in basketball, not only is the hoop too tall for most people to reach
you also have rules like, no travelling.. track and field sports are different i guess but then again they also mostly suck.
chess is mostly played with some kind of timer..
meh
im honestly expecting sc2 to be more like war3 than sc and to fail in the same way, and mostly just due to the interface being improved upon too much.. competition is fun because not everyone is able to do everything.. while there's still going to be skill differentiation in sc2, obviously, it's going to be less significant.. and while the interface in sc is improved upon compared to war2 and dune 2 or whatever, I feel they were at the appropriate amount of tasks required in sc.. but there's nothing strange or principally wrong with artificially not making the game as easy as possible. any sport does this. basically, the problem is that blizzard prolly isn't out to make the best computer sport ever, but the best computer game ever. and games work quite differently; they still need to be challenging, but not so much geared towards differentiating skill.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 04 2007 17:57 xtian15 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 16:10 mensrea wrote:
"Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example. Thanks for replying. Anyways, a better Basketball analogy would be, well...Everyone from 1st grade to grandfathers can shoot a basketball. It's the percentages that vary. The defensive effort of the other team still matters. However low the hoop is, the defensive ability and/or offensive prowess would be a more tangible effect on your ability to shoot that basketball. Not the height of the hoop. Besides, if you put it too low, kids would have the upper hand, no? About soccer and baseball (and even your example with basketball)...they're a bit different. They are standards and rules that you have to follow. Standards and rules for basketball. In games, there are no standards, no standard UI, no standard way of making games. Sure there are genres but those are just terms to help us distinguish one from the other. Rules in computer gaming, on the other hand, are mostly there to ensure that there will be no cheating or giving an unfair advantage to the other player. And you talk about artificial...an outdated, crippled UI is IMHO more unnatural than the helping hand that MBS provides non-pro gamers because a cripple UI has a bigger effect on non-pros when compared to the effect that MBS brings to pro-gamers (which is negligible). Anyway, I'll tackle Gates and Jobs later as I'm at work right now. See you later.
Exactly, MBS helps the worse players more than it does the good ones, meaning the skill difference gets smaller, thank you for admitting this, involuntarily or not.
|
Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote:
Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
You can't argue this way or when starcraft 3 is made and people say "but come onnnnnnn, making units auto-target the enemy units with the least health left is going to seriously ruin this game" they'll say
"LOL WHAT IF THE LAST GENERATION HAD OPPOSED MBS, WHAT THEN HUH? PROGRESS EL OH EL".
Stop using that argument. In case you haven't noticed, there's been very little resistance to other changes, such as the unlimited unit selection cap.
I wonder why? Maybe because we feel it doesn't hurt the game, whereas MBS will?
|
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote:
Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
Haha, at least a good laugh. 
You'd be surprised anyways that pressing buttons with the mouse-cursor actually makes sense in many cases e.g. when you want to use 'hold position' on several groups of units or when you nada-style pump units out of gateways/factories.
Does that convince you? 
|
On October 04 2007 18:20 xtian15 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 16:09 Aphelion wrote:
Eh, constant battle isn't that great anyways. Sure an action packed game is fun to watch, but so is the subtle maneuvering, the positioning of forces, the guessing of tech and counter tech, and the expansions to critical locations, and of course the hectic macro in preparation for the next battle. Sometimes the best part of SC is the calm before the storm. You said it yourself, it would be fun to watch. What else matters more in e-sports? If it isn't fun to watch then no one will watch and everything falls apart. Of course there will still be maneuvering and positioning of forces (how would they get into battle?), guessing of tech and counter tech (although this will happen while you're in battle as opposed to after the battle) and of course the hectic macro (not the numberlettercombination type though.) The constant, no, the simultaneous and continuous battles will be all the macro that you'll ever need.
Not even that. Its fun at first, but gets tired and tedious after awhile. Like watching a few hour long TvZ reps in a role.
It has to be fun to play even. And the constant macro will be just me going 5d6s without looking back in base. Whole game will be just a prolonged zealot rush.
|
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote:
Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
Good point. Lets extend this method of thinking to the other major competative gaming type, First person shooters. Basically, when we see a person on the screen, our mouse should automatically move to their head. I mean thats what we want to be able to do isnt it? Then itll be 1 click to kill them. It removes all those unneccessary movements of the mouse. I mean, It takes no skill to move a mouse to an object really fast, its just boring and pointless. Also with the mouse automoving, there will be more killing people, the game will be more fun wont it?
|
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote:
Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
There obviously needs to be the right amount of 'stuff to do'; with too much to do the game becomes too tedious, with too little to do the game becomes boring. I think most people here agree that starcraft has got that balance, being able to control not 1 or 100 but 12 units at a time, not having MBS, auto casting, etc. There have to be both tasks that require dexterity to master and those that just require intuition and a good knowledge of the game.
People have no trouble getting their entire armies to attack if 12 units can be selected at a time, although it takes some work, but if only 1 unit could be selected at a time then people would just spend the entire time getting their armies to attack and there'd be no time for anything else. The game would require too much dexterity and too little anything else, which is bad. On the other hand, with MBS, then the game wouldn't require any dexterity at all, which is also bad. So starcraft is good as it is. However, as long as there's still the same amount of stuff to do, which is very very doubtful if MBS is added, then I'm fine with it.
|
Personally I don't really care how MBS is going to work in SC2, all I really want is the ability to have all of my production buildings hotkeyed with at least 3 hotkeys left for my army. Otherwise the game will turn into "fight against the UI" and I won't be interested in it at all.
