|
On October 01 2007 08:05 NonY[rC] wrote:Show nested quote +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.
First, imho three better factors than the interface in explaining why RTSs aren't popular in Western e-sports are as follows:
1) there's too much explanation required for audiences that haven't extensively played the game (not an issue in Korea, since almost the entire audience has played SC enough to know the units/buildings/common MU-specific builds);
2) RTSs have a much higher learning curve than any other game genre, regardless of the interface, which means they on average have smaller competitive communities than other genres (also not an issue in Korea thanks to SC's lack of competition from other genres when it became popular);
3) RTSs are much more difficult to balance than any other genre, therefore less competitive-quality RTS games are available (obviously not an issue with SC).
Special attention should be taken to (2), as if RTSs has a much higher learning curve than any other game genre, why should a game go out of its way to make its interface more difficult than its contemporaries? You'd have to prove that MBS (or other interface improvements) will ruin SC2's gameplay to the point where the game is competitively unsalvagable, which you can't truly do until you've played a version of SC2 with all of the planned features implemented, which is not the version people played at Blizzcon. The best evidence I've seen so far is that there's a large positive correlation between RTSs with MBS and RTSs that failed competitively (in general, not just e-sports) in relation to SC, but I could turn that around and say that there's also a large positive correlation between RTSs with SBS and RTSs that failed competitively in relation to SC.
Secondly, you're "two points" argument is unsound at point 1 (though sound at point 2).
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.
Sure, there will be hordes of people worldwide who will want to be top players in SC2 upon release. Then they'll run into the brick wall of veteran SC players, who will dominate despite having equal knowledge of SC2 theorycraft and micro mechanics, simply because they already have several years more experience with manipulating the interface than the new players, allowing them to win through more numbers. To a new player, even one who is competitive in other RTSs, it'll seem like Blizzard "copped out" to its SC veterans and gave them an interface they were comfortable with at the expense of new players - regardless of whether or not this is actually the case, that's how they'll see it, and they're not likely to invest time in becoming great at SC2 with that perception. You seem to only be considering the veteran SC players in your argument (everyone will be "much faster and smarter at the release of SC2"), but its the new players that will grow the non-Korean competitive scene beyond the bounds of SC.
Finally, you are right in that dominant strategies in particular MUs will be easier to uncover if the technical barrier is lowered. However, I think that's a good thing, since Blizzard needs to know what the dominant strategies are before they can balance the game through a patch. If Blizzard patches SC2's gameplay as extensively, or hopefully more extensively, than SC, I see no reason why you should be assuming that there's a limit to SC2's strategical depth.
|
On October 01 2007 09:16 Hokay wrote:
Having mbs reveals one thing about starcrafts core gameplay: Starcraft's macro is shallow and needs help. That's what SC2 is for...
perception of what a good videogame should be has changed a lot, but i'm not sure that many serious starcrafters would argue that starcraft would be better off without the mechanical complexity that it currently has. i'm not sure 'shallow' is the right word for the simple, dexterity-based mechanics of starcraft. those very mechanics are an integral part of what gives starcraft its staying power and appeal.
|
I've argued in enough of these threads to know it's pointless. So I'm just going to say this: macro and the ability to multitask is essential to SC, so should it be in SC2. Players should not spend all their time focusing on units because that is not the way SC works. SC2 is building upon the foundations of SC, and that's the way it should be.
Yes, including MBS means you get to spend more time focusing on other things, unfortunately, those things don't include macro.
