EPTMBS is made for dreamers. Keep the dreamers in WoW please, keep them out of SC2 thanks.
[Poll] MBS implementation (or not) - Page 11
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
MBS is made for dreamers. Keep the dreamers in WoW please, keep them out of SC2 thanks. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28714 Posts
On October 14 2007 08:47 eL.Virus wrote: 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. why the HELL do you post this nobody posted ANYTHING even remotely similar to what you claim we posted | ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On October 14 2007 18:11 1esu wrote: 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. Um, no. Starcraft's speed is a mental ability, not a physical one. The average computer user can type at 60 wpm or more, right? Well 60 wpm *5 characters/word = 300 apm. Add one mouse click per second and you have a 360 apm. Very very few people do not have the physical skill to do this. It is almost entirely a mental skill until you get up to 400+ apm, where some people will have trouble simply moving their fingers that quickly. Also, that other poll was just for ANY UI improvements. You can be the most avid anti-MBS person in the world, but you'd still have voted "yes" if you wanted 18 selectable units at a time or color-coded minimap pings. ANY IU improvement would mean you'd vote yes. It should have been 100% to 0%. | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
That's why a shift in general gameplay is necessary. Micro needs to be more important. MBS will help. It would mean that a 500 APM monster would no longer have a speed advantage over a 400 APM monster (that's what the anti MBS posters don't like), but this is a necessary evil. Players need to concentrate more on micro and strategy instead of just "out-clicking" your opponent. I don't see this as a disadvantage or "dumbing down" of the game. It's quite the opposite in my book. A pure macro player should never have an edge over a pure micro player, or at least equal chances... macro is a far too "dumb" skill. Micro is harder and significantly different in each game situation, and therefore should be valued more. But in SC today, it's like 40% micro 60% macro or at best 50/50. It should be 60/40, and the 40 are only there to keep the player busy during times where there is no fighting. If there is fighting, what's so wrong with having more attention for your army? Just imagine how many units you could use that aren't viable in SC1 because they're too difficult to use (ghosts, queens, dark archons, hallucination, disruption web vs. Terran...) All the stuff no one does in SC1 because it's too hard to micro could suddenly become viable and this could change the game completely (for the better, hopefully) because there's more variety. Macro is stupid and repetitious. If you like it, that's okay, but much more people don't like it, especially the casual gamers. So you have to adapt to it. Or stay with SC1. Computer games are different from a "real" sports, where nothing ever changes anymore. There is always room for improvement (graphics, UI, new units, balance changes, ...) and the majority of people tends to dislike artificial limitations or an "outdated" UI. Blizzard almost has no chance, except when MBS is so bad that it really cripples competitive play (I don't think this is going to happen though). Then, they'd have to advertise SBS as being an essential feature, so that the casual gamers and game reviewers "get" it and don't start flaming the game for its "outdated" UI. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On October 14 2007 20:30 Liquid`Drone wrote: why the HELL do you post this nobody posted ANYTHING even remotely similar to what you claim we posted For me, "Even Casy can TvP now", "mbs will ruin competition", "With MBS suddenly hungtran doesn't need maphack to be good" sound pretty similar to what he claims anti-mbs crowd posted. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 14 2007 21:11 Brutalisk wrote: He has a point, though. Macro and speed in general is too important in SC. Micro and strategy is less important than it should be. The pro teams in Korea only look after very fast players, regardless of their initial skill or "game understanding", because this "can come later" (some team manager said that in an old interview). That's why a shift in general gameplay is necessary. Micro needs to be more important. MBS will help. It would mean that a 500 APM monster would no longer have a speed advantage over a 400 APM monster (that's what the anti MBS posters don't like), but this is a necessary evil. Players need to concentrate more on micro and strategy instead of just "out-clicking" your opponent. I don't see this as a disadvantage or "dumbing down" of the game. It's quite the opposite in my book. A pure macro player should never have an edge over a pure micro player, or at least equal chances... macro is a far too "dumb" skill. Micro is harder and different in each game situation, and therefore should be valued more. But in SC today, it's like 40% micro 60% macro or at best 50/50. It should be 60/40, and the 40 are only there to keep the player busy during times where there is no fighting. If there is fighting, what's so wrong with having more attention for your army? Just imagine how many units you could use that aren't viable in SC1 because they're too difficult to use (ghosts, queens, dark archons, hallucination, disruption web vs. Terran...) All the stuff no one does in SC1 because it's too hard to