The problem with some anti-mbs people is that they consider everything from the pro perspective, being able to do everything with their 400+ apm because they are practicing 12hrs/day.
Newsflash for you: There are also people who don't have time for such things and would still like to play the game without putting too much effort into it.
I don't want to break the sweat while playing the game because I'm doing it for FUN, not competition, I don't want to lose the game to someone without any brain but able to click 3x faster than me.
Also, Blizzard isn't making this game just for the people who played SC1, they're doing it for everyone (including people who haven't seen SC1 on their eyes) and someone not familiar with it (or RTSs at all for that matter) would be overwhelmed by inferiority of the interface without MBS.
Why so many of you think that SC2 is being designed only for hardcore fanboys of SC1 and people who know how to play it and are successful at it? Don't be so selfish and let others have some pleasure too.
It seems that the best way to solve all the issues would be releasing 2 versions of SC2:
SC2 - promode:
- no mbs
- no automining
- no amm ladder
- maybe no b.net at all, it could be just for the competetive play in leagues
SC2 - normal mode:
- mbs
- automining
- amm ladder for everyone
- top 20 people from each ladder each season would be able to get SC2 promode (noobs don't need it anyway, let's just make it accesible to those worthy)
|
That would be excellent if we didn't have to split the community and with all the problems which come with it, foreseen or unforeseen.
Blizzard might not choose to make a game for us. But they asked us what we thought SC2 should be like, they wanted to know what it took to cater to the professional scene. And we gave them their answer. Like I said, there is no reason for them to cater to us, unless be it devotion to dedicated fans of a wildly successful professional game.
They say they would take the path, but they might not. I would hate it, but I can understand it. Just don't come with excuses saying its a better game or that you are doing it for the die hard fans. In that case, you would take away both our game and deny our rationale for existence. If Blizzard wants to go that track, just say, we're appealing to a more casual, broader audience. Then we can stop all these pretense and continue playing in a vastly diminished BW community, like the War2 people.
|
On October 04 2007 21:27 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 17:57 xtian15 wrote:On October 04 2007 16:10 mensrea wrote:
"Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example. Thanks for replying. Anyways, a better Basketball analogy would be, well...Everyone from 1st grade to grandfathers can shoot a basketball. It's the percentages that vary. The defensive effort of the other team still matters. However low the hoop is, the defensive ability and/or offensive prowess would be a more tangible effect on your ability to shoot that basketball. Not the height of the hoop. Besides, if you put it too low, kids would have the upper hand, no? About soccer and baseball (and even your example with basketball)...they're a bit different. They are standards and rules that you have to follow. Standards and rules for basketball. In games, there are no standards, no standard UI, no standard way of making games. Sure there are genres but those are just terms to help us distinguish one from the other. Rules in computer gaming, on the other hand, are mostly there to ensure that there will be no cheating or giving an unfair advantage to the other player. And you talk about artificial...an outdated, crippled UI is IMHO more unnatural than the helping hand that MBS provides non-pro gamers because a cripple UI has a bigger effect on non-pros when compared to the effect that MBS brings to pro-gamers (which is negligible). Anyway, I'll tackle Gates and Jobs later as I'm at work right now. See you later. Exactly, MBS helps the worse players more than it does the good ones, meaning the skill difference gets smaller, thank you for admitting this, involuntarily or not.
Well, I really agree that the skill difference will get smaller, in a way. It benefits the noobs, the non-pros but it doesn't exactly hurt the pro-gamers, too. So what if they get a leg up? This is unlike CS where a stray bullet from a noob can really ruin a pro-gamers day...This is SC where luck only applies if both players are reasonably matched. A noob/non-pro-gamer will have no chance in hell against a pro-gamer, MBS or no.
Basically, the effect is that learning the game becomes easier (a trademark of blizzard games) but to become a pro is still, more or less (as I said, and you agreed, that it doesn't really affect pros that much) as hard as it ever will be in SC.
There is, I think, a legit concern that the advanced UI can truly destroy the legacy of the Starcraft's franchise by destroying the famed balance etc. But we can leave that (balancing the game with MBS and auto mining and smartcasting) to Blizzard. But as I said there is a legit concern and they will hear from their fans if there are gameplay imbalances that would have to be addressed.
However IMHO, the thing that is really pissing off a lot of SC pros right now is the invalidation of some part of their macro skills (the 5z6z7z8z9z part) that they painstakingly perfected for almost a decade. And the necessity of learning a new set of macro skills and tactics for this upcoming SC sequel. Oh well. Pros will certainly adapt to it and will make SC2 the clickathon, the macro intensive game that it was in SC1 but with a more exciting but different kind of gameplay. I am betting that it will be the pros themselves who would show the world how SC2 would be so lacking if the the UI enhancements would be foregone.
|
A new set of macro skills would be welcome. The increase of hectic skills would be welcome. But you have yet to show exactly what is going to replace the constant macro and micro. That is part of our question to Blizzard, but you can try answering it as well. Warpgates and blink don't cut it. And if your going to go with the old refrain of constant battle and multiple fronts, I'd have to say, it doesn't sound that great, and very often, its not worth it even if you had infinite apm. Stop relying on hypotheticals and give real examples.
Until you can do so, you don't have a solid argument for MBS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
