|
Artosis
United States2135 Posts
If you want MBS in SC2 do NOT post in this topic please.
If you do NOT want MBS in SC2 please add your name to the thread. Outline why you do not want it if your reasons are different or you have something to add to the above posts. In a few days I'll compile this list and email it in to Blizzard.
do it something like this:
MBS takes a great deal of the skill out of Macro in RTS games. Having Macro / Micro / Strategy style players adds diversity to the pro scene.
Dan "Artosis" Stemkoski
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Uhm, at this point in time I don't want MBS but can't we wait until the beta? :o There is a possibility it will work out fine in the end, as hard as that is to imagine.
|
Artosis
United States2135 Posts
FA it might look like its working out fine in the early stages because none of us will know how to play. this is the safest long-term bet.
|
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 08:51 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. 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.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
lets set it up on an online petition site, we can link to it there.
|
MBS = Multiple build sequence or something? I keep seeing this pop up, but I don't want the game to be gayed up like wc3, making 10 units with 2 key presses. Shit is horrible for competition
|
SC2 will be a joke with mbs. Selecting more than 12 units sucks just as bad too.
|
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
|
On October 02 2007 08:54 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. 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.
|
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.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
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.
i've played it at blizzcon
i hated it.
mbs makes the game shitty and boring
your also rewarded for focusing on micro for long bursts of time and then going back to macro with one two buttons.
|
oh AA-RaVaGeR is a wc3 player /squelch
|
On October 02 2007 09:02 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 08:54 IdrA wrote: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. 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. 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. how exactly do you intend to clutter a forum (that is full of mostly useless topics anyway) with 2 petitions?
and they know the viewpoint, but those threads are only the people willing to debate the topic and it is also half full of people talking about what a great and wonderful thing mbs is. a petition is a way to state our case in a clear, concise manner and to demonstrate just how much support it actually has.
|
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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. Uh, 1) You are making the assumption that because you don't enjoy having to switch between micro and macro nobody else will (I have been inactive for almost a year due to playing poker, but I recently played a bunch of games and one of the most fun aspects was the macro, it just feels really good to me to have to go back and forth between my base and my units).
2) Several people on here have played SC2. I haven't tho.
3) I know quite a bit about warcraft 3, I don't really like the game personally but it's a good game. Something being in warcraft 3 is not an argument for it being in Starcraft 2.
|
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.
Actually some of us (me) have played it.
Edit- I see I was beaten to the punch. However, I am not for or against the MBS yet because there was not enough time to utilize its full potential or abuse its power with certain strategies.
When I played at Blizzcon I didn't even use it and I won every game.
|
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 09:10 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +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. Actually some of us (me) have played it. And so has my brother and it said it was great. Without proof you have nothing :D
|
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.
Read the OP and gtfo.
I put my name on the list, and I will elaborate more as soon as I get time to formulate my thoughts.
|
there are pictures of him there, along with tasteless and the rest of the tl.net crew all of whom also wrote blogs and posts about how easy the game was and how they dominated everyone else.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
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.
You'd do well to mind your manners.
Voicing your opinion is always encouraged, but if you continue to do so in such an abrasive manner, you'll find yourself without a voice with which to be opinionated.
|
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?
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.
|
It doesn't have to be so black and white, there have been many compromises posted in the discussions on MBS that are neither pure non-MBS nor pure MBS.
Being "safe" is not necesarily the best thing to do. If you're always safe you'll never enjoy anything new, you'll be stuck in your comfort zone forever. Don't be afraid to let go of things you are used to once in a while, you just might find something better. If it's not better, you won't see the reasons why if you don't have a clear head. No reason to get angry at the world.
It's hard to reason with someone that is juiced up on emotion. Stop, relax and think. Put the torch down, rebellion isn't the way.
|
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.
wait so u know MBS is going to play out perfectly?
Honestly I don't see the logic in some peoples arguments in this forum... I'm a newbie with 150 APM not even a decent player at all and I don't want MBS because unless Blizzard makes other tasks that will fill up all the time for original macro.. i somehow doubt it will be as fun because what made me change from a WC3 player to a SC player is that fast pace and the feeling that you have to do so much in so little time which is why SC is such a amazing game...
Side Note.. 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.
Also I don't see the point how MBS will keep new players away, if they do play the game chances are they will look at guides and see how other people play.. from there they will usually mimic them. I dont see how clicking a few buildings and pressing z instead of pressing 1z would make a newbie say "wow this is too hard im going to quit now"
Also I personally find it a load of crap if a newbie would say "Oh wow I'm playing Starcraft 2... but it turns out i cant select all my buildings at once and ill built slower therefore I'm going to quit now"
"quit trying to crapify sc2 for the 99% of non korean players who want mbs."
"Quit trying to crapify SC2 for the 99% of players who ACTUALLY want a competitive and intense game"
|
On October 02 2007 09:14 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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. no, YOU will be unable to use blink because you are a 60 apm war3 newb who has decided that sc2 has to be dumbed down to the point where even you can be good at it, no matter what that does to everyone else.
|
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 02 2007 09:14 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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. I don't really see how new units are at all comparable to MBS (an interface feature)?
Besides, I'm 100% sure I could handle blinking without MBS, it's no harder than microing a reaver+shuttle or a bunch of dragoons vs zerglings or whatever.
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. Lol, as fitting as that analogy is, it does kind of bring up the point that it's probably better to be civil, lest we end up really looking like the KKK/other extremist group.
|
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 <----
|
why change the basics of a great game which makes the game great?
|
spiritofthetuna signed
EDIT: oh right, reason
cause i don't want SC2 to be a snoozefest in mechanics
|
On October 02 2007 09:14 AA-RaVaGeR wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
I'm sure if your using stalkers to harass, its not that "intensive" to build while you do a few blinks with a stalker.. Isn't that the same difficulty as that hot key trainer UMS where you have to constantly run your SCV from a zealot while building your base from scratch?
If your talking about large battles... I'm pretty sure theres better things to do than microing your group of stalkers back and forth...
|
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.
|
hold the signatures and stuff until he puts up the petition on one of the sites, or just remember you have to sign there too when its up
but feel free to contribute anything you think should be in the petition itself.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 02 2007 09:26 SoleSteeler wrote:Show nested quote +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..
|
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 09:21 [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 <----
I'd imagine Fastest and BGH players to be THE MOST adverse to MBS
|
Korea (South)11558 Posts
|
you're going to need something alot better than a petition to change their minds.
i'd suggest: bribes, kidnapping, extortion, letters (full of logic), or whatever other handle you can grab on a blizzard employee.
The petition (if there was one) for pro-MBS would be 100 times longer than anti-MBS. If, in the off-chance that i am wrong, your petition won't convince blizzard otherwise.
edit - i'm not trying to discourage the fight for SBS, but actually encouraging those of you that want to fight for SBS to actually to take action that can go somewhere!
|
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 States2135 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
|
|
|
|