|
On October 05 2007 13:31 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 07:28 Zanno wrote: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. It's not an exagerrated metaphor at all
war2 macro is more time consuming because you have to return to your base at a specific time in order to produce more troops. this is even more demanding on the multitasking abilities of a player, starcraft gives you a few seconds of twiddle room or you can be inefficent filling the queue. the "crucial decision making" you mentioned is brought to an even higher scale - do i let my rax idle so i can bloodlust my ogres and win this battle, or do i go make more ogres?
would it be more difficult to play at a high level? absolutely, but it doesn't make warcraft 2 a better game. that's all i'm saying here. i don't really see how you can disagree with this and say i'm bullshitting you at the same time
if anything there's a massive flaw running across many (but not all) pro MBS arguments where everything in starcraft is assumed perfect, therefore anything not in starcraft is imperfect. people are getting all emotional and argue that adding comfort UI features will disintegrate skill gaps, but once you make suggestions to make the game more difficult to play suddenly you're going too far. i'm not suggesting we actually remove unit queues, i'm just adopting your own mindset and showing you how fallacious it is once you apply it to, oh, anything else in regards to UI. I have thought about it, and I think the fact that it's players find it more valuable to have a single building on a hotkey as opposed to 12 units (even 12 protoss units) is a flaw in SC's game design.
|
On October 05 2007 13:31 mahnini wrote:
If you think it's number one, you're fucking wrong.
Obviously Blizzard thinks that its number one, go tell them that they are fucking wrong please, that will certainly make them understand how little they know of the game. Im sure that you can use your premonition powers to know exactly how the future will turn out.
Other than that, its all speculation. Blizzard speculations concluded that it will be necesary to have mbs in to reach their standards wich can be derived from their comments on the issue in interviews and official announcements.
Do you all here honestly believe that you have a more valid oppinion on this than Blizzard? That the most sluggish but therefore also the most thoughtfull game company ever dont know what they are doing?
If they were in for a change they wouldve said so a LOOOOONG time ago, just like they said that the soulhunter and siegetank looks were under consideration and everytime they showed something or any question about anything else its up for change. But they didnt mention anything about mbs being removed, not even a tiniest hint about mbs gettigng reworked or that its any chance whatsoever of it being removed.
Please all anti-mbs people out there, take your time and look from the pro mbs perspective without the dismissing thoughts that all pro-mbs people are just noobs who want to have an easier time beating people in starcraft. Do this not for their sake, but for your own so that you dont go kill yourself when starcraft 2 comes out with mbs, eventhough you might think that its impossible.
|
I argue against MBS. Had I of been arguing noobification issues back at the war2 sc switch, I would have been arguing for them. Most people here would have been also.
A lot of the anti-MBS people either dont get the MBS argument, or try to avoid actually combatting it by grossly overexaggerating it. Warcraft 2 was a bit too hard, Warcraft 3 was too easy, Starcraft was perfect. We've seen both sides of the scale, we've found the balance we want. However starcraft is not looking like it will fall into the same area as starcraft 1 did. It looks like it is going to be more like warcraft 3 and easy. So we debate that. Everyone who turns around and uses an exaggerated argument such as "In warcraft 2 we could only select 4 units so it must be better" is an idiot. Plain and simple, so shut up unless you want to argue properly.
|
On October 05 2007 21:57 Fen wrote:
I argue against MBS. Had I of been arguing noobification issues back at the war2 sc switch, I would have been arguing for them. Most people here would have been also.
A lot of the anti-MBS people either dont get the MBS argument, or try to avoid actually combatting it by grossly overexaggerating it. Warcraft 2 was a bit too hard, Warcraft 3 was too easy, Starcraft was perfect. We've seen both sides of the scale, we've found the balance we want. However starcraft is not looking like it will fall into the same area as starcraft 1 did. It looks like it is going to be more like warcraft 3 and easy. So we debate that. Everyone who turns around and uses an exaggerated argument such as "In warcraft 2 we could only select 4 units so it must be better" is an idiot. Plain and simple, so shut up unless you want to argue properly.
