|
On October 05 2007 00:12 Manit0u wrote:
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.
This isn't a good pro-MBS argument because it's the argument many people used against MBS. I think MBS will add a great deal to the game, it's not like you're going to be sitting around doing nothing in the time you would have spent pressing all those extra buttons to macro. The macro phase of the game is shortened, which will open up time for more harass, micro, scouting, and etc. I am aware that some people oppose a more micro-oriented starcraft, but I am all for it. It's not like adding MBS will trivialize the finer aspects of the game, no, they will still be there, you will just have more time to execute them, and more executions per game. I had more I wanted to say but I have to go, so I'll pick this up later.
|
Not only does that ruin the balance of macro and micro, the nature of the game means that sometimes you won't have direct confrontation with the enemy. A lot of the game is about choosing your battles and controlling the overall situaton. What are you going to do in those situations?
|
On October 05 2007 00:34 Aphelion wrote:
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.
Well, I have to rely on hypotheticals, because I haven't had the chance to Beta it. No one outside of Blizzard have solid argument... whether pro or anti MBS. We have pretty good suppositions and analogies and comparisons and what not...but that is not enough to pass judgment on MBS.
Anyhow, your statement hit the nail squarely in the head: the things that would be considered macro are as of now, non-existent (for you guys anyway)...the stuff that can be done to replace letternumbercombination is still unknown. But the worry that there will be nothing to replace 5z6z7z8z is not just because of MBS, it is also in the uncertainty of how units handle in the game, how different skills work in conjunction with another, the units and skills and interactions of a whole race etc. With that said, MBS is not inherently bad. MBS should be considered in the context that it is in, the applications it was used. The game is balanced with MBS in mind and until we get to really experience SC2 in beta...well..hold your horses first.
|
On October 05 2007 00:12 Manit0u wrote:
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)
I agree 90%. No b.net for promode or access to promode only for top 20 is (sorry...) complete **** and what exactly is amm?
|
On October 05 2007 01:48 xtian15 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 00:34 Aphelion wrote:
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. Well, I have to rely on hypotheticals, because I haven't had the chance to Beta it. No one outside of Blizzard have solid argument... whether pro or anti MBS. We have pretty good suppositions and analogies and comparisons and what not...but that is not enough to pass judgment on MBS. Anyhow, your statement hit the nail squarely in the head: the things that would be considered macro are as of now, non-existent (for you guys anyway)...the stuff that can be done to replace letternumbercombination is still unknown. But the worry that there will be nothing to replace 5z6z7z8z is not just because of MBS, it is also in the uncertainty of how units handle in the game, how different skills work in conjunction with another, the units and skills and interactions of a whole race etc. With that said, MBS is not inherently bad. MBS should be considered in the context that it is in, the applications it was used. The game is balanced with MBS in mind and until we get to really experience SC2 in beta...well..hold your horses first.
I do not believe it can wait until beta. I think deciding the UI is one of the most basic things that should be decided before you can even judge it.
And really, we have a pretty good idea how MBS will work based upon prior experience. Blizzard have already said they will not reinvent the wheel - the new game will feel and play like SC. And neither do I trust Blizzard to magically make something up to compensate for MBS. While a great company, it is next to impossible for them to design new features and know how it will turn out with players playing it. SC was a happy accident. The game relies on so many glitches and conventions unknown at release. To deviate from such a core part of the game and still keep the same feeling and awesomeness - that is very very unlikely to happen.
Also remember its not just the letter combo (although that is very important). Its the constant necessity of having go back to manage your base. Macro with SBS is not as simplistic as you make it out to be.
|
...what exactly is amm?
AMM = Automated Match Making
In WC3 the ladder is made up of people playing mêlée games. (Solo, Arranged-team, Random-team and Free For All).
Once you select your game type, you hit "Play Game". Battle.net will then try and match you with a player of a similar ELL. This normally takes about 20 sec.
ELL = Estimated Ladder Level
On the ladder you will have a visible level (1-50) and a hidden ELL that only battle.net knows.
ELL is based on your previous game performances. It was designed to stop the problem of smurfing. If a good player starts a new account and goes 10-0, even though he is a low ladder level, he will have a high ELL, and the AMM will start matching him with high-level ladder players.
If the AMM is working properly, over an extended period of time, your win percentage will tend towards 50%. i.e. you are playing players on your level. Once you start to hit 50% you ladder level should reveal your true skill level.
The problems people have with it is that there are usually very few top players on battle.net at any one time, and game search times can become very long.
