|
On October 14 2007 07:55 IdrA wrote:
shut up
thats been discussed in 3 threads, and even pro-mbs people agree it isnt a valid argument.
games have to have some limitations or theyre no fun. do you want the game to do everything for you? no. an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere. its just a matter of where. wtf? tell me why it's not a valid argument.
|
How about you learn how to fucking read? Read the frickin' threads.
|
On October 14 2007 07:58 noobienoob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2007 07:55 IdrA wrote:
shut up
thats been discussed in 3 threads, and even pro-mbs people agree it isnt a valid argument.
games have to have some limitations or theyre no fun. do you want the game to do everything for you? no. an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere. its just a matter of where. wtf? tell me why it's not a valid argument.
i said why.... in the post you just quoted
if you want something more indepth you can go ahead and read the hundreds of other times its been addressed in the other MBS threads
|
On October 14 2007 07:45 noobienoob wrote:
MBS is really not that bad, sure it makes things a bit easier for noobs, but it gets rid of the z3z4z5z6d7d8d9d0t useless hotkey spamming or click-z-click-z-click-z-click-z-click-z which in my opinion is the right way to go with the game.
Yeah, the lack of MBS in SC&BW and the heavy emphasis on macro is a huge part of what makes it competitive, but this is going to be a new game. If you want to stick to the way Starcraft is, just play Starcraft.
Not having MBS in SCII is pretty ridiculous, as it really doesn't change much in the game except for making it easier for people with bad macro. You still have to go and choose different units for each gateway/factory/barracks/whatever if you want a mix for your units, which will most likely be the best way to go; it's not like people are always going to be massing one unit (15 gate fastest map Dragoons ftw?).
edit: so the z3z4z5z6d7d8d9d0t example would turn into something like, 3z(4gates)4d(3gates)5t(1gate), or click on a gate and build templar, and the unit compositions will be constantly changing depending on what the other player has, so it really isn't that much easier.
Sorry I don't have time to go read hundreds of pages of posts to look for the answer, but I don't see why this is invalid, especially the part with unit compositions are constantly changing in a game. As far as I can tell, all MBS is really doing is getting rid of the click-z-click-z-click-z-click-z-click-z and opening up more hotkeys for you to work with.
...and I'll shut up now, because I'm just going to be bombarded by posts like this:
On October 14 2007 08:04 KShiduo wrote:
How about you learn how to fucking read? Read the frickin' threads. Sorry I tried.
|
On October 14 2007 07:55 IdrA wrote:
shut up
thats been discussed in 3 threads, and even pro-mbs people agree it isnt a valid argument.
games have to have some limitations or theyre no fun. do you want the game to do everything for you? no. an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere. its just a matter of where.
Well, i think that they just want to state that the TL core isnt in 100% agreement and thats that.
But ofcourse there will be 2 pages from now with people responding to them saying that theyre wrong and dumb and stupid and so.
Edit: Just saw the more posts, totally unnecesaty to start arguing for pro mbs here since it will just anger people, noobie.
|
It is enough in agreement that 85% was against MBS before some retard posted this on the B.Net forums.
|
Could you possibly be any more elitist aphelion? You have this posting style of "I am better than everyone and my opinion is the only one that counts". You must not have many friends if you act like this in real life.
Also according to you guys the only thing stopping me from owning bisu is the lack of mbs causing me to fall behind in macro. If this is the case sc progaming is indeed sadder than I had imagined.
Why do you guys think that mbs is going to let a bunch of battle.net forum noobers own you progamers? Are you really that bad at strategy and micro and refuse to adapt to a slightly different play style that focuses more on what you do and less on how fast you click it.
|
We're saying that MBS will make the game less fun, and will reduce the styles among progamers as they all become capable of doing things almost perfectly. With MBS, you won't have the Oovs, the Boxers and the Julys and the Pusans. Their emphasis on exceptional macro and micro will be gone, because now there is less room for improvement in the game. With MBS you can bet that the 500apm monsters will be able to macro perfectly will microing constantly.
Its not that with MBS, bnet noobs will own us "pros". In fact, I think Blizzcon has shown that it may very well be the opposite. It will however, decrease the skill level between say a C and a D, it will unfavorably reward the micro-focused player, and most importantly, it will reduce the amount of multitasking the player requires.
You would have heard all those arguments if you bothered to read the previous arguments in the 50+ pages of debate, but I will repeat them again for your benefit. I want to dispell any notion that macro is just mindless clicking, and that MBS will somehow make the game better through it being more thinking based rather than stupid-apm spamming.
|
On October 14 2007 08:47 eL.Virus wrote:
Could you possibly be any more elitist aphelion? .
You say that like its a bad thing.
And I have plenty of friends, thank you very much. I don't need your advice on how to live life.
|
Answer this. Why should I care if it reduces the styles among pros? I would rather play sc2 when it comes out than watch pros play it.
Explain why people who don't care about progamers should care about mbs and I will leave this poll.
Btw when sc2 is released and it has mbs I will come here for a good laugh.
|
On October 14 2007 09:25 eL.Virus wrote:
Answer this. Why should I care if it reduces the styles among pros? I would rather play sc2 when it comes out than watch pros play it.
