EPTLets imagine SC1 with MBS. - Page 27
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
| ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On October 06 2007 13:24 uriel- wrote: "MBS reduces multitasking" assumes Blizzard is going to add MBS, automine, and then stop with the new features. Well, they aren't. So until a demo comes out and MBS + Automine are the only added features, all the bullshit here is just that. Bullshit. No yours its bullshit. If Blizzard is going to compensate for MBS, so much the better, but they can leave those features in with SBS anyways. Progamers have shown the game can be taken to an amazing level. And short of you bringing up SOMETHING concrete that Blizzard supposedly has in store, its you who is full of bullshit. | ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
| ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 06 2007 13:44 Aphelion wrote: No yours its bullshit. If Blizzard is going to compensate for MBS, so much the better, but they can leave those features in with SBS anyways. Progamers have shown the game can be taken to an amazing level. And short of you bringing up SOMETHING concrete that Blizzard supposedly has in store, its you who is full of bullshit. Right, why do they need to transfer multitasking skill to somewhere else if it can stay where it was for years? They want MBS and multitasking skill work hand in hand. Lets think about: how? Lets say they make micro management tougher, how are they going to do so when they already increased the selection cap to about unlimited? Doesn't make sense. Will they make us handle fights on several locations at the same time? How? By sacrificing a goat to please the gods? By designing smaller maps so the armies meet more often? By putting the start locations and expansions right next to each other? By setting speed 20 as the standard setting? By punishing players who camp at their bases? By hypnotizing us and forcing us to split our armies and attack no matter the waste? That was mostly serious thought, I can't think of any better. Can you? For real, I don't see the big need for multitasking in SC2 as I am used to it in SC. Oh by the way, please use a language that I can actually read without getting blinded. Don't put your **** everywhere. On October 06 2007 13:59 NotSorry wrote: Also don't support the idea of automining, as people get better they remember to do this meaning that it takes some form of skill to keep on top of, why would you want to remove something that sets people apart in a competitive game. Yeah. Automining is just as bad. | ||
|
Locke.
Israel562 Posts
Aphelion, your patience is amazing but you just can't have a logical discussion when the other side is not using logic. Honestly the level of some posters here is just terrible. I am not used to seeing such nonsense on TL.net.. It seems like the Mods have given up on the SC2 forum ;( btw people who played at blizz con said the game was too slow paced and that you didn't have that much things to do. | ||
|
Beamo
France1279 Posts
Take a good multitasking player like Bisu and tell him building units is now easier. Not a problem it will just let him do something else instead and he will still keep his multitasking advantage over his opponents. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 06 2007 19:31 Beamo wrote: Multitasking is not just making units while you are attacking... Take a good multitasking player like Bisu and tell him building units is now easier. Not a problem it will just let him do something else instead and he will still keep his multitasking advantage over his opponents. And something else is.... what exactly? | ||
|
uriel-
Singapore1867 Posts
On October 06 2007 13:44 Aphelion wrote: No yours its bullshit. If Blizzard is going to compensate for MBS, so much the better, but they can leave those features in with SBS anyways. Progamers have shown the game can be taken to an amazing level. And short of you bringing up SOMETHING concrete that Blizzard supposedly has in store, its you who is full of bullshit. These same progamers cannot take a different game with MBS to an amazing level? Oh, bringing back the concrete evidence FALLACY. Hey, why don't you bring up SOMETHING concrete that Blizzard isn't going to have anything in store? Let's play an argument by evidence on a subject with no evidence whatsoever, call each other idiots repeatedly and end up nowhere! This is such a low-level argument, I'm surprised people are still arguing this. The MBS side propose that Blizzard will have something to compensate for MBS, a likely prospect. The anti-MBS side assume that Blizzard will have nothing. Both sides have no evidence because the game is far from release. Let's go up another level. The pro of MBS is that it will open the game up to newer players. This is always desirable, unless the drop in multitasking affects the pro scene too much. We have no evidence to support or debunk Blizzard's inclusion of any added features that will make up for this drop of multitasking. Basically, the only con of MBS is that it will decrease the multitasking and thus skill needed to play the game, making the pro scene less intense. If Blizzard makes up for this with other channels of multitasking that are equally intense, MBS has no cons. We can't prove either side if Blizzard is able to do this or not. Until we can, screaming for MBS to be dropped is senseless. | ||
|
Beamo
France1279 Posts
When Broodwar just came out did people multitask cors + dt like bisu is doing today ? Did people manage their scouting probes like the pros do today ? We will see how the gaming in SC2 evolvs but I'm pretty confident there will alwyas be a lot of things to do. And if you want a SC1 analogy lets say adding storm drop for example. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 06 2007 20:07 Beamo wrote: When Broodwar just came out did people multitask cors + dt like bisu is doing today ? Did people manage their scouting probes like the pros do today ? We will see how the gaming in SC2 evolvs but I'm pretty confident there will alwyas be a lot of things to do. And if you want a SC1 analogy lets say adding storm drop for example. the thing is, people (progamers) are already more than capable of executing standard micro/macro very well along with managing storm drops and dt harass and whatnot. and, once again, even if they were capable of filling all of your time with micro tricks and harass opportunities, it STILL hurts the game because removing macro and making the game almost solely micro focused removes alot of the depth the game has. if you want a game that is purely micro play war3, if you want a well balanced game where multiple aspects of gameplay are equally important, play sc2. dont try to force sc into the warcraft mold. god how many times has that argument been made in this thread. this is getting old. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 06 2007 21:16 lugggy wrote: Is it really so important that we predict whether SC2 needs to remove MBS or not? Once we have the beta a lot of the uncertainties we have been arguing over will no longer clutter the issue. If the beta sucks it will be pretty easy to suggest removing MBS at that time. Will it be too late then? If not, are we wasting all our effort in these epic threads trying to play Fortune Teller Tycoon to SC2 and MBS? it might all be guesswork if the only question was whether or not blizz could find enough things to do to fill time during the game. but its not. unless they can find some other way to keep macro a relevant and time-consuming, the addition of mbs and automining will essentially remove macro as a determining factor in the game, which is a bad thing for the reasons that have been repeated a few billion times. only fortune telling necessary is guessing whether blizz wants to make the game into war4 or sc2. | ||
