|
On October 01 2007 03:44 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 03:41 Klockan3 wrote:On October 01 2007 03:37 thoraxe wrote:Dont' worry, if SC2 will suck balls like everyone fears, we can all go back to SC1.  This is a very good argument for the pro mbs side, why try to make a game as good as BW when you can try to make it better? Eventhough its easier to copy bw, if we do that we will never surpass it and thus the whole game is useless since we can just as well play bw. However if they succeed well get an even better game than before. All of the starcraft fans wont migrate to starcraft 2 if mbs flops it, just like they didnt migrate to wc3 since wc3's hero system and popcap and all that flopped it. Because you will be killing the BW community by doing so. The BW community has withstood so much and built up so much for itself without Blizzard's help. PGT being built up, then being hacked, WGT being owned by Blizzard - now if Blizzard kills us with SCII that we never thought was coming out - oh the irony.
But it wont kill the bw competetive community if the competetive community dont want to get killed by it.
If mbs turns out to be a disaster the competetive community will stay just like every other such happening in gaming history. However if it turns out to not be a disaster the community will migrate slowly when they notice that it aint as bad as they initially thought, but as long as their fears come true this migration sc->sc2 wont happen on the more hardcore levels.
If the migration occurs it means that most of the community has accepted the change, wich means the change didnt destroy the game, wich in turn means that anyone here except the most extreme fans will be able to convert to it without to much troubble.
On October 01 2007 03:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 00:26 Klockan3 wrote:On October 01 2007 00:17 Manit0u wrote:
Edit: I also checked if the thread creator is someone who has contributed here in any way and all I can think of is that's a person who appeared here when the SC2 forum showed up.
I see a lot of people trying to get into the hardcore starcraft community(Or any large and strong community for that matter) by trying to agree with everything the "Cool" guys say. Theyre just the average pawn trying to get accepted to a strong group wich will strengthen their ego. Now i dont say that the OP here is such a person, just that ive a lot of posts wich are very likely to be with this purpose on this forum. Ehh, I don't know artosis well but he's one of the most dedicated BW players outside korea lol
Im not into sc names and as i said i didnt say this had to be true for the OP its just that i saw it as a trend in this question. Ive seen a few posts that were obviously like that though
|
It's kinda like CS 1.6 and Source. The competitive community went back to 1.6 after a while, and it's still doing fine.
|
It will. Right now there are still new players coming to SC. That will be completely gone due to SC2. Half the competitive community will migrate even if they don't like the game as much, simply because its so hard to get ahead in BW now with the established gosus, and SC2 is the bigger, more glamorous game with companies like MYM sponsoring them all. They will play SC2, get good at it, then quit because it doesn't have the staying power of BW. The already diminishing foreign BW community will be effectively completely gone with no new blood and no incentive to play beyond following the pro scene. 1-2 years down the line, Brood War might be phased out from WCG in favor of SC2, and it will be confined to Korean progaming (even that might be affected by people playing SC2) with a fringe foreign community barely better than Warcraft 2.
These are all the costs you have to think about if you don't make SC2 live up exactly to the original.
|
On October 01 2007 03:58 orangedude wrote:
It's kinda like CS 1.6 and Source. The competitive community went back to 1.6 after a while, and it's still doing fine.
CS, and FPS in general, has a lot more fans and roots among the Western community than RTSes do.
|
arguing hypotheticals always sucks because of the natural differences in people's thinking. everyone always imagines slightly different situations, each person's situation always supporting his initial premise. so arguing about hypotheticals just makes reaffirms each person's own, different beliefs. what i'm driving at is that it's obviously stupid to suggest any over-simplified hypothetical (and almost all of them are oversimplified in this thread).
instead, i think that the intelligent way to approach this thread is to recognize that there is a lot more legitimate RTS authority behind the people saying no to MBS than there is behind the people saying yes to it. barring any nicks i'm unfamiliar with, every really good starcraft player in this thread has said that they think MBS is going to hurt the competitive aspect of the game. those people who can actually play RTS's competitively obviously have a better chance at guessing what would make an RTS good for competitive play than those who don't, and seeing that every good player is in unanimous agreement that MBS would be bad, well, that seems to me to say that the burden of some kind of 'deductive proof' falls pretty heavily on the side that says MBS might improve something.