Explain why people who don't care about progamers should care about mbs and I will leave this poll.
Btw when sc2 is released and it has mbs I will come here for a good laugh.
Nothing, besides the fact that if you even play SC2 on an okay level, you will realize that there is less multitasking and less fun for those who play competitively. If you are a fastest / BGH player - I'm sure you will want MBS.
Our goal isn't to appeal to you. TL.net's role is to represent the views of the competitive community, the ones who want more than pew-pew lasers, the ones who will play this game for more than 3 months until the next flashy no substance game comes out. We are the ones who want SC2 to carry off where SC left off as a great e-sport. See the entire column on the right? Thats proof of our dedication to the professional scene.
If that doesn't include you, thats okay. We simply don't have a common ground for discussion. You have a different vision of the game than we do, and that is entirely fine. But don't come rigging our polls so that Blizzard will think that TL.net, a forum devoted to the professional scene, is split on the issue of MBS. We aren't. 80% of us don't want MBS. You are fair to make your own poll on your own forum. Don't come causing our views to be misrepresented.
|
Here we go, MBS debate starts again -_-;;
I really don't think it's that big of a deal, and imo, this single feature will not destroy the game as many people claim.
|
[QUOTE]On October 14 2007 09:34 Aphelion wrote:
[QUOTE]On October 14 2007 09:25 eL.Virus wrote:
If that doesn't include you, thats okay. We simply don't have a common ground for discussion. You have a different vision of the game than we do, and that is entirely fine. But don't come rigging our polls so that Blizzard will think that TL.net, a forum devoted to the professional scene, is split on the issue of MBS. We aren't. 80% of us don't want MBS. You are fair to make your own poll on your own forum. Don't come causing our views to be misrepresented.[/QUOTE]
Pish, this is karma. I can't count how many times we fucked up other people's polls.
|
Lol, yea, we deserve every bit of this. But hey, no one said we can't apply a double standard :p.
The gay thing about this is that it was a TL.net sell out that this happened >.<
|
So I'm taking it everyone who's in favor of no MBS is also in favor of selecting warp-gates one at a time and clicking where each unit will go one at a time, rinsing and repeating the hotkey pattern everytime the cooldown is done.. not that it's a bad thing, because it's very macro intensive and will definitely show who's faster in clicking speed.. or maybe it's to encourage the use of regular gateways, since that's easier and everyone from the original SC is already used to that system anyway.
|
I'm willing to make an exception for warpgates. But then, you could always hotkey them and go 5dclick6dclick7dclick8dclick9dclick.
But as long as you continue think macro is about clicking speed rather multitasking and mechanics - all debate is lost on you.
|
no mbs favors protoss and zerg so it is bad from a balance point. Protoss don't need to make as many units as terran and zerg get multiple larva selection. Protoss can click on zealot once and get the effect that clicking on marine twice has.
|
On October 14 2007 09:44 Aphelion wrote:
But as long as you continue think macro is about clicking speed rather multitasking and mechanics - all debate is lost on you. I never said I believed macro is about clicking speed rather than multitasking and mechanics. Then again it'd be pretty hard to multitask this way, wouldn't it? ..unless whatever else you were multitasking was where you planned to put your units anyway, of course. Did you mean using the mini-map to accurately place all your units while you were multitasking other stuff instead of moving the screen to the location? Wow, that would be quite a skill to master.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Meh, there are a number of things I wouldn't mind MBS for - like setting rally points. Why? Cause unlike producing units, it's tedious to the point where it's unfeasible to manually re-set the rally points for a relatively large number of un-hotkeyed gateways.
Warpgates, I dunno how they'll work exactly but if the same thing holds true, ie it would be unfeasible to use them should MBS not be in the game, then I'm all for MBS being used for warpgates.
|
On October 14 2007 08:35 Aphelion wrote:
It is enough in agreement that 85% was against MBS before some retard posted this on the B.Net forums.
Earlier MBS poll
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there was no B.Net advertisement for this poll, yet 54 voted in favor of the "interface improvements" in general and 34 voted against. Since most of the interface changes are in the same spirit as MBS (cloning, autocasting interceptors, smartcasting) I'd wager that the anti-MBS people would also be against most of the other interface changes (or they haven't thought about them enough to make a decision).
And in regards to Idra, I'll say again that while the pro-MBS side agrees that limitations are necessary, they believe that UI limitations should stop when there is no longer a decision to be made. The traditional argument has been that the decision is made at "I want to build x of y", and therefore the interface should make it as easy as possible to execute that decision; any added difficulty in the execution is thus considered "artificial". Now, there is the counter-argument that difficult-to-execute macro creates a decision on when to take your attention off of your army to go back to your base. The effectiveness of this counter-argument depends on whether that one decision is crucial enough to SC2's gameplay to outweigh the "artificiality" introduced to the interface. I personally don't think it is, but that's for the beta to determine.
Edit: IMO, one of the major arguments underlying this debate that has never been explicitly mentioned is whether SC2 skill should be more physical-based or mental-based. I'd love for it to be 50/50, but even then SC vets will likely think that it's "too easy", given how predominant physical skill is in SC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
