|
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.
tvz isnt more dynamic, maybe more exciting, but definetly not more dynamic.
tvzs almost always follow the same general pattern, its just the standard tvz action is more... exciting and easy to follow than tvt.
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.
not really, we have a general idea of what the game will be like. by looking at that and what current games are like we can make reasonable arguments about it.
and you cant really argue about which side of the argument the more experienced players fall on. i dont think ive seen any known player side with pro-mbs.
|
On October 01 2007 04:28 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:26 Klockan3 wrote: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.
But obviously not on this matter since they are quite bent on going with mbs. Every question about mbs has been answered with "We will put those clicks elsewere" and they have never even said that they consider removing it. Also theyre monitoring their own noob forum quite a lot too, so you kinda disprooved yourself here.
And as a i said, pro oppinions have their uses, but they arent inheretly better than noob oppinions, its all about the subject. Now this thread isnt TL's contribution to blizzard on this matter instead its a discussion between us posting here on our oppinions on this matter, if you want to communicate with Blizzard directly start a new topic were you ask for people to write a good letter and let them sign it from TL to give them your oppinion in a easy format and to make a point.
One well written letter signed by many is a lot more powerfull than hundreds of badly written letters.
On October 01 2007 04:37 Failsafe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:17 Klockan3 wrote: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.
Well, those that have stopped playing sc doesnt fall under my assumptions do they since they dont fit into no2 any longer.
And wich big named players here that are pro mbs also have gotten deep into any other rts multiplayer(Except wc3, since it deviates so much from the starcraft old school style)?
|
On October 01 2007 04:47 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:28 Aphelion wrote:On October 01 2007 04:26 Klockan3 wrote: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. But obviously not on this matter since they are quite bent on going with mbs. Every question about mbs has been answered with "We will put those clicks elsewere" and they have never even said that they consider removing it. Also theyre monitoring their own noob forum quite a lot too, so you kinda disprooved yourself here. And as a i said, pro oppinions have their uses, but they arent inheretly better than noob oppinions, its all about the subject. Now this thread isnt TL's contribution to blizzard on this matter instead its a discussion between us posting here on our oppinions on this matter, if you want to communicate with Blizzard directly start a new topic were you ask for people to write a good letter and let them sign it from TL to give them your oppinion in a easy format and to make a point. One well written letter signed by many is a lot more powerfull than hundreds of badly written letters.
Part of asking for input is to find out where you are wrong. I hope Blizzard is smart enough to realize this.
|
On October 01 2007 04:50 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:47 Klockan3 wrote:On October 01 2007 04:28 Aphelion wrote:On October 01 2007 04:26 Klockan3 wrote: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. But obviously not on this matter since they are quite bent on going with mbs. Every question about mbs has been answered with "We will put those clicks elsewere" and they have never even said that they consider removing it. Also theyre monitoring their own noob forum quite a lot too, so you kinda disprooved yourself here. And as a i said, pro oppinions have their uses, but they arent inheretly better than noob oppinions, its all about the subject. Now this thread isnt TL's contribution to blizzard on this matter instead its a discussion between us posting here on our oppinions on this matter, if you want to communicate with Blizzard directly start a new topic were you ask for people to write a good letter and let them sign it from TL to give them your oppinion in a easy format and to make a point. One well written letter signed by many is a lot more powerfull than hundreds of badly written letters. Part of asking for input is to find out where you are wrong. I hope Blizzard is smart enough to realize this.
But they arent asking for input on mbs really, they just stated clearly over and over that they want it in.
|
On October 01 2007 04:47 Klockan3 wrote:
Well, those that have stopped playing sc doesnt fall under my assumptions do they since they dont fit into no2 any longer.
And wich big named players here that are pro mbs also have gotten deep into any other rts multiplayer(Except wc3, since it deviates so much from the starcraft old school style)?
do you remember that you were trying to critique something i was saying? why would i possibly operate under your assumptions when it was my ideas being discussed? essentially i'm not even sure what you're talking about any more because at no point in your meandering, incoherent responses have you put together a reasonable post. You don't even seem to have any firm grasp of what we're discussing: a major point here is that not a single 'big name' starcraft player in this thread has come out on behalf of MBS.
|
On October 01 2007 05:04 Failsafe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:47 Klockan3 wrote:
Well, those that have stopped playing sc doesnt fall under my assumptions do they since they dont fit into no2 any longer.