essentially all MBS is doing is making the game significantly easier. an easy hypothetical for us all to consider from sc1 (which presumably will reappear in sc2) is an end-game situation where (for ease of understanding) a terran has roughly a dozen factories and a protoss has upwards of 20+ gates. now obviously there's no question of 4d5d6d7d78z9z0z or what have you. each player is having to spend significant amounts of time clicking through their buildings. obviously if what is easily a 3 to 5 second process, looking at each gate and building a unit, is reduced to a quarter of a second's 1z2d3a then diversity is satisfied and the MBC-using player has the same army in a ~12th to a 20th the time. consider that same macro advantage occuring unto infinity, and the simple calculus of it requires that MBC reduces necessary macro APM enormously.
i imagine that's the sort of thought process that's making most good starcraft players say 'uh...'
for all of you expecting blizzard to act as some kind of god entity and to make perfect decisions that even the most insightful and best of sc-players think of as obvious errors, remember, blizzard is a great company but as has been said many times before on these forums, the incredible success of starcraft was a combination of brilliance and incredible coincidence. yeah, blizzard can make great games, but it wasn't shear producer-side mechanical and creative skills that turned starcraft into what it is. starcraft's success owes itself to a huge number of unforeseen player-side factors - walls, lurker holds, great map makers, the fastest game setting lol, the almost certainly unforeseen style of tvp, etc. so, don't be content with some kind of wacky religious faith in a company that has long since lost some of the brilliant individuals who are responsible for its greatest products. seriously consider what all these great players are saying and don't dismiss them because they don't fit a modus ponens logical form. and certainly, if you agree with them but take some queer satisfaction in straw-manning their inductive arguments, just stop. either constructively correct them by putting their arguments into appropriate logical form (which i would be overwhelmingly surprised if you could actually do) or learn to appreciate the beauty of inductive logic and try to see where all these great players think differently than you do (after all, their style of thinking has at least lent them some success in a completely empirical arena which by your own arguments is not simply practice and mechanics)
|
On October 01 2007 01:04 IdrA wrote:
that would be true, if he was complaining about balance.
he was talking about how it would dumb down the game, prevent all the diversity that is available in the progaming scene right now. the fact that there are many different components to being a good sc player means that people can have different styles, play different ways, and still be succesful. adding mbs(taking away macro) essentially kills the oovs and pusans of progaming, and all the sudden casy and boxer are much less special as they are all thats left.
I just really can't understand why so many people think that: MBS = no macro...
It's different, but it's still there, and it can be even harder at times than SCBW macro.
I'm still waiting for someone to put a coherent and really neat run down on this subject backed up by examples (NOT JUST FROM SCBW FFS!!!) when trying to prove this statement.
@ Artosis: No offence man, sometimes my hands type faster than my head 
|
On October 01 2007 04:02 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 01:04 IdrA wrote:
that would be true, if he was complaining about balance.
he was talking about how it would dumb down the game, prevent all the diversity that is available in the progaming scene right now. the fact that there are many different components to being a good sc player means that people can have different styles, play different ways, and still be succesful. adding mbs(taking away macro) essentially kills the oovs and pusans of progaming, and all the sudden casy and boxer are much less special as they are all thats left.
I just really can't understand why so many people think that: MBS = no macro... It's different, but it's still there, and it can be even harder at times than SCBW macro. I'm still waiting for someone to put a coherent and really neat run down on this subject backed up by examples (NOT JUST FROM SCBW FFS!!!) when trying to prove this statement. @ Artosis: No offence man, sometimes my hands type faster than my head
When it comes down to it, it's hard to discuss much about SC2. We don't know what challenges will lie ahead for competitive gamers of SC2. We can only assume, based on how SCBW, War3, and other RTS's work, and from what Blizz has shown us. But at the end of the day, we have no idea what will be lacking in SC2 and whether taking about MBS from it will fix it.
We saw in War2BNE when Blizz added some interface abilities to War2, and new game speeds. But how do we measure the success of these changes? There are so many reasons why War2BNE didn't overtake SCBW; it's an older game, launched AFTER a better, newer game was already available; Blizz abandoned it and hacks ran wild and there was no good ladder for it; no pro gaming to keep people's interest.
