EPTLets imagine SC1 with MBS. - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
ALL strats would change, people would play more agressively and expansions would be plentier but so would also the attacks on and around said expansions. More than that is impossible to say, you cant possible believe that the strats would stay the same with mbs in sc. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On September 30 2007 20:56 Artosis3 wrote: Please say no to MBS. Please, stop spamming this sort of threads, not all people get amused (but quite opposite) seeing them popping up again and again without any need for that. You really didn't bring any new point - all of them were discussed before (mostly vain though) and bringing them again in new thread, especially with annoying and ridiculous points like WC3 one, you won't change anyone's opinion. Even more, there is the topic couple posts below where you could freely post that. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
On October 01 2007 01:16 Artosis3 wrote: lugggy : dont tell me what i want you to believe. i already stated MBS is one of MANY factors. stop. just stop. No, Artosis. You stop. Stop presenting fallacious argument after fallacious argument. When the logic of one is utterly refuted you spin a new one for us. These are rationalizations. "MBS is bad because it would make SC1 bad" proven fallacious "MBS is bad because SC1 doesn't have it and it's the best RTS" proven fallacious "MBS is bad because then progaming will have no Pusan and OOV excitement" <--applies only to SC1, you cannot inductively use this to make a case for MBS in general, i.e. applied to SC2, which is what you are intending. Not only that, we cannot test your theory but in our imaginations. Very, very weak argument, to say the least. Fallacious if applied to MBS in general (i.e., to SC2, your intention whether you admit it or not). Amirite? | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
This can happen in SC2 as well. It shouldn't be impossible to replace the time saved by MBS and other features with some sort of interesting skill. War3 failed at this (at least in a way that failed to interest most of us), and SC2 might also. The bright side is that if they do succeed it is going to be a very, very fun game. I'm not too worried if they fail... there will still be BW. | ||
|
Artosis
United States2140 Posts
InRaged : thank you. i vote for you to be a forum moderator so people like me cant preform forum crimes like this. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
Are you now saying that you weren't making the kinds of cases I attributed to you? You don't want us to think MBS is bad because if we added it to SC1 it would be imba? Because it would be less exciting? Because other games with MBS aren't as good as SCBW? And therefore MBS is probably bad for SC2? If this is not what you're getting at please clear it up for me because it's not in your posts. | ||
|
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
I'm almost surprised that the anti-MBS people aren't lobbying for the removing of right click, attack move, worker auto-mining after just one click, workers microing themselves in mineral patches, adding that making it take two clicks to do every action, or making SC2 not run unless run with a 30-pound mouse specifically designed for SC2 so that there is now a macro style, a micro style, and a FITNESS style to improve the variety of the game. | ||
|
YoUr_KiLLeR
United States3420 Posts
its not about game balance or whatever the hell you are talking about. its about skill depth and diversity. you remove a huge factor in the game and you make it that much easier to get to the top levels. it makes the top levels that much less impressive. its like making marines automatically split when you a+move towards a lurker. sure, that type of move only requires very fast clicking, key pressing, and precision, and not some brilliant strategic move, but allowing the masses to do it with ease makes it a no longer impressive feat. similarly, good production requires some hand speed and precision. take out some of the mechanical skill required and the skill in the game is no longer as deep. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On October 01 2007 01:36 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: wow luggy you are an idiot. its not about game balance or whatever the hell you are talking about. its about skill depth and diversity. you remove a huge factor in the game and you make it that much easier to get to the top levels. it makes the top levels that much less impressive. lugggy and others already addressed that | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On October 01 2007 01:27 Artosis3 wrote: InRaged : thank you. i vote for you to be a forum moderator so people like me cant preform forum crimes like this. No need for sarcasm. That's, seriously, very annoying you just created another thread when there's previous one still active, and all what you brought are two months old "arguments". On October 01 2007 01:36 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: its like making marines automatically split when you a+move towards a lurker. sure, that type of move only requires very fast clicking, key pressing, and precision, and not some brilliant strategic move, but allowing the masses to do it with ease makes it a no longer impressive feat. similarly, good production requires some hand speed and precision. take out some of the mechanical skill required and the skill in the game is no longer as deep. No, that's like allowing player to say factories where to send units once they're finished instead of picking them each time from base. Your example as ridiculous as implementing autocast for spells like psi-storm. | ||
|
Freyr
United States500 Posts