micro could suddenly become viable and this could change the game completely (for the better, hopefully) because there's more variety. Macro is stupid and repetitious. If you like it, that's okay, but much more people don't like it, especially the casual gamers. So you have to adapt to it. Or stay with SC1. I can't even tell how much bull**** you're talking. I marked everything red that is wrong, wrong and wrong again by fact. And I was very careful with the marks! I will cover the rest of your post in the following: That unknown team manager saying speed is more important than strategy in an old interview that nobody ever read. WTF?? Could you please tell me the link to this fictionary interview? Or have you ever tried playing competitively on a ladder? Obviously not. If you don't know strategies you can't have a positive score. That's a fact, not an opinion. Then, you don't even tell why you want APM to be less important. Come on, say it! Can't you get above 150 APM or what? Do you feel small? Nobody can "out-click" anybody, perhaps you feel that way because you don't understand enough about sc:bw. Get a better understanding of this game and you can beat 500 APM monsters with crappy 150-200 APM. No kidding. How do you come to the conclusion that macro-players have an edge over micro-players? Micro and macro is about 50/50 in sc:bw and it differs a lot by matchup/strategy. One game is more micro-intensive, another one is more macro-intensive. I doubt that you ever used bwchart to analyse games. It's a very accurate tool to tell game statistics. Nothing's wrong about paying attention to the army if there's fighting, but here's the counter-question: what's wrong about not paying attention to the army if there's fighting? The answer is always: nothing. Only your animosity against macro-players, maybe. Too hard to micro, lol come on. It is supposed to be hard, but that doesn't make it too hard. Or - once again - only for you it may be too hard, but not for us! This is exactly what we want! It must be hard for everybody so that only a few can master it - those who invest time to train it. The others must realize that they can only use those units if they don't manage their bases at the same time. It is sure fun to talk to friends, play games, eat donuts and make love to some girl while driving a car, all at the same time - but it is not very clever. By the way just to let you know: hallucination and disruption web against terran is not used because it isn't cost-effective. Got nothing to do with our (in)ability to use it. To me this proves that you don't know competitive sc. For your statement about macro and stupidity I would like to murder you. Just kidding. Or maybe I am serious. I don't know. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28714 Posts
| ||
|
Muirhead
United States556 Posts
From the articles section of this site FakeSteve: So can you offer some insight about judging skill? it must be hard to choose the best members for the team, what spefically do you look for in terms of skill? [Aficionado]: keyboard skill, mouse scroll speed, attitude playing SC, some dedication to playing SC [Aficionado]: I believe good hardware skill makes the best [Aficionado]: usually people who has good strategic mind makes good result but I think they coudn't climb the highest level : ) FakeSteve: Interesting [Aficionado]: ^^ for example, July had not any strat play during the 2 years [Aficionado]: But he made it StarLeague champion [Aficionado]: A person who has good basic skill and mind will approach the top level if he has enough practice : ) Personally I don't see why this is such a horrible thing. Of course people with immense dedication will learn the strategies after years of training. I respect people who are capable of moving/thinking quickly and multitasking just as much as those who have a deep knowledge of the game. | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
As SC2 is expected to be super-big in pro-gaming I see this as the only way everyone to be happy. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 14 2007 23:08 Muirhead wrote: Personally I don't see why this is such a horrible thing. Of course people with immense dedication will learn the strategies after years of training. I respect people who are capable of moving/thinking quickly and multitasking just as much as those who have a deep knowledge of the game. Of course this is not a horrible thing at all. I don't really know which side you are taking in this debate so I can't respond directly. Anyways, July had pretty bad times against iloveoov and then there was this long reign of macro and strategy which never really ended. + Show Spoiler + I think Hwasin is one good example that a good unit control doesn't make you win games, see his game against Savior on Un'Goro Crater. He won in a very oov-like manner. I don't know if the spoiler is neccessary since the game is from the past month I think. Or Savior: he is known to have great multitasking abilities and being a great strategiest with his indepth-knowledge of the game. If you watch older FPVods from him you may realize that back then he wasn't really speedy, he just timed things well and he didn't blunder as much as other progamers. This is to prove that strategy/decision making is as (if not more) important as APM/multitasking/speed even in sc:bw. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On October 14 2007 03:31 NotSorry wrote: You read the bnet forums to much, I swear that 50 to 1 quotes comes up every 10seconds on that forum. High level players easily 50+ to 1, total players in general not a chance at even 10 to 1 or even less that than. Apparently, it's true. | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