We can say similar things about every RTS compared to SCBW. So it is hard to prove that an RTS must be this or that, to be as good as SCBW, because there are no examples.
|
On October 01 2007 04:01 Failsafe wrote:
instead, i think that the intelligent way to approach this thread is to recognize that there is a lot more legitimate RTS authority behind the people saying no to MBS than there is behind the people saying yes to it. barring any nicks i'm unfamiliar with, every really good starcraft player in this thread has said that they think MBS is going to hurt the competitive aspect of the game. those people who can actually play RTS's competitively obviously have a better chance at guessing what would make an RTS good for competitive play than those who don't, and seeing that every good player is in unanimous agreement that MBS would be bad, well, that seems to me to say that the burden of some kind of 'deductive proof' falls pretty heavily on the side that says MBS might improve something.
The falacy of this logic though is that you dont analyse what type of person the average big name sc player is.
We can add some general facts:
1.Almost all games got people who worships it, just that starcraft got more than most of its genre.
2.People playing a game for such a long time that these induviduals have played starcraft can be considered in that category since if they werent they wouldve gotten bored by it and moving on to something less good but still new.
3.People that worships a game have a very hard time seeing the flaws of the game and will defend those and attack other games endlessly rather than admit that theyre actually flaws, mu´ch beacuse these gamers have so strong feelings for the game.
4:Now since these persons generally have a quite limited experience with other games(Well, obviously since those suck in their oppinions) we can assume that they dont have much experience from different ways of applying game mechanics.
If we clump these together we can see that even if mbs wouldnt hurt the game much they would still believe so. If they are high ranked sc players it doesnt make their arguments stronger, instead it makes them more predictable and weak since they have to much strong feelings tied to starcraft and usually less experience with other games than no namers.
|
On October 01 2007 03:45 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 03:43 orangedude wrote:
But you don\'t see the multitasking except in FPVOD. TV matches are broadcast in observer mode where 95% of the game is focused on the battle. Therein lies the difference between the casual watcher and the ones who actually play the game - we appreciate what goes on in the game deeper than simple looks and flashy lights.
But when very little happens in the game no one appreciate what goes on. TvT requires more skill than TvZ to be entertaining for every watcher. But what match up is more spectacular? Players are doing a lot of things in TvT but it's boring even for those who understand game deeper unless battle is between monsters like Nada or Iris - in other words, unless players are skilled enough to show enough aggression. If we make TvT more dynamic, that relatively "bad" progamers would be more entertaining to watch match-up definitely gain spectators. And making whole game more dynamic definitely can't be bad. That's And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it utterly fallacious >_>
|
Well if thats true Blizzard won\'t be asking TL.net for advice. The very fact that they do suggests that they respect skill in the game and the experience accrued from that. You are free to disagree, but the very nature of Blizzard\'s request is that they want established opinion.
|
On October 01 2007 04:19 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 03:45 Aphelion wrote:On October 01 2007 03:43 orangedude wrote:
But you don\'t see the multitasking except in FPVOD. TV matches are broadcast in observer mode where 95% of the game is focused on the battle. Therein lies the difference between the casual watcher and the ones who actually play the game - we appreciate what goes on in the game deeper than simple looks and flashy lights. But when very little happens in the game no one appreciate what goes on. TvT requires more skill than TvZ to be entertaining for every watcher. But what match up is more spectacular? Players are doing a lot of things in TvT but it's boring even for those who understand game deeper unless battle is between monsters like Nada or Iris - in other words, unless players are skilled enough to show enough aggression. If we make TvT more dynamic, that relatively "bad" progamers would be more entertaining to watch match-up definitely gain spectators. And making whole game more dynamic definitely can't be bad. That's Show nested quote +And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it utterly fallacious >_>
I actually really like watching professional TvT -_-a.
|
On October 01 2007 04:20 Aphelion wrote:
Well if thats true Blizzard won\'t be asking TL.net for advice. The very fact that they do suggests that they respect skill in the game and the experience accrued from that. You are free to disagree, but the very nature of Blizzard\'s request is that they want established opinion.
They want all oppinions.
And highly skilled players oppinions are valued for what they are, same as noob oppinions are valued for what they are. A noobs oppinion isnt worse/better than a pro's overall its just that it concerns different things.