Mechanical ability is a strong component of BW, and so it should stay. It should not be changed just because a few people are angry because they want to spend less time and win over someone else who has spent more time practicing. People can have fun at regardless if they are D- or A+.
|
On October 01 2007 09:30 1esu wrote:
Sure, there will be hordes of people worldwide who will want to be top players in SC2 upon release. Then they'll run into the brick wall of veteran SC players, who will dominate despite having equal knowledge of SC2 theorycraft and micro mechanics, simply because they already have several years more experience with manipulating the interface than the new players, allowing them to win through more numbers. To a new player, even one who is competitive in other RTSs, it'll seem like Blizzard "copped out" to its SC veterans and gave them an interface they were comfortable with at the expense of new players - regardless of whether or not this is actually the case, that's how they'll see it, and they're not likely to invest time in becoming great at SC2 with that perception. You seem to only be considering the veteran SC players in your argument (everyone will be "much faster and smarter at the release of SC2"), but its the new players that will grow the non-Korean competitive scene beyond the bounds of SC.
New players who cannot handle learning a little more to be good will never be good. If you want to be good at SC, you can train hard and accomplish that now, otherwise even a new game will never help you. There are many people right now who are still just getting into SC and trying to get good. Everyone is trying to gain an advantage when a new game starts, thinking that they have some innate talent that will enable them to dominate when people start on a equal footing. Most of these people don't succeed. You are just going to have to accept that if you want to be good, you are going to have to work hard, new game or not.
And I'm not about to sacrifice even an ounce of gameplay balance just so that new players can have it easier. This is coming from someone who's biggest problem is Starcraft is inability to macro with hotkey combos past midgame. MBS will help my own personal game greatly, more than the average player I believe.
On October 01 2007 09:30 1esu wrote:
Finally, you are right in that dominant strategies in particular MUs will be easier to uncover if the technical barrier is lowered. However, I think that's a good thing, since Blizzard needs to know what the dominant strategies are before they can balance the game through a patch. If Blizzard patches SC2's gameplay as extensively, or hopefully more extensively, than SC, I see no reason why you should be assuming that there's a limit to SC2's strategical depth.
If the dominant strategies are discovered so fast there will be no depth in the game. One of the biggest things I marvel at SC is that the strategies have changed so much even in the past year, in a 8-9 year old game. Strategies that were considered impossible and risky back then are common place now, simply because their mechanical thresholds have been reached. I don't want to play a game where the easy strategies are easily discovered and well known.
Edit: I further guarantee that all things being equal, a complete newcomer to the scene will not be "dominated even though they have equal micro and theorycraft". There is so much more concepts that a veteran SC player will have over a completely new player. Only people who have played other RTSes competitively will compete, and these people should know that effort is naturally rewarded and will play accordingly. There will not be "diamonds in the rough", or armchair strategy geniuses who lose because they can't click fast enough.
|
On October 01 2007 10:36 mahnini wrote:
Yes, including MBS means you get to spend more time focusing on other things, unfortunately, those things don't include macro.
It depends on if they add other macro-intensive things. For example, upgrading bc's individually to two possible types. Or making sure your buildings have the proper addon at the right times.
As long as macro is still important, it doesn't really matter how they do it. If MBS is added, they will have to add other macro things to keep the balance.
|
Canada5062 Posts
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!
Someone make this guy a mod.
|
On September 30 2007 20:56 Artosis3 wrote:
Savior doesn't have enough sunkens. Nada rushes in with his marine medic force. Savior grabs all his sunkens at once and targets perfectly. Bam medic gone. Bam medic gone. Bam marine gone. Bam marine gone. here come the drones. Sorry Nada, Savior doesn't need enough sunkens anymore.
What are your thoughts on MUS?
|
On October 01 2007 12:00 XG3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 20:56 Artosis3 wrote:
Savior doesn't have enough sunkens. Nada rushes in with his marine medic force. Savior grabs all his sunkens at once and targets perfectly. Bam medic gone. Bam medic gone. Bam marine gone. Bam marine gone. here come the drones. Sorry Nada, Savior doesn't need enough sunkens anymore. What are your thoughts on MUS?
What are your thoughts about preprogrammed BOs?
|
On October 01 2007 11:20 mensrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 06:54 Aphelion wrote: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! Someone make this guy a mod.
Amen.