And wich big named players here that are pro mbs also have gotten deep into any other rts multiplayer(Except wc3, since it deviates so much from the starcraft old school style)? do you remember that you were trying to critique something i was saying? why would i possibly operate under your assumptions when it was my ideas being discussed? essentially i'm not even sure what you're talking about any more because in no point in your meandering, incoherent responses have you put together a reasonable post. You don't even seem to have any firm grasp of what we're discussing: a major point here is that not a single 'big name' starcraft player in this thread has come out on behalf of MBS.
Do you know what your original post was about?
You specifically stated that big named players oppinions > others oppinions due to some variables to try to get some structure into this discussion. But that is wrong way to go since as i prooved by changing the logic a little you can get exactly the opposite conclusion.
If you ask any gaming site except the starcraft ones you will have a large majority favoring mbs, so you cant say that there are more groups in favor for it either.
|
On October 01 2007 04:40 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:34 InRaged wrote: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. tvz isnt more dynamic, maybe more exciting, but definetly not more dynamic. tvzs almost always follow the same general pattern, its just the standard tvz action is more... exciting and easy to follow than tvt.
In my book, dynamic means that constantly happens something interesting and entertaining. In average TvT there is too much ermm... turtleing.
not really, we have a general idea of what the game will be like. by looking at that and what current games are like we can make reasonable arguments about it.
and you cant really argue about which side of the argument the more experienced players fall on. i dont think ive seen any known player side with pro-mbs.
No matter where more experienced players fall on, none of them played enough time -- and most of them didn't played at all -- in SC with MBS to judge whether it bad or not. Beta will give enough time.
Btw, I don't wanna say for Nony, but he didn't seem very concerned about MBS. He mostly doesn't like automining. Does he count as known 
|
On September 30 2007 20:56 Artosis3 wrote:
Savior doesn't have enough blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
I hope you are lucky enough to blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Have you ever seen iloveoov play? Without a doubt the best terran macro in the world. Any time you look at his army you will be amazed because he will have more then you ever blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
At low levels MBS won't make a difference. The smarter player will still win. Both newbies will still forget depots and make strategic blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
At high levels MBS will ruin competition. SC2 will be WarCraft 4. Have you played WC3? The supply limit is 90. Units are like 2 to 4 supply a piece. Every single competitive player can get the same amount of units in the blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Please say no to MBS.
SC2 will have MBS. Eat it punk.
|
What happens when you run out of money? Half of your buildings have units producing and half don't. You still have to go through each building manually to avoid having multiple units in each building que. That in itself adds a little challenge to it, pros might have to develop a technique of getting around this that will set themselves apart from the others.
|
On October 01 2007 04:47 Klockan3 wrote:
And wich big named players here that are pro mbs also have gotten deep into any other rts multiplayer(Except wc3, since it deviates so much from the starcraft old school style)?
you mean anti-mbs, i assume
i dunno about the rest but artosis and skew have both posted against mbs, and theyve played lots of other rts' competetively, aoe3 and dow mainly along with some others.
|
IF there is a gap in macro aspect in SC2 I hope Blizzard adds other features that need macro skill instead of leaving MBS out. I dont know what these features may be.
Anyone with ideas should help on this.