Well, the only things you got is:
Warcraft 2<Starcraft>warcraft3
To hard , good , to easy
But that isnt really true, since warcraft 2 and starcraft are very similar games just that starcraft is a refined warcraft 2. However warcraft 3 removed almost all aspects of macro, it didnt make them less clicks to do the same things, they just cut down te things you did.
So we have:
Warcraft 2 had a to hard interface.
Starcraft 1 had a better interface than warcraft 2 and were a better game.
Warcraft 3 newbified the macro to a point were UI doesnt even matter. Imagine how hard the macro would be if starcraft had a popcap of 50.
So really, we dont have any example of a game with similar macro as starcraft together with mbs. However we have an example were UI improvements are a part of what makes starcraft better than warcraft 2 were both games have similar macro, so this gives the pro mbs more credit than the anti mbs.
Only credit the anti mbs side has is that they want to go the "Safe route", but if people always thought like that we wouldnt have starcraft 1, youd have warcraft 3 instead at that time wich would be almsot similar to warcraft 2, just like warcraft 2 is very similar to warcraft 1.
|
On October 05 2007 21:14 Zanno wrote:
if anything there's a massive flaw running across many (but not all) pro MBS arguments where everything in starcraft is assumed perfect
On October 05 2007 21:57 Fen wrote:
A lot of the anti-MBS people either dont get the MBS argument, or try to avoid actually combatting it by grossly overexaggerating it. Warcraft 2 was a bit too hard, Warcraft 3 was too easy, Starcraft was perfect.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 05 2007 13:11 Zanno wrote:
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.
A worse player can already beat a better one, if we lower the skillcap of macro, it will only happen more often.
You really, REALLY cannot argue against this one 
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 05 2007 17:30 xtian15 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 04:41 FrozenArbiter 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.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Elitist.
And what is he then? He wants MBS why? Because he doesn't want to have to work to play the game.
So because he doesn't want to play competitively, he doesn't want anyone to do so. Instead of, say, finding others who don't want to play competitively and play with them, he wants to lower the skill difference between him and someone who's spent a lot of time practicing.
It's ridiculous.
On October 05 2007 17:56 xtian15 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Uhu, micro related things.
Thus skewing the micro/macro balance.
Seriously.
|
If MBS was implemented that means more units can be produced with less effort. What if the pop cap was increased? Suddenly, macro becomes much more important because you have to be able to control all the units that you're pumping out. You're getting battles on a much more massive scale than SC1 on average, which makes it harder to micro effectively since there are that many more units.
In other words, if we had SC1 without MBS but only 100 supply, the game would switch to a very micro-oriented gameplay because you just dont have that many units to lose. With MBS, you increase the ability to make units, but you make it harder to control them all.
Also, I'm about neutral on this subject, but if you gave me the choice I'd go with no MBS. I really do think it takes away from the skill level at high levels of play. But I'm resigned to the fact that it's going to stay, due to popular (casual gamers) demand, and if it's implemented no pro in hell is going to play non-MBS when they're given a tool of such power. I also think that MBS is not inherently unbalanced and the game can be tweaked (such as my suggestion above) so that the balance between macro and micro is not weighed heavily in either direction.
|
On October 05 2007 23:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 17:56 xtian15 wrote: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. Uhu, micro related things. Thus skewing the micro/macro balance. Seriously.
Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it?
And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 06 2007 00:30 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 23:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 05 2007 17:56 xtian15 wrote: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. Uhu, micro related things. Thus skewing the micro/macro balance. Seriously. Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it? And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves.
When I check my APM in BWChart, I spend more time microing than I do macroing.
And your last line is exactly what I perceive to be the problem: I WANT MICRO AND MACRO TO GET EQUAL MECHANICAL ATTENTION, I DON'T WANT MACRO TO BECOME GAME READING SKILLS OR PREDICTING YOUR OPPONENTS MOVES - THAT'S NOT MACRO, THAT'S UNDERSTANDING THE GAME.