There are a couple posting here (primarily Lazerflip and Artosis, that I recognize) that have had way more experience than any of you being competitive in multiple RTS genres, and what they're telling you is fact. I think maybe some of you want an easier time so you can be recognized (every other argument is just too stupid to be for real), but for obvious reasons your logic is totally fucked.
Imagine if everyone in the world worked as a grocery bagger and everything was there for you. You can either pick the brown paper bag or the plastic bag and maybe they come in multiple colors. Now there is some leeway to get ahead of the crowd in the early stages -- some talented folks get ahead of the rest of the crowd and learn to open those mother fucking plastic bag quicker than others, but I guarantee you that everyone will eventually be as good as the next when it comes to opening bags.
StarCraft makes you find the materials in the fucking wild, learn to sew the materials together, hijack a fucking car to get to the grocery store, and then take care of 10 isles at once WHILE sewing with your FEET so you can serve the rest of the potential customers that need their food bagged.
Now I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about... but the point is MBS will ruin StarCraft 2.
|
On October 01 2007 12:04 Skew wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2007 11:20 mensrea wrote:On October 01 2007 06:54 Aphelion wrote: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! Someone make this guy a mod. Amen. There are a couple posting here (primarily Lazerflip and Artosis, that I recognize) that have had way more experience than any of you being competitive in multiple RTS genres, and what they're telling you is fact. I think maybe some of you want an easier time so you can be recognized (every other argument is just too stupid to be for real), but for obvious reasons your logic is totally fucked. Imagine if everyone in the world worked as a grocery bagger and everything was there for you. You can either pick the brown paper bag or the plastic bag and maybe they come in multiple colors. Now there is some leeway to get ahead of the crowd in the early stages -- some talented folks get ahead of the rest of the crowd and learn to open those mother fucking plastic bag quicker than others, but I guarantee you that everyone will eventually be as good as the next when it comes to opening bags. StarCraft makes you find the materials in the fucking wild, learn to sew the materials together, hijack a fucking car to get to the grocery store, and then take care of 10 isles at once WHILE sewing with your FEET so you can serve the rest of the potential customers that need their food bagged. Now I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about... but the point is MBS will ruin StarCraft 2.
oh wow.
If it wasnt so long this would be in my sig right now.
|
@ Skew:
The same argument was being made by WC2 players when SC1 came out. But the truth is that it didn't hurt the game at all. So why should it be different this time?
SC1 plays differently than WC2 and SC2 will play differently than SC1. The core gameplay will change. Yes, it worked well in SC1, but it's a new game so you want to introduce new concepts, otherwise they could just have made another expansion for SC1 if all you want is new units.
We'll have to wait to see if MBS is really bad. The opinion of the hardcore anti-MBS people is just like the WC2 players' opinion about SC1: close-minded. You should appreciate the fact that the gameplay will be different, maybe better, maybe worse. We don't know yet. But at least it's not the same. If I want SC1 core gameplay I play SC1.
|
On October 01 2007 12:24 Brutalisk wrote:
@ Skew:
The same argument was being made by WC2 players when SC1 came out. But the truth is that it didn't hurt the game at all. So why should it be different this time?
SC1 plays differently than WC2 and SC2 will play differently than SC1. The core gameplay will change. Yes, it worked well in SC1, but it's a new game so you want to introduce new concepts, otherwise they could just have made another expansion for SC1 if all you want is new units.
We'll have to wait to see if MBS is really bad. The opinion of the hardcore anti-MBS people is just like the WC2 players' opinion about SC1: close-minded. You should appreciate the fact that the gameplay will be different, maybe better, maybe worse. We don't know yet. But at least it's not the same. If I want SC1 core gameplay I play SC1.
did you just repeat the same argument you previously repeated at somebody else, at somebody else?
cause i think skew's heard that argument
at least 2093812 times
well, it's a conservative number, i know
|
We're all repeating ourselves anyway... we just express it differently in each post. I've followed the entire discussion in the other thread "Why MBS is important [...]" and every point here was already made in that thread.
|
I'm the devil I like metal!!
