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.
I hope you are lucky enough to have seen Pusan PvT. He maxes in like 12 to 14 minutes. It is one of the most scary ridiculous things you can witness. An unreal amount of units everywhere so fast its overwhelming. With MBS suddenly hungtran doesn't need maphack to be good. He too can max in 12 to 14 minutes. 1z. Every gate is making zealots. 1click. All the gates are rallied to the same place. 1d. Every gate is making dragoons.
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 thought possible. This is his strength. He is a sloppy player but he makes up for that in pure macro. 1v2t. Look at me I'm iloveoov jr. Try it. 1v2t. Sorry oov you are out of a job. Even Casy can TvP now.
At low levels MBS won't make a difference. The smarter player will still win. Both newbies will still forget depots and make strategic blunders. They will attack poorly into a well defended position. The game will in essence be the same. MBS does not make the game more fun. No one has ever played SC1 and thought "well if this had MBS I would really like it".
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 same time. StarCraft is much older and much more well developed. Korea supports 300 progamers and all of them are at different levels of play. Not one player can macro like iloveoov except for iloveoov. There is no other protoss like Pusan. There is not another Reach. While we have a diverse and interesting pro scene that allows players to be macro style (oov and pusan) or to be micro style (boxer and casy) war3 does not. MBS makes games easier. Every time you make a game easier you hurt the competitive scene. Newbies will have fun either way.
Never knew MBS helped you build gates, do gate timing, expand timing, when to add/stop workers, defend harasses. But hey, every smart person knows 4z5z6z7z = macro! Warcraft 4 ahhhhhh
I'm going to bump it, just because you had nothing to contribute to the thread Chor
That aside, I think a lot of these new features can easily be implemented as options. Let the pro's decide for themselves how they want to play and critique it amongst themselves.
I sort of agree. MBS will make some things less impressive while not really adding anything to competitive play. But imagine all the whines they would get from new players and reviewers if they didn't have MBS. People are spoiled by today's RTS's and might not have the patience to keep playing SC2 without comfort features like MBS and auto-mining.
I don't think the comparison holds water because it's going to be a very different game anyways. SC2 will have specific skills that separate players out, as bad, good, and great. They don't have to be the same ones as in SCBW, and the balance will be different anyways.
In your example, for instance, targetting medics like that can be made a requirement; if MBS is present they won't Z>T as a result, they will have to balance the matchup differently as a result. If everyone can max in 12 minutes (what will the cap be in SC2 anyways?), other features of the balance and the gameplay will be used to make sure it's a good game.
Even though SC2 won't be "on top of" SCBW's balance to begin with, even if it was, then we could consider your argument, I still don't think MBS would be impossible to implement. Many things would have to change, to keep the game good, but it would be possible. And that's why it's not an issue for SC2, because they are in a phase where many things are changing, as we speak. They have the same opportunity to make the game (SC2) good with MBS as, they do without it.
They are going to add features like that because the majority of people buying the game are going to expect to have the burden of "chores" lessened with "new, modern RTS features." I think you can make a game good with or without MBS so I personally wouldn't bother with it, but if players wish they had it, SC2 should pretty much give it to them.
minus_human : F2 double click gateway. same thing.
b_unnies : go watch xellos play then go watch oov play.
uriel- : watch a replay with a pencil and a piece of paper and you too will have these timings.
][-][eretic : maybe. seems risky. we were given multiple speeds in sc1. what if we chose FAST?
Xiberia : not having MBS will NEVER be the reason for someone quitting. EVER. totally illogical. someone that newbie who would quit over it probably doesn't even know what it is. some newbie who played an rts with it probably wouldn't even notice to be honest.
lugggy : you missed the point completely. i was pointing out what MBS would do to the great game of starcraft. you take this to mean that sc2 = sc1. nope. im just pointing out ways that MBS can destroy an excellent game. newbies are not burdened with chores. do you remember when you started playing? i made a bunch of cannons off about 8 probes then watched my scout fly across the map and attack a row of missle turrets. then i sat watching as a computer sent 5 hydras into my cannons. anyone smart enough to think that clicking on buildings is a CHORE is a competitive player and thus is already developing the skill sets needed for macro.
MBS doesn't allow you to do something you couldn't before. It's only useful for people too lazy to spend 5 seconds clicking all their gateways. You still have to remember to actually do it every 20 seconds, the game won't remind you of it, MBS-enabled or not.
LG)Sabbath : actually the game does remind you. every unit says something as they pop out and the minimap also shows you that something finished. pressing 1z after seeing that while focusing all your attention on microing a battle would not be hard competitively speaking. boxer would have perhaps never lost a game if this were the case.
Well Artosis I agree with you that MBS applied with no other changes would ruin the great game of SCBW. I believe I said that in my initial post. I simply said that this point does not mean MBS is inherently bad, for SCBW or especially for SC2--which I still believe. Therefore, MBS does not really "destroy an excellent game." You are simply talking about on big change with no balance adjustments to go with it. With balance adjustments MBS would not destroy anything in SCBW, and this is doubly true in SC2, where the balance is not even set yet. So I don't think I missed your point.
lugggy : it takes away from the highest levels of play. we have a diverse pro scene in the best RTS game ever made for a reason. there are all sorts of ways you can interpret this beautiful game of starcraft and compete on the highest levels. MBS takes away most of this. if SC2 will be fast paced with many units then macro will be a big deal. taking away macro aspects in competitive play is not a good thing.
Even with MBS there can be just as much, or even more, of a macro aspect for higher levels of play. Or other things equally challenging for them. MBS would make SCBW easier, by itself, like I said, but countless things can be done to counterbalance it, and SC2, a completely new game, doesn't necessarily lack the competitiveness you are talking about even if it has MBS...
On September 30 2007 21:30 Artosis3 wrote: LG)Sabbath : actually the game does remind you. every unit says something as they pop out and the minimap also shows you that something finished. pressing 1z after seeing that while focusing all your attention on microing a battle would not be hard competitively speaking. boxer would have perhaps never lost a game if this were the case.
That is not a feature of MBS. If you think that going throgh gateways or factories takes pro gamers time, you should watch an FPVOD of iloveoov or pusan. They do it in possibly <1sec.
The reason people stack up money is because their multitasking is not good enough. Even if you are reminded with sounds to go back to your base, most people don't realize they sometimes can do this in the heat of battle and instead keep microing needlessly.
luggy : what? you keep saying things without anything to back it up. "there can be just as much or even more of a macro aspect at higher levels of play". macro would be like warcraft3 which is infact LESS not as much or more as you put it. apparently according to you countless things can be done to counter balance something that takes away from variety of skills at the top levels. please name just a small 15 of these countless things for me please.
LG)Sabbath : I never said it was a feature of MBS. you said it didn't exist so i simply pointed out that it did. leaving a battle for 1 to 2 seconds to click on all your gateways to make units is VASTLY different then mid battle still watching the battle pressing "1z" to have every gateway now making units. even 1 second is a long time in a game like starcraft when you are microing in a battle. not having to look away from battle is also a concern.
On September 30 2007 21:56 lugggy wrote:countless things can be done to counterbalance it
Like what exactly? I'm all for adding macrotasks to keep it fun, but I haven't really seen many concrete examples of 'extra things' you can do in the time you're not spending on macro. Warpgates are a nice start but apart from them what exactly is there to fill up the gap? And you're not forced to build warpgates anyway. Macro is an essential and FUN part of the game because it's so rewarding, don't you love steamrolling some dumbass opponent because he's too slow to make more units, and seeing all his factories light up 1 by 1 with 2 second intervals when you're shooting up his base? Don't take it away =(
tl;dr: 'new options to keep players busy' are OK but please don't focus everything on micro. We want ways to make bigger armies than noobs and crush them.
On September 30 2007 22:08 Artosis3 wrote: luggy : what? you keep saying things without anything to back it up. "there can be just as much or even more of a macro aspect at higher levels of play". macro would be like warcraft3 which is infact LESS not as much or more as you put it. apparently according to you countless things can be done to counter balance something that takes away from variety of skills at the top levels. please name just a small 15 of these countless things for me please.
You're 100% wrong here - MBS has NOTHING to do with there being very little macro in W3. It's due to the upkeep system (which penalises expanding) and because the major resource is the w3 equivalent of gas (fixed income).
The fact is MBS WILL be in SC2 and so all of this debate is pretty pointless.
Gobol : yes it isnt all because of MBS that there is little macro in wc3. but the macro will be a similar level of easiness if it is MBS. "1z". i am not saying it is exactly the same. im drawing parallels is all. unless you personally own blizzard and run the sc2 project then perhaps you shouldn't end debates by telling us what will and will not be in SC2.
On September 30 2007 20:56 Artosis3 wrote: At low levels MBS won't make a difference. The smarter player will still win. Both newbies will still forget depots and make strategic blunders. They will attack poorly into a well defended position. The game will in essence be the same. MBS does not make the game more fun. No one has ever played SC1 and thought "well if this had MBS I would really like it".
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 same time. StarCraft is much older and much more well developed. Korea supports 300 progamers and all of them are at different levels of play. Not one player can macro like iloveoov except for iloveoov. There is no other protoss like Pusan. There is not another Reach. While we have a diverse and interesting pro scene that allows players to be macro style (oov and pusan) or to be micro style (boxer and casy) war3 does not. MBS makes games easier. Every time you make a game easier you hurt the competitive scene. Newbies will have fun either way.
Please say no to MBS.
"MBS does not make the game more fun."
Were you at BlizzCon? I was. Fun is a matter of opinion, not fact, so please speak for yourself.
You say "at high levels MBS will ruin competition" then go onto an off-topic rant that talks about Warcraft III supply limits and has nothing to do with MBS. You don't have an argument, just anger. Find and put down that argument if you want to win the argument.
Besides, the decision has already been made. People can bitch, moan, whine and complain about it and Blizzard will not listen to them.
i totally agree with artosis too. i just don't care that much cause i'm prolly not gonna play sc2 on a competitive level. but I can't picture any game with mbs being as fun, competitively, as bw has been. and, brood war was the most fun any game has ever been when I was a casual gamer too.
and the difference between 4z5d and 3d4d5d6d7z8z9z0z is incredible. maybe it wouldn't affect pusan or oov much as they're able to do that in 1 second, but that's just the thing, they make pusan and oov no longer special because any random non-idiot can mimic them.
remember that blizzard argued that brood war should be played on fast speed, not fastest, for about 7 or so years. (this was why they refused to change the ladder speed, they felt that brood war was a superior game on fast compared to fastest. in fact i believe gfrazier or whatever said that fastest was mostly implemented as a kind of joke-speed not meant for serious gaming. ) how many actually agree with this?
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.
MBS will make macroing easier. There is no fudging that conclusion. Will that make SC2 worse? Personally, I believe so.
Btw, I have yet to read anyone in this thread post a plausible counter argument - so far, all I have read are guesses, speculation and outright wishful thinking.
Please allow me to recast what I was saying, in light of the intention: responding to Artosis's OP. Please remember what I was really responding to, and not what it has been distorted into.
In the OP, Artosis uses examples from SC1 to show problems with MBS: Savior could grab all his sunkens at once and target perfectly, and stop a rush by Nada with "not enough" sunkens. "Sorry Nada, Savior doesn't need enough sunkens anymore."
My point was to specifically refute a point like this. The amount of sunkens that is "enough" can be easily changed to fit whatever people are capable of under MBS, or what ever. See my earlier posts in this light, please.
When Artosis (in OP) goes on, saying "Pusan can max in 12 to 14 minutes", but with MBS "suddenly hungtran" "can too max in 12 to 14 minutes."...
I question the validity of this, too (his remaining examples follow this pattern). I don't think it is pure speed that determines who maxes and how fast. It has to do with skills in his play. Skills besides "macro", besides the raw ability to use gateways perfectly, for instance. He is doing many other things right, that most of us can't do, to pull off the macro.
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.
So #1, if you think a balance is going to be messed up by MBS you are mistaken (that is what most of my other posts are about), but also #2, maybe there will be more players who can macro, but that alone does not ruin progaming. We have no reason to even think of SC2 in a SC-like light as far as macro goes. Are the maps going to be "macro" like Luna? It is a ridiculous question, and talking about styles of iloveoov or Pusan are equally ridiculous in regards to SC2. So there is no reason to think this point applies to SC2, which is Artosis's implication. And in SC1, obviously adding MBS would probably introduce some imbalances between the races and possibly make progaming boring if everyone can win that way, but that would be a problem with the maps and the balance and not MBS itself.
lugggy : im not sure how many times you need me to say the same thing but i am using sc1 as an example. i am not talking about MBS messing up balance for a game ive never played im not an idiot. i am saying that it takes away from the variety we will see at the top in playstyles. that much is certain. casy cant macro like oov. oov cant micro like casy. there isnt enough time in starcraft to do both. MBS makes it so everything will boil down to less different styles as the game progresses. please stop talking about game balance. thats not what im talking about.
Kimera : as i said before there has never been and never will be someone who quit SC1 because there is no MBS. if you are that newbie then you do not know what MBS is. you accuse me of going into an off topic rant about supply limits. its clear that you don't at all understand what i wrote. you should go back and reread it. i draw parallels with warcraft3 to show some downfalls of MBS. the macro style would be the same. you never hear about wc3 macro gods like you do in starcraft. i pointed out that even though there is a small supply limit in the game there is no room for skilled macro partially because of MBS. there was nothing angry whatsoever. i am in the most calm manner replying to posts trying to wipe away some of the ignorance about what MBS does to the top level of RTS gaming. i felt that my entire post was a good arguement for this. please point out how it was not and dont waste time flaming me. thanks.
Yep, we are all sure that making all of the same units from all of your production buildings is a good thing. Under no circumstances would a pro player need to change his key groupings, or even go back to individual selection because he needs a mix of units for that particular point in time. Especially in the late game, where everyone knows in every matchup that you only need one unit to win.
And we are all certain that SC2 isn't going to have other stuff to do in a battle to make up for the 3 seconds saved with MBS. Let's assume we are fine with our whole army being Zealots, and we are fine looking at our resource go zero gas one moment and zero mineral the next. So for these pockets of 3 seconds saved, we absolutely CAN'T focus more on micro instead of the mechanical 4z5z6z7dclickdclickdclickTclickT.
And of course, we all know what sets pro players aside from each other is the ability to clickTclickT in under half a second! Never mind the experience and practice needed to KNOW when you want to make units, never mind the experience and practice needed to know when to make WHAT, in WHAT proportions. We are all going to take it at face value that "watching a replay with a pencil and paper" is going to teach us EXACTLY when to expo, when to add gates, when to do this, when to do that. No, that isn't attributed to experience, practice, and game awareness. It's all in clickZclickZclickZclickZ.
Basically, everyone knows that to become a progamer, all you need is to train hitting your location F key really quick, and then scroll through all your gates hitting Z and D in under a second, and then doubletapping your army hotkey. If I practice this 5 hours a day for a month, I'm the next freakin' iloveoov! Because with MBS, EVERYONE IS ILOVEOOV!
I'll agree that it takes a degree of excitement down from lategame battles, and it definitely makes the game easier. But this takes it ten degrees too far. Hell, who knows Blizzard isn't going to make it customizable, making everyone in this thread idiots?
uriel- : for the perhaps 10th time in this post i must repeat that i was using SC1 as an example for how MBS is bad for a game competitively. this is simply an example. things are not so exact and simple but i think everyone else understood that i didn't mean for people to believe that. so please take your sarcasm elsewhere and post something a bit more useful if you disagree with the principles i've stated.
I don't disagree with your general point that MBS takes away a dimension of SCBW, only the kinds of arguments in the OP. Obviously if macro is super easy for everyone then we no longer have a game that requires us to learn how to press keys really fast for years on end before we can be competitive, a true tragedy.
Perhaps the sarcasm was a little excessive, but I believe these are valid counters to the points you bring up.
MBS does not give everyone Pusan micro. It definitely makes >>SC1<<< an easier game, but Blizzard has already mentioned that SC2 will have greater potential in other areas to make up for the removal of this purely MECHANICAL action, that depended on your experience in the first place. Saying that MBS will blur the gap between pro players, or "make everyone oov", is silly.
This is actually one of the worst posts on that topic. Way too many obvious exaggerations and personal opinion in it. And SC2 is not going to be SC1 with MBS anyway. But it's entertainingly written, that's why many anti-MBS posters will agree with you. Besides, it's not worth an extra thread.
lugggy : the sarcasm really isnt needed. taking variety from the top of progaming is a BAD THING for everyone. other RTS games do not have a progaming scene like starcraft because they are boring to watch. its the same crap over and over. anything that takes away from a games variety at the top will take away viewers. take away people who are interested in it. its bad.
uriel- : it absolutely will blur the gap. every single RTS game out there. and i mean EVERY one. look at them. watch the very best of the best play. they will all have the same macro. games will be very similar. one reason why sc is so diverse is the lack of shortcuts such as MBS. there is so much to do and you cannot do it all. the more that is made easy for you to do...the less variety we have. SC2 would have more potential as a competitive game without a function like MBS.
MBS would change the balance in SC1. The game would need to be rebalanced. New maps would probably cover it, if not, Blizzard is the god of balancing and would save us.
I am really offended if you think SC1 wouldn't be a good game if macroing was easier. Is that all that's keeping people playing? The challenge to press 1t2t3t4v5v6v7v 8a9a0a really fast? I like to think it's more than that...
Brutalisk : i believe im approaching the subject in a way probably not approached yet. i'm taking time to read every post in the thread carefully and discuss it. i won't put this into another thread where it will get brushed over. for the 19th time i never said that SC2 is SC1 with MBS. i am using SC1 as an example as to how MBS can harm an RTS game. thank you though for deciding that on a forum with thousands of topics that this is not worth its own thread.
lugggy : for god sake please stop talking about balance. i use SC1 as an example is all. SC1 would always be a good game. but if all the top pros could macro the same i wouldnt watch progaming.
For the 25th time, Artosis, this thought-experiment cannot be done in our lab. If SC1 had had MBS all along, the balance and the maps would be completely different. It may or may not be as good. We will never know.
It's just like asking, what if all these games with MBS didn't have it? Would they be better then? What if SC1 was more like War2? What if it was like War1? What if War3 was SC? What if MTG cards weighed 30 lbs? We'll NEVER KNOW dude.
If you want to show us that MBS can harm a game, show us where it has actually done so, not just in our imaginations. Name a game that was given MBS, and what happened to it?
Still, we would need more than 1 example to really make a case. Probably a dozen or so. What's the point of one example?
Tell me this though, are Pusan and iloveoov the best pro gamers? Are all other gamers inferior versions of them because they macro slightly less good than them? If not, then progaming will remain somewhat intact even if Pusan and iloveoov loose their alleged advantage and distinction of pressing 1a2a3a really fast.
Pros in sc2 will be more like Boxer and less like iloveoov. However if all Boxer lacked in terms of macro was clicking buildings i doubt that he wouldnt take the time to train up this ability making him the supreme God of starcraft progaming. However he cant, not beacuse he is mechanically inept since his micro shows that he is defenitely able to do it, but beacuse he lacks that type of thinking.
So you will still have macro players and micro players, just that macro players will micro more than before and micro players will macro more than before since everyone have more time. The gap will be a bit lower due to macro skills giving less returns than before, but it will still be there.
Also, most decent people dont forget that they need to macro even while attacking. They dont do it because it means they have to pull their attention away from the battlefield. Sure it may only take 2 seconds to get ure barracks building, but in that 2 seconds you have to leave your army by itself. And everyone knows that 2 seconds of bad micro is all it takes to lose a battle. Add MBS and nolonger do people have to worry about their macro while attacking. All they have to do is just click 9p 0z and their macro is taken care of.
Macro is always a tradeoff. Spend time on macro and you'll have a larger army, stronger economy to take out the enemy later. Spend time on micro and you have the advantage in the here and now. You give someone the ability to macro without hindering their micro, then theres no longer a tradeoff, the players are no longer forced to chose where their time is best spent. The game becomes all about babysitting your army.
Edit: I also checked if the thread creator is someone who has contributed here in any way and all I can think of is that's a person who appeared here when the SC2 forum showed up.
On October 01 2007 00:17 Manit0u wrote: Edit: I also checked if the thread creator is someone who has contributed here in any way and all I can think of is that's a person who appeared here when the SC2 forum showed up.
I see a lot of people trying to get into the hardcore starcraft community(Or any large and strong community for that matter) by trying to agree with everything the "Cool" guys say.
Theyre just the average pawn trying to get accepted to a strong group wich will strengthen their ego. Now i dont say that the OP here is such a person, just that ive a lot of posts wich are very likely to be with this purpose on this forum.
As someone who didn't see Pusan play... it is standard that toss maxes out in 12-14 minutes as long as the T doesn't do a strong push before then. It is pretty frequent for toss to max in 12-14 on ICCUP as well. Lots of people can macro pretty well.
Not that I don't like the 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a t f3zzzddtk 1a2a3a tt f4zzzzzzzz 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a...
After all, there is just something satisfying about 1a2a3a4a5a1a2a3a4a5a1a2a3a4a5a1a2a3a4a5a1a2a3a4a5a .. I could just sit here all day and do that
But it's pretty plausible they will find some substitute.. there are unlimited possibilities, so there is a small chance that they might make a better game. And I think it's best they don't just try to do an expansion to BW. If SC2 < BW, keep playing BW.
he was pointing out how mbs could/would make sc2 a worse game by showing how mbs would have essentially destroyed sc1 progaming.
Edit: I also checked if the thread creator is someone who has contributed here in any way and all I can think of is that's a person who appeared here when the SC2 forum showed up.
you have a little more than half as many posts as me, does that mean im free to disregard whatever you say? he made a well reasoned, well supported post. his post count is irrelevant to the quality of what hes saying. and, interestingly enough, he joined tl.net before you did.
he was pointing out how mbs could/would make sc2 a worse game by showing how mbs would have essentially destroyed sc1 progaming.
Manit0u was pointing out how illogical that is...
Anything major you add from SC2, or elsewhere, to BW is going to make BW, a balanced game, bad.
This is a really good point. What Artosis is trying to do, whether he will admit it or not, in an SC2 forum, is show this:
M. MBS must be/might be bad (some vague degree), if it would make a good game bad. S. Adding MBS to SCBW would make it bad. // Therefore MBS is(maybe) bad (M).
Not only is this only a probable truth "proved" by one example, the validity of S is called into question by what you said, because:
Adding almost anything major from War3 or SC2 to SCBW would make it bad. Yet those things aren't necessarily bad. For instance, if we add Grunts to SC1, that would be bad. Doesn't mean Grunts are bad. etc.
luggy : i am using sc as an example on how progaming would not be as entertaining with MBS. i am not proving that SC2 should not have MBS. i am showing ways that MBS affects the game that people are not thinking about. some people like to watch oov or pusan because of their style. some people like to watch boxer and casy because of their style. some people like nalra's style. all these players have different strengths and weaknesses. MBS does infact detract from something like this. that is what i am saying. almost every single other rts has MBS. i have played 4 other RTS games at the top level. when there is MBS i assure you that every single game looks the same up top. its boring as hell to watch. most people have never even watched these other games because they are boring to watch. taking away =any= excitement from an already fringe profession such as progaming is hurtful to eSports as a whole. i never said iloveoov or pusan were the best progamers. no other players are not inferior versions. pusan and iloveoov both view the game as a macro based game. they play games with the idea to make more units then their opponents. it is one of the many ways that people can play. "...progaming will remain somewhat intact even if Pusan and iloveoov loose their alleged advantage and distinction of pressing 1a2a3a really fast." progaming will remain somewhat intact ...i dont mean to say that progaming would die from MBS. but again i would not watch progaming if everyone macroed perfectly.
Manit0u : you obviously did not read a single post. thank you for being a detective and checking me out. this is my 3rd artosis id. i forgot the passwords to the first 2. i was actually on bnet in the main channel at the time when nazgul himself popped on and told us about teamliquid.net. i only post important things like tournaments that people dont know about or to defend my friends from time to time so sorry i dont have an amazing 2500 posts like you ya damn old schooler.
that would be true, if he was complaining about balance. he was talking about how it would dumb down the game, prevent all the diversity that is available in the progaming scene right now. the fact that there are many different components to being a good sc player means that people can have different styles, play different ways, and still be succesful. adding mbs(taking away macro) essentially kills the oovs and pusans of progaming, and all the sudden casy and boxer are much less special as they are all thats left.
Finally. I've been saying this for ages, but I don't have the BW credentials for my words to be respected. All the pro-MBS people have are this vague notion that "something" can be added to maintain multitasking and macro, and that the game will be "somehow" improved because of it. All speculation. A large majority of them haven't even played BW at any decent level.
Oh, and Artosis I think Manitou is just pulling your leg.
On October 01 2007 01:03 Artosis3 wrote: luggy : i am using sc as an example on how progaming would not be as entertaining with MBS. i am not proving that SC2 should not have MBS. i am showing ways that MBS affects the game that people are not thinking about. some people like to watch oov or pusan because of their style. some people like to watch boxer and casy because of their style. some people like nalra's style. all these players have different strengths and weaknesses. MBS does infact detract from something like this. that is what i am saying. almost every single other rts has MBS. i have played 4 other RTS games at the top level. when there is MBS i assure you that every single game looks the same up top. its boring as hell to watch. most people have never even watched these other games because they are boring to watch. taking away =any= excitement from an already fringe profession such as progaming is hurtful to eSports as a whole. i never said iloveoov or pusan were the best progamers. no other players are not inferior versions. pusan and iloveoov both view the game as a macro based game. they play games with the idea to make more units then their opponents. it is one of the many ways that people can play. "...progaming will remain somewhat intact even if Pusan and iloveoov loose their alleged advantage and distinction of pressing 1a2a3a really fast." progaming will remain somewhat intact ...i dont mean to say that progaming would die from MBS. but again i would not watch progaming if everyone macroed perfectly.
Manit0u : you obviously did not read a single post. thank you for being a detective and checking me out. this is my 3rd artosis id. i forgot the passwords to the first 2. i was actually on bnet in the main channel at the time when nazgul himself popped on and told us about teamliquid.net. i only post important things like tournaments that people dont know about or to defend my friends from time to time so sorry i dont have an amazing 2500 posts like you ya damn old schooler.
oh give me a break now you've reduced your argument to this "some people like to watch oov or pusan because of their style." that's your real reason for being anti-MBS? for the Pusan and oov fans? Lots Of Laughs, dude, Lots Of Laughs. Blizzard should not implement some feature because, then, Pusan and OOV fans will be lost. AHHH.
Do you want us to believe all other RTS are inferior to SCBW because they have MBS? That is unlikely sir...
Servolisk : im using sc1 as an example about how MBS is bad for a competitive game.
lugggy : if this was an Age of Empires 3 forum i would make posts about MBS in AoE3. but its not. the people here have played SC1 and know about the SC1 progaming scene. all im talking about is how MBS affects competitive play. if you look at every other RTS ever then MBS is not a positive. it is a negative. the easier you make a game the less diverse it will be. SC1 has the greatest diversity so it is a good example.
lugggy : it has become clear to me that you do not understand. please post in a different MBS thread you are adding nothing here aside from flames and ignorance.
We can think of literally thousands of other excuses for why every RTS game isn't as "competitive" as SCBW. You want us to believe it's MBS... SCBW is a unique situation and it isn't because of its lack of MBS.
edit: I'm with you in your preference for games without MBS, but using fallacies is not the way.
I'm starting to think that instead of posting stuff on here, the better foreign players like Artosis / Nony / Tasteless / Day / Testie should just indicate their position, maybe with a small opinion snippet, and send that to Blizzard. There are too many noobs with agendas here cluttering the argument.
Btw, this whole topic fails since there is no way you can imagine how sc would play with mbs.
ALL strats would change, people would play more agressively and expansions would be plentier but so would also the attacks on and around said expansions.
More than that is impossible to say, you cant possible believe that the strats would stay the same with mbs in sc.
On September 30 2007 20:56 Artosis3 wrote: Please say no to MBS.
Please, stop spamming this sort of threads, not all people get amused (but quite opposite) seeing them popping up again and again without any need for that. You really didn't bring any new point - all of them were discussed before (mostly vain though) and bringing them again in new thread, especially with annoying and ridiculous points like WC3 one, you won't change anyone's opinion. Even more, there is the topic couple posts below where you could freely post that.
On October 01 2007 01:16 Artosis3 wrote: lugggy : dont tell me what i want you to believe. i already stated MBS is one of MANY factors. stop. just stop.
No, Artosis. You stop. Stop presenting fallacious argument after fallacious argument. When the logic of one is utterly refuted you spin a new one for us. These are rationalizations.
"MBS is bad because it would make SC1 bad" proven fallacious "MBS is bad because SC1 doesn't have it and it's the best RTS" proven fallacious
"MBS is bad because then progaming will have no Pusan and OOV excitement" <--applies only to SC1, you cannot inductively use this to make a case for MBS in general, i.e. applied to SC2, which is what you are intending. Not only that, we cannot test your theory but in our imaginations. Very, very weak argument, to say the least. Fallacious if applied to MBS in general (i.e., to SC2, your intention whether you admit it or not).
I'm sure in other threads people have made war2 analogies, where they don't even have any type of right clicking, or other SC conveniences. SC dumbed down a lot of war2 skills that were (or should I say are?) an aspect of competitiveness, but replaced them with new aspects previously not possible.
This can happen in SC2 as well. It shouldn't be impossible to replace the time saved by MBS and other features with some sort of interesting skill. War3 failed at this (at least in a way that failed to interest most of us), and SC2 might also. The bright side is that if they do succeed it is going to be a very, very fun game. I'm not too worried if they fail... there will still be BW.
lugggy : ok man i didnt say any of that shit. you go keep "proving" things that people didnt say somewhere else. a good number of people actually understand what ive said here and agree despite you "proving" all these things wrong.
InRaged : thank you. i vote for you to be a forum moderator so people like me cant preform forum crimes like this.
Well Artosis if you arent trying to say any of those things what is your point? If I have reduced your argument incorrectly tell me what you were proving please?
Are you now saying that you weren't making the kinds of cases I attributed to you? You don't want us to think MBS is bad because if we added it to SC1 it would be imba? Because it would be less exciting? Because other games with MBS aren't as good as SCBW? And therefore MBS is probably bad for SC2? If this is not what you're getting at please clear it up for me because it's not in your posts.
Yeah, MBS removes the macro aspect and makes every build like iloveoov and Pusan. Just like how MUS(Multiple Unit Select) allows everyone on battle.net to micro like Boxer right now. In fact, units even attack automatically without input, while buildings don't build units until you tell them to, so everybody in the world, even C&C players, can micro as well as Boxer and Casy. I could beat Nada easily if we both had MBS, because that means we can macro equally well, MUS makes us micro equally well, and I have far better strategy because I'm not stupid enough to use M&M to try to break a MBS-sunken line.
I'm almost surprised that the anti-MBS people aren't lobbying for the removing of right click, attack move, worker auto-mining after just one click, workers microing themselves in mineral patches, adding that making it take two clicks to do every action, or making SC2 not run unless run with a 30-pound mouse specifically designed for SC2 so that there is now a macro style, a micro style, and a FITNESS style to improve the variety of the game.
its not about game balance or whatever the hell you are talking about. its about skill depth and diversity. you remove a huge factor in the game and you make it that much easier to get to the top levels. it makes the top levels that much less impressive.
its like making marines automatically split when you a+move towards a lurker. sure, that type of move only requires very fast clicking, key pressing, and precision, and not some brilliant strategic move, but allowing the masses to do it with ease makes it a no longer impressive feat. similarly, good production requires some hand speed and precision. take out some of the mechanical skill required and the skill in the game is no longer as deep.
your killer i'm not sure which, if any, of my posts you are responding to, due to the quality of your response. so if you want a reply to your challenge, you need to try a little harder.
On October 01 2007 01:36 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: wow luggy you are an idiot.
its not about game balance or whatever the hell you are talking about. its about skill depth and diversity. you remove a huge factor in the game and you make it that much easier to get to the top levels. it makes the top levels that much less impressive.
On October 01 2007 01:27 Artosis3 wrote: InRaged : thank you. i vote for you to be a forum moderator so people like me cant preform forum crimes like this.
No need for sarcasm. That's, seriously, very annoying you just created another thread when there's previous one still active, and all what you brought are two months old "arguments".
On October 01 2007 01:36 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: its like making marines automatically split when you a+move towards a lurker. sure, that type of move only requires very fast clicking, key pressing, and precision, and not some brilliant strategic move, but allowing the masses to do it with ease makes it a no longer impressive feat. similarly, good production requires some hand speed and precision. take out some of the mechanical skill required and the skill in the game is no longer as deep.
No, that's like allowing player to say factories where to send units once they're finished instead of picking them each time from base. Your example as ridiculous as implementing autocast for spells like psi-storm.
- It is not reasonable to state that MBS will without a doubt reduce the variety and potential for depth of skill at the upper echelons of play, because Blizzard will compensate for such "conveniences" by adding significant depth in other areas.
- Because SC1 is essentially a fixed game, talking about the effects of introducing MBS is entirely irrelevant.
Now, I would like to say I don't believe any of your vocal opponents disagree with the basic idea behind your argument. Instead, what Artosis and the others are doing (as I see it) is casting doubt on the ability of Blizzard to actually provide sufficient additional gameplay depth, and seek examples as to what might be done.
They draw on other modern RTS games to illustrate the failure of other developers to provide interesting technical depth in the face of MBS.
Personally I believe, for better or for worse, that it is likely that MBS will be included in SC2, so I certainly hope it is possible to make up for this.
I think one of the problems Blizzard faces is that, for the RTS community, excluding the somewhat serious (and totally serious) starcraft community, MBS is probably an expected feature. So of course, the reaction of that side of the fanbase could be a concern for them. Also, in light of the fact that MBS could be considered an RTS standard, deliberately excluding it as a feature in order to preserve technical depth could be seen as a fairly large copout.
As for my own opinion, I really have no idea. I would like to believe that Blizzard is capable of preserving technical depth by taking new and creative directions with the development of SC2, but I share the fears of Artosis and the others. Well, here's hoping everything turns out fine.
On October 01 2007 01:36 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: its like making marines automatically split when you a+move towards a lurker. sure, that type of move only requires very fast clicking, key pressing, and precision, and not some brilliant strategic move, but allowing the masses to do it with ease makes it a no longer impressive feat. similarly, good production requires some hand speed and precision. take out some of the mechanical skill required and the skill in the game is no longer as deep.
This argument is dumb, automicro would = auto macro. You say that easier macro = auto micro in dumbness?
If they made your workers start building structures automatically, your producers building units wo clicks, your factories always rallying to the nearest front then this argument could fit.
But currently thats not the case, mbs is like mus, it makes the game easier to control. Why should blizzard keep the arbitary rule to only select 1 structure at a time when you can still select multiple units? Arent structures just units rooted in place?
Or do you think that mbs should be only on producers, so you can select multiple turrets to ff like you can with normal units? Or is there a specifik reason turrets shouldnt be able to ff?
And if we removes mbs from the game for balance reasons, why not make different units take up different amounth of slots in the unit selection cap since thats basically the same thing? So that a toss can select 6 zealots, a terran can select 12 rines and a zerg can select 24 lings. I mean if we dont do that toss would have easy micro unbalancing the game right? Since they have a lot less units normally.
Or do you just think that everything should be just like in starcraft, making you equal to all the other snowed in starcraft guys here not being able to see anything as good as long as it wasnt in starcraft? If you have noticed any deviation from original starcraft is met with a lot of negative prejudice here.
But its only natural that people on a large starcraft fansite would think that everything not starcraft is crap or they wouldnt have stayed loyal to starcraft for this long. Its like this in any community, if you ask TA people they would say that TA is the best game ever and SC is one of the worst games ever.
Freyr you are right. Blizzard is going to include MBS. And if we want a deep game, we should get Blizzard to not include MBS because we have a better chance at getting a good game if Blizz sticks to SCBW as much as possible, than if they go off on their own and make a sequel to War3. I also agree with you there. But Blizzard is not going to do it. I don't think taking MBS away from SC2 would even do it. Taking MBS away from War3 or (insert other RTS here) wouldn't do it. So come on now what's even the point of this whole discussion? Let the good players petition against MBS. It won't matter, even if they get their way for however a limited period of time.
In all reality Blizz should be tweaking the difficulty of interface for everything along with the balance. Every race could have a different style of interface or whatever. Some units could take up more space in your selection than others (just as they do in drops). Buildings could be bigger. Maybe you can select four of them at once. Who knows? Who cares. They aren't going to do it. Unless we are a think tank for a future RTS, the discussion is moot and that is why I have only focused on the validity (or lack of it) in specific arguments. The truth is we only want a good, deep game. If you think it can't be done if MBS is present you are mistaken, but if you think Blizzard can't do it without MBS that is a better guess. The sad truth is Blizzard is going to try to do it with MBS and probably would have failed either way, but we'll see. I hope they prove me wrong.
Lets just face it.. Artosis is 100% correct.. with MBS SC2, competitively will be much worse.. the skill gap at the best level's would be so slim.. which is going to make the game oh so much worse and this is coming from a person who knows what competitive gaming is like --a (not just watching a starleague match take place like 90% of you)
so kids what did we learn today?? MBS = CRAPPY COMPETITIVE GAMES
On October 01 2007 01:18 Aphelion wrote: I'm starting to think that instead of posting stuff on here, the better foreign players like Artosis / Nony / Tasteless / Day / Testie should just indicate their position, maybe with a small opinion snippet, and send that to Blizzard. There are too many noobs with agendas here cluttering the argument.
I think they already have. Not sure what Blizzard's responses, if any, are considering that in the Q&A batch Karune replied "absolutely" to MBS and automining. Second of all, I'm quite sure they understand just as well what the possible consequences are of including MBS without adding anything meaningful to make up for it. Blizzard isn't stupid. They're fully aware of the pro-scene in Korea and can see how important SBS is to the original game.
Good thing that this whole discussion doesn't really matter anyway. MBS is going to be in SC2. Some anti-MBS people here are like the old Warcraft 2 players who laughed at Starcraft being a game for noobs. Yes, they did that, for almost the same reasons: easier interface (and only 2 instead of 3 resource types, water but no water units, and so on...). The same happens here, and the same will happen in future games. Nonetheless these games will be competitive, the game style will just be different. The anti-MBS posters are too close-minded to imagine other gameplay styles.
On October 01 2007 01:18 Aphelion wrote: I'm starting to think that instead of posting stuff on here, the better foreign players like Artosis / Nony / Tasteless / Day / Testie should just indicate their position, maybe with a small opinion snippet, and send that to Blizzard. There are too many noobs with agendas here cluttering the argument.
I think they already have. Not sure what Blizzard's responses, if any, are considering that in the Q&A batch Karune replied "absolutely" to MBS and automining. Second of all, I'm quite sure they understand just as well what the possible consequences are of including MBS without adding anything meaningful to make up for it. Blizzard isn't stupid. They're fully aware of the pro-scene in Korea and can see how important SBS is to the original game.
Don't be presumptuous. Like I said before, it is not for you to judge what our or Blizzard's conclusions should be. If they are going to develop SC2 with that attitude, they wont' be coming to TL.net. If they ignore the game's gosus' almost unanimous warnings, I doubt they will be making a game good enough for me to want to play.
On October 01 2007 01:18 Aphelion wrote: I'm starting to think that instead of posting stuff on here, the better foreign players like Artosis / Nony / Tasteless / Day / Testie should just indicate their position, maybe with a small opinion snippet, and send that to Blizzard. There are too many noobs with agendas here cluttering the argument.
I think they already have. Not sure what Blizzard's responses, if any, are considering that in the Q&A batch Karune replied "absolutely" to MBS and automining. Second of all, I'm quite sure they understand just as well what the possible consequences are of including MBS without adding anything meaningful to make up for it. Blizzard isn't stupid. They're fully aware of the pro-scene in Korea and can see how important SBS is to the original game.
Don't be presumptuous. Like I said before, it is not for you to judge what our or Blizzard's conclusions should be. If they are going to develop SC2 with that attitude, they wont' be coming to TL.net. If they ignore the game's gosus' almost unanimous warnings, I doubt they will be making a game good enough for me to want to play.
I don't see what this hostility is called for. I never judged what their conclusions are. I just said I'm not sure of what their responses are to the complaints from SC pros atm (aside from the Q&A response and the Blizzcon build of SC2). Maybe you'd like to enlighten me? Do you honestly think Blizzard doesn't know that SBS is important to the balance of the original SC?
You guys aren't being proactive at all. The fact is that automine and MBS will be in SC2. The scenario we should be discussing is: What would you add to SCBW, to make it more competitively viable, if it came with MBS? Because that's obviously what Blizzard is thinking.
I think the problem with a lot of your arguments is that Blizzard had more connection with the game before this high macro era. The level of macro now a days is insane, I just hope Blizzard has kept with the times.
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.
Please say no to MBS.
However Nada with MBS has better macro, so medics keep coming fast with additional marines, Savior pumps exacty as much lings as he needs + more sunks, so a continuous battle keeps raging on in front of saviors' base, while the two pros continue pumping units while teching-droping and expanding. So a 10 minutes' non stop battle takes place in the studio, the terrain is full of corpses,the commentators are yelling and korean girls scream the names SAvior, Nada... What a game!
An example of how a MBS can make a RTS game better.
On September 30 2007 21:04 b_unnies wrote: lol? iloveoov sloppy?
Sloppy micro for sure.
Grab, attack+move gogo :D
edit: But seriously, if there was a limit to hotkeying buildings (maybe like 4 buildings to a key) then maybe it would fix the problem at higher level play while also helping the newbies at lower level?
Something that should be noted by the people saying that MBS will not affect balance. The example given in the OP shows how balance will, in fact, be affected.
People can now focus fire cannons and sunkens, as well as turrets and spores, therefore making M&Ms nearly useless offensively, since the medics would just die to defensive buildings. And so they will either need to improve medics, which will end up imbalancing M&Ms, or they will need to nerf sunkens, which will then make it less useful against zealots and zerglings, or they will leave them as is, and terran will have pretty much no early game offensive units.
Also, air units can now be focus fired down, therefore making most air units incredibly hard to use. The only real reason why dropships can actually get past a turret blockade is because there a lot of other things to get shot down. Now the players can just double click a turret, then right click a dropship. Instant death of the dropship. Now they just need to repeat it a few more times, and the threat of a drop is nearly 0. Carriers really only survive against turrets and spores and cannons because the interceptors take the hits, then get healed when they return to the carrier, resulting in the carrier never getting into the combat and taking hits. Once a carrier starts taking hits, it falls fairly quickly. With MBS, carriers will start to take the hits, and carriers will be harder to use. The lack of air unit and transport effectiveness will result in the air units being entirely support, and this will make strategies less diverse. In addition to the lack of air resulting in less diversity in strategies, most offensive moves will come down to mass production or range, since people can now micro buildings.
[Edit]And to Titanidis, you're forgetting one major fact. Savior also has MBS. So in addition to making sunkens and microing them to kill medics, two keys can be used to produce units, therefore giving Savior a very large advantage of sunkens + units, with the unit count increasing, while Nada's medic count will remain around the same.
On October 01 2007 03:07 TheShizno wrote: Something that should be noted by the people saying that MBS will not affect balance. The example given in the OP shows how balance will, in fact, be affected.
People can now focus fire cannons and sunkens, as well as turrets and spores, therefore making M&Ms nearly useless offensively, since the medics would just die to defensive buildings. And so they will either need to improve medics, which will end up imbalancing M&Ms, or they will need to nerf sunkens, which will then make it less useful against zealots and zerglings, or they will leave them as is, and terran will have pretty much no early game offensive units.
How about early tank push to spikehead the attack? Early M&M is currently not meant to be able to bust past a 4-5 sunk line in SC or else ZvT would be imbalanced, and every game would just require the Terran to mass up some infantry and auto-win. If the Zerg made less than 4 sunks with MBS, no matter how much focus firing is used, you won't even be able to take down one medic in one hit, and meanwhile one of your sunks is going down fast. Cannons already >>> M&M focus fire or not. None of this will change.
On October 01 2007 03:07 TheShizno wrote: Also, air units can now be focus fired down, therefore making most air units incredibly hard to use. The only real reason why dropships can actually get past a turret blockade is because there a lot of other things to get shot down. Now the players can just double click a turret, then right click a dropship. Instant death of the dropship. Now they just need to repeat it a few more times, and the threat of a drop is nearly 0.
Air units are already being focus fired down by MM. Ever watched a ZvT? Dropships/shuttles usually come alone right now. Adding focus fire ability wouldn't change this situation at all. If you mean an ovie drop where units start unloading onto cannons, then this would still work, as even if some ovies are lost before completely unloading, it don't take long to start pouring out and destroy the defense. Another solution would be to bring a few decoy overlords at the front with no units to soak the incoming focus fire.
On October 01 2007 03:07 TheShizno wrote: Carriers really only survive against turrets and spores and cannons because the interceptors take the hits, then get healed when they return to the carrier, resulting in the carrier never getting into the combat and taking hits. Once a carrier starts taking hits, it falls fairly quickly. With MBS, carriers will start to take the hits, and carriers will be harder to use.
Carrier range > turrets. Also, by this reasoning goliaths should be severely imbalanced vs carriers. Why do Toss even bother to get them when it's clearly suicide against all the focus fire.
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.
Please say no to MBS.
However Nada with MBS has better macro, so medics keep coming fast with additional marines, Savior pumps exacty as much lings as he needs + more sunks, so a continuous battle keeps raging on in front of saviors' base, while the two pros continue pumping units while teching-droping and expanding. So a 10 minutes' non stop battle takes place in the studio, the terrain is full of corpses,the commentators are yelling and korean girls scream the names SAvior, Nada... What a game!
An example of how a MBS can make a RTS game better.
At that early in the game, Nada will have perfect macro anyways.And if Savior can't judge larvae count correctly, he would suck MBS or no MBS. And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it, and the FPVODs would be them focusing on their own units 90% of the time like current BW noobs.
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.
Please say no to MBS.
However Nada with MBS has better macro, so medics keep coming fast with additional marines, Savior pumps exacty as much lings as he needs + more sunks, so a continuous battle keeps raging on in front of saviors' base, while the two pros continue pumping units while teching-droping and expanding. So a 10 minutes' non stop battle takes place in the studio, the terrain is full of corpses,the commentators are yelling and korean girls scream the names SAvior, Nada... What a game!
An example of how a MBS can make a RTS game better.
At that early in the game, Nada will have perfect macro anyways.And if Savior can't judge larvae count correctly, he would suck MBS or no MBS. And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it, and the FPVODs would be them focusing on their own units 90% of the time like current BW noobs.
So just beacuse noobs focus on their army in BW its boring to watch pros focusing on their army?
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.
Please say no to MBS.
However Nada with MBS has better macro, so medics keep coming fast with additional marines, Savior pumps exacty as much lings as he needs + more sunks, so a continuous battle keeps raging on in front of saviors' base, while the two pros continue pumping units while teching-droping and expanding. So a 10 minutes' non stop battle takes place in the studio, the terrain is full of corpses,the commentators are yelling and korean girls scream the names SAvior, Nada... What a game!
An example of how a MBS can make a RTS game better.
At that early in the game, Nada will have perfect macro anyways.And if Savior can't judge larvae count correctly, he would suck MBS or no MBS. And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it, and the FPVODs would be them focusing on their own units 90% of the time like current BW noobs.
So just beacuse noobs focus on their army in BW its boring to watch pros focusing on their army?
On October 01 2007 03:37 thoraxe wrote: Dont' worry, if SC2 will suck balls like everyone fears, we can all go back to SC1.
This is a very good argument for the pro mbs side, why try to make a game as good as BW when you can try to make it better?
Eventhough its easier to copy bw, if we do that we will never surpass it and thus the whole game is useless since we can just as well play bw.
However if they succeed well get an even better game than before.
All of the starcraft fans wont migrate to starcraft 2 if mbs flops it, just like they didnt migrate to wc3 since wc3's hero system and popcap and all that flopped it.
On October 01 2007 03:37 thoraxe wrote: Dont' worry, if SC2 will suck balls like everyone fears, we can all go back to SC1.
This is a very good argument for the pro mbs side, why try to make a game as good as BW when you can try to make it better?
Eventhough its easier to copy bw, if we do that we will never surpass it and thus the whole game is useless since we can just as well play bw.
However if they succeed well get an even better game than before.
All of the starcraft fans wont migrate to starcraft 2 if mbs flops it, just like they didnt migrate to wc3 since wc3's hero system and popcap and all that flopped it.
Because you will be killing the BW community by doing so. The BW community has withstood so much and built up so much for itself without Blizzard's help. PGT being built up, then being hacked, WGT being owned by Blizzard - now if Blizzard kills us with SCII that we never thought was coming out - oh the irony.
On October 01 2007 03:25 orangedude wrote: How about early tank push to spikehead the attack? Early M&M is currently not meant to be able to bust past a 4-5 sunk line in SC or else ZvT would be imbalanced, and every game would just require the Terran to mass up some infantry and auto-win. If the Zerg made less than 4 sunks with MBS, no matter how much focus firing is used, you won't even be able to take down one medic in one hit, and meanwhile one of your sunks is going down fast. That won't change much.
I suppose that adding in a few tanks to take down a few sunkens with M&M support would actually work pretty well compared to just using M&Ms. But the way I view M&Ms is that the marines take the hits and heal so quickly that they don't die right away. Because of the rapid healing, I can generally kill a few sunkens before my marines die off. If they player could focus fire and kill a few medics, then my healing power will be greatly reduced, but you do have a good points, and really all MBS will do here is affect strategies and not balance.
Air units are already being focus fired down by MM. Ever watched a ZvT? Dropships/shuttles usually come alone right now. Adding focus fire ability wouldn't change this situation at all. If you mean an ovie drop where units start unloading onto cannons, then this would still work, as even if some ovies are lost before completely unloading, it don't take long to start pouring out and destroy the defense. Another solution would be to bring a few decoy overlords at the front with no units to soak the incoming focus fire.
Actually, I haven't watched many ZvT games, so generally I go by what people talk about, and from what I've heard, people used things like matrixed wraiths to take hits, or using many transports to drop at a time, but apparently I'm a bit behind the times. So I suppose my point doesn't quite work anymore.
Carrier range > turrets. Also, by this reasoning goliaths should be severely imbalanced vs carriers. Why do Toss even bother to get them when it's clearly suicide against all the focus fire.
I think that the reason why goliaths aren't imbalanced is because goliaths are quite weak compared to a carrier, and I'm pretty sure a carrier can run away much better. I think it all really goes down to micro (if we exclude the variable of massing). Whoever can micro better will win over the other force, provided reinforcements don't arrive.
But, since carriers outrange turrets, it actually seems that balance generally won't be affected too much, if current tactics are used. Interesting. So really only shorter range units would get affected by defensive building focus fire, and zealots and zerglings tend to travel fast enough to avoid getting killed incredibly quickly even when being focus fired.
Ok, I think that all my points were countered, and pretty well at that. Balance won't be affected greatly by MBS.
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.
On October 01 2007 00:17 Manit0u wrote: Edit: I also checked if the thread creator is someone who has contributed here in any way and all I can think of is that's a person who appeared here when the SC2 forum showed up.
I see a lot of people trying to get into the hardcore starcraft community(Or any large and strong community for that matter) by trying to agree with everything the "Cool" guys say.
Theyre just the average pawn trying to get accepted to a strong group wich will strengthen their ego. Now i dont say that the OP here is such a person, just that ive a lot of posts wich are very likely to be with this purpose on this forum.
Ehh, I don't know artosis well but he's one of the most dedicated BW players outside korea lol
On October 01 2007 03:07 TheShizno wrote: Something that should be noted by the people saying that MBS will not affect balance. The example given in the OP shows how balance will, in fact, be affected.
People can now focus fire cannons and sunkens, as well as turrets and spores, therefore making M&Ms nearly useless offensively, since the medics would just die to defensive buildings. And so they will either need to improve medics, which will end up imbalancing M&Ms, or they will need to nerf sunkens, which will then make it less useful against zealots and zerglings, or they will leave them as is, and terran will have pretty much no early game offensive units.
How about early tank push to spikehead the attack? Early M&M is currently not meant to be able to bust past a 4-5 sunk line in SC or else ZvT would be imbalanced, and every game would just require the Terran to mass up some infantry and auto-win. If the Zerg made less than 4 sunks with MBS, no matter how much focus firing is used, you won't even be able to take down one medic in one hit, and meanwhile one of your sunks is going down fast. Cannons already >>> M&M focus fire or not. None of this will change.
On October 01 2007 03:07 TheShizno wrote: Also, air units can now be focus fired down, therefore making most air units incredibly hard to use. The only real reason why dropships can actually get past a turret blockade is because there a lot of other things to get shot down. Now the players can just double click a turret, then right click a dropship. Instant death of the dropship. Now they just need to repeat it a few more times, and the threat of a drop is nearly 0.
Air units are already being focus fired down by MM. Ever watched a ZvT? Dropships/shuttles usually come alone right now. Adding focus fire ability wouldn't change this situation at all. If you mean an ovie drop where units start unloading onto cannons, then this would still work, as even if some ovies are lost before completely unloading, it don't take long to start pouring out and destroy the defense. Another solution would be to bring a few decoy overlords at the front with no units to soak the incoming focus fire.
On October 01 2007 03:07 TheShizno wrote: Carriers really only survive against turrets and spores and cannons because the interceptors take the hits, then get healed when they return to the carrier, resulting in the carrier never getting into the combat and taking hits. Once a carrier starts taking hits, it falls fairly quickly. With MBS, carriers will start to take the hits, and carriers will be harder to use.
Carrier range > turrets. Also, by this reasoning goliaths should be severely imbalanced vs carriers. Why do Toss even bother to get them when it's clearly suicide against all the focus fire.
mnm focus firing on air units is different than building focus firing on air units
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.
Obviously, but for a thriving pro-scene to be possible like in Korea, the ratio of casual gamers to pro-gamers must be like 10:1 at least for it to be successful. If it were marketable, they would be broadcasting games in dual FP mode or something instead of observer mode.
On October 01 2007 03:37 thoraxe wrote: Dont' worry, if SC2 will suck balls like everyone fears, we can all go back to SC1.
This is a very good argument for the pro mbs side, why try to make a game as good as BW when you can try to make it better?
Eventhough its easier to copy bw, if we do that we will never surpass it and thus the whole game is useless since we can just as well play bw.
However if they succeed well get an even better game than before.
All of the starcraft fans wont migrate to starcraft 2 if mbs flops it, just like they didnt migrate to wc3 since wc3's hero system and popcap and all that flopped it.
Because you will be killing the BW community by doing so. The BW community has withstood so much and built up so much for itself without Blizzard's help. PGT being built up, then being hacked, WGT being owned by Blizzard - now if Blizzard kills us with SCII that we never thought was coming out - oh the irony.
But it wont kill the bw competetive community if the competetive community dont want to get killed by it.
If mbs turns out to be a disaster the competetive community will stay just like every other such happening in gaming history. However if it turns out to not be a disaster the community will migrate slowly when they notice that it aint as bad as they initially thought, but as long as their fears come true this migration sc->sc2 wont happen on the more hardcore levels.
If the migration occurs it means that most of the community has accepted the change, wich means the change didnt destroy the game, wich in turn means that anyone here except the most extreme fans will be able to convert to it without to much troubble.
On October 01 2007 00:17 Manit0u wrote: Edit: I also checked if the thread creator is someone who has contributed here in any way and all I can think of is that's a person who appeared here when the SC2 forum showed up.
I see a lot of people trying to get into the hardcore starcraft community(Or any large and strong community for that matter) by trying to agree with everything the "Cool" guys say.
Theyre just the average pawn trying to get accepted to a strong group wich will strengthen their ego. Now i dont say that the OP here is such a person, just that ive a lot of posts wich are very likely to be with this purpose on this forum.
Ehh, I don't know artosis well but he's one of the most dedicated BW players outside korea lol
Im not into sc names and as i said i didnt say this had to be true for the OP its just that i saw it as a trend in this question. Ive seen a few posts that were obviously like that though
It will. Right now there are still new players coming to SC. That will be completely gone due to SC2. Half the competitive community will migrate even if they don't like the game as much, simply because its so hard to get ahead in BW now with the established gosus, and SC2 is the bigger, more glamorous game with companies like MYM sponsoring them all. They will play SC2, get good at it, then quit because it doesn't have the staying power of BW. The already diminishing foreign BW community will be effectively completely gone with no new blood and no incentive to play beyond following the pro scene. 1-2 years down the line, Brood War might be phased out from WCG in favor of SC2, and it will be confined to Korean progaming (even that might be affected by people playing SC2) with a fringe foreign community barely better than Warcraft 2.
These are all the costs you have to think about if you don't make SC2 live up exactly to the original.
On October 01 2007 03:58 orangedude wrote: It's kinda like CS 1.6 and Source. The competitive community went back to 1.6 after a while, and it's still doing fine.