|
Beamo
France1279 Posts
On October 06 2007 21:37 IdrA wrote: the thing is, people (progamers) are already more than capable of executing standard micro/macro very well along with managing storm drops and dt harass and whatnot. and, once again, even if they were capable of filling all of your time with micro tricks and harass opportunities, it STILL hurts the game because removing macro and making the game almost solely micro focused removes alot of the depth the game has. if you want a game that is purely micro play war3, if you want a well balanced game where multiple aspects of gameplay are equally important, play sc2. dont try to force sc into the warcraft mold. god how many times has that argument been made in this thread. this is getting old. I rarely see a progamer correctly doing Cors + sneaky Dt + storm drop at the same time War3 is way less macro oriented because you have less units and a strong hero makes more of a difference then an expo or a 20% bigger army. You can still have macro with MBS but yes it will be more ressource mangement and timing then straight technical skills but is that a bad thing ? if Pusan, Tempest and Oov macro better it is not because they go through the gates and factories faster to build units, it's because they have a better sense of what to build and when and that aspect will not be influenced by MBS. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 06 2007 21:58 Beamo wrote: I rarely see a progamer correctly doing Cors + sneaky Dt + storm drop at the same time indeed, because its not easy to do everything at once. but they are capable of doing it, and its very impressive because it isnt easy. take away the time spent on macro and any idiot will be able to do that. War3 is way less macro oriented because you have less units and a strong hero makes more of a difference then an expo or a 20% bigger army. You can still have macro with MBS but yes it will be more ressource mangement and timing then straight technical skills but is that a bad thing ? if Pusan, Tempest and Oov macro better it is not because they go through the gates and factories faster to build units, it's because they have a better sense of what to build and when and that aspect will not be influenced by MBS. this has been debated for the entire thread. people have made the exact same posts you have. read the thread before you try to argue. they have better macro in large part because they spend the time on it, they go back to their base and produce another round the moment the last one finishes, often to the detriment of their unit control to some extent or another. this allows for diversity, you have players who choose to be macro oriented like the ones you named, players who choose to be micro oriented like boxer. etc. take away that part of macro and everyone will be forced to play roughly the same, since micro/harass will be the only determining factor in the game. there will be only one real way to play. | ||
|
Beamo
France1279 Posts
On October 06 2007 22:07 IdrA wrote: they have better macro in large part because they spend the time on it, they go back to their base and produce another round the moment the last one finishes, often to the detriment of their unit control to some extent or another. Sounds right but what would stop them from doing the same in SC2? Like I said it's not the time it takes. They don't do it faster, they just take the time do it. Building the units will probably become effective enough for everyone to take the time to hot key and press one letter even during a fight. But players like Pusan will also have extra gates built and an extra expo taken during that same fight even if it has weaken their micro. I'm pretty sure even with MBS a player can still make a difference with macro. Now all is left for Blizzard is to make sure this difference is balanced enough with micro if we want a more diversed game (not only harass + micro oriented). MBS is one way to affect this micro/macro balance but it is not the only one to their disposal. Let's see how balanced the game is when it comes out before jumping up and down. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
This is why all the simplistic arguments against multitasking do not suffice, because multitasking isn't just about speed, mental awareness, or physical mechanics. Its a combination of all these, and without either of those you don't have multitasking. You can't just say, oh, pros will still think of doing so, or that you can tab and have the same amount of clicks. Each time, you are losing a crucial element of multitasking. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
anyway, as much as i hate the mbs ideea i think it will be implemented so i was thinking of ways to make it 'balanced'. reading through the posts i noticed that you guys are overlooking the money issue. let's say you have 5 gates on ctrl1, hit D (dragoons; i don't know the designated keys for troops in sc2 so bare with me a few moments) but since you don't have 625 minerals, let's say only 3 'goons (375min) go in to production then you get the "not enough minerals" message. so far so good but now comes the catch. after you gather the 250min (for to more goons) you hit 1 then D but the other 2 free gates do not produce goons instead those 2 goons get queued in those first 3 gates. the short version: if you don't have enough resurces for all the gates in your control to produce troups, the next batch of units should be queued, basically meaning that mbs is really dumb. i say it should stay that way so one at least has to tab or shift+tab through the gates to see which one produces troups. it demands some keyboard action and you can keep your eyes on the battlefield where you'll have "something else to do". | ||
|
shasin
Romania899 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 07 2007 05:20 shasin wrote: i'm almost sure that it has been said or at least it went through your mind that Blizzard will not make a game for koreans only, again. SC2 WILL be made so you will not need a high APM anymore. koreans are the only ones capable of playing with high apm? | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 07 2007 05:59 IdrA wrote: koreans are the only ones capable of playing with high apm? Also, the game WAS unveiled in korea....so they definitely want it to be popular there too. | ||
| ||
