Petition for NO MBS

On October 02 2007 08:51 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:
I have never seen such a biased and disgusting topic before. Mbs is going to be in sc2 and if cavemen like you don't like it you can stick to sc1. quit trying to crapify sc2 for the 99% of non korean players who want mbs.

NONE of you guys have even played sc2 and you have NO IDEA what it plays like.

On October 02 2007 08:54 IdrA wrote:

obviously its biased, its set up for the express purpose of telling blizz what our viewpoint is.
and he specifically asked for people like you to not post in this thread.

if you think mbs would actually improve the game, go ahead and make your own petition for that.

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.

On October 02 2007 09:02 InRaged wrote:

If everyone start making petitions forum will turn into mess. And they know your viewpoint. They definitely saw how discussed MBS topic here and their own forum is flooded with "noobifcation suck" threads.

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.

On October 02 2007 08:51 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:
I have never seen such a biased and disgusting topic before. Mbs is going to be in sc2 and if cavemen like you don't like it you can stick to sc1. quit trying to crapify sc2 for the 99% of non korean players who want mbs.

NONE of you guys have even played sc2 and you have NO IDEA what it plays like.

On October 02 2007 09:10 CharlieMurphy wrote:


Actually some of us (me) have played it.

On October 02 2007 09:09 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:
What is wrong with "long intense micro battles"? They seem far more enjoyable than not even looking at the battle because you are too busy clicking your gateways.
Snoopysnacks=Fagtard K thx.

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.

On October 02 2007 09:11 useless wrote:
We could also go the safe route and keep all the old units. We know what works already, so why fix what aint broken, mirite?

On October 02 2007 08:51 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:
I have never seen such a biased and disgusting topic before. Mbs is going to be in sc2 and if cavemen like you don't like it you can stick to sc1. quit trying to crapify sc2 for the 99% of non korean players who want mbs.

NONE of you guys have even played sc2 and you have NO IDEA what it plays like.

On October 02 2007 09:14 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:

agreed. Who wants retarded crypt fiend stalkers and immortals when we can have good ol dragoons.
After all no one will be able to use the stalkers blink anyway because they will be sop busy clicking their buildings.

On October 02 2007 09:14 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:

agreed. Who wants retarded crypt fiend stalkers and immortals when we can have good ol dragoons.
After all no one will be able to use the stalkers blink anyway because they will be sop busy clicking their buildings.

On October 02 2007 09:16 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Ravager, you would be wise to ignore this thread. Its like being black and walking into a KKK meeting in the south.

Anyways someone should use that petition website and post a 'PRO MBS' petition as well as a 'ANTI MBS' one.

On October 02 2007 09:14 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:

agreed. Who wants retarded crypt fiend stalkers and immortals when we can have good ol dragoons.
After all no one will be able to use the stalkers blink anyway because they will be sop busy clicking their buildings.

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.

On October 02 2007 09:26 SoleSteeler wrote:



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.

On October 02 2007 09:21 [Clean]Soap wrote:
the majority of the people who want MBS are Fastest Map Possible players/BGHers/other money mappers/low-post ppl/Newbies~ -_-
i remember when i use to play ZC and FMP and wished for MBS lol.....

ffs no MBS for SC2 =P

http://www.petitiononline.com/petition.html <----

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?

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

On October 02 2007 09:29 FrozenArbiter wrote:

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..

On October 02 2007 09:57 XMShake wrote:
MBS sucks and so does WC3

~Signed

On October 02 2007 09:52 SoleSteeler wrote:


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.

On October 02 2007 10:01 IdrA wrote:

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 09:52 SoleSteeler wrote:


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.

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.