CS, and FPS in general, has a lot more fans and roots among the Western community than RTSes do.
arguing hypotheticals always sucks because of the natural differences in people's thinking. everyone always imagines slightly different situations, each person's situation always supporting his initial premise. so arguing about hypotheticals just makes reaffirms each person's own, different beliefs. what i'm driving at is that it's obviously stupid to suggest any over-simplified hypothetical (and almost all of them are oversimplified in this thread).
instead, i think that the intelligent way to approach this thread is to recognize that there is a lot more legitimate RTS authority behind the people saying no to MBS than there is behind the people saying yes to it. barring any nicks i'm unfamiliar with, every really good starcraft player in this thread has said that they think MBS is going to hurt the competitive aspect of the game. those people who can actually play RTS's competitively obviously have a better chance at guessing what would make an RTS good for competitive play than those who don't, and seeing that every good player is in unanimous agreement that MBS would be bad, well, that seems to me to say that the burden of some kind of 'deductive proof' falls pretty heavily on the side that says MBS might improve something.
essentially all MBS is doing is making the game significantly easier. an easy hypothetical for us all to consider from sc1 (which presumably will reappear in sc2) is an end-game situation where (for ease of understanding) a terran has roughly a dozen factories and a protoss has upwards of 20+ gates. now obviously there's no question of 4d5d6d7d78z9z0z or what have you. each player is having to spend significant amounts of time clicking through their buildings. obviously if what is easily a 3 to 5 second process, looking at each gate and building a unit, is reduced to a quarter of a second's 1z2d3a then diversity is satisfied and the MBC-using player has the same army in a ~12th to a 20th the time. consider that same macro advantage occuring unto infinity, and the simple calculus of it requires that MBC reduces necessary macro APM enormously.
i imagine that's the sort of thought process that's making most good starcraft players say 'uh...'
for all of you expecting blizzard to act as some kind of god entity and to make perfect decisions that even the most insightful and best of sc-players think of as obvious errors, remember, blizzard is a great company but as has been said many times before on these forums, the incredible success of starcraft was a combination of brilliance and incredible coincidence. yeah, blizzard can make great games, but it wasn't shear producer-side mechanical and creative skills that turned starcraft into what it is. starcraft's success owes itself to a huge number of unforeseen player-side factors - walls, lurker holds, great map makers, the fastest game setting lol, the almost certainly unforeseen style of tvp, etc. so, don't be content with some kind of wacky religious faith in a company that has long since lost some of the brilliant individuals who are responsible for its greatest products. seriously consider what all these great players are saying and don't dismiss them because they don't fit a modus ponens logical form. and certainly, if you agree with them but take some queer satisfaction in straw-manning their inductive arguments, just stop. either constructively correct them by putting their arguments into appropriate logical form (which i would be overwhelmingly surprised if you could actually do) or learn to appreciate the beauty of inductive logic and try to see where all these great players think differently than you do (after all, their style of thinking has at least lent them some success in a completely empirical arena which by your own arguments is not simply practice and mechanics)
On October 01 2007 01:04 IdrA wrote: that would be true, if he was complaining about balance. he was talking about how it would dumb down the game, prevent all the diversity that is available in the progaming scene right now. the fact that there are many different components to being a good sc player means that people can have different styles, play different ways, and still be succesful. adding mbs(taking away macro) essentially kills the oovs and pusans of progaming, and all the sudden casy and boxer are much less special as they are all thats left.
I just really can't understand why so many people think that: MBS = no macro... It's different, but it's still there, and it can be even harder at times than SCBW macro.
I'm still waiting for someone to put a coherent and really neat run down on this subject backed up by examples (NOT JUST FROM SCBW FFS!!!) when trying to prove this statement.
@ Artosis: No offence man, sometimes my hands type faster than my head
On October 01 2007 01:04 IdrA wrote: that would be true, if he was complaining about balance. he was talking about how it would dumb down the game, prevent all the diversity that is available in the progaming scene right now. the fact that there are many different components to being a good sc player means that people can have different styles, play different ways, and still be succesful. adding mbs(taking away macro) essentially kills the oovs and pusans of progaming, and all the sudden casy and boxer are much less special as they are all thats left.
I just really can't understand why so many people think that: MBS = no macro... It's different, but it's still there, and it can be even harder at times than SCBW macro.
I'm still waiting for someone to put a coherent and really neat run down on this subject backed up by examples (NOT JUST FROM SCBW FFS!!!) when trying to prove this statement.
@ Artosis: No offence man, sometimes my hands type faster than my head
When it comes down to it, it's hard to discuss much about SC2. We don't know what challenges will lie ahead for competitive gamers of SC2. We can only assume, based on how SCBW, War3, and other RTS's work, and from what Blizz has shown us. But at the end of the day, we have no idea what will be lacking in SC2 and whether taking about MBS from it will fix it.
We saw in War2BNE when Blizz added some interface abilities to War2, and new game speeds. But how do we measure the success of these changes? There are so many reasons why War2BNE didn't overtake SCBW; it's an older game, launched AFTER a better, newer game was already available; Blizz abandoned it and hacks ran wild and there was no good ladder for it; no pro gaming to keep people's interest.
We can say similar things about every RTS compared to SCBW. So it is hard to prove that an RTS must be this or that, to be as good as SCBW, because there are no examples.
On October 01 2007 04:01 Failsafe wrote: instead, i think that the intelligent way to approach this thread is to recognize that there is a lot more legitimate RTS authority behind the people saying no to MBS than there is behind the people saying yes to it. barring any nicks i'm unfamiliar with, every really good starcraft player in this thread has said that they think MBS is going to hurt the competitive aspect of the game. those people who can actually play RTS's competitively obviously have a better chance at guessing what would make an RTS good for competitive play than those who don't, and seeing that every good player is in unanimous agreement that MBS would be bad, well, that seems to me to say that the burden of some kind of 'deductive proof' falls pretty heavily on the side that says MBS might improve something.
The falacy of this logic though is that you dont analyse what type of person the average big name sc player is.
We can add some general facts: 1.Almost all games got people who worships it, just that starcraft got more than most of its genre. 2.People playing a game for such a long time that these induviduals have played starcraft can be considered in that category since if they werent they wouldve gotten bored by it and moving on to something less good but still new. 3.People that worships a game have a very hard time seeing the flaws of the game and will defend those and attack other games endlessly rather than admit that theyre actually flaws, mu´ch beacuse these gamers have so strong feelings for the game. 4:Now since these persons generally have a quite limited experience with other games(Well, obviously since those suck in their oppinions) we can assume that they dont have much experience from different ways of applying game mechanics.
If we clump these together we can see that even if mbs wouldnt hurt the game much they would still believe so. If they are high ranked sc players it doesnt make their arguments stronger, instead it makes them more predictable and weak since they have to much strong feelings tied to starcraft and usually less experience with other games than no namers.
On October 01 2007 03:43 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
Well if thats true Blizzard won\'t be asking TL.net for advice. The very fact that they do suggests that they respect skill in the game and the experience accrued from that. You are free to disagree, but the very nature of Blizzard\'s request is that they want established opinion.
On October 01 2007 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
On October 01 2007 04:20 Aphelion wrote: Well if thats true Blizzard won\'t be asking TL.net for advice. The very fact that they do suggests that they respect skill in the game and the experience accrued from that. You are free to disagree, but the very nature of Blizzard\'s request is that they want established opinion.
They want all oppinions.
And highly skilled players oppinions are valued for what they are, same as noob oppinions are valued for what they are. A noobs oppinion isnt worse/better than a pro's overall its just that it concerns different things.
And as a general rule theres a ton more noobs than pro's, so while they can always find answers from the noobs since they are everywere pros arent that easy to find wich can make pro oppinions more precious since theyre rarer.
On October 01 2007 03:43 orangedude wrote: But you don\'t see the multitasking except in FPVOD. TV matches are broadcast in observer mode where 95% of the game is focused on the battle.
Therein lies the difference between the casual watcher and the ones who actually play the game - we appreciate what goes on in the game deeper than simple looks and flashy lights.
But when very little happens in the game no one appreciate what goes on. TvT requires more skill than TvZ to be entertaining for every watcher. But what match up is more spectacular? Players are doing a lot of things in TvT but it's boring even for those who understand game deeper unless battle is between monsters like Nada or Iris - in other words, unless players are skilled enough to show enough aggression. If we make TvT more dynamic, that relatively "bad" progamers would be more entertaining to watch match-up definitely gain spectators. And making whole game more dynamic definitely can't be bad. That's
And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it
utterly fallacious >_>
I actually really like watching professional TvT -_-a.
I avoid it like the plague. I'll watch any match-up in the game except ZvZ or TvT, unless they're both big-name players.
On October 01 2007 04:02 Manit0u wrote: I just really can't understand why so many people think that: MBS = no macro... It's different, but it's still there, and it can be even harder at times than SCBW macro.
I'm still waiting for someone to put a coherent and really neat run down on this subject backed up by examples (NOT JUST FROM SCBW FFS!!!) when trying to prove this statement.
@ Artosis: No offence man, sometimes my hands type faster than my head
this is a pretty weighty thing for you to say when in your next sentence you admit that no one has actually explained it. as i said, the burden of proof lies solely on the pro-MBS side. to be honest, the run down on multibuilding select is exactly as it seems. in spite of what most of the proMBS people have said, most people here who are good at starcraft have played a good number of other RTS's and actually have some experience with MBS. it's really pretty simple. it makes macro significantly quicker just as one would expect. there isn't some mystical, hidden element that somehow makes MBS macro slower than SBS.
On October 01 2007 04:20 Aphelion wrote: Well if thats true Blizzard won\'t be asking TL.net for advice. The very fact that they do suggests that they respect skill in the game and the experience accrued from that. You are free to disagree, but the very nature of Blizzard\'s request is that they want established opinion.
They want all oppinions.
And highly skilled players oppinions are valued for what they are, same as noob oppinions ar evalued for what they are. A noobs oppinion isnt worse/better than a pro's overall its just that it concerns different things.
And as a general rule theres a ton more noobs than pro's, so while they can always find answers from the noobs since they are everywere pros arent that easy to find.
If they wanted noob opinions, they'd have gone to their own Blizzard forums. That they didn't, and that they brought in progamers for practice (something they are advertising quite a bit), and bringing in some one like Pillars - clearly shows that they value gosu opinion much more. And if they don't, they should.
On October 01 2007 03:43 orangedude wrote: But you don\'t see the multitasking except in FPVOD. TV matches are broadcast in observer mode where 95% of the game is focused on the battle.
Therein lies the difference between the casual watcher and the ones who actually play the game - we appreciate what goes on in the game deeper than simple looks and flashy lights.
But when very little happens in the game no one appreciate what goes on. TvT requires more skill than TvZ to be entertaining for every watcher. But what match up is more spectacular? Players are doing a lot of things in TvT but it's boring even for those who understand game deeper unless battle is between monsters like Nada or Iris - in other words, unless players are skilled enough to show enough aggression. If we make TvT more dynamic, that relatively "bad" progamers would be more entertaining to watch match-up definitely gain spectators. And making whole game more dynamic definitely can't be bad. That's
And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it
utterly fallacious >_>
I actually really like watching professional TvT -_-a.
But you can't argue that even here at Tl.net there are much more "ones who actually play the game" who hate watching TvT than those who hate watching more dynamic TvZ.
On October 01 2007 04:01 Failsafe wrote: instead, i think that the intelligent way to approach this thread is to recognize that there is a lot more legitimate RTS authority behind the people saying no to MBS than there is behind the people saying yes to it.
The only intelligent way is to stop discussing *believes* and wait facts from Beta.
On October 01 2007 04:01 Failsafe wrote: instead, i think that the intelligent way to approach this thread is to recognize that there is a lot more legitimate RTS authority behind the people saying no to MBS than there is behind the people saying yes to it. barring any nicks i'm unfamiliar with, every really good starcraft player in this thread has said that they think MBS is going to hurt the competitive aspect of the game. those people who can actually play RTS's competitively obviously have a better chance at guessing what would make an RTS good for competitive play than those who don't, and seeing that every good player is in unanimous agreement that MBS would be bad, well, that seems to me to say that the burden of some kind of 'deductive proof' falls pretty heavily on the side that says MBS might improve something.
The falacy of this logic though is that you dont analyse what type of person the average big name sc player is.
We can add some general facts: 1.Almost all games got people who worships it, just that starcraft got more than most of its genre. 2.People playing a game for such a long time that these induviduals have played starcraft can be considered in that category since if they werent they wouldve gotten bored by it and moving on to something less good but still new. 3.People that worships a game have a very hard time seeing the flaws of the game and will defend those and attack other games endlessly rather than admit that theyre actually flaws, mu´ch beacuse these gamers have so strong feelings for the game. 4:Now since these persons generally have a quite limited experience with other games(Well, obviously since those suck in their oppinions) we can assume that they dont have much experience from different ways of applying game mechanics.
If we clump these together we can see that even if mbs wouldnt hurt the game much they would still believe so. If they are high ranked sc players it doesnt make their arguments stronger, instead it makes them more predictable and weak since they have to much strong feelings tied to starcraft and usually less experience with other games than no namers.
lol at least half of the major players i was considering have blatently stated that they don't seriously care about MBS* because they're not attached to sc anymore and aren't going to play sc2 competitively. see liquiddrone's post in this very thread. As also stated in this thread, by artosis, many big name starcraft players have actually played a number of other RTS's, many with MBS. so, no.
Man, why dont we just have mbs for the single player campaign, and have mbs taken out for multiplayer? Or maybe have mbs mode on and mbs mode off categories like they do on bnet? Like the tvb and melee catagory of games.
On October 01 2007 03:43 orangedude wrote: But you don\'t see the multitasking except in FPVOD. TV matches are broadcast in observer mode where 95% of the game is focused on the battle.
Therein lies the difference between the casual watcher and the ones who actually play the game - we appreciate what goes on in the game deeper than simple looks and flashy lights.
But when very little happens in the game no one appreciate what goes on. TvT requires more skill than TvZ to be entertaining for every watcher. But what match up is more spectacular? Players are doing a lot of things in TvT but it's boring even for those who understand game deeper unless battle is between monsters like Nada or Iris - in other words, unless players are skilled enough to show enough aggression. If we make TvT more dynamic, that relatively "bad" progamers would be more entertaining to watch match-up definitely gain spectators. And making whole game more dynamic definitely can't be bad. That's
And the 10 minutes non stop battle would suck ass cuz any semi pro would do it
utterly fallacious >_>
I actually really like watching professional TvT -_-a.
But you can't argue that even here at Tl.net there are much more "ones who actually play the game" who hate watching TvT than those who hate watching more dynamic TvZ.
Oh yea definitely. I for one, can't understand anything that is going on in a ZvZ. I know its really intense and exciting to play, but I don't understand it. But I wouldn't want them to be the same as a TvZ or PvT anyways - each matchup should have its own flavor. I don't want everything to be flashy and exciting - then nothing would be really unique anymore. Its the fact that MUs like TvT exist that we can contrast it with PvZ. Its incredible how they are so different, yet manifest the same principles if you understand them. Same with macro, the casual watcher won't understand it, but it has a great charm of its own and underlies so much of the more flashy things you see.
On October 01 2007 04:01 Failsafe wrote: instead, i think that the intelligent way to approach this thread is to recognize that there is a lot more legitimate RTS authority behind the people saying no to MBS than there is behind the people saying yes to it.
The only intelligent way is to stop discussing *believes* and wait facts from Beta.
By which point MBS would have been implemented, our opinions are for naught, and its too late to change anything.
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.
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 04:20 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 04:01 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 04:20 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 04:20 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 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 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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!
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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
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).
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...
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
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.)
On October 01 2007 13:09 Aphelion wrote: 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.)
First off, as I have said before and just said in my last post, Blizzcon doesn't count, since that build didn't even have ZERG as a playable race, much less the unannounced features I'm talking about. If you wouldn't judge the SC as a game on the SC alpha, don't judge SC2 on the Blizzcon SC2 build.
Secondly, I think it was the abuse of super-greedy strategies, which I take to mean stuff like taking multiple expansions in quick succession to max as fast as possible, that allowed them to rape their competition more than MBS. If you double expand in SC and your opponent doesn't take advantage of it by harrassing you, you're going to win in the same way, MBS or no MBS. Also take in mind that the average player they played against was probably spending most of their time feeling out how the game looked and played, rather than seriously trying to beat the TL.netters.
EDIT: And I feel my lack of recent experience playing SC (though I watch it almost religiously) allows me to step away from my love of SC and look at the issue from a more neutral standpoint. Note that while my arguments tend to be more pro-MBS, I'm arguing more that there are consequences to removing MBS on the SC2 competitive community and that MBS won't necessarily hurt SC2's gameplay rather than that MBS is an improvement. I do respect the contributions of those more skilled in competitive RTS play than mine (esp. Nony, because he backs his concerns up better than his colleagues), but they are more liable to over-exaggerate or gloss over crucial points, resulting in posts that seem to me to be more emotion than logic. That's why I view their contributions as opinions, not fact, and argue against those points which I find illogical.
MBS will let you abuse a macro advantage much more easily. It will encourage greedy play. I think an analysis did by FA or some other poster showed that it will actually help veteran SC players more at the lower levels, reduce the likelihood of defensive comebacks, etc. The logical outcome with MBS and easy macro would be more people expanding as much as possible as economic advantage is quickly and easily realized. Nowadays, newer players commonly don't expand that much because they don't know how to utilize that economic advantage. For people wanting more old-school, micro games - you will be sorely disappointed.
If you think the only advantage a veteran SC player will have in SC2 is the interface - you really don't understand the gameplay nearly enough. Feel the game out a little instead of just posting. You will appreciate progaming in a totally different way.
I may be totally off base here, but what's keeping your opponent from harrassing you when you play greedily? I would think that with macro mechanics being comparatively easier, that killing a bunch of workers or killing an expansion while maintaining your own would lead to a much bigger advantage with MBS than without.
And I don't think that knowledge of the interface is the only advantage a veteran SC player will have, but it's certainly one of the major, if not the most major, advantage. And one of the clearest for less-experienced players to see. I didn't mention such concepts as multitasking, unit control, and keyboard/mouse skill because I was focusing on new players who had previous competitive experience in other RTSs, and so the veterans' skill with the SC interface would give them a comparatively larger advantage than increased skill in other areas as its the one of the few SC2 skills (if not the only) that that subset of new players are complete novices in but veterans aren't.
Harass is difficult to deal with when you have to multitask and macro. Thats what harass is - to steal your attention and mess up your macro. I believe MBS will make harass much easier to deal with, and the economic loss you get from unsuccessful harass will set you back even more now that its so easy to macro. Either way, harass will be much more ordinary and less exciting both from the aggressor and defender's viewpoint.
While the top players from other RTSes will certainly stake out the name in SC2, I believe that the overall base of SC fans is much much deeper and more superior. Its really not comparable. What other game do you see players strutting around with their APM like an e-penis?
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?
No idea what that has to do with my question, but I'm genuinely curious what people think about multiple unit selection (MUS). I'd like to explore and discuss what consequences that may or may not have on gameplay, and if the lack of it would have made the original starcraft better, and if it's analogous to the current discussion of MBS.
Edit: In other words, "Let's imagine SC1 without MUS."
No idea what that has to do with my question, but I'm genuinely curious what people think about multiple unit selection (MUS). I'd like to explore and discuss what consequences that may or may not have on gameplay, and if the lack of it would have made the original starcraft better, and if it's analogous to the current discussion of MBS.
Edit: In other words, "Let's imagine SC1 without MUS."
if you're serious in your analogy, then take a moment to reflect on the slippery slope fallacy and contemplate how you're probably committing it. also consider false analogy as a logical fallacy.
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?
No idea what that has to do with my question, but I'm genuinely curious what people think about multiple unit selection (MUS). I'd like to explore and discuss what consequences that may or may not have on gameplay, and if the lack of it would have made the original starcraft better, and if it's analogous to the current discussion of MBS.
Edit: In other words, "Let's imagine SC1 without MUS."
Oh, don't play dumb. You know exactly what my question has to do with yours.
No idea what that has to do with my question, but I'm genuinely curious what people think about multiple unit selection (MUS). I'd like to explore and discuss what consequences that may or may not have on gameplay, and if the lack of it would have made the original starcraft better, and if it's analogous to the current discussion of MBS.
Edit: In other words, "Let's imagine SC1 without MUS."
if you're serious in your analogy, then take a moment to reflect on the slippery slope fallacy and contemplate how you're probably committing it. also consider false analogy as a logical fallacy.
How is it a slippery slope? I'm specifically talking about the example he gave, where the sunkens are focus attacking the medics. MUS and MBS are similar in the example he gave are they not? If you disagree that they're analogous, then tell me why.
If you want to talk about logical fallicies, I've read several in this thread, including one where someone mentioned how no RTS games have been better since StarCraft, and since they all included MBS, therefore MBS sucks.
On October 01 2007 13:53 Aphelion wrote: Harass is difficult to deal with when you have to multitask and macro. Thats what harass is - to steal your attention and mess up your macro. I believe MBS will make harass much easier to deal with, and the economic loss you get from unsuccessful harass will set you back even more now that its so easy to macro. Either way, harass will be much more ordinary and less exciting both from the aggressor and defender's viewpoint.
DISCLAIMER: This is all conjecture on my part, since I obviously don't have a feature-complete copy of SC2 on my hands to test my hypotheses.
Early/mid-game harrass would still be effective with that reasoning, as the macro involved in those stages of the game isn't really affected by MBS - it's still more BOs, expo timing, supply timing, etc. at that point. Also, with MBS the minor resource advantages a player gains from semi-successful harass are amplified, so even causing your opponent to retreat some of their workers, or place down static defenses, or mistime their expansion or their other buildings will be easier for a decent player to take advantage of. If the harrass manages to do actual damage to your opponent's economy, then you get even more of an advantage with MBS than without. I do agree that harrass will be more risky with MBS, though, due to the increased advantage your opponent gets from you pursuing a low-econ strat.
And by the way, I am anti-MBS regarding static defense, since it seems to make them overpowered - it's like saying in TF2 that an engineer can control his sentry gun. It's easier to limit MBS to unit-producing buildings than to try and re-balance the static defenses to adjust for player control.
No idea what that has to do with my question, but I'm genuinely curious what people think about multiple unit selection (MUS). I'd like to explore and discuss what consequences that may or may not have on gameplay, and if the lack of it would have made the original starcraft better, and if it's analogous to the current discussion of MBS.
Edit: In other words, "Let's imagine SC1 without MUS."
if you're serious in your analogy, then take a moment to reflect on the slippery slope fallacy and contemplate how you're probably committing it. also consider false analogy as a logical fallacy.
How is it a slippery slope? I'm specifically talking about the example he gave, where the sunkens are focus attacking the medics. MUS and MBS are similar in the example he gave are they not? If you disagree that they're analogous, then tell me why.
If you want to talk about logical fallicies, I've read several in this thread, including one where someone mentioned how no RTS games have been better since StarCraft, and since they all included MBS, therefore MBS sucks.
your question was terribly underexplained hence all the confusion. defensive static structures are completely different than production buildings. anyway you've just committed yet another logical fallacy, see ad hominem tu quoque, except even worse since the person you're leveling your remark against isn't even the one who made the previous errors.
beyond that i think that you do bring up an interesting issue in whether MBS could be effectively applied to static defensive structures but not to production structures. i like the idea of MBS applied to static structures myself, because it adds a dynamic to the game and the trouble that artosis suggested with the m&m vs sunken example could be addressed in the game's structure.
as for any serious comparison between MUS and MBS where production buildings are concerned, you'd definitely be slippery sloping yourself if you tried it
No idea what that has to do with my question, but I'm genuinely curious what people think about multiple unit selection (MUS). I'd like to explore and discuss what consequences that may or may not have on gameplay, and if the lack of it would have made the original starcraft better, and if it's analogous to the current discussion of MBS.
Edit: In other words, "Let's imagine SC1 without MUS."
if you're serious in your analogy, then take a moment to reflect on the slippery slope fallacy and contemplate how you're probably committing it. also consider false analogy as a logical fallacy.
How is it a slippery slope? I'm specifically talking about the example he gave, where the sunkens are focus attacking the medics. MUS and MBS are similar in the example he gave are they not? If you disagree that they're analogous, then tell me why.
If you want to talk about logical fallicies, I've read several in this thread, including one where someone mentioned how no RTS games have been better since StarCraft, and since they all included MBS, therefore MBS sucks.
your question was terribly underexplained hence all the confusion. defensive static structures are completely different than production buildings. anyway you've just committed yet another logical fallacy, see ad hominem tu quoque, except even worse since the person you're leveling your remark against isn't even the one who made the previous errors.
beyond that i think that you do bring up an interesting issue in whether MBS could be effectively applied to static defensive structures but not to production structures. i like the idea of MBS applied to static structures myself, because it adds a dynamic to the game and the trouble that artosis suggested with the m&m vs sunken example could be addressed in the game's structure.
as for any serious comparison between MUS and MBS where production buildings are concerned, you'd definitely slippery sloping yourself if you tried it
Ok, so let's clarify something. The OP is complaining about MBS in general, but the example he gives is specifically regarding sunkens focus attacking medics.
The OP is complaining that MBS allows static defense buildings to focus target enemy units. Units can already do this obviously. He claims that if SC2 has this feature, then it will ruin the game (because it's less clicks which we all know = less skill).
I'm flipping this argument the other way and exploring whether the lack of MUS would have made SC1 a better game since it would have forced the player to use more clicks and made focus targetting more of a skill based thing.
I'm hoping that we can come to agree that his example (sunkens vs medics) does not prove that MBS sucks, so we can move on to the real issue which is how MBS relates to production buildings.
then i'll stick with what i just said as far as static fighting buildings, and continue to suggest that you consider slippery slopes/sorites paradoxes. an embryo is not a child and a child is not an adult. an acorn is not a tree and although it's ok to hug your sister it's not ok for you to have sex with her unless you're from the same state as me.
differences in degree redefine things. MUS is not at all like MBS in that without MBS starcraft has a beautiful blend of micro, macro, and strategy whereas of course it could not function at all without MUS. I suspect that this was your attempt at a reductio argument and of course it fails because it commits a slippery slope fallacy in equating two things that are very different in degree. you're trying to take the learning curve of starcraft, which is a continuum, and treat it as almost black and white where any two things that make the game easier or more difficult can be equated.
hopefully this explains why you're wrong, but obviously it's somewhat slippery, being a paradox and all
I am sure my post won't get any more attention than any other. I will give an argument anti-MBS that I do think has not been talked about here yet and I hope that the pro-MBS-speakers will know what I am talking about. I want you guys to think about it. Twice.
I am playing Terran no matter my nick and I love the fact that Terran is weak outside of Korea because that makes me proud to have a solid C rank on ICCUP right now. Terran is hard, Terran is disturbing, Terran is a burden. And if that wasn't enough already, Terran gameplay is not very human, instead I think it goes completely against our human nature. But I play Terran and sometimes I feel like being an artist. Yes, i have a point that actually got something to do with this topic, please have some more patience. Many of you may have noticed a strange feeling while playing Starcraft, 1v1 players have it more often. I am talking about a blank feeling and an empty mind in the middle of a game caused by the huge amount of information on the screen, targets to handle, fingers to move/press buttons and decisions to make. Sometimes it is so much that our human mind cannot handle it all and it takes a break from it. When this happens we all have a hard time getting our focus back to actually do something. Ask a Terran player who knows that feeling and what he thinks about it. I tell you what I think: It makes me feel small, so small... I think many piano players know the same feeling. Although it is ironic to feel small just because of stupid pixels on a screen (or notes on paper), yet I can't help it. I want to control my units/buildings/resources perfectly and I do my best but hell no I can't. I can't achieve perfection.
Now I tell you why that is: It is because I actually have to do something. Means i have to use my fingers. You know what I mean, motor function. Well... motor function got **** to do with an RTS, not? In a perfect RTS game it should be unneccessary to move a single part of your body, don't you think? Well i think so. Yes I do, no kidding. A perfect RTS game shouldn't need us to perform any kind of action. Our mind should do all the work alone.
Listen: Starcraft is not perfect. That's why I love it. Starcraft makes me an artist.
Now Blizzard Entertainment comes and gives us Starcraft 2 and this time they have a special goal, a goal they had for every game they ever made: they want to make it perfect for us. Means what exactly? They want to help us forget that we can be artists with our fingers! But then I cannot fall in love with the Terran in Starcraft 2! Can you? You know Blizzard Entertainment, they always keep a promise, they will make this game perfect, they will take out that blank feeling and that empty mind many of us know so well... I tell you what they want: they want us to feel comfortable playing a competitive game. Re-read this and laugh, please.
I do not like mbs because it takes aspects of starcraft that make it unique out. This would be like changing the rules on how to move a knight in chess just so beginners won\'t become discouraged. Pro gamers will no longer be able to distinguish themselves as well. Macro will be so easy that the game will turn towards seeing who has the best micro/timing. Imagine if starcraft broodwar was like that. Would anyone ever have recognized boxer, julyzerg, or kingdom for their agressive micro based style ? Would Iloveoov be a no name practice partner with his amazing macro being overlooked due to mbs? By taking out macro you are taking out the gap between gosus and pros. If mbs was in brood war then casual players would be able to go head to head with people that play everyday. Are you willing to sacrifice some of this games beauty just so that it brings more people in? Whats the point of playing a game that is a watered down version of its old self? In my ideal world sc2 would have the same concepts just a wider variety of units (or new race) and perhaps a minor change in graphics (not w3 graphics). This sc2 is not fit to be called sc\'s successor as it is practically looking like a totally different game altogether. Before you flame me ask yourself how long you have been playing starcraft for and at what level. I guarantee that most people that have been playing for a long time and have become good will be against mbs for the reasons listed and that most people that are not that good at the game or are new to the scene will want mbs. I hope that starcraft 2 will not be as different from brood war as it is currently looking. I also hope that everyone realizes that making a game easier means the new players it attracts will most likely not carry the same passion for it as the brood war players have for brood war. PS. im writing this and im exhausted so please excuse the badly worded sentences and horrible grammar.
On September 30 2007 21:50 Artosis3 wrote: lugggy : it takes away from the highest levels of play. we have a diverse pro scene in the best RTS game ever made for a reason. there are all sorts of ways you can interpret this beautiful game of starcraft and compete on the highest levels. MBS takes away most of this. if SC2 will be fast paced with many units then macro will be a big deal. taking away macro aspects in competitive play is not a good thing.
I dunno...but players in the highest level of play would have adjusted to MBS. IMHO, it doesn't really take away anything because players (the good ones anyway) will learn to adapt to it and do other stuff (potentially more intelligent macro stuff) instead of typing 0z9z8z every few seconds or so etc. The example that you gave (sunkens vs. m&m) would never happen if both players knew that each other can use MBS. Boxer (he is the Terran player in your example, right?) would know not to attack his m&ms against a row of sunkens that he knows can concentrate fire/rape his medics.
As of now, we really don't know how MBS really affect playstyle in SC2, save for the first impressions of other people who tried out SC2 @ blizzcon and others who had the privilege to try it out. Most examples in this forum are in the mold of applying MBS or smart casting in SC1 which wold make some SCBW units insanely powerful (templars and their Psi Storms for example) but Blizzard, IMHO, knows what they are doing and will design SC2 taking MBS into consideration.
On October 01 2007 13:09 Aphelion wrote: 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.)
Question: Did the TL.netters tried to rape each other at Blizzcon? Because if they did, then that be some awesome gaming in the sense that TL.netters would be using the most ridiculous strats against each other and that will certainly result in ridiculously enjoyable gaming! I am not sarcastic here, guys. I mean, instead of watching players (or worse, learning to) type in 9z8z7z etc., we would see more ridiculous plays like a drop pod here, a reaper backdoor, a Thor bombardment, stimmed marines w/ medics on frontal assault and all kinds of crazy strats all at the same time and then maintaining the steady stream of attacks with just pressing 1m. I agree that manual dexterity should still be a defining factor in SC2 but not in a way that will seem forced and/or unnecessary. Manual dexterity that is applied in coordinating diverse combat tactics and feints all at the same time is IMHO way better than using it on instructing 1 building to build a unit.
Would it be nicer if actions-per-minute will really mean attack/move/tactical maneuver-per-minute? and that building 1 marine in 5 barracks would just result in 1 apm? That possibly could lead to more explosive and exciting tactics, don't you think?
The argument for MBS seems to summarize down to one thing...that players with strong multitasking will have less opportunity to utilize their skills.
Here is a nice reasonable argument for MBS:
Yes, it will be easy to max. Yes, macro will no longer be so much of a strain on multitasking. However, once both players are maxed, that means there is nothing left to do but concentrate all tasks into microing a 200/200 battle on several fronts on the map. All that time spent on building units isn't going to vaporize into a dead zone - instead of microing a battle on 3 fronts, they'll be microing battles on 7 fronts. Harrassment will still be effective as long as you manage to kill some workers, for forcing a player to keep some units on defense, and for sheer mind game value alone.
The mental aspect of macro will probably become even more important, and I honestly believe that with all players having "perfect macro", if you want to call it that, build orders will become refined well into the 15 minute mark of the game. The other thing is how MBS works, or at least how it worked in warcraft 3: MBS attempts to create a unit in every barracks in your gate in the order that your gates are in the group. If you have 5 gates selected, gate #1 and gate #2 have a zealot training, and the rest are idle, and you only have 300 minerals, MBS in war3 would queue up units in gate 1, 2, and 3, and completely ignore the other two idle gates. Provided they don't change this, that means you'd need a heavily refined build order so that you have a perfect balance of workers, gateways, and minerals to produce from N rax in order to fully exploit MBS in the first place. This is what seperates you from iloveoov in the first place, not clicking on factories really fast.
Here is a somewhat sketchier argument against MBS, though I'm definitely raising a good point.
Flash back in time to when Blizzard was still patching the game. Back then, if you told people that 14 nexus/14 cc was a viable strategy, they would have thought you were fucking insane. If fast expo strats like that were considered viable back in ~2000, Blizzard most likely would have frowned upon it and increased the build times on Command Centers.
One final note:
A game does not become competitive because of aspects of the game itself, a game becomes competitive because the players push the game to its absolute limits. If they could turn somehow turn Halo 2 and Counterstrike, the two most newbie friendly FPS games ever, into serious competitve platforms, I'm not too worried about Starcraft 2 becoming a dilluted newbfest.
Removing MBS from a game inferior to SCBW is not going to be enough. I think you guys know this. So saying it will "ruin" SC2 is just wishful thinking. As many people have pointed out the game can up the demand on the player in literally any area of the game. War3 had MBS and it was worthless. I doubt SC2's matchups will demand the macro you guys are thinking of anyways. I don't even want MBS. I don't even like being able to set rally with right click and I refuse to do it. Hell I wish we were all playing War2. But ad hominem leads us nowhere; argument from authority leads us nowhere. MBS is not make or break in SC2 as far as anyone knows and it wouldn't even be make or break in SC1 if the game was going to be completely rebalanced after MBS was applied (which is what SC2 theoretically would go through had they decided against MBS). We should probably expect a less demanding game whether they have MBS or not.
On October 01 2007 20:18 Zanno wrote: Yes, it will be easy to max. Yes, macro will no longer be so much of a strain on multitasking. However, once both players are maxed, that means there is nothing left to do but concentrate all tasks into microing a 200/200 battle on several fronts on the map. All that time spent on building units isn't going to vaporize into a dead zone - instead of microing a battle on 3 fronts, they'll be microing battles on 7 fronts. Harrassment will still be effective as long as you manage to kill some workers, for forcing a player to keep some units on defense, and for sheer mind game value alone.
There are seriously diminishing returns to splitting your army that much. I don't think you want to split your army that much even if you could.
Edit: Even if MBS just means that APM gets spent on multifront micro, I don't want it. Its simply not the same as having your multitasking result in the brutal, quantifiable effect of a bigger army. Your version of SC2 sounds like a real pussified version of the game.
SC2 will not be a version of SCBW, it will be a new RTS with units that are named after SCBW units with a tech tree inspired by SCBW.
edit: more than that, hopefully, but still, it's not going to be a version of the game we love. it's something new with so many new ideas you can't talk about it like SCBW with a couple of modifications. all the matchups are from scratch--the map balances are going to have to be from scratch, and we go from there. so calling it a "pussified version" misses the point--it's not a version at all.
On October 01 2007 21:52 Aphelion wrote: Edit: Even if MBS just means that APM gets spent on multifront micro, I don't want it. Its simply not the same as having your multitasking result in the brutal, quantifiable effect of a bigger army. Your version of SC2 sounds like a real pussified version of the game.
Thats your oppinion though, and even if its shared by many on these forums its not shared by many on other forums.
You should get more units beacuse you outplay him by getting more expos or denying more expos, wich can be done with micro(To kill more worth of units to gain the mins to exp) or strategy(To kill his expos and knowing when its safe to expo yourself even if you dont always have the units to do it with brute force). As an effect micro and strategy can lead to you having macro advantages and thus it means that you can scrap together a huge army beacuse you are more skilled.
It makes the lategame macrofests into lategame multifront micro fests were both tries to get to their opponents supply lines and you have frenetic 200 vs 200 micro instead.
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.
I hope you are lucky enough to have seen Pusan PvT. He maxes in like 12 to 14 minutes. It is one of the most scary ridiculous things you can witness. An unreal amount of units everywhere so fast its overwhelming. With MBS suddenly hungtran doesn't need maphack to be good. He too can max in 12 to 14 minutes. 1z. Every gate is making zealots. 1click. All the gates are rallied to the same place. 1d. Every gate is making dragoons.
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 thought possible. This is his strength. He is a sloppy player but he makes up for that in pure macro. 1v2t. Look at me I'm iloveoov jr. Try it. 1v2t. Sorry oov you are out of a job. Even Casy can TvP now.
At low levels MBS won't make a difference. The smarter player will still win. Both newbies will still forget depots and make strategic blunders. They will attack poorly into a well defended position. The game will in essence be the same. MBS does not make the game more fun. No one has ever played SC1 and thought "well if this had MBS I would really like it".
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 same time. StarCraft is much older and much more well developed. Korea supports 300 progamers and all of them are at different levels of play. Not one player can macro like iloveoov except for iloveoov. There is no other protoss like Pusan. There is not another Reach. While we have a diverse and interesting pro scene that allows players to be macro style (oov and pusan) or to be micro style (boxer and casy) war3 does not. MBS makes games easier. Every time you make a game easier you hurt the competitive scene. Newbies will have fun either way.
Please say no to MBS.
You sir have obviously not met the protoss that is named Tempest)Is(, 11minute max anyone?
On October 01 2007 21:52 Aphelion wrote: Edit: Even if MBS just means that APM gets spent on multifront micro, I don't want it. Its simply not the same as having your multitasking result in the brutal, quantifiable effect of a bigger army. Your version of SC2 sounds like a real pussified version of the game.
Thats your oppinion though, and even if its shared by many on these forums its not shared by many on other forums.
You should get more units beacuse you outplay him by getting more expos or denying more expos, wich can be done with micro(To kill more worth of units to gain the mins to exp) or strategy(To kill his expos and knowing when its safe to expo yourself even if you dont always have the units to do it with brute force). As an effect micro and strategy can lead to you having macro advantages and thus it means that you can scrap together a huge army beacuse you are more skilled.
It makes the lategame macrofests into lategame multifront micro fests were both tries to get to their opponents supply lines and you have frenetic 200 vs 200 micro instead.
SC is a macro game. SC2 should stay that way. And Pros are already microing the way you said now - but macroing without MBS. MBS already makes maxing easier already, I don't want every game to turn into a sandbox 200/200 micro fest.
They can make maxing harder despite MBS, if that is so damned important.
For instance we could have a little box in the corner that you must click constantly to keep your supply limit up. But require them to press some keys while they do it. Maybe instead of a box, it could be a circle. Or a bunch of circles. They could start out big and get smaller and smaller, and come faster and faster, and if you misclick too many you auto-lose.
On October 01 2007 23:00 lugggy wrote: They can make maxing harder despite MBS, if that is so damned important.
For instance we could have a little box in the corner that you must click constantly to keep your supply limit up. But require them to press some keys while they do it. Maybe instead of a box, it could be a circle. Or a bunch of circles. They could start out big and get smaller and smaller, and come faster and faster, and if you misclick too many you auto-lose.
Genius idea, implement asap gogo. I think adding this and MBS together is a fair trade off. I don't want to hear anyone disagreeing with this. It obviously satisfies everyone's objections. Vote lugggy for Blizzard game balancer!
On October 01 2007 21:52 Aphelion wrote: Edit: Even if MBS just means that APM gets spent on multifront micro, I don't want it. Its simply not the same as having your multitasking result in the brutal, quantifiable effect of a bigger army. Your version of SC2 sounds like a real pussified version of the game.
Thats your oppinion though, and even if its shared by many on these forums its not shared by many on other forums.
You should get more units beacuse you outplay him by getting more expos or denying more expos, wich can be done with micro(To kill more worth of units to gain the mins to exp) or strategy(To kill his expos and knowing when its safe to expo yourself even if you dont always have the units to do it with brute force). As an effect micro and strategy can lead to you having macro advantages and thus it means that you can scrap together a huge army beacuse you are more skilled.
It makes the lategame macrofests into lategame multifront micro fests were both tries to get to their opponents supply lines and you have frenetic 200 vs 200 micro instead.
SC is a macro game. SC2 should stay that way. And Pros are already microing the way you said now - but macroing without MBS. MBS already makes maxing easier already, I don't want every game to turn into a sandbox 200/200 micro fest.
They wont ofcourse.
Roughly as many games that got to 200/200 in sc will get to that point in sc2 since untill you get a ton of factories and expos the effect of mbs is minimal.
And Pros are already microing the way you said now
Not really, when the armies gets big their micro and general army movements gets very very flawed compared to what it can be without mbs.
On October 01 2007 21:52 Aphelion wrote: Edit: Even if MBS just means that APM gets spent on multifront micro, I don't want it. Its simply not the same as having your multitasking result in the brutal, quantifiable effect of a bigger army. Your version of SC2 sounds like a real pussified version of the game.
Thats your oppinion though, and even if its shared by many on these forums its not shared by many on other forums.
You should get more units beacuse you outplay him by getting more expos or denying more expos, wich can be done with micro(To kill more worth of units to gain the mins to exp) or strategy(To kill his expos and knowing when its safe to expo yourself even if you dont always have the units to do it with brute force). As an effect micro and strategy can lead to you having macro advantages and thus it means that you can scrap together a huge army beacuse you are more skilled.
It makes the lategame macrofests into lategame multifront micro fests were both tries to get to their opponents supply lines and you have frenetic 200 vs 200 micro instead.
SC is a macro game. SC2 should stay that way. And Pros are already microing the way you said now - but macroing without MBS. MBS already makes maxing easier already, I don't want every game to turn into a sandbox 200/200 micro fest.
They wont ofcourse.
Roughly as many games that got to 200/200 in sc will get to that point in sc2 since untill you get a ton of factories and expos the effect of mbs is minimal.
And Pros are already microing the way you said now
Not really, when the armies gets big their micro and general army movements gets very very flawed compared to what it can be without mbs.
It should be flawed. Are you saying when you watch a tennis match you never see someone make a mistake? Its important that people make mistakes due to the games difficulty even at the highest level. It shows that there is still a way to go before perfection and that someone who is better can beat that person. Why should we be making the game viable for someone to play a perfect game?
On October 01 2007 21:52 Aphelion wrote: Edit: Even if MBS just means that APM gets spent on multifront micro, I don't want it. Its simply not the same as having your multitasking result in the brutal, quantifiable effect of a bigger army. Your version of SC2 sounds like a real pussified version of the game.
Thats your oppinion though, and even if its shared by many on these forums its not shared by many on other forums.
You should get more units beacuse you outplay him by getting more expos or denying more expos, wich can be done with micro(To kill more worth of units to gain the mins to exp) or strategy(To kill his expos and knowing when its safe to expo yourself even if you dont always have the units to do it with brute force). As an effect micro and strategy can lead to you having macro advantages and thus it means that you can scrap together a huge army beacuse you are more skilled.
It makes the lategame macrofests into lategame multifront micro fests were both tries to get to their opponents supply lines and you have frenetic 200 vs 200 micro instead.
SC is a macro game. SC2 should stay that way. And Pros are already microing the way you said now - but macroing without MBS. MBS already makes maxing easier already, I don't want every game to turn into a sandbox 200/200 micro fest.
They wont ofcourse.
Roughly as many games that got to 200/200 in sc will get to that point in sc2 since untill you get a ton of factories and expos the effect of mbs is minimal.
And Pros are already microing the way you said now
Not really, when the armies gets big their micro and general army movements gets very very flawed compared to what it can be without mbs.
It should be flawed. Are you saying when you watch a tennis match you never see someone make a mistake? Its important that people make mistakes due to the games difficulty even at the highest level. It shows that there is still a way to go before perfection and that someone who is better can beat that person. Why should we be making the game viable for someone to play a perfect game?
You say that anyone can micro a 200/200 army flawlessly unless its a carrier army?
On October 01 2007 21:52 Aphelion wrote: Edit: Even if MBS just means that APM gets spent on multifront micro, I don't want it. Its simply not the same as having your multitasking result in the brutal, quantifiable effect of a bigger army. Your version of SC2 sounds like a real pussified version of the game.
Thats your oppinion though, and even if its shared by many on these forums its not shared by many on other forums.
You should get more units beacuse you outplay him by getting more expos or denying more expos, wich can be done with micro(To kill more worth of units to gain the mins to exp) or strategy(To kill his expos and knowing when its safe to expo yourself even if you dont always have the units to do it with brute force). As an effect micro and strategy can lead to you having macro advantages and thus it means that you can scrap together a huge army beacuse you are more skilled.
It makes the lategame macrofests into lategame multifront micro fests were both tries to get to their opponents supply lines and you have frenetic 200 vs 200 micro instead.
SC is a macro game. SC2 should stay that way. And Pros are already microing the way you said now - but macroing without MBS. MBS already makes maxing easier already, I don't want every game to turn into a sandbox 200/200 micro fest.
They wont ofcourse.
Roughly as many games that got to 200/200 in sc will get to that point in sc2 since untill you get a ton of factories and expos the effect of mbs is minimal.
And Pros are already microing the way you said now
Not really, when the armies gets big their micro and general army movements gets very very flawed compared to what it can be without mbs.
It should be flawed. Are you saying when you watch a tennis match you never see someone make a mistake? Its important that people make mistakes due to the games difficulty even at the highest level. It shows that there is still a way to go before perfection and that someone who is better can beat that person. Why should we be making the game viable for someone to play a perfect game?
You say that anyone can micro a 200/200 army flawlessly unless its a carrier army?
I have absoultly no idea how you managed to come to that assumption from my post. My point was that its important that noone should be able to play a perfect game because the difficulty of the tasks that the player must do is beyond what they can handle.
i would never want to see players be flawlessy create a 200/200 army just so they can micro it. If you want that just play a micro map. being able to produce a 200/200 supply and keep it up is a part of starcraft, whats the point of making it so easy excluding that it will be more friendly for the less skilled players?
On October 02 2007 02:12 1sd2sd3sd wrote: i would never want to see players be flawlessy create a 200/200 army just so they can micro it. If you want that just play a micro map. being able to produce a 200/200 supply and keep it up is a part of starcraft, whats the point of making it so easy excluding that it will be more friendly for the less skilled players?
See, half the posters here don't even like or play Starcraft. They just want the flashy units, fanbase, storyline and progaming glamor of Starcraft in their own imaginary noob game with features perfectly suited to showcase their "strategic genius".
It should be flawed. Are you saying when you watch a tennis match you never see someone make a mistake? Its important that people make mistakes due to the games difficulty even at the highest level. It shows that there is still a way to go before perfection and that someone who is better can beat that person. Why should we be making the game viable for someone to play a perfect game?
You say that anyone can micro a 200/200 army flawlessly unless its a carrier army?
I can get maxed in a little over 11 minutes if the game allows it, i can control everything with ease by rebinding my army to hotkeys 1 thru 5 once i see my opponent leave his base. Microing a 200/200 army isn't hard if you've hotkeyed everything and practice this game enough. I've also had games where i have made every correct decision up to this point in time. Practice, practice, practice. This did not come to me naturally; and it shouldn't.
You also need to stop asserting that pros "really" can't do all that stuff i just said. I've seen savior, reach, oov and others do all of it cleaner than me and in first person. It's impressive to say the very least. It doesn't mean they do it every single game, or when the pressure is on the most, but they are still capable of doing it.
On October 02 2007 02:12 1sd2sd3sd wrote: i would never want to see players be flawlessy create a 200/200 army just so they can micro it. If you want that just play a micro map. being able to produce a 200/200 supply and keep it up is a part of starcraft, whats the point of making it so easy excluding that it will be more friendly for the less skilled players?
See, half the posters here don't even like or play Starcraft. They just want the flashy units, fanbase, storyline and progaming glamor of Starcraft in their own imaginary noob game with features perfectly suited to showcase their "strategic genius".
I can generalize the anti-MBS side as Starcraft fanboys who want to be good at SC2 as soon as it comes out without learning anything new. You guys have already made the game essentially SC1.5, now you want to get it closer to SC1.2? The danger is that appealing to the guys who want 1.2 will ruin the game for new players, and then the old players won't like it and go back to SC:BW anyways so nobody will play the game.
On October 02 2007 02:12 1sd2sd3sd wrote: i would never want to see players be flawlessy create a 200/200 army just so they can micro it. If you want that just play a micro map. being able to produce a 200/200 supply and keep it up is a part of starcraft, whats the point of making it so easy excluding that it will be more friendly for the less skilled players?
See, half the posters here don't even like or play Starcraft. They just want the flashy units, fanbase, storyline and progaming glamor of Starcraft in their own imaginary noob game with features perfectly suited to showcase their "strategic genius".
I can generalize the anti-MBS side as Starcraft fanboys who want to be good at SC2 as soon as it comes out without learning anything new. You guys have already made the game essentially SC1.5, now you want to get it closer to SC1.2? The danger is that appealing to the guys who want 1.2 will ruin the game for new players, and then the old players won't like it and go back to SC:BW anyways so nobody will play the game.
I believe MBS will help me personally more than anyone else, so it doesn't apply to me anyways. I want the game to be actually good - and SC is the only RTS game up to standard. It can be SC 1.0000001 for all I care, but I won't settle for a shitty game.
And with the way these new SC2 forum posters have been talking, I don't think they won't be good at SC2 anyways, its not much of a threat.
On October 02 2007 02:12 1sd2sd3sd wrote: i would never want to see players be flawlessy create a 200/200 army just so they can micro it. If you want that just play a micro map. being able to produce a 200/200 supply and keep it up is a part of starcraft, whats the point of making it so easy excluding that it will be more friendly for the less skilled players?
See, half the posters here don't even like or play Starcraft. They just want the flashy units, fanbase, storyline and progaming glamor of Starcraft in their own imaginary noob game with features perfectly suited to showcase their "strategic genius".
I can generalize the anti-MBS side as Starcraft fanboys who want to be good at SC2 as soon as it comes out without learning anything new. You guys have already made the game essentially SC1.5, now you want to get it closer to SC1.2? The danger is that appealing to the guys who want 1.2 will ruin the game for new players, and then the old players won't like it and go back to SC:BW anyways so nobody will play the game.
I think Blizz should have aimed a lot more for SC 1.2 than they seem to be doing. Simply making a new campaign and new graphics engine and sounds, and heros, would sell the game to the mass market they care the most about. The multiplayer can allow the money maps and popular UMS of War3/SCBW fame, as well as the competitive mode of SCBW, like an expansion. Instead they have opted to retry making another 3d RTS, balanced, good for multi, from scratch, with all their cool new ideas. I hope they pull it off. I have a feeling I will prefer SCBW in the end. But I also have a feeling War3 players and potential would-be War3 players are going to love SC2. And if it is better for Korean TV than War3 (very likely, only a question of how much better) then the game will be a huge success.
On October 02 2007 02:12 1sd2sd3sd wrote: i would never want to see players be flawlessy create a 200/200 army just so they can micro it. If you want that just play a micro map. being able to produce a 200/200 supply and keep it up is a part of starcraft, whats the point of making it so easy excluding that it will be more friendly for the less skilled players?
See, half the posters here don't even like or play Starcraft. They just want the flashy units, fanbase, storyline and progaming glamor of Starcraft in their own imaginary noob game with features perfectly suited to showcase their "strategic genius".
I can generalize the anti-MBS side as Starcraft fanboys who want to be good at SC2 as soon as it comes out without learning anything new. You guys have already made the game essentially SC1.5, now you want to get it closer to SC1.2? The danger is that appealing to the guys who want 1.2 will ruin the game for new players, and then the old players won't like it and go back to SC:BW anyways so nobody will play the game.
Maybe we just want to have a game that appeals to us, unlike warcraft 3? Maybe we just absolutely hate the idea of there not being a single (RTS) game out there with a big competitive community, that we actually find fun/worthwhile?
This is what will happen if SC2 does not live up to SC1, cause there's just no way SC1 will survive as a real competitive alternative, regardless of how good or bad SC2 is.
You also need to stop asserting that pros "really" can't do all that stuff i just said. I've seen savior, reach, oov and others do all of it cleaner than me and in first person. It's impressive to say the very least. It doesn't mean they do it every single game, or when the pressure is on the most, but they are still capable of doing it.
So why isnt it safe to assume that the pressure in sc2 will be bigger so it wont allow perfect macro even with MBS?
Anyway my opinion is ( i posted it before but noone commented) IF after testing sc2 Blizzard discovers a gap in macro aspect of the game, I would rather they put other macro features (more exps, bigger unit cap, some other macro system?) than removing MBS.
On October 02 2007 02:12 1sd2sd3sd wrote: i would never want to see players be flawlessy create a 200/200 army just so they can micro it. If you want that just play a micro map. being able to produce a 200/200 supply and keep it up is a part of starcraft, whats the point of making it so easy excluding that it will be more friendly for the less skilled players?
See, half the posters here don't even like or play Starcraft. They just want the flashy units, fanbase, storyline and progaming glamor of Starcraft in their own imaginary noob game with features perfectly suited to showcase their "strategic genius".
I can generalize the anti-MBS side as Starcraft fanboys who want to be good at SC2 as soon as it comes out without learning anything new. You guys have already made the game essentially SC1.5, now you want to get it closer to SC1.2? The danger is that appealing to the guys who want 1.2 will ruin the game for new players, and then the old players won't like it and go back to SC:BW anyways so nobody will play the game.
I think Blizz should have aimed a lot more for SC 1.2 than they seem to be doing. Simply making a new campaign and new graphics engine and sounds, and heros, would sell the game to the mass market they care the most about. The multiplayer can allow the money maps and popular UMS of War3/SCBW fame, as well as the competitive mode of SCBW, like an expansion. Instead they have opted to retry making another 3d RTS, balanced, good for multi, from scratch, with all their cool new ideas. I hope they pull it off. I have a feeling I will prefer SCBW in the end. But I also have a feeling War3 players and potential would-be War3 players are going to love SC2. And if it is better for Korean TV than War3 (very likely, only a question of how much better) then the game will be a huge success.
But Blizzard is to proud to do such a thing, they would never sell a game that they have already sold.
If they thought like that wed be in starcraft 5 by now and ~warcraft7, with no wow since they wouldnt have the balls to go into the mmorpg market then. I think its a good thing they dont milk their products by releasing a lot of massproduced games.
But really, if you old TL'ers really want to change this so much write a big letter from the big TL persons together to Blizzard explaining the issue in detail. A forum rambling like this on one site wont change their oppinions, and about all other sites are generally pro mbs.
On October 02 2007 02:31 FrozenArbiter wrote: This is what will happen if SC2 does not live up to SC1, cause there's just no way SC1 will survive as a real competitive alternative, regardless of how good or bad SC2 is.
So you do have some faith in blizzard atleast? Im certain that if they made sc2 halfassed like every other developer wouldve done it wouldnt kill starcraft.
Ah well, maybe all this is about the shock starcraft players feel when they see their old game wich they thought would be there eternally now got its death sentence? And then fights to make the alternative as close as possible to what they love?
But as i see it starcraft will still kick some, it wont be the biggest anymore but i doubt that any game except sc2 and maybe wc3 will beat it in competetiveness anyway. Hell, you can still find games for wc2 eventhough the game is extremely dated and it never had a competetive community like starcraft.
On October 02 2007 02:12 1sd2sd3sd wrote: i would never want to see players be flawlessy create a 200/200 army just so they can micro it. If you want that just play a micro map. being able to produce a 200/200 supply and keep it up is a part of starcraft, whats the point of making it so easy excluding that it will be more friendly for the less skilled players?
See, half the posters here don't even like or play Starcraft. They just want the flashy units, fanbase, storyline and progaming glamor of Starcraft in their own imaginary noob game with features perfectly suited to showcase their "strategic genius".
I can generalize the anti-MBS side as Starcraft fanboys who want to be good at SC2 as soon as it comes out without learning anything new. You guys have already made the game essentially SC1.5, now you want to get it closer to SC1.2? The danger is that appealing to the guys who want 1.2 will ruin the game for new players, and then the old players won't like it and go back to SC:BW anyways so nobody will play the game.