- It is not reasonable to state that MBS will without a doubt reduce the variety and potential for depth of skill at the upper echelons of play, because Blizzard will compensate for such "conveniences" by adding significant depth in other areas. - Because SC1 is essentially a fixed game, talking about the effects of introducing MBS is entirely irrelevant. Now, I would like to say I don't believe any of your vocal opponents disagree with the basic idea behind your argument. Instead, what Artosis and the others are doing (as I see it) is casting doubt on the ability of Blizzard to actually provide sufficient additional gameplay depth, and seek examples as to what might be done. They draw on other modern RTS games to illustrate the failure of other developers to provide interesting technical depth in the face of MBS. Personally I believe, for better or for worse, that it is likely that MBS will be included in SC2, so I certainly hope it is possible to make up for this. I think one of the problems Blizzard faces is that, for the RTS community, excluding the somewhat serious (and totally serious) starcraft community, MBS is probably an expected feature. So of course, the reaction of that side of the fanbase could be a concern for them. Also, in light of the fact that MBS could be considered an RTS standard, deliberately excluding it as a feature in order to preserve technical depth could be seen as a fairly large copout. As for my own opinion, I really have no idea. I would like to believe that Blizzard is capable of preserving technical depth by taking new and creative directions with the development of SC2, but I share the fears of Artosis and the others. Well, here's hoping everything turns out fine. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 01 2007 01:36 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: its like making marines automatically split when you a+move towards a lurker. sure, that type of move only requires very fast clicking, key pressing, and precision, and not some brilliant strategic move, but allowing the masses to do it with ease makes it a no longer impressive feat. similarly, good production requires some hand speed and precision. take out some of the mechanical skill required and the skill in the game is no longer as deep. This argument is dumb, automicro would = auto macro. You say that easier macro = auto micro in dumbness? If they made your workers start building structures automatically, your producers building units wo clicks, your factories always rallying to the nearest front then this argument could fit. But currently thats not the case, mbs is like mus, it makes the game easier to control. Why should blizzard keep the arbitary rule to only select 1 structure at a time when you can still select multiple units? Arent structures just units rooted in place? Or do you think that mbs should be only on producers, so you can select multiple turrets to ff like you can with normal units? Or is there a specifik reason turrets shouldnt be able to ff? And if we removes mbs from the game for balance reasons, why not make different units take up different amounth of slots in the unit selection cap since thats basically the same thing? So that a toss can select 6 zealots, a terran can select 12 rines and a zerg can select 24 lings. I mean if we dont do that toss would have easy micro unbalancing the game right? Since they have a lot less units normally. Or do you just think that everything should be just like in starcraft, making you equal to all the other snowed in starcraft guys here not being able to see anything as good as long as it wasnt in starcraft? If you have noticed any deviation from original starcraft is met with a lot of negative prejudice here. But its only natural that people on a large starcraft fansite would think that everything not starcraft is crap or they wouldnt have stayed loyal to starcraft for this long. Its like this in any community, if you ask TA people they would say that TA is the best game ever and SC is one of the worst games ever. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
In all reality Blizz should be tweaking the difficulty of interface for everything along with the balance. Every race could have a different style of interface or whatever. Some units could take up more space in your selection than others (just as they do in drops). Buildings could be bigger. Maybe you can select four of them at once. Who knows? Who cares. They aren't going to do it. Unless we are a think tank for a future RTS, the discussion is moot and that is why I have only focused on the validity (or lack of it) in specific arguments. The truth is we only want a good, deep game. If you think it can't be done if MBS is present you are mistaken, but if you think Blizzard can't do it without MBS that is a better guess. The sad truth is Blizzard is going to try to do it with MBS and probably would have failed either way, but we'll see. I hope they prove me wrong. | ||
|
EGLzGaMeR
United States1867 Posts
 which is going to make the game oh so much worse and this is coming from a person who knows what competitive gaming is like --a(not just watching a starleague match take place like 90% of you) so kids what did we learn today?? MBS = CRAPPY COMPETITIVE GAMES | ||
|
xmShake
United States1100 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 01 2007 01:18 Aphelion wrote: I'm starting to think that instead of posting stuff on here, the better foreign players like Artosis / Nony / Tasteless / Day / Testie should just indicate their position, maybe with a small opinion snippet, and send that to Blizzard. There are too many noobs with agendas here cluttering the argument. I think they already have. Not sure what Blizzard's responses, if any, are considering that in the Q&A batch Karune replied "absolutely" to MBS and automining. Second of all, I'm quite sure they understand just as well what the possible consequences are of including MBS without adding anything meaningful to make up for it. Blizzard isn't stupid. They're fully aware of the pro-scene in Korea and can see how important SBS is to the original game. | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
The same happens here, and the same will happen in future games. Nonetheless these games will be competitive, the game style will just be different. The anti-MBS posters are too close-minded to imagine other gameplay styles. | ||
| ||