Single Building Selection is a step back for me.
|
On October 01 2007 05:28 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 04:40 IdrA wrote:On October 01 2007 04:34 InRaged wrote: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. tvz isnt more dynamic, maybe more exciting, but definetly not more dynamic. tvzs almost always follow the same general pattern, its just the standard tvz action is more... exciting and easy to follow than tvt. In my book, dynamic means that constantly happens something interesting and entertaining. In average TvT there is too much ermm... turtleing. Show nested quote +not really, we have a general idea of what the game will be like. by looking at that and what current games are like we can make reasonable arguments about it.
and you cant really argue about which side of the argument the more experienced players fall on. i dont think ive seen any known player side with pro-mbs. No matter where more experienced players fall on, none of them played enough time -- and most of them didn't played at all -- in SC with MBS to judge whether it bad or not. Beta will give enough time. Btw, I don't wanna say for Nony, but he didn't seem very concerned about MBS. He mostly doesn't like automining. Does he count as known
in the big mbs thread he was arguing against both automining and mbs, and he most certainly did not argue for mbs.
|
|
|
i disagree. sc2 is not sc1, get the fuck over it. eliminating (some) of the hassle around macro doesn't automatically mean macro-based pros will drop off the face of the earth or those who arn't that great at macro now will reach pro status. this game is based around one thing, and one thing only: massive, counter-based battles. that's it, at the heart of it all. pusan selects all his gates and makes 15 zealots? terran x selects all his factories and makes 15 vults. pusan counters with 15 goons. terran counters with 15 tanks. it's then more about what you do with the units that matters. decisive decisions about what to make and when to make them are what counts. also, if you suddenly find yourself with enough resources to make 15 goons at the same time and it's not late game, you're doing something wrong to begin with, has anybody thought about that?
it's the same thing minus some button clicks. why are you so bent out of shape over a UI upgrade? macro will never be like warcraft because in warcraft you generally only have a couple production facilities- you would never see 15 barracks in w3.
the only thing i do agree with is MBS of static defense. although, this could be countered by nerfing static defense a bit.
|
MBS must be the end of the world. I mean, all the time as Protoss late game the only thing I do is build 30 zealots at a time, 1 type of unit FTW. Are you serious? How is MBS THAT bad. After the first 10 minutes of a game, especially as Zerg and Protoss, your mix of units is so great you will probably end up clicking on buildings anyways to build a diverse selection of units. Or you would do 2 buildings hot keyed for lots, couple more for goons, etc. So what if you don't have to click on a extra 2 gateways, your opponent has the same advantage... which makes it no advantage. If you have 15 gateways and you press 5 to select all of them and press Z, you are probably about to lose anyways. As the commander of the battlefield you should be able to control multiple defensive structures also. if Blizzard is so hell bent on making the perfect sequel, then one of the options in games will probably be turn off MBS, especially if the BW community in Korea thinks it should be that way. I just don't see as that big of a deal. I mean If a zerg were to build 4 hatcheries in close proximity you can just control click all your larvae and get 12 of the same unit faster then any other race... But unless its a bunch of cows its probably a bad idea to do that.
I dont see how you can "use sc1 as an example" to prove that MBS is bad. Macro players are different then micro oriented players, and even the best micro oriented players cant stop good macro late game, but macro cant make up for horrible micro. thats why the people with good micro AND macro are at the top of Brood War. How many times has oov beat Savior? once? have you ever seen that RoV vod when oov has like 200 control and loses all of his army and ggs? do you think if he press 5 to select 20 rax and 6 to select 5 facs, he could of built enough of a good army to get back in the game with MBS? more like he would had to use separate hot keys and wait for his units to be made, and he better have a good mix of mnm, tanks, and vessels. so unless blizzard make sc2 with some god unit that someone can just select 20 buildings and press 1 key to win the game, i doubt MBS will destroy SC, or take skill away from it.
|
I would like to applaud artosis for the first four or five pages of stamina. you're a machine, sir.