I think Blizz should have aimed a lot more for SC 1.2 than they seem to be doing. Simply making a new campaign and new graphics engine and sounds, and heros, would sell the game to the mass market they care the most about. The multiplayer can allow the money maps and popular UMS of War3/SCBW fame, as well as the competitive mode of SCBW, like an expansion. Instead they have opted to retry making another 3d RTS, balanced, good for multi, from scratch, with all their cool new ideas. I hope they pull it off. I have a feeling I will prefer SCBW in the end. But I also have a feeling War3 players and potential would-be War3 players are going to love SC2. And if it is better for Korean TV than War3 (very likely, only a question of how much better) then the game will be a huge success.
But Blizzard is to proud to do such a thing, they would never sell a game that they have already sold.
If they thought like that wed be in starcraft 5 by now and ~warcraft7, with no wow since they wouldnt have the balls to go into the mmorpg market then. I think its a good thing they dont milk their products by releasing a lot of massproduced games.
But really, if you old TL'ers really want to change this so much write a big letter from the big TL persons together to Blizzard explaining the issue in detail. A forum rambling like this on one site wont change their oppinions, and about all other sites are generally pro mbs.
On October 02 2007 02:31 FrozenArbiter wrote: This is what will happen if SC2 does not live up to SC1, cause there's just no way SC1 will survive as a real competitive alternative, regardless of how good or bad SC2 is.
So you do have some faith in blizzard atleast? Im certain that if they made sc2 halfassed like every other developer wouldve done it wouldnt kill starcraft.
Ah well, maybe all this is about the shock starcraft players feel when they see their old game wich they thought would be there eternally now got its death sentence? And then fights to make the alternative as close as possible to what they love?
But as i see it starcraft will still kick some, it wont be the biggest anymore but i doubt that any game except sc2 and maybe wc3 will beat it in competetiveness anyway. Hell, you can still find games for wc2 eventhough the game is extremely dated and it never had a competetive community like starcraft.
Faith in Blizzard? They are the best company out there, but they made War3. SC fans have always been the most neglected and forgotten of Blizzard's sons, yet we've built up the most out of any of the other fanbases. After the WGT debacle and the endless hacks, won't it be ironic if Starcraft II ends up killnig SC?
If your not going to help us, at least don't fucking kill us.
honestly, if you are going to create an "sc2" which will most likely ruin starcraft, why not just make another expansion with minor changes (like fpreplay, recorded chat, and maybe some program that allows you to organize tourneys all built into the interface) for the people that love how balanced, fair, and time consuming (lol) the game already is. I would be so much more excited for an expansion like that rather then a deluded starcraft 2.
PS. go ahead and make sc2 for all the "gamers" who play a multitude of games but please give the people that really love brood war and dont really play any other games some updates [fpreplay, recorded chat, quick game option, maybe even an antihack ladder with quick game option (although i really love iccup!)]
i really think this whole subject should be approached from the other direction. rather than assuming that MBS is already a done deal, someone should explain why it's a good choice at all. the pro-MBS arguments in this thread have actually been pointing out MBS shortcomings such as "if you queue units in gates 1&2 and and have only enough minerals to make 3 more units, but you have 5 gates hotkeyed, you'll end up overlapping in gates 1 and 2 and therefore MBS is less effective than you'd imagined."
it's like even most of the pro-MBS people are in consensus that the game really shouldn't be any easier, but they're gonna push for MBS anyway (because) ___________
1) because MBS is the wave of the future (obviously a pretty shitty argument)
2) because MBS is going to be in the game whether you like it or not (another shitty argument)
3) because MBS is going to give players more time to do other things. this is the only argument that can be taken seriously (at least of the ones i remember). at first glance it seems to make some sense that a new game with new mechanics might be good, but if you give this some serious thought, is there any reason why we should expect that rebalancing the core factors of starcraft would make the game better? when you watch a game between savior and nada do you think 'well what these guys really need is an easier interface?' i really don't think so. things seem to be pretty brilliant as they are.
starcraft, as everyone here has said, is the pinnacle of the RTS genre and arguably of videogames as a whole. yeah, there are some things that can be improved: the graphics, some of the ai, some bugs. but on the whole what starcraft really doesn't need is for blizzard to go fucking around with the core of its gameplay. blizzard can make a completely new game and preserve the fundamental starcraft interface. if you want to make an argument for MBS, you'll have to look elsewhere, especially where production buildings are concerned. remember that ease of execution is not necessarily conducive to fun and lasting appeal.
These discussions make me more and more conflicted about SC2: on one hand I want it to come out so that these noobs will go away when they realize no amount of new features will make them better, and on the other hand I am terrified of the very real possibility that the game will me made to suit their tastes and wish that it might never be released.
On September 30 2007 21:27 Artosis3 wrote: Xiberia : not having MBS will NEVER be the reason for someone quitting. EVER. totally illogical. someone that newbie who would quit over it probably doesn't even know what it is. some newbie who played an rts with it probably wouldn't even notice to be honest.
Do you have anything to back up such a claim?
Cause i believe otherwise.
Infact, i would venture to say that the leading cause of players staying away from RTS games are because they are too intimidating. A couple of quotes from some Focus Tests:
There is just too much to do. I feel like i'm not fast enough to play this game.
I don't understand why my units don't get retreat when they are fired at.
Maybe if i could spend more time watching what's happening instead of trying to control it, i'd enjoy the game better.
While it may not be specifically MBS mentioned, they do all point to the fact that the eaiser players have of controlling the game, the more inclined they will be to play/enjoy it.
I'm not saying that MBS is good or bad, but merely saying that the quote above is completely unfounded. My last 18 months of being in the gaming industry definately points to the contrary.
On October 02 2007 04:42 Aphelion wrote: These discussions make me more and more conflicted about SC2: on one hand I want it to come out so that these noobs will go away when they realize no amount of new features will make them better, and on the other hand I am terrified of the very real possibility that the game will me made to suit their tastes and wish that it might never be released.
Why do you think that people want mbs in the game so they can beat pros? I think that noone have said such a thing in any thread here, except as sarcastic remarks on how easy the game will be after.
Thats just a strawman made by the anti crowd since its easier to fight against and is just as ridiculous as saying that the anti mbs side just dont want it in since they just want to keep their advantage.
On October 02 2007 04:42 Aphelion wrote: These discussions make me more and more conflicted about SC2: on one hand I want it to come out so that these noobs will go away when they realize no amount of new features will make them better, and on the other hand I am terrified of the very real possibility that the game will me made to suit their tastes and wish that it might never be released.
Why do you think that people want mbs in the game so they can beat pros? I think that noone have said such a thing in any thread here, except as sarcastic remarks on how easy the game will be after.
Thats just a strawman made by the anti crowd since its easier to fight against and is just as ridiculous as saying that the anti mbs side just dont want it in since they just want to keep their advantage.
I think everyone here agrees the pros would still rape newbies with MBS, they just wouldn't have fun while they did it.
On October 02 2007 04:32 Failsafe wrote: 1) because MBS is the wave of the future (obviously a pretty shitty argument)
It's a far more complicated argument than how you phrased it and it spawned 30 pages of points from both sides. If you want to argue against it, you'd better at least read more into it and post a response there.
On October 02 2007 04:32 Failsafe wrote: 2) because MBS is going to be in the game whether you like it or not (another shitty argument)
Although I haven't made this a focal point of any of my arguments, it's just another side to think about. What if this is true? I for one am fairly certain that SC2 will include MBS regardless of the amount of flak it gets from the SC veterans. Plenty of strong evidence is pointing to this, such as Karune's "absolutely" response in the Q&A and the fact that the Blizzcon build had MBS/automining in it and point 1 above. No contrary evidence has been released by Blizzard as far as I am aware.
Similarly, the anti-MBS side is firmly set in their beliefs that MBS will make the game worse based on their own set of beliefs. Either way, neither side has solid proof, but only argumentation and inductive evidence at best, yet both sides are quite clearly convinced that their own beliefs are right.
On October 02 2007 04:42 Aphelion wrote: These discussions make me more and more conflicted about SC2: on one hand I want it to come out so that these noobs will go away when they realize no amount of new features will make them better, and on the other hand I am terrified of the very real possibility that the game will me made to suit their tastes and wish that it might never be released.
Why do you think that people want mbs in the game so they can beat pros? I think that noone have said such a thing in any thread here, except as sarcastic remarks on how easy the game will be after.
A lot of people are actually fighting for MBS so they can be a "pro", regardless if they say it straight up or not (and your opinion doesn't matter -- I know it for a fact because I've had people tell me that's why they want it). Lots of folks simply can't macro/micro/strategise at the same time and they know they never will be able to, so their fight is to get more easy buttons so they can be a competitive player and get some air time.
I'm not trying to offend those people, but the logic is fucked. The easier you make the game (and MBS will make the game easier and lower the potential ceiling greatly), the less competitive it will be, which in turn kills it off quickly.
I've played DoW:40K, I've played Age3, I've played RoL, etc. They all had these "easy buttons" -- and if they didn't they would of actually been games I would have stuck with longer since it would have taken a lot more work and would have been far more competitive. But they did, so everyone was able to be a professional in a very short amount of time.
Clearly, StarCraft 2 won't be as bad as those games, but I promise you that you cannot add easy buttons just because it's a "new game and doesn't need to be like original StarCraft" -- it has nothing to do with that. These are basic principles of RTS and StarCraft has set the bar. I can't fathom that the sequel to the game that set the bar would RE-lower the bar. I'd cry many nights if it does, and possibly change to FPS***** (god help my soul).
On September 30 2007 21:27 Artosis3 wrote: Xiberia : not having MBS will NEVER be the reason for someone quitting. EVER. totally illogical. someone that newbie who would quit over it probably doesn't even know what it is. some newbie who played an rts with it probably wouldn't even notice to be honest.
Do you have anything to back up such a claim?
Cause i believe otherwise.
Infact, i would venture to say that the leading cause of players staying away from RTS games are because they are too intimidating. A couple of quotes from some Focus Tests:
There is just too much to do. I feel like i'm not fast enough to play this game.
I don't understand why my units don't get retreat when they are fired at.
Maybe if i could spend more time watching what's happening instead of trying to control it, i'd enjoy the game better.
While it may not be specifically MBS mentioned, they do all point to the fact that the eaiser players have of controlling the game, the more inclined they will be to play/enjoy it.
I'm not saying that MBS is good or bad, but merely saying that the quote above is completely unfounded. My last 18 months of being in the gaming industry definately points to the contrary.
Players with comments like that will probably enjoy the single player, they wouldn't be interested in becoming progamers.
We must evaluate each player from what he or she will embrace most about the game and then utilize those qualities so the gamer is satisfied. That's why SC2 will have single player to UMS to BGH to friendly public games to competitive ladder games. Blizzard must be careful to appeal to each of those people.
Blizzard has publicly said multiple times that they are very interested in enhancing the competitive scene with SC2. This is the main reason why so many tl.neters are concerned with MBS being put in the competitive scene, there is an incredibly high risk of backlash from the people who were the best and most passionate about the 1st SC, that doesn't help Blizzard fund the competitive scene they wish to produce with SC2. Conversely, if they leave MBS as a setting (that can't be used in ladder games) and basic SC UI features in the game they are almost guaranteed to start with a competitive scene as big as the last one; one that can grow and build off what it already has.
On September 30 2007 21:27 Artosis3 wrote: Xiberia : not having MBS will NEVER be the reason for someone quitting. EVER. totally illogical. someone that newbie who would quit over it probably doesn't even know what it is. some newbie who played an rts with it probably wouldn't even notice to be honest.
Do you have anything to back up such a claim?
Cause i believe otherwise.
Infact, i would venture to say that the leading cause of players staying away from RTS games are because they are too intimidating. A couple of quotes from some Focus Tests:
There is just too much to do. I feel like i'm not fast enough to play this game.
I don't understand why my units don't get retreat when they are fired at.
Maybe if i could spend more time watching what's happening instead of trying to control it, i'd enjoy the game better.
While it may not be specifically MBS mentioned, they do all point to the fact that the eaiser players have of controlling the game, the more inclined they will be to play/enjoy it.
I'm not saying that MBS is good or bad, but merely saying that the quote above is completely unfounded. My last 18 months of being in the gaming industry definately points to the contrary.
Argh I hate those people :O
I wonder what a footballer would say if someone said "I think I'd enjoy football more if I didn't have to practice so much to be able to do X".
On October 02 2007 06:11 Skew wrote: A lot of people are actually fighting for MBS so they can be a "pro", regardless if they say it straight up or not (and your opinion doesn't matter -- I know it for a fact because I've had people tell me that's why they want it). Lots of folks simply can't macro/micro/strategise at the same time and they know they never will be able to, so their fight is to get more easy buttons so they can be a competitive player and get some air time.
Then only these people (who simply want to lower competition) should be ignored. I don't think any of them are on these forums arguing here with that kind of mindset. Similarly, I know there's SC players who have built up their SBS macro speed from practice and simply want SC2 to be the same, for the sole reason that their skills can be directly transferred into the new game and that they can enjoy a head start at being pro there. That is equally as selfish as the first view.
Orangedude makes a good point. It is natural that players who have cultivated a skill, and recognize that that skill is of the utmost importance for a game, would want to see the need for that skill to be carried over to the game's sequel.
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
I haven't yet formulated an opinion about MBS, however, I think that saying that a game feature which will make an aspect of macroing easier will result in a skill-blow to the game is polarizing the argument.
On October 02 2007 06:11 Skew wrote: A lot of people are actually fighting for MBS so they can be a "pro", regardless if they say it straight up or not (and your opinion doesn't matter -- I know it for a fact because I've had people tell me that's why they want it). Lots of folks simply can't macro/micro/strategise at the same time and they know they never will be able to, so their fight is to get more easy buttons so they can be a competitive player and get some air time.
Then only these people should be ignored. I don't think any of them are on these forums arguing here with that kind of mindset. Similarly, I know there's SC players who have built up their SBS macro speed from practice and simply want SC2 to be the same, for the sole reason that their skills can be directly transferred into the new game and that they can enjoy a head start at being pro there. That is equally as selfish as the first view.
Well that doesn't make any sense at all. No matter how an RTS is, competitive players from StarCraft are going to dominate it becuase these new RTS are all 10x easier and StarCraft players just pick it up and belt it in weeks. I've done it myself, so have many others. Know why? Because the game basically plays itself.
If players would like MBS to enjoy the game more, I think it's a fantastic idea to include it, but don't include it in Electronic Sports matches. Keep it out of competitive ladders/leagues/etc.
Skew, you missed my point. This has nothing to do with other RTS games, only SC and SC2. CTStalker elaborated it a bit further.
Either way, I guarantee that a good SC player will still find it very difficult if they tried to play War3 competitively (the only other RTS with decent competition, so all others are moot). There are a whole different set of skills required and so many subtleties, timings, etc, that can't be learned from SC. It's probably true that the overall skill-level ceiling in War3 is lower than SC, but there is still plenty to differentiate between the best of the best (e.g. Grubby, Moon, Tod) from the rest of the pros.
Well that doesn't make any sense at all. No matter how an RTS is, competitive players from StarCraft are going to dominate it becuase these new RTS are all 10x easier and StarCraft players just pick it up and belt it in weeks. I've done it myself, so have many others. Know why? Because the game basically plays itself.
Tell that to Savior who lost to Moon.
Also your point about people for MBS wanting to be pros with the help of MBS is like saying people against it just worry they ll lose their advantage against non sc players. Neither is correct, is just generalization.
Also to people saying low posters = noobs or with little understanding of SC and RTS: low post number may mean more playing less talking low post number may mean more reading less talking low post number may mean thinking before talking
Mm, did savior really actually play moon? I thought that was just a misconception when someone posted a vod of both of them playing - SEPARATELY.
Anyway, Warcraft 3 doesn't count as one of the other RTSes, it's a highly competitive/good game. Skew is talking about games like Dawn of War / CnC3.. etc.
On October 02 2007 06:38 CTStalker wrote: Orangedude makes a good point. It is natural that players who have cultivated a skill, and recognize that that skill is of the utmost importance for a game, would want to see the need for that skill to be carried over to the game's sequel.
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
I haven't yet formulated an opinion about MBS, however, I think that saying that a game feature which will make an aspect of macroing easier will result in a skill-blow to the game is polarizing the argument.
Put focus on the wrong word man.
Who cares if it's not macro in its entirety, anything becoming easier is bad. The word you should put in italics is EASIER.
On October 02 2007 04:32 Failsafe wrote: 1) because MBS is the wave of the future (obviously a pretty shitty argument)
It's a far more complicated argument than how you phrased it and it spawned 30 pages of points from both sides. If you want to argue against it, you'd better at least read more into it and post a response there..
orly?
On October 02 2007 06:02 blabber wrote: I think people want multiple building select because basically every other RTS out right now has it and it'd look stupid to not have it...
I say just have a max of how many you can select at once. Like 4 or 6.
two posts above yours.
maybe you misunderstood what i was doing, but my point with that sentence was just to show that there really were idiots making the argument that a great reason for having MBS in the game is because other new games have it. your misunderstanding wouldn't be too annoying except that the only way it could have come about, judging by your responses (which is to say you don't seem to be an idiot), is that you just didn't sincerely read the thread.
On October 02 2007 04:32 Failsafe wrote: 1) because MBS is the wave of the future (obviously a pretty shitty argument)
It's a far more complicated argument than how you phrased it and it spawned 30 pages of points from both sides. If you want to argue against it, you'd better at least read more into it and post a response there..
On October 02 2007 06:02 blabber wrote: I think people want multiple building select because basically every other RTS out right now has it and it'd look stupid to not have it...
I say just have a max of how many you can select at once. Like 4 or 6.
two posts above yours.
maybe you misunderstood what i was doing, but my point with that sentence was just to show that there really were idiots making the argument that a great reason for having MBS in the game is because other new games have it. your misunderstanding wouldn't be too annoying except that the only way it could have come about, judging by your responses (which is to say you don't seem to be an idiot), is that you just didn't sincerely read the thread.
Yes, there are idiots making that argument. Then again, there are idiots from both sides. I can't even begin to count the number of anti-MBS posts like "obviously MBS sucks" with zero backing at all.
However, you generalized the entire pro-MBS side into three exaggerated statements. I have indeed carefully read this thread, although I'm not sure if you've read the one I linked to, as I don't see any of your posts there.
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
any validity? every single good player who has posted on the topic on these forums has been anti-mbs the fact that every player (who posted) who plays the game competetively thinks that adding mbs would remove some of the competetive aspect of the game surely means something. its not just a coincidence. it obviously does not put the issue beyond argument, but you cant simply disregard it.
I think Blizzard is well aware of this and are using MBS to integrate new means of competitive play. You simply cannot say "MBS on broodwar sucks" because its preposterous..
On October 02 2007 07:06 lugggy wrote: Has anybody named an RTS that is "ruined" but would be better simply by taking MBS away from it? Didn't think so.
im pretty sure the quality of your arguments actually does the pro-mbs side a disservice.
read skew, lazerflip(might be in the other mbs thread), and artosis' posts. all have played other rts' on a competetive level. all have said the other games theyve played (c&c3, dow, aoe3, etc) would be better without mbs.
On October 02 2007 07:08 zizou21 wrote: I think Blizzard is well aware of this and are using MBS to integrate new means of competitive play. You simply cannot say "MBS on broodwar sucks" because its preposterous..
it seems far more likely that blizzard is implementing mbs because it will make the game more newb friendly (more casual players will buy/play it) and because all other recent rts' have it. hell i think theyve even said one of the reasons for mbs/automining is to make it more accessible to the average gamer.
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
any validity? every single good player who has posted on the topic on these forums has been anti-mbs the fact that every player (who posted) who plays the game competetively thinks that adding mbs would remove some of the competetive aspect of the game surely means something. its not just a coincidence. it obviously does not put the issue beyond argument, but you cant simply disregard it.
You're right, I chose my words incorrectly. It is just as likely that a good player could be a great anaylyzer, while another good player could have poor game-analytical skills.
What I meant to draw attention to was orangedude's point, that the appearance of a potential loss in an investment, the mastering of single-building-selection macro, would motivate a player to argue against MBS.
MBS can ADD NOTHING to competitive play.. only take from.. and yes u can look at every "PRO-RTS" game besides SC like WC3.. even Grubby said "there's just not enough to do" and thats his comment about WC3 so why do u want sc2 like that?? All the Good Players dont like MBS and its.. not so we have a advantage becasue lets face it.. there are other gamers from other games who are just as fast as SC players.. Take moon from WC3 for example.. but putting MBS in SC2 Ladder is like adding a Easy Button. which would destroy SC2 competitivly~
On October 02 2007 07:19 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Can we also add a system that automatically micros units too? That shit is hard.
If we have MBS we might aswell control.. I mean Hell lets just Get in a ladder match then go afk and watch the units fight for them... thats the next step after mbs/automine... Newbified~
On October 02 2007 06:38 CTStalker wrote: A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
in absolute terms, as i've said before, you'd be right. neither of those arguments are 'valid' arguments, but of course if you had any appreciation for logic, you'd recognize that the world you live in sorely lacks valid arguments for pretty much anything. to avoid being too philosophical, my point is that most of what you know is taken on some authority that is not absolute 'sound' deductive logical fact. that being said, obviously some authorities are better than others. additionally, when every good authority is in unanimous agreement, if you're still saying 'of course not!' chances are that you need to reconsider your position.
so, for all practical purposes you are wrong.
it's certainly true that not every good player is also a good analyzer, however, it is much more likely for a good player to be a good analyzer than some random sample subject. coincidentally the analytical quality of posts on one side of the issue is impressively higher than that of the other side... but i digress, anyway, as the argument must obviously go, if the better authorities are in unanimous agreement, and you disagree with them, you need a much more convincing argument than the 'fallacy' of inductive logic. your style of thinking would deny us even causation and then we'd be in a world of trouble
Faith in Blizzard? They are the best company out there, but they made War3. SC fans have always been the most neglected and forgotten of Blizzard's sons, yet we've built up the most out of any of the other fanbases. After the WGT debacle and the endless hacks, won't it be ironic if Starcraft II ends up killnig SC?
If your not going to help us, at least don't fucking kill us.
So what if they made war3? Sure it "sucked" compared to SCBW but it was a great game nonetheless. War3 has it shortcommings but it definitely had a better interface than SCBW could ever dream of; it aint the UI that made War3 suck but it was how the game was built: low unit count, high hp, dependence to heroes etc. SCBW with improved War3 controls would be a dream come true, just like when SC was released with all the UI improvements as compared to War2.
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
any validity? every single good player who has posted on the topic on these forums has been anti-mbs the fact that every player (who posted) who plays the game competetively thinks that adding mbs would remove some of the competetive aspect of the game surely means something. its not just a coincidence. it obviously does not put the issue beyond argument, but you cant simply disregard it.
You're right, I chose my words incorrectly. It is just as likely that a good player could be a great anaylyzer, while another good player could have poor game-analytical skills.
What I meant to draw attention to was orangedude's point, that the appearance of a potential loss in an investment, the mastering of single-building-selection macro, would motivate a player to argue against MBS.
yeah you can establish some motive for arguing against MBS, like the loss of a useful skill, but another possible explanation that a lot of people have been putting forth, and one which i think should be preferred, is that the reason a lot of people don't want MBS is because it really does seem like it would suck.
On October 02 2007 06:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: anything becoming easier is bad.
How many examples do you need to be provided with before you realise this is completely bullshit (and I'm sure you've read like at least 100 by now). I'll give you another one anyway.
Have you every tried to dodge storms in heavy lag conditions? It is fucking hard. Dodging storms in 0 lag conditions is in fact much EASIER. Now applying the quoted rule above -> having 0 lag is bad.
By the way can anybody give me a link to Grubby saying there is not enough to do in W3? Because at the moment Moon is completely dominating every single tournament he enters. If there wasn't enough to do and the matches were basically decided on luck then this would not be possible.
gobol maybe u dont follow wc3 but .. grubby just 2-0'ed moon in the PGL(or w/e the wc3 tounry was called) in china lol so maybe u want to recheck that~~
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
any validity? every single good player who has posted on the topic on these forums has been anti-mbs the fact that every player (who posted) who plays the game competetively thinks that adding mbs would remove some of the competetive aspect of the game surely means something. its not just a coincidence. it obviously does not put the issue beyond argument, but you cant simply disregard it.
You're right, I chose my words incorrectly. It is just as likely that a good player could be a great anaylyzer, while another good player could have poor game-analytical skills.
dunno, i still disagree. playing this game on a high level requires at least some understanding of rts play in general, which would be an obvious plus in game analyzing. i think its pretty obvious a competetive player is more likely analyze a game well than a random unknown player who plays just plays a bunch of different rts' for fun on a low level.
What I meant to draw attention to was orangedude's point, that the appearance of a potential loss in an investment, the mastering of single-building-selection macro, would motivate a player to argue against MBS.
that still doesnt address the point that simplifying the macro aspect of the game would remove part the diversity from high level gaming (the original point of this thread). also doesnt account for the fact that people who have been among the best at other games(games with mbs) also dont want mbs in sc2. hell even if we do just want mbs because its a skill we've developed, it doesnt change the fact that adding mbs would lower the skill cap and so make sc2 less valuable as an esport/competetive game.
On October 02 2007 07:29 Lz wrote: gobol maybe u dont follow wc3 but .. grubby just 2-0'ed moon in the PGL(or w/e the wc3 tounry was called) in china lol so maybe u want to recheck that~~
Grubby, Moon and Tod are the current top 3 as far as I remember, so it's not surprising that they would be winning games from each other.
On October 02 2007 06:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: anything becoming easier is bad.
How many examples do you need to be provided with before you realise this is completely bullshit (and I'm sure you've read like at least 100 by now). I'll give you another one anyway.
Have you every tried to dodge storms in heavy lag conditions? It is fucking hard. Dodging storms in 0 lag conditions is in fact much EASIER. Now applying the quoted rule above -> having 0 lag is bad.
horrible analogy
how can you equate lag (which is a NON-IDEAL situation, aka non-LAN) with something deliberately put into the game (interface)?
posts like this do your side of the MBS argument a disservice. think before you post.
Pro MBS people are never going to be convinced. Please can all the known players in this thread just write a petition to Blizzard? Then those of us who agree can sign it.
At least let Blizzard known where we stand on the matter, wasting time convincing these SC2 forum posters is not worth it.
On October 02 2007 07:29 Lz wrote: gobol maybe u dont follow wc3 but .. grubby just 2-0'ed moon in the PGL(or w/e the wc3 tounry was called) in china lol so maybe u want to recheck that~~
Grubby, Moon and Tod are the current top 3 as far as I remember, so it's not surprising that they would be winning games from each other.
he was just responding to the guy saying that moon dominated everything which would then make grubby's statement that theres not enough to do in wc3 kinda funny.
On October 02 2007 07:38 Aphelion wrote: Pro MBS people are never going to be convinced. Please can all the known players in this thread just write a petition to Blizzard? Then those of us who agree can sign it.
At least let Blizzard known where we stand on the matter, wasting time convincing these SC2 forum posters is not worth it.
someone willing to spend the time on compiling it should open a thread, everyone who wants to can contribute to what the petition/letter should say and then everyone can sign it when its finalized.
On October 02 2007 07:29 Lz wrote: gobol maybe u dont follow wc3 but .. grubby just 2-0'ed moon in the PGL(or w/e the wc3 tounry was called) in china lol so maybe u want to recheck that~~
Grubby, Moon and Tod are the current top 3 as far as I remember, so it's not surprising that they would be winning games from each other.
he was just responding to the guy saying that moon dominated everything which would then make grubby's statement that theres not enough to do in wc3 kinda funny.
Can anyone seriously give me a link to that statement of this from Grubby or "any" pro War3 player? I've honestly never seen anything of the sort before, but it's still commonly used by the SC community to justify why War3 sucks competitively (there are other reasons for sure).
On October 02 2007 07:38 Aphelion wrote: Pro MBS people are never going to be convinced. Please can all the known players in this thread just write a petition to Blizzard? Then those of us who agree can sign it.
At least let Blizzard known where we stand on the matter, wasting time convincing these SC2 forum posters is not worth it.
It was pretty clear from the start that neither side was going to be convince the other, since both arguments are based largely on beliefs. I second this petition rather than continued endless debate. If you get an official response from Blizzard, then something can actually be done here.
It wasn't an analogy it was an example of why his statement is complete crap.
I think it's true that most pro MBS people will not change and most anti MBS people will not change. In a lot of ways this is a lot like pointless religion vs science threads - noone is changing their mind so there's not much point in arguing about it. Thankfully in this case however in about a year the game will be released with MBS (it's a certainty) and we can see who was right (me obv).
On October 02 2007 06:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: anything becoming easier is bad.
How many examples do you need to be provided with before you realise this is completely bullshit (and I'm sure you've read like at least 100 by now). I'll give you another one anyway.
Have you every tried to dodge storms in heavy lag conditions? It is fucking hard. Dodging storms in 0 lag conditions is in fact much EASIER. Now applying the quoted rule above -> having 0 lag is bad.
By the way can anybody give me a link to Grubby saying there is not enough to do in W3? Because at the moment Moon is completely dominating every single tournament he enters. If there wasn't enough to do and the matches were basically decided on luck then this would not be possible.
If you can't see the difference between LAG and REMOVING AN ASPECT OF THE GAME then what the fuck? It's just such a horribly retarded analogy it makes my head hurt.
The Grubby quote, I believe, comes from Testie, I don't remember how it went exactly but it was from talking with grubby at blizzcon.
Not going to waste my time repeating everything I've said in there.
In conclusion:
I am against anything that simplifies the game.
MBS simplifies the game.
I am, however, pro-MBS in the Beta. It needs to be tested because I'm not confident enough in my opinion on MBS to throw it out without proper testing first.
P.S If anyone uses the Dune-argument again I think I'll go insane. Maybe I'll start using the "DO YOU WANT THE GAME TO PLAY ITSELF!?111"-argument and take all of you with me!? D.S
On October 02 2007 07:31 IdrA wrote: that still doesnt address the point that simplifying the macro aspect of the game would remove part the diversity from high level gaming (the original point of this thread). also doesnt account for the fact that people who have been among the best at other games(games with mbs) also dont want mbs in sc2. hell even if we do just want mbs because its a skill we've developed, it doesnt change the fact that adding mbs would lower the skill cap and so make sc2 less valuable as an esport/competetive game.
This is ultimately what it boils down to.
MBS is bad for competitive play. (that being =/= with bad for the competitive scene). MBS is good for everyone else.
The amount of people who will be attracted to SC2 because of better UI functionality is [b]far greater than those who will be turned off of it. Sales will be better for better UI functionality than otherwise.
However, blizzard has to figure out whether MBS will hurt competitive play so badly that it will in turn hurt the competitive scene (something i have not yet been convinced of, but certainly willing to accept as possible).
At this point, assuming MBS is in fact anticipated to hurt the competitive scene (just to clarify: the strength of a competitive scene is judged solely on how much attention and support it gets), does Blizzard care more about Starcraft as an E-Sport, or do they care more about sales.
Regardless of which they choose, i think the majority of tl.net members think that they are considerably more important than they are in reality. The whole of TL.net could quit buying blizzard products altogether, and blizzard would be foolish to even bat an eyelash.[/i]
Look I didn't even respond to it being about MBS. I only pointed out that your reasoning is wrong by giving you an example like this that you know is wrong, yet follows from your reasoning.
On October 02 2007 07:29 Lz wrote: gobol maybe u dont follow wc3 but .. grubby just 2-0'ed moon in the PGL(or w/e the wc3 tounry was called) in china lol so maybe u want to recheck that~~
Grubby, Moon and Tod are the current top 3 as far as I remember, so it's not surprising that they would be winning games from each other.
he was just responding to the guy saying that moon dominated everything which would then make grubby's statement that theres not enough to do in wc3 kinda funny.
Can anyone seriously give me a link to that statement of this from Grubby or "any" pro War3 player? I've honestly never seen anything of the sort before, but it's still commonly used by the SC community to justify why War3 sucks competitively (there are other reasons for sure).
I couldn't find that quote, but I did find this one from WCReplays:
bunny: Who do you think is most successful at doing this right now at top level play? For most part, at high level gaming, sometimes executing the right strategy won't always win it for you.
Grubby: The difficult thing about this is what you should judge "skill" on. Do you judge skill only by the quality of someone's gameplay, or also on how *HARD* it is to execute that gameplay? This is a very hot topic with most people not even realising it. There have been soooooo many BW vs WC3 discussions about which game is better and I've found that the disagreements mostly spawn from different ways to measure skill. It can, for example, be extremely challenging to play Tetris with a ball-mouse where the ball is missing, but that doesn't make it a better or harder game than wc3. Just the same, I think most comparisons of BW and WC3 don't do justice to either of the games. Most people who advertise the superiority of BW do so because it's a harder game to play, using APM as an example. But another example that is given, is that for example spell-casters need to be selected seperately while casting, because otherwise you'll get 10 psionic storms in 1 location which doesn't do more damage than 1 psionic storm. However, I fail to see how an obsoleted game engine proves that it requires more skill, or how that's something to be proud of.
To me, BroodWars seems to be much harder to control partly because the game engine is so obsolete. Control groups respond less readily and units have lower AI. If that's what it takes to give a game quality, I say remove every single hotkey there is for WC3 and let's see how much harder WC3 is than BW. However, that would just be stupid, and perhaps it would also be stupid to condemn "1-strat-wonders" or "low-micro-strats", because it's not about how hard a strategy is to execute, but about how effective it is and how well it works in a situation. A lot of people seem to care even more about how hard it is to execute a strategy than about the result of it. It might be very hard to stand on one hand with your foot in your mouth, but it's more impressive to see someone do a spin on the floor with both legs in the air; while that may be a much easier move. That's why I think the animosity towards low-micro-strategies is unfair.
and this, from the following fan Q&A:
Prime.zeroth: Have you ever played or seen people played Starcraft? If yes, how do you think WC compare to SC as a RTS game? If Blizzard releases a new RTS game in few years, would you switch or would you still play WC?
Grubby: I've played Starcraft for about 5 years on and off, more off than on. It's an exciting game with infinite possibility for 'perfection' when it comes to handling several things at a time. The 'always build more worker units' concept appealed to me, but the low variety of strategies was less interesting and made it boring, unless i was messing around with Queens and such. If Blizzard releases a new RTS game, I'd DEFINITELY try it out and try to see if it's better.
This was his opinion a year or two ago, when patch 1.18 was out. I'll try to see if there's anything more recent.
On October 02 2007 08:03 Gobol wrote: Look I didn't even respond to it being about MBS. I only pointed out that your reasoning is wrong by giving you an example like this that you know is wrong, yet follows from your reasoning.
It only follows from my reasoning if you want to nitpick words and not try to understand what I'm saying.
On October 02 2007 07:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: The Grubby quote, I believe, comes from Testie, I don't remember how it went exactly but it was from talking with grubby at blizzcon.
Considering how so many people here on TL.net adamantly hate War3, it's very possible that the original quote could've been taken out of context and been warped into its current form. I'm not going to doubt that the overall skill ceiling is lower in War3 than SC, but I still find it very hard to believe this kind of opinion from a top War3 player who has dominated for years. I was a Grubby fan for several years myself, while I was following the War3 scene, before I more recently returned to SC.
On October 02 2007 07:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: The Grubby quote, I believe, comes from Testie, I don't remember how it went exactly but it was from talking with grubby at blizzcon.
Considering how so many people here on TL.net adamantly hate War3, it's very possible that the original quote could've been taken out of context and been warped into its current form. I'm not going to doubt that the overall skill ceiling is lower in War3 than SC, but I still find it very hard to believe this kind of opinion from a top War3 player who has dominated for years. I was a Grubby fan for several years myself, while I was following the War3 scene, before I more recently returned to SC.
Oh it wasn't anti-war3, as I remember it it was mostly.. War3 having a bit higher luck factor and being less suitable as a spectator sport or something.
On October 02 2007 07:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: The Grubby quote, I believe, comes from Testie, I don't remember how it went exactly but it was from talking with grubby at blizzcon.
Considering how so many people here on TL.net adamantly hate War3, it's very possible that the original quote could've been taken out of context and been warped into its current form. I'm not going to doubt that the overall skill ceiling is lower in War3 than SC, but I still find it very hard to believe this kind of opinion from a top War3 player who has dominated for years. I was a Grubby fan for several years myself, while I was following the War3 scene, before I more recently returned to SC.
Oh it wasn't anti-war3, as I remember it it was mostly.. War3 having a bit higher luck factor and being less suitable as a spectator sport or something.
I'll try to find it.
Thanks, that would make a lot more sense, and I agree with both of these (there are many clear reasons anyone can see). So it's true how much the quote got warped from its original intentions to what some TL.net posters have been using to prove their points.
bunny: Who do you think is most successful at doing this right now at top level play? For most part, at high level gaming, sometimes executing the right strategy won't always win it for you.
Grubby: The difficult thing about this is what you should judge "skill" on. Do you judge skill only by the quality of someone's gameplay, or also on how *HARD* it is to execute that gameplay? This is a very hot topic with most people not even realising it. There have been soooooo many BW vs WC3 discussions about which game is better and I've found that the disagreements mostly spawn from different ways to measure skill. It can, for example, be extremely challenging to play Tetris with a ball-mouse where the ball is missing, but that doesn't make it a better or harder game than wc3. Just the same, I think most comparisons of BW and WC3 don't do justice to either of the games. Most people who advertise the superiority of BW do so because it's a harder game to play, using APM as an example. But another example that is given, is that for example spell-casters need to be selected seperately while casting, because otherwise you'll get 10 psionic storms in 1 location which doesn't do more damage than 1 psionic storm. However, I fail to see how an obsoleted game engine proves that it requires more skill, or how that's something to be proud of.
To me, BroodWars seems to be much harder to control partly because the game engine is so obsolete. Control groups respond less readily and units have lower AI. If that's what it takes to give a game quality, I say remove every single hotkey there is for WC3 and let's see how much harder WC3 is than BW. However, that would just be stupid, and perhaps it would also be stupid to condemn "1-strat-wonders" or "low-micro-strats", because it's not about how hard a strategy is to execute, but about how effective it is and how well it works in a situation. A lot of people seem to care even more about how hard it is to execute a strategy than about the result of it. It might be very hard to stand on one hand with your foot in your mouth, but it's more impressive to see someone do a spin on the floor with both legs in the air; while that may be a much easier move. That's why I think the animosity towards low-micro-strategies is unfair.
Prime.zeroth: Have you ever played or seen people played Starcraft? If yes, how do you think WC compare to SC as a RTS game? If Blizzard releases a new RTS game in few years, would you switch or would you still play WC?
Grubby: I've played Starcraft for about 5 years on and off, more off than on. It's an exciting game with infinite possibility for 'perfection' when it comes to handling several things at a time. The 'always build more worker units' concept appealed to me, but the low variety of strategies was less interesting and made it boring, unless i was messing around with Queens and such. If Blizzard releases a new RTS game, I'd DEFINITELY try it out and try to see if it's better.
They're two really great quotes and sum up how I feel about the situation (and I'm sure a lot of the pro MBS people feel)
On October 02 2007 07:31 IdrA wrote: that still doesnt address the point that simplifying the macro aspect of the game would remove part the diversity from high level gaming (the original point of this thread). also doesnt account for the fact that people who have been among the best at other games(games with mbs) also dont want mbs in sc2. hell even if we do just want mbs because its a skill we've developed, it doesnt change the fact that adding mbs would lower the skill cap and so make sc2 less valuable as an esport/competetive game.
This is ultimately what it boils down to.
MBS is bad for competitive play. (that being =/= with bad for the competitive scene). MBS is good for everyone else.
The amount of people who will be attracted to SC2 because of better UI functionality is [b]far greater than those who will be turned off of it. Sales will be better for better UI functionality than otherwise.
However, blizzard has to figure out whether MBS will hurt competitive play so badly that it will in turn hurt the competitive scene (something i have not yet been convinced of, but certainly willing to accept as possible).
At this point, assuming MBS is in fact anticipated to hurt the competitive scene (just to clarify: the strength of a competitive scene is judged solely on how much attention and support it gets), does Blizzard care more about Starcraft as an E-Sport, or do they care more about sales.
Regardless of which they choose, i think the majority of tl.net members think that they are considerably more important than they are in reality. The whole of TL.net could quit buying blizzard products altogether, and blizzard would be foolish to even bat an eyelash.
[/i] i think, in the long run, designing a game for E-Sports is likely to produce just as many, if not more, sales as designing it for the casual gamer. there would be no better advertising than having your game played for massive prize money on tv networks. it would get constant exposure and the progaming scene itself would glamorize the game, getting more people interested in the game and encouraging more people to play alot.
On October 02 2007 07:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: The Grubby quote, I believe, comes from Testie, I don't remember how it went exactly but it was from talking with grubby at blizzcon.
Considering how so many people here on TL.net adamantly hate War3, it's very possible that the original quote could've been taken out of context and been warped into its current form. I'm not going to doubt that the overall skill ceiling is lower in War3 than SC, but I still find it very hard to believe this kind of opinion from a top War3 player who has dominated for years. I was a Grubby fan for several years myself, while I was following the War3 scene, before I more recently returned to SC.
Oh it wasn't anti-war3, as I remember it it was mostly.. War3 having a bit higher luck factor and being less suitable as a spectator sport or something.
I'll try to find it.
Thanks, that would make a lot more sense, and I agree with both of these (there are many clear reasons anyone can see). So it's true how much the quote got warped from its original intentions to what some TL.net posters have been using to prove their points.
I might have gotten the testie and tasteless quotes jumbled up, but here's the one from tasteless, which you've probably read:
2) yes grubby has said that wc3 has major issues on the competitive level, mainly because there's not enough tasks for the players to juggle, instead randomness can take over. That doesn't mean he hates the game, it means he's recognized a heavy flaw in it. We discussed this at Blizzcon while playing SC2.
On October 02 2007 07:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: The Grubby quote, I believe, comes from Testie, I don't remember how it went exactly but it was from talking with grubby at blizzcon.
Considering how so many people here on TL.net adamantly hate War3, it's very possible that the original quote could've been taken out of context and been warped into its current form. I'm not going to doubt that the overall skill ceiling is lower in War3 than SC, but I still find it very hard to believe this kind of opinion from a top War3 player who has dominated for years. I was a Grubby fan for several years myself, while I was following the War3 scene, before I more recently returned to SC.
Oh it wasn't anti-war3, as I remember it it was mostly.. War3 having a bit higher luck factor and being less suitable as a spectator sport or something.
I'll try to find it.
Thanks, that would make a lot more sense, and I agree with both of these (there are many clear reasons anyone can see). So it's true how much the quote got warped from its original intentions to what some TL.net posters have been using to prove their points.
no
i was there too, testie wasn't lying. all three of us were talking about it at the time. i also talked to grubby off and on about this in korea.
many pros are very worried about MBS.
i also think it's lame to accuse all the sc players of making up extra evidence as if we didn't have an ass load already to point out that MBS is probably going to hurt competitive SC and make it less of an impressive esport.
Anti WC3?? Yes.. i am a Sc competitive gamer.. but i also play wc3... so i in no way am hateing on wc3.. i just want SC to be SC and WC to be WC.. that being said i want to see the same SBS in SC.. why?? becasue it defines SC.. this isnt wc3 so we dont need/want MBS~
On October 02 2007 07:06 lugggy wrote: Has anybody named an RTS that is "ruined" but would be better simply by taking MBS away from it? Didn't think so.
im pretty sure the quality of your arguments actually does the pro-mbs side a disservice.
read skew, lazerflip(might be in the other mbs thread), and artosis' posts. all have played other rts' on a competetive level. all have said the other games theyve played (c&c3, dow, aoe3, etc) would be better without mbs.
Talking about quality of arguments, maybe you actually play game yourself before bringing as fact what other people are saying... c&c3 and dow macro is as important as wc3 one, and in c&c3 unit production mechanics is completely irrelevant to mbs and clicking at buildings...
On October 02 2007 07:29 Lz wrote: gobol maybe u dont follow wc3 but .. grubby just 2-0'ed moon in the PGL(or w/e the wc3 tounry was called) in china lol so maybe u want to recheck that~~
Grubby, Moon and Tod are the current top 3 as far as I remember, so it's not surprising that they would be winning games from each other.
he was just responding to the guy saying that moon dominated everything which would then make grubby's statement that theres not enough to do in wc3 kinda funny.
Lz wasn't responding. He was bullshitting.
On October 02 2007 07:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: In conclusion:
I am against anything that simplifies the game.
MBS simplifies the game.
I am, however, pro-MBS in the Beta. It needs to be tested because I'm not confident enough in my opinion on MBS to throw it out without proper testing first.
Oh thanks god. So you are agree that neither pro-MBS nor anti-MBS can be sure about whether UI improvements are good or bad without testing them in game? From all anti-MBSers I didn't expect seeing that from you. I start to understand why you are pretty respected here
On October 02 2007 08:00 Mora wrote: At this point, assuming MBS is in fact anticipated to hurt the competitive scene (just to clarify: the strength of a competitive scene is judged solely on how much attention and support it gets), does Blizzard care more about Starcraft as an E-Sport, or do they care more about sales.
They have said many times already, they, with help of progamers, will work very carefully over every noobifaction when Beta test kicks in
On October 02 2007 07:17 Lz wrote: MBS can ADD NOTHING to competitive play.. only take from.. and yes u can look at every "PRO-RTS" game besides SC like WC3.. even Grubby said "there's just not enough to do" and thats his comment about WC3 so why do u want sc2 like that?? All the Good Players dont like MBS and its.. not so we have a advantage becasue lets face it.. there are other gamers from other games who are just as fast as SC players.. Take moon from WC3 for example.. but putting MBS in SC2 Ladder is like adding a Easy Button. which would destroy SC2 competitivly~
There's not enough to do because the supply cap is a defacto 50, upkeep prevents players from gaining any advantage from expanding at all, and the entire gameplay pace is like playing PvP on slow speed where you can only build one high templar, dark templar, and dark archon at a time, and these units also have 10x the durabilty of other units. Oh, and the DT can't attack while cloaked, and the Dark Archon will never realistically be able to gain his mind control ability.
There's no reason to build more than two of a barracks type in war3 so any argument that "war3 sucks because of MBS" is completely invalid. Play the fucking game before you bash it.
On October 02 2007 07:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: The Grubby quote, I believe, comes from Testie, I don't remember how it went exactly but it was from talking with grubby at blizzcon.
Considering how so many people here on TL.net adamantly hate War3, it's very possible that the original quote could've been taken out of context and been warped into its current form. I'm not going to doubt that the overall skill ceiling is lower in War3 than SC, but I still find it very hard to believe this kind of opinion from a top War3 player who has dominated for years. I was a Grubby fan for several years myself, while I was following the War3 scene, before I more recently returned to SC.
Oh it wasn't anti-war3, as I remember it it was mostly.. War3 having a bit higher luck factor and being less suitable as a spectator sport or something.
I'll try to find it.
Thanks, that would make a lot more sense, and I agree with both of these (there are many clear reasons anyone can see). So it's true how much the quote got warped from its original intentions to what some TL.net posters have been using to prove their points.
no
i was there too, testie wasn't lying. all three of us were talking about it at the time. i also talked to grubby off and on about this in korea.
many pros are very worried about MBS.
i also think it's lame to accuse all the sc players of making up extra evidence as if we didn't have an ass load already to point out that MBS is probably going to hurt competitive SC and make it less of an impressive esport.
Okay, nevermind that. I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of lying. I was just saying due to many people's dislike of the game, quotes can often change very much until it's not even close from the original message. Maybe this wasn't the case this time as you point out. Though, I would still appreciate a 1st-hand quote more than anything else.
Oh thanks god. So you are agree that neither pro-MBS nor anti-MBS can be sure about whether UI improvements are good or bad without testing them in game? From all anti-MBSers I didn't expect seeing that from you. I start to understand why you are pretty respected here
Yeah at the very start I didn't think there was any need for a beta or anything like that, it just sounded flat out bad to me, but I think testing it out is for the best. There's been lots of quality posts on both sides, so I'm open to the possibility of being wrong.
On October 02 2007 07:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: The Grubby quote, I believe, comes from Testie, I don't remember how it went exactly but it was from talking with grubby at blizzcon.
Considering how so many people here on TL.net adamantly hate War3, it's very possible that the original quote could've been taken out of context and been warped into its current form. I'm not going to doubt that the overall skill ceiling is lower in War3 than SC, but I still find it very hard to believe this kind of opinion from a top War3 player who has dominated for years. I was a Grubby fan for several years myself, while I was following the War3 scene, before I more recently returned to SC.
Oh it wasn't anti-war3, as I remember it it was mostly.. War3 having a bit higher luck factor and being less suitable as a spectator sport or something.
I'll try to find it.
Thanks, that would make a lot more sense, and I agree with both of these (there are many clear reasons anyone can see). So it's true how much the quote got warped from its original intentions to what some TL.net posters have been using to prove their points.
no
i was there too, testie wasn't lying. all three of us were talking about it at the time. i also talked to grubby off and on about this in korea.
many pros are very worried about MBS.
i also think it's lame to accuse all the sc players of making up extra evidence as if we didn't have an ass load already to point out that MBS is probably going to hurt competitive SC and make it less of an impressive esport.
Okay, nevermind that. I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of lying. I was just saying due to many people's dislike of the game, quotes can often change very much until it's not even close from the original message. Maybe this wasn't the case this time as you point out. Though, I would still appreciate a 1st-hand quote more than anything else.
I would be really, really interested in seeing a topic similiar to this in a warcraft 3 forum, especially if there are any war3 forums that are frequented by competitive players (ideally grubby-esque people but doesn't have to be that high tier).
On October 02 2007 08:00 Mora wrote: At this point, assuming MBS is in fact anticipated to hurt the competitive scene (just to clarify: the strength of a competitive scene is judged solely on how much attention and support it gets), does Blizzard care more about Starcraft as an E-Sport, or do they care more about sales.
They have said many times already, they, with help of progamers, will work very carefully over every noobifaction when Beta test kicks in
point?
If they turn SC2 into a micro game (or more-so, rather than strictly-so), it won't matter how many progamers they have assisting them.
Being a part of the balance team for 18 months for Company of Heroes (which is the best selling game in north america at the moment! woot!), i can say that developers and 'progamers' don't always see eye to eye. The progamers can point out flaws in balance (or design), and we (the developers) can even agree on their logic - but may simply want it to play that way. From that point on we take the feedback that is relevant to our vision of the game. These progamers may wail at the top of their lungs that macro has been ruined, and they could be promptly ignored (cause it's not relevant to their vision). Now, when that progamer says "look! this is overpowered" blizzard will heed the concern - for it's precisely within the limits of their vision, it's what they are looking for.
I'm not saying that Blizzard is going to do things one way or another - I do not work for blizzard. If i was a part of the blizzard team, i would be screaming at the top of my lungs to cater to the hardcore community. But that's because i feel the game (more specifically, the quality of the game) is more important than the amount of people playing it. I'm confident that Blizzard will cover their developement costs with ease, and so can afford the luxury of catering to that hardcore community. I would urge them to take that opportunity to do so.
However, they didn't do that with Warcraft 3. As much as their goal was to create a different kind of RTS, i believe that part of the foundation of that vision was to appeal to a larger audience (being completely aware that it may alienate their hardcore audience) with the hopes of boosting sales (and, if they were ambitious enough, with hopes of re-stimulating the dying RTS industry).
Will they do that with Starcraft2? Will they think that building a larger audience is more conducive to promoting E-Sport, or will they think that higher and diverse skill ceilings are more conducive? Do they even value E-Sport more than they value sales?
These are some of the questions i'd like to see asked in an interview. Then again, if i was asked these questions in an interview for Company of Heroes, i'd have to settle with an answer that says i love and care about both, and wouldn't disclose anything else.
I would agree entirely that MBS will lower the skill ceiling of the skill of macro. However, i do not see why this is bad (or than the fact that you enjoy macro). Do you think that it is not possible to have an equally high skill ceiling while having a lower macro-skill ceiling? If they had equally as demanding micro mechanics to make up for their lack of macro mechanics, would this be bad? Is your concern simply that by lowering the macro ceiling and increasing the micro ceiling that style will leave the game - that players cannot choose to be either or, but must be the best execution of both? - if so, do you not have faith that blizzard could create a system that allows for a wide range of style within a low macro ceiling and a high micro ceiling? - if this is true as well, is the foundation for such an opinion based off of Warcraft3?
As a game designer, these are important questions to me.
On October 02 2007 09:58 Mora wrote: I'm curious, for those that are anti-MBS:
I would agree entirely that MBS will lower the skill ceiling of the skill of macro. However, i do not see why this is bad (or than the fact that you enjoy macro). Do you think that it is not possible to have an equally high skill ceiling while having a lower macro-skill ceiling? If they had equally as demanding micro mechanics to make up for their lack of macro mechanics, would this be bad? Is your concern simply that by lowering the macro ceiling and increasing the micro ceiling that style will leave the game - that players cannot choose to be either or, but must be the best execution of both? - if so, do you not have faith that blizzard could create a system that allows for a wide range of style within a low macro ceiling and a high micro ceiling? - if this is true as well, is the foundation for such an opinion based off of Warcraft3?
As a game designer, these are important questions to me.
i believe one of the primary issues here for the anti-mbs crowd is that the title "Starcraft" is recognized as a micro/macro RTS game. With that being said many of it's gamers here do not want to see this micro/macro RTS sequel to favor micro over macro. They want a game with a similar balance of micro and macro within the game thus keeping it Starcraftesque. If this was a new blizzard title that did not have "Starcraft" in the name i would feel fine with Blizzard experimenting with MBS. Bare in mind Starcraft is the most successful heavily macro oriented game that exists, and there is obviously an audience for it.
It's an issue of weather or not the game is congruent to it's older brother. At the same time there is a fear that this MBS feature will also hurt the competitive scene. Now, if the game is given the right interface competitve gamers will jump on this as they have with the original Starcraft. If they attract those types of people they can be confident that their competitive scene will last.
Since SC shines MOST in it's sucess as an esport, it seems illogical to cater the game to a newbier crowd. MBS should be a setting at the very most, one that you can not use competitively. But on competitive levels, the game must have competitive elements.
On October 02 2007 09:15 FrozenArbiter wrote: I would be really, really interested in seeing a topic similiar to this in a warcraft 3 forum, especially if there are any war3 forums that are frequented by competitive players (ideally grubby-esque people but doesn't have to be that high tier).
I think that if you go to any other game forum on the net (including War3), it's basically accepted that MBS and automining are in the game, due to what was shown at Blizzcon. I'm not 100% on this, but this is what I'm led to believe.
On October 02 2007 09:58 Mora wrote: I'm curious, for those that are anti-MBS:
I would agree entirely that MBS will lower the skill ceiling of the skill of macro. However, i do not see why this is bad (or than the fact that you enjoy macro). Do you think that it is not possible to have an equally high skill ceiling while having a lower macro-skill ceiling? If they had equally as demanding micro mechanics to make up for their lack of macro mechanics, would this be bad? Is your concern simply that by lowering the macro ceiling and increasing the micro ceiling that style will leave the game - that players cannot choose to be either or, but must be the best execution of both? - if so, do you not have faith that blizzard could create a system that allows for a wide range of style within a low macro ceiling and a high micro ceiling? - if this is true as well, is the foundation for such an opinion based off of Warcraft3?
As a game designer, these are important questions to me.
by raising the demand on micro you could make a game that was equally hard and competetive as bw, yes. but it wouldnt be starcraft2, it would be some other game. a massive part of what makes sc sc, and what makes sc so succesful for progaming in korea, is that it is made of a very equal balance of macro, micro, and strategy. this, imo, makes it more fun, and definetly makes it more diverse. you are not forced to play the game a certain way (within reason), even at the highest level, because there are different, but equally important, aspects to the game.
On October 02 2007 09:15 FrozenArbiter wrote: I would be really, really interested in seeing a topic similiar to this in a warcraft 3 forum, especially if there are any war3 forums that are frequented by competitive players (ideally grubby-esque people but doesn't have to be that high tier).
I think that if you go to any other game forum on the net (including War3), it's basically accepted that MBS and automining are in the game, due to what was shown at Blizzcon. I'm not 100% on this, but this is what I'm led to believe.
The fact is that actually War3 doesn't really use the potential of MBS, you don't build as many buildings there and you keep them under different hotkeys anyway (Lucifer hotkeys his main with ziggurats though, I'm not sure why, maybe he likes to know how many he has or to focus fire the enemy if he would ever upgrade them - which doesn't happen all too often). For example take a look at my typical building hotkeying in War3:
3 - rax 4 - advanced rax 5 - altar 9 - upgrade building 0 - main
Wow, 5 hotkeys for 5 buildings.
It might be that Blizzard has put MBS into War3 just to check it out and improve for the SC2 (the game is in development for quite a time now).