Yes, I want to have that in caps because nobody seems to listen -_-
Also, Zanno, why did you ignore my reply to your post?
|
On October 06 2007 00:30 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 23:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 05 2007 17:56 xtian15 wrote: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. Uhu, micro related things. Thus skewing the micro/macro balance. Seriously. Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it? And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves.
lawl you don't even know what macro is.
|
On October 06 2007 00:47 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2007 00:30 Klockan3 wrote:On October 05 2007 23:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 05 2007 17:56 xtian15 wrote: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. Uhu, micro related things. Thus skewing the micro/macro balance. Seriously. Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it? And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves. lawl you don't even know what macro is.
Yes i do know what macro is, and it got a lot of definitions depending on who you ask.
The general definition in the starcraft community is that macro is everything you do that has to do with workers and your base.
Predicting what path of construction your opponent will take is critical to macro, you cant exp if your enemy will just destroy it, if you predict from the notions of the game that your opponent wont have the resources or wont scout untill you can predict it you can get more expos than if you werent good at reading the game.
Same with units, if you are good at predicting what units will come in the next minutes you will have an army suited to beat that much faster than if you just reacts to what your opponent does.
These things will get more important than in starcraft if starcraft 2 manages to make more units important in each matchup ofcourse, but theyre still very important in starcraft.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
And all those things are still there, regardless of if you have MBS or not.
All MBS does is reduce the time you spend actually building units to a fraction of what it used to be.
|
On October 06 2007 01:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
And all those things are still there, regardless of if you have MBS or not.
All MBS does is reduce the time you spend actually building units to a fraction of what it used to be.
Yeah, the question is if you think the need for it to take a lot of clicks is important enough to aleniate a lot of potential players.
Do you really think that its SOOO important that a lot of the apm has to go to immobile units to make them create stuff? If Blizzard can find other tasks to let players do that takes more thought than nothing starcraft 2 will actually get harder to master than starcraft.(Since mbs doesnt remove the thought of building, only the thought of when to leave the battlefield for a few secs, and thats not totally removed since you have to build structures still)
But as i said, if clicking on buildings is so important to you guys noone can argue about it. Its a pause in the stressfull microing, since macro clicks are easier and just follows reflexive rutinues, removing that pause makes the game harder as long as you can fill it with something.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 06 2007 01:14 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2007 01:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
And all those things are still there, regardless of if you have MBS or not.
All MBS does is reduce the time you spend actually building units to a fraction of what it used to be.
Yeah, the question is if you think the need for it to take a lot of clicks is important enough to aleniate a lot of potential players.
Unless the beta proves this isn't an issue, then yes, absolutely.
I don't think it's going to alienate nearly as many people as you say it will provided the game is good enough. It will still have unlimited unit selection and smartcasting and so on.
And as I've said before, having to click once per unit (with mbs) is a variation of MBS that I'm open to considering, as it also allows you more control of what you are building.
Do you really think that its SOOO important that a lot of the apm has to go to immobile units to make them create stuff? If Blizzard can find other tasks to let players do that takes more thought than nothing starcraft 2 will actually get harder to master than starcraft.(Since mbs doesnt remove the thought of building, only the thought of when to leave the battlefield for a few secs, and thats not totally removed since you have to build structures still)
But as i said, if clicking on buildings is so important to you guys noone can argue about it. Its a pause in the stressfull microing, since macro clicks are easier and just follows reflexive rutinues, removing that pause makes the game harder as long as you can fill it with something.
It's not a fucking 'pause from the stressful micro', being FORCED to move away from the battle to macro is what makes the game stressful.
Just micro isn't stressful.. you just sit there watching your units. It's when you have to watch your units and make sure they aren't getting raped by lurkers, send another group of units to defend that new expansion across the map, make sure all your production buildings are working smoothly and dodge some scourges with your dropship that it becomes stressful.
|
On October 06 2007 01:26 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2007 01:14 Klockan3 wrote:On October 06 2007 01:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
And all those things are still there, regardless of if you have MBS or not.
All MBS does is reduce the time you spend actually building units to a fraction of what it used to be.