There are some other issues too, but I can't be bothered to mention them.
|
this thread's description of sc1 macro really bugs me because it's very inaccurate and therefore misleading. as far as protoss goes, most players don't macro more than 5 gates from their keyboard because the other hotkeys are necessary for other things and because aside from guys with enormous hands like tasteless anything more than 5 gates just isn't feasible.
case in point, bisu's hotkeys suggest he macros from 4-8, and naturally because of his success there are a number of othe pros who share these hotkeys. but 5 gates won't get even the most efficient protoss through even midgame. if 5 gates were sufficient, then this whole question would be different because macroing 4z5z6d7d8d takes a very short time (with practice), and so replacing it with MBS only replace a single game skill (rapid keyboarding) and a very small amount of time.
things aren't that way. 5 or 6 hotkeys devoted to factories, barracks, gateways or hatcheries are usually insufficient to get a player through the midgame stages (although zerg fares slightly better than the other two races). the other method of macro is returning to your base to produce units visually and is a large fraction of time spent in games. this aspect of macro has two-fold importance as far as MBS goes - it takes a great deal of time that will suddenly be completely refunded by MBS, in addition to the relatively small fraction of time that MBS saves over keyboard-based production. MBS also saves the player the trouble of having to move his screen and look away from his army, which is very important. skilled multitasking and positioning is vital in sc1 precisely because you do have to look away in order to macro, and macroing in battles is essential to good economic management.
MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
|
This thread has degraded into: people who know what they are talking about repeating themselves to each other (on both sides of the arguement), and other people who can't seem to follow the issue and pollute the thread.
I hope Blizzard is full of the former and not the latter.
|
I have agreed, and always will.
NO to MBS!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
|
On October 04 2007 21:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +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 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? it's a perfectly valid argument because the same subset of warcraft 2 fans were against all the UI changes from war2 -> sc for the exact same set of reasons fretting about newbification and here we are, 10 years later, and i don't see anyone trying to make the argument "warcraft 2 takes more skill than SC"
if you can make the argument that war2 > sc in the area of macro alone then I'll give you the argument that MBS is bad
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 05 2007 07:28 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 21:54 FrozenArbiter wrote: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 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? it's a perfectly valid argument because the same subset of warcraft 2 fans were against all the UI changes from war2 -> sc for the exact same set of reasons fretting about newbification and here we are, 10 years later, and i don't see anyone trying to make the argument "warcraft 2 takes more skill than SC" if you can make the argument that war2 > sc in the area of macro alone then I'll give you the argument that MBS is bad
Then it's basically impossible to ever argue against new changes.
EVER. And why? Because the Warcraft 2 players 10 years ago - I was 8 at the time - used SOME of the same arguments? As I've said, if this is a valid argument then every single new feature will have to be accepted under it.
I think the points I, and other people opposing MBS, have made have been perfectly valid on their own. Not so much newbification as it is dulling the edge a better player has over a worse one as well as ruining the balance of attention spent macroing/microing.
If anyone has the war2-SC discussions saved (unlikely) or know how they went I'd love to hear them, but just because they thought unit production queues would newbify the game (it of course does make it easier, what we are after is the right balance between useability and skill) doesn't mean our points are invalid.
Oh and btw, I don't play Warcraft 2 and it's possible the war2 system is so much smaller scale or whatever that the SC system still takes more skill, but the War2 system would for sure take more skill if implemented in SC.
The question is, would it - given the grand scale of a starcraft match - take up so much time as to make macro the only viable way to play?
We know that in SC, the current system allows for players to play a predominantly macro or micro style, as they choose. So, given that SC2 plays on a similiar scale and pace, it's likely that MBS will only simplify the game without really giving that much benefit in other areas.
And no, I don't think if MBS is added and allows for more micro or whatever, that that's a good thing. If there is some macro features that will require MBS to function, okay. Then we'd keep the micro/macro balance while upping the scale so to speak.
|
The real question at hand is will MBS make it so that a weaker player in SC at any level can suddenly defeat a stronger player SC2. I don't think it will have an impact on player skill gaps. It will make it easier to pump units from 8 mining bases, but aside from the multitask time freed up and (as the OP posted out, static defense can focus fire) it doesn't impact how well you can defend the bases from a strategic standpoint. The player that has more expos and has more workers survive throughout the game is more likely to win in SC1, and MBS isn't changing that.
We'll have a solid answer to the question when SC2 comes out.
|
Immange a annoying statement spamed over and over again though out fourms. This will never come true but its really a compalint just immange all te annoying comments.
LOOK
If a pro scence of SC2 doesnt want MBS then we should be asking for is the ablity to turn things like that off in the game and not say SCRAP IT. Keep it just let it be so with a flick of a check mark its gone for the game.
|
On October 05 2007 07:28 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 21:54 FrozenArbiter wrote: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 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? it's a perfectly valid argument because the same subset of warcraft 2 fans were against all the UI changes from war2 -> sc for the exact same set of reasons fretting about newbification and here we are, 10 years later, and i don't see anyone trying to make the argument "warcraft 2 takes more skill than SC" if you can make the argument that war2 > sc in the area of macro alone then I'll give you the argument that MBS is bad
No it's not. Why does every dumb fuck think that over exaggerated, nonsensical metaphors will prove them right?
There are two ways of thinking:
1. Macroing in SC is like juggling babies while playing basketball.
2. Macroing in SC is like dribbling in basketball.
If you think it's number one, you're fucking wrong.