Besides all of that:
SC1 "macro" as you call it: 1t2v3m4m5c6v SC2 "macro" with mbs: 1tTABv2m,mTABc3v
It's just a one click difference... Assuming that: SC1 1t2v = tank + vult from 2 different facts 3m4m5c = 2 marines and medic from 3 rax 6v = 1 science vessel (or whatever) from starport
SC2 1tTAB2v = tank + vult from 2 different factories (my experience with wc3 MBS tells me that buildings with different addons will be treated differently and you will have to tab between them) 2m,mTABc = 2x marine + medic from 3 different rax 3v = science vessel from starport
So, if you assume this way of thinking, you will notice that the macroing difficulty doesn't change all that much (click-wise) but frees up some hotkeys and allows you for more flexibility and control (you can now hotkey all your buildings, not just 10 which means intensive macro during intensive battles which I think should appeal to most of you mbs haters).
On October 02 2007 09:58 Mora wrote: I'm curious, for those that are anti-MBS:
I would agree entirely that MBS will lower the skill ceiling of the skill of macro. However, i do not see why this is bad (or than the fact that you enjoy macro). Do you think that it is not possible to have an equally high skill ceiling while having a lower macro-skill ceiling? If they had equally as demanding micro mechanics to make up for their lack of macro mechanics, would this be bad? Is your concern simply that by lowering the macro ceiling and increasing the micro ceiling that style will leave the game - that players cannot choose to be either or, but must be the best execution of both? - if so, do you not have faith that blizzard could create a system that allows for a wide range of style within a low macro ceiling and a high micro ceiling? - if this is true as well, is the foundation for such an opinion based off of Warcraft3?
As a game designer, these are important questions to me.
i believe one of the primary issues here for the anti-mbs crowd is that the title "Starcraft" is recognized as a micro/macro RTS game. With that being said many of it's gamers here do not want to see this micro/macro RTS sequel to favor micro over macro. They want a game with a similar balance of micro and macro within the game thus keeping it Starcraftesque. If this was a new blizzard title that did not have "Starcraft" in the name i would feel fine with Blizzard experimenting with MBS. Bare in mind Starcraft is the most successful heavily macro oriented game that exists, and there is obviously an audience for it.
It's an issue of weather or not the game is congruent to it's older brother. At the same time there is a fear that this MBS feature will also hurt the competitive scene. Now, if the game is given the right interface competitve gamers will jump on this as they have with the original Starcraft. If they attract those types of people they can be confident that their competitive scene will last.
Since SC shines MOST in it's sucess as an esport, it seems illogical to cater the game to a newbier crowd. MBS should be a setting at the very most, one that you can not use competitively. But on competitive levels, the game must have competitive elements.
Why should Blizzard heed such desires? If all you can say is "if it's not broken, don't fix it", they would be betraying themselves to cave into the desires of such a narrow-minded fan base - one that gives little but bitching, demands, and slander, to the company that is so devoted to providing for their games (and gamers!).
You did not answer any of my questions. As long as Starcraft has Terran, Zerg, Protoss, and takes place in space, it will be 'starcraftesque'. If they can make this game a better e-sport, more fun, and more accessible to the entire fanbase by incorporating MBS into their game, why should they not do so?
If you want to play Starcraft, play Starcraft. If changing part of the foundation of Starcraft is part of the recipe to making Starcraft 2 a superior game, why should they hesitate in doing so? Why make a cheap replica when you could transform it into something more amazing?
Your whole arguement doesn't even reside on the basis that 'SBS is better than MBS' - it's that MBS is not 'Starcraftesque'? How persuasive.
Since SC shines MOST in it's sucess as an esport, it seems illogical to cater the game to a newbier crowd.
Why is it illogical? How is expanding the accessibility of the audience - at no cost of fun, skill ceiling, excitement, or transparency - possibly going to hurt the competitive scene? The impression that i get from you is that 'newbying' the game down must be exclusive to being competitively stimulating (as stimulating as Starcraft!). Why do you believe this to be so? The questions which i asked (and you ignored) were trying to get at this premise.
On October 02 2007 09:58 Mora wrote: I'm curious, for those that are anti-MBS:
I would agree entirely that MBS will lower the skill ceiling of the skill of macro. However, i do not see why this is bad (or than the fact that you enjoy macro). Do you think that it is not possible to have an equally high skill ceiling while having a lower macro-skill ceiling? If they had equally as demanding micro mechanics to make up for their lack of macro mechanics, would this be bad? Is your concern simply that by lowering the macro ceiling and increasing the micro ceiling that style will leave the game - that players cannot choose to be either or, but must be the best execution of both? - if so, do you not have faith that blizzard could create a system that allows for a wide range of style within a low macro ceiling and a high micro ceiling? - if this is true as well, is the foundation for such an opinion based off of Warcraft3?
As a game designer, these are important questions to me.
by raising the demand on micro you could make a game that was equally hard and competetive as bw, yes. but it wouldnt be starcraft2, it would be some other game. a massive part of what makes sc sc, and what makes sc so succesful for progaming in korea, is that it is made of a very equal balance of macro, micro, and strategy. this, imo, makes it more fun, and definetly makes it more diverse. you are not forced to play the game a certain way (within reason), even at the highest level, because there are different, but equally important, aspects to the game.
the premise of my questions assumed that it was possible to create a game that was even more fun than Starcraft without relying on this 'perfect' balance of micro/macro/strategy.
I, without deviation, agree that this perfect balance is part of what makes Starcraft so fun. Which is irrelevant. If Blizzard - who can do their job a hell of alot better than you can do it - knows otherwise, who are you to be so certain that they are wrong? If you have more reason than your gut feeling, share it. It's that reasoning that i'm so curious about.
because i think they are quite willing to put higher guaranteed profits over making a quality game that satisfies hardcore fans, if their goal was to make a true sc2 and only to make it as high quality as possible, i dont think they would put mbs in.
sacrificing the micro/macro/strategy balance in favor of an easy to use interface would definetly make the game more appealing to newbs, and the hardcore fans are gonna buy the game either way. so mbs would guarantee higher sales right off the bat. to aim for esports success might promise higher sales later, after it catches on. but that is taking the risk that it will catch on at all, and it is sacrificing some of the initial sales assuming reviewers say its too hard/complex to play and cause alot of casual gamers to not want to buy it.
On October 02 2007 07:17 Lz wrote: MBS can ADD NOTHING to competitive play.. only take from.. and yes u can look at every "PRO-RTS" game besides SC like WC3.. even Grubby said "there's just not enough to do" and thats his comment about WC3 so why do u want sc2 like that?? All the Good Players dont like MBS and its.. not so we have a advantage becasue lets face it.. there are other gamers from other games who are just as fast as SC players.. Take moon from WC3 for example.. but putting MBS in SC2 Ladder is like adding a Easy Button. which would destroy SC2 competitivly~
There's not enough to do because the supply cap is a defacto 50, upkeep prevents players from gaining any advantage from expanding at all, and the entire gameplay pace is like playing PvP on slow speed where you can only build one high templar, dark templar, and dark archon at a time, and these units also have 10x the durabilty of other units. Oh, and the DT can't attack while cloaked, and the Dark Archon will never realistically be able to gain his mind control ability.
There's no reason to build more than two of a barracks type in war3 so any argument that "war3 sucks because of MBS" is completely invalid. Play the fucking game before you bash it.
Maybe u should think about reading my post above your's??? I do play Wc3 Lolz... so dont try to explain the game.. to me.. but maybe i should explain somthing of my game to you, u cant just build Dark Archons from gateways there fused by 2 dark templars.. so maybe u should rethink ur statement~
also i was thinking.. MBS is not even really ballenced.. with zerg in the mix... becasue they wont get to use MBS system to the fullest, like terran or protoss~ due to zerg's larva turns into all units~
On October 02 2007 11:27 IdrA wrote: because i think they are quite willing to put higher guaranteed profits over making a quality game that satisfies hardcore fans, if their goal was to make a true sc2 and only to make it as high quality as possible, i dont think they would put mbs in.
sacrificing the micro/macro/strategy balance in favor of an easy to use interface would definetly make the game more appealing to newbs, and the hardcore fans are gonna buy the game either way. so mbs would guarantee higher sales right off the bat. to aim for esports success might promise higher sales later, after it catches on. but that is taking the risk that it will catch on at all, and it is sacrificing some of the initial sales assuming reviewers say its too hard/complex to play and cause alot of casual gamers to not want to buy it.
Mora, you are truly giving Blizzard too much credit. SC has brought gaming to where no one has gone before, I don't think even Blizzard is truly prepared for it. Do you really think that Blizzard can truly mastermind everything and create a game just as perfect, yet at the same time changing the macro/micro balance, and also broadening the esports genre - just by synthesizing all the different intricate elements including MBS in the interface? I do not think any company can do this.
Remember this is the same company which thought fast speed was the way to go on ladders, that intended EMP and mmf to be commonly used in TvP, and the company which didn't know that "there's crashing" due to the hatchery bug. They are a great, great company, the best in the gaming business, but even they cannot grasp the multitude of ways games can evolve, especially not with a crazed nation playing 20 hours a day. SC was a happy accident. They will be lucky if they can replicate it with SC2, and a miracle if they can do so by changing the core style of the game while ignoring veteran players - and even then, I think the new gamestyle you proposed would be inferior and not as fun.
the only problem i see it is if you take all these things and put them together you aren't really using a heads up display like it is supposed to be used. The HUD is supposed to help make things easy and effecient yes, but it isnt supposed to do everything for you. If you make it so easy you dont have to move around or go back to your base or macro back at your base or what not you simply want to watch the game the game, not play it. Your using the Hud as a camera to watch pretty explosions and not playing the game as it was ment to be.
Most posts so far have assumed that what satisfies hardcore starcrafters is not going to satisfy 'noobs.' But I think where most things are concerned that's not necessarily true, and I don't get the impression that blizzard is seriously thinking that way either. Given blizzard's remarks and their playtesting pros, I assume that blizzard is largely of the mindset that what will satisfy hardcore gamers is likely to satisfy 'noobs' as well.
The MBS issue is probably the prominent exception to that rule. The real complaint with MBS is obviously strictly conceptual and could turn out to be unfounded. I think that's obvious. I think what might be less obvious is that MBS, if it goes awry could really destroy the game's competitive aspect. That's the real fear, I'd say. In order to gain a slight aesthetic advantage over starcraft, blizzard is putting sc2's longevity and competitive learning curve in jeopardy.
Probably the most important premise of any successful BW-based design is that blizzard must recognize that the original BW presents an almost ideal learning curve. Aside from any other game factors, the learning curve of BW is such that a player can play for years and still continue to make meaningful and appreciable gains. What blizzard needs to do is imitate that learning curve in whatever game they call Starcraft 2.
MBS could work, as long as it preserves the learning curve. It is certainly a possibility that reducing necessary macro actions could work out. Blizzard obviously recognizes this, and has made some remarks to this effect. Hopefully I can show, in a sort of boring, but hopefully roughly accurate way. why MBS is a pretty big deal (when trying to preserve the learning curve of BW). Essentially your necessary macro actions and screen time (time not spent watching units because you're looking at buildings) is drastically reduced. We've already been over this, but I don't think that the real effects of automining and MBS have really sunk in.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that MBS and automining would, in your average SC1 game, (simply for a point of reference, don't go nuts about how they're not the same game - they obviously have the same system of economics and macro) reduce necessary macro skills to roughly 20% of what is necessary now, and that would be pretty huge. Instead of screaming false analogy, consider for a moment a BW where you didn't have to look back at your nexus for every single probe you built (and that's a lot of probes - probably 50 or more). that's a lot less multitasking any way you slice it. if you've got all your nexii on the same hotkey then it's easy as hell to macro your economy. all you have to do is remember to add a probe at roughly the probe build time, adding nexii and subtracting them to your hotkey binding as your expansions saturate. that alone reduces the shear multitasking load tremendously, as anyone who plays starcraft can appreciate provided that they take the time to imagine it.
the other real simplification of MBS is that it becomes significantly easier to macro an army very efficiently. in pretty much every matchup, barring zvz, assuming sc2 is like starcraft - and i think where macro concerned it will be - there will be a pretty big number of production structures. anywhere from 5 facts vs 7 gates midgame to a dozen facts vs 20+ gates late game. the abliity to macro what would be seven left clicks + z as a simple 4z and then another seven left clicks + d as a simple 5d and then finally a few left clicks + k or what have you would save pros a lot of time. i mean seriously, take a moment to think about yourself having to do 20 left clicks and press a corresponding key (not to mention these clicks have to have some aim and must be in different places) and compare that to 4z5d6k. one can be drilled down to maybe 2s - 5s at best, but the other only takes maybe a twentieth the time with equal practice. apply these two figures as constants for late game macro, or even mid game macro (where probably a only slightly lesser ratio would occur) and you'll see why i think it's safe to forecast that between automining and MBS, macro would take roughly 20% of the current ablility to achieve roughly the same results. with macro that simplified, it's simply unrealistic to say that it would comprise a significant aspect of the game on par with micro or strategy.
is that the end of the world? it's obvious why a lot of veteran starcrafters think so. there's no doubt that the macro variable is huge in contributing to a player's progression along the learning curve, or his net skill, or whatever you want to call it. in essence, there are three dimensions to starcraft/BW, and the starcraft 2 that's being presented seems almost two dimensional. would you like to swap a live, hot, naked woman for a page from a magazine? .
in summary, i don't think idra's description of starcraft's beauty as being a mix of micro/macro/strategy is a simple aesthetic as you seem to suggest. granted, it's not a naked woman or a picture either, but the major concern is that blizzard is yet to reveal anything of substance that will fill satisfiy the multitasking gap that MBS and automining will put in the game. in starcraft you have this game that presents its players with an environment that can scale enormously as the players' skills improve. to use another metaphor, BW, in terms of its learning curve and skill sets, currently offers colesseum in which players can compete, and by adding a bunch of UI improvements, blizzard is effectively shrinking this colesseum toward the size of a little, blue sparring mat.
i'm not saying that it can't work, and i don't think anyone is. we're saying that we have trouble imagining what blizzard plans to use in order to 're-expand' the learning curve. in BW1, we already see brilliant micro that is limited more by the physical speed of a mousing hand than by any need for more multitasking (at least where pros are concerned). so the fix is not in making 'more micro.' there's already enough micro. smart pros can already manage their attacks close enough to the ideal that the marginal benefit of more time is pretty small. more strategy is of course great, but it almost certainly won't represent anything meaningful where the multitasking gap of MBS/automining is concerned. it's possible, of course, that blizzard will find something, but they certainly haven't presented it yet, and i think that until they do, the move to MBS is not a good one.
multitasking being what it is, blizzard could always speed up gameplay to compensate and possibly preserve many aspects of the bw learning curve. faced with that possibility, i think i'd agree with idra that macro as we see it in bw is a significant part of the appeal.
Fantastic post failsafe. When its all said and done, we are what Chordorvskiy so unkindly put - a niche community (albeit, a GREAT niche that has the RIGHT opinions. ) It remains to see if Blizzard will put a small number of dedicated, diehard, and probably the single most skill based RTS community over accolades and the vast hordes of money wielding noobs out there. I don't think we will win, but I certainly hope that Blizzard takes our concerns to heart.
If SC2 comes out with MBS and kills our beloved game without giving a equal substitute, I want to know that I fought as hard as I can against it.
On October 02 2007 11:44 Aphelion wrote: Mora, you are truly giving Blizzard too much credit. SC has brought gaming to where no one has gone before, I don't think even Blizzard is truly prepared for it. Do you really think that Blizzard can truly mastermind everything and create a game just as perfect, yet at the same time changing the macro/micro balance, and also broadening the esports genre - just by synthesizing all the different intricate elements including MBS in the interface? I do not think any company can do this.
Remember this is the same company which thought fast speed was the way to go on ladders, that intended EMP and mmf to be commonly used in TvP, and the company which didn't know that "there's crashing" due to the hatchery bug. They are a great, great company, the best in the gaming business, but even they cannot grasp the multitude of ways games can evolve, especially not with a crazed nation playing 20 hours a day. SC was a happy accident. They will be lucky if they can replicate it with SC2, and a miracle if they can do so by changing the core style of the game while ignoring veteran players - and even then, I think the new gamestyle you proposed would be inferior and not as fun.
I don't believe i've given any credit to blizzard. if i recall correctly, i said that they know what they are doing better than idra does - i would hardly credit that as 'credit'. Other than that i have been posing questions. Some on behalf of the Core Designer in me, and the other half from the Practical Developer side of me.
I believe Blizzard experienced a tremendous fluke with Starcraft. The creation of Warcraft3 only backed up those sentiments (at least from my perspective). I'm not convinced or inclined to believe that blizzard is capable of tailoring this game to accomodate both core and casual gamers. I've only asked the people on the Anti-MBS side to come up with better arguements; come up with better questions, useful questions! Maybe through enough constructive reasoning we can throw together something so irrefutable (via mani's report, etc.) that we can actually affect a change in their intentions!
Cool, we're still on the idea that clickZclickZclickZclickZclickZclickZclickDclickDclic4o276498ty842t487g2tyu3@@@ in under a second is the essence of macro.
Apparently removing the purely mechanical action at the END of all the thought processes of ONE part of macro is going to bust macro down to 20% of it's original demand. The hyperbole is so silly here I don't have an adjective for it.
I think everyone with a functional brain can agree that MBS on it's own is definitely going to make the game easier. But that's MBS on it's own. "Let's imagine SC1 with MBS". Is SC2 going to be SC1 with MBS?
What SC2 is doing is making macromanagement more strategy- and thinking- based instead of clicking based, and making micro even more demanding on handspeed than before. With high-yield resources, terrain interactions and whatever bloody hell, there are a million more facets to macromanagement than before for the player to consider, but a million less clicks for the player to do to achieve the same thing. Those clicks are going to micro-intensive units, because I want to watch epic fights and not someone going back to their base and clicking all their factories. That's how I see SC2 to be shaping up. And that's what the freaking developers are promising, that there will definitely be ways for pro players to showcase their skill and speed. At least to me, preferably in a fight, and not over their base.
Going to bring up the "micro based like WC3 argument"? It's the same resource model, same construction model, only rehashed with features that will add thinking and reduce clicking. WC3 macro might have little thinking, but SC2 macro is going to take as much experience and strategic sense if not more so than SC macro. There's a key difference here that no one seems to grasp. Gasp, I can't clickZclickZo8eru9f29rh2q43f626h492@@@@, I'm not macroing anymore!
Don't like it? No one's killing SC1 or putting it down. Especially with this niche community so used to SC1, it's natural that everyone is going to reject change. Stick with SC1, love it, but don't spout bullshit about how SC2 is going to be Warcraft 4, along with a thousand word essay comprising nothing but mistruths.
The silence of Blizzard is annoying, and their FAQ's only raises more concerns that they are not at all aware of how bw is played.. seems pretty useless. They ignored people that warned about about war3 (beta was leaked... and it feels like they are doing it again. They say they want to make it competative, they are even marketing it as a competative game.. And then it's "of course" that drones will will automatically harvest after they are built (from forum faq)
Who are theese progamers that blizzard has hired? What game did they compete in? and maybe more importantly, when were they progamers? Or are Blizzard just not listening to them?
All is quiet on the blizzard front.. :\
Wish they stated their views more, just a tiny bit of babysitting our main concerns would make it so much easier.. Then we can stop debating, and one of the sides can give up.. maybe
On October 02 2007 14:42 TeRRan`UseR wrote: Screw Nada's MnM attacking Savior's sunks; it's gonna be more like Nada's reapers raping Saviors main with sex micro.
But seriously, how many of us are also worried whether the micro in SC2 will be satisfactory for SCBW players? The units seem to move a little bit strange. I'm worried they will react like War3 units.
A lot of people here seem to be very confused as to what constitutes macro.
Macromanagement = Thinking/Strategy on a large scale.
Micromanagement = Intuitive fast clicking on a small scale. (individual unit strategy if you will)
What everyone, who is against MBS, is defending is a redundant "base micro".
A thoughtless sequence of clicks to rebuild an army is not macro. The thinking that you need to rebuild certain units and rally them to certain strategic location is macro. The outdated interface is just making macro needlessly harder to accomplish.
I suppose the key difference between the two camps (pro and anti MBS) is what they want a game to be. Ultimately I would like an RTS game to absolutely obey my will. That is, I would control the game with my mind, and literally out-think my opponent. I would be able to whizz from the front-line to base and if i saw some units in trouble, I would just mentally micro them. there would be no delay as I drag a selection box around them and then press the appropriate hot-keys and move them. It would happen as soon as I thought it. I don't want the interface to get in my way. As has been said before... I want to fight my opponent, not the interface.
Until such times, I want the interface to be as intuitive as possible, I don't want single building selection, as much as I wouldn't want my computer to revert back to a purely command-line driven operating system. (imagine if Starcraft operated on a CLI, so that you pressed enter to get a console, had to physically type "attack-move" and maybe enter grid co-ordinates, "10 meter North East" I think we agree to get a game like this operating at a reasonable pace would require a LOT of skill, but no-one would play it would they )
But for the anti-MBS I wouldn't worry too much about it. I doubt it will affect the game half as much as you imagine it will. Manual control will always be greater than automatic control. And if this game is anything like Blizzard's other games this will be the case. If any player relies too much on the computer's AI to control his army, any decent player will out-macro him and out-micro his army, and simply run rings around him.
Also that if you believe that adding MBS makes the game "easier", remember the description of Blizzard games... "easy to learn, hard to master". Don't worry there will be plenty to get your teeth into.
I'm hoping for a game with WC3's level of intense micro with SC style macro.
I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
On October 02 2007 18:29 uriel- wrote: Cool, we're still on the idea that clickZclickZclickZclickZclickZclickZclickDclickDclic4o276498ty842t487g2tyu3@@@ in under a second is the essence of macro.
Apparently removing the purely mechanical action at the END of all the thought processes of ONE part of macro is going to bust macro down to 20% of it's original demand. The hyperbole is so silly here I don't have an adjective for it.
20% of its physical requirements, yes.
I think everyone with a functional brain can agree that MBS on it's own is definitely going to make the game easier. But that's MBS on it's own. "Let's imagine SC1 with MBS". Is SC2 going to be SC1 with MBS?
What SC2 is doing is making macromanagement more strategy- and thinking- based instead of clicking based, and making micro even more demanding on handspeed than before. With high-yield resources, terrain interactions and whatever bloody hell, there are a million more facets to macromanagement than before for the player to consider, but a million less clicks for the player to do to achieve the same thing. Those clicks are going to micro-intensive units, because I want to watch epic fights and not someone going back to their base and clicking all their factories. That's how I see SC2 to be shaping up. And that's what the freaking developers are promising, that there will definitely be ways for pro players to showcase their skill and speed. At least to me, preferably in a fight, and not over their base.
I don't want more micro over less macro. You won't have to watch me go back to my base, cause you'll be watching from an observers perspective. But I god damn well want to have to go back to my base, or I'll be extremely disappointed.
Again, I don't want more micro at the expense of macro - if I liked that concept I could play warcraft 3. And I have seen no evidence of there being a "million more facets to macromanagement" than before.. Everything seems to be more or less the same.
Going to bring up the "micro based like WC3 argument"? It's the same resource model, same construction model, only rehashed with features that will add thinking and reduce clicking. WC3 macro might have little thinking, but SC2 macro is going to take as much experience and strategic sense if not more so than SC macro. There's a key difference here that no one seems to grasp. Gasp, I can't clickZclickZo8eru9f29rh2q43f626h492@@@@, I'm not macroing anymore!
Don't like it? No one's killing SC1 or putting it down. Especially with this niche community so used to SC1, it's natural that everyone is going to reject change. Stick with SC1, love it, but don't spout bullshit about how SC2 is going to be Warcraft 4, along with a thousand word essay comprising nothing but mistruths.
Ok see, this is what I take issue with: empty fucking words. You say it's going to add thinking - HOW?
You say it's going to take more experience and strategic grasp than SC macro - WHY?
So far whenever blizzard has been asked this question, what will replace the 4z5z6z their answer has been 'well.. blink'. Blink is not a fucking replacement for macro, it's a simple micro spell, which ,while definitely being one of my favorites so far, is not going to be all that demanding. The warpgates might be something that could make up for it, but we dunno much about them yet.
And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
That's just how it is, SC2 is way different than warcraft 3 - it's the successor in name and spirit, MBS is likely not going to be a big enough deterrent to most people. Hell, maybe not even for me (I mean, I'm buying it regardless, if I stick with it depends on if I'll find it as enjoyable).
On October 02 2007 18:43 ocoini wrote: The silence of Blizzard is annoying, and their FAQ's only raises more concerns that they are not at all aware of how bw is played.. seems pretty useless. They ignored people that warned about about war3 (beta was leaked... and it feels like they are doing it again. They say they want to make it competative, they are even marketing it as a competative game.. And then it's "of course" that drones will will automatically harvest after they are built (from forum faq)
Who are theese progamers that blizzard has hired? What game did they compete in? and maybe more importantly, when were they progamers? Or are Blizzard just not listening to them?
All is quiet on the blizzard front.. :\
Wish they stated their views more, just a tiny bit of babysitting our main concerns would make it so much easier.. Then we can stop debating, and one of the sides can give up.. maybe
They have Pillars, who was one of the best players in the world back in the early days of SC and BW. He's also been one of the top early players in several other RTSes, so.. I'm confident he's a good person for this job.
On October 02 2007 20:33 teapot wrote: Very good post uriel-.
A lot of people here seem to be very confused as to what constitutes macro.
Macromanagement = Thinking/Strategy on a large scale.
Micromanagement = Intuitive fast clicking on a small scale. (individual unit strategy if you will)
What everyone, who is against MBS, is defending is a redundant "base micro".
A thoughtless sequence of clicks to rebuild an army is not macro. The thinking that you need to rebuild certain units and rally them to certain strategic location is macro. The outdated interface is just making macro needlessly harder to accomplish.
I suppose the key difference between the two camps (pro and anti MBS) is what they want a game to be. Ultimately I would like an RTS game to absolutely obey my will. That is, I would control the game with my mind, and literally out-think my opponent. I would be able to whizz from the front-line to base and if i saw some units in trouble, I would just mentally micro them. there would be no delay as I drag a selection box around them and then press the appropriate hot-keys and move them. It would happen as soon as I thought it. I don't want the interface to get in my way. As has been said before... I want to fight my opponent, not the interface.
Until such times, I want the interface to be as intuitive as possible, I don't want single building selection, as much as I wouldn't want my computer to revert back to a purely command-line driven operating system. (imagine if Starcraft operated on a CLI, so that you pressed enter to get a console, had to physically type "attack-move" and maybe enter grid co-ordinates, "10 meter North East" I think we agree to get a game like this operating at a reasonable pace would require a LOT of skill, but no-one would play it would they )
But for the anti-MBS I wouldn't worry too much about it. I doubt it will affect the game half as much as you imagine it will. Manual control will always be greater than automatic control. And if this game is anything like Blizzard's other games this will be the case. If any player relies too much on the computer's AI to control his army, any decent player will out-macro him and out-micro his army, and simply run rings around him.
Also that if you believe that adding MBS makes the game "easier", remember the description of Blizzard games... "easy to learn, hard to master". Don't worry there will be plenty to get your teeth into.
I'm hoping for a game with WC3's level of intense micro with SC style macro.
Read half your post: Go play chess. No offense, but we want different things out of this game, clearly. I want a physical and mental game.
Read your last line: You won't have SC style macro with MBS. SC style macro implies a physical aspect.
And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
What? No way... aren't progamers under contracts? They'll likely continue playing SC, it's what they're good at now, it's a HUGE risk to jump to a new game for them. I think over a couple years the game will die down (as long as SC2 is successful), by having fewer and fewer starleagues etc., but I can't see SC dying at all soon :/
And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
What? No way... aren't progamers under contracts? They'll likely continue playing SC, it's what they're good at now, it's a HUGE risk to jump to a new game for them. I think over a couple years the game will die down (as long as SC2 is successful), by having fewer and fewer starleagues etc., but I can't see SC dying at all soon :/
On October 02 2007 20:33 teapot wrote: Very good post uriel-.
A lot of people here seem to be very confused as to what constitutes macro.
Macromanagement = Thinking/Strategy on a large scale.
Micromanagement = Intuitive fast clicking on a small scale. (individual unit strategy if you will)
What everyone, who is against MBS, is defending is a redundant "base micro".
A thoughtless sequence of clicks to rebuild an army is not macro. The thinking that you need to rebuild certain units and rally them to certain strategic location is macro. The outdated interface is just making macro needlessly harder to accomplish.
I suppose the key difference between the two camps (pro and anti MBS) is what they want a game to be. Ultimately I would like an RTS game to absolutely obey my will. That is, I would control the game with my mind, and literally out-think my opponent. I would be able to whizz from the front-line to base and if i saw some units in trouble, I would just mentally micro them. there would be no delay as I drag a selection box around them and then press the appropriate hot-keys and move them. It would happen as soon as I thought it. I don't want the interface to get in my way. As has been said before... I want to fight my opponent, not the interface.
Until such times, I want the interface to be as intuitive as possible, I don't want single building selection, as much as I wouldn't want my computer to revert back to a purely command-line driven operating system. (imagine if Starcraft operated on a CLI, so that you pressed enter to get a console, had to physically type "attack-move" and maybe enter grid co-ordinates, "10 meter North East" I think we agree to get a game like this operating at a reasonable pace would require a LOT of skill, but no-one would play it would they )
But for the anti-MBS I wouldn't worry too much about it. I doubt it will affect the game half as much as you imagine it will. Manual control will always be greater than automatic control. And if this game is anything like Blizzard's other games this will be the case. If any player relies too much on the computer's AI to control his army, any decent player will out-macro him and out-micro his army, and simply run rings around him.
Also that if you believe that adding MBS makes the game "easier", remember the description of Blizzard games... "easy to learn, hard to master". Don't worry there will be plenty to get your teeth into.
I'm hoping for a game with WC3's level of intense micro with SC style macro.
Read half your post: Go play chess. No offense, but we want different things out of this game, clearly. I want a physical and mental game.
Read your last line: You won't have SC style macro with MBS. SC style macro implies a physical aspect.
He just said that he wanted to have physical requirements in the game, so dont say the "Go play chess" argument since it doeesnt hold. He basically said: Physical = micro Mental= Macro.
He dont want to remove physical from the game, he wants to remove physical from macro, since the physical of micro is more complex for the user and more fun for the spectator. Macro have much less thinking per click than micro, therefore if we make macro clicks as mentally craving as micro clicks by removing a lot of unneed clicks we get a game that is mentally harder than before and still just as craving on the physical abilities to click a lot of times.
Macro clicks is a battle vs the clock, micro clicks is a battle vs another human. The multitasking aspect is kept in a way if they can improve the army diversity and make players want to expand more aggressively.
Thats the essence of his post i think atleast.
Edit: Sorry, i thought u quoted uriel, my bad. But this guy just got a vision, when you can control games with your mind i guess well see how it work, and i think that it wont be as seamless untill we have something like a cyborg brain.
And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
Yip. Starcraft will die relatively soon after Starcraft 2 is released, just like Quake 4 killed Quake 3, even though it was inferior in multiplayer, or at the very least it will cause a split in the scene, just like CS:S and CS 1.6 is now split. Because of this, it is very important that SC2 is a success.
As to the whole MBS debate, I find it very hard to make up my mind. My biggest worry with MBS is MBS combined with auto-mining. Hotkey'ing 6 command centres and having them all auto-mine will make building a strong economy very easy, I doubt anyone would argue with this. Unit production might be made easier with MBS, but not as significantly as most people believe.
On the other hand, I also feel that MBS is necessary in the evolution of RTS games, and I do not doubt that it is absolutely essential to SC2. Not having MBS would be like a Formula 1 team deciding that they do not need the newest automobile technology because it takes some of the skill out of racing. It is essential for SC2 to have MBS even if it is just to keep it on par with other RTS games.
So, I believe we are stuck in a situation where MBS is so to speak a necessary evil. Now this has been rehashed multiple times, and I'm just stating it at the start so that it will be clear where I'm coming from.
What I am wondering is whether the decrease in macro will not simply increase efficiency in pro-gaming. So far everyone seems to argue as if SC2 will be played in much the same way as SC1, but with an easier interface. I believe that the easier macro will greatly change the way the game is played, so that a map can be mined clean after 20-30 minutes of play, rather than 40-50 minutes.
For those that remember the start of progaming, I'm sure that if you look past your nostalgia you'll remember games where half the mineral spots on a map were left untouched after 60 minutes into the game. With the ever strengthening macro (forced on players by Oov), the game has changed to such an extent that a map can easily be mined out after 50 minutes. Because of this, macro changed from simply being able to build and mine from expansions, to being able to secure expansions, and to fight over those expansions.
MBS to me would have the same effect. The increased ease with which macro can now be done will simply place higher macro demands on the player (perhaps not physically, but in the game itself). Players would be able to expand much more rapidly, and would need to increase the speed at which they do everything, in order to keep up with the opponent. Bases would need to be secured more quickly, units manuevered more quickly, and even production facilities set up more quickly, to keep up with the greater income of players.
I can't see a game played competitively without players being pushed to the limit, and having an easier way to build units would force players to spend the "energy" usually spent on building units elsewhere, such as taking even more expansions. I'll try to illustrate this with an example:
Lets take TvT on Python, with SC2:
The start of the game should progress in much the same way, as progamers have more than enough time to do what needs to be done in the beginning in SC1, thus they are already functioning at 100% efficiency in the beginning.
Once the game reaches 10 minutes, both players have taken their naturals, and there are a few small skirmishes across the map. Usually in SC1 this is where players take their first expansions. So, both players take their first expansions. Now, the first expansion will be up and running a bit sooner, because players are able to get miners there efficiently, and have more time to spend on the base due to the smaller constraints of unit production being placed on them. So, 1 minute after the Command Centre finishes, both players have a fully functional expansion up, decently protected with turrets and tanks. This is where the game changes.
Both players now have minerals sooner than they usually would in SC1, so they have a choice, either build more units, or expand again. If they choose to expand again, 2 minutes later that expansion could be fully up and running, and they would have the choice of expanding yet again, or building more production facilities. This choice which is already very important in SC1, would be much more common because of the increased efficiency the players are playing at. Thus macro'ing will in a certain sense, still be about deciding when to do what in the game. Should I expand now, or would I be over-extending, do I need an additional 2 factories, or will my opponent have too great an economic advantage. Similar choices to that of SC1, but much more frequent.
But the increased strain does not end there. With more bases being built, more bases will also need to be defended, or alternatively, more bases will need to be attacked. Players will need to find ways of increasing the mobility of their forces, either by standard means found in SC1 (dropships, nydus canals, arbiters), or by ways that may only be possible with MBS, like spreading out production facilities, something that is impractical in SC1, because buildings need to be individually selected to build units, thus each new location increases the time it takes to build units.
This is simply a small example of the changes that MBS could bring to the game, and I think that if you consider the situation described in depth you will find that it probably will still require a strong macro sense to play.
So, while I believe that auto-mining when used in conjunction with MBS can make having a strong economy easier in SC1 terms, I also believe that the definition of a "strong economy" might change in SC2, due to the increased ease with which macro is executed.
As a final example I will use CnC3, a game I have only seen played a few times, but seems to be a decent strategy game. CnC3 has MBS (so to speak), yet the apm of the players I saw play was comfortably over 200. Because buildings build faster, and more units can be build, players are simply forced to do twice as much as they previously did. It is no longer sufficient to expand once every five minutes, you have to constantly be busy expanding, and finding new mineral spots, and building new production facilities. The game shocked me at how high paced it was, rushes happened in the first minute of the game, yet expansions were built while the units were being microed, and expansions were being killed a rebuilt.
As I said, I've only seen a few games of CnC3, but it made me feel that SC2 will perhaps be even more macro dependent than SC1 was, or at least similarly so, even though MBS is implemented. If my final example doesn't hold water, please don't disregard the whole argument, I have only seen a few games of CnC3.
PS. No I don't want SC2 to be the next CnC, don't even try to throw that at me.
On October 02 2007 23:35 Daigomi wrote: As a final example I will use CnC3, a game I have only seen played a few times, but seems to be a decent strategy game. CnC3 has MBS (so to speak), yet the apm of the players I saw play was comfortably over 200. Because buildings build faster, and more units can be build, players are simply forced to do twice as much as they previously did. It is no longer sufficient to expand once every five minutes, you have to constantly be busy expanding, and finding new mineral spots, and building new production facilities. The game shocked me at how high paced it was, rushes happened in the first minute of the game, yet expansions were built while the units were being microed, and expansions were being killed a rebuilt.
As I said, I've only seen a few games of CnC3, but it made me feel that SC2 will perhaps be even more macro dependent than SC1 was, or at least similarly so, even though MBS is implemented. If my final example doesn't hold water, please don't disregard the whole argument, I have only seen a few games of CnC3.
PS. No I don't want SC2 to be the next CnC, don't even try to throw that at me.
The cnc3 effect comes from building a miner facility + miner pays off itself and more in ~40 seconds, and it takes 20 seconds to build.
Also the unit building macro in that game is extremely easy, starcraft 2 wont be nearly as easy. In that game a unit dont take resources untill after it begins to build, so you just click a que of 99 and are done for the rest of the game, that and mbs together.
But atleast its a great example on how gameplay changes when the interface is made easier, and cnc3 probably got the easiest interface for any fast paced rts to date.
Daigomi, I don't see anywhere in your post why you think MBS will suddenly make it so that expanding is easier / faster..
People already expand really quickly/effeciently, the only thing that would change with MBS/Automining is that worse players could play closer to better ones. I don't see how oov will have even more units/bases faster just cause he has MBS/automining. He's already doing everything macro-related pretty much perfectly..
Why do people think that everyone prefers watching battles over growing bases? I get sooooo bored of the countless fights after a while if I don't take a look into my bases every now and then. I am not alone with my opinion.
On October 03 2007 02:21 ForAdun wrote: Why do people think that everyone prefers watching battles over growing bases? I get sooooo bored of the countless fights after a while if I don't take a look into my bases every now and then. I am not alone with my opinion.
which is a huge problem with the pro-MBS crowd. they cannot seem to understand that other players think that macro is more entertaining than micro.
On October 02 2007 20:33 teapot wrote: Very good post uriel-.
A lot of people here seem to be very confused as to what constitutes macro.
Macromanagement = Thinking/Strategy on a large scale.
Micromanagement = Intuitive fast clicking on a small scale. (individual unit strategy if you will)
What everyone, who is against MBS, is defending is a redundant "base micro".
A thoughtless sequence of clicks to rebuild an army is not macro. The thinking that you need to rebuild certain units and rally them to certain strategic location is macro. The outdated interface is just making macro needlessly harder to accomplish.
The kind of macro you appreciate is the kind found in a Real-Time Strategy Game. The kind of Macro that the anti-MBS crowd is worried about losing is the kind found in a Real-Time Strategy Sport.
The distinction between the 2 is that the anti-MBS crowd completely understands and appreciates how much thought needs to go into macro, however, despite that being a skill of it's own, they also think it imperative that the player be physically demanded to execute such thought. The "outdated" interface is not making this needlessly harder, it's making it possible.
On October 03 2007 02:21 ForAdun wrote: Why do people think that everyone prefers watching battles over growing bases? I get sooooo bored of the countless fights after a while if I don't take a look into my bases every now and then. I am not alone with my opinion.
which is a huge problem with the pro-MBS crowd. they cannot seem to understand that other players think that macro is more entertaining than micro.
I'm slightly different. I don't necessarily think it's really entertaining. I just think that it makes you appreciate the whole package—the fact that savior can have near perfect marco while absolutely raping your base— that much more. =]
On October 03 2007 02:21 ForAdun wrote: Why do people think that everyone prefers watching battles over growing bases? I get sooooo bored of the countless fights after a while if I don't take a look into my bases every now and then. I am not alone with my opinion.
which is a huge problem with the pro-MBS crowd. they cannot seem to understand that other players think that macro is more entertaining than micro.
I'm slightly different. I don't necessarily think it's really entertaining. I just think that it makes you appreciate the whole package—the fact that savior can have near perfect marco while absolutely raping your base— that much more. =]
agreed, kind of. the macro itself may not be entertaining, but the effect it has on the overall game definetly is. and its very easy for people who dont play alot to miss that.
On October 03 2007 01:43 FrozenArbiter wrote: Daigomi, I don't see anywhere in your post why you think MBS will suddenly make it so that expanding is easier / faster..
People already expand really quickly/effeciently, the only thing that would change with MBS/Automining is that worse players could play closer to better ones. I don't see how oov will have even more units/bases faster just cause he has MBS/automining. He's already doing everything macro-related pretty much perfectly..
FA, if I didn't state it directly, then I might simply have implied it. As the game progresses players lose efficiency, even Oov. All players have a limit of how many actions can be accomplished per minute. By lowering the number of actions/time required for repetitive tasks, these actions will be spent more effectively utillising the bases that are already built/being built.
Watching even the top pro's you often see scv's standing around, and that's just when the observer actually moves over them. By using auto-mining + MBS players will gain one or two seconds per miner that is built, plus they will gain some of the time they usually spend on producing units. This time would then be spent more efficiently running their bases, and expanding.
It basically just comes down to the fact that players, even pro-players, have a limit of what they can do every second. If you look at the FPVOD shots in most games you'll see the pro-gamers have a decent amount of minerals, minerals that they would probably wish to spend somewhere if the rewards they would reap from spending those minerals was worth the effort.
Why do people think that everyone prefers watching battles over growing bases? I get sooooo bored of the countless fights after a while if I don't take a look into my bases every now and then. I am not alone with my opinion.
I never said that I prefer watching battles over growing bases. I just said that as an effect of the increased base production, more battles might take place. These increased battles does not mean that micro will be more important. I was using that as an example to show how increased mobility might be required, which MBS would make possible.
Finally, I said in the beginning of my comment that I'm stuck somewhere in the middle of the debate. My whole comment stated what I thought could happen with MBS added, and I tried to show how MBS might not leave a gap in the macro part of the game.
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
?
Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing.
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
?
Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing.
Well, selecting 5 gates and pressing z has the same penality as selecting 1 gate and queing up 5 zealots. If you got the money to select 5 gates and press z you already wasted production time on that, making it less efficient than manually doing it. Ofcourse its a bit better than queing, but its still a lot worse than doing one at a time.
Only time a pro will use mbs is when they have huge money income and a ton of producers, aka when the game is at its peak of macro. A game before the ~12 minutes mark wont get effected much at all and still the effects will be quite minor untill you reach the super income state.
I really think that people here blow this way out of proportions, somehow people think that everyone will neglect their bases in sc2 and just focus on armies just beacuse of this etc, wich theres no evidence of at all. Every time you build a structure, every time you dont wanna mbs build since its less efficient, every time you need to hotkey a new building and every time its harrased you need to go there. All you really miss is the "I need to go to my industrial complex to click through all of them every 30 seconds", you dont go to your base, you go to your clump of gateways built close just to negate the effects of sbs.
As people have said, worker rally takes a lot more from the game since it effects everyone from the start till finish and got no drawback and cant be worked around as sbs were you build all buildings in close proximity to be able to easily build from all at the same time.
But then again worker rally is an extremely important feature much older than mbs, if it werent in the game would get literaly sawed to pieces by critics.
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
?
Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing.
Well, selecting 5 gates and pressing z has the same penality as selecting 1 gate and queing up 5 zealots. If you got the money to select 5 gates and press z you already wasted production time on that, making it less efficient than manually doing it. Ofcourse its a bit better than queing, but its still a lot worse than doing one at a time.
no, if you have 500 minerals built up right as your 5 gates finish their last production round (and you only intend to make zeals) everything is timed perfectly, because you can afford one production round right as the last one finishes. ideally you build up just enough minerals that you can make another production round right as the other finishes, all throughout the game. so yes, people will hit 6z7d, and yes if they do it right it will be perfectly efficient and save them quite a bit of time/focus.
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
?
Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing.
In the same way, having MBS allows only bad players to punish themselves by making only one type of unit, or one unit ratio, which gets walked over if it's tanks vs immortals, and makes them miss out on the "fun" of mass clicking.
If the game's quality was about how impressive it is to watch savior play, why not have the monitor disabled for players, so that it's that much more impressive to watch savior mine minerals and build units? After all, you guys do think it's more exciting to watch a base being built than a battle.
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
?
Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing.
Well, selecting 5 gates and pressing z has the same penality as selecting 1 gate and queing up 5 zealots. If you got the money to select 5 gates and press z you already wasted production time on that, making it less efficient than manually doing it. Ofcourse its a bit better than queing, but its still a lot worse than doing one at a time.
no, if you have 500 minerals built up right as your 5 gates finish their last production round (and you only intend to make zeals) everything is timed perfectly, because you can afford one production round right as the last one finishes. ideally you build up just enough minerals that you can make another production round right as the other finishes, all throughout the game. so yes, people will hit 6z7d, and yes if they do it right it will be perfectly efficient and save them quite a bit of time/focus.
exactly. take it once step further.
i play zerg, so i run out of keys for hatches real fast. now, all id have to do when i expo is bind those to 0 for ones im producing drones, 9 for muta hatches and 8 for ling hatches. theres absolutely no need ffor me to go back to my base.
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
?
Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing.
Well, selecting 5 gates and pressing z has the same penality as selecting 1 gate and queing up 5 zealots. If you got the money to select 5 gates and press z you already wasted production time on that, making it less efficient than manually doing it. Ofcourse its a bit better than queing, but its still a lot worse than doing one at a time.
no, if you have 500 minerals built up right as your 5 gates finish their last production round (and you only intend to make zeals) everything is timed perfectly, because you can afford one production round right as the last one finishes. ideally you build up just enough minerals that you can make another production round right as the other finishes, all throughout the game. so yes, people will hit 6z7d, and yes if they do it right it will be perfectly efficient and save them quite a bit of time/focus.
exactly. take it once step further.
i play zerg, so i run out of keys for hatches real fast. now, all id have to do when i expo is bind those to 0 for ones im producing drones, 9 for muta hatches and 8 for ling hatches. theres absolutely no need ffor me to go back to my base.
Except to build buildings or rearrange your keys for the zerg change that will force you to build more stuff than mutas and lings, or to research ups. Also it takes quite a while till you have 5 gates and it aint that often you want to build zeals in all of them. And really, this IS less efficient simple beacuse: You had to save up 500 mins sometimes. They dont pop up from nowere. In this specifik scenarion your opponent would on average have 3 more zealots than you, wich is noticeable.
Zerg is really screwy with very little diversity in their armies now though, Blizzard have a hard nut to crack there since its so easy to break what made zerg unique.
And mbs wouldnt make much difference at all wo worker rally really.
On October 03 2007 05:43 IdrA wrote: ya, thats the established argument he just seemed unaware of it
Yeah right, im unaware of one of the simplest arguments in this discussion were ive been on from the first topic when they announced this.
It will make a difference, never said otherwise, but it wont make such a big difference as you say.
what are you talking about? you accumulate the minerals while you're waiting for the units already building to finish. obviously it doesnt have to be with 5 gates, its with however many gates you have at the time. and if you do it right you have the correct number of gates so that when your production round finishes you have just enough money to start the next one, ie if your economy is such that in the build time of a zealot you save 700 minerals, you should have 7 gates. so yes, it is perfectly efficient if you do it right (and you do the same thing with or without mbs, its just much easier with mbs)
On October 03 2007 06:04 IdrA wrote: what are you talking about? you accumulate the minerals while you're waiting for the units already building to finish. obviously it doesnt have to be with 5 gates, its with however many gates you have at the time. and if you do it right you have the correct number of gates so that when your production round finishes you have just enough money to start the next one, ie if your economy is such that in the build time of a zealot you save 700 minerals, you should have 7 gates. so yes, it is perfectly efficient if you do it right (and you do the same thing with or without mbs, its just much easier with mbs)
Count with me, math aint that hard, lets make up some hypothetical numbers: You gain 100 mins every 10 seconds. You have 5 warpgates. Zealots costs 100 mins and takes 50 seconds to build.
Case a You wait till you have 500 mins and builds 1 zealot in each, wich means that at every full n^50 you get 5 zealots.
Case b You build 1 zealot asap when you have the mins, wich means that you get 1 zeal every n^10.
Thus case b have 1 more zeal at 10 seconds, 2 more zeals at 20 seconds, 3 more zeals at 30 seconds, and 4 more zeals at 40 seconds and same at 50. 1+2+3+4+0/5=2 more zealots on average.
Its exactly the same principle as to why you shouldnt que units, it takes longer till you get them that way.
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
?
Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing.
Well, selecting 5 gates and pressing z has the same penality as selecting 1 gate and queing up 5 zealots. If you got the money to select 5 gates and press z you already wasted production time on that, making it less efficient than manually doing it. Ofcourse its a bit better than queing, but its still a lot worse than doing one at a time.
no, if you have 500 minerals built up right as your 5 gates finish their last production round (and you only intend to make zeals) everything is timed perfectly, because you can afford one production round right as the last one finishes. ideally you build up just enough minerals that you can make another production round right as the other finishes, all throughout the game. so yes, people will hit 6z7d, and yes if they do it right it will be perfectly efficient and save them quite a bit of time/focus.
exactly. take it once step further.
i play zerg, so i run out of keys for hatches real fast. now, all id have to do when i expo is bind those to 0 for ones im producing drones, 9 for muta hatches and 8 for ling hatches. theres absolutely no need ffor me to go back to my base.
So when Savior plays, his hatches are permanently designated to either drone, muta, hydra or ling production? The more skilled the Zerg player is, the more flexible his production needs to be, so I'm sure its very dynamic and he'll always want his units coming out in the exact numbers he wants exactly when he wants, rather than a set ratio determined by the # of hatches in various control groups.
IMO, any pro Zerg player will not even be using MBS for the whole early-mid game until he reaches at least 6+ hatches when hotkeys start to become a problem, because MBS just takes away too much precise control over production that a highly skilled zerg player needs.
How many hatches does Savior even make in a typical ZvT or ZvP game? I don't think it ever goes above 10 unless it's something like a 45 min long game. Even by then, he still needs precision in unit choice, so I think he'll still manually hot-key his hatches in groups of perhaps 2 per control group rather than 1.
Yes but klockan the difference between a and b isn't really that big... its not really possible even for progamers to produce like that as the game progresses into its later stages which is why producing in rounds is so common. With mbs its just even easier to produce in batches...
And really, queing 5 zealots in like two gates is much much worse than batch producing 10 gateways or something. Producing things in rounds does not give much of a disadvantage (most people dont send one unit at a time to support their army while they are fighting lategame... so because the overall output is basically the same it has almot no detrimental effect later stages). Mbs makes producing in rounds much easier.
Also, u forgot to point out that queing units is much worse for another reason. While producing in rounds doesn't slow your unit output in the long-run, multiple ques do because by using less production facilities you fall further and further behind in unit production as the game progresses (assuming u continue to queue multiple units throughout the game).
I dont see the point in talking abotu that type of "perfect" unit production because its not practical to do it mid-late game, so most players dont bother with it (makes multitasking much harder while not giving much of an advantage anyways). Sure, mbs doesn't make that type of macro easier but people don't macro like that anyways...
On October 03 2007 06:04 IdrA wrote: what are you talking about? you accumulate the minerals while you're waiting for the units already building to finish. obviously it doesnt have to be with 5 gates, its with however many gates you have at the time. and if you do it right you have the correct number of gates so that when your production round finishes you have just enough money to start the next one, ie if your economy is such that in the build time of a zealot you save 700 minerals, you should have 7 gates. so yes, it is perfectly efficient if you do it right (and you do the same thing with or without mbs, its just much easier with mbs)
Count with me, math aint that hard, lets make up some hypothetical numbers: You gain 100 mins every 10 seconds. You have 5 warpgates. Zealots costs 100 mins and takes 50 seconds to build.
Case a You wait till you have 500 mins and builds 1 zealot in each, wich means that at every full n^50 you get 5 zealots.
Case b You build 1 zealot asap when you have the mins, wich means that you get 1 zeal every n^10.
Thus case b have 1 more zeal at 10 seconds, 2 more zeals at 20 seconds, 3 more zeals at 30 seconds, and 4 more zeals at 40 seconds and same at 50. 1+2+3+4+0/5=2 more zealots on average.
Its exactly the same principle as to why you shouldnt que units, it takes longer till you get them that way.
Case C You have 5k in the bank and just click 4z5d every 50 seconds.
On October 03 2007 06:04 IdrA wrote: what are you talking about? you accumulate the minerals while you're waiting for the units already building to finish. obviously it doesnt have to be with 5 gates, its with however many gates you have at the time. and if you do it right you have the correct number of gates so that when your production round finishes you have just enough money to start the next one, ie if your economy is such that in the build time of a zealot you save 700 minerals, you should have 7 gates. so yes, it is perfectly efficient if you do it right (and you do the same thing with or without mbs, its just much easier with mbs)
Count with me, math aint that hard, lets make up some hypothetical numbers: You gain 100 mins every 10 seconds. You have 5 warpgates. Zealots costs 100 mins and takes 50 seconds to build.
Case a You wait till you have 500 mins and builds 1 zealot in each, wich means that at every full n^50 you get 5 zealots.
Case b You build 1 zealot asap when you have the mins, wich means that you get 1 zeal every n^10.
Thus case b have 1 more zeal at 10 seconds, 2 more zeals at 20 seconds, 3 more zeals at 30 seconds, and 4 more zeals at 40 seconds and same at 50. 1+2+3+4+0/5=2 more zealots on average.
Its exactly the same principle as to why you shouldnt que units, it takes longer till you get them that way.
Case C You have 5k in the bank and just click 4z5d every 50 seconds.
If you ever run into Case C (WITH MBS), you'd have to suck pretty damn hard, so you lose by default
I did specify this multiple times even in the same post you quoted, yes? Of course, you are going to put it down to lack of "evidence", as shown below.
I don't want more micro over less macro. You won't have to watch me go back to my base, cause you'll be watching from an observers perspective. But I god damn well want to have to go back to my base, or I'll be extremely disappointed.
Again, I don't want more micro at the expense of macro - if I liked that concept I could play warcraft 3. And I have seen no evidence of there being a "million more facets to macromanagement" than before.. Everything seems to be more or less the same.
I explicitly stated more clicks dedicated to micro and the same number of thinking dedicated to macro. But I guess word-twisting is the flavor of the day here. MBS isn't going to remove macro. Perhaps you group of pr0+++++ players are so accustomed to all the actual THINKING involved in macro that you don't feel like they are there anymore? Well, they are.
And I did state the addition of high-yield resources as ONE example, of a game that has no stated release date. I have seen no evidence of there being more than 2 Zerg units either, wtf is this imba? No evidence, no evidence! We are already improving in terms of map design by adding critical resource nodes like double gases or whatever to add aspects to macro, how would high yield resources not benefit this?
Oh, and you brought up WC3. Fantastic.
Ok see, this is what I take issue with: empty fucking words. You say it's going to add thinking - HOW?
You say it's going to take more experience and strategic grasp than SC macro - WHY?
So far whenever blizzard has been asked this question, what will replace the 4z5z6z their answer has been 'well.. blink'. Blink is not a fucking replacement for macro, it's a simple micro spell, which ,while definitely being one of my favorites so far, is not going to be all that demanding. The warpgates might be something that could make up for it, but we dunno much about them yet.
And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
That's just how it is, SC2 is way different than warcraft 3 - it's the successor in name and spirit, MBS is likely not going to be a big enough deterrent to most people. Hell, maybe not even for me (I mean, I'm buying it regardless, if I stick with it depends on if I'll find it as enjoyable).
Because it's the same model as SC, with already ONE added feature of high-yield terrain. Assuming nothing else changes, which is already a bloody stupid assumption, it's still going to be more complicated than SC macro thought-wise. Simple logic no?
So far whenever Blizzard has been asked this question, they can't answer concretely because they can't. Hey Blizzard, send us some exclusives of all the Z units and a full playable beta while you're at it! Bringing "Blizzard hasn't said" into this argument is just juvenile when the game is so far from release and everything is so far from complete. Just as you can easily say "MBS is going to kill macro", I can easily say "there will be 200 other features in SC2 that will take clicks outside of making units", and if I can't prove my statement that there will be more new features, you can't prove yours (that there aren't going to be new ones) either. Are we really on a level that low?
As for liking to see people clicking on factories rather than a fight, well, that's touching on a personal level I guess. I suppose people like watching probes gather resources as well, so we should all remove probe mining automation so we have to click on the mineral and then on the Nexus for each run of mineral gathering. HEY, isn't that a bloody brilliant idea?
On October 03 2007 06:04 IdrA wrote: what are you talking about? you accumulate the minerals while you're waiting for the units already building to finish. obviously it doesnt have to be with 5 gates, its with however many gates you have at the time. and if you do it right you have the correct number of gates so that when your production round finishes you have just enough money to start the next one, ie if your economy is such that in the build time of a zealot you save 700 minerals, you should have 7 gates. so yes, it is perfectly efficient if you do it right (and you do the same thing with or without mbs, its just much easier with mbs)
Count with me, math aint that hard, lets make up some hypothetical numbers: You gain 100 mins every 10 seconds. You have 5 warpgates. Zealots costs 100 mins and takes 50 seconds to build.
Case a You wait till you have 500 mins and builds 1 zealot in each, wich means that at every full n^50 you get 5 zealots.