And as a general rule theres a ton more noobs than pro's, so while they can always find answers from the noobs since they are everywere pros arent that easy to find wich can make pro oppinions more precious since theyre rarer.
|
On October 01 2007 04:21 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:19 InRaged wrote:On October 01 2007 03:45 Aphelion wrote:On October 01 2007 03:43 orangedude wrote:
But you don\'t see the multitasking except in FPVOD. TV matches are broadcast in observer mode where 95% of the game is focused on the battle. Therein lies the difference between the casual watcher and the ones who actually play the game - we appreciate what goes on in the game deeper than simple looks and flashy lights. But when very little happens in the game no one appreciate what goes on. TvT requires more skill than TvZ to be entertaining for every watcher. But what match up is more spectacular? Players are doing a lot of things in TvT but it's boring even for those who understand game deeper unless battle is between monsters like Nada or Iris - in other words, unless players are skilled enough to show enough aggression. If we make TvT more dynamic, that relatively "bad" progamers would be more entertaining to watch match-up definitely gain spectators. And making whole game more dynamic definitely can't be bad. That's And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it utterly fallacious >_> I actually really like watching professional TvT -_-a.
I avoid it like the plague. I'll watch any match-up in the game except ZvZ or TvT, unless they're both big-name players.
|
On October 01 2007 04:02 Manit0u wrote:I just really can't understand why so many people think that: MBS = no macro... It's different, but it's still there, and it can be even harder at times than SCBW macro. I'm still waiting for someone to put a coherent and really neat run down on this subject backed up by examples (NOT JUST FROM SCBW FFS!!!) when trying to prove this statement. @ Artosis: No offence man, sometimes my hands type faster than my head
this is a pretty weighty thing for you to say when in your next sentence you admit that no one has actually explained it. as i said, the burden of proof lies solely on the pro-MBS side. to be honest, the run down on multibuilding select is exactly as it seems. in spite of what most of the proMBS people have said, most people here who are good at starcraft have played a good number of other RTS's and actually have some experience with MBS. it's really pretty simple. it makes macro significantly quicker just as one would expect. there isn't some mystical, hidden element that somehow makes MBS macro slower than SBS.
|
On October 01 2007 04:26 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:20 Aphelion wrote:
Well if thats true Blizzard won\'t be asking TL.net for advice. The very fact that they do suggests that they respect skill in the game and the experience accrued from that. You are free to disagree, but the very nature of Blizzard\'s request is that they want established opinion. They want all oppinions. And highly skilled players oppinions are valued for what they are, same as noob oppinions ar evalued for what they are. A noobs oppinion isnt worse/better than a pro's overall its just that it concerns different things. And as a general rule theres a ton more noobs than pro's, so while they can always find answers from the noobs since they are everywere pros arent that easy to find.
If they wanted noob opinions, they'd have gone to their own Blizzard forums. That they didn't, and that they brought in progamers for practice (something they are advertising quite a bit), and bringing in some one like Pillars - clearly shows that they value gosu opinion much more. And if they don't, they should.
|
|
|
On October 01 2007 04:21 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:19 InRaged wrote:On October 01 2007 03:45 Aphelion wrote:On October 01 2007 03:43 orangedude wrote:
But you don\'t see the multitasking except in FPVOD. TV matches are broadcast in observer mode where 95% of the game is focused on the battle. Therein lies the difference between the casual watcher and the ones who actually play the game - we appreciate what goes on in the game deeper than simple looks and flashy lights. But when very little happens in the game no one appreciate what goes on. TvT requires more skill than TvZ to be entertaining for every watcher. But what match up is more spectacular? Players are doing a lot of things in TvT but it's boring even for those who understand game deeper unless battle is between monsters like Nada or Iris - in other words, unless players are skilled enough to show enough aggression. If we make TvT more dynamic, that relatively "bad" progamers would be more entertaining to watch match-up definitely gain spectators. And making whole game more dynamic definitely can't be bad. That's And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it utterly fallacious >_> I actually really like watching professional TvT -_-a.
But you can't argue that even here at Tl.net there are much more "ones who actually play the game" who hate watching TvT than those who hate watching more dynamic TvZ.
On October 01 2007 04:01 Failsafe wrote:
instead, i think that the intelligent way to approach this thread is to recognize that there is a lot more legitimate RTS authority behind the people saying no to MBS than there is behind the people saying yes to it.
