|
On October 02 2007 09:31 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I don't think that Ravager understands that the MBS is totally different in a low unit cap game and a high unit cap game.
Maybe this will make sense to him; What if we changed war 3 to have 2-3 gold mines at every expansion trippled a trees chop-hp and change the unit cap to 200 (more than double the 90) and remove the upkeep. Doesn't that sound like shit?
Actually no. I always thought wc3 would be fun with a higher unit cap. It would cause the game to be more focused on units and less on heroes.
And upkeep=One of the worst parts of wc3. It intentionally kills macro heavy strategies because it punishes you for having more units.
Sc2 won't be like wc3 with mbs because sc2 lacks
1-heroes
2-upkeep
3-low unit cap.
|
judging by their response to a question in one of the Q&A sessions they arent aware that mbs/no mbs is even a debate, so at least a petition would serve that purpose.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
the MBS discussion is at the top of the list that I'm sending Blizzard for the month of september
|
On October 02 2007 09:40 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
the MBS discussion is at the top of the list that I'm sending Blizzard for the month of september
who is god
you are
yes, you are
|
On October 02 2007 09:29 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 09:26 SoleSteeler wrote:On October 02 2007 08:51 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:
I honestly cant tell why anyone who plays non-money and semi competitively would want MBS added... other than for those who are too lazy to improve and instead want wins over a decent player with little effort.
How the fuck does that even make sense? Why wouldn't the "decent" player still win (assuming he's the better player). The better player will always still win, with or without MBS Anyways, I don't really care about MBS, it won't affect my decision on whether or not I'm going to buy the game. It may not be enough to make a significantly worse player beat a better one, but it will reduce that players edge, thus introducing more 'variance' in results. IE luck. I'm against anything that reduces the edge a better player has, but I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake to not even try it in the beta, I don't know much about programming but I'm assuming it's not something that's hard to change..
See it's the supposed "luck" or "imbalanced" factor that many people will turn to in light of a simplified interface. I shouldn't have said "the better player will always win" because that's obviously not true, it's not like every player has a value assigned to them and you can see right away that 4 > 2 so 4 will always prevail. That's what makes RTS games so dynamic and fun to play, they have what seems to be an unpredictability which in reality IS predictable. Well, you could argue that War3 definitely has some random elements which can cause someoen to lose, like a Blademaster getting that last lucky critical strike on a hero about to teleport, killing it. 15% (or whatever) chance of it happening, 85% of it not... Pretty shitty. Not to mention item drops and damage ranges (15-20 etc., instead of 17.5)
But in a game like BW, for example, let's say both players have MBS. What kind of luck could occur that is unpredictable that could cause someone 'better' to lose? Wouldn't it be that they made some sort of mistake that caused the other player to win? I just don't really see much, if any , luck involved in a BW game... Everything has a set value which will have a set outcome no matter the case, like damage, sight ranges, building costs/times, etc. As players get better and better, all these values become innate, and they will not fall victim to any perceived luck imbalances! One obvious flaw to my theory here is map imbalances... But it's certainly possible to create symmetrical maps where each side is equal, thus negating any 'luck'.
Sooooo my point is... that as long as SC2 doesn't introduce any randomness to the game, players will not lose to 'luck' but rather their own mistakes, like in BW.
Note that this isn't a pro-MBS post by any means, I just don't like people so blindly jumping to either side without really thinking of what it means to have or not have MBS.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On October 02 2007 09:03 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:None of you have actually played sc2 and seen what it plays like with the new abilities and many new things that you can do instead of the boring click each of your 15 gateways individually gayness zzzzzz. Finally sc2 is being made by the former wc3 team so Gee Gee. And yes, I really enjoyed wc3 and it does have a pro gaming community etc. www.wcreplays.com for pro wc3 matches. "If you want MBS in SC2 do NOT post in this topic please." I think Dan was pretty clear..
fudge.. huge edit, all I wrote deleted - I misunderstood MBS for "multi-buildorder sequencing" lol.. dam hasuwar.. it did make me think (so thanks!)
|
MBS sucks and so does WC3
~Signed
|
On October 02 2007 09:57 XMShake wrote:
MBS sucks and so does WC3
~Signed
why exactly does wc3 suck?
If anything makes wc3 suck it is upkeep and heroes and item drops that add a huge luck factor.
You going to back that up with any reasons at all?
I don't go around saying that sc sucks. I only say that the old UI sucks.
|
On October 02 2007 09:52 SoleSteeler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 09:29 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 02 2007 09:26 SoleSteeler wrote:On October 02 2007 08:51 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:
I honestly cant tell why anyone who plays non-money and semi competitively would want MBS added... other than for those who are too lazy to improve and instead want wins over a decent player with little effort.