Case b You build 1 zealot asap when you have the mins, wich means that you get 1 zeal every n^10.
Thus case b have 1 more zeal at 10 seconds, 2 more zeals at 20 seconds, 3 more zeals at 30 seconds, and 4 more zeals at 40 seconds and same at 50. 1+2+3+4+0/5=2 more zealots on average.
Its exactly the same principle as to why you shouldnt que units, it takes longer till you get them that way.
you're missing the point, you assume your gates are constantly sitting idle waiting for units to be built. and if you macro like that, maybe thats why you want it to be simplified. you want your gates to be constantly running, that is maximum efficiency. to have every gate producing 1 unit at all times, and to not be able to afford to have more gates producing all units at one time.
lets say a zeals build time is 30 seconds, and in 30 seconds you accumulate 600 unused minerals. in that case you would want 6 gates, because every 30 seconds your zeals finish, your gates are empty, and you need to build 6 more zeals. if you build zeals any earlier, it wont make any difference. they wont start building until the other ones finish. but if you add gates, then you wont be able to afford to produce out of all of them (since you only get enough minerals to afford 6 gates per production round), meaning the extra gate would be a waste.
there is no benefit to building a zeal every time you get 100 minerals, assuming your gateways are constantly producing, which they should be. ideally you only want to make another round of units right as the other round is finishing.
As for liking to see people clicking on factories rather than a fight, well, that's touching on a personal level I guess. I suppose people like watching probes gather resources as well, so we should all remove probe mining automation so we have to click on the mineral and then on the Nexus for each run of mineral gathering. HEY, isn't that a bloody brilliant idea?
That is a very bad argument because the same bloody brilliant idea works for micro management. Lets say every time your units are on a different mode than the "attack mode" they cannot fight back when they get attacked. You'd have to manually tell them to attack. Or if you want to send units around a wall they run right into it.
Now try to catch the point that recently flew over your head.
In baby terms...
You avoided the whole post, every single point in it, misinterpreted sarcasm as an actual argument and then failed to see the intention of the sarcasm.
Has anyone read my previous post here? I have shown there that the "clickiness" of macro in SC2 won't differ all that much from SC1, the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings.
And having this in mind we can conclude that:
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on.
Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs.
Kindly point out where I avoid, misinterpret, and fail. In your case, you cleanly misinterpreted my sarcastic remark at making "macro more difficult" as...hell, I can't even follow your thought process, much less your language.
Until then, you aren't attacking the argument, but the person. I never implied that you were getting personal, but you seem to have branded that upon yourself. Does this topic really need people like you?
On October 03 2007 07:29 uriel- wrote: Kindly point out where I avoid, misinterpret, and fail. In your case, you cleanly misinterpreted my sarcastic remark at making "macro more difficult" as...hell, I can't even follow your thought process, much less your language.
Until then, you aren't attacking the argument, but the person. I never implied that you were getting personal, but you seem to have branded that upon yourself. Does this topic really need people like you?
I just refuted your argument. Sarcasm does not belong into a topic like this. This topic needs you as much as me. Now lets get back to topic, please.
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings.
And thats also one of the biggest problems.
The fact is, macro is significantly made easier through MBS, and people can achieve better macro at less sacrifice to micro and less effort made to it. Hence the skill variation of macro will be lowered. This is the end result we wish to prevent.
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
?
Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing.
Well, selecting 5 gates and pressing z has the same penality as selecting 1 gate and queing up 5 zealots. If you got the money to select 5 gates and press z you already wasted production time on that, making it less efficient than manually doing it. Ofcourse its a bit better than queing, but its still a lot worse than doing one at a time.
no, if you have 500 minerals built up right as your 5 gates finish their last production round (and you only intend to make zeals) everything is timed perfectly, because you can afford one production round right as the last one finishes. ideally you build up just enough minerals that you can make another production round right as the other finishes, all throughout the game. so yes, people will hit 6z7d, and yes if they do it right it will be perfectly efficient and save them quite a bit of time/focus.
exactly. take it once step further.
i play zerg, so i run out of keys for hatches real fast. now, all id have to do when i expo is bind those to 0 for ones im producing drones, 9 for muta hatches and 8 for ling hatches. theres absolutely no need ffor me to go back to my base.
So when Savior plays, his hatches are permanently designated to either drone, muta, hydra or ling production? The more skilled the Zerg player is, the more flexible his production needs to be, so I'm sure its very dynamic and he'll always want his units coming out in the exact numbers he wants exactly when he wants, rather than a set ratio determined by the # of hatches in various control groups.
IMO, any pro Zerg player will not even be using MBS for the whole early-mid game until he reaches at least 6+ hatches when hotkeys start to become a problem, because MBS just takes away too much precise control over production that a highly skilled zerg player needs.
How many hatches does Savior even make in a typical ZvT or ZvP game? I don't think it ever goes above 10 unless it's something like a 45 min long game. Even by then, he still needs precision in unit choice, so I think he'll still manually hot-key his hatches in groups of perhaps 2 per control group rather than 1.
So I think you just admitted MBS would favor P and T over Z. Imbalance plz?
I just realized another problem with MBS. Even if I grant your argument that good players won't use MBS, it remains the case that the macro of bad players would be helped significantly with MBS. In fact, the more you suck at macro and the more money you accumulate, the more MBS helps. What happened to retaining the gradient of skill between pros and noobs? You are deliberating creating a scenario where good players are barely helped by MBS, whereas bad players are helped immensely.
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: Has anyone read my previous post here? I have shown there that the "clickiness" of macro in SC2 won't differ all that much from SC1, the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings.
And having this in mind we can conclude that:
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on.
Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs.
The counter-argument is that if you're really good in sc:bw you either don't lose parts of your army for nothing while looking back into your base and managing it or you lose parts of your army because you timed it badly or handled things wrong or and now listen: you simply aren't that good. Talk about that gap once more. This argument has been repeated over and over again so why are there still people who claim not to have heard of it yet?
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: Has anyone read my previous post here? I have shown there that the "clickiness" of macro in SC2 won't differ all that much from SC1, the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings.
And having this in mind we can conclude that:
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on.
Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs.
The counter-argument is that if you're really good in sc:bw you either don't lose parts of your army for nothing while looking back into your base and managing it or you lose parts of your army because you timed it badly or handled things wrong or and now listen: you simply aren't that good. Talk about that gap once more. This argument has been repeated over and over again so why are there still people who claim not to have heard of it yet?
Because in the grand scheme of skill it isn't going to change who beats who, just like unit queues in SC didn't, and just like automine in war3 didn't
On October 03 2007 07:10 uriel- wrote: Is this is sound of the whole point flying over your head?
*Swoosh*
uriel- Give others respect regardless of whether they agree with you or not. FA is a respected poster and from what I read in this thread, is taking you seriously and providing good responses. It is fine to be passionate about your argument but do not be insulting.
ForAdun and uriel- Do not sidetrack threads with personal flame wars.
ForAdun and uriel- Do not sidetrack threads with personal flame wars.
Sorry, my bad.
On October 03 2007 08:24 Zanno wrote:
Because in the grand scheme of skill it isn't going to change who beats who, just like unit queues in SC didn't, and just like automine in war3 didn't
Well that is actually what we're debating here, it is yet not clear who's right. Maybe it will be clear when SC2 came out but it makes sense to talk about pro's and con's beforehand.
On October 03 2007 06:04 IdrA wrote: what are you talking about? you accumulate the minerals while you're waiting for the units already building to finish. obviously it doesnt have to be with 5 gates, its with however many gates you have at the time. and if you do it right you have the correct number of gates so that when your production round finishes you have just enough money to start the next one, ie if your economy is such that in the build time of a zealot you save 700 minerals, you should have 7 gates. so yes, it is perfectly efficient if you do it right (and you do the same thing with or without mbs, its just much easier with mbs)
Count with me, math aint that hard, lets make up some hypothetical numbers: You gain 100 mins every 10 seconds. You have 5 warpgates. Zealots costs 100 mins and takes 50 seconds to build.
Case a You wait till you have 500 mins and builds 1 zealot in each, wich means that at every full n^50 you get 5 zealots.
Case b You build 1 zealot asap when you have the mins, wich means that you get 1 zeal every n^10.
Thus case b have 1 more zeal at 10 seconds, 2 more zeals at 20 seconds, 3 more zeals at 30 seconds, and 4 more zeals at 40 seconds and same at 50. 1+2+3+4+0/5=2 more zealots on average.
Its exactly the same principle as to why you shouldnt que units, it takes longer till you get them that way.
Case C You have 5k in the bank and just click 4z5d every 50 seconds.
If you ever run into Case C (WITH MBS), you'd have to suck pretty damn hard, so you lose by default
Nah, if you don't have 5k when you are maxed out with 5 bases you don't have enough probes ;p
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
?
Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing.
Well, selecting 5 gates and pressing z has the same penality as selecting 1 gate and queing up 5 zealots. If you got the money to select 5 gates and press z you already wasted production time on that, making it less efficient than manually doing it. Ofcourse its a bit better than queing, but its still a lot worse than doing one at a time.
no, if you have 500 minerals built up right as your 5 gates finish their last production round (and you only intend to make zeals) everything is timed perfectly, because you can afford one production round right as the last one finishes. ideally you build up just enough minerals that you can make another production round right as the other finishes, all throughout the game. so yes, people will hit 6z7d, and yes if they do it right it will be perfectly efficient and save them quite a bit of time/focus.
exactly. take it once step further.
i play zerg, so i run out of keys for hatches real fast. now, all id have to do when i expo is bind those to 0 for ones im producing drones, 9 for muta hatches and 8 for ling hatches. theres absolutely no need ffor me to go back to my base.
So when Savior plays, his hatches are permanently designated to either drone, muta, hydra or ling production? The more skilled the Zerg player is, the more flexible his production needs to be, so I'm sure its very dynamic and he'll always want his units coming out in the exact numbers he wants exactly when he wants, rather than a set ratio determined by the # of hatches in various control groups.
IMO, any pro Zerg player will not even be using MBS for the whole early-mid game until he reaches at least 6+ hatches when hotkeys start to become a problem, because MBS just takes away too much precise control over production that a highly skilled zerg player needs.
How many hatches does Savior even make in a typical ZvT or ZvP game? I don't think it ever goes above 10 unless it's something like a 45 min long game. Even by then, he still needs precision in unit choice, so I think he'll still manually hot-key his hatches in groups of perhaps 2 per control group rather than 1.
So I think you just admitted MBS would favor P and T over Z. Imbalance plz?
I just realized another problem with MBS. Even if I grant your argument that good players won't use MBS, it remains the case that the macro of bad players would be helped significantly with MBS. In fact, the more you suck at macro and the more money you accumulate, the more MBS helps. What happened to retaining the gradient of skill between pros and noobs? You are deliberating creating a scenario where good players are barely helped by MBS, whereas bad players are helped immensely.
If you can't beat someone just because they get an option to use slightly less clicks to make units, then you were never better than them in the first place.
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: Has anyone read my previous post here? I have shown there that the "clickiness" of macro in SC2 won't differ all that much from SC1, the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings.
And having this in mind we can conclude that:
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on.
Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs.
i didn't respond to your post because i wasn't certain how accurate your version of the MBS is. Tabbing through buildings is very different than having access to all buildings' build menus simultaenously.
However, if your version of MBS is used, i would be in support of it. It's still as demanding as Starcraft is regarding keyboard dexterity, but an improvement in accessibility. It does shrink the skill gap, but i don't believe in a bad way. It's more forgiving for newer players without detracting anything for expert players.
I did specify this multiple times even in the same post you quoted, yes? Of course, you are going to put it down to lack of "evidence", as shown below.
I was trying to make it clear that no, I don't think 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is all there is to macro, but by adding MBS we ARE cutting down the PHYSICAL DEXTERITY required to macro smoothly by at the very least 20%, probably much, much more.
I don't want more micro over less macro. You won't have to watch me go back to my base, cause you'll be watching from an observers perspective. But I god damn well want to have to go back to my base, or I'll be extremely disappointed.
Again, I don't want more micro at the expense of macro - if I liked that concept I could play warcraft 3. And I have seen no evidence of there being a "million more facets to macromanagement" than before.. Everything seems to be more or less the same.
I explicitly stated more clicks dedicated to micro and the same number of thinking dedicated to macro. But I guess word-twisting is the flavor of the day here. MBS isn't going to remove macro. Perhaps you group of pr0+++++ players are so accustomed to all the actual THINKING involved in macro that you don't feel like they are there anymore? Well, they are.
And I did state the addition of high-yield resources as ONE example, of a game that has no stated release date. I have seen no evidence of there being more than 2 Zerg units either, wtf is this imba? No evidence, no evidence! We are already improving in terms of map design by adding critical resource nodes like double gases or whatever to add aspects to macro, how would high yield resources not benefit this?
Oh, and you brought up WC3. Fantastic.
OK, here's a quote from your original post:
What SC2 is doing is making macromanagement more strategy- and thinking- based instead of clicking based, and making micro even more demanding on handspeed than before.
Please explain how I'm twisting your words here when I state that I don't want more clicks microing and less clicks macroing (regardless of wether macro-theory stays the same or not).
I want to have to go back to my base. I want to have to click 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. I don't want to spend more time microing just because there's no more macro clicks to be done. I couldn't give any less of a shit wether macro is conceptually more difficult or not if all it takes to get my 12 raxes working in a TvZ is clicking 4m.
Ok see, this is what I take issue with: empty fucking words. You say it's going to add thinking - HOW?
You say it's going to take more experience and strategic grasp than SC macro - WHY?
So far whenever blizzard has been asked this question, what will replace the 4z5z6z their answer has been 'well.. blink'. Blink is not a fucking replacement for macro, it's a simple micro spell, which ,while definitely being one of my favorites so far, is not going to be all that demanding. The warpgates might be something that could make up for it, but we dunno much about them yet.
And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
That's just how it is, SC2 is way different than warcraft 3 - it's the successor in name and spirit, MBS is likely not going to be a big enough deterrent to most people. Hell, maybe not even for me (I mean, I'm buying it regardless, if I stick with it depends on if I'll find it as enjoyable).
Because it's the same model as SC, with already ONE added feature of high-yield terrain. Assuming nothing else changes, which is already a bloody stupid assumption, it's still going to be more complicated than SC macro thought-wise. Simple logic no?
What is high-yield terrain? High-yield minerals? How terribly complicated.
We best automate some more shit lest my puny mind overheat.
So far whenever Blizzard has been asked this question, they can't answer concretely because they can't. Hey Blizzard, send us some exclusives of all the Z units and a full playable beta while you're at it! Bringing "Blizzard hasn't said" into this argument is just juvenile when the game is so far from release and everything is so far from complete. Just as you can easily say "MBS is going to kill macro", I can easily say "there will be 200 other features in SC2 that will take clicks outside of making units", and if I can't prove my statement that there will be more new features, you can't prove yours (that there aren't going to be new ones) either. Are we really on a level that low?
What the hell does zerg have to do with this? This is what you said in your original post:
Going to bring up the "micro based like WC3 argument"? It's the same resource model, same construction model, only rehashed with features that will add thinking and reduce clicking. WC3 macro might have little thinking, but SC2 macro is going to take as much experience and strategic sense if not more so than SC macro. There's a key difference here that no one seems to grasp. Gasp, I can't clickZclickZo8eru9f29rh2q43f626h492@@@@, I'm not macroing anymore!
You are the one making these bold claims about how SC2's macro is going to take more experience, more strategic sense and less clicking (I don't see the less clicking part as being a good thing, which apparently you didn't get in my initial reply to your post).
And I can't ask you - not blizzard - what exactly is going to make things strategically deeper?
Even if we for a minute assumes that you are right, blizzard will turn SC2 into the next Go or Chess, it will be insanely deep. How is this an argument for MBS exactly? I am all for depth, but this doesn't in any way mean the speed and hectic pace of SC1 should be sacrificed.
Are you really bloody surprised I'm a little bit doubtful about their ability to add in features that would truly replace the hectic pace of SC1s macro, when the main thing they've brought up when asked is BLINK. A MICRO RELATED SPELL.
This doesn't worry you!?
As for liking to see people clicking on factories rather than a fight, well, that's touching on a personal level I guess. I suppose people like watching probes gather resources as well, so we should all remove probe mining automation so we have to click on the mineral and then on the Nexus for each run of mineral gathering. HEY, isn't that a bloody brilliant idea?
I don't like WATCHING them gather minerals. I like TELLING them to gather minerals.
I like having to do shit when I play, I dislike having things done for me.
If you can't beat someone just because they get an option to use slightly less clicks to make units, then you were never better than them in the first place.
Don't you think that's a somewhat strange reasoning? That would mean if someone with 200 IQ loses a race vs a horse... ah forget it
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
?
Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing.
Well, selecting 5 gates and pressing z has the same penality as selecting 1 gate and queing up 5 zealots. If you got the money to select 5 gates and press z you already wasted production time on that, making it less efficient than manually doing it. Ofcourse its a bit better than queing, but its still a lot worse than doing one at a time.
no, if you have 500 minerals built up right as your 5 gates finish their last production round (and you only intend to make zeals) everything is timed perfectly, because you can afford one production round right as the last one finishes. ideally you build up just enough minerals that you can make another production round right as the other finishes, all throughout the game. so yes, people will hit 6z7d, and yes if they do it right it will be perfectly efficient and save them quite a bit of time/focus.
exactly. take it once step further.
i play zerg, so i run out of keys for hatches real fast. now, all id have to do when i expo is bind those to 0 for ones im producing drones, 9 for muta hatches and 8 for ling hatches. theres absolutely no need ffor me to go back to my base.
So when Savior plays, his hatches are permanently designated to either drone, muta, hydra or ling production? The more skilled the Zerg player is, the more flexible his production needs to be, so I'm sure its very dynamic and he'll always want his units coming out in the exact numbers he wants exactly when he wants, rather than a set ratio determined by the # of hatches in various control groups.
IMO, any pro Zerg player will not even be using MBS for the whole early-mid game until he reaches at least 6+ hatches when hotkeys start to become a problem, because MBS just takes away too much precise control over production that a highly skilled zerg player needs.
How many hatches does Savior even make in a typical ZvT or ZvP game? I don't think it ever goes above 10 unless it's something like a 45 min long game. Even by then, he still needs precision in unit choice, so I think he'll still manually hot-key his hatches in groups of perhaps 2 per control group rather than 1.
So I think you just admitted MBS would favor P and T over Z. Imbalance plz?
I just realized another problem with MBS. Even if I grant your argument that good players won't use MBS, it remains the case that the macro of bad players would be helped significantly with MBS. In fact, the more you suck at macro and the more money you accumulate, the more MBS helps. What happened to retaining the gradient of skill between pros and noobs? You are deliberating creating a scenario where good players are barely helped by MBS, whereas bad players are helped immensely.
If you can't beat someone just because they get an option to use slightly less clicks to make units, then you were never better than them in the first place.
There is luck in SC.
There is also the fact that while someone might be better than someone else, they are still going to lose a game every now and then. Reducing the skill caps on that which differentiates players skill levels is only going to lead to the better playing having less of an edge, something which really isn't desireable.
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: Has anyone read my previous post here? I have shown there that the "clickiness" of macro in SC2 won't differ all that much from SC1, the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings.
And having this in mind we can conclude that:
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on.
Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs.
The counter-argument is that if you're really good in sc:bw you either don't lose parts of your army for nothing while looking back into your base and managing it or you lose parts of your army because you timed it badly or handled things wrong or and now listen: you simply aren't that good. Talk about that gap once more. This argument has been repeated over and over again so why are there still people who claim not to have heard of it yet?
I disagree with this. What you're referring to is the threshold, where before this threshold you're creating depth to the game by allowing for keyboard dexterity to impact the game in a significant way, and passed the threshold where you're creating arbitrary requirements to make those demands even greater.
No one says macro in this game is broken before you have 12 gateways. (since the only time your example is applicable is when you have more than 10 hotkeyed.) If macro in this game wasn't challenging enough before that mark, then players would have suggested taking out the ability to hotkey buildings at all - to force players to go back to their base, spend less time watching their army, and be faced with an even greater challenge of macro.
And it's at the line that i am drawing the threshold. If macro is not broken before the 10 hotkey mark, then allowing players to bind mutiple buildings to the same hotkey demanding the same amount of keyboard actions to produce units, is nothing but good.
This will again come down to preference. I personally have distaste for the shift in pro-map making where it's common to have maps that promote 10+ gateways relatively early in the game. I think at this point Starcraft has turned into too much of a macro game. On these maps it is no longer a 'balance' of micro/macro/strategy but with considerable more emphasis on macro. I could be wrong on this point, as this perspective has been formed after i have detached myself from playing competitively, however, the average game on Bifrost or Blitz X is a hell of a lot more entertaining than the average games found on Tau Cross or Longinus.
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
1. No it doesn't. Going back to your base and clicking 12 raxes requires a lot more clicks than 4m. 2. No it isn't, because you can just click 4m and be focus entirely on micro. More intensive as in more focused yes, more intensive as in more stressful or whatever you want to call it, no. 3. Which is a bad thing.
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: Has anyone read my previous post here? I have shown there that the "clickiness" of macro in SC2 won't differ all that much from SC1, the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings.
And having this in mind we can conclude that:
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on.
Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs.
The counter-argument is that if you're really good in sc:bw you either don't lose parts of your army for nothing while looking back into your base and managing it or you lose parts of your army because you timed it badly or handled things wrong or and now listen: you simply aren't that good. Talk about that gap once more. This argument has been repeated over and over again so why are there still people who claim not to have heard of it yet?
I disagree with this. What you're referring to is the threshold, where before this threshold you're creating depth to the game by allowing for keyboard dexterity to impact the game in a significant way, and passed the threshold where you're creating arbitrary requirements to make those demands even greater.
No one says macro in this game is broken before you have 12 gateways. (since the only time your example is applicable is when you have more than 10 hotkeyed.) If macro in this game wasn't challenging enough before that mark, then players would have suggested taking out the ability to hotkey buildings at all - to force players to go back to their base, spend less time watching their army, and be faced with an even greater challenge of macro.
And it's at the line that i am drawing the threshold. If macro is not broken before the 10 hotkey mark, then allowing players to bind mutiple buildings to the same hotkey demanding the same amount of keyboard actions to produce units, is nothing but good.
This will again come down to preference. I personally have distaste for the shift in pro-map making where it's common to have maps that promote 10+ gateways relatively early in the game. I think at this point Starcraft has turned into too much of a macro game. On these maps it is no longer a 'balance' of micro/macro/strategy but with considerable more emphasis on macro. I could be wrong on this point, as this perspective has been formed after i have detached myself from playing competitively, however, the average game on Bifrost or Blitz X is a hell of a lot more entertaining than the average games found on Tau Cross or Longinus.
Very few people hotkey 10 gateways so I'd say the threshold is lower than that.
Also, sure, nobody thinks macro is broken before 10 gates or whatever, but 1) 4m is 2 clicks. 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is a lot more.
2) The impact MBS has will increase more and more the more gateways you have.
Why exactly do we want to make the lategame easier to play again?
Stop trying to make a fast and fun paced game that isn't chess, chess.
What I believe blizzard is trying to do is make it a more army / harrass type of game to make it even more fun for audiences to watch. But, there's no reason that can't happen even without MBS.
My very own argument anti MBS is that I love the never-ending discussion between micro- and macro-gamers. I can't really say what is more important in sc:bw but I am sure that i don't want the discussion to end in SC2 just because of MBS (and automining, too, which could be even worse imo).
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
1. No it doesn't. Going back to your base and clicking 12 raxes requires a lot more clicks than 4m. 2. No it isn't, because you can just click 4m and be focus entirely on micro. More intensive as in more focused yes, more intensive as in more stressful or whatever you want to call it, no. 3. Which is a bad thing.
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: Has anyone read my previous post here? I have shown there that the "clickiness" of macro in SC2 won't differ all that much from SC1, the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings.
And having this in mind we can conclude that:
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on.
Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs.
The counter-argument is that if you're really good in sc:bw you either don't lose parts of your army for nothing while looking back into your base and managing it or you lose parts of your army because you timed it badly or handled things wrong or and now listen: you simply aren't that good. Talk about that gap once more. This argument has been repeated over and over again so why are there still people who claim not to have heard of it yet?
I disagree with this. What you're referring to is the threshold, where before this threshold you're creating depth to the game by allowing for keyboard dexterity to impact the game in a significant way, and passed the threshold where you're creating arbitrary requirements to make those demands even greater.
No one says macro in this game is broken before you have 12 gateways. (since the only time your example is applicable is when you have more than 10 hotkeyed.) If macro in this game wasn't challenging enough before that mark, then players would have suggested taking out the ability to hotkey buildings at all - to force players to go back to their base, spend less time watching their army, and be faced with an even greater challenge of macro.
And it's at the line that i am drawing the threshold. If macro is not broken before the 10 hotkey mark, then allowing players to bind mutiple buildings to the same hotkey demanding the same amount of keyboard actions to produce units, is nothing but good.
This will again come down to preference. I personally have distaste for the shift in pro-map making where it's common to have maps that promote 10+ gateways relatively early in the game. I think at this point Starcraft has turned into too much of a macro game. On these maps it is no longer a 'balance' of micro/macro/strategy but with considerable more emphasis on macro. I could be wrong on this point, as this perspective has been formed after i have detached myself from playing competitively, however, the average game on Bifrost or Blitz X is a hell of a lot more entertaining than the average games found on Tau Cross or Longinus.
Very few people hotkey 10 gateways so I'd say the threshold is lower than that.
Also, sure, nobody thinks macro is broken before 10 gates or whatever, but 1) 4m is 2 clicks. 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is a lot more.
2) The impact MBS has will increase more and more the more gateways you have.
Why exactly do we want to make the lategame easier to play again?
Like I said before: WHAT IF YOU WOULD HAVE MBS BUT STILL HAVE TO CLICK AS MUCH AS WITH SBS? (Sure that earlier in the game it COULD be just 2m, but later on when you add add-ons to your buildings you would have to tab through them all which would be more like 2mTABcTABfTABmTAB... Toss case: 2zCLICKzCLICKzCLICKzCLICK). That's what I was saying and so far it seems that only Mora understands my reasoning.
People, instead of arguing about MBS perhaps we should do the following:
1. Ask someone who has actually played SC2 (Testie?) to tell us how EXACTLY MBS works in SC2. 2. Decide what points we like there and what we don't like. 3. Get some constructive ideas on the way the thing could be improved (like my view on this subject) so it would satisfy more people (including hardcore fans).
Why so many of you are just bitching instead of finding something positive in this game? It's being released at least 10 years after the original so how the hell can you bitch about things getting changed?
I was trying to make it clear that no, I don't think 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is all there is to macro, but by adding MBS we ARE cutting down the PHYSICAL DEXTERITY required to macro smoothly by at the very least 20%, probably much, much more.
And my whole point is based on the fact that SC2, which is surprisingly NOT SC1, is going to detract the need of physical dexterity for macro and put it onto micro. That's what one can infer based on the features that we know, of Blizzard wanting macromanagement to be geared towards strategic sense, and micromanagement to be geared towards hand speed. Which makes sense to me.
What SC2 is doing is making macromanagement more strategy- and thinking- based instead of clicking based, and making micro even more demanding on handspeed than before.
Please explain how I'm twisting your words here when I state that I don't want more clicks microing and less clicks macroing (regardless of wether macro-theory stays the same or not).
Because you said "you don't want MORE MICRO and LESS MACRO". That is very distinct from MORE CLICKS to micro and LESS CLICKS to macro, which is what I meant, and what you did not express. When I explicitly stated I was referring to the shift in hand dexterity importance among the two, you equated it to me saying there will be more micro and less macro, hence twisting my words.
I want to have to go back to my base. I want to have to click 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. I don't want to spend more time microing just because there's no more macro clicks to be done. I couldn't give any less of a shit wether macro is conceptually more difficult or not if all it takes to get my 12 raxes working in a TvZ is clicking 4m.
If you don't want change and perhaps progress, Starcraft isn't going away. Perhaps half the world will agree with you and stick to Starcraft, perhaps you will find yourself in the niche group of hardcore Starcraft fans who share your opinion, but a small group of players wanting to 4z5z6z8wn9yryf9!@@@ isn't going to change the overwhelming majority of players wanting a better interface. Perhaps Blizzard will make it an option for "hardcore" communities, perhaps there will be a "hardcore" game setting just for players such as yourself. But forcefully rejecting a concept that will at the very least open the game up to more players, and at the very worst detract ONE part of macro of the huge game that is Starcraft is slightly over the top.
What is high-yield terrain? High-yield minerals? How terribly complicated.
We best automate some more shit lest my puny mind overheat.
Well, when you run out of points, is this what you resort to? At least my sarcasm is loaded with content. High-yield resources is an addition to the existing Starcraft resource model, complicating it. Just as how double-gas expansions, double-gas mains, baekmagoji-style mains are already causing timings and builds to change, so will well placed high-yield resources in mapmaking. Even if Blizzard stopped working on SC2 macro right now, this is still something SC1 does not have, making it more complicated, no matter how low of a degree you want to make it look like. Hence me saying that SC2's macro is going to take at least the same level of strategic thinking, if not more so. Why not be optimistic and believe that Blizzard is able to add OTHER resource and macro related features so that we have more things to consider outside expansion timing?
What the hell does zerg have to do with this?
Because you are dismissing my points based on the "no evidence" clause. If you require evidence for everything, I can simply say Zergs will have nothing outside of Zerglings, Mutalisks and Nydus Wurms because nothing has been said on the contrary. Similarly, you are saying that Blizzard is not going to include features that can demand micro and macro because "they haven't said anything about it". If we follow this clause, all discussion can stop because there's "no evidence".
Going to bring up the "micro based like WC3 argument"? It's the same resource model, same construction model, only rehashed with features that will add thinking and reduce clicking. WC3 macro might have little thinking, but SC2 macro is going to take as much experience and strategic sense if not more so than SC macro. There's a key difference here that no one seems to grasp. Gasp, I can't clickZclickZo8eru9f29rh2q43f626h492@@@@, I'm not macroing anymore!
You are the one making these bold claims about how SC2's macro is going to take more experience, more strategic sense and less clicking (I don't see the less clicking part as being a good thing, which apparently you didn't get in my initial reply to your post).
And I can't ask you - not blizzard - what exactly is going to make things strategically deeper?
As I have already explained, those are not bold claims. Let's start from a purely logical standpoint. Starcraft is A, and Starcraft 2 is currently A + B with B being high-yield resources. Even if Blizzard stops developing the game and does not add ANYTHING to the Starcraft 2 macro model, it's still going to be more complicated than Starcraft because it's the exact same thing plus more. Let's continue from a practical standpoint. Blizzard listens, and Blizzard are certainly capable of adding features that add to the thinking requirements of resource management. And EVEN IF THEY DID NOT, Starcraft 2 macro is still going to be more complicated. As for less clicking, well that's obvious.
Even if we for a minute assumes that you are right, blizzard will turn SC2 into the next Go or Chess, it will be insanely deep. How is this an argument for MBS exactly? I am all for depth, but this doesn't in any way mean the speed and hectic pace of SC1 should be sacrificed.
Are you really bloody surprised I'm a little bit doubtful about their ability to add in features that would truly replace the hectic pace of SC1s macro, when the main thing they've brought up when asked is BLINK. A MICRO RELATED SPELL.
This doesn't worry you!?
I have never exactly been arguing "for" MBS, per se. I'm fine either way with it being in or out, but I'm disagreeing with the people who attack MBS with hyperbole and bias stemming from their experiences with SC1. If MBS lowers handspeed requirements from macro, high-APM players are just going to put the APM (Real Time) component of their play to micro while keeping their (Strategy) component in macro. Speed is not going to be sacrificed, only reallocated away from macro, and that is only the tentative conclusion based on what we have. The only argument left at this point against this "I prefer spreading my handspeed between macro and micro", in which case Starcraft 2 might not be the game for you.
Of course, all this is based on what we have. Who knows if Blizzard doesn't bring in something for macro? As for them not responding to it with anything but Blink...the game's likely a year, perhaps years away from finalization and release. If you are unwilling to keep an open mind about what they can do, and limit all discussions to what we know for sure, than once again all discussion should stop because we know nothing.
I don't like WATCHING them gather minerals. I like TELLING them to gather minerals.
I like having to do shit when I play, I dislike having things done for me.
Why have rally points? I like to tell my units to move to where I want them to when they pop out of the Factory. Why have waypoints? There's nothing wrong with cutting back to that unit and giving it the next command after my current one is done. Why do my units attack enemies on sight automatically? If I see the enemy within range, is it that hard to command my units to attack the enemies?
You realize that if Starcraft 1 didn't have rally points, waypoints, stances or whatever the hell interface features, people are still going to find ways to play it right and play beautiful games, just different from what we know. But Starcraft 1 HAS rally points, waypoints, and stances, and people are using them to play beautiful games. When MBS comes around, assuming it is compulsory, people are still going to use them to play beautiful games, stunning in ways different from a game without MBS. If Starcraft 1 did not have rally points and such and SC2 introduced them, is it going to be as heated a discussion? Those definitely make the game far easier compared to one without. This is evolution, as inevitable as it gets. And if you reject it, you will simply have to settle with the option of sticking to what you like while everyone else moves on. Is there something so wrong with everyone else moving on?
*An end-note to our dear TL moderators. The post I was PMed for was quite clearly addressed to a certain ForAdun (or something like that), not FrozenArbiter (but then they are both FAs, so hell if I know). As FrozenArbiter is clearly trying to have an intelligent discussion, I have no reason to insult him. Not so much the other FA, who came in with some random post that served no purpose, and then attacked my command of the English language.
Then again, if something this obvious gets misinterpreted, I guess saying this won't do much. Just getting something out of my system, I guess.
You are having a good point uriel, e.g. comparing MBS to ralley points makes sense in my opinion. Ralley points are useful to win seconds to focuse more on the micro management, especially useful for rushes. MBS could do exactly the same. My question now would be how far we can go transferring seconds from macro to micro by using MBS + automining? How many seconds are too much? A simple question that is not so easy to answer.
Edit: FA is probably FrozenArbiter, I am not "respected" like him since I am new to this forum. And I am sorry if you took my response to the other post as an attack, it was meant to prove you wrong, not to make you look stupid or dunno.
- MBS will reduce the physical dexterity required for certain SC1 parts of certain SC1 matchups. - SC2 may require more or less dexterity than SC1, even with MBS. - SC2 will have entirely new matchups, and if they are ever balanced, it will be essentially "from scratch." I.E. they could all play like ZvZ, for all we know (and honestly we have more reason to expect that than you think). - Said matchups may require more dexterity or less, at various times, even with MBS. - Blizzard is going to include MBS in SC2.
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
1. No it doesn't. Going back to your base and clicking 12 raxes requires a lot more clicks than 4m. 2. No it isn't, because you can just click 4m and be focus entirely on micro. More intensive as in more focused yes, more intensive as in more stressful or whatever you want to call it, no. 3. Which is a bad thing.
On October 03 2007 09:33 Mora wrote:
On October 03 2007 07:53 ForAdun wrote:
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: Has anyone read my previous post here? I have shown there that the "clickiness" of macro in SC2 won't differ all that much from SC1, the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings.
And having this in mind we can conclude that:
1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing).
And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on.
Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs.
The counter-argument is that if you're really good in sc:bw you either don't lose parts of your army for nothing while looking back into your base and managing it or you lose parts of your army because you timed it badly or handled things wrong or and now listen: you simply aren't that good. Talk about that gap once more. This argument has been repeated over and over again so why are there still people who claim not to have heard of it yet?
I disagree with this. What you're referring to is the threshold, where before this threshold you're creating depth to the game by allowing for keyboard dexterity to impact the game in a significant way, and passed the threshold where you're creating arbitrary requirements to make those demands even greater.
No one says macro in this game is broken before you have 12 gateways. (since the only time your example is applicable is when you have more than 10 hotkeyed.) If macro in this game wasn't challenging enough before that mark, then players would have suggested taking out the ability to hotkey buildings at all - to force players to go back to their base, spend less time watching their army, and be faced with an even greater challenge of macro.
And it's at the line that i am drawing the threshold. If macro is not broken before the 10 hotkey mark, then allowing players to bind mutiple buildings to the same hotkey demanding the same amount of keyboard actions to produce units, is nothing but good.
This will again come down to preference. I personally have distaste for the shift in pro-map making where it's common to have maps that promote 10+ gateways relatively early in the game. I think at this point Starcraft has turned into too much of a macro game. On these maps it is no longer a 'balance' of micro/macro/strategy but with considerable more emphasis on macro. I could be wrong on this point, as this perspective has been formed after i have detached myself from playing competitively, however, the average game on Bifrost or Blitz X is a hell of a lot more entertaining than the average games found on Tau Cross or Longinus.
Very few people hotkey 10 gateways so I'd say the threshold is lower than that.
Also, sure, nobody thinks macro is broken before 10 gates or whatever, but 1) 4m is 2 clicks. 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is a lot more.
2) The impact MBS has will increase more and more the more gateways you have.
Why exactly do we want to make the lategame easier to play again?
Like I said before: WHAT IF YOU WOULD HAVE MBS BUT STILL HAVE TO CLICK AS MUCH AS WITH SBS? (Sure that earlier in the game it COULD be just 2m, but later on when you add add-ons to your buildings you would have to tab through them all which would be more like 2mTABcTABfTABmTAB... Toss case: 2zCLICKzCLICKzCLICKzCLICK). That's what I was saying and so far it seems that only Mora understands my reasoning.
People, instead of arguing about MBS perhaps we should do the following:
1. Ask someone who has actually played SC2 (Testie?) to tell us how EXACTLY MBS works in SC2. 2. Decide what points we like there and what we don't like. 3. Get some constructive ideas on the way the thing could be improved (like my view on this subject) so it would satisfy more people (including hardcore fans).
Why so many of you are just bitching instead of finding something positive in this game? It's being released at least 10 years after the original so how the hell can you bitch about things getting changed?
Later in the game is when MBS will have MORE of an effect, ok so the terran buildings have 2 different addons: 4m(10 rax with the dual unit production addon) 5c (2 rax with the tech addon)
10 raxes made marines, 2 raxes made medics.
I guess your toss example is for warpgates since they dont have any addons? Well, I'm sure most of the time the macro will look like this: 4z5d (*insert stalker/immortal hotkey*).
I have never exactly been arguing "for" MBS, per se. I'm fine either way with it being in or out, but I'm disagreeing with the people who attack MBS with hyperbole and bias stemming from their experiences with SC1. If MBS lowers handspeed requirements from macro, high-APM players are just going to put the APM (Real Time) component of their play to micro while keeping their (Strategy) component in macro. Speed is not going to be sacrificed, only reallocated away from macro, and that is only the tentative conclusion based on what we have. The only argument left at this point against this "I prefer spreading my handspeed between macro and micro", in which case Starcraft 2 might not be the game for you.
Of course, all this is based on what we have. Who knows if Blizzard doesn't bring in something for macro? As for them not responding to it with anything but Blink...the game's likely a year, perhaps years away from finalization and release. If you are unwilling to keep an open mind about what they can do, and limit all discussions to what we know for sure, than once again all discussion should stop because we know nothing.
People telling me "SC2 might not be the game for me" tilts the hell out of me.
Starcraft II is the sequel to Starcraft 1. Starcraft 2 is SUPPOSED to be the game for me, so if it changes the macro/micro balance (physical balance) then me being upset about it is a pretty natural reaction I would say.
And I'm worried about them mentioning blink because it makes it sound like they don't really understand the issue. Look, they mention blink - a micro aspect - as a replacement for a lot of lost macro..
Yeah, maybe they have something else planned, but the fact that they even mention blink is worrying. If they realized blink isn't a true replacement then why would they mention it?
Competitive SC1 will die. There is no other game that has the physical balance between time spent macroing/microing, so if SC2 doesn't preserve it, it will be NOWHERE.
If you look at the posts by people who played at blizzcon they all say the game is easier/less intense so far. Sure, they played bad opponents but it's a bad sign.
I think the fact that MBS will lower handspeed requirements for macro is pretty much set in stone. If SC2 was just SC1 with MBS, then it would be an easier and less intense game. There's really no point arguing that.
And my whole point is based on the fact that SC2, which is surprisingly NOT SC1, is going to detract the need of physical dexterity for macro and put it onto micro. That's what one can infer based on the features that we know, of Blizzard wanting macromanagement to be geared towards strategic sense, and micromanagement to be geared towards hand speed. Which makes sense to me.
And I hate this. They can't claim to stick to their SC1 roots and still go down this route..
Well, when you run out of points, is this what you resort to? At least my sarcasm is loaded with content. High-yield resources is an addition to the existing Starcraft resource model, complicating it. Just as how double-gas expansions, double-gas mains, baekmagoji-style mains are already causing timings and builds to change, so will well placed high-yield resources in mapmaking. Even if Blizzard stopped working on SC2 macro right now, this is still something SC1 does not have, making it more complicated, no matter how low of a degree you want to make it look like. Hence me saying that SC2's macro is going to take at least the same level of strategic thinking, if not more so. Why not be optimistic and believe that Blizzard is able to add OTHER resource and macro related features so that we have more things to consider outside expansion timing?
My point is that these are things that I'm perfectly capable of handling without MBS. The high-yield resources, as you yourself pointed out, are no different from double gas mains, minerals with less than 1500 units in them and so on.
As I have already explained, those are not bold claims. Let's start from a purely logical standpoint. Starcraft is A, and Starcraft 2 is currently A + B with B being high-yield resources. Even if Blizzard stops developing the game and does not add ANYTHING to the Starcraft 2 macro model, it's still going to be more complicated than Starcraft because it's the exact same thing plus more. Let's continue from a practical standpoint. Blizzard listens, and Blizzard are certainly capable of adding features that add to the thinking requirements of resource management. And EVEN IF THEY DID NOT, Starcraft 2 macro is still going to be more complicated. As for less clicking, well that's obvious.
Insignificantly more complicated theory wise, significantly easier execution-wise.
Because you said "you don't want MORE MICRO and LESS MACRO". That is very distinct from MORE CLICKS to micro and LESS CLICKS to macro, which is what I meant, and what you did not express. When I explicitly stated I was referring to the shift in hand dexterity importance among the two, you equated it to me saying there will be more micro and less macro, hence twisting my words.
I think those are one and the same. I consider the execution of macro to be part of macro, so reducing that (via MBS) leads to less macro even if its impact remains the same, in my opinion.
Why have rally points? I like to tell my units to move to where I want them to when they pop out of the Factory. Why have waypoints? There's nothing wrong with cutting back to that unit and giving it the next command after my current one is done. Why do my units attack enemies on sight automatically? If I see the enemy within range, is it that hard to command my units to attack the enemies?
You realize that if Starcraft 1 didn't have rally points, waypoints, stances or whatever the hell interface features, people are still going to find ways to play it right and play beautiful games, just different from what we know. But Starcraft 1 HAS rally points, waypoints, and stances, and people are using them to play beautiful games. When MBS comes around, assuming it is compulsory, people are still going to use them to play beautiful games, stunning in ways different from a game without MBS. If Starcraft 1 did not have rally points and such and SC2 introduced them, is it going to be as heated a discussion? Those definitely make the game far easier compared to one without. This is evolution, as inevitable as it gets. And if you reject it, you will simply have to settle with the option of sticking to what you like while everyone else moves on. Is there something so wrong with everyone else moving on?
Starcraft doesn't have 'stances'..
And no, I wouldn't oppose rally points because the impact it has is very different from the impact MBS has.
If you notice, I've said multiple times that I'm fine with unlimited unit selection caps. I'm not anti-progress, I'm anti-progress only when I believe it hurts the game.
I'm *not* going to get into an argument about MBS but I want to point out:
On October 03 2007 21:47 lugggy wrote: - Blizzard is going to include MBS in SC2.
Why the SHIT do people keep repeating this? Are you gloating? Do you feel victorious over the people who oppose it so you need to bring it up? Is there some kind of official statement from Browder or whoever that they will, without a doubt, incorporate MBS?
What the hell is the point of bringing this up in a 300-post thread, besides trying to piss people off. Obviously there's discussion to be had here (otherwise there wouldn't be 2 threads in the 'active thread' part spanning over 1000 posts on the subject) and you're not going to change it by saying 'Lolz Blizzard will put it in stop complaining~!'.
I think Blizzard has stated that they will remove features like MBS if they feel it's bad for the game.
And that is quite obvious. And as soon as the game goes into beta MBS will be removed, if not earlier. The more Blizzard will find out about the effect of MBS the more they will realize it's bad.
On October 03 2007 21:50 FrozenArbiter wrote: People telling me "SC2 might not be the game for me" tilts the hell out of me.
Starcraft II is the sequel to Starcraft 1. Starcraft 2 is SUPPOSED to be the game for me, so if it changes the macro/micro balance (physical balance) then me being upset about it is a pretty natural reaction I would say.
People who liked warcraft 2 probably plays starcraft today, not warcraft 3. Just beacuse it got the same name dont mean that it will pertain to the same audience. I know that blizzard said that they will make starcraft 2 pertain to th starcraft audience, but if you look at it even with mbs it will still be better than any other game for starraft fans except starcraft for those that cant live wo mbs.
On October 03 2007 23:50 Stegosaur wrote: Is there some kind of official statement from Browder or whoever that they will, without a doubt, incorporate MBS?
Not exactly but he (And all blizzard representatives) have always talked as if its the most natural thing in the world to keep it in. Everything else they state very vagely and said "Remember that nothings final" all the time, but on mbs they have always said a straight "Yes, it will be in" and have never even hinted at it being under consideration.
even monkeys could figure out that MBS is bad for sc2... im sorry to all you ppl who want mbs.. but ur IQ is lower then monkeys ~ surely blizzard has a bannana amoung them.. to figure this out. :D
On October 03 2007 23:50 Stegosaur wrote: Is there some kind of official statement from Browder or whoever that they will, without a doubt, incorporate MBS?
Indeed there was an official statement. There seems to be no signs of hesitation whatsoever with the MBS. This is in contrast to multiple unit selection, which "may change with further development".
From Karune's Q&A: 1. Will players be able to select multiple buildings simultaneously?
We are directing much attention to polishing and improving the user interface. On that note, players will definitely be able to select and build from multiple buildings at the same time. You cannot drag-select buildings, but you can shift-click on them and add them to a control-group for ease of unit production.
2. Will workers auto-gather resources if the rally point is set to a mineral node or a geyser?
Of course.
3. Will we be able to select more than 12 units at the same time?
Currently, unit selection is unlimited, but this may change with further development and testing.
On October 04 2007 02:05 Lz wrote: even monkeys could figure out that MBS is bad for sc2... im sorry to all you ppl who want mbs.. but ur IQ is lower then monkeys ~ surely blizzard has a bannana amoung them.. to figure this out. :D
Even a dog can figure out that noone knows yet if mbs is good or bad.
Your post doesnt make people listen to you, this only shows that your mind is so closed that there is no reason to take you seriously on this point.
On October 03 2007 21:47 lugggy wrote: - Blizzard is going to include MBS in SC2.
Why the SHIT do people keep repeating this? Are you gloating? Do you feel victorious over the people who oppose it so you need to bring it up? Is there some kind of official statement from Browder or whoever that they will, without a doubt, incorporate MBS?
What the hell is the point of bringing this up in a 300-post thread, besides trying to piss people off.
That pisses you off EXACTLY like shit like that pisses off me
On September 30 2007 20:56 Artosis3 wrote: ...With MBS suddenly hungtran doesn't need maphack to be good... ...1v2t. Look at me I'm iloveoov jr. Try it. 1v2t. Sorry oov you are out of a job. Even Casy can TvP now... ...At high levels MBS will ruin competition. SC2 will be WarCraft 4...
And what an irony BlackStar said exactly same "shit" as lugggy but turned upside down right after your rant. Wonder, who'll stop first
On October 03 2007 15:31 Aphelion wrote: The clicking part isn't the hardest. Anyone can go 5dtabdtabdtabdtabdtabdtabd without thinking or even realizing it after a few hours of training.
Its the part about having to tear yourself from your units consciously and going back to base to macro thats important.
Some Protoss and Zergs already most of the time don't go to the base to produce units. If you don't remember Tasteless idea about expanding amount of control group hotkeys also based on concept of macroing only from the keyboard without returning to the base. You've supported that idea and now, surprise-surprise, you're saying that really important part is going back to the base and not clicking!
On October 04 2007 02:05 Lz wrote: even monkeys could figure out that MBS is bad for sc2... im sorry to all you ppl who want mbs.. but ur IQ is lower then monkeys ~ surely blizzard has a bannana amoung them.. to figure this out. :D
wow .... this argument is not going to proceed into something. Please admins, close this thread and any other thread that comes up on the topic, it is just a big waste of internet.
On October 03 2007 15:31 Aphelion wrote: The clicking part isn't the hardest. Anyone can go 5dtabdtabdtabdtabdtabdtabd without thinking or even realizing it after a few hours of training.
Its the part about having to tear yourself from your units consciously and going back to base to macro thats important.
Some Protoss and Zergs already most of the time don't go to the base to produce units. If you don't remember Tasteless idea about expanding amount of control group hotkeys also based on concept of macroing only from the keyboard without returning to the base. You've supported that idea and now, surprise-surprise, you're saying that really important part is going back to the base and not clicking!
Zero contradiction. If you use 1 hotkey for CC / Nexus (could be 2, and T needs to hotkey comsats too), and 2-3 for units, you have 6, at most 7 for gates / rax / facts. Incidentally, this period of the game you need to go back to build supply, order probes to mine, tech, etc. After this period, you will need to go back as your gate number increase beyond your hotkey usage.
And that is for people who do use most of their macro from keyboard. A lot prefer to use more hotkeys for units and use the oov double tap method or F keys to return to base to macro fast. I think Nony has his nexus hotkeyed, and double taps on them to go back? Can't be sure.
Bottom line is, macro used to something that was not easy and required different adjustments through the game, and required a sacrifice of attention on micro. Both the multitasking elements and mechanical elements are being reduced w/ MBS greatly - and they shouldn't be.
tl.net has been owning the internet for quite some time now. Unfortunately, with the rise of the MBS topics, tl.net has been utterly owned by the internet. The internet is a powerful device.
Even the 300 Spartans were owned by the hordes of Persian noobs.
I fully anticipate Blizzard to ignore us on this matter and cater to the noobs who were lured away by the flash and ease of shittier games in the first place. But I'm gonna fight for the last inch of ground for the competitive community. Its the last of its kind...
I hate doing this, but I believe that I brought up a good point and would like to see someone comment on it rather than reiterate what we've been over before. So here's some shameless reposting: + Show Spoiler +
And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
Yip. Starcraft will die relatively soon after Starcraft 2 is released, just like Quake 4 killed Quake 3, even though it was inferior in multiplayer, or at the very least it will cause a split in the scene, just like CS:S and CS 1.6 is now split. Because of this, it is very important that SC2 is a success.
As to the whole MBS debate, I find it very hard to make up my mind. My biggest worry with MBS is MBS combined with auto-mining. Hotkey'ing 6 command centres and having them all auto-mine will make building a strong economy very easy, I doubt anyone would argue with this. Unit production might be made easier with MBS, but not as significantly as most people believe.
On the other hand, I also feel that MBS is necessary in the evolution of RTS games, and I do not doubt that it is absolutely essential to SC2. Not having MBS would be like a Formula 1 team deciding that they do not need the newest automobile technology because it takes some of the skill out of racing. It is essential for SC2 to have MBS even if it is just to keep it on par with other RTS games.
So, I believe we are stuck in a situation where MBS is so to speak a necessary evil. Now this has been rehashed multiple times, and I'm just stating it at the start so that it will be clear where I'm coming from.
What I am wondering is whether the decrease in macro will not simply increase efficiency in pro-gaming. So far everyone seems to argue as if SC2 will be played in much the same way as SC1, but with an easier interface. I believe that the easier macro will greatly change the way the game is played, so that a map can be mined clean after 20-30 minutes of play, rather than 40-50 minutes.
For those that remember the start of progaming, I'm sure that if you look past your nostalgia you'll remember games where half the mineral spots on a map were left untouched after 60 minutes into the game. With the ever strengthening macro (forced on players by Oov), the game has changed to such an extent that a map can easily be mined out after 50 minutes. Because of this, macro changed from simply being able to build and mine from expansions, to being able to secure expansions, and to fight over those expansions.
MBS to me would have the same effect. The increased ease with which macro can now be done will simply place higher macro demands on the player (perhaps not physically, but in the game itself). Players would be able to expand much more rapidly, and would need to increase the speed at which they do everything, in order to keep up with the opponent. Bases would need to be secured more quickly, units manuevered more quickly, and even production facilities set up more quickly, to keep up with the greater income of players.
I can't see a game played competitively without players being pushed to the limit, and having an easier way to build units would force players to spend the "energy" usually spent on building units elsewhere, such as taking even more expansions. I'll try to illustrate this with an example:
Lets take TvT on Python, with SC2:
The start of the game should progress in much the same way, as progamers have more than enough time to do what needs to be done in the beginning in SC1, thus they are already functioning at 100% efficiency in the beginning.
Once the game reaches 10 minutes, both players have taken their naturals, and there are a few small skirmishes across the map. Usually in SC1 this is where players take their first expansions. So, both players take their first expansions. Now, the first expansion will be up and running a bit sooner, because players are able to get miners there efficiently, and have more time to spend on the base due to the smaller constraints of unit production being placed on them. So, 1 minute after the Command Centre finishes, both players have a fully functional expansion up, decently protected with turrets and tanks. This is where the game changes.
Both players now have minerals sooner than they usually would in SC1, so they have a choice, either build more units, or expand again. If they choose to expand again, 2 minutes later that expansion could be fully up and running, and they would have the choice of expanding yet again, or building more production facilities. This choice which is already very important in SC1, would be much more common because of the increased efficiency the players are playing at. Thus macro'ing will in a certain sense, still be about deciding when to do what in the game. Should I expand now, or would I be over-extending, do I need an additional 2 factories, or will my opponent have too great an economic advantage. Similar choices to that of SC1, but much more frequent.
But the increased strain does not end there. With more bases being built, more bases will also need to be defended, or alternatively, more bases will need to be attacked. Players will need to find ways of increasing the mobility of their forces, either by standard means found in SC1 (dropships, nydus canals, arbiters), or by ways that may only be possible with MBS, like spreading out production facilities, something that is impractical in SC1, because buildings need to be individually selected to build units, thus each new location increases the time it takes to build units.
This is simply a small example of the changes that MBS could bring to the game, and I think that if you consider the situation described in depth you will find that it probably will still require a strong macro sense to play.
So, while I believe that auto-mining when used in conjunction with MBS can make having a strong economy easier in SC1 terms, I also believe that the definition of a "strong economy" might change in SC2, due to the increased ease with which macro is executed.
As a final example I will use CnC3, a game I have only seen played a few times, but seems to be a decent strategy game. CnC3 has MBS (so to speak), yet the apm of the players I saw play was comfortably over 200. Because buildings build faster, and more units can be build, players are simply forced to do twice as much as they previously did. It is no longer sufficient to expand once every five minutes, you have to constantly be busy expanding, and finding new mineral spots, and building new production facilities. The game shocked me at how high paced it was, rushes happened in the first minute of the game, yet expansions were built while the units were being microed, and expansions were being killed a rebuilt.
As I said, I've only seen a few games of CnC3, but it made me feel that SC2 will perhaps be even more macro dependent than SC1 was, or at least similarly so, even though MBS is implemented. If my final example doesn't hold water, please don't disregard the whole argument, I have only seen a few games of CnC3.
PS. No I don't want SC2 to be the next CnC, don't even try to throw that at me.
Daigomi I'm not sure which point you meant to bring up. There seem to have been several.
Yip. Starcraft will die relatively soon after Starcraft 2 is released, just like Quake 4 killed Quake 3, even though it was inferior in multiplayer, or at the very least it will cause a split in the scene, just like CS:S and CS 1.6 is now split. Because of this, it is very important that SC2 is a success.
Not true. War3 didn't kill SC:BW. Neither have other, "newer" "modern" RTS's. Why would SC2?
Not having MBS would be like a Formula 1 team deciding that they do not need the newest automobile technology because it takes some of the skill out of racing. It is essential for SC2 to have MBS even if it is just to keep it on par with other RTS games.
Bad analogy. RTS's don't race against eachother, such that the more features they have, the faster they go. SC1 proves this, for instance. "Taking the skill" out of a game, could be analogous to, making your car less aerodynamic though, if we imagine RTS's as cars racing against eachother. Their success is analogous to their quality for the player. MBS isn't necessarily, plus quality.
The rest of your post seems to talk about SC2 like it will be SC1 with minor changes. We know this isn't the case. There is no TvP (as we know it) or Python (as we know it) for SC2. Obviously more players, in SC2, thanks to MBS, are going to be closer to perfect macro. What this means in SC2 remains to be seen--better game, worse game, how does anyone claim to know? I suspect even without MBS it is going to be easier to play near perfect in SC2 because that's the kind of thing this current Blizzard (the one who made War3, which can hardly be construed as the one who made SC) seems to see as progress (for the interface and for the genre). And your guess is as good as mine, as long as it isn't based on faulty assumptions, such as that SC2 is going to have SC1's micro, units, matchups, etc. Because it's obviously not.