The only intelligent way is to stop discussing *believes* and wait facts from Beta.
|
On October 01 2007 04:17 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:01 Failsafe wrote:
instead, i think that the intelligent way to approach this thread is to recognize that there is a lot more legitimate RTS authority behind the people saying no to MBS than there is behind the people saying yes to it. barring any nicks i'm unfamiliar with, every really good starcraft player in this thread has said that they think MBS is going to hurt the competitive aspect of the game. those people who can actually play RTS's competitively obviously have a better chance at guessing what would make an RTS good for competitive play than those who don't, and seeing that every good player is in unanimous agreement that MBS would be bad, well, that seems to me to say that the burden of some kind of 'deductive proof' falls pretty heavily on the side that says MBS might improve something.
The falacy of this logic though is that you dont analyse what type of person the average big name sc player is. We can add some general facts: 1.Almost all games got people who worships it, just that starcraft got more than most of its genre. 2.People playing a game for such a long time that these induviduals have played starcraft can be considered in that category since if they werent they wouldve gotten bored by it and moving on to something less good but still new. 3.People that worships a game have a very hard time seeing the flaws of the game and will defend those and attack other games endlessly rather than admit that theyre actually flaws, mu´ch beacuse these gamers have so strong feelings for the game. 4:Now since these persons generally have a quite limited experience with other games(Well, obviously since those suck in their oppinions) we can assume that they dont have much experience from different ways of applying game mechanics. If we clump these together we can see that even if mbs wouldnt hurt the game much they would still believe so. If they are high ranked sc players it doesnt make their arguments stronger, instead it makes them more predictable and weak since they have to much strong feelings tied to starcraft and usually less experience with other games than no namers.
lol at least half of the major players i was considering have blatently stated that they don't seriously care about MBS* because they're not attached to sc anymore and aren't going to play sc2 competitively. see liquiddrone's post in this very thread. As also stated in this thread, by artosis, many big name starcraft players have actually played a number of other RTS's, many with MBS. so, no.
|
Man, why dont we just have mbs for the single player campaign, and have mbs taken out for multiplayer?
Or maybe have mbs mode on and mbs mode off categories like they do on bnet? Like the tvb and melee catagory of games.
Why wouldnt that work?
|
On October 01 2007 04:34 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:21 Aphelion wrote:On October 01 2007 04:19 InRaged wrote:On October 01 2007 03:45 Aphelion wrote:On October 01 2007 03:43 orangedude wrote:
But you don\'t see the multitasking except in FPVOD. TV matches are broadcast in observer mode where 95% of the game is focused on the battle. Therein lies the difference between the casual watcher and the ones who actually play the game - we appreciate what goes on in the game deeper than simple looks and flashy lights. But when very little happens in the game no one appreciate what goes on. TvT requires more skill than TvZ to be entertaining for every watcher. But what match up is more spectacular? Players are doing a lot of things in TvT but it's boring even for those who understand game deeper unless battle is between monsters like Nada or Iris - in other words, unless players are skilled enough to show enough aggression. If we make TvT more dynamic, that relatively "bad" progamers would be more entertaining to watch match-up definitely gain spectators. And making whole game more dynamic definitely can't be bad. That's And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it utterly fallacious >_> I actually really like watching professional TvT -_-a. But you can't argue that even here at Tl.net there are much more "ones who actually play the game" who hate watching TvT than those who hate watching more dynamic TvZ.
Oh yea definitely. I for one, can't understand anything that is going on in a ZvZ. I know its really intense and exciting to play, but I don't understand it. But I wouldn't want them to be the same as a TvZ or PvT anyways - each matchup should have its own flavor. I don't want everything to be flashy and exciting - then nothing would be really unique anymore. Its the fact that MUs like TvT exist that we can contrast it with PvZ. Its incredible how they are so different, yet manifest the same principles if you understand them. Same with macro, the casual watcher won't understand it, but it has a great charm of its own and underlies so much of the more flashy things you see.
On October 01 2007 04:34 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:01 Failsafe wrote:
instead, i think that the intelligent way to approach this thread is to recognize that there is a lot more legitimate RTS authority behind the people saying no to MBS than there is behind the people saying yes to it. The only intelligent way is to stop discussing *believes* and wait facts from Beta.
By which point MBS would have been implemented, our opinions are for naught, and its too late to change anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