How the fuck does that even make sense? Why wouldn't the "decent" player still win (assuming he's the better player). The better player will always still win, with or without MBS Anyways, I don't really care about MBS, it won't affect my decision on whether or not I'm going to buy the game. It may not be enough to make a significantly worse player beat a better one, but it will reduce that players edge, thus introducing more 'variance' in results. IE luck. I'm against anything that reduces the edge a better player has, but I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake to not even try it in the beta, I don't know much about programming but I'm assuming it's not something that's hard to change.. See it's the supposed "luck" or "imbalanced" factor that many people will turn to in light of a simplified interface. I shouldn't have said "the better player will always win" because that's obviously not true, it's not like every player has a value assigned to them and you can see right away that 4 > 2 so 4 will always prevail. That's what makes RTS games so dynamic and fun to play, they have what seems to be an unpredictability which in reality IS predictable. Well, you could argue that War3 definitely has some random elements which can cause someoen to lose, like a Blademaster getting that last lucky critical strike on a hero about to teleport, killing it. 15% (or whatever) chance of it happening, 85% of it not... Pretty shitty. Not to mention item drops and damage ranges (15-20 etc., instead of 17.5) But in a game like BW, for example, let's say both players have MBS. What kind of luck could occur that is unpredictable that could cause someone 'better' to lose? Wouldn't it be that they made some sort of mistake that caused the other player to win? I just don't really see much, if any , luck involved in a BW game... Everything has a set value which will have a set outcome no matter the case, like damage, sight ranges, building costs/times, etc. As players get better and better, all these values become innate, and they will not fall victim to any perceived luck imbalances! One obvious flaw to my theory here is map imbalances... But it's certainly possible to create symmetrical maps where each side is equal, thus negating any 'luck'. Sooooo my point is... that as long as SC2 doesn't introduce any randomness to the game, players will not lose to 'luck' but rather their own mistakes, like in BW. Note that this isn't a pro-MBS post by any means, I just don't like people so blindly jumping to either side without really thinking of what it means to have or not have MBS.
well there is some luck in bw in start spots, build orders (assuming insufficient scouting information) and other stuff like that
his point was, assume that in bw there are 2 players, one has a skill of 4 and the other of 2. introduce mbs and the bad one is now 2.5 and the good one is now 3.5, the bad one can now macro better and the better one's superior macro is no longer as superior. so now instead of 4 vs 2 you have 3.5 vs 2.5, making it much easier for the inferior player to win based off the various luck based circumstances that you have in almost any rts (the reasons the better player doesnt always win)
|
On October 02 2007 10:01 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 09:52 SoleSteeler wrote:On October 02 2007 09:29 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 02 2007 09:26 SoleSteeler wrote:On October 02 2007 08:51 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:
I honestly cant tell why anyone who plays non-money and semi competitively would want MBS added... other than for those who are too lazy to improve and instead want wins over a decent player with little effort.
How the fuck does that even make sense? Why wouldn't the "decent" player still win (assuming he's the better player). The better player will always still win, with or without MBS Anyways, I don't really care about MBS, it won't affect my decision on whether or not I'm going to buy the game. It may not be enough to make a significantly worse player beat a better one, but it will reduce that players edge, thus introducing more 'variance' in results. IE luck. I'm against anything that reduces the edge a better player has, but I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake to not even try it in the beta, I don't know much about programming but I'm assuming it's not something that's hard to change.. See it's the supposed "luck" or "imbalanced" factor that many people will turn to in light of a simplified interface. I shouldn't have said "the better player will always win" because that's obviously not true, it's not like every player has a value assigned to them and you can see right away that 4 > 2 so 4 will always prevail. That's what makes RTS games so dynamic and fun to play, they have what seems to be an unpredictability which in reality IS predictable. Well, you could argue that War3 definitely has some random elements which can cause someoen to lose, like a Blademaster getting that last lucky critical strike on a hero about to teleport, killing it. 15% (or whatever) chance of it happening, 85% of it not... Pretty shitty. Not to mention item drops and damage ranges (15-20 etc., instead of 17.5) But in a game like BW, for example, let's say both players have MBS. What kind of luck could occur that is unpredictable that could cause someone 'better' to lose? Wouldn't it be that they made some sort of mistake that caused the other player to win? I just don't really see much, if any , luck involved in a BW game... Everything has a set value which will have a set outcome no matter the case, like damage, sight ranges, building costs/times, etc. As players get better and better, all these values become innate, and they will not fall victim to any perceived luck imbalances! One obvious flaw to my theory here is map imbalances... But it's certainly possible to create symmetrical maps where each side is equal, thus negating any 'luck'. Sooooo my point is... that as long as SC2 doesn't introduce any randomness to the game, players will not lose to 'luck' but rather their own mistakes, like in BW. Note that this isn't a pro-MBS post by any means, I just don't like people so blindly jumping to either side without really thinking of what it means to have or not have MBS. well there is some luck in bw in start spots, build orders (assuming insufficient scouting information) and other stuff like that his point was, assume that in bw there are 2 players, one has a skill of 4 and the other of 2. introduce mbs and the bad one is now 2.5 and the good one is now 3.5, the bad one can now macro better and the better one's superior macro is no longer as superior. so now instead of 4 vs 2 you have 3.5 vs 2.5, making it much easier for the inferior player to win based off the various luck based circumstances that you have in almost any rts (the reasons the better player doesnt always win)
Thats the perfect explanation/analogy that I have thought in my head but didn't know how to express literally.