I think you really overestimate increase in macro at the top levels due to MBS. I'm pretty sure that SBS is far from a limiting factor in pro level macro, certainly not at the level to change expansion timing and having the map mined out 10 min faster. The big thing with MBS is that it doesn't uniformly raise macro across the board, but helps noobs much more than pros.
On October 03 2007 15:31 Aphelion wrote: The clicking part isn't the hardest. Anyone can go 5dtabdtabdtabdtabdtabdtabd without thinking or even realizing it after a few hours of training.
Its the part about having to tear yourself from your units consciously and going back to base to macro thats important.
Some Protoss and Zergs already most of the time don't go to the base to produce units. If you don't remember Tasteless idea about expanding amount of control group hotkeys also based on concept of macroing only from the keyboard without returning to the base. You've supported that idea and now, surprise-surprise, you're saying that really important part is going back to the base and not clicking!
Zero contradiction.
Go and read linked thread >___> You were supporting idea that makes situation "you will need to go back as your gate number increase beyond your hotkey usage." nearly impossible in flavor of clicking and That's what contradicts with your previous statement. Your description of Terran's hotkeying in BW is not relevant to my post at all.
On October 04 2007 02:54 Aphelion wrote: Even the 300 Spartans were owned by the hordes of Persian noobs.
I fully anticipate Blizzard to ignore us on this matter and cater to the noobs who were lured away by the flash and ease of shittier games in the first place. But I'm gonna fight for the last inch of ground for the competitive community. Its the last of its kind...
Attacking opposed side in discussion is the best way to win, right, my persian friend?
Not true. War3 didn't kill SC:BW. Neither have other, "newer" "modern" RTS's. Why would SC2?
As I said, there will at the very least be a split in the scene. A good game might not be killed by opposing games, but it usually will be killed by it's successor, even if the successor isn't as good. If not, then there will be a split in the scene where many gamers from the old game move on to the new game, while others remain at the old game. Either way, SC2 could potentially kill SC1, without taking over its spot.
Bad analogy. RTS's don't race against eachother, such that the more features they have, the faster they go.
You are nit-picking. The main point still stands: if there is a new technology around that makes something easier to do without a significant negative effect (yes, macro is a negative effect, but not to the general player base that would not notice the difference), then leaving it out would negatively influence a game. And RTS games might not "race" each other, but they do compete. That was the analogy I was making. Even then, that was just in the introduction, and has very little to do with the main argument.
The rest of your post seems to talk about SC2 like it will be SC1 with minor changes.
This seems to be ignoring my comment entirely:
So far everyone seems to argue as if SC2 will be played in much the same way as SC1, but with an easier interface. I believe that the easier macro will greatly change the way the game is played.
But if you are saying that I am basing my arguments on the premise that SC2 will be similar in essence to SC1 then you are correct. Obviously there will be major changes, but if we do not take SC1 as a basis for our arguments, then we cannot argue at all.
That said, the point of my post was that changes in MBS could potentially change the entire way the game is played, more than just making macro easier. Players could potentially still have as much macro as in SC1, or at least relatively close to the macro that can be found in current SC, but in a different way. Obviously the game will change greatly, in ways we cannot predict, all I am offering is a possibility of how that change could be positive towards macro even with MBS. It is that which I would like to have critically discussed.
To end I'll use yet another far-fetched comparison. A few years back they increased the size of table-tennis balls to make it easier to follow on television. This obviously made it easier for average to strong players to keep up with the pros, had the pros continued playing as they used to play. But the game changed dramatically, with more spin being applied by the pros which was made possible because of the increased ball size. Thus, even though the game was "noobified" so to speak, the game remained competitive because the pros simply raised the bar of what was considered good.
Being able to macro like Oov might be easy in SC2, but will it be easy to macro like Oov macros in SC2? I'm saying that it probably won't be.
EDIT:
I think you really overestimate increase in macro at the top levels due to MBS. I'm pretty sure that SBS is far from a limiting factor in pro level macro, certainly not at the level to change expansion timing and having the map mined out 10 min faster. The big thing with MBS is that it doesn't uniformly raise macro across the board, but helps noobs much more than pros.
I specifically agree with your statement that it does not raise macro across the board uniformly. I'm sure this is true, but I do no see why this is a negative.
The plateau might be raised, but there will remain a difference between elite players and strong players. While I might over-estimate the difference it would make to pro-gamers, you cannot argue that it would make no difference to them. Thus to be good, a player would need to be even better to rise up above the plateau, something which can be found in all sports that have survived.
For a sport to survive it needs to be easy enough to have a strong player base (take soccer/football as your leading example), and yet allow players of exceptional skill to still rise up above the average player.
In soccer/football basic game skills like passing, scoring, etc. are fairly standard. Most strong players can pass the ball decently accurately over a distance, and the difference between an elite player (just for purposes of this example Thierry Henry), and a good player (for purposes of the example Dirk Kuyt) is not big. Both players can kick at goal, both players can pass, both players are fast. Yet there is a difference in skill, a difference that when compared with an average player might seem minute, but at high level makes all the difference.
I might be able to macro almost as well as Oov in SC2, just like there are tons of current pros that can macro almost as well as Oov, but there will remain a difference between us, and that is the distinction between a good player and a great player, and MBS won't change that.
The major problem I think that everyone sees is the fact that you are taking this system of mechanics and purposely declining it just to welcome new faces. This would be like removing a great deal of keys from a piano in order to get more people interested in playing it. Yes, you might attract more people to learn since it will be easier to get good at but think of all the tones you will be leaving out.
You will be sacrificing potential for short term success.
On October 04 2007 03:51 1sd2sd3sd wrote: The major problem I think that everyone sees is the fact that you are taking this system of mechanics and purposely declining it just to welcome new faces. This would be like removing a great deal of keys from a piano in order to get more people interested in playing it. Yes, you might attract more people to learn since it will be easier to get good at but look how many tones you will be leaving out.
You will be sacrificing potential for short term success.
Dont come with analogies people, even if you think that just your analogy is ubersmart and everyone will get it.
All these analogies are based on either the thoughts of anti mbs, wich in essence says that sbs is the norm and mbs is the strange way to do the thing. Likewise you can just as well set mbs as the norm and sbs as the strange way.
Just as this analogy, i can say "Its more like you optimise the pianos, before a pianist would have to press 5 keys at once to get a tone, now you only have to press one giving the pianists a lot more room to play good music".
And just to end, perfect micro execution dont excist in starcraft, noone got it, but people can have perfect macro execution. Macro clicks are per definition simpler than micro clicks, wich means that a person that micros with 300 apm is doing something harder than the person macroing with 100 and microing with 200.
This is also why warcraft 3 can have a huge skill spectrum eventhough the game itself is extremely simple.
MBS wont kill the proscene, it will change it from what we have now but it certainly wont die and it certainly wont be smaller than now. And to those that says that mbs doesnt matter for the game growth and that the rts market is already full, i say BS. Do you know what people said before wow was released? That the mmorpg quote was already full, 1 million total mmorpg player was all you had in the world and more than that arent interested in that kind of games. The bam! WOW enters and gets a following many times larger than the other games together, crushing this "Limit" many times over.
Dont underestimate what small UI enhancements can do for the community size, UI enhancements and ease of play is the only things that differs wow from the other mmorpgs, if you equalise them wow dont got much at all vs the other games except for generally much better balance.(Yes, wow got much better balance than other mmorpgs, eventhough the balance in wow aint perfect.)
SBS is the norm, simply because SC has established it to be so. SC 2 is a successor to SC. SC will always be the piano, and SC 2 whatever you are trying to succeed it.
On October 04 2007 04:07 Aphelion wrote: SBS is the norm, simply because SC has established it to be so. SC 2 is a successor to SC. SC will always be the piano, and SC 2 whatever you are trying to succeed it.
Don't even try to argue against that fact.
Its not a fact, its a point of view.
For you it might be a fact, for others it might not. If you open your eyes and learn to view things from another persons perspective argumenting about stuff gets a lot eaier and you learn a lot yourself doing so.
By your reasoning starcrafts graphics is the norm and thus any change to the greaphics would be like painting a piano with purple/pink stripes and a lot of glitterdust.
Around here, and as far as SCII is concerned, it is fact. And graphics is an entirely separate matter from UI. The former is decoration, the later affects core gameplay.
Do you even play SC? Do you follow the proscene? I don't feel like you really even like the game, and you certainly don't respect it very much. In which case, why are you even here? Don't make Blizzard think that you are one of the "TL.net hardcore community" and make them receive input from you. You clearly aren't.
On October 04 2007 03:51 1sd2sd3sd wrote: The major problem I think that everyone sees is the fact that you are taking this system of mechanics and purposely declining it just to welcome new faces. This would be like removing a great deal of keys from a piano in order to get more people interested in playing it. Yes, you might attract more people to learn since it will be easier to get good at but look how many tones you will be leaving out.
You will be sacrificing potential for short term success.
Dont come with analogies people, even if you think that just your analogy is ubersmart and everyone will get it.
All these analogies are based on either the thoughts of anti mbs, wich in essence says that sbs is the norm and mbs is the strange way to do the thing. Likewise you can just as well set mbs as the norm and sbs as the strange way.
Just as this analogy, i can say "Its more like you optimise the pianos, before a pianist would have to press 5 keys at once to get a tone, now you only have to press one giving the pianists a lot more room to play good music".
And just to end, perfect micro execution dont excist in starcraft, noone got it, but people can have perfect macro execution. Macro clicks are per definition simpler than micro clicks, wich means that a person that micros with 300 apm is doing something harder than the person macroing with 100 and microing with 200.
This is also why warcraft 3 can have a huge skill spectrum eventhough the game itself is extremely simple.
MBS wont kill the proscene, it will change it from what we have now but it certainly wont die and it certainly wont be smaller than now. And to those that says that mbs doesnt matter for the game growth and that the rts market is already full, i say BS. Do you know what people said before wow was released? That the mmorpg quote was already full, 1 million total mmorpg player was all you had in the world and more than that arent interested in that kind of games. The bam! WOW enters and gets a following many times larger than the other games together, crushing this "Limit" many times over.
Dont underestimate what small UI enhancements can do for the community size, UI enhancements and ease of play is the only things that differs wow from the other mmorpgs, if you equalise them wow dont got much at all vs the other games except for generally much better balance.(Yes, wow got much better balance than other mmorpgs, eventhough the balance in wow aint perfect.)
I am not saying my analogy because I think it's "ubersmart". I'm saying it to get my point across. If you can play a song that easily is it really as beautiful as it use to be when it took more effort and motivation to learn? It may sound a little similar but is it really the same? No, It is a diluted version of its old self. Whats the point of playing a game that is a reduction of what it once was? What is the point of playing a song that even a beginner has the opportunity to match the intermediate or the intermediate match the expert? The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top. It will involve less execution, less discipline, and a few timed build orders. Whoever is ahead will have a hard time falling behind due to the fact they will not have a problem macroing while being harassed or while in a battle. They will be able to pay more attention to drops and harassment that could have possibly turned the game around. It will become much more simpler, a much reduced multitask requirement, and much less starcraft.
On October 04 2007 04:29 1sd2sd3sd wrote: The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top.
This wont happen unless there is no money to fight for, you will always have to work harder than your opponents to win. The skill spectrum will be just as large as before since micro has as much potential to create a skill diverse plattform as macro.
On October 04 2007 04:25 Aphelion wrote: Around here, and as far as SCII is concerned, it is fact. And graphics is an entirely separate matter from UI. The former is decoration, the later affects core gameplay.
According to Blizzard, those that makes the game and thus sets the standard, its the other way around and sbs is the outdated and mbs is the norm. Not that mbs is taking away and sbs is the norm.
Do you even play SC? Do you follow the proscene? I don't feel like you really even like the game, and you certainly don't respect it very much. In which case, why are you even here? Don't make Blizzard think that you are one of the "TL.net hardcore community" and make them receive input from you. You clearly aren't.
Why would Blizzard think that my 300 posts would make me a part of team liquids pro community? On quite many occasions ive given quite strong evidence of not being as in touch with the pro scene of starcraft as many others here.
Also why do i have to shut my eyes for the flaws starcraft had? Starcraft had flaws, theres no arguing about that, however different people think that different parts of starcraft is its flaws. By todays standards the UI of starcraft would be a heavy flaw for example, but compared to other games of the same time the UI werent much flawed at all.
ive been reading these "artificial interface hinderances arent what make the sport good" things and while I sort of agree, I think those artificial hinderances are good to differentiate competitors of their sport
and then I thought about downhill skiing and about how there, the goal is to drive down the hill as quickly as possible
but then, because this is not that difficult of a thing to do, to increase the skill-differentiating between different competitors, they decided to add all those poles in the ground to make it more difficult
while this is somewhat of a retarded analogy, I think it's way better than any of those "h game is better and I've found that the disagreements mostly spawn from different ways to measure skill. It can, for example, be extremely challenging to play Tetris with a ball-mouse where the ball is missing, but that doesn't make it a better or harder game than wc3. " analogies to show why adding interface hinderances is a bad thing.
everything is interface. there has to be something some people can do and others cant do for there to be any competition.
Aphelion, there is no need to be a dick now. Klockan3 did point out one of the flaws that are inherent in all analogies. I am semi-arguing for MBS (not truly, but I do want anti-MBS players to consider the advantages that MBS offers), and I've been following the pro-scene since its conception. Having a different opinion from you is not necessarily the same as being a retard.
That said, I'd like to point out that the organ was invented before the piano, and the piano was indeed seen as a simplified organ. Yet today, most classical music is composed for the piano, rather than for the organ, and the organ is mostly seen as excessively complicated.
EDIT: Drone, you make a good analogy. I think we differ on one point and that is that SC2 will be too easy. While it should be fairly easy to maximise the speed at which you can travel in a straight line downhill, it probably won't be as easy to do the same in SC2, especially since SC2 has a strong mental aspect to it.
If you disagree with me, and you honestly believe that after a year of play all professional players will be exactly the same strength then that is simply a difference of opinion, and we will have to wait and see what happens, but if you believe like me that after 10 years of play, even with MBS, the great will still be great, while the good will remain just good, then you must agree that making the game as user friendly as possible should be an advantage.
On October 04 2007 04:29 1sd2sd3sd wrote: The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top.
This wont happen unless there is no money to fight for, you will always have to work harder than your opponents to win. The skill spectrum will be just as large as before since micro has as much potential to create a skill diverse plattform as macro.
By being forced to macro and micro there is much more room for mistakes. The game can be turned around by brilliant play. By making macro so easy you are reducing the chances of the game being turned around and therefore limiting the skill of the players. The skill can be diverse with micro but imagine having to do both.
On October 04 2007 04:29 1sd2sd3sd wrote: The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top.
This wont happen unless there is no money to fight for, you will always have to work harder than your opponents to win. The skill spectrum will be just as large as before since micro has as much potential to create a skill diverse plattform as macro.
By being forced to macro and micro there is much more room for mistakes. The game can be turned around by brilliant play. By making macro so easy you are reducing the chances of the game being turned around and therefore limiting the skill of the players. The skill can be diverse with micro but imagine having to do both.
Lack of mistakes is a definition of skill, you dont really diminish the skill spectrum punishing people for mistakes, its more the other way around.
On October 04 2007 04:40 Daigomi wrote: Aphelion, there is no need to be a dick now. Klockan3 did point out one of the flaws that are inherent in all analogies. I am semi-arguing for MBS (not truly, but I do want anti-MBS players to consider the advantages that MBS offers), and I've been following the pro-scene since its conception. Having a different opinion from you is not necessarily the same as being a retard.
That said, I'd like to point out that the organ was invented before the piano, and the piano was indeed seen as a simplified organ. Yet today, most classical music is composed for the piano, rather than for the organ, and the organ is mostly seen as excessively complicated.
On October 04 2007 04:29 1sd2sd3sd wrote: The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top.
This wont happen unless there is no money to fight for, you will always have to work harder than your opponents to win. The skill spectrum will be just as large as before since micro has as much potential to create a skill diverse plattform as macro.
By being forced to macro and micro there is much more room for mistakes. The game can be turned around by brilliant play. By making macro so easy you are reducing the chances of the game being turned around and therefore limiting the skill of the players. The skill can be diverse with micro but imagine having to do both.
Lack of mistakes is a definition of skill, you dont really diminish the skill spectrum punishing people for mistakes, its more the other way around.
You are saying that if a game doesn't allow you to mess up then you must need an amazing amount of skill to play it? I'm pretty sure that the great games like chess and go are riddled with mistakes too be made. However there is one game that doesn't require much skill where very few mistakes can be made.
1sd2sd3sd, that is where we differ in opinion. I believe SC2 will still be competitive, and require a lot of skill, and you disagree. I believe that SC2 will be a great game, and one day the masters of SC2 (probably some 15 year old prodigy) will laugh at SC1 for being so hard to play, just like most pianists cannot play organ because it is too complicated and they weren't trained in it. Great music can still be composed on both, but for popular appeal the easier one wins.
You disagree with me, and that is your opinion. I used my analogy to point out how your analogy is simply an opinion, just like mine is.
On October 04 2007 04:40 Daigomi wrote: Aphelion, there is no need to be a dick now. Klockan3 did point out one of the flaws that are inherent in all analogies. I am semi-arguing for MBS (not truly, but I do want anti-MBS players to consider the advantages that MBS offers), and I've been following the pro-scene since its conception. Having a different opinion from you is not necessarily the same as being a retard.
That said, I'd like to point out that the organ was invented before the piano, and the piano was indeed seen as a simplified organ. Yet today, most classical music is composed for the piano, rather than for the organ, and the organ is mostly seen as excessively complicated.
In this case of Brood War versus SC2 I beg to differ because you are taking a piano and turning it into this
Wich is why as i said all these analogies are useless, they only work for those that have the same PoV as you. The problem here isnt that one side are to dumb to understand the other, its that the sides got totally different oppinions on how important the macro part is to the essence of starcraft.
On October 04 2007 04:29 1sd2sd3sd wrote: The reason it is likely to ruin the pro scene is that the pro gamers will no longer have to work as hard at staying on top.
This wont happen unless there is no money to fight for, you will always have to work harder than your opponents to win. The skill spectrum will be just as large as before since micro has as much potential to create a skill diverse plattform as macro.
By being forced to macro and micro there is much more room for mistakes. The game can be turned around by brilliant play. By making macro so easy you are reducing the chances of the game being turned around and therefore limiting the skill of the players. The skill can be diverse with micro but imagine having to do both.
Lack of mistakes is a definition of skill, you dont really diminish the skill spectrum punishing people for mistakes, its more the other way around.
You are saying that if a game doesn't allow you to mess up then you must need an amazing amount of skill to play it? I'm pretty sure that the great games like chess and go are riddled with mistakes too be made. However there is one game that doesn't require much skill where very few mistakes can be made.
Um, i dont think you understood. Not making mistakes is a skill, thats what i said. Not that a game that doesnt allow you to make mistakes per deffinition takes more skill than a game that does.
Also just like in chess if both you and your opponents make the same amounth of mistakes neighter will win. Making so a game is won with a lesser misstake advantage speeds it up and makes it more suitable for progaming since lower matchtime average makes it easier to broadcast.
However its not all good making the games go faster since potentially a lesser player can more often beat a greater player than before due to chance and that players arent robots. But with the higher speed in this hypothetical setting you should be able to play a bo5 as fast as a bo3 b4 making it even harder for the lesser player to win now than before.
On October 04 2007 04:58 Daigomi wrote: 1sd2sd3sd, that is where we differ in opinion. I believe SC2 will still be competitive, and require a lot of skill, and you disagree. I believe that SC2 will be a great game, and one day the masters of SC2 (probably some 15 year old prodigy) will laugh at SC1 for being so hard to play, just like most pianists cannot play organ because it is too complicated and they weren't trained in it. Great music can still be composed on both, but for popular appeal the easier one wins.
You disagree with me, and that is your opinion. I used my analogy to point out how your analogy is simply an opinion, just like mine is.
I understand where you are coming from but I do not know how you can find satisfaction in getting really good at something if it involves little effort.
The problem here isnt that one side are to dumb to understand the other, its that the sides got totally different oppinions on how important the macro part is to the essence of starcraft.
Sorry, I don't agree with you there. Macro is critical to SC. Macro is what makes SC a RTS game rather than a FPS, or an RPG. SC is in essence a strategy game in which you have to build up a base, use your prowess in building a base to build more units than your opponent, and then outsmart him on the battlefield. Macro is concerned with base building, while micro is concerned with the battlefield. There is not SC without macro.
I just disagree on the amount of difference MBS will make to macro. I believe that the players will adapt to MBS and be forced to work harder to stand out, but a strong player will stand out.
EDIT:
I understand where you are coming from but I do not know how you can find satisfaction in getting really good at something if it involves little effort.
That is exactly my point, and exactly where we differ. Consider for a moment my analogy of the organ and the piano. In my eyes you are someone arguing for the organ. The piano still requires immense skill to play, and you are still able to make beautiful music with the piano, but it does take less technical mastery (it is still incredibly hard to play, just less hard than an organ). The organ on the other hand requires great technical mastery, and you are also able to produce fabulous music from it, but it does not have mass appeal, which in the end made the piano more popular.
On October 04 2007 04:40 Daigomi wrote: Aphelion, there is no need to be a dick now. Klockan3 did point out one of the flaws that are inherent in all analogies. I am semi-arguing for MBS (not truly, but I do want anti-MBS players to consider the advantages that MBS offers), and I've been following the pro-scene since its conception. Having a different opinion from you is not necessarily the same as being a retard.
That said, I'd like to point out that the organ was invented before the piano, and the piano was indeed seen as a simplified organ. Yet today, most classical music is composed for the piano, rather than for the organ, and the organ is mostly seen as excessively complicated.
In this case of Brood War versus SC2 I beg to differ because you are taking a piano and turning it into this
Wich is why as i said all these analogies are useless, they only work for those that have the same PoV as you. The problem here isnt that one side are to dumb to understand the other, its that the sides got totally different oppinions on how important the macro part is to the essence of starcraft.
Maybe its because I have been playing the game for a long time that I cannot imagine starcraft being the same with MBS. It just takes too many factors out to enjoy it as thoroughly. How can the skill grow if they make the game easier to play? Does that matter to you or do you think that it won't be easier to play? (which if you do think that it will be just as difficult please explain why)
I am assuming you will say that since it is taken out of the game everyone will be on an even foot which I agree but isn't it disappointing to play at a lower level altogether then?
On October 04 2007 05:05 1sd2sd3sd wrote: I am assuming you will say that since it is taken out of the game everyone will be on an even foot which I agree but isn't it disappointing to play at a lower level altogether then?
Well, it wont be easier to play since micro can draw almost an endless amounth of apm and on top of that micro apm is harder for the mind than macro apm since micro apm are reactions to what happened the last split second while macro apm is just a long sequence of predefined clicks.
The only real skill you lose is the ability to judge when its good to be away for a few seconds to build units instead of microing, but that can be exactly the same skill as deciding wich units to micro.
Edit: But ofcourse there are people that likes macro, i dont blame them since its relaxing in a way and its fun to create huge armies that you are more attached to since you clicked them all out manually. However i dont see this as a necessary part of the game, i can respect if you do but i demand that people respect my oppinion also.
stop trying to Newbiefie SC2 with MBS/automine.. its pointless this isnt WC3 i dont want to just micro.. i want to macro and 4z 5d is not what i call macro'ing --a
On October 04 2007 05:05 1sd2sd3sd wrote: I am assuming you will say that since it is taken out of the game everyone will be on an even foot which I agree but isn't it disappointing to play at a lower level altogether then?
Well, it wont be easier to play since micro can draw almost an endless amounth of apm and on top of that micro apm is harder for the mind than macro apm since micro apm are reactions to what happened the last split second while macro apm is just a long sequence of predefined clicks.
The only real skill you lose is the ability to judge when its good to be away for a few seconds to build units instead of microing, but that can be exactly the same skill as deciding wich units to micro.
From my experiences I can tell you that deciding what units to micro is in no way as tough as choosing the best time to macro in the heat of the game. It builds your multitasking up and allows you to make split second decisions then learn from them. If all you have to do is focus on choosing what units to micro won't the game be turned into more of a micro map? It just sounds way to much like warcraft 3 to me.
Edit: I respect your opinion and thats why I am debating with you. I am just trying to show you exactly why I think you are underestimating the concept of macro.
Ok, I'm going to withdraw from this argument. This is why I tried not getting involved in the first place. Oh well, like I said in my very first post, I'm not specifically for or against MBS, I just want the anti-MBS crowd to consider the possible positive changes MBS could have on the game. If some at least considered this them I'm happy
On October 04 2007 05:05 1sd2sd3sd wrote: I am assuming you will say that since it is taken out of the game everyone will be on an even foot which I agree but isn't it disappointing to play at a lower level altogether then?
Well, it wont be easier to play since micro can draw almost an endless amounth of apm and on top of that micro apm is harder for the mind than macro apm since micro apm are reactions to what happened the last split second while macro apm is just a long sequence of predefined clicks.
The only real skill you lose is the ability to judge when its good to be away for a few seconds to build units instead of microing, but that can be exactly the same skill as deciding wich units to micro.
From my experiences I can tell you that deciding what units to micro is in no way as tough as choosing the best time to macro in the heat of the game. It builds your multitasking up and allows you to make split second decisions then learn from them. If all you have to do is focus on choosing what units to micro won't the game be turned into more of a micro map? It just sounds way to much like warcraft 3 to me.
Well, it will be tougher the more unit types wich are in play at any one time.
But i agree that the choice of when to macro is a skill that will be forever lost, its a great skill requiring the player to have a very good game reading skills.
But micro can be really hard, imagine a micromap were both of you start off with 1 of each caster unit in starcraft, all start with full energy and with a quite large spacing so you cant storm rush. Medic, ghost, sci vessel, templar, DA, arb, queen, defiler, thats just 8 units but still it would be extremely hard to micro them properly and the skill gap on such a map could become almost infinitely large.
On October 04 2007 03:51 1sd2sd3sd wrote: The major problem I think that everyone sees is the fact that you are taking this system of mechanics and purposely declining it just to welcome new faces. This would be like removing a great deal of keys from a piano in order to get more people interested in playing it. Yes, you might attract more people to learn since it will be easier to get good at but think of all the tones you will be leaving out.
You will be sacrificing potential for short term success.
Piano pedals weren't intended from the beginning and there are no piano players who don't use pedals. Sustain Pedal (damper pedal) and Sostenuto pedal - thanks to these pedals you can play simple but beautiful passages with one finger and more complicated using only one hand. At the same time pianists get the way to play compositions that without these pedals would never exist.
There is even no need to bring piano comparison. Look at rally points. Without them you had to go back to the base every time units were completed and that required multitasking and timing. Rally points didn't make game worser but quite otherwise and that's exactly how MBS could work. That's my opinion. You and others can disagree, that's fine. But the Real Problem is some people don't think that's fine. They think the only valid opinion is theirs or even think that their guess-work aren't opinion but facts. They think just through discussion and by calling noobs those who disagree they can force their opinion on someone and that's what's sad.
Dont come with analogies people, even if you think that just your analogy is ubersmart and everyone will get it.
exactly
On October 04 2007 05:15 Lz wrote: stop trying to Newbiefie SC2 with MBS/automine.. its pointless this isnt WC3 i dont want to just micro.. i want to macro and 4z 5d is not what i call macro'ing --a
On October 04 2007 05:20 Daigomi wrote: Ok, I'm going to withdraw from this argument. This is why I tried not getting involved in the first place. Oh well, like I said in my very first post, I'm not specifically for or against MBS, I just want the anti-MBS crowd to consider the possible positive changes MBS could have on the game. If some at least considered this them I'm happy
I respect your opinion. I shouldn't think that just because I play brood war and the fact that the discipline it requires appeals to me doesn't necessarily mean it appeals to everyone else. I am sure that the people that play to win and get better agree that brood war is special because of its unique difficulty.However there are also people that just play casually and for fun more than a quest for mastering it. The question then becomes who is blizzard really targeting the game towards? Unfortunately for the many people that love the game for its difficulty of playing there are quite a few more that would probably rather it be just another game to play. It is a sad realization that Blizzard will appeal to the masses (people that just want to have fun with it) while ignoring the ones that consider the difficulty of getting good worthwhile. I really hope that blizzard can find a way to leave out MBS or maybe even add in an option where you can turn it on or off before the game starts (and not toggle it during the game!) so that the high skill involved in competition can contain the same high maintenance it does now.
i think the piano/organ analogy might be able to reconcile the two sides if taken in light of liquid`drone's post.
the piano certainly strikes me as a more user-friendly interface than the organ and seems preferable in regard to producing the most aesthetically pleasing music given the constraint of human ability. but the piano/organ analogy breaks down because it has a different focus than starcraft, which is a competitive game, and is more interested in its competitiveness than in making a 'cool replay.' the korean competitive leagues are much closer to the essence of the game than this year's pimpest plays.
most of the pro-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the piano and the organ, and most of of the anti-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the skiier and poles in the ground.
both sides have merit, but the skiier and the poles are more the essence of starcraft than flashy visuals or the replay that comes out of a game. it's absolutely essential that starcraft 2 be a great competitive game like starcraft. it's only slightly important that a particular aspect of the UI be more user-friendly. sacrificing SC2's competitiveness for an improvement in UI doesn't make any sense, and as of yet, there has not been a post that suggests a realistic way of preserving starcraft's ideal competitive structure while putting MBS and automining in SC2.
just to be clear, i haven't ignored any of the explanations about how MBS and automining might not interfere with SC2's competitiveness. the sort of semi-MBS that someone suggested earlier in the thread - where multiple buildings could be selected but each had to be tabbed through individually in order to create units - that sort of MBS seems like a reasonable middle of the road solution in trying to preserve competitiveness, but i'm not sure that a middle of the road solution makes much sense.
the other accounts of how MBS "won't really make macro easier" have been ridiculously vague or have lacked the imagination to see how MBS would potentially be used. it's also somewhat ridiculous to suggest that more micro is a serious answer, given that micro only takes place during battles, which can't be happening all the time since there's a limited number of resources and units. don't be fooled into thinking that an improvement in the ease of macro is going to mean that there are more continuous battles or even that there will be more micro in those battles. bigger battles are more about positioning and formation than about 'micro' in the classic sense because the logistics of the thing are that you aren't going to be able to micromanage 50+ units taking and doing enormous amounts of damage in the same sense that you can micro a small group of marines against zerglings.
if anything you might find that MBS makes big battle control easier because you can easily devote most of your time to observing your army and moving it about, maintaining a perfect formation against the enemy. most of what prevents non-pros from having pro's great reaction time and army position is not a lack of knowledge about to handle a situation - it's usually that the non-pro simply has to devote too much time to other things (e.g. macro), otherwise he'll fall behind economically and his army will be overwhelmed. as a result, the non-pro (or simply the inferior multitasker) usually suffers from poor army position and reaction time and is at a disadvantage in big fights.
On October 04 2007 03:51 1sd2sd3sd wrote: The major problem I think that everyone sees is the fact that you are taking this system of mechanics and purposely declining it just to welcome new faces. This would be like removing a great deal of keys from a piano in order to get more people interested in playing it. Yes, you might attract more people to learn since it will be easier to get good at but think of all the tones you will be leaving out.
You will be sacrificing potential for short term success.
Piano pedals weren't intended from the beginning and there are no piano players who don't use pedals. Sustain Pedal (damper pedal) and Sostenuto pedal - thanks to these pedals you can play simple but beautiful passages with one finger and more complicated using only one hand. At the same time pianists get the way to play compositions that without these pedals would never exist.
There is even no need to bring piano comparison. Look at rally points. Without them you had to go back to the base every time units were completed and that required multitasking and timing. Rally points didn't make game worser but quite otherwise and that's exactly how MBS could work. That's my opinion. You and others can disagree, that's fine. But the Real Problem is some people don't think that's fine. They think the only valid opinion is theirs or even think that their guess-work aren't opinion but facts. They think just through discussion and by calling noobs those who disagree they can force their opinion on someone and that's what's sad.
On October 04 2007 05:15 Lz wrote: stop trying to Newbiefie SC2 with MBS/automine.. its pointless this isnt WC3 i dont want to just micro.. i want to macro and 4z 5d is not what i call macro'ing --a
WE ALL GET YOUR OPINION ALREADY
I'm not trying to force my opinion I am just giving the best one I can; my own. I usually do not argue with things unless my beliefs are pretty firm on the topic. However I am also very open minded and not arrogant enough to plow through others while deep down I know I am wrong. In this case I believe I am right. If I felt that MBS would help this game I would most certainly say so. In fact I have said that it will most likely attract more players but at the cost of taking out a huge part of the game. I hate it when people only look at their side of the argument and convince themselves that they are right without even taking the time to look at the other side. Analogies are not bad and I am not completely sure why everyone is getting upset about them. They cannot be proven of course (yet) but the differences can be estimated by those of us who have been playing brood war a long time. Sure adding a circle to rally each time you clicked the production building was fine. It didn't really change the game play. By implementing MBS you are making the game much more simple. It has been argued that 4sd5sd6sd4r5r6r7sz8sm1a2a3a etc are just clicks on the keyboard but those clicks on the keyboard define a portion of skill and by taking them away you are taking away skill. I said it in my previous post that if you want to play like that its fine (who am I to tell you you can't?) but I would at least like an option that allows you to turn it on or off before the start of the game so that the more than casual players can keep their high level of play intact.
EDIT: When I say I believe I am right I am referring that I think it would be a better game without MBS. I do not mean it will attract more people without MBS.
On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote: the other accounts of how MBS "won't really make macro easier" have been ridiculously vague or have lacked the imagination to see how MBS would potentially be used. it's also somewhat ridiculous to suggest that more micro is a serious answer, given that micro only takes place during battles, which can't be happening all the time since there's a limited number of resources and units. don't be fooled into thinking that an improvement in the ease of macro is going to mean that there are more continuous battles or even that there will be more micro in those battles. bigger battles are more about positioning and formation than about 'micro' in the classic sense because the logistics of the thing are that you aren't going to be able to micromanage 50+ units taking and doing enormous amounts of damage in the same sense that you can micro a small group of marines against zerglings.
Well, microing 50 units perfectly is totally impossible wich is why its a great skill factor. Then if armies are more diverse due to more forethought on blizzards part when designing the factions you will have an army of maybe 8 types of units with 7 units of each type, that will be a very very hard beast to micro and skill can shine a lot in such situations.
And you can always micro, just not in the early game. As soon as you get flyers and such units that can harrass wo taking losses you will constantly micro them as long as you got nothing else to do, while at the same time microing your army to chase away your enemies harrassing units.
Also when harrassing is not important anymore due to armies to large and towers everywere you have to micro army positions all the time since as you know in starcraft having the right formation on your army compared to your opponents make a huge difference, always trying to keep the rock from the paper and on the scissor or even on the paper if the situation is in your favor.
But anyway, as long as theres units wich can hurt your opponents without losses as long as you micro them there will always be things to do and if you dont got enough just build more such units.
Edit: And i can see that its possible that the skill requirements of the game will go down, but i believe that its possibel that it goes the other way and the game gets harder in some ways and even overall eventhough parts of the skill of macroclicks are irreplaceable.
On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote: the other accounts of how MBS "won't really make macro easier" have been ridiculously vague or have lacked the imagination to see how MBS would potentially be used. it's also somewhat ridiculous to suggest that more micro is a serious answer, given that micro only takes place during battles, which can't be happening all the time since there's a limited number of resources and units. don't be fooled into thinking that an improvement in the ease of macro is going to mean that there are more continuous battles or even that there will be more micro in those battles. bigger battles are more about positioning and formation than about 'micro' in the classic sense because the logistics of the thing are that you aren't going to be able to micromanage 50+ units taking and doing enormous amounts of damage in the same sense that you can micro a small group of marines against zerglings.
Well, microing 50 units perfectly is totally impossible wich is why its a great skill factor. Then if armies are more diverse due to more forethought on blizzards part when designing the factions you will have an army of maybe 8 types of units with 7 units of each type, that will be a very very hard beast to micro and skill can shine a lot in such situations.
And you can always micro, just not in the early game. As soon as you get flyers and such units that can harrass wo taking losses you will constantly micro them as long as you got nothing else to do, while at the same time microing your army to chase away your enemies harrassing units.*
Also when harrassing is not important anymore due to armies to large and towers everywere you have to micro army positions all the time since as you know in starcraft having the right formation on your army compared to your opponents make a huge difference, always trying to keep the rock from the paper and on the scissor or even on the paper if the situation is in your favor.
But anyway, as long as theres units wich can hurt your opponents without losses as long as you micro them there will always be things to do and if you dont got enough just build more such units.
Edit: And i can see that its possible that the skill requirements of the game will go down, but i believe that its possibel that it goes the other way and the game gets harder in some ways and even overall eventhough parts of the skill of macroclicks are irreplaceable.
*once more: Why do you think everyone likes that? I don't. Many many others don't. Respect the macro gamers!
On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote: the other accounts of how MBS "won't really make macro easier" have been ridiculously vague or have lacked the imagination to see how MBS would potentially be used. it's also somewhat ridiculous to suggest that more micro is a serious answer, given that micro only takes place during battles, which can't be happening all the time since there's a limited number of resources and units. don't be fooled into thinking that an improvement in the ease of macro is going to mean that there are more continuous battles or even that there will be more micro in those battles. bigger battles are more about positioning and formation than about 'micro' in the classic sense because the logistics of the thing are that you aren't going to be able to micromanage 50+ units taking and doing enormous amounts of damage in the same sense that you can micro a small group of marines against zerglings.
Well, microing 50 units perfectly is totally impossible wich is why its a great skill factor. Then if armies are more diverse due to more forethought on blizzards part when designing the factions you will have an army of maybe 8 types of units with 7 units of each type, that will be a very very hard beast to micro and skill can shine a lot in such situations.
And you can always micro, just not in the early game. As soon as you get flyers and such units that can harrass wo taking losses you will constantly micro them as long as you got nothing else to do, while at the same time microing your army to chase away your enemies harrassing units.
Also when harrassing is not important anymore due to armies to large and towers everywere you have to micro army positions all the time since as you know in starcraft having the right formation on your army compared to your opponents make a huge difference, always trying to keep the rock from the paper and on the scissor or even on the paper if the situation is in your favor.
But anyway, as long as theres units wich can hurt your opponents without losses as long as you micro them there will always be things to do and if you dont got enough just build more such units.
Edit: And i can see that its possible that the skill requirements of the game will go down, but i believe that its possibel that it goes the other way and the game gets harder in some ways and even overall eventhough parts of the skill of macroclicks are irreplaceable.
your post makes me think that you've got some weird hybrid of starcraft and warcraft III in your head and you're having a hard time separating the two.
On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote: i think the piano/organ analogy might be able to reconcile the two sides if taken in light of liquid`drone's post.
the piano certainly strikes me as a more user-friendly interface than the organ and seems preferable in regard to producing the most aesthetically pleasing music given the constraint of human ability. but the piano/organ analogy breaks down because it has a different focus than starcraft, which is a competitive game, and is more interested in its competitiveness than in making a 'cool replay.' the korean competitive leagues are much closer to the essence of the game than this year's pimpest plays.
most of the pro-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the piano and the organ, and most of of the anti-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the skiier and poles in the ground.
both sides have merit, but the skiier and the poles are more the essence of starcraft than flashy visuals or the replay that comes out of a game.
That's sophism and sorry I have no idea how to explain something to someone who uses that.
On October 04 2007 06:26 Failsafe wrote: your post makes me think that you've got some weird hybrid of starcraft and warcraft III in your head and you're having a hard time separating the two.
So all the towers ive seen in sc competetive play in mid/lategame are only illusions?
And starcraft got rock/paper scissor gameplay, just like all strategy games. Sure it isnt as defined as for example age of empires, but its certainly is there. And the rps of starcraft is generally stronger than the rps of warcraft 3 due to heroes being a class of their own.
inraged, you've been bitching about people using analogies because your own posts are so trivial as to be completely ignored. analogies are more useful than you understand. they're not just a persuasive rally tool. and anyway why bother to post yet another trivial complaint. do you even understand what sophism means?
On October 04 2007 06:44 Failsafe wrote: you've been bitching about people using analogies because your own posts are so trivial as be completely ignored. why bother to post yet another trivial complaint?
yeah, coincidence of timings. anyway, i apologize for being trite in my response to you, klockan, but i don't think that flying unit harassment is a sufficiently general example, or that rock paper scissors combat exists in starcraft the way you were describing. war3, however, does have exactly that style of combat, and it's openly advertised with armor types and damage types, and so when you said 'towers' i assumed that you were more of a warcraft3 player than a starcraft player since starcraft doesn't have towers.
On October 04 2007 06:49 Failsafe wrote: yeah, coincidence of timings. anyway, i apologize for being trite in my response to you, klockan, but i don't think that flying unit harassment is a sufficiently general example, or that rock paper scissors combat exists in starcraft the way you were describing. war3, however, does have exactly that style of combat, and it's openly advertised with armor types and damage types, and so when you said 'towers' i assumed that you were more of a warcraft3 player than a starcraft player since starcraft doesn't have towers.
Np then, but ive played most rts games and towers seem to be the general term for buildings that can shoot.
Also i know that a lot of players here dont want micro to replace macro, wich i can understand. However the skill will still be there since micro can be built on almost infinitely and if blizzard just wants they can make harrasing units wich are able to do damage wo taking damage if used right with micro. And it seems like they have gone that way, if you look, reapers are great harrasers if they have stim as its said on their webbsite, blinking stalkers can harras good, the new light anti ground air units will also be perfect harrasers.
Macro actions->Micro actions is what happens with mbs. It changes the skill set needed quite a large bit but it doesnt have to reduce the skill much or even at all depending on how they handle it.
All i want to say is that you will still have the most famous pro's wich will dominate since the skill spectrum will still be large enough. Im very confident that sc2 can survive as a competetive game with mbs, but the pro's will have a bit different skillsets wich isnt that strange since sc2 is a new game.
And eventhough sc2 might not be sc enough for some peopels liking, from what weve seen it will still be the game that is closest to starcraft in terms of how it plays and starcraft is also closest to it in terms of how they play. As such its name does fit.
And ive said it before, maybe youve already started on it, but you as a group should write a comprehensive letter to blizzard with the concerns about this. Maybe ask karune if they are willing to change mbs in the next QnA?
On October 04 2007 06:44 Failsafe wrote: inraged, you've been bitching about people using analogies because your own posts are so trivial as be completely ignored.
On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote: i think the piano/organ analogy might be able to reconcile the two sides if taken in light of liquid`drone's post.
the piano certainly strikes me as a more user-friendly interface than the organ and seems preferable in regard to producing the most aesthetically pleasing music given the constraint of human ability. but the piano/organ analogy breaks down because it has a different focus than starcraft, which is a competitive game, and is more interested in its competitiveness than in making a 'cool replay.' the korean competitive leagues are much closer to the essence of the game than this year's pimpest plays.
most of the pro-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the piano and the organ, and most of of the anti-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the skiier and poles in the ground.
both sides have merit, but the skiier and the poles are more the essence of starcraft than flashy visuals or the replay that comes out of a game.
step-by-step -Piano is about music, skiing is about sport and competition -Daigomi made piano/organ analogy and he's pro-MBS (I'm sure he did that cause of 1sd2sd3sd example, who's btw anti-MBS) therefore most pro-MBS think in terms of music. -Liquid`Drone made skiing analogy and he's anti-MBS therefore anti-MBS mostly care about competition. -Music is about beauty therefore pro-mbs care about "cool replays"! -Starcraft is about competition hence anti-mbs crowd has more validity
Should I point exactly in what steps above not just lack of logic but complete absence of any?
what game do u watch that has MBS in it.. with cool replays?? i tryed watching wc3 replays before.. but it was kinda like watching a 1v1 starcraft match vs. the computer >_< dont get me wrong.. wc3 is a very fun game to play~ but wc3 replays are kinda *meh* to me while sc replays are amazing every times becasue with sbs u know there doing everything at once
On October 04 2007 06:44 Failsafe wrote: inraged, you've been bitching about people using analogies because your own posts are so trivial as be completely ignored.
On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote: i think the piano/organ analogy might be able to reconcile the two sides if taken in light of liquid`drone's post.
the piano certainly strikes me as a more user-friendly interface than the organ and seems preferable in regard to producing the most aesthetically pleasing music given the constraint of human ability. but the piano/organ analogy breaks down because it has a different focus than starcraft, which is a competitive game, and is more interested in its competitiveness than in making a 'cool replay.' the korean competitive leagues are much closer to the essence of the game than this year's pimpest plays.
most of the pro-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the piano and the organ, and most of of the anti-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the skiier and poles in the ground.
both sides have merit, but the skiier and the poles are more the essence of starcraft than flashy visuals or the replay that comes out of a game.
step-by-step -Piano is about music, skiing is about sport and competition -Daigomi made piano/organ analogy and he's pro-MBS (I'm sure he did that cause of 1sd2sd3sd example, who's btw anti-MBS) therefore most pro-MBS think in terms of music. -Liquid`Drone made skiing analogy and he's anti-MBS therefore anti-MBS mostly care about competition. -Music is about beauty therefore pro-mbs care about "cool replays"! -Starcraft is about competition hence anti-mbs crowd has more validity
Should I point exactly in what steps above not just lack of logic but complete absence of any?
i got the impression that you were frustrated by the lack of attention. so far in this thread your posts have been vague and inflammatory and even so you weren't getting more than one response for every five comments.
but anyway, in reply to your accusation of sophistry, i think you've gotta consider which of us is really acting out the part. you've taken a lot of liberty in rewriting something i said.
for some reason you wrote 'piano is about music and skiing is about competition and sport.' of course that has nothing to do with what i was saying, but is just some mocking attempt at paraphrasing me.
you managed to turn two innocent metaphors into attempts at statistical syllogisms (points 2 and 3). which of course is not how i said or intended them.
your fourth point obviously misses the point of the post you're trying to criticize, but then that's to be expected given that everything you wrote before it was wrong.
and finally, in your fifth point i'm glad that you've spotted a premise that i've been arguing through the entire thread (though obviously insufficiently in the post you were trying to criticize). naturally i'm not going to repeat myself in the same thread, unless there seems to be some need for it. but yes, i think a large part of starcraft's success is owed to its competitiveness and i don't think it's smart to risk that competitiveness on a small upgrade to the user interface. the only way MBS and automining make any sense is if blizzard can demonstrate that they've found a way to avoid endangering the game's competitiveness by putting them in. anyway all that's been said before, but in case you missed it, there it is again.
anyway, i'm done with you and your 'sophistry,' and would like to invite you to make more productive future posts since this might still be a serious thread.
People keep saying there will constantly be stuff to do when you're not spending time macroing. They are talking from their ass and not backing it up with real examples.
I'd like to hear what people think will be taking up your time if you don't need to spend it on macroing (or at least the time you spend on macroing is greatly reduced). BTW I will be bringing in examples from War3 (not to diss it, in fact I like War3), because I know the game pretty well (I follow the pro scene as well as played ladder, perhaps someone else who is even more knowledgeable at War3 can come in and correct me) and I'm sure everyone here can agree that War3 has less macro involved than SC.
I've come up with a relatively short list of things that I personally do (or expect to do) in SC while not macroing (all that building, teching, expanding, and stuff falls under macro). Here's my relatively short list that will most definitely be increased in the near future:
Microing during a battle (biggest one) Harassment (2nd biggest probably) Positioning units Defending Scouting
I honestly can't think up of a big list (although I'm not trying too hard cause I'm sure others will add on). Sure having more time to micro during the battle would perhaps make them more spectacular and maybe even last longer, but if a majority of your army (or both armies) is (are) destroyed there will be a large period of waiting for armies to be rebuilt again which means during that time you'll have even less things to do than if you had to macro. In War3, after a large battle (or a smaller skirmish), players will go to creeping as well as minor harassment or improving their tech/expanding while their armies rebuild (part of macro). There are no creeps in SC, and there can only be so much harassment before it just becomes useless (remember that there will be more time for defense if there's more time for harassment), what will take up the players attention during this time? Will SC2 be a game where battles are continuously fought and never ending? Or perhaps the downtime between battles will be so short that it won't even matter?
How much time can positioning your units actually take? Good players in SC can already do this efficiently while juggling other tasks. SC units don't last as long as War3 units, so there can be very little back and forth running around at close proximities while taking potshots at each other (which is what happens in War3 a lot and is what takes up a large portion of the micro time in War3).
Scouting is already done by pros perfectly, I think even with more time on their hands, well placed proxies and well timed hidden expos will not be found easily (In War3, there are many games where people are able to hide an expo).
Defense of course can be improved if people had more time. I think there are both pros and cons to having better defense, but I'm lazy.
In a nutshell: Less macro => "What will take up my time if I don't spend all that time macroing?" Time spent macroing in SC > Extra time spent microing + Extra time spent doing other shit that I could think up. => Progamers = zzz
Anyone have anything to add? Preferably with actual examples from any competitive RTS. I'm calling out people who have competitive experience with other RTS's (Mora, Skew, Artosis, etc).
Another argument: Managing a battle is always more stressy than managing buildings/sending units around. That's all because of human nature, no other reasons involved. Ask doctors if you don't see it that way. Losing a battle shakes us through and makes us less confident, winning a battle pushes us up. In either case we have to handle a lot of energy inside, positive and negative. In my opinion this is a strong anti-MBS argument because a battle creates stress and when the battle is over one can free his mind and regain stamina (or call it "rest" if you like, but not "relaxing" since one's active at that time) while managing macro. This gives us back our focus to go into the next battle. Since macro will be routine after some training it has an effect on us that is much like meditation. We don't just regenerate, we also regain confidence and faith because of the repetition. To support my opinion: in the majority of games in sc:bw there is a break after every battle, the players work out new plans, find holes in their own/opponent defense and all that. That's how a standard game of sc:bw looks like. And it works well because macro is ~50% of the game, we don't lose focus through that, we still have to be concentrated. It only happens say every 20-30 games that the players decide not to let their opponent breath just once. Macro-management is extremely important for our mind to regenerate and also to get a clear view of the whole situation. If you take out just 20% of the macro-mode you will likely get 10-20% more stress in the game since you don't even allow yourself to free your mind. I can't describe it any better or be more accurate since everyone's different so of course there may be a superhuman who is immune to stress and unstableness. But 99% of us are not.
On October 04 2007 11:08 ArC_man wrote: People keep saying there will constantly be stuff to do when you're not spending time macroing. They are talking from their ass and not backing it up with real examples.
I'd like to hear what people think will be taking up your time if you don't need to spend it on macroing (or at least the time you spend on macroing is greatly reduced). BTW I will be bringing in examples from War3 (not to diss it, in fact I like War3), because I know the game pretty well (I follow the pro scene as well as played ladder, perhaps someone else who is even more knowledgeable at War3 can come in and correct me) and I'm sure everyone here can agree that War3 has less macro involved than SC.
I've come up with a relatively short list of things that I personally do (or expect to do) in SC while not macroing (all that building, teching, expanding, and stuff falls under macro). Here's my relatively short list that will most definitely be increased in the near future:
Microing during a battle (biggest one) Harassment (2nd biggest probably) Positioning units Defending Scouting
I honestly can't think up of a big list (although I'm not trying too hard cause I'm sure others will add on). Sure having more time to micro during the battle would perhaps make them more spectacular and maybe even last longer, but if a majority of your army (or both armies) is (are) destroyed there will be a large period of waiting for armies to be rebuilt again which means during that time you'll have even less things to do than if you had to macro. In War3, after a large battle (or a smaller skirmish), players will go to creeping as well as minor harassment or improving their tech/expanding while their armies rebuild (part of macro). There are no creeps in SC, and there can only be so much harassment before it just becomes useless (remember that there will be more time for defense if there's more time for harassment), what will take up the players attention during this time? Will SC2 be a game where battles are continuously fought and never ending? Or perhaps the downtime between battles will be so short that it won't even matter?
How much time can positioning your units actually take? Good players in SC can already do this efficiently while juggling other tasks. SC units don't last as long as War3 units, so there can be very little back and forth running around at close proximities while taking potshots at each other (which is what happens in War3 a lot and is what takes up a large portion of the micro time in War3).
Scouting is already done by pros perfectly, I think even with more time on their hands, well placed proxies and well timed hidden expos will not be found easily (In War3, there are many games where people are able to hide an expo).
Defense of course can be improved if people had more time. I think there are both pros and cons to having better defense, but I'm lazy.
In a nutshell: Less macro => "What will take up my time if I don't spend all that time macroing?" Time spent macroing in SC > Extra time spent microing + Extra time spent doing other shit that I could think up. => Progamers = zzz
Anyone have anything to add? Preferably with actual examples from any competitive RTS. I'm calling out people who have competitive experience with other RTS's (Mora, Skew, Artosis, etc).
i was thinking along a similar train of thought before i read your post. What is there to do other than macro? More physically demanding micro is great and all, but what do you do when a battle isn't happening? A player must be challenged by the environment even when his opponent is not doing anything. In Warcraft 3 they have creeps (albeit this could be a small challenge - but it keeps you busy), in Company of Heroes - the game of which i am the most experience after Starcraft - they have a unique resource system where it demands constant attention. Since you can't forward-build in that game, you have no way to 'camp' your resources. You (and your opponent) are constantly taking/stealing/defending your resource points, and so even when you're not in a battle, you are still frantically busy.
The game is not as hectic as starcraft, but that, i feel, is more due to the game's speed than its mechanics (picture Starcraft on Fast speed, or even normal speed).
What kind of 'management' can you really demand of players other than Macro? Or, more accurately, what kind of new mechanic can they introduce to Macro to make it time-consuming and attention-demanding? Without undefendable resource points (like Company of Heroes), or AI mobs (war3), what direction are they heading? The impression (as pointed out by FA), is that they're trying to increase the demands of Micro - when that is not that problem (or a solution).
I will write this more coherantly and pose it as a question in the questions thread.
On October 04 2007 11:08 ArC_man wrote: People keep saying there will constantly be stuff to do when you're not spending time macroing. They are talking from their ass and not backing it up with real examples.
I'd like to hear what people think will be taking up your time if you don't need to spend it on macroing (or at least the time you spend on macroing is greatly reduced). BTW I will be bringing in examples from War3 (not to diss it, in fact I like War3), because I know the game pretty well (I follow the pro scene as well as played ladder, perhaps someone else who is even more knowledgeable at War3 can come in and correct me) and I'm sure everyone here can agree that War3 has less macro involved than SC.
I've come up with a relatively short list of things that I personally do (or expect to do) in SC while not macroing (all that building, teching, expanding, and stuff falls under macro). Here's my relatively short list that will most definitely be increased in the near future:
Microing during a battle (biggest one) Harassment (2nd biggest probably) Positioning units Defending Scouting
I honestly can't think up of a big list (although I'm not trying too hard cause I'm sure others will add on). Sure having more time to micro during the battle would perhaps make them more spectacular and maybe even last longer, but if a majority of your army (or both armies) is (are) destroyed there will be a large period of waiting for armies to be rebuilt again which means during that time you'll have even less things to do than if you had to macro. In War3, after a large battle (or a smaller skirmish), players will go to creeping as well as minor harassment or improving their tech/expanding while their armies rebuild (part of macro). There are no creeps in SC, and there can only be so much harassment before it just becomes useless (remember that there will be more time for defense if there's more time for harassment), what will take up the players attention during this time? Will SC2 be a game where battles are continuously fought and never ending? Or perhaps the downtime between battles will be so short that it won't even matter?
How much time can positioning your units actually take? Good players in SC can already do this efficiently while juggling other tasks. SC units don't last as long as War3 units, so there can be very little back and forth running around at close proximities while taking potshots at each other (which is what happens in War3 a lot and is what takes up a large portion of the micro time in War3).
Scouting is already done by pros perfectly, I think even with more time on their hands, well placed proxies and well timed hidden expos will not be found easily (In War3, there are many games where people are able to hide an expo).
Defense of course can be improved if people had more time. I think there are both pros and cons to having better defense, but I'm lazy.
In a nutshell: Less macro => "What will take up my time if I don't spend all that time macroing?" Time spent macroing in SC > Extra time spent microing + Extra time spent doing other shit that I could think up. => Progamers = zzz
Anyone have anything to add? Preferably with actual examples from any competitive RTS. I'm calling out people who have competitive experience with other RTS's (Mora, Skew, Artosis, etc).
i was thinking along a similar train of thought before i read your post. What is there to do other than macro? More physically demanding micro is great and all, but what do you do when a battle isn't happening? A player must be challenged by the environment even when his opponent is not doing anything. In Warcraft 3 they have creeps (albeit this could be a small challenge - but it keeps you busy), in Company of Heroes - the game of which i am the most experience after Starcraft - they have a unique resource system where it demands constant attention. Since you can't forward-build in that game, you have no way to 'camp' your resources. You (and your opponent) are constantly taking/stealing/defending your resource points, and so even when you're not in a battle, you are still frantically busy.
