|
On October 01 2007 06:17 SoleSteeler wrote:
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.
that would account for half of the argument against mbs, that the game would be too easy and not competetive, so it wouldnt be all bad.
but it still doesnt address the main focus of the points artosis made, that the fact that starcraft is made up of 3 very different components, micro macro and strategy, allow for great diversity in the gameplay, even at the highest levels. you have the strategy-oriented players like ra and upmagic, the macro players like oov and pusan, the micro players like boxer and casy.
if they remove macro and add other features that keep that same depth and diversity, that would probably be a fine trade, assuming they do it well.
but... why fix what isnt broken? you already have an awesome game that has produced a level of competetive gaming and popularity that no other rts can even dream of. why is there so much desire to alter a basic component of its design?
|
On October 01 2007 06:21 Chodorkovskiy wrote: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 @$%!@%&s. You know nothing..."Special, indeed. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
I totally agree with this post.
I can't believe how much energy you guys put in to argue over MBS, it's such a petty issue comparative to everything else.
And to the OP, the new game is called SC2, not the remake of SC1.
|
On October 01 2007 06:21 Chodorkovskiy wrote:You know what's not constructive? Wasting all the energy of thousands of professionals on whining over a resolved issue. Trolling, too. I cannot believe you guys: Blizzard actually comes to you for help in making StarCraft II, the game of your dreams. But instead of helping as you've been asked to do (the Mothership discussion thread barely got any attention, despite myself and several others trying to keep it alive), you keep and keep on bitching about your precious skills not translating into the new game directly. Instead of providing your genuinely expert opinion where it matters, all you do is fight for your niche. How selfish are you? Consider this: The Urban Dictionary has an entry about the phrase "dumbing down". It's seemingly innocuous, until they get to the "examples of use" part. Here, all they could think of was: "Today, many video games are dumbed-down in an attempt to reach mass market audiences for higher profits, instead of loyal hardcore niche audiences."There. That's the only instance in the history of mankind they could come up with, where making things easier is bad. And why is it bad? Because the "loyal hardcore nich audiences" aren't appeased. You think your crusade against MBS is special? Well, it may be, but not in the sense you're imagining. Here is the one and only English result for searching "multi-building selection" in Google: "No noob features like multi building selection or autocast. therefore sc2 should be the same. suck my cock @$%!@%&s. You know nothing..."Special, indeed. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
Listen, fucker. SCII isn't the game of our dreams. SC is, and SCII earns its respect from that. Believe it or not, when a poll came out about a year ago, most people just wanted an expansion of BW, not SCII. We are not going to grovel for a new game when the existing game is so perfect. And considering the new game is going to kill BW - they damned well produce something that matches up. Else they may as well not make the game at all. That said, I am still extremely excited and grateful for SCII - given that they make a comparable game to BW.
And really, this MBS discussion is a million times more relevant than any gay ass mothership discussion. There's a difference between TL and the other noob SC2 forums: we aren't going to go gaga over fancy features which can't be evaluated independently of the game context, and we aren't here to post stuff with "ooh here's a cool idea about the mothership". We care about the core gameplay. No matter which side of the fence you fall on, MBS is so far the most relevant aspect of it, something that can be talked about now, and needs to be talked about now, not later.
Don't insult us by suggesting that we're just another selfish niche community. If you think so, you can remove yourself from Teamliquid immediately. Here we believe that SC is the best game ever made, and that the "lessons and precedents" set by previous RTSes are mistakes which cannot compare to the great professional scene we cover here, which no other game has. The standard here is still the greatest game ever made Starcraft : Brood War. Madness? This is Teamliquid!
|
|
|
stop arguing about this stupid thing.... whether you like it or not ... sc2 will have mbs just like all the other new rts games, thats how things work, games evolve as time passes... just keep playing sc1 and war2 if you want no mbs
and it really won't make much of a difference in competitive play, the people who are best at macro will no longer be so ahead, other things will come into play like relying more on strategy and micro than macro... and the fact that iloveoov is special because he is able to play 'macro whore' style is not necessarily a great thing, it's unique to sc1 and will change in sc2
sc2 wont be war4 lol dont be ridiculous... war 3 is like that because players have to focus on their hero more than there units
mbs won't determine much about sc2
|
On October 01 2007 06:33 Myxomatosis wrote:wow, not only are you a christian fundamentalist, but a trolling scumbag as well. 