But who knows how this will be when both players are 4s or just in general. I find games are much more satisfying/fun when the opponent is decent or can play as well as me.
This is why I don't/can't decide whether MBS is good or not. We won't be able to tell until probably the beta. so I guess all we can do til then is argue about it :/
PS- do you guys think its annoying when I write with word1/word2 ? I seem to do that a lot.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 02 2007 09:52 SoleSteeler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 09:29 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 02 2007 09:26 SoleSteeler wrote:On October 02 2007 08:51 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:
I honestly cant tell why anyone who plays non-money and semi competitively would want MBS added... other than for those who are too lazy to improve and instead want wins over a decent player with little effort.
How the fuck does that even make sense? Why wouldn't the "decent" player still win (assuming he's the better player). The better player will always still win, with or without MBS Anyways, I don't really care about MBS, it won't affect my decision on whether or not I'm going to buy the game. It may not be enough to make a significantly worse player beat a better one, but it will reduce that players edge, thus introducing more 'variance' in results. IE luck. I'm against anything that reduces the edge a better player has, but I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake to not even try it in the beta, I don't know much about programming but I'm assuming it's not something that's hard to change.. See it's the supposed "luck" or "imbalanced" factor that many people will turn to in light of a simplified interface. I shouldn't have said "the better player will always win" because that's obviously not true, it's not like every player has a value assigned to them and you can see right away that 4 > 2 so 4 will always prevail. That's what makes RTS games so dynamic and fun to play, they have what seems to be an unpredictability which in reality IS predictable. Well, you could argue that War3 definitely has some random elements which can cause someoen to lose, like a Blademaster getting that last lucky critical strike on a hero about to teleport, killing it. 15% (or whatever) chance of it happening, 85% of it not... Pretty shitty. Not to mention item drops and damage ranges (15-20 etc., instead of 17.5) But in a game like BW, for example, let's say both players have MBS. What kind of luck could occur that is unpredictable that could cause someone 'better' to lose? Wouldn't it be that they made some sort of mistake that caused the other player to win? I just don't really see much, if any , luck involved in a BW game... Everything has a set value which will have a set outcome no matter the case, like damage, sight ranges, building costs/times, etc. As players get better and better, all these values become innate, and they will not fall victim to any perceived luck imbalances! One obvious flaw to my theory here is map imbalances... But it's certainly possible to create symmetrical maps where each side is equal, thus negating any 'luck'. Sooooo my point is... that as long as SC2 doesn't introduce any randomness to the game, players will not lose to 'luck' but rather their own mistakes, like in BW. Note that this isn't a pro-MBS post by any means, I just don't like people so blindly jumping to either side without really thinking of what it means to have or not have MBS.
Hm, I guess luck isn't a good word for it then..
Let's say we split BW up into 3 elements:
Micro
Macro
Theory (I'm using this to encompass build orders, general theory, etcetc, very loosely)
Ok so let's say we have player A:
Micro skill = 5
Macro skill = 5
Theory = 5
vs player B
Micro skill = 5
Macro skill = 3
Theory = 5
Ok, so let's say we reduce the importance of macro (the mechanical side of it) by quite a lot (MBS), then suddenly the edge player A has on player B will become smaller, yeah?
Yeah, maybe MBS will only be enough to make him a 4 in macro, but it will still reduce that edge.
This will mean more games will be decided on luck/chance (there IS luck in BW, there's no way to change it really, sometimes you'll just barely miss the proxy gateway with your scouting overlord, sometimes you wont, sometimes your overlord goes in the right direction and sees his build before you have to choose between fast expo and pool first, that's just how it is).
That's what I mean.
EDIT: Ooops, Idra wrote EXACTLY what I was thinking :D
|
Artosis
United States2140 Posts
its not a debate thread. stay out of it if you want MBS. this is for people who do NOT want MBS to post their names and opinions in hopes of convincing blizzard.
|
MBS takes the a factor of intensity and fun out of SC2.
Nick Perentesis, MYM.Testie
Player of SC2 at Blizzcon.
|
On October 02 2007 08:58 SnoopySnacks wrote:
SC2 will be a joke with mbs. Selecting more than 12 units sucks just as bad too.
|
On October 02 2007 11:01 affy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 08:58 SnoopySnacks wrote:
SC2 will be a joke with mbs. Selecting more than 12 units sucks just as bad too.
|
On October 02 2007 10:45 MYM.Testie wrote:
MBS takes the a factor of intensity and fun out of SC2.
Nick Perentesis, MYM.Testie
Player of SC2 at Blizzcon.
Hell's YES. ^_^
I am Jeyoung "Equinox_kr" Park, and I support single-building select in Starcraft 2.
|
joohyunee
Korea (South)1087 Posts
|
I dont like being on the same level as a beginning player. All it takes is pretty much 2 buttons to make ~10 ish units.
In other words, there doesnt seem to be a difference in skill in SC2.
|
|
|
XCetron, TLnet chobo with 120 apm.
I do not want MBS and I support this petition
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