The game is not as hectic as starcraft, but that, i feel, is more due to the game's speed than its mechanics (picture Starcraft on Fast speed, or even normal speed).
What kind of 'management' can you really demand of players other than Macro? Or, more accurately, what kind of new mechanic can they introduce to Macro to make it time-consuming and attention-demanding? Without undefendable resource points (like Company of Heroes), or AI mobs (war3), what direction are they heading? The impression (as pointed out by FA), is that they're trying to increase the demands of Micro - when that is not that problem (or a solution).
I will write this more coherantly and pose it as a question in the questions thread.
Yay CoH love! There will always be something to do as there will always be combat. I daresay that SC2 will have the potential to have essentially no downtime after the first few minutes of the game.
To show that I am not talking out of my ass, here is a possible scenario:
Example #1: M&Ms class with zeal/drags. Engagement last for a few (like 10-12) seconds. Then after the initial battle, in less than 30 seconds another battle takes place. Then another engagement but with a tank drop on P's main AND D. Templars on T expansion. Without batting their eyes, there is already a defensive presence inside the respective bases ready to fight off the harassment. Escalation. 3 Battlefronts + harassment + expansion defense all at the same time.
So. You have stuff to micro (harassment + exp defense + battle tactics in engagements) and macro (controlling 3 separate armies + checking your bases to see the damage that harassment has done + rebuilding SCVs + upgrade stuff + check for new expansion sites + a dash of 5m6zletternumbercombination). Sure this can happen also happen in SC1 but the thing here is that in SC2, this type of gameplay can be achievable by more people, it will not be limited to the Gosu. Not to mention that there would be essentially no rebuilding phase as it happens spontaneously with battle engagements (being so easy to do due to MBS). Taken as a whole, that would be a LOT of Macro. Again, the ability to keep up with this kind of frantic action would be more accessible to new/b and non-pro players.
Skill differentiation?
Well, there is still the problem of microing your 3 different armies, knowing what type of units to build afte..i mean, while in battle, how to respond to a specific type of harassment, bringing reinforcements to the front as quickly as possible or letting them wait to defend the base from harassments and/or counter-attacks that may or may not happen, which expansion to harass, Thor or Siege Tanks, right unit balance/mix...to counter...what?, to split up armies or not...and the list goes on and on...
Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case.
@ xtian15: You are completely right - assuming that players agree to battle/harass all the time, which won't be the case in up to 99% of the games. This alone makes all your theory useless. And no, don't even think about it, we will not change our nature, we need to rest.
Eh, constant battle isn't that great anyways. Sure an action packed game is fun to watch, but so is the subtle maneuvering, the positioning of forces, the guessing of tech and counter tech, and the expansions to critical locations, and of course the hectic macro in preparation for the next battle. Sometimes the best part of SC is the calm before the storm.
"Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example.
On October 04 2007 16:10 mensrea wrote: "Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example.
Thanks for replying.
Anyways, a better Basketball analogy would be, well...Everyone from 1st grade to grandfathers can shoot a basketball. It's the percentages that vary. The defensive effort of the other team still matters. However low the hoop is, the defensive ability and/or offensive prowess would be a more tangible effect on your ability to shoot that basketball. Not the height of the hoop. Besides, if you put it too low, kids would have the upper hand, no?
About soccer and baseball (and even your example with basketball)...they're a bit different. They are standards and rules that you have to follow. Standards and rules for basketball. In games, there are no standards, no standard UI, no standard way of making games. Sure there are genres but those are just terms to help us distinguish one from the other. Rules in computer gaming, on the other hand, are mostly there to ensure that there will be no cheating or giving an unfair advantage to the other player.
And you talk about artificial...an outdated, crippled UI is IMHO more unnatural than the helping hand that MBS provides non-pro gamers because a cripple UI has a bigger effect on non-pros when compared to the effect that MBS brings to pro-gamers (which is negligible).
Anyway, I'll tackle Gates and Jobs later as I'm at work right now. See you later.
On October 04 2007 15:51 ForAdun wrote: @ xtian15: You are completely right - assuming that players agree to battle/harass all the time, which won't be the case in up to 99% of the games. This alone makes all your theory useless. And no, don't even think about it, we will not change our nature, we need to rest.
I'm no expert/pro-gamer but what do you do if you don't battle AND harass 99% of the time? How will you win with just battling for just 1% of the time? One battle decides it all? You turtle? You expand without opposition? Eh. That would be boring with or w/o MBS.
Besides, they (the opposing players) don't need to agree to battle/harass all the time. An intelligent player will pick his spots. A true Pro gamer would exploit all possible advantages and if that means overloading the other player in his capability to handle multiple avenues of attack, then so be it.
And you saying (assuming you are a pro) that Pros need to rest in between 15-30 minute games? They practice everyday. They (you) can handle it.
On October 04 2007 16:09 Aphelion wrote: Eh, constant battle isn't that great anyways. Sure an action packed game is fun to watch, but so is the subtle maneuvering, the positioning of forces, the guessing of tech and counter tech, and the expansions to critical locations, and of course the hectic macro in preparation for the next battle. Sometimes the best part of SC is the calm before the storm.
You said it yourself, it would be fun to watch. What else matters more in e-sports? If it isn't fun to watch then no one will watch and everything falls apart. Of course there will still be maneuvering and positioning of forces (how would they get into battle?), guessing of tech and counter tech (although this will happen while you're in battle as opposed to after the battle) and of course the hectic macro (not the numberlettercombination type though.) The constant, no, the simultaneous and continuous battles will be all the macro that you'll ever need.
On October 04 2007 16:09 Aphelion wrote: Eh, constant battle isn't that great anyways. Sure an action packed game is fun to watch, but so is the subtle maneuvering, the positioning of forces, the guessing of tech and counter tech, and the expansions to critical locations, and of course the hectic macro in preparation for the next battle. Sometimes the best part of SC is the calm before the storm.
You said it yourself, it would be fun to watch. What else matters more in e-sports? If it isn't fun to watch then no one will watch and everything falls apart. Of course there will still be maneuvering and positioning of forces (how would they get into battle?), guessing of tech and counter tech (although this will happen while you're in battle as opposed to after the battle) and of course the hectic macro (not the numberlettercombination type though.) The constant, no, the simultaneous and continuous battles will be all the macro that you'll ever need.
is starcraft not the most spectator-friendly RTS?
last time i checked starcraft has periods of rest where battles do not occur and yet a LOT of people watch it.
i don't know about you but i find pro-gamer matches a lot of fun to watch.
the way that you're stating things makes it seems like the foundations of SC2 need to be different from SC1 because SC1 is inadequate as an e-sport.
On October 04 2007 16:10 mensrea wrote: "Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example.
Thanks for replying.
Anyways, a better Basketball analogy would be, well...Everyone from 1st grade to grandfathers can shoot a basketball. It's the percentages that vary. The defensive effort of the other team still matters. However low the hoop is, the defensive ability and/or offensive prowess would be a more tangible effect on your ability to shoot that basketball. Not the height of the hoop. Besides, if you put it too low, kids would have the upper hand, no?
About soccer and baseball (and even your example with basketball)...they're a bit different. They are standards and rules that you have to follow. Standards and rules for basketball. In games, there are no standards, no standard UI, no standard way of making games. Sure there are genres but those are just terms to help us distinguish one from the other. Rules in computer gaming, on the other hand, are mostly there to ensure that there will be no cheating or giving an unfair advantage to the other player.
And you talk about artificial...an outdated, crippled UI is IMHO more unnatural than the helping hand that MBS provides non-pro gamers because a cripple UI has a bigger effect on non-pros when compared to the effect that MBS brings to pro-gamers (which is negligible).
Anyway, I'll tackle Gates and Jobs later as I'm at work right now. See you later.
Sigh.
I think you've lost touch with reality.
My "analogies" were not meant to be perfect ones (is there even such a creature?) nor intended to be taken literally. You clearly do not know me very well.
For the record, since at least one imbecile didn't get it the first time, the "analogies" were meant to illustrate the point that pandering to popular demand is not necessarily the answer if you want to produce something great. If that were the case, every business concern on the planet would be spending 100% of their budget on market research and nothing else.
Stop wasting everyone's time with your comically misguided dissections (a poor, sophomoric attempt at that, even if it were in any way relevant). And take a hard look at your post count and think twice about irritating me any more than you already have.
On October 04 2007 16:09 Aphelion wrote: Eh, constant battle isn't that great anyways. Sure an action packed game is fun to watch, but so is the subtle maneuvering, the positioning of forces, the guessing of tech and counter tech, and the expansions to critical locations, and of course the hectic macro in preparation for the next battle. Sometimes the best part of SC is the calm before the storm.
You said it yourself, it would be fun to watch. What else matters more in e-sports? If it isn't fun to watch then no one will watch and everything falls apart. Of course there will still be maneuvering and positioning of forces (how would they get into battle?), guessing of tech and counter tech (although this will happen while you're in battle as opposed to after the battle) and of course the hectic macro (not the numberlettercombination type though.) The constant, no, the simultaneous and continuous battles will be all the macro that you'll ever need.
is starcraft not the most spectator-friendly RTS?
last time i checked starcraft has periods of rest where battles do not occur and yet a LOT of people watch it.
i don't know about you but i find pro-gamer matches a lot of fun to watch.
the way that you're stating things makes it seems like the foundations of SC2 need to be different from SC1 because SC1 is inadequate as an e-sport.
It doesn't need to be different. My points are geared to improve and not drastically change SC. It needs to improve because, well, there is still room for improvement. It SC2 will be more spectator-friendly, then it will be for the better, right?
On October 04 2007 16:10 mensrea wrote: "Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example.
Thanks for replying.
Anyways, a better Basketball analogy would be, well...Everyone from 1st grade to grandfathers can shoot a basketball. It's the percentages that vary. The defensive effort of the other team still matters. However low the hoop is, the defensive ability and/or offensive prowess would be a more tangible effect on your ability to shoot that basketball. Not the height of the hoop. Besides, if you put it too low, kids would have the upper hand, no?
About soccer and baseball (and even your example with basketball)...they're a bit different. They are standards and rules that you have to follow. Standards and rules for basketball. In games, there are no standards, no standard UI, no standard way of making games. Sure there are genres but those are just terms to help us distinguish one from the other. Rules in computer gaming, on the other hand, are mostly there to ensure that there will be no cheating or giving an unfair advantage to the other player.
And you talk about artificial...an outdated, crippled UI is IMHO more unnatural than the helping hand that MBS provides non-pro gamers because a cripple UI has a bigger effect on non-pros when compared to the effect that MBS brings to pro-gamers (which is negligible).
Anyway, I'll tackle Gates and Jobs later as I'm at work right now. See you later.
Sigh.
I think you've lost touch with reality.
My "analogies" were not meant to be perfect ones (is there even such a creature?) nor intended to be taken literally. You clearly do not know me very well.
For the record, since at least one imbecile didn't get it the first time, the "analogies" were meant to illustrate the point that pandering to popular demand is not necessarily the answer if you want to produce something great. If that were the case, every business concern on the planet would be spending 100% of their budget on market research and nothing else.
Stop wasting everyone's time with your comically misguided dissections (a poor, sophomoric attempt at that, even if it were in any way relevant). And take a hard look at your post count and think twice about irritating me any more than you already have.
I didn't mean to irritate you, if I did, then sorry. And no, I am not after the analogy (I know there is no perfect analogy), but the idea behind it. And certainly I'm not after you and your lofty post count. I am here to argue the point, not against you or anybody else. I would have responded no differently if it were another person making that post. Post count = 1 million or total noob.
My point is that, well, every business spends something on Market research. Not 100% (I know) but a significant amount nonetheless.
the thing is just that.. all good sports have rules that make them harder to play. football is impressive because you use your feet, accomplishing what a football player can accomplish with his hands is just significantly less fun because it's easier. (hence why handball, while more action filled and "exciting" than football, still sucks as a sport. ) in basketball, not only is the hoop too tall for most people to reach you also have rules like, no travelling.. track and field sports are different i guess but then again they also mostly suck. chess is mostly played with some kind of timer..
meh
im honestly expecting sc2 to be more like war3 than sc and to fail in the same way, and mostly just due to the interface being improved upon too much.. competition is fun because not everyone is able to do everything.. while there's still going to be skill differentiation in sc2, obviously, it's going to be less significant.. and while the interface in sc is improved upon compared to war2 and dune 2 or whatever, I feel they were at the appropriate amount of tasks required in sc.. but there's nothing strange or principally wrong with artificially not making the game as easy as possible. any sport does this. basically, the problem is that blizzard prolly isn't out to make the best computer sport ever, but the best computer game ever. and games work quite differently; they still need to be challenging, but not so much geared towards differentiating skill.
On October 04 2007 16:10 mensrea wrote: "Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example.
Thanks for replying.
Anyways, a better Basketball analogy would be, well...Everyone from 1st grade to grandfathers can shoot a basketball. It's the percentages that vary. The defensive effort of the other team still matters. However low the hoop is, the defensive ability and/or offensive prowess would be a more tangible effect on your ability to shoot that basketball. Not the height of the hoop. Besides, if you put it too low, kids would have the upper hand, no?
About soccer and baseball (and even your example with basketball)...they're a bit different. They are standards and rules that you have to follow. Standards and rules for basketball. In games, there are no standards, no standard UI, no standard way of making games. Sure there are genres but those are just terms to help us distinguish one from the other. Rules in computer gaming, on the other hand, are mostly there to ensure that there will be no cheating or giving an unfair advantage to the other player.
And you talk about artificial...an outdated, crippled UI is IMHO more unnatural than the helping hand that MBS provides non-pro gamers because a cripple UI has a bigger effect on non-pros when compared to the effect that MBS brings to pro-gamers (which is negligible).
Anyway, I'll tackle Gates and Jobs later as I'm at work right now. See you later.
Exactly, MBS helps the worse players more than it does the good ones, meaning the skill difference gets smaller, thank you for admitting this, involuntarily or not.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote: Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
You can't argue this way or when starcraft 3 is made and people say "but come onnnnnnn, making units auto-target the enemy units with the least health left is going to seriously ruin this game" they'll say "LOL WHAT IF THE LAST GENERATION HAD OPPOSED MBS, WHAT THEN HUH? PROGRESS EL OH EL".
Stop using that argument. In case you haven't noticed, there's been very little resistance to other changes, such as the unlimited unit selection cap.
I wonder why? Maybe because we feel it doesn't hurt the game, whereas MBS will?
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote: Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
Haha, at least a good laugh. You'd be surprised anyways that pressing buttons with the mouse-cursor actually makes sense in many cases e.g. when you want to use 'hold position' on several groups of units or when you nada-style pump units out of gateways/factories. Does that convince you?
On October 04 2007 16:09 Aphelion wrote: Eh, constant battle isn't that great anyways. Sure an action packed game is fun to watch, but so is the subtle maneuvering, the positioning of forces, the guessing of tech and counter tech, and the expansions to critical locations, and of course the hectic macro in preparation for the next battle. Sometimes the best part of SC is the calm before the storm.
You said it yourself, it would be fun to watch. What else matters more in e-sports? If it isn't fun to watch then no one will watch and everything falls apart. Of course there will still be maneuvering and positioning of forces (how would they get into battle?), guessing of tech and counter tech (although this will happen while you're in battle as opposed to after the battle) and of course the hectic macro (not the numberlettercombination type though.) The constant, no, the simultaneous and continuous battles will be all the macro that you'll ever need.
Not even that. Its fun at first, but gets tired and tedious after awhile. Like watching a few hour long TvZ reps in a role.
It has to be fun to play even. And the constant macro will be just me going 5d6s without looking back in base. Whole game will be just a prolonged zealot rush.
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote: Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
Good point. Lets extend this method of thinking to the other major competative gaming type, First person shooters. Basically, when we see a person on the screen, our mouse should automatically move to their head. I mean thats what we want to be able to do isnt it? Then itll be 1 click to kill them. It removes all those unneccessary movements of the mouse. I mean, It takes no skill to move a mouse to an object really fast, its just boring and pointless. Also with the mouse automoving, there will be more killing people, the game will be more fun wont it?
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote: Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
There obviously needs to be the right amount of 'stuff to do'; with too much to do the game becomes too tedious, with too little to do the game becomes boring. I think most people here agree that starcraft has got that balance, being able to control not 1 or 100 but 12 units at a time, not having MBS, auto casting, etc. There have to be both tasks that require dexterity to master and those that just require intuition and a good knowledge of the game.
People have no trouble getting their entire armies to attack if 12 units can be selected at a time, although it takes some work, but if only 1 unit could be selected at a time then people would just spend the entire time getting their armies to attack and there'd be no time for anything else. The game would require too much dexterity and too little anything else, which is bad. On the other hand, with MBS, then the game wouldn't require any dexterity at all, which is also bad. So starcraft is good as it is. However, as long as there's still the same amount of stuff to do, which is very very doubtful if MBS is added, then I'm fine with it.
Personally I don't really care how MBS is going to work in SC2, all I really want is the ability to have all of my production buildings hotkeyed with at least 3 hotkeys left for my army. Otherwise the game will turn into "fight against the UI" and I won't be interested in it at all. The problem with some anti-mbs people is that they consider everything from the pro perspective, being able to do everything with their 400+ apm because they are practicing 12hrs/day. Newsflash for you: There are also people who don't have time for such things and would still like to play the game without putting too much effort into it. I don't want to break the sweat while playing the game because I'm doing it for FUN, not competition, I don't want to lose the game to someone without any brain but able to click 3x faster than me.
Also, Blizzard isn't making this game just for the people who played SC1, they're doing it for everyone (including people who haven't seen SC1 on their eyes) and someone not familiar with it (or RTSs at all for that matter) would be overwhelmed by inferiority of the interface without MBS.
Why so many of you think that SC2 is being designed only for hardcore fanboys of SC1 and people who know how to play it and are successful at it? Don't be so selfish and let others have some pleasure too.
It seems that the best way to solve all the issues would be releasing 2 versions of SC2: SC2 - promode: - no mbs - no automining - no amm ladder - maybe no b.net at all, it could be just for the competetive play in leagues
SC2 - normal mode: - mbs - automining - amm ladder for everyone - top 20 people from each ladder each season would be able to get SC2 promode (noobs don't need it anyway, let's just make it accesible to those worthy)
That would be excellent if we didn't have to split the community and with all the problems which come with it, foreseen or unforeseen.
Blizzard might not choose to make a game for us. But they asked us what we thought SC2 should be like, they wanted to know what it took to cater to the professional scene. And we gave them their answer. Like I said, there is no reason for them to cater to us, unless be it devotion to dedicated fans of a wildly successful professional game.
They say they would take the path, but they might not. I would hate it, but I can understand it. Just don't come with excuses saying its a better game or that you are doing it for the die hard fans. In that case, you would take away both our game and deny our rationale for existence. If Blizzard wants to go that track, just say, we're appealing to a more casual, broader audience. Then we can stop all these pretense and continue playing in a vastly diminished BW community, like the War2 people.
On October 04 2007 16:10 mensrea wrote: "Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case."
Yeah, good idea. Let's lower the height of NBA basketball hoops while we're at it. Make that game more accessible. Why should profesionals have all the fun? And why should I even have to train from birth to play a game played by professionals anyway? What a crock.
While we're at it, the size of those fucking goal posts on football pitches are disturbing - like the Geat Wall of frickin' China or something. We seriously need to reduce the width of those babies. Now there's a game I would PAY to watch - because now I can play goalkeeper against Ronaldinho and Henri and have a chance.
Speaking of sports, I think baseball would be a whole lot more interesting and full of unbridled intensity if we pushed the pitchers mound back by 10 meters and pulled the outside walls in by 50. Think of all the home runs we could see being hit! What non-stop action! Who cares if it's contrived and artificial. It's "continuous tension" that counts, right?
Seriously, there are probably sound arguments for including MBS and I cannot say definitvely MBS will diminish the game (although, based on my experience, and coupled with auto-mining, it probably will). But, "more power to the people" is not one of them. Ridiculous. Catering to every wish and whim of the "masses" is not how you create anything great. That is the road to mediocrity (regardless of whether money is made in the process). Just ask Bill Gates. Or Steven Jobs, if you want the opposite example.
Thanks for replying.
Anyways, a better Basketball analogy would be, well...Everyone from 1st grade to grandfathers can shoot a basketball. It's the percentages that vary. The defensive effort of the other team still matters. However low the hoop is, the defensive ability and/or offensive prowess would be a more tangible effect on your ability to shoot that basketball. Not the height of the hoop. Besides, if you put it too low, kids would have the upper hand, no?
About soccer and baseball (and even your example with basketball)...they're a bit different. They are standards and rules that you have to follow. Standards and rules for basketball. In games, there are no standards, no standard UI, no standard way of making games. Sure there are genres but those are just terms to help us distinguish one from the other. Rules in computer gaming, on the other hand, are mostly there to ensure that there will be no cheating or giving an unfair advantage to the other player.
And you talk about artificial...an outdated, crippled UI is IMHO more unnatural than the helping hand that MBS provides non-pro gamers because a cripple UI has a bigger effect on non-pros when compared to the effect that MBS brings to pro-gamers (which is negligible).
Anyway, I'll tackle Gates and Jobs later as I'm at work right now. See you later.
Exactly, MBS helps the worse players more than it does the good ones, meaning the skill difference gets smaller, thank you for admitting this, involuntarily or not.
Well, I really agree that the skill difference will get smaller, in a way. It benefits the noobs, the non-pros but it doesn't exactly hurt the pro-gamers, too. So what if they get a leg up? This is unlike CS where a stray bullet from a noob can really ruin a pro-gamers day...This is SC where luck only applies if both players are reasonably matched. A noob/non-pro-gamer will have no chance in hell against a pro-gamer, MBS or no.
Basically, the effect is that learning the game becomes easier (a trademark of blizzard games) but to become a pro is still, more or less (as I said, and you agreed, that it doesn't really affect pros that much) as hard as it ever will be in SC.
There is, I think, a legit concern that the advanced UI can truly destroy the legacy of the Starcraft's franchise by destroying the famed balance etc. But we can leave that (balancing the game with MBS and auto mining and smartcasting) to Blizzard. But as I said there is a legit concern and they will hear from their fans if there are gameplay imbalances that would have to be addressed. However IMHO, the thing that is really pissing off a lot of SC pros right now is the invalidation of some part of their macro skills (the 5z6z7z8z9z part) that they painstakingly perfected for almost a decade. And the necessity of learning a new set of macro skills and tactics for this upcoming SC sequel. Oh well. Pros will certainly adapt to it and will make SC2 the clickathon, the macro intensive game that it was in SC1 but with a more exciting but different kind of gameplay. I am betting that it will be the pros themselves who would show the world how SC2 would be so lacking if the the UI enhancements would be foregone.
A new set of macro skills would be welcome. The increase of hectic skills would be welcome. But you have yet to show exactly what is going to replace the constant macro and micro. That is part of our question to Blizzard, but you can try answering it as well. Warpgates and blink don't cut it. And if your going to go with the old refrain of constant battle and multiple fronts, I'd have to say, it doesn't sound that great, and very often, its not worth it even if you had infinite apm. Stop relying on hypotheticals and give real examples.
Until you can do so, you don't have a solid argument for MBS.
On October 05 2007 00:12 Manit0u wrote: Newsflash for you: There are also people who don't have time for such things and would still like to play the game without putting too much effort into it. I don't want to break the sweat while playing the game because I'm doing it for FUN, not competition, I don't want to lose the game to someone without any brain but able to click 3x faster than me.
This isn't a good pro-MBS argument because it's the argument many people used against MBS. I think MBS will add a great deal to the game, it's not like you're going to be sitting around doing nothing in the time you would have spent pressing all those extra buttons to macro. The macro phase of the game is shortened, which will open up time for more harass, micro, scouting, and etc. I am aware that some people oppose a more micro-oriented starcraft, but I am all for it. It's not like adding MBS will trivialize the finer aspects of the game, no, they will still be there, you will just have more time to execute them, and more executions per game. I had more I wanted to say but I have to go, so I'll pick this up later.
Not only does that ruin the balance of macro and micro, the nature of the game means that sometimes you won't have direct confrontation with the enemy. A lot of the game is about choosing your battles and controlling the overall situaton. What are you going to do in those situations?
On October 05 2007 00:34 Aphelion wrote: A new set of macro skills would be welcome. The increase of hectic skills would be welcome. But you have yet to show exactly what is going to replace the constant macro and micro. That is part of our question to Blizzard, but you can try answering it as well. Warpgates and blink don't cut it. And if your going to go with the old refrain of constant battle and multiple fronts, I'd have to say, it doesn't sound that great, and very often, its not worth it even if you had infinite apm. Stop relying on hypotheticals and give real examples.
Until you can do so, you don't have a solid argument for MBS.
Well, I have to rely on hypotheticals, because I haven't had the chance to Beta it. No one outside of Blizzard have solid argument... whether pro or anti MBS. We have pretty good suppositions and analogies and comparisons and what not...but that is not enough to pass judgment on MBS.
Anyhow, your statement hit the nail squarely in the head: the things that would be considered macro are as of now, non-existent (for you guys anyway)...the stuff that can be done to replace letternumbercombination is still unknown. But the worry that there will be nothing to replace 5z6z7z8z is not just because of MBS, it is also in the uncertainty of how units handle in the game, how different skills work in conjunction with another, the units and skills and interactions of a whole race etc. With that said, MBS is not inherently bad. MBS should be considered in the context that it is in, the applications it was used. The game is balanced with MBS in mind and until we get to really experience SC2 in beta...well..hold your horses first.
On October 05 2007 00:12 Manit0u wrote: Personally I don't really care how MBS is going to work in SC2, all I really want is the ability to have all of my production buildings hotkeyed with at least 3 hotkeys left for my army. Otherwise the game will turn into "fight against the UI" and I won't be interested in it at all. The problem with some anti-mbs people is that they consider everything from the pro perspective, being able to do everything with their 400+ apm because they are practicing 12hrs/day. Newsflash for you: There are also people who don't have time for such things and would still like to play the game without putting too much effort into it. I don't want to break the sweat while playing the game because I'm doing it for FUN, not competition, I don't want to lose the game to someone without any brain but able to click 3x faster than me.
Also, Blizzard isn't making this game just for the people who played SC1, they're doing it for everyone (including people who haven't seen SC1 on their eyes) and someone not familiar with it (or RTSs at all for that matter) would be overwhelmed by inferiority of the interface without MBS.
Why so many of you think that SC2 is being designed only for hardcore fanboys of SC1 and people who know how to play it and are successful at it? Don't be so selfish and let others have some pleasure too.
It seems that the best way to solve all the issues would be releasing 2 versions of SC2: SC2 - promode: - no mbs - no automining - no amm ladder - maybe no b.net at all, it could be just for the competetive play in leagues
SC2 - normal mode: - mbs - automining - amm ladder for everyone - top 20 people from each ladder each season would be able to get SC2 promode (noobs don't need it anyway, let's just make it accesible to those worthy)
I agree 90%. No b.net for promode or access to promode only for top 20 is (sorry...) complete **** and what exactly is amm?
On October 05 2007 00:34 Aphelion wrote: A new set of macro skills would be welcome. The increase of hectic skills would be welcome. But you have yet to show exactly what is going to replace the constant macro and micro. That is part of our question to Blizzard, but you can try answering it as well. Warpgates and blink don't cut it. And if your going to go with the old refrain of constant battle and multiple fronts, I'd have to say, it doesn't sound that great, and very often, its not worth it even if you had infinite apm. Stop relying on hypotheticals and give real examples.
Until you can do so, you don't have a solid argument for MBS.
Well, I have to rely on hypotheticals, because I haven't had the chance to Beta it. No one outside of Blizzard have solid argument... whether pro or anti MBS. We have pretty good suppositions and analogies and comparisons and what not...but that is not enough to pass judgment on MBS.
Anyhow, your statement hit the nail squarely in the head: the things that would be considered macro are as of now, non-existent (for you guys anyway)...the stuff that can be done to replace letternumbercombination is still unknown. But the worry that there will be nothing to replace 5z6z7z8z is not just because of MBS, it is also in the uncertainty of how units handle in the game, how different skills work in conjunction with another, the units and skills and interactions of a whole race etc. With that said, MBS is not inherently bad. MBS should be considered in the context that it is in, the applications it was used. The game is balanced with MBS in mind and until we get to really experience SC2 in beta...well..hold your horses first.
I do not believe it can wait until beta. I think deciding the UI is one of the most basic things that should be decided before you can even judge it.
And really, we have a pretty good idea how MBS will work based upon prior experience. Blizzard have already said they will not reinvent the wheel - the new game will feel and play like SC. And neither do I trust Blizzard to magically make something up to compensate for MBS. While a great company, it is next to impossible for them to design new features and know how it will turn out with players playing it. SC was a happy accident. The game relies on so many glitches and conventions unknown at release. To deviate from such a core part of the game and still keep the same feeling and awesomeness - that is very very unlikely to happen.
Also remember its not just the letter combo (although that is very important). Its the constant necessity of having go back to manage your base. Macro with SBS is not as simplistic as you make it out to be.
In WC3 the ladder is made up of people playing mêlée games. (Solo, Arranged-team, Random-team and Free For All).
Once you select your game type, you hit "Play Game". Battle.net will then try and match you with a player of a similar ELL. This normally takes about 20 sec.
ELL = Estimated Ladder Level
On the ladder you will have a visible level (1-50) and a hidden ELL that only battle.net knows.
ELL is based on your previous game performances. It was designed to stop the problem of smurfing. If a good player starts a new account and goes 10-0, even though he is a low ladder level, he will have a high ELL, and the AMM will start matching him with high-level ladder players.
If the AMM is working properly, over an extended period of time, your win percentage will tend towards 50%. i.e. you are playing players on your level. Once you start to hit 50% you ladder level should reveal your true skill level.
The problems people have with it is that there are usually very few top players on battle.net at any one time, and game search times can become very long.
There are some other issues too, but I can't be bothered to mention them.
this thread's description of sc1 macro really bugs me because it's very inaccurate and therefore misleading. as far as protoss goes, most players don't macro more than 5 gates from their keyboard because the other hotkeys are necessary for other things and because aside from guys with enormous hands like tasteless anything more than 5 gates just isn't feasible.
case in point, bisu's hotkeys suggest he macros from 4-8, and naturally because of his success there are a number of othe pros who share these hotkeys. but 5 gates won't get even the most efficient protoss through even midgame. if 5 gates were sufficient, then this whole question would be different because macroing 4z5z6d7d8d takes a very short time (with practice), and so replacing it with MBS only replace a single game skill (rapid keyboarding) and a very small amount of time.
things aren't that way. 5 or 6 hotkeys devoted to factories, barracks, gateways or hatcheries are usually insufficient to get a player through the midgame stages (although zerg fares slightly better than the other two races). the other method of macro is returning to your base to produce units visually and is a large fraction of time spent in games. this aspect of macro has two-fold importance as far as MBS goes - it takes a great deal of time that will suddenly be completely refunded by MBS, in addition to the relatively small fraction of time that MBS saves over keyboard-based production. MBS also saves the player the trouble of having to move his screen and look away from his army, which is very important. skilled multitasking and positioning is vital in sc1 precisely because you do have to look away in order to macro, and macroing in battles is essential to good economic management.
MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
This thread has degraded into: people who know what they are talking about repeating themselves to each other (on both sides of the arguement), and other people who can't seem to follow the issue and pollute the thread.
I hope Blizzard is full of the former and not the latter.
Newsflash for you: There are also people who don't have time for such things and would still like to play the game without putting too much effort into it. I don't want to break the sweat while playing the game because I'm doing it for FUN, not competition, I don't want to lose the game to someone without any brain but able to click 3x faster than me.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote: Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
Stop using that argument. In case you haven't noticed, there's been very little resistance to other changes, such as the unlimited unit selection cap.
I wonder why? Maybe because we feel it doesn't hurt the game, whereas MBS will?
it's a perfectly valid argument because the same subset of warcraft 2 fans were against all the UI changes from war2 -> sc for the exact same set of reasons fretting about newbification and here we are, 10 years later, and i don't see anyone trying to make the argument "warcraft 2 takes more skill than SC"
if you can make the argument that war2 > sc in the area of macro alone then I'll give you the argument that MBS is bad
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote: Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
Stop using that argument. In case you haven't noticed, there's been very little resistance to other changes, such as the unlimited unit selection cap.
I wonder why? Maybe because we feel it doesn't hurt the game, whereas MBS will?
it's a perfectly valid argument because the same subset of warcraft 2 fans were against all the UI changes from war2 -> sc for the exact same set of reasons fretting about newbification and here we are, 10 years later, and i don't see anyone trying to make the argument "warcraft 2 takes more skill than SC"
if you can make the argument that war2 > sc in the area of macro alone then I'll give you the argument that MBS is bad
Then it's basically impossible to ever argue against new changes.
EVER. And why? Because the Warcraft 2 players 10 years ago - I was 8 at the time - used SOME of the same arguments? As I've said, if this is a valid argument then every single new feature will have to be accepted under it.
I think the points I, and other people opposing MBS, have made have been perfectly valid on their own. Not so much newbification as it is dulling the edge a better player has over a worse one as well as ruining the balance of attention spent macroing/microing.
If anyone has the war2-SC discussions saved (unlikely) or know how they went I'd love to hear them, but just because they thought unit production queues would newbify the game (it of course does make it easier, what we are after is the right balance between useability and skill) doesn't mean our points are invalid.
Oh and btw, I don't play Warcraft 2 and it's possible the war2 system is so much smaller scale or whatever that the SC system still takes more skill, but the War2 system would for sure take more skill if implemented in SC.
The question is, would it - given the grand scale of a starcraft match - take up so much time as to make macro the only viable way to play?
We know that in SC, the current system allows for players to play a predominantly macro or micro style, as they choose. So, given that SC2 plays on a similiar scale and pace, it's likely that MBS will only simplify the game without really giving that much benefit in other areas.
And no, I don't think if MBS is added and allows for more micro or whatever, that that's a good thing. If there is some macro features that will require MBS to function, okay. Then we'd keep the micro/macro balance while upping the scale so to speak.
The real question at hand is will MBS make it so that a weaker player in SC at any level can suddenly defeat a stronger player SC2. I don't think it will have an impact on player skill gaps. It will make it easier to pump units from 8 mining bases, but aside from the multitask time freed up and (as the OP posted out, static defense can focus fire) it doesn't impact how well you can defend the bases from a strategic standpoint. The player that has more expos and has more workers survive throughout the game is more likely to win in SC1, and MBS isn't changing that.
We'll have a solid answer to the question when SC2 comes out.
Immange a annoying statement spamed over and over again though out fourms. This will never come true but its really a compalint just immange all te annoying comments.
LOOK
If a pro scence of SC2 doesnt want MBS then we should be asking for is the ablity to turn things like that off in the game and not say SCRAP IT. Keep it just let it be so with a flick of a check mark its gone for the game.
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote: Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
Stop using that argument. In case you haven't noticed, there's been very little resistance to other changes, such as the unlimited unit selection cap.
I wonder why? Maybe because we feel it doesn't hurt the game, whereas MBS will?
it's a perfectly valid argument because the same subset of warcraft 2 fans were against all the UI changes from war2 -> sc for the exact same set of reasons fretting about newbification and here we are, 10 years later, and i don't see anyone trying to make the argument "warcraft 2 takes more skill than SC"
if you can make the argument that war2 > sc in the area of macro alone then I'll give you the argument that MBS is bad
No it's not. Why does every dumb fuck think that over exaggerated, nonsensical metaphors will prove them right?
There are two ways of thinking: 1. Macroing in SC is like juggling babies while playing basketball. 2. Macroing in SC is like dribbling in basketball.
If you think it's number one, you're fucking wrong.
Macro by itself is no more redundant than microing units. "Spamming all those keys is useless and redundant." "Spamming move and attack with your mouse is useless and redudant."
Can you see that a very similar mentality can be applied to micro?
Let's for a second imagine you are macroing. 5z6z7z8d9d0d or clickzclickzclickzclickz. How fucking hard was that? Not hard at all. I guarantee if you did that for 2 minutes, you'd be able to do that under 3 seconds (with two hands at least).
Easy? Then why the fuck do you keep complaining about it being hard and redundant? Because you fail the understand how the gears behind SC rotate. Macro is not hard when that's all you have to do.
What we lose when including MBS is the crucial decision making that makes SC such a fast paced game. Do I micro or do I macro? Or do I , as quickly as I possibly can, macro with hotkeys while microing?
For God's sake, think about it.
Don't give me bullshit about how we should make it easier for new players, how it can be replaced by more micro, or how it's stupid and redundant.
i'm surprised no one has said 'oh fuck i was wrong' in light of this landslide of a thread. i guess this issue is more a jousting match than a sincere attempt at getting anywhere. it reminds me of one of those funny pic threads. futility "because all those carefully worded arguments are falling on deaf ears.
I played Warcraft 2, I can't remember there ever being an argument like this befor StarCrafts release.. Im thinking whoever argues that the best warcraft 2 players was annoyed with building ques, 12 units selection are pulling it out of a hat.. etc please show proof of that statment. Best warcraft players were at a site called Target. (not 100% sure that was the name... long time ago) It was a multiplayer service like Mplayer and gamespy had.. This was befor Kali aswell I think.
We just werent that involved in the game-creation process back then.. speaking for myself as always, but internet was still pretty new for most people.. and the community was not as big.
ed: ofcourse.. i could be pulling that out of a hat aswell.. I just don't remember it being a controversy at all. Everyone was just very happy to have a very fun new rts to play, and that it got connected with battle.net was also very unique.
Newsflash for you: There are also people who don't have time for such things and would still like to play the game without putting too much effort into it. I don't want to break the sweat while playing the game because I'm doing it for FUN, not competition, I don't want to lose the game to someone without any brain but able to click 3x faster than me.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
On October 05 2007 00:34 Aphelion wrote: A new set of macro skills would be welcome. The increase of hectic skills would be welcome. But you have yet to show exactly what is going to replace the constant macro and micro. That is part of our question to Blizzard, but you can try answering it as well. Warpgates and blink don't cut it. And if your going to go with the old refrain of constant battle and multiple fronts, I'd have to say, it doesn't sound that great, and very often, its not worth it even if you had infinite apm. Stop relying on hypotheticals and give real examples.
Until you can do so, you don't have a solid argument for MBS.
Well, I have to rely on hypotheticals, because I haven't had the chance to Beta it. No one outside of Blizzard have solid argument... whether pro or anti MBS. We have pretty good suppositions and analogies and comparisons and what not...but that is not enough to pass judgment on MBS.
Anyhow, your statement hit the nail squarely in the head: the things that would be considered macro are as of now, non-existent (for you guys anyway)...the stuff that can be done to replace letternumbercombination is still unknown. But the worry that there will be nothing to replace 5z6z7z8z is not just because of MBS, it is also in the uncertainty of how units handle in the game, how different skills work in conjunction with another, the units and skills and interactions of a whole race etc. With that said, MBS is not inherently bad. MBS should be considered in the context that it is in, the applications it was used. The game is balanced with MBS in mind and until we get to really experience SC2 in beta...well..hold your horses first.
I do not believe it can wait until beta. I think deciding the UI is one of the most basic things that should be decided before you can even judge it.
And really, we have a pretty good idea how MBS will work based upon prior experience. Blizzard have already said they will not reinvent the wheel - the new game will feel and play like SC. And neither do I trust Blizzard to magically make something up to compensate for MBS. While a great company, it is next to impossible for them to design new features and know how it will turn out with players playing it. SC was a happy accident. The game relies on so many glitches and conventions unknown at release. To deviate from such a core part of the game and still keep the same feeling and awesomeness - that is very very unlikely to happen.
Also remember its not just the letter combo (although that is very important). Its the constant necessity of having go back to manage your base. Macro with SBS is not as simplistic as you make it out to be.
Nothing can be too late in development to be changed if Blizzard finds it inadequate. There's adequate precedence for this (SC, Ghost, Adventures). Sure Blizzard can't possibly know it all and SC can be considered a happy accident. Still. Blizzard knows much more about creating great games than any of us. No one knows for sure how MBS will affect the game or if there will be enough macro to replace 5z6z7z8z as SC1 never had MBS and War3 (which had MBS) was really made to be different from SC (as SC is to War3) so there is still nothing to compare.
On a side note: If MBS would be included, you would still need to go back to your base but not for unit creation. You'd be back to defend against more constant harrassment as it will be so easy (for a pro, anyway) to pull-off with MBS.
On October 05 2007 03:04 Failsafe wrote: MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
Think of this scenario: two pro players against each other. MBS. Who would win? The advantage of MBS, mainly the advantage of easier unit production would be lost on the two (as they will use it to its full potential)...so what do you think will happen? You think those pro-gamers would just, well, waste those precious seconds that were saved because of MBS? While Blizzard will be replacing 5z6z7z8z with something, pro players would, automatically, find things to do with the extra time. Either they'll use the time to position their forces better, or organize harassment or whatever, the point is that pro players themselves would (IMHO) find things to do to gain the advantage.
On October 04 2007 21:30 teapot wrote: Lets imagine SC1 without hotkeys.
OMG SC2 is going to have hotkeys. This will ruin the competitive aspect of the game. SC at its heart is a game about mouse speed and accuracy. It takes real skill to get that mouse pointer to the command buttons in record time. Now any noob can issue a command simply by pressing one key? How ridiculous. Damn, the last ten years of honing that muscle-memory to bring the mouse down to the lower-right-hand side of the screen are completely wasted. I hope Blizzard find something to fill up all that time we have on our hands now. Issuing commands will be too easy. There should be a penalty for players who can't move their mouse fast enough. I wish they made a competitive game for us true fans.
/end hypothetical die-hard, ultra-conservative starcraft fan rant
Stop using that argument. In case you haven't noticed, there's been very little resistance to other changes, such as the unlimited unit selection cap.
I wonder why? Maybe because we feel it doesn't hurt the game, whereas MBS will?
it's a perfectly valid argument because the same subset of warcraft 2 fans were against all the UI changes from war2 -> sc for the exact same set of reasons fretting about newbification and here we are, 10 years later, and i don't see anyone trying to make the argument "warcraft 2 takes more skill than SC"
if you can make the argument that war2 > sc in the area of macro alone then I'll give you the argument that MBS is bad
No it's not. Why does every dumb fuck think that over exaggerated, nonsensical metaphors will prove them right?
There are two ways of thinking: 1. Macroing in SC is like juggling babies while playing basketball. 2. Macroing in SC is like dribbling in basketball.
If you think it's number one, you're fucking wrong.
Macro by itself is no more redundant than microing units. "Spamming all those keys is useless and redundant." "Spamming move and attack with your mouse is useless and redudant."
Can you see that a very similar mentality can be applied to micro?
Let's for a second imagine you are macroing. 5z6z7z8d9d0d or clickzclickzclickzclickz. How fucking hard was that? Not hard at all. I guarantee if you did that for 2 minutes, you'd be able to do that under 3 seconds (with two hands at least).
Easy? Then why the fuck do you keep complaining about it being hard and redundant? Because you fail the understand how the gears behind SC rotate. Macro is not hard when that's all you have to do.
What we lose when including MBS is the crucial decision making that makes SC such a fast paced game. Do I micro or do I macro? Or do I , as quickly as I possibly can, macro with hotkeys while microing?
For God's sake, think about it.
Don't give me bullshit about how we should make it easier for new players, how it can be replaced by more micro, or how it's stupid and redundant.
It's not an exagerrated metaphor at all
war2 macro is more time consuming because you have to return to your base at a specific time in order to produce more troops. this is even more demanding on the multitasking abilities of a player, starcraft gives you a few seconds of twiddle room or you can be inefficent filling the queue. the "crucial decision making" you mentioned is brought to an even higher scale - do i let my rax idle so i can bloodlust my ogres and win this battle, or do i go make more ogres?
would it be more difficult to play at a high level? absolutely, but it doesn't make warcraft 2 a better game. that's all i'm saying here. i don't really see how you can disagree with this and say i'm bullshitting you at the same time
if anything there's a massive flaw running across many (but not all) pro MBS arguments where everything in starcraft is assumed perfect, therefore anything not in starcraft is imperfect. people are getting all emotional and argue that adding comfort UI features will disintegrate skill gaps, but once you make suggestions to make the game more difficult to play suddenly you're going too far. i'm not suggesting we actually remove unit queues, i'm just adopting your own mindset and showing you how fallacious it is once you apply it to, oh, anything else in regards to UI. I have thought about it, and I think the fact that it's players find it more valuable to have a single building on a hotkey as opposed to 12 units (even 12 protoss units) is a flaw in SC's game design.
On October 05 2007 13:31 mahnini wrote: If you think it's number one, you're fucking wrong.
Obviously Blizzard thinks that its number one, go tell them that they are fucking wrong please, that will certainly make them understand how little they know of the game. Im sure that you can use your premonition powers to know exactly how the future will turn out.
Other than that, its all speculation. Blizzard speculations concluded that it will be necesary to have mbs in to reach their standards wich can be derived from their comments on the issue in interviews and official announcements.
Do you all here honestly believe that you have a more valid oppinion on this than Blizzard? That the most sluggish but therefore also the most thoughtfull game company ever dont know what they are doing?
If they were in for a change they wouldve said so a LOOOOONG time ago, just like they said that the soulhunter and siegetank looks were under consideration and everytime they showed something or any question about anything else its up for change. But they didnt mention anything about mbs being removed, not even a tiniest hint about mbs gettigng reworked or that its any chance whatsoever of it being removed.
Please all anti-mbs people out there, take your time and look from the pro mbs perspective without the dismissing thoughts that all pro-mbs people are just noobs who want to have an easier time beating people in starcraft. Do this not for their sake, but for your own so that you dont go kill yourself when starcraft 2 comes out with mbs, eventhough you might think that its impossible.
I argue against MBS. Had I of been arguing noobification issues back at the war2 sc switch, I would have been arguing for them. Most people here would have been also.
A lot of the anti-MBS people either dont get the MBS argument, or try to avoid actually combatting it by grossly overexaggerating it. Warcraft 2 was a bit too hard, Warcraft 3 was too easy, Starcraft was perfect. We've seen both sides of the scale, we've found the balance we want. However starcraft is not looking like it will fall into the same area as starcraft 1 did. It looks like it is going to be more like warcraft 3 and easy. So we debate that. Everyone who turns around and uses an exaggerated argument such as "In warcraft 2 we could only select 4 units so it must be better" is an idiot. Plain and simple, so shut up unless you want to argue properly.
On October 05 2007 21:57 Fen wrote: I argue against MBS. Had I of been arguing noobification issues back at the war2 sc switch, I would have been arguing for them. Most people here would have been also.
A lot of the anti-MBS people either dont get the MBS argument, or try to avoid actually combatting it by grossly overexaggerating it. Warcraft 2 was a bit too hard, Warcraft 3 was too easy, Starcraft was perfect. We've seen both sides of the scale, we've found the balance we want. However starcraft is not looking like it will fall into the same area as starcraft 1 did. It looks like it is going to be more like warcraft 3 and easy. So we debate that. Everyone who turns around and uses an exaggerated argument such as "In warcraft 2 we could only select 4 units so it must be better" is an idiot. Plain and simple, so shut up unless you want to argue properly.
Well, the only things you got is: Warcraft 2<Starcraft>warcraft3 To hard , good , to easy
But that isnt really true, since warcraft 2 and starcraft are very similar games just that starcraft is a refined warcraft 2. However warcraft 3 removed almost all aspects of macro, it didnt make them less clicks to do the same things, they just cut down te things you did.
So we have: Warcraft 2 had a to hard interface. Starcraft 1 had a better interface than warcraft 2 and were a better game. Warcraft 3 newbified the macro to a point were UI doesnt even matter. Imagine how hard the macro would be if starcraft had a popcap of 50.
So really, we dont have any example of a game with similar macro as starcraft together with mbs. However we have an example were UI improvements are a part of what makes starcraft better than warcraft 2 were both games have similar macro, so this gives the pro mbs more credit than the anti mbs.
Only credit the anti mbs side has is that they want to go the "Safe route", but if people always thought like that we wouldnt have starcraft 1, youd have warcraft 3 instead at that time wich would be almsot similar to warcraft 2, just like warcraft 2 is very similar to warcraft 1.
On October 05 2007 21:14 Zanno wrote: if anything there's a massive flaw running across many (but not all) pro MBS arguments where everything in starcraft is assumed perfect
On October 05 2007 21:57 Fen wrote: A lot of the anti-MBS people either dont get the MBS argument, or try to avoid actually combatting it by grossly overexaggerating it. Warcraft 2 was a bit too hard, Warcraft 3 was too easy, Starcraft was perfect.
On October 05 2007 13:11 Zanno wrote: The real question at hand is will MBS make it so that a weaker player in SC at any level can suddenly defeat a stronger player SC2. I don't think it will have an impact on player skill gaps. It will make it easier to pump units from 8 mining bases, but aside from the multitask time freed up and (as the OP posted out, static defense can focus fire) it doesn't impact how well you can defend the bases from a strategic standpoint. The player that has more expos and has more workers survive throughout the game is more likely to win in SC1, and MBS isn't changing that.
We'll have a solid answer to the question when SC2 comes out.
A worse player can already beat a better one, if we lower the skillcap of macro, it will only happen more often.
Newsflash for you: There are also people who don't have time for such things and would still like to play the game without putting too much effort into it. I don't want to break the sweat while playing the game because I'm doing it for FUN, not competition, I don't want to lose the game to someone without any brain but able to click 3x faster than me.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Elitist.
And what is he then? He wants MBS why? Because he doesn't want to have to work to play the game.
So because he doesn't want to play competitively, he doesn't want anyone to do so. Instead of, say, finding others who don't want to play competitively and play with them, he wants to lower the skill difference between him and someone who's spent a lot of time practicing.
On October 05 2007 03:04 Failsafe wrote: MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
Think of this scenario: two pro players against each other. MBS. Who would win? The advantage of MBS, mainly the advantage of easier unit production would be lost on the two (as they will use it to its full potential)...so what do you think will happen? You think those pro-gamers would just, well, waste those precious seconds that were saved because of MBS? While Blizzard will be replacing 5z6z7z8z with something, pro players would, automatically, find things to do with the extra time. Either they'll use the time to position their forces better, or organize harassment or whatever, the point is that pro players themselves would (IMHO) find things to do to gain the advantage.
If MBS was implemented that means more units can be produced with less effort. What if the pop cap was increased? Suddenly, macro becomes much more important because you have to be able to control all the units that you're pumping out. You're getting battles on a much more massive scale than SC1 on average, which makes it harder to micro effectively since there are that many more units.
In other words, if we had SC1 without MBS but only 100 supply, the game would switch to a very micro-oriented gameplay because you just dont have that many units to lose. With MBS, you increase the ability to make units, but you make it harder to control them all.
Also, I'm about neutral on this subject, but if you gave me the choice I'd go with no MBS. I really do think it takes away from the skill level at high levels of play. But I'm resigned to the fact that it's going to stay, due to popular (casual gamers) demand, and if it's implemented no pro in hell is going to play non-MBS when they're given a tool of such power. I also think that MBS is not inherently unbalanced and the game can be tweaked (such as my suggestion above) so that the balance between macro and micro is not weighed heavily in either direction.
On October 05 2007 03:04 Failsafe wrote: MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
Think of this scenario: two pro players against each other. MBS. Who would win? The advantage of MBS, mainly the advantage of easier unit production would be lost on the two (as they will use it to its full potential)...so what do you think will happen? You think those pro-gamers would just, well, waste those precious seconds that were saved because of MBS? While Blizzard will be replacing 5z6z7z8z with something, pro players would, automatically, find things to do with the extra time. Either they'll use the time to position their forces better, or organize harassment or whatever, the point is that pro players themselves would (IMHO) find things to do to gain the advantage.
Uhu, micro related things.
Thus skewing the micro/macro balance.
Seriously.
Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it?
And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves.
On October 05 2007 03:04 Failsafe wrote: MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
Think of this scenario: two pro players against each other. MBS. Who would win? The advantage of MBS, mainly the advantage of easier unit production would be lost on the two (as they will use it to its full potential)...so what do you think will happen? You think those pro-gamers would just, well, waste those precious seconds that were saved because of MBS? While Blizzard will be replacing 5z6z7z8z with something, pro players would, automatically, find things to do with the extra time. Either they'll use the time to position their forces better, or organize harassment or whatever, the point is that pro players themselves would (IMHO) find things to do to gain the advantage.
Uhu, micro related things.
Thus skewing the micro/macro balance.
Seriously.
Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it?
And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves.
When I check my APM in BWChart, I spend more time microing than I do macroing.
And your last line is exactly what I perceive to be the problem: I WANT MICRO AND MACRO TO GET EQUAL MECHANICAL ATTENTION, I DON'T WANT MACRO TO BECOME GAME READING SKILLS OR PREDICTING YOUR OPPONENTS MOVES - THAT'S NOT MACRO, THAT'S UNDERSTANDING THE GAME.
Yes, I want to have that in caps because nobody seems to listen -_-
Also, Zanno, why did you ignore my reply to your post?
On October 05 2007 03:04 Failsafe wrote: MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
Think of this scenario: two pro players against each other. MBS. Who would win? The advantage of MBS, mainly the advantage of easier unit production would be lost on the two (as they will use it to its full potential)...so what do you think will happen? You think those pro-gamers would just, well, waste those precious seconds that were saved because of MBS? While Blizzard will be replacing 5z6z7z8z with something, pro players would, automatically, find things to do with the extra time. Either they'll use the time to position their forces better, or organize harassment or whatever, the point is that pro players themselves would (IMHO) find things to do to gain the advantage.
Uhu, micro related things.
Thus skewing the micro/macro balance.
Seriously.
Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it?
And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves.
On October 05 2007 03:04 Failsafe wrote: MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
Think of this scenario: two pro players against each other. MBS. Who would win? The advantage of MBS, mainly the advantage of easier unit production would be lost on the two (as they will use it to its full potential)...so what do you think will happen? You think those pro-gamers would just, well, waste those precious seconds that were saved because of MBS? While Blizzard will be replacing 5z6z7z8z with something, pro players would, automatically, find things to do with the extra time. Either they'll use the time to position their forces better, or organize harassment or whatever, the point is that pro players themselves would (IMHO) find things to do to gain the advantage.
Uhu, micro related things.
Thus skewing the micro/macro balance.
Seriously.
Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it?
And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves.
lawl you don't even know what macro is.
Yes i do know what macro is, and it got a lot of definitions depending on who you ask.
The general definition in the starcraft community is that macro is everything you do that has to do with workers and your base.
Predicting what path of construction your opponent will take is critical to macro, you cant exp if your enemy will just destroy it, if you predict from the notions of the game that your opponent wont have the resources or wont scout untill you can predict it you can get more expos than if you werent good at reading the game. Same with units, if you are good at predicting what units will come in the next minutes you will have an army suited to beat that much faster than if you just reacts to what your opponent does.
These things will get more important than in starcraft if starcraft 2 manages to make more units important in each matchup ofcourse, but theyre still very important in starcraft.
On October 06 2007 01:05 FrozenArbiter wrote: And all those things are still there, regardless of if you have MBS or not.
All MBS does is reduce the time you spend actually building units to a fraction of what it used to be.
Yeah, the question is if you think the need for it to take a lot of clicks is important enough to aleniate a lot of potential players.
Do you really think that its SOOO important that a lot of the apm has to go to immobile units to make them create stuff? If Blizzard can find other tasks to let players do that takes more thought than nothing starcraft 2 will actually get harder to master than starcraft.(Since mbs doesnt remove the thought of building, only the thought of when to leave the battlefield for a few secs, and thats not totally removed since you have to build structures still)
But as i said, if clicking on buildings is so important to you guys noone can argue about it. Its a pause in the stressfull microing, since macro clicks are easier and just follows reflexive rutinues, removing that pause makes the game harder as long as you can fill it with something.
On October 06 2007 01:05 FrozenArbiter wrote: And all those things are still there, regardless of if you have MBS or not.
All MBS does is reduce the time you spend actually building units to a fraction of what it used to be.
Yeah, the question is if you think the need for it to take a lot of clicks is important enough to aleniate a lot of potential players.
Unless the beta proves this isn't an issue, then yes, absolutely. I don't think it's going to alienate nearly as many people as you say it will provided the game is good enough. It will still have unlimited unit selection and smartcasting and so on.
And as I've said before, having to click once per unit (with mbs) is a variation of MBS that I'm open to considering, as it also allows you more control of what you are building.
Do you really think that its SOOO important that a lot of the apm has to go to immobile units to make them create stuff? If Blizzard can find other tasks to let players do that takes more thought than nothing starcraft 2 will actually get harder to master than starcraft.(Since mbs doesnt remove the thought of building, only the thought of when to leave the battlefield for a few secs, and thats not totally removed since you have to build structures still)
But as i said, if clicking on buildings is so important to you guys noone can argue about it. Its a pause in the stressfull microing, since macro clicks are easier and just follows reflexive rutinues, removing that pause makes the game harder as long as you can fill it with something.
It's not a fucking 'pause from the stressful micro', being FORCED to move away from the battle to macro is what makes the game stressful.