wow, not only does Christian fundamentalism have absolutely nothing to do with this topic (not to mention the fact you obviously have no idea what it means), but you're obviously too thick to realise that all this discussion is pointless considering there is no way Blizzard are going to remove MBS. you can argue all day about how right clicking ought to be removed from SC1 and that you should have to left click move then left click the area you want to move to to move and it'd be absolutely pointless. MBS will be in SC2 - eat it loser
:dumbass:
|
On September 30 2007 23:21 lugggy wrote:
And even if more people can do this, Pusan isn't the end-all of progaming. There are so many differences between top players and if all of them macroed like Pusan this wouldn't change.
.
wrong..
|
here's this one asshole above me who makes possibly the worst comment anyone could dream up about how to handle what very well might be an awfully stupid idea: 'well, hell, let's just go ahead with it and everyone please shut up.'
then there's another asshole who says 'stop wasting time on this because it doesn't matter' as if he has any clue what matters in a competitive RTS or even that blizzard employees do for that matter. i mean if blizzard were so fucking smart, how could War3 follow SC/BW?
then some other asshole comes along and comments that people who are great at RTS's probably don't have more sound opinions than those who suck because by some poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum he manages to convince himself otherwise.
and finally we have the 'you can't draw parallels between two things that aren't exactly alike; so bw can't possibly relate to sc2 cuz sc2 is a totally new game.' the caliber of logic here is impressive. by this sort of thinking, literally every argument by analogy fails, bar none, because the one thing being compared is not exactly the same as the other. but, true, these two games obviously have nothing whatsoever in common...except for blizzard, title, genre, races, many of the exact same units, a remarkably similar econ system, the rough number of units in the game, similar strategic purposes in unit design, similar systems of micro and macro...really they're apples and oranges and to hell with anyone who suggests otherwise.
the real travesty here isn't the horrid argumentation, it's that multiple times in this thread it's been suggested that blizzard is actually consulting these same people on how to develop starcraft II. mob-ocracy is going to rape the sequel to starcraft if this thread is any indication.
|
On October 01 2007 06:54 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 06:21 Chodorkovskiy wrote: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. Listen, fucker. SCII isn't the game of our dreams. SC is, and SCII earns its respect from that. Believe it or not, when a poll came out about a year ago, most people just wanted an expansion of BW, not SCII. We are not going to grovel for a new game when the existing game is so perfect. And considering the new game is going to kill BW - they damned well produce something that matches up. Else they may as well not make the game at all. That said, I am still extremely excited and grateful for SCII - given that they make a comparable game to BW. And really, this MBS discussion is a million times more relevant than any gay ass mothership discussion. There's a difference between TL and the other noob SC2 forums: we aren't going to go gaga over fancy features which can't be evaluated independently of the game context, and we aren't here to post stuff with "ooh here's a cool idea about the mothership". We care about the core gameplay. No matter which side of the fence you fall on, MBS is so far the most relevant aspect of it, something that can be talked about now, and needs to be talked about now, not later. Don't insult us by suggesting that we're just another selfish niche community. If you think so, you can remove yourself from Teamliquid immediately. Here we believe that SC is the best game ever made, and that the "lessons and precedents" set by previous RTSes are mistakes which cannot compare to the great professional scene we cover here, which no other game has. The standard here is still the greatest game ever made Starcraft : Brood War. Madness? This is Teamliquid!
Heheh. Passion is something I can appreciate. 
This was a very enlightening post. At least now I know where both sides stand on the issue.