Check this riff it's fucking tasty!!
|
On October 01 2007 12:28 Brutalisk wrote:
We're all repeating ourselves anyway... we just express it differently in each post. I've followed the entire discussion in the other thread "Why MBS is important [...]" and every point here was already made in that thread.
yeah but us anti-mbsers have cooler fucking metaphors
wheres your fucking metaphors
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
I know you guys hate the "elitist" approach of "I know what I am talking about and you dont" but seriously.. some fucking weight has to be given to the fact that the people who are knee deep in the competetive aspect of this game agree and STRONGLY defend the notion that MBS will ruin this game. You guys are arguing that the new wave of RTS is MBS.. well how many of those games have approached SC in terms of gameplay or even success? NONE. So why the fuck would you make that arguement?
I read this thread and saw little to no arguementation that approached line-by-line with Artosis' OP post.. that is because it is nearly impossible to argue against if you are rooting for a difficult game that access' the success of SC. If you want automining and MBS you are wanting a dumbed down version of a game. If you want to scream at a VOD and root on your favorite pro gamer you will want this game to remain as difficult as it is.
|
On October 01 2007 10:40 Aphelion wrote:
New players who cannot handle learning a little more to be good will never be good. If you want to be good at SC, you can train hard and accomplish that now, otherwise even a new game will never help you. There are many people right now who are still just getting into SC and trying to get good. Everyone is trying to gain an advantage when a new game starts, thinking that they have some innate talent that will enable them to dominate when people start on a equal footing. Most of these people don't succeed. You are just going to have to accept that if you want to be good, you are going to have to work hard, new game or not.
Of course, in every competitive game you're going to have to work hard in order to succeed. The difference is in how long you have to work in order to achieve a basic level of competitive skill. I'd say in most competitive e-sports games (regardless of genre) you can reach the equivalent of D level play from scratch in about 2-3 months with hard work and some good guides. In SC, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say reaching the same level would take 5-6 months with the same effort, mostly due to the interface. The only game I can think of that has a similar learning curve is Go, and there are reams and reams of instructional material designed to make that learning process as smooth as possible for new players (not to mention the basic rules are much simpler). Unfortunately, I have found nothing of similar quality for learning SC, and I doubt SC2 instructional material would be available for quite some time after release. Therefore, a pragmatic competitive gamer will realize that he/she gets more value out of his/her time spent in other games than in SC2, and if you add the resentment that will inevitably arise from a perception that Blizzard delibrately kept in the interface to please the SC1 community (I think many posts in the SC2 forums from suspected/confirmed "noobs" shows this perception exists), you will get competitive players who decide not to play SC2 competitively; not because they're uncompetitive, but because they decide that the level of play they will achieve is not worth the time they invest in it. It's a simple opportunity cost problem.
And I'm not about to sacrifice even an ounce of gameplay balance just so that new players can have it easier. This is coming from someone who's biggest problem is Starcraft is inability to macro with hotkey combos past midgame. MBS will help my own personal game greatly, more than the average player I believe.
This fits in with how I viewed the OP; I agree that adding MBS to SC1 would wreck the gameplay balance. However, I believe that would happen because all the gameplay elements of SC1 were designed around an interface that utilized SBS. SC2, on the other hand, has been designed from the start around an interface that utilizes MBS, in addition to smartcast and automine. For example, because automine is in the game, players start out with 6 workers instead of 4, because there's little to do in the very beginning of the game with automine enabled. Similarly, other features have been added to complement MBS, like warpgates, phase cannons, tech shops/whatever-those-little-double-unit-producers-are-called, and so on. And don't think that Blizzard has revealed its entire hand in respect to Terran and Protoss; there are likely still many features that have yet to be implemented, and therefore yet to be shown. I think Blizzard has well demonstrated that they are designing the elements of SC2 around the interface, rather than trying to force the interface onto an SC1 expansion. Don't bother asking me what these unrevealed features are; it's not my job to guess what Blizzard might add to the game. I trust that Blizzard, being comprised of some of the most highly-respected people in the industry, who work day in and day out for as long as it takes to make sure SC2 gameplay works with the interface, won't half-ass their job. Just wait until you can get a feature-complete version of the multiplayer, and make your decision on whether MBS hurts the competitiveness of SC2 then; as Blizzard's motto on release dates is "it's done when it's done", removing MBS in beta is not entirely out of the question.