Just micro isn't stressful.. you just sit there watching your units. It's when you have to watch your units and make sure they aren't getting raped by lurkers, send another group of units to defend that new expansion across the map, make sure all your production buildings are working smoothly and dodge some scourges with your dropship that it becomes stressful.
On October 06 2007 01:05 FrozenArbiter wrote: And all those things are still there, regardless of if you have MBS or not.
All MBS does is reduce the time you spend actually building units to a fraction of what it used to be.
Yeah, the question is if you think the need for it to take a lot of clicks is important enough to aleniate a lot of potential players.
Unless the beta proves this isn't an issue, then yes, absolutely. I don't think it's going to alienate nearly as many people as you say it will provided the game is good enough. It will still have unlimited unit selection and smartcasting and so on.
And as I've said before, having to click once per unit (with mbs) is a variation of MBS that I'm open to considering, as it also allows you more control of what you are building.
Well, if beta prooves that it is an issue i wouldnt argue for mbs either. Its just that i dont think that it will ever be an issue even near the magnitude of what the anti players say, just like the anti players dont think that mbs have an noticeable effect on game sales.
Do you really think that its SOOO important that a lot of the apm has to go to immobile units to make them create stuff? If Blizzard can find other tasks to let players do that takes more thought than nothing starcraft 2 will actually get harder to master than starcraft.(Since mbs doesnt remove the thought of building, only the thought of when to leave the battlefield for a few secs, and thats not totally removed since you have to build structures still)
But as i said, if clicking on buildings is so important to you guys noone can argue about it. Its a pause in the stressfull microing, since macro clicks are easier and just follows reflexive rutinues, removing that pause makes the game harder as long as you can fill it with something.
It's not a fucking 'pause from the stressful micro', being FORCED to move away from the battle to macro is what makes the game stressful.
Just micro isn't stressful.. you just sit there watching your units. It's when you have to watch your units and make sure they aren't getting raped by lurkers, send another group of units to defend that new expansion across the map, make sure all your production buildings are working smoothly and dodge some scourges with your dropship that it becomes stressful.
Im sorry, probably went a bit to far there but i think that most should agree with me when i say that it isnt impossible to have a highly skill requiring game even with mbs.
And micro will become more stressfull than before if they manage to add more meaningfull units per matchup, its a lot harder to micro 8 unit types than 2, and its a lot harder to fight 8 unit types than 2. With this i mean mostly zerg, but even terran have quite a big lack of unit diversity in its matchups, and added to this is the new units giving the game a higher unit count than before so even if they dont balance it better there will be more types on average.
Im sorry, probably went a bit to far there but i think that most should agree with me when i say that it isnt impossible to have a highly skill requiring game even with mbs.
Of course, just look at warcraft 3.
Therein lies the problem.
No, I am not saying war3 is what it is because of MBS, but my point is that I don't want a game that plays more micro, less micro because I want the game to keep these aspects of SC1.
On October 06 2007 02:03 FrozenArbiter wrote: No, I am not saying war3 is what it is because of MBS, but my point is that I don't want a game that plays more micro, less micro because I want the game to keep these aspects of SC1.
Wich is a valid concern ofcourse since its your oppinion.
Saying that the proscene will be noobified and that it will in the end destroy the game is not though, wich was my point. This sentence werent directed at you btw.
What can be destroyed is how high level players play the game, it will feel a bit different like all new things and depending on who you are its better/worse than before.
Now if there somehow becomes evident that starcraft cant just live with mbs it will get removed, just like how Blizzard removes anything that is impossible to work with.
Late edit: And it will still be starcraft, just that it will feel a bit different. Like all changes it wont be well recieved in all parts of the community. I think that this large discussion is a proof that it took to long for them to start on sc2.
On October 05 2007 13:11 Zanno wrote: The real question at hand is will MBS make it so that a weaker player in SC at any level can suddenly defeat a stronger player SC2. I don't think it will have an impact on player skill gaps. It will make it easier to pump units from 8 mining bases, but aside from the multitask time freed up and (as the OP posted out, static defense can focus fire) it doesn't impact how well you can defend the bases from a strategic standpoint. The player that has more expos and has more workers survive throughout the game is more likely to win in SC1, and MBS isn't changing that.
We'll have a solid answer to the question when SC2 comes out.
A worse player can already beat a better one, if we lower the skillcap of macro, it will only happen more often.
You really, REALLY cannot argue against this one
I cannot simply cannot conceive of a situation where one player would win if neither had MBS and the other would win where they both had it. The major game deciding scenarios are killing workers, killing expos, building new expos, and having a build order counter to your opponent. The situations where weaker players beat stronger ones is more often than not the latter. Automine lessens the effect of worker harassment, okay.
If anything, I feel that MBS will bring refinement to lategame scenarios. 4z5z6z7z8z will still be useful lategame unless for some reason you want all of your gateways across the map rallying to the same spot and building the same thing.
Its not a specific situation, its the overall probability. MBS reduces multitasking edges players have over each other. When these multitasking edges are dulled, it comes down more to initial BOs, scouting patterns, and just sheer luck. For example, an unscouted FE or hidden expo will give much more benefits now that macro is significantly easier, as opposed to before when the bad player probably wouldn't know how to make use of is advantage due to bad macro.
A worse player will have a better chance winning with MBS than without.
On October 06 2007 02:03 FrozenArbiter wrote: No, I am not saying war3 is what it is because of MBS, but my point is that I don't want a game that plays more micro, less micro because I want the game to keep these aspects of SC1.
"It is our goal to allow players to micro more vs. macro more. This is something that was great about the original StarCraft and it is something we want to maintain while we add new mechanics as well as interface features. We are still evaluating such features as automine as well as MBS. We don't have an answer for this at the moment, but we are working on it." That's an answer on your question from Blizz God, that's exactly what I was repeating in this thread, but no one listens
On October 06 2007 02:32 Aphelion wrote: Some people are just too stupid to argue with. And Blizzard is going to read their opinions and think they're right too.
Fuck I sort of wish SC2 wasn't coming out.
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
On October 06 2007 02:53 Aphelion wrote: Its not a specific situation, its the overall probability. MBS reduces multitasking edges players have over each other.
On October 05 2007 13:11 Zanno wrote: The real question at hand is will MBS make it so that a weaker player in SC at any level can suddenly defeat a stronger player SC2. I don't think it will have an impact on player skill gaps. It will make it easier to pump units from 8 mining bases, but aside from the multitask time freed up and (as the OP posted out, static defense can focus fire) it doesn't impact how well you can defend the bases from a strategic standpoint. The player that has more expos and has more workers survive throughout the game is more likely to win in SC1, and MBS isn't changing that.
We'll have a solid answer to the question when SC2 comes out.
A worse player can already beat a better one, if we lower the skillcap of macro, it will only happen more often.
You really, REALLY cannot argue against this one
I cannot simply cannot conceive of a situation where one player would win if neither had MBS and the other would win where they both had it. The major game deciding scenarios are killing workers, killing expos, building new expos, and having a build order counter to your opponent. The situations where weaker players beat stronger ones is more often than not the latter. Automine lessens the effect of worker harassment, okay.
If anything, I feel that MBS will bring refinement to lategame scenarios. 4z5z6z7z8z will still be useful lategame unless for some reason you want all of your gateways across the map rallying to the same spot and building the same thing.
I'm not saying it will cause me to suddenly go 50-50 vs iloveoov.
I'm saying it will lessen the edge by a tiny bit, which when the best players are already so close in skill, will have an impact IMO.
"It is our goal to allow players to micro more vs. macro more. This is something that was great about the original StarCraft and it is something we want to maintain while we add new mechanics as well as interface features. We are still evaluating such features as automine as well as MBS. We don't have an answer for this at the moment, but we are working on it." That's an answer on your question from Blizz God, that's exactly what I was repeating in this thread, but no one listens
Well, I hadn't seen that yet, pretty decent answer I suppose. Guess we just have to wait and see what they come up with.
On October 05 2007 03:04 Failsafe wrote: MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
Think of this scenario: two pro players against each other. MBS. Who would win? The advantage of MBS, mainly the advantage of easier unit production would be lost on the two (as they will use it to its full potential)...so what do you think will happen? You think those pro-gamers would just, well, waste those precious seconds that were saved because of MBS? While Blizzard will be replacing 5z6z7z8z with something, pro players would, automatically, find things to do with the extra time. Either they'll use the time to position their forces better, or organize harassment or whatever, the point is that pro players themselves would (IMHO) find things to do to gain the advantage.
Uhu, micro related things.
Thus skewing the micro/macro balance.
Seriously.
Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it?
And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves.
When I check my APM in BWChart, I spend more time microing than I do macroing.
And your last line is exactly what I perceive to be the problem: I WANT MICRO AND MACRO TO GET EQUAL MECHANICAL ATTENTION, I DON'T WANT MACRO TO BECOME GAME READING SKILLS OR PREDICTING YOUR OPPONENTS MOVES - THAT'S NOT MACRO, THAT'S UNDERSTANDING THE GAME.
Yes, I want to have that in caps because nobody seems to listen -_-
Also, Zanno, why did you ignore my reply to your post?
then, it would seem your agrument (which i believe is the only argument for MBS) is entirely opinion based. i personally enjoy the micro aspect of the game more than the macro, and i am pro-MBS. it's a matter of opinion from both sides, which is why this debate seems to have no end.
however, i see your rationale in wanting equal macro and micro time in any given game, and honestly hope they find some way to fix that, barring the elimination of MBS.
On October 06 2007 02:53 Aphelion wrote: Its not a specific situation, its the overall probability. MBS reduces multitasking edges players have over each other.
no it isn't. It's your speculation.
Your a moron. That statement is true by definition. If there is less to do (and that IS what MBS will cause), multitasking advantage decrease by definition.
On October 05 2007 03:04 Failsafe wrote: MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
Think of this scenario: two pro players against each other. MBS. Who would win? The advantage of MBS, mainly the advantage of easier unit production would be lost on the two (as they will use it to its full potential)...so what do you think will happen? You think those pro-gamers would just, well, waste those precious seconds that were saved because of MBS? While Blizzard will be replacing 5z6z7z8z with something, pro players would, automatically, find things to do with the extra time. Either they'll use the time to position their forces better, or organize harassment or whatever, the point is that pro players themselves would (IMHO) find things to do to gain the advantage.
Uhu, micro related things.
Thus skewing the micro/macro balance.
Seriously.
Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it?
And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves.
When I check my APM in BWChart, I spend more time microing than I do macroing.
And your last line is exactly what I perceive to be the problem: I WANT MICRO AND MACRO TO GET EQUAL MECHANICAL ATTENTION, I DON'T WANT MACRO TO BECOME GAME READING SKILLS OR PREDICTING YOUR OPPONENTS MOVES - THAT'S NOT MACRO, THAT'S UNDERSTANDING THE GAME.
Yes, I want to have that in caps because nobody seems to listen -_-
Also, Zanno, why did you ignore my reply to your post?
i personally enjoy the micro aspect of the game more than the macro
then go play war3, thats what its designed for starcraft is built on equal importance of both aspects
On October 05 2007 03:04 Failsafe wrote: MBS will cut down tremendously on multitasking demands and the marginal benefit from being a good multitasker will diminsh enormously whatever the case, even if blizzard does find a way to occupy these extra actions with micro. the ability to multitask will be less value at every next level because the most valuable benefit of multitasking - spending all your money on a new units - is easily taken care of. games will, by the very nature of what MBS does, become a lot closer between two players of different skill.
Think of this scenario: two pro players against each other. MBS. Who would win? The advantage of MBS, mainly the advantage of easier unit production would be lost on the two (as they will use it to its full potential)...so what do you think will happen? You think those pro-gamers would just, well, waste those precious seconds that were saved because of MBS? While Blizzard will be replacing 5z6z7z8z with something, pro players would, automatically, find things to do with the extra time. Either they'll use the time to position their forces better, or organize harassment or whatever, the point is that pro players themselves would (IMHO) find things to do to gain the advantage.
Uhu, micro related things.
Thus skewing the micro/macro balance.
Seriously.
Well, isnt the micro/macro balance already skewed were macro is essentially easier per advantage you get from it?
And youd still have macro players and micro players, just that they will be a bit closer to each other than before and that macro player doesnt mean he spends a lot of his time in his base but that he has extremely good game reasing skills so he always predicts his opponents moves.
When I check my APM in BWChart, I spend more time microing than I do macroing.
And your last line is exactly what I perceive to be the problem: I WANT MICRO AND MACRO TO GET EQUAL MECHANICAL ATTENTION, I DON'T WANT MACRO TO BECOME GAME READING SKILLS OR PREDICTING YOUR OPPONENTS MOVES - THAT'S NOT MACRO, THAT'S UNDERSTANDING THE GAME.
Yes, I want to have that in caps because nobody seems to listen -_-
Also, Zanno, why did you ignore my reply to your post?
then, it would seem your agrument (which i believe is the only argument for MBS) is entirely opinion based. i personally enjoy the micro aspect of the game more than the macro, and i am pro-MBS. it's a matter of opinion from both sides, which is why this debate seems to have no end.
however, i see your rationale in wanting equal macro and micro time in any given game, and honestly hope they find some way to fix that, barring the elimination of MBS.
Nah, that's ONE of my arguments.
Personally it's probably also the biggest reason I dont want it, I enjoy it the way it is now. But I do honestly believe MBS would hurt the skill difference between players.
On October 05 2007 13:11 Zanno wrote: The real question at hand is will MBS make it so that a weaker player in SC at any level can suddenly defeat a stronger player SC2. I don't think it will have an impact on player skill gaps. It will make it easier to pump units from 8 mining bases, but aside from the multitask time freed up and (as the OP posted out, static defense can focus fire) it doesn't impact how well you can defend the bases from a strategic standpoint. The player that has more expos and has more workers survive throughout the game is more likely to win in SC1, and MBS isn't changing that.
We'll have a solid answer to the question when SC2 comes out.
A worse player can already beat a better one, if we lower the skillcap of macro, it will only happen more often.
You really, REALLY cannot argue against this one
I cannot simply cannot conceive of a situation where one player would win if neither had MBS and the other would win where they both had it. The major game deciding scenarios are killing workers, killing expos, building new expos, and having a build order counter to your opponent. The situations where weaker players beat stronger ones is more often than not the latter. Automine lessens the effect of worker harassment, okay.
If anything, I feel that MBS will bring refinement to lategame scenarios. 4z5z6z7z8z will still be useful lategame unless for some reason you want all of your gateways across the map rallying to the same spot and building the same thing.
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.
I hope you are lucky enough to have seen Pusan PvT. He maxes in like 12 to 14 minutes. It is one of the most scary ridiculous things you can witness. An unreal amount of units everywhere so fast its overwhelming. With MBS suddenly hungtran doesn't need maphack to be good. He too can max in 12 to 14 minutes. 1z. Every gate is making zealots. 1click. All the gates are rallied to the same place. 1d. Every gate is making dragoons.
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 thought possible. This is his strength. He is a sloppy player but he makes up for that in pure macro. 1v2t. Look at me I'm iloveoov jr. Try it. 1v2t. Sorry oov you are out of a job. Even Casy can TvP now.
At low levels MBS won't make a difference. The smarter player will still win. Both newbies will still forget depots and make strategic blunders. They will attack poorly into a well defended position. The game will in essence be the same. MBS does not make the game more fun. No one has ever played SC1 and thought "well if this had MBS I would really like it".
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 same time. StarCraft is much older and much more well developed. Korea supports 300 progamers and all of them are at different levels of play. Not one player can macro like iloveoov except for iloveoov. There is no other protoss like Pusan. There is not another Reach. While we have a diverse and interesting pro scene that allows players to be macro style (oov and pusan) or to be micro style (boxer and casy) war3 does not. MBS makes games easier. Every time you make a game easier you hurt the competitive scene. Newbies will have fun either way.
Please say no to MBS.
Why don't we see how it pans out? Starcraft 1 already has no MBS. We already have the perfect Starcraft-style RTS. Lets see what happens.
On October 06 2007 02:53 Aphelion wrote: Its not a specific situation, its the overall probability. MBS reduces multitasking edges players have over each other.
no it isn't. It's your speculation.
Your a moron. That statement is true by definition. If there is less to do (and that IS what MBS will cause), multitasking advantage decrease by definition.
You can't even argue that.
The only fucking moron here is you. You're a moron for supporting "5z6z7z8z9z0zTzYzUzIzOzPz" idea in one thread and in other saying that clicks isn't important and important is going back to the base. You're a moron for thinking your opinion is only right and important here. And in the end you're a moron for calling morons those who disagree with you and actually find the time to sound why exactly they don't agree, especially like in other mbs thread where no one attacked you.
Multitasking is a mind control of the game. Multitasking is about Attention. No matter how you produce your units using F2-F4 or using 5z6z7z8z or 5z, no matter how many marines you produce once in 10 seconds - 2 or 20, difficulty of keeping right timing in the heat of battle is equal and whole multitasking of macro lies in the right Timing. Starcraft has features witch only purpose is to help with timing - unit's "ready" sound, the resource count and the ping at the minimap, and when someone has problems with moving his attention from microing battle to this features nothing will help, especially feature like mbs that doesn't remind player about macro in any way.
The only way to reduce Multitasking skill is to make one of the "tasks" less important or completely remove that task. Auto-mining removes one of the tasks and would be sending workers to the minerals crucial gameplay could seriously suffer. But we are talking about MBS and it doesn't remove macro neither makes it less important. Yes, Macro and Macro timing in Starcraft will be equally important with MBS or without and as important as Micro precision as long as having more units at the right time could give serious advantage for the player.
Tearing off yourself from important micro battle for the sake off macro doesn't require more Multitasking because of simple reason - you remember and jump to your base After you heard alarm in your head singing about macro. But Multitasking is skill of Hearing this alarm. If before mbs all Terran players had to jump to their base to click at the buildings and after neither of them do so Multitasking skill gap Between these players won't reduce in any way, as long as the reason why they had to jump is still in the game, still important and still requires same attention as before.
Multitasking is not among all things that *could* become easier with MBS. Most crucial thing that could be affected is "clicking skill" for those who use 5z6z7z8z9z0z. I honestly don't really care about this skill. I understand those who care but why the hell they don't support idea of 5zdzdzzzt? That's much more productive than arguing about MBS affect over the game and chances Blizz will change that before beta-testing is much bigger.
Keyboard requirements to go 5z6z7z8z9z is important. So is going back to base to individually macro gates when your hotkeys are not sufficient. I fail to see how supporting one point precludes me from supporting another.
Do you truly think that going 5z6z intermittently is the same multitasking wise as going back to click each gate individually? Almost any player can unconsciously go 5m every 10-20 seconds in TvZ. Most of these players will lose mm vessel vs lurk scourge when they are forced to go back to individually click each rax. Do you even think about the meaning of what you type?
Multitasking isn't just thought. It is thought and attention about different tasks, and then the actual ability to juggle them simultaneously. Many a player have thought throughout a game - "my macro is terrible, I have so much money, I need to make troops". But the same player will still be unable to pull away from their army in a frantic game of expo killing, scouting, spell casting, and keeping their army intact. He is compelled to keep babysitting his army. Another player would be able to quickly throw down a storm, a move a few zealots, then go back to make some more templar and zealots. Both players have the same thoughts. But only the second player has good multitasking.
With MBS however, the second player could just intermittently spam 5z6t once in a while without losing sight of his army. After 4-5 games going 5z6t will be so natural that he won't even consciously think he is doing it. How is that not reducing multitasking skill? The fact that you don't realize this only shows how much you lack actual game experience and credibility. Try to think a little bit before you post.
On October 06 2007 10:03 Aphelion wrote: Keyboard requirements to go 5z6z7z8z9z is important. So is going back to base to individually macro gates when your hotkeys are not sufficient. I fail to see how supporting one point precludes me from supporting another.
Do you truly think that going 5z6z intermittently is the same multitasking wise as going back to click each gate individually? Almost any player can unconsciously go 5m every 10-20 seconds in TvZ. Most of these players will lose mm vessel vs lurk scourge when they are forced to go back to individually click each rax. Do you even think about the meaning of what you type?
Multitasking isn't just thought. It is thought and attention about different tasks, and then the actual ability to juggle them simultaneously. Many a player have thought throughout a game - "my macro is terrible, I have so much money, I need to make troops". But the same player will still be unable to pull away from their army in a frantic game of expo killing, scouting, spell casting, and keeping their army intact. He is compelled to keep babysitting his army. Another player would be able to quickly throw down a storm, a move a few zealots, then go back to make some more templar and zealots. Both players have the same thoughts. But only the second player has good multitasking.
With MBS however, the second player could just intermittently spam 5z6t once in a while without losing sight of his army. After 4-5 games going 5z6t will be so natural that he won't even consciously think he is doing it. How is that not reducing multitasking skill? The fact that you don't realize this only shows how much you lack actual game experience and credibility. Try to think a little bit before you post.
First and foremost, not agreeing with you doesn't equate to not thinking before posting.
Anyway, what you demonstrated here is the tension between choosing macro or micro. The delicate balance that must be maintained in order to achieve victory. What MBS does though, I think (though it's kind of hard to be completely sure at this point in time, before beta), is that it now requires people to macro and micro at the same time (instead of sacrificing one for the other) as MBS enables it.
On October 06 2007 12:36 Aphelion wrote: No, I demonstrated that SBS requires significantly more multitasking, and that MBS takes away from it.
InRaged argued for 4 nonsensical paragraphs that multitasking was somehow not affected by MBS. He either didn't think or was incapable of thinking.
IMHO, MBS would require a significantly different type of multitasking. Blizzard would make sure of it (I hope, but I trust them) AND pro-gamers themselves would find/invent/innovate other things to do with the absence of some of the manual work from SC1.
Anyhow, MBS surely affects multitaskng. However, the kind of effect remains to be seen. (But I'm betting that it would create a positive effect as you know by way of my posts and arguments.)
Oh. My. God. Now we have a "different type of multitasking now" First a different kind of macro, different kind of game, and now this? WTF, you guys just have to split more and more hairs don't you?
Your definitions and assumptions are getting so vague and out there they are starting to lose all meaning. What the hell is this Orwellian speak? Next we are going to have a "different" kind of pro scene based upon "egalitarian" gameplay so as to "reaffirm" the chances of the new player?
On October 06 2007 13:24 uriel- wrote: "MBS reduces multitasking" assumes Blizzard is going to add MBS, automine, and then stop with the new features.
Well, they aren't. So until a demo comes out and MBS + Automine are the only added features, all the bullshit here is just that. Bullshit.
No yours its bullshit. If Blizzard is going to compensate for MBS, so much the better, but they can leave those features in with SBS anyways. Progamers have shown the game can be taken to an amazing level.
And short of you bringing up SOMETHING concrete that Blizzard supposedly has in store, its you who is full of bullshit.
Also don't support the idea of automining, as people get better they remember to do this meaning that it takes some form of skill to keep on top of, why would you want to remove something that sets people apart in a competitive game.
On October 06 2007 13:24 uriel- wrote: "MBS reduces multitasking" assumes Blizzard is going to add MBS, automine, and then stop with the new features.
Well, they aren't. So until a demo comes out and MBS + Automine are the only added features, all the bullshit here is just that. Bullshit.
No yours its bullshit. If Blizzard is going to compensate for MBS, so much the better, but they can leave those features in with SBS anyways. Progamers have shown the game can be taken to an amazing level.
And short of you bringing up SOMETHING concrete that Blizzard supposedly has in store, its you who is full of bullshit.
Right, why do they need to transfer multitasking skill to somewhere else if it can stay where it was for years?
They want MBS and multitasking skill work hand in hand. Lets think about: how? Lets say they make micro management tougher, how are they going to do so when they already increased the selection cap to about unlimited? Doesn't make sense. Will they make us handle fights on several locations at the same time? How? By sacrificing a goat to please the gods? By designing smaller maps so the armies meet more often? By putting the start locations and expansions right next to each other? By setting speed 20 as the standard setting? By punishing players who camp at their bases? By hypnotizing us and forcing us to split our armies and attack no matter the waste?
That was mostly serious thought, I can't think of any better. Can you? For real, I don't see the big need for multitasking in SC2 as I am used to it in SC.
Oh by the way, please use a language that I can actually read without getting blinded. Don't put your **** everywhere.
On October 06 2007 13:59 NotSorry wrote: Also don't support the idea of automining, as people get better they remember to do this meaning that it takes some form of skill to keep on top of, why would you want to remove something that sets people apart in a competitive game.
On October 06 2007 02:53 Aphelion wrote: Its not a specific situation, its the overall probability. MBS reduces multitasking edges players have over each other.
no it isn't. It's your speculation.
Aphelion, your patience is amazing but you just can't have a logical discussion when the other side is not using logic.
Honestly the level of some posters here is just terrible. I am not used to seeing such nonsense on TL.net.. It seems like the Mods have given up on the SC2 forum ;(
btw people who played at blizz con said the game was too slow paced and that you didn't have that much things to do.
Multitasking is not just making units while you are attacking...
Take a good multitasking player like Bisu and tell him building units is now easier. Not a problem it will just let him do something else instead and he will still keep his multitasking advantage over his opponents.
On October 06 2007 19:31 Beamo wrote: Multitasking is not just making units while you are attacking...
Take a good multitasking player like Bisu and tell him building units is now easier. Not a problem it will just let him do something else instead and he will still keep his multitasking advantage over his opponents.
On October 06 2007 13:24 uriel- wrote: "MBS reduces multitasking" assumes Blizzard is going to add MBS, automine, and then stop with the new features.
Well, they aren't. So until a demo comes out and MBS + Automine are the only added features, all the bullshit here is just that. Bullshit.
No yours its bullshit. If Blizzard is going to compensate for MBS, so much the better, but they can leave those features in with SBS anyways. Progamers have shown the game can be taken to an amazing level.
And short of you bringing up SOMETHING concrete that Blizzard supposedly has in store, its you who is full of bullshit.
These same progamers cannot take a different game with MBS to an amazing level?
Oh, bringing back the concrete evidence FALLACY. Hey, why don't you bring up SOMETHING concrete that Blizzard isn't going to have anything in store? Let's play an argument by evidence on a subject with no evidence whatsoever, call each other idiots repeatedly and end up nowhere!
This is such a low-level argument, I'm surprised people are still arguing this. The MBS side propose that Blizzard will have something to compensate for MBS, a likely prospect. The anti-MBS side assume that Blizzard will have nothing. Both sides have no evidence because the game is far from release.
Let's go up another level. The pro of MBS is that it will open the game up to newer players. This is always desirable, unless the drop in multitasking affects the pro scene too much. We have no evidence to support or debunk Blizzard's inclusion of any added features that will make up for this drop of multitasking.
Basically, the only con of MBS is that it will decrease the multitasking and thus skill needed to play the game, making the pro scene less intense. If Blizzard makes up for this with other channels of multitasking that are equally intense, MBS has no cons. We can't prove either side if Blizzard is able to do this or not. Until we can, screaming for MBS to be dropped is senseless.
On October 06 2007 19:31 Beamo wrote: Multitasking is not just making units while you are attacking...
Take a good multitasking player like Bisu and tell him building units is now easier. Not a problem it will just let him do something else instead and he will still keep his multitasking advantage over his opponents.
And something else is.... what exactly?
When Broodwar just came out did people multitask cors + dt like bisu is doing today ? Did people manage their scouting probes like the pros do today ? We will see how the gaming in SC2 evolvs but I'm pretty confident there will alwyas be a lot of things to do.
And if you want a SC1 analogy lets say adding storm drop for example.
Is it really so important that we predict whether SC2 needs to remove MBS or not? Once we have the beta a lot of the uncertainties we have been arguing over will no longer clutter the issue. If the beta sucks it will be pretty easy to suggest removing MBS at that time. Will it be too late then? If not, are we wasting all our effort in these epic threads trying to play Fortune Teller Tycoon to SC2 and MBS?
On October 06 2007 19:31 Beamo wrote: Multitasking is not just making units while you are attacking...
Take a good multitasking player like Bisu and tell him building units is now easier. Not a problem it will just let him do something else instead and he will still keep his multitasking advantage over his opponents.
And something else is.... what exactly?
When Broodwar just came out did people multitask cors + dt like bisu is doing today ? Did people manage their scouting probes like the pros do today ? We will see how the gaming in SC2 evolvs but I'm pretty confident there will alwyas be a lot of things to do.
And if you want a SC1 analogy lets say adding storm drop for example.
the thing is, people (progamers) are already more than capable of executing standard micro/macro very well along with managing storm drops and dt harass and whatnot.
and, once again, even if they were capable of filling all of your time with micro tricks and harass opportunities, it STILL hurts the game because removing macro and making the game almost solely micro focused removes alot of the depth the game has. if you want a game that is purely micro play war3, if you want a well balanced game where multiple aspects of gameplay are equally important, play sc2. dont try to force sc into the warcraft mold. god how many times has that argument been made in this thread. this is getting old.
On October 06 2007 21:16 lugggy wrote: Is it really so important that we predict whether SC2 needs to remove MBS or not? Once we have the beta a lot of the uncertainties we have been arguing over will no longer clutter the issue. If the beta sucks it will be pretty easy to suggest removing MBS at that time. Will it be too late then? If not, are we wasting all our effort in these epic threads trying to play Fortune Teller Tycoon to SC2 and MBS?
it might all be guesswork if the only question was whether or not blizz could find enough things to do to fill time during the game. but its not. unless they can find some other way to keep macro a relevant and time-consuming, the addition of mbs and automining will essentially remove macro as a determining factor in the game, which is a bad thing for the reasons that have been repeated a few billion times. only fortune telling necessary is guessing whether blizz wants to make the game into war4 or sc2.
On October 06 2007 19:31 Beamo wrote: Multitasking is not just making units while you are attacking...
Take a good multitasking player like Bisu and tell him building units is now easier. Not a problem it will just let him do something else instead and he will still keep his multitasking advantage over his opponents.
And something else is.... what exactly?
When Broodwar just came out did people multitask cors + dt like bisu is doing today ? Did people manage their scouting probes like the pros do today ? We will see how the gaming in SC2 evolvs but I'm pretty confident there will alwyas be a lot of things to do.
And if you want a SC1 analogy lets say adding storm drop for example.
the thing is, people (progamers) are already more than capable of executing standard micro/macro very well along with managing storm drops and dt harass and whatnot.
and, once again, even if they were capable of filling all of your time with micro tricks and harass opportunities, it STILL hurts the game because removing macro and making the game almost solely micro focused removes alot of the depth the game has. if you want a game that is purely micro play war3, if you want a well balanced game where multiple aspects of gameplay are equally important, play sc2. dont try to force sc into the warcraft mold. god how many times has that argument been made in this thread. this is getting old.
I rarely see a progamer correctly doing Cors + sneaky Dt + storm drop at the same time
War3 is way less macro oriented because you have less units and a strong hero makes more of a difference then an expo or a 20% bigger army. You can still have macro with MBS but yes it will be more ressource mangement and timing then straight technical skills but is that a bad thing ? if Pusan, Tempest and Oov macro better it is not because they go through the gates and factories faster to build units, it's because they have a better sense of what to build and when and that aspect will not be influenced by MBS.
On October 06 2007 19:31 Beamo wrote: Multitasking is not just making units while you are attacking...
Take a good multitasking player like Bisu and tell him building units is now easier. Not a problem it will just let him do something else instead and he will still keep his multitasking advantage over his opponents.
And something else is.... what exactly?
When Broodwar just came out did people multitask cors + dt like bisu is doing today ? Did people manage their scouting probes like the pros do today ? We will see how the gaming in SC2 evolvs but I'm pretty confident there will alwyas be a lot of things to do.
And if you want a SC1 analogy lets say adding storm drop for example.
the thing is, people (progamers) are already more than capable of executing standard micro/macro very well along with managing storm drops and dt harass and whatnot.
and, once again, even if they were capable of filling all of your time with micro tricks and harass opportunities, it STILL hurts the game because removing macro and making the game almost solely micro focused removes alot of the depth the game has. if you want a game that is purely micro play war3, if you want a well balanced game where multiple aspects of gameplay are equally important, play sc2. dont try to force sc into the warcraft mold. god how many times has that argument been made in this thread. this is getting old.
I rarely see a progamer correctly doing Cors + sneaky Dt + storm drop at the same time
indeed, because its not easy to do everything at once. but they are capable of doing it, and its very impressive because it isnt easy. take away the time spent on macro and any idiot will be able to do that.
War3 is way less macro oriented because you have less units and a strong hero makes more of a difference then an expo or a 20% bigger army. You can still have macro with MBS but yes it will be more ressource mangement and timing then straight technical skills but is that a bad thing ? if Pusan, Tempest and Oov macro better it is not because they go through the gates and factories faster to build units, it's because they have a better sense of what to build and when and that aspect will not be influenced by MBS.
this has been debated for the entire thread. people have made the exact same posts you have. read the thread before you try to argue.
they have better macro in large part because they spend the time on it, they go back to their base and produce another round the moment the last one finishes, often to the detriment of their unit control to some extent or another. this allows for diversity, you have players who choose to be macro oriented like the ones you named, players who choose to be micro oriented like boxer. etc. take away that part of macro and everyone will be forced to play roughly the same, since micro/harass will be the only determining factor in the game. there will be only one real way to play.
they have better macro in large part because they spend the time on it, they go back to their base and produce another round the moment the last one finishes, often to the detriment of their unit control to some extent or another.
Sounds right but what would stop them from doing the same in SC2? Like I said it's not the time it takes. They don't do it faster, they just take the time do it. Building the units will probably become effective enough for everyone to take the time to hot key and press one letter even during a fight. But players like Pusan will also have extra gates built and an extra expo taken during that same fight even if it has weaken their micro. I'm pretty sure even with MBS a player can still make a difference with macro. Now all is left for Blizzard is to make sure this difference is balanced enough with micro if we want a more diversed game (not only harass + micro oriented). MBS is one way to affect this micro/macro balance but it is not the only one to their disposal. Let's see how balanced the game is when it comes out before jumping up and down.
Doing things fast has a huge impact about whether you can actually do it. If it takes you 10 seconds instead of 1 to macro from gates - its not just that 9 seconds lost, it means you can't do it at all, because during that time your army will be raped. Its also about knowing when your actions are sufficient. Pros know that moving their units with a few crucial actions will suffice and they can anticipate how things turn out, but a noob will have to stay and watch his units because to him, he never knows when things with go awry the moment he is not there to babysit. Things would be a lot different if he can just hotkey and go 5d6z during the battles every 30-40 seconds.
This is why all the simplistic arguments against multitasking do not suffice, because multitasking isn't just about speed, mental awareness, or physical mechanics. Its a combination of all these, and without either of those you don't have multitasking. You can't just say, oh, pros will still think of doing so, or that you can tab and have the same amount of clicks. Each time, you are losing a crucial element of multitasking.
Aphelion you missed the larvae selection part 5sd6sz. anyway, as much as i hate the mbs ideea i think it will be implemented so i was thinking of ways to make it 'balanced'. reading through the posts i noticed that you guys are overlooking the money issue. let's say you have 5 gates on ctrl1, hit D (dragoons; i don't know the designated keys for troops in sc2 so bare with me a few moments) but since you don't have 625 minerals, let's say only 3 'goons (375min) go in to production then you get the "not enough minerals" message.
so far so good but now comes the catch. after you gather the 250min (for to more goons) you hit 1 then D but the other 2 free gates do not produce goons instead those 2 goons get queued in those first 3 gates. the short version: if you don't have enough resurces for all the gates in your control to produce troups, the next batch of units should be queued, basically meaning that mbs is really dumb.
i say it should stay that way so one at least has to tab or shift+tab through the gates to see which one produces troups. it demands some keyboard action and you can keep your eyes on the battlefield where you'll have "something else to do".
i'm almost sure that it has been said or at least it went through your mind that Blizzard will not make a game for koreans only, again. SC2 WILL be made so you will not need a high APM anymore.
On October 07 2007 05:20 shasin wrote: i'm almost sure that it has been said or at least it went through your mind that Blizzard will not make a game for koreans only, again. SC2 WILL be made so you will not need a high APM anymore.
koreans are the only ones capable of playing with high apm?
On October 07 2007 05:20 shasin wrote: i'm almost sure that it has been said or at least it went through your mind that Blizzard will not make a game for koreans only, again. SC2 WILL be made so you will not need a high APM anymore.
koreans are the only ones capable of playing with high apm?
Also, the game WAS unveiled in korea....so they definitely want it to be popular there too.
On October 07 2007 05:20 shasin wrote: i'm almost sure that it has been said or at least it went through your mind that Blizzard will not make a game for koreans only, again. SC2 WILL be made so you will not need a high APM anymore.
WTF....yes SC has special god mode features that can only be accessed by someone with Korean DNA!
On October 07 2007 05:20 shasin wrote: i'm almost sure that it has been said or at least it went through your mind that Blizzard will not make a game for koreans only, again. SC2 WILL be made so you will not need a high APM anymore.
If so I'm not playing it.
Probably not buying it either
And yes, this is different from the people saying "Without MBS I'm not buying sc2" because I'll buy SC2 regardless of wether it has MBS or not, I just won't play the game if it somehow turns out to be so easy you don't benefit from being fast.
i genuinely believe that the reason why they want to add mbs and automining is that they want it to be possible to play with 100 apm and feel like you're able to do everything you want to do.
they're not trying to add stuff into the game to make 150-200 apm necessary. they just won't do that. =[
I haven't been following the discussion much lately, given I'm at WCG, but I wanted to add two tidbits:
1) The "for koreans only" argument does have a point behind it; SC players on average have better control over the SC1 interface than the average non-SC RTS player. Therefore, if SC2 retains (or mostly retains) the major features of the SC1 interface, SC players will start off on the average with a big advantage over other RTS gamers. If one accepts that there are significantly more Korean SC players than non-Korean SC players, then on the average Koreans would have a bigger advantage with a SC1 interface in SC2 than non-Koreans.
2) I asked an RTS lead designer (kept anonymous b/c his comment was off the record) at WCG about how he viewed the MBS debate. He agreed with the above argument, and showed concern about MBS's effect on the hardcore SC population's perception of SC2, but believed that Blizzard was the best-suited developer to figure out a way to implement new features while keeping to the spirit of the original.
But most importantly, he said that the UI wasn't sacrosanct; he believed that if it was necessary, Blizzard would make major changes to the UI not only during the beta, but even in an after-game patch. Therefore, it's all right for us to wait until we can playtest a feature-complete SC2 to determine MBS's affect on the overall gameplay, and considering that the designer laughed at the very mention that Blizzard would remove MBS without proper beta playtesting, that's probably how it's going to pan out.
So, you want to make the game shittier so as to artificially elevate the noobs above the experts. And unless your RTS lead designer is Mora or a Blizzard employee, his words hold negative weight for me. Besides SC, what great games have the RTS industry on their resume?
Edit: I believe its this idea of the UI not being sacrosanct, the willingness to tinker with important things for short term effects and in general a reliance upon gimmicks rather than long term quality that leads to the sorry shape of the modern day RTS industry.
Meh, I'm ALL for experimenting. IMO if MBS could possibly be in the final game but then removed in patch 1.01 that would be a huge positive for me, just as the other way around.
What I mean is: I think I'm right, but I prefer having some insurance if I'm wrong. I don't think we should ever attempt to get MBS removed pre-beta..
On October 06 2007 21:16 lugggy wrote: Is it really so important that we predict whether SC2 needs to remove MBS or not? Once we have the beta a lot of the uncertainties we have been arguing over will no longer clutter the issue. If the beta sucks it will be pretty easy to suggest removing MBS at that time. Will it be too late then? If not, are we wasting all our effort in these epic threads trying to play Fortune Teller Tycoon to SC2 and MBS?
it might all be guesswork if the only question was whether or not blizz could find enough things to do to fill time during the game. but its not. unless they can find some other way to keep macro a relevant and time-consuming, the addition of mbs and automining will essentially remove macro as a determining factor in the game, which is a bad thing for the reasons that have been repeated a few billion times. only fortune telling necessary is guessing whether blizz wants to make the game into war4 or sc2.
Well we all have our own conclusions about that. IMO the evidence is in though, and it's what Liquid Drone fears. ><
Seriously though, we are debating whether X=4, when the beta will give us the answer. We can decide then. So you are 100% sure MBS ruins it. Others have reasons for waiting until they can see the game. Even Blizzard isn't sure yet, and they are the ones making it and the ones with access to it. Convince Blizzard that SC2 should require 200+ APM to play perfectly. I bet we can't do it. I think Liquid Drone hit the nail on the head.
On October 07 2007 21:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: i genuinely believe that the reason why they want to add mbs and automining is that they want it to be possible to play with 100 apm and feel like you're able to do everything you want to do.
they're not trying to add stuff into the game to make 150-200 apm necessary. they just won't do that. =[
And what game are they making? SC2 or War4?
On October 05 2007 23:17 Manit0u wrote:
SC2: Heros -- Partially Large Armies -- Partially "Extensive Micro" (In the Sense that War3 is Yes and SC is Partially) -- Yes Extensive Macro -- No MBS -- Yes ("for now") Automining -- Yes Experience & Items -- Partially (Veterans, etc.) Unit Skills -- Many Creeps -- Probably No? Buildings -- Few Workers -- Few Upkeep -- Probably No?
War4 it is. TFT downplayed creeps and upkeep. War4 takes them out completely. And goes to space! ><
well your evaluations of half the categories are unsubstantiated or just plain wrong. theyve said no heros, theyve said they want to emphasize masses of units, theres no basis for 'few workers/buildings', theyve said not every unit is going to have skills (like sc), theyve explicitly stated that they want to keep warcraft and starcraft series seperated.
so basically you're just pulling shit out of your ass.
On October 07 2007 02:29 xM(Z wrote: reading through the posts i noticed that you guys are overlooking the money issue. let's say you have 5 gates on ctrl1, hit D (dragoons; i don't know the designated keys for troops in sc2 so bare with me a few moments) but since you don't have 625 minerals, let's say only 3 'goons (375min) go in to production then you get the "not enough minerals" message.
so far so good but now comes the catch. after you gather the 250min (for to more goons) you hit 1 then D but the other 2 free gates do not produce goons instead those 2 goons get queued in those first 3 gates. the short version: if you don't have enough resurces for all the gates in your control to produce troups, the next batch of units should be queued, basically meaning that mbs is really dumb.
I'm terribly sorry to kill your argument but even in WC3 if you have several buildings of the same type selected, one is producing and one is not and you want to build something the idle one will start to do it. The money issue can really come in the situation when you have a lot of buildings later in the game and you don't want to produce certain unit from all of them (because you need cash for exp or something), then it's just manual selection left for you.
Edit: And I believe that in SC2 you can't queue units at all in protoss gateways.
IIRC you just can't queue units in warpgates, but you can in normal ones? I feel like someone would have told us if this wasn't the case, since there were a lot of TL.netters at blizzcon.
On October 08 2007 07:49 FrozenArbiter wrote: IIRC you just can't queue units in warpgates, but you can in normal ones? I feel like someone would have told us if this wasn't the case, since there were a lot of TL.netters at blizzcon.
Yeah, cooldowns wont save up so you can get a bunch of units out of one warpgate in short periods of time. So yeah, can't queue, ain't no way. I'm pretty sure this was the case at the demos.
Also - note that in WC3, you still need ~200 apm to play at the highest level of play. There is plenty to manage and it seems clear that SC2 will have even more to pay attention to.
On October 08 2007 14:31 marquis wrote: Also - note that in WC3, you still need ~200 apm to play at the highest level of play. There is plenty to manage and it seems clear that SC2 will have even more to pay attention to.
Actually Romeo had a record of 420apm in one game or something like that. I have absolutely no idea what he did there...
Edit: A random screenshot of WC3 pro apm usage at the beginning of the game.
Even Grubby said that you need no more than 150 APM. It peaks in battles (up to 250 of effective APM), and is below 60 in non-battle situation, unless you're a crazy spammer. ;;
On October 08 2007 22:38 maybenexttime wrote: Even Grubby said that you need no more than 150 APM. It peaks in battles (up to 250 of effective APM), and is below 60 in non-battle situation, unless you're a crazy spammer. ;;
need
just because you don't need something doesn't mean it won't help
On October 08 2007 22:38 maybenexttime wrote: Even Grubby said that you need no more than 150 APM. It peaks in battles (up to 250 of effective APM), and is below 60 in non-battle situation, unless you're a crazy spammer. ;;
Um... considering how utterly crucial every single battle is in War3, your micro can either make or break the game for you. The higher your apm in battle, the better. There is no "peak" where you don't gain anymore, because you can always micro better than your opponent (no one is even near perfect). That's why you'll see 400-600 apm in most battles.
you* dont know how its calculated its done by disregarding all the wasted actions like idly cycling through 123123 etc, and things like that.
its more worthwhile to talk about because its much closer to how many actions you actually need to play the game, which is what matters when determining how complex you can make the gameplay. apm is artificially inflated by spam, not a good indicator of how fast you actually need to be.
On October 09 2007 04:04 Aphelion wrote: The key is that he mentioned EAPM ~250 in battles. You argued that by saying in battles you need 400-600 APM.
You think a pro War3 player will have spare apm to waste in a major battle by "spamming" when their whole game is at stake there? They will be using every action they can to micro faster/better than the opponent and gain an edge. I was pointing out an observation, that most top level players have 400-600 battle apm.
On October 09 2007 04:07 IdrA wrote: you* dont know how its calculated its done by disregarding all the wasted actions like idly cycling through 123123 etc, and things like that.
its more worthwhile to talk about because its much closer to how many actions you actually need to play the game, which is what matters when determining how complex you can make the gameplay. apm is artificially inflated by spam, not a good indicator of how fast you actually need to be.
Then you don't need more than 100-200 EAPM to play SC. Rarely do you ever see a Korean go over 200 EAPM. Even Savior's total APM is mid 200.
Unless you know the exact formula, you don't know either. Of course I have an idea as to how it's calculated, but for example you cannot assume cycling groups during a battle as "wasted" apm as it's important to awareness and precise unit control.
you dont 'need' more than 100 regular APM to play sc, some of the best foreigners do just fine in the 100-200 range, hell nal_ra was sub 200 when he won his starleague i think. but to approach perfection? youd need well over where any of the progamers are now. not really sure what you're trying to prove, but the playing speed required by sc would be just fine for sc2, casual players can play the game just fine (by their standards) at a very slow pace. speed is only required when you start playing the game at a very high level. not knowing the formula doesnt mean i dont know, i know they calculate it by disregarding actions that have no effect on the game, like single clicking hotkeys without giving any orders, and repeat actions. that means its a more accurate representation of how much the player is actually doing in a game, which is all that matters.
and you misunderstood what i meant by cycling hotkeys. 123123123 does almost nothing, you have to double click the hotkey to move your screen to the units or youd have to give an order after selecting the hotkey for it to apply to unit control. only thing it is useful for is to check the wireframes for general health, and you dont need to cycle through multiple times for that.
Orangedude, the fact is, there is a program out there to calculate EAPM, and the other person was referring to it. It doesn't matter how accurate it is or how well we know its formula. You tried to refute an referral to EAPM with data from actual APM, in that you are wrong. Stop throwing a little hissy fit over something so insignificant and just admit that you read wrong.
I don't know why you're trying to prove me wrong at every step, but I was just pointing something out and I didn't misread anything. Failsafe is correct, but you don't get the message and I'm done here. You seem to think that most of the 400-600 apm in battle is wasted when this is in no way the case. EAPM isn't an accurate representation, unless you want to admit that one half to one third of all Korean SC players' apms do nothing for them, because their EAPMs are much lower than actual APM. Same deal here, the higher your apm in battle, the more you approach to micro perfection (and no one is close). Pretty simple idea.
On October 09 2007 06:43 orangedude wrote: I don't know why you're trying to prove me wrong at every step, but I was just pointing something out and I didn't misread anything. Failsafe is correct, but you don't get the message and I'm done here. You seem to think that most of the 400-600 apm in battle is wasted when this is in no way the case. EAPM means nothing, unless you want to admit that one half to one third of all Korean SC players' apms do nothing for them, because their EAPMs are much lower than actual APM. Same deal here, the higher your apm in battle, the more you approach to micro perfection (and no one is close). Pretty simple idea.
I never said it was wasted. I pointed out that he was referring to EAPM, you were referring to pure APM. Simple
Yes, and why can't I bring up APM? I never said he was wrong with his EAPM claim. But, by saying that EAPM is what counts and not the total APM, you (or Idra) are implying that the rest is unnecessary or doesn't help.
On October 09 2007 07:10 mahnini wrote: Are there any FPVODs of WC3 progamers?
Here you go. FPVOD of Sky vs Moon from PGL. It's not that 400 apm is "required" to micro a battle, but every additional bit helps and brings you closer to perfection during a major one, even if it comes with diminishing returns.
Whatever, I don't know why War3 was even brought up in the first place. So that's all I'm going to say about this.
THEN why did you keep bringing it up. Clearly you weren't implying ANYTHING, when you (or Idra) keep saying look at EAPM compared to APM. I wasn't disproving or refuting shit, just bringing up a FACT that battles have 400-600 apm and that there is no real "peak".
Did I say he was wrong with the 250 EAPM claim? NO, just said that it's not the whole picture. Jesus.
Because you were clearly implying that his point was illegitimate, and trying to refute it based upon faulty data. You should just have admitted it and it was no big deal. But no... you just have to win every arguement. Why don't you hound him some more for a "reasonable and dispassionate" response, one suitable to your standards?
On October 08 2007 22:38 maybenexttime wrote: Even Grubby said that you need no more than 150 APM. It peaks in battles (up to 250 of effective APM), and is below 60 in non-battle situation, unless you're a crazy spammer. ;;
On October 08 2007 22:38 maybenexttime wrote: Even Grubby said that you need no more than 150 APM. It peaks in battles (up to 250 of effective APM), and is below 60 in non-battle situation, unless you're a crazy spammer. ;;
Um... considering how utterly crucial every single battle is in War3, your micro can either make or break the game for you. The higher your apm in battle, the better. There is no "peak" where you don't gain anymore, because you can always micro better than your opponent (no one is even near perfect). That's why you'll see 400-600 apm in most battles.
Anyways, its not even debatable that BW requires much more APM. Average APM for War3 pro is what, 220-230ish? Thats on the very very low end for a BW pro these days, and even a lot of amateurs have higher than that. Typically it gets up to 270-320 among Korean pros, even the classic example of Savior has higher APM now. And then you have a lot of 400+ apmers throughout 20-30 min games. And still, they don't nearly play the game perfectly.
Now you're just bringing up more stuff that I never even mentioned, as if I was trying to debate it. I said BATTLE apm, because that's what he was referring to. Failsafe is correct, overall you don't need that much when not in a battle situation. That much is obvious.
My point for the very last time is that there is the no real "peak" apm in a battle, because no one is close to perfect micro. NOT to say his EAPM claim was wrong. You completely missed the whole point of my post and latched onto one detail, and attack me for some reason. And what faulty data?
I don't see you bringing up SC pro's APM as an EAPM now do you? So why is EAPM only relevant to War3?
War3 programers get higher APM because they have more time to spam hotkeys, which boost APM more than other kinds of speed. In that FPVOD you posted, he slows way down when it comes time to say, place his farm. Or move the screen. Boxer was faster with 250 APM than those guys with 600 or w/e.
Take APM without hotkey or rallies and you get a number that can be compared between war3 and sc.
Go to 14:29 on that "300 APM" video and tell me that's speed. It's a guy staring at his 10 units. God.
On October 09 2007 21:30 lugggy wrote: War3 programers get higher APM because they have more time to spam hotkeys, which boost APM more than other kinds of speed. In that FPVOD you posted, he slows way down when it comes time to say, place his farm. Or move the screen. Boxer was faster with 250 APM than those guys with 600 or w/e.
Take APM without hotkey or rallies and you get a number that can be compared between war3 and sc.
Go to 14:29 on that "300 APM" video and tell me that's speed. It's a guy staring at his 10 units. God.
That second game by Lucifer is pretty one-sided. The night-elf never made a real army, and just harassed/expoed/towered so there were no major battles, although there were lots of small encounters.
If you want to see an actual intense game with many battles where that apm will kick in, then watch this Sky vs Moon FPVOD (also ~300 apm) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub6-UKOkQ5I
On October 10 2007 02:06 NotSorry wrote: One question...what the hell does apm in war3 have to do with MBS being in SC2?
I've not caught up on the past few pages, but I assume it's having to do with the whole "MBS = less skill due to less mouse speed required" thing. Many others have pointed out that's not the point of having to single target buildings... which is something that you need to decide to do, to look away from battle to create more units, to order a scv to mine, you take the time to do that and it can hurt your micro, rather than having everything automated for you (automine), or being able to mass produce with a few button presses, without having to look away from the field of battle.
sky didn't look at his base once for like 8 minutes. then again he was also one-basing. but it's nice in starcraft having that obligation to look away from your army from time time, or rather very regularly. and it takes a nother kind of speed to be able to click a probe and b-p then back to your army as efficiently as possible. and it is easier to forget to macro i think when it's a much more significant amount of time and a less natural thing than just some blind finger movements. though clicking buildings is easy and anyone can do it, the same is not true for macroing in a game of starcraft.
in that clip (most recent by orangedude) the game looks impeded by the 3d--moving the screen seems to lag. the computer isn't fast enough? won't this also be a problem in sc2?
also it seems a little less intense than scouting while keeping 2 fac going. like scouting with an 800 hp scv. what does this have to do with sc2 anyways. sc2 is going to have lower hp and more units right? if it's requirements are anything like war3's though i think the lag in a vid like this can be a real problem for making it watchable and playable for koreans?
Take 2 chess players, put em up against each other in a no time limit game. What happens? They get into a stalemate, or one person makes a mistake due to lapse in concentration and the other capitalises and wins.
Take 2 chess players and put em in a game of Suicide chess (5 seconds to move your piece). Suddenly the game takes on a new dynamic, they have all this info they need to process and not enough time to do so. The winner in this game is the person who can quickly analyse whats going on and make the correct decision.
This is how RTS games should be. Players should be constantly in a race against not only the player they are against, but time itself. They have a whole lot of info they have to process, they have a very short space of time to chose a course of action. The person who is able to make good decisions fast wins.
How this relates to starcraft and MBS? The more stuff you automate, or improve the UI (as you prombsers will call it), the less the players have to process. Suicide chess is hard (and a whole heap of fun) because there is a lot of thought processes that are requried to execute a good chess move, and these are not doable. In starcraft, the thought processes are not as complex, but there are a lot more of them, once again flooding the person and requiring them to make quick decisions and actions. Take out a whole heap of the thought processes, and you get stuck with a much more boring game.
That is a very good analogy Fen. A very good one! The fact that there is too much to do during Starcraft is what makes it fun. The better you become the more stuff you are able to do. That's how I see improving. Speed should definantly not be cut down and an increase in speed should be rewarded. "Improving UI" is not the same as handicapping a game. MBS will only hurt the overall funfactor of the game imo.
On October 10 2007 21:07 lugggy wrote: in that clip (most recent by orangedude) the game looks impeded by the 3d--moving the screen seems to lag. the computer isn't fast enough?
Lags you see in this video are due its very poor quality (you can only upload certain amount of data to youtube, ~100MB I guess) because someone downgraded it/used shitty codecs, the sound is very bad too. No screen lag during normal wc3 playing.
Agree with the op. Part of the reason SC is so popular for viewers is that each player has a unique personality, a way of approaching the game and the macro part of it is a determinant factor. Speed to make decisions is at the core of everything, and these progamers are absolutely incredible at doing this... if you reduce the number of decisions then you put almost everyone on the same starting line... . yeah yeah all of us (including the pros) might have more time to micro, but this formula hasn't worked in WC3, why would it work in SC2? I don't understand why Blizzard cannot see things this way... perhaps they are not interested in producing a game that is expectator-friendly.
I have not (more or less) commented in this thread till now. The main reason is that the title "Lets imagine SC1 with MBS" is flawed. Its not SC1 that will have MBS its SC2. We can't really predict all the ways it will be different, and how it will play. So I think everyone's basic argument about speed is right, but in the context of SC2 we can't say much, mainly because we aren't super smart and cant simulate the current build, much less all possible builds, in our brains.
On October 18 2007 06:55 fight_or_flight wrote: So I think everyone's basic argument about speed is right, but in the context of SC2 we can't say much, mainly because we aren't super smart and cant simulate the current build, much less all possible builds, in our brains.
True, but this idea is already implemented in most current RTS, and to my knowledge none of them has become as popular as SC, at least with the audience (including WC3). I am hoping the devs and designers will figure out something for SC2, but it wouldn't be the first time that a group of people is trying hard to 'solve' a 'problem' which didn't need a solution in the first place.
EPT
which is going to make the game oh so much worse 
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/OrgueRembrandt4090.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/FortepianoByMcNultyAfterWalter1805.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/1014/973052.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.e-oss.net/albums/album09/pong.sized.png)
![[image loading]](http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5014/nombscy2.png)
![[image loading]](http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/3979/scwc3zp7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/9928/apmys4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/6593/49906193wl7.jpg)