I do not see loyalty to BW a reason for leaving TL, for a number of reasons:
1. I hope and believe TL will become the #1 source for the SCII community, as well as SC1. On one hand, TL is by far the best gaming forum I've ever seen, let alone the best SC forum. Hence, I'll benefit from sticking around. On the other hand, I intend to become a member of standing by the time SCII comes out, provided the Powers That Be choose to live with my little quirks and sparks.
2. Blizzard listens to what TL has to say. I, despite ample evidence to the contrary, am confident in my ability to help make SCII a better game. This is the best place to do so. That's actually the reason I showed up here to begin with.
3. You won't get rid of me that easy.
Now, your Master Plan for SCII be what it may be, I still think you can vastly contribute to the little things. You know, units, balance, that sort of thing. And no, you don't have to go "ooh, here's a cool idea for the Mothership". In fact, you can go "Fuck this shit, scrap MSs or I cut myself" and it'll be a tonn of help! As long as you give Blizz feedback.
|
people like luggy or low-posters should read veterans posts. They know more about the game and i think their opinion should be taken seriously
|
8751 Posts
On October 01 2007 07:03 greatmeh wrote:
stop arguing about this stupid thing.... whether you like it or not ... sc2 will have mbs just like all the other new rts games, thats how things work, games evolve as time passes
FPS has stayed basically the same. They have been successful competitive games for a long time now and they stick to the same basic interface.
RTS, on the other hand, struggle as a genre to have a competitive presence. WC3 is the best there is but many top players are not content with the game and they are merely doing their jobs or sticking to the only game that they're really good at. The longevity of WC3 as a competitive game is in question. SC has a smaller scene, but much more advanced and longstanding. Its failure to prosper in non-Korean countries is definitely not due to the game itself, but more likely due to its release prior to e-Sports in general taking off.
SC in Korea has proven that the interface used in SC is good for competitive RTS and so it should become a standard, just like FPS makers realized many years ago what interface is needed for competitive FPS play and have stuck to it. The absence of a dominating RTS game right now is further evidence that SC has the best interface. Of course there exist more things that set SC apart from every RTS that has been released after it than the interfaces, but the interface is definitely a big one and people who know competitive SC swear by its importance to the competitive scene.
In order to make a successful competitive game, there are 2 points at which you need to convince a potential gamer to continue playing. When he first starts playing, he needs to like the game enough to invest his time into becoming great at it. SC2 absolutely has this covered no matter what it does -- there will be hordes of people worldwide who will want to be top SC2 players upon release. The trickier part is a year or two later when many people are good at all the obvious things about the game. What about SC2 will make them want to continue playing? By advocating the removal of MBS, we're only asking Blizzard to stick to what worked for SC. Many of the posters against MBS have experienced this second point and their reasons for continuing to play are because of SC's interface, not in spite of it. And since no other RTS seems to have an answer, we only ask for Blizzard to play it safe and stick to what works.
I recall that competitive play is Blizzard's first priority for SC2, but unfortunately they can't do any in-house testing to prepare for the most difficult part of creating a competitive game -- giving people a reason to want to keep playing after a couple years have passed since release. It seems like they're relying on the game to miraculously allow the players to invent new strategies for 10+ years like in SC, but they don't realize the key role the interface played in creating that long duration of creativity. It's incredibly difficult to figure out if a strategy is useful when you don't know if you micro'd, macro'd or multi-tasked well enough to allow the strategy to come to fruition. Each game has so many variables that it's hard to pinpoint what was good and what was bad. Therefore creating strategies becomes more complex because, for example, you have to know if your macro will be worse than normal because you'll be occupied with harrassing and adjust accordingly, etc. Deciding what you'll spend your time doing between micro and macro becomes part of the strategy.