Yeah, the question is if you think the need for it to take a lot of clicks is important enough to aleniate a lot of potential players. Unless the beta proves this isn't an issue, then yes, absolutely. I don't think it's going to alienate nearly as many people as you say it will provided the game is good enough. It will still have unlimited unit selection and smartcasting and so on. And as I've said before, having to click once per unit (with mbs) is a variation of MBS that I'm open to considering, as it also allows you more control of what you are building.
Well, if beta prooves that it is an issue i wouldnt argue for mbs either. Its just that i dont think that it will ever be an issue even near the magnitude of what the anti players say, just like the anti players dont think that mbs have an noticeable effect on game sales.
Show nested quote +
Do you really think that its SOOO important that a lot of the apm has to go to immobile units to make them create stuff? If Blizzard can find other tasks to let players do that takes more thought than nothing starcraft 2 will actually get harder to master than starcraft.(Since mbs doesnt remove the thought of building, only the thought of when to leave the battlefield for a few secs, and thats not totally removed since you have to build structures still)
But as i said, if clicking on buildings is so important to you guys noone can argue about it. Its a pause in the stressfull microing, since macro clicks are easier and just follows reflexive rutinues, removing that pause makes the game harder as long as you can fill it with something.
It's not a fucking 'pause from the stressful micro', being FORCED to move away from the battle to macro is what makes the game stressful. Just micro isn't stressful.. you just sit there watching your units. It's when you have to watch your units and make sure they aren't getting raped by lurkers, send another group of units to defend that new expansion across the map, make sure all your production buildings are working smoothly and dodge some scourges with your dropship that it becomes stressful.
Im sorry, probably went a bit to far there but i think that most should agree with me when i say that it isnt impossible to have a highly skill requiring game even with mbs.
And micro will become more stressfull than before if they manage to add more meaningfull units per matchup, its a lot harder to micro 8 unit types than 2, and its a lot harder to fight 8 unit types than 2. With this i mean mostly zerg, but even terran have quite a big lack of unit diversity in its matchups, and added to this is the new units giving the game a higher unit count than before so even if they dont balance it better there will be more types on average.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Im sorry, probably went a bit to far there but i think that most should agree with me when i say that it isnt impossible to have a highly skill requiring game even with mbs.
Of course, just look at warcraft 3.
Therein lies the problem.
No, I am not saying war3 is what it is because of MBS, but my point is that I don't want a game that plays more micro, less micro because I want the game to keep these aspects of SC1.
|
On October 06 2007 02:03 FrozenArbiter wrote:
No, I am not saying war3 is what it is because of MBS, but my point is that I don't want a game that plays more micro, less micro because I want the game to keep these aspects of SC1.
Wich is a valid concern ofcourse since its your oppinion.
Saying that the proscene will be noobified and that it will in the end destroy the game is not though, wich was my point. This sentence werent directed at you btw.
What can be destroyed is how high level players play the game, it will feel a bit different like all new things and depending on who you are its better/worse than before.
Now if there somehow becomes evident that starcraft cant just live with mbs it will get removed, just like how Blizzard removes anything that is impossible to work with.
Late edit: And it will still be starcraft, just that it will feel a bit different. Like all changes it wont be well recieved in all parts of the community. I think that this large discussion is a proof that it took to long for them to start on sc2.
|
Some people are just too stupid to argue with. And Blizzard is going to read their opinions and think they're right too.
Fuck I sort of wish SC2 wasn't coming out.
|
On October 05 2007 23:34 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 13:11 Zanno wrote:
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. A worse player can already beat a better one, if we lower the skillcap of macro, it will only happen more often. You really, REALLY cannot argue against this one I cannot simply cannot conceive of a situation where one player would win if neither had MBS and the other would win where they both had it. The major game deciding scenarios are killing workers, killing expos, building new expos, and having a build order counter to your opponent. The situations where weaker players beat stronger ones is more often than not the latter. Automine lessens the effect of worker harassment, okay.
If anything, I feel that MBS will bring refinement to lategame scenarios. 4z5z6z7z8z will still be useful lategame unless for some reason you want all of your gateways across the map rallying to the same spot and building the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