(In regards to whoever said that removing MBS would be impossible once it's in, it's not that difficult; you just have to disable shift-click on buildings)
If the dominant strategies are discovered so fast there will be no depth in the game. One of the biggest things I marvel at SC is that the strategies have changed so much even in the past year, in a 8-9 year old game. Strategies that were considered impossible and risky back then are common place now, simply because their mechanical thresholds have been reached. I don't want to play a game where the easy strategies are easily discovered and well known.
Every RTS upon release is unbalanced, and often horribly so. RTSs are the hardest multiplayer genre to balance, since many of the dominant strategies can only be discovered with a large number of people playing the game. Therefore, SC2 on release will have a number of dominant strategies depending on the matchup, and the faster players can find them, the faster Blizzard can balance the gameplay to reduce their dominance. This results in a more balanced SC2 in less time, which is critical to gaining the acceptance of SC veterans, who are used to a superbly balanced RTS. If after years of patching gameplay, dominant strategies are still being discovered at a high rate, then I'd say its the fault of the balance team or the mapmakers more so than the interface.
Edit: I further guarantee that all things being equal, a complete newcomer to the scene will not be "dominated even though they have equal micro and theorycraft". There is so much more concepts that a veteran SC player will have over a completely new player. Only people who have played other RTSes competitively will compete, and these people should know that effort is naturally rewarded and will play accordingly. There will not be "diamonds in the rough", or armchair strategy geniuses who lose because they can't click fast enough.
Many of the concepts that an SC player would have over a new SC2 player who has played other RTSs competitively (which is more whom I am concerned with), are SC1-specific; veterans will still have to learn the micro mechanics of the new units (and the old units' new abilities), the theorycraft of SC2, the new macro timings unique to SC2's dynamics, etc. In fact, the only thing they don't have to learn anew is the interface, so streamlining the interface both keeps new players from being dominated from the get-go, smoothens the learning curve, and allows for new macro/micro-intensive features to be implemented that couldn't be with the old interface (because the difficulty of using the interface was so high that these features wouldn't be used for lack of time).
|
is awesome32277 Posts
On October 01 2007 09:16 Hokay wrote:
Having mbs reveals one thing about starcrafts core gameplay: Starcraft's macro is shallow and needs help. That's what SC2 is for...
What?
I CHALLENGE YOU TO MORTAL KOMBAT
|
On October 01 2007 12:04 Skew wrote:
Imagine if everyone in the world worked as a grocery bagger and everything was there for you. You can either pick the brown paper bag or the plastic bag and maybe they come in multiple colors. Now there is some leeway to get ahead of the crowd in the early stages -- some talented folks get ahead of the rest of the crowd and learn to open those mother fucking plastic bag quicker than others, but I guarantee you that everyone will eventually be as good as the next when it comes to opening bags.
StarCraft makes you find the materials in the fucking wild, learn to sew the materials together, hijack a fucking car to get to the grocery store, and then take care of 10 isles at once WHILE sewing with your FEET so you can serve the rest of the potential customers that need their food bagged.
well, i think this pretty much ended the discussion
theres no way to argue with that
|
1esu, I really feel that you not having played SC1 much recently hurts you in your analysis. Why do you think the TL.netters were raping at Blizzcon with almost ridiculous strats? You do know they went undefeated, right? And that was with MBS (which from the accounts, really helped them much more than their opponents the way they were abusing super-greedy strategies.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