While some parts of the op i don't agree with, the point that his argument got to eventually was this:
With macro being hugely easier to do, professional level starcraft will lose a major part of what sets apart different play styles.
and he's right. it's not that there won't be people who aren't better at macro and people who are worse, but i know that whenever i watch iloveoov play i get all cold and shivery at the impossible streams of units he gets going.
it's like if you took a whole bunch of artists and said "Okay, we're taking away pencils and pens. now you can only paint." there'd be some fucking dope paintings coming out of it, and people would differentiate themselves from each other great with all of their different brushstrokes and colours and content. but there'd be no more drawings or sketches.
the point isn't that it would make it a worse game (debatably), or that we won't see crazy boxer-style shit going on, it's just that there'll be a whole style of player that won't matter anymore.
that being said, i suck at bw and can't wait to have the crutch that is mbs. i just don't expect respect for it.
|
On October 01 2007 05:42 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 05:28 InRaged wrote:On October 01 2007 04:40 IdrA wrote:On October 01 2007 04:34 InRaged wrote: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. tvz isnt more dynamic, maybe more exciting, but definetly not more dynamic. tvzs almost always follow the same general pattern, its just the standard tvz action is more... exciting and easy to follow than tvt. In my book, dynamic means that constantly happens something interesting and entertaining. In average TvT there is too much ermm... turtleing. not really, we have a general idea of what the game will be like. by looking at that and what current games are like we can make reasonable arguments about it.
and you cant really argue about which side of the argument the more experienced players fall on. i dont think ive seen any known player side with pro-mbs. No matter where more experienced players fall on, none of them played enough time -- and most of them didn't played at all -- in SC with MBS to judge whether it bad or not. Beta will give enough time. Btw, I don't wanna say for Nony, but he didn't seem very concerned about MBS. He mostly doesn't like automining. Does he count as known in the big mbs thread he was arguing against both automining and mbs, and he most certainly did not argue for mbs.
Still my point stays. Without testing no one can say exactly how MBS will change the game. And I don't see the point of arguing about that now, since I clearly remember someone from Blizz saying at Beta Test they will very carefully look at improvements impact on the game.
On October 01 2007 05:43 MYM.Testie wrote:
mbs still sucks.
there is mbs in dota wtf? ;PPP
|
Here's a question to the anti-MBS crowd:
if Blizzard succeeded in making it so we had an impossible amount of things to do, would you be happy with this trade-off? Or would you rather still the 'extra clicks' be required for single building selection.
edit: and I use the term "impossible" so that there is always room for improvement, like in BW.
|
On September 30 2007 21:27 Artosis3 wrote:
Chodorkovskiy : not constructive
You know what's not constructive?
Wasting all the energy of thousands of professionals on whining over a resolved issue. Trolling, too.
I cannot believe you guys: Blizzard actually comes to you for help in making StarCraft II, the game of your dreams. But instead of helping as you've been asked to do (the Mothership discussion thread barely got any attention, despite myself and several others trying to keep it alive), you keep and keep on bitching about your precious skills not translating into the new game directly. Instead of providing your genuinely expert opinion where it matters, all you do is fight for your niche. How selfish are you?
Consider this: The Urban Dictionary has an entry about the phrase "dumbing down". It's seemingly innocuous, until they get to the "examples of use" part. Here, all they could think of was:
"Today, many video games are dumbed-down in an attempt to reach mass market audiences for higher profits, instead of loyal hardcore niche audiences."
There. That's the only instance in the history of mankind they could come up with, where making things easier is bad. And why is it bad? Because the "loyal hardcore nich audiences" aren't appeased. You think your crusade against MBS is special?
Well, it may be, but not in the sense you're imagining.
Here is the one and only English result for searching "multi-building selection" in Google:
"No noob features like multi building selection or autocast. therefore sc2 should be the same. suck my cock @$%!@%&s. You know nothing..."
Special, indeed. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
|
On October 01 2007 05:30 RebelHeart wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 20:56 Artosis3 wrote:
Savior doesn't have enough blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
I hope you are lucky enough to blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Have you ever seen iloveoov play? Without a doubt the best terran macro in the world. Any time you look at his army you will be amazed because he will have more then you ever blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
At low levels MBS won't make a difference. The smarter player will still win. Both newbies will still forget depots and make strategic blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
At high levels MBS will ruin competition. SC2 will be WarCraft 4. Have you played WC3? The supply limit is 90. Units are like 2 to 4 supply a piece. Every single competitive player can get the same amount of units in the blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Please say no to MBS. SC2 will have MBS. Eat it punk.
wow, not only are you a christian fundamentalist, but a trolling scumbag as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