Simplifying the interface with MBS and automining takes an enormous chunk out of the macro variable and will make it so close to a constant because all the top players will be doing it nearly perfectly. The potential of strategies becomes much easier to see and players flesh everything out in a short amount of time. And remember that players will be much faster and smarter at the release of SC2 than they were at the release of SC, and you posters want the interface to be easier? The logical suggestion of my position would be for macro to be harder to counteract the 60 hour weeks progamers put in now, but I only ask that the interface remain the same.
|
Nony, you had a change of heart .
|
I don't think I completely agree with your analogy. I think MBS doesn't change the interface as much as gives you an easier time commanding it. It's more like auto-reloading, or perhaps having an iron sight when before you had to guess. Blizzard didn't make radical changes to the interface though, I mean they didn't add SupCom zoom out or unit stances to the game. If we were to get mostly the same game, except with MBS, I'd be disappointed. However they do have the opportunity to make certain elements of macro more dynamic AND add to the overload factor that was present in the original game in other ways, we (and they) just have to think of them.
|
So far from what I have seen lately, the people who are pushing for MBS are new players, or war3 players. This is Starcraft and I am sure that its perfect the way it is. Blizzard is pushing for SC2 to become a game in the e-sports market which includes Korea, that being said MBS will remove the competitive aspect. Starcraft 2 will not be made to appeal to the casual gamers, I will repeat this again "WILL NOT". If you're a guy who just joined BW because of the Starcraft 2 hype and you can't stand that broodwar requires skill and practice or its too difficult, then thats your problem not anyone else's. There is no alternative, its either "DO" or "DO NOT", MBS will not and should not be in SC2. Live by it or don't, but broodwar is fine the way it is, if SC2 wants to surpass its predecassor and possibly match it, MBS should not be in the game. OH and having MBS in starcraft 2 is not improving Sc2, this is stupid logic.
|
Nony's post summarized:
MBS = lower ceiling on technical skills, which lowers complexity of strategies, which means that SC2 very possibly will not have the longevity of SC1
|
well then perhaps it would be good if blizzard released the game with mbs, waited 2-3 years to see how the game evolves, and then made a decision on whether they should keep or remove mbs, because right now people are saying things that are not necessarily true, but quite possible, and we must wait and see
personally I think blizzard will design the game around mbs, and tweak it in certain spots so it won't be the same thing over and over in a couple of years after release, nevermind all the balance changing that will be done in this time.
This really comes back to the question of whether sc1 is such a good competitive game because of fluke and good release time, and that no other game will ever topple sc1 because of a) the things which developers meant to program b) the things that they didn't intend
anyway this entire discussion seems to dwell around what 'may' become and there seems to be only one good answer - lets just wait and see, start the game with mbs, in a few years see how things are going, then make a decision
|
On October 01 2007 08:34 greatmeh wrote:
well then perhaps it would be good if blizzard released the game with mbs, waited 2-3 years to see how the game evolves, and then made a decision on whether they should keep or remove mbs,
Thats why Blizzard has beta-testing, and will have progamers test the game. So far all the veteran players have said that Macro is "facile" or "Easy" in the Blizzcon version. If that is the issue, then MBS should not be in the game. The veterans know whats best and are knowledgeable enough to know which direction Sc2 will be heading. Again, Sc2 a new game, but it should retain the qaulities that broodwar that made it such a good game. Having MBS will affect a fundamental aspect of Sc2 in bad ways.
|
well there are too many differences in the beta testing and in waiting 2 years after release, with everyone in the world playing it, and all the balancing that would take place.
Even if the testing is done with progamers, it will be not a long enough time and not enough games played to really see whether it will affect competitive play a few years from release date, unless the beta testing goes on for a extensive amount of time with a few thousand gamers, wouldn't it just be easier to release it?
Sure progamers have the expertise, but don't tell me they never got anything from everyone else playing the game.
|
Having mbs reveals one thing about starcrafts core gameplay: Starcraft's macro is shallow and needs help. That's what SC2 is for...
|
ideally it would be possible to release a game with something like MBS and then remove it after you discovered that it didn't work, but in reality to remove something that would be such an integral part of the game would be all but impossible. in starcraft, when rally points could be set with a right click instead of an R + left click there was some lag between release and players using it efficiently. how much more so with something so inclusive as MBS.
practicality requires that SC2 be released without MBS if it is ever to be without MBS, and of course that's part of why the issue has to be addressed now. a change from no-MBS to MBS might be feasible, but a change the other way is simply not a possibility in a post-release game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