Macro by itself is no more redundant than microing units.
"Spamming all those keys is useless and redundant."
"Spamming move and attack with your mouse is useless and redudant."
Can you see that a very similar mentality can be applied to micro?
Let's for a second imagine you are macroing. 5z6z7z8d9d0d or clickzclickzclickzclickz. How fucking hard was that? Not hard at all. I guarantee if you did that for 2 minutes, you'd be able to do that under 3 seconds (with two hands at least).
Easy? Then why the fuck do you keep complaining about it being hard and redundant? Because you fail the understand how the gears behind SC rotate. Macro is not hard when that's all you have to do.
What we lose when including MBS is the crucial decision making that makes SC such a fast paced game. Do I micro or do I macro? Or do I , as quickly as I possibly can, macro with hotkeys while microing?
For God's sake, think about it.
Don't give me bullshit about how we should make it easier for new players, how it can be replaced by more micro, or how it's stupid and redundant.
|
i'm surprised no one has said 'oh fuck i was wrong' in light of this landslide of a thread. i guess this issue is more a jousting match than a sincere attempt at getting anywhere. it reminds me of one of those funny pic threads. futility "because all those carefully worded arguments are falling on deaf ears.
|
I played Warcraft 2, I can't remember there ever being an argument like this befor StarCrafts release.. Im thinking whoever argues that the best warcraft 2 players was annoyed with building ques, 12 units selection are pulling it out of a hat.. etc please show proof of that statment.
Best warcraft players were at a site called Target. (not 100% sure that was the name... long time ago) It was a multiplayer service like Mplayer and gamespy had.. This was befor Kali aswell I think.
We just werent that involved in the game-creation process back then.. speaking for myself as always, but internet was still pretty new for most people.. and the community was not as big.
ed: ofcourse.. i could be pulling that out of a hat aswell.. I just don't remember it being a controversy at all. Everyone was just very happy to have a very fun new rts to play, and that it got connected with battle.net was also very unique.
|
On October 05 2007 04:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Elitist.
|
On October 05 2007 03:04 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 01:48 xtian15 wrote:On October 05 2007 00:34 Aphelion wrote:
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. Well, I have to rely on hypotheticals, because I haven't had the chance to Beta it. No one outside of Blizzard have solid argument... whether pro or anti MBS. We have pretty good suppositions and analogies and comparisons and what not...but that is not enough to pass judgment on MBS. Anyhow, your statement hit the nail squarely in the head: the things that would be considered macro are as of now, non-existent (for you guys anyway)...the stuff that can be done to replace letternumbercombination is still unknown. But the worry that there will be nothing to replace 5z6z7z8z is not just because of MBS, it is also in the uncertainty of how units handle in the game, how different skills work in conjunction with another, the units and skills and interactions of a whole race etc. With that said, MBS is not inherently bad. MBS should be considered in the context that it is in, the applications it was used. The game is balanced with MBS in mind and until we get to really experience SC2 in beta...well..hold your horses first. I do not believe it can wait until beta. I think deciding the UI is one of the most basic things that should be decided before you can even judge it. And really, we have a pretty good idea how MBS will work based upon prior experience. Blizzard have already said they will not reinvent the wheel - the new game will feel and play like SC. And neither do I trust Blizzard to magically make something up to compensate for MBS. While a great company, it is next to impossible for them to design new features and know how it will turn out with players playing it. SC was a happy accident. The game relies on so many glitches and conventions unknown at release. To deviate from such a core part of the game and still keep the same feeling and awesomeness - that is very very unlikely to happen. Also remember its not just the letter combo (although that is very important). Its the constant necessity of having go back to manage your base. Macro with SBS is not as simplistic as you make it out to be.
Nothing can be too late in development to be changed if Blizzard finds it inadequate. There's adequate precedence for this (SC, Ghost, Adventures). Sure Blizzard can't possibly know it all and SC can be considered a happy accident. Still. Blizzard knows much more about creating great games than any of us. No one knows for sure how MBS will affect the game or if there will be enough macro to replace 5z6z7z8z as SC1 never had MBS and War3 (which had MBS) was really made to be different from SC (as SC is to War3) so there is still nothing to compare.
On a side note: If MBS would be included, you would still need to go back to your base but not for unit creation. You'd be back to defend against more constant harrassment as it will be so easy (for a pro, anyway) to pull-off with MBS.
|
On October 05 2007 03:04 Failsafe wrote:
MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
Think of this scenario: two pro players against each other. MBS. Who would win? The advantage of MBS, mainly the advantage of easier unit production would be lost on the two (as they will use it to its full potential)...so what do you think will happen? You think those pro-gamers would just, well, waste those precious seconds that were saved because of MBS? While Blizzard will be replacing 5z6z7z8z with something, pro players would, automatically, find things to do with the extra time. Either they'll use the time to position their forces better, or organize harassment or whatever, the point is that pro players themselves would (IMHO) find things to do to gain the advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