 But it's my firm opinion after many years of following the pro scene and playing myself. I'm not playing competitively, and I don't have more than 150 APM, but that's all besides the point. I don't want to be pro. I just think that the gameplay could be improved. For everyone.You got me wrong about the micro units/abilities. I said that they're too hard for everyone to use. Including the best of the best progamers. Ghosts, hallucination, mind control, queens and so on are used so extremely rarely, you could almost say they're never used. Yet they're all there for a reason, and they are not bad, it's just that most often it's not worth microing them. And that's why I think that macro should take a step back in order to allow the players to use the whole array of units/abilities that the game has to offer (-> more variety in gameplay and more strategies possible, a good thing). If macro is so important and time-consuming, then ALL players (including the best of the best) will inevitably fall back to using only those units that are easy to control and will almost never use anything else. MBS seems to be, in theory, the solution to this problem, that's why I think it's a good idea. And about that team manager: Muirhead quoted the right thing, that's what I meant. Speed/keyboard control is the prime requirement. Strategy or intelligent playing is only a secondary thing. Might be worth a change, right? The rest is your opinion, I don't care. I have mine. And get some manners please. | ||
|
pirate cod
810 Posts
| ||
|
Dark.Carnival
United States5095 Posts
On October 15 2007 01:51 pirate cod wrote: I like Starcraft and Brood War for everything it is. Changing the game play changes the game and I don't want another game, I want a sequel. well technically a sequel is another game... but i still know what you mean. | ||
|
KShiduo
Korea (South)17 Posts
On October 15 2007 01:22 Brutalisk wrote: ForAdun: I don't expect anyone to like what I said. But it's my firm opinion after many years of following the pro scene and playing myself. I'm not playing competitively, and I don't have more than 150 APM, but that's all besides the point. I don't want to be pro. I just think that the gameplay could be improved. For everyone.You got me wrong about the micro units/abilities. I said that they're too hard for everyone to use. Including the best of the best progamers. Ghosts, hallucination, mind control, queens and so on are used so extremely rarely, you could almost say they're never used. Yet they're all there for a reason, and they are not bad, it's just that most often it's not worth microing them. And that's why I think that macro should take a step back in order to allow the players to use the whole array of units/abilities that the game has to offer (-> more variety in gameplay and more strategies possible, a good thing). If macro is so important and time-consuming, then ALL players (including the best of the best) will inevitably fall back to using only those units that are easy to control and will almost never use anything else. MBS seems to be, in theory, the solution to this problem, that's why I think it's a good idea. And about that team manager: Muirhead quoted the right thing, that's what I meant. Speed/keyboard control is the prime requirement. Strategy or intelligent playing is only a secondary thing. Might be worth a change, right? The rest is your opinion, I don't care. I have mine. And get some manners please. That is part of the problem. By setting the bar so high we WANT it to be close to impossible to master just like any other athletic sport because when a player such as Boxer proves the impossible to be possible everyone looks at him in awe, i.e. the time he microed something like 12 ghosts to lockdown a dozen BCs and win. Limiting the interface is essential. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 14 2007 20:56 LonelyMargarita wrote: Um, no. Starcraft's speed is a mental ability, not a physical one. The average computer user can type at 60 wpm or more, right? Well 60 wpm *5 characters/word = 300 apm. Add one mouse click per second and you have a 360 apm. Very very few people do not have the physical skill to do this. It is almost entirely a mental skill until you get up to 400+ apm, where some people will have trouble simply moving their fingers that quickly. typing speed is with 2 hands, almost all keyboard actions in bw are done with 1 hand | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 15 2007 01:22 Brutalisk wrote: ForAdun: I don't expect anyone to like what I said. But it's my firm opinion after many years of following the pro scene and playing myself. I'm not playing competitively, and I don't have more than 150 APM, but that's all besides the point. I don't want to be pro. I just think that the gameplay could be improved. For everyone.You got me wrong about the micro units/abilities. I said that they're too hard for everyone to use. Including the best of the best progamers. Ghosts, hallucination, mind control, queens and so on are used so extremely rarely, you could almost say they're never used. Yet they're all there for a reason, and they are not bad, it's just that most often it's not worth microing them. And that's why I think that macro should take a step back in order to allow the players to use the whole array of units/abilities that the game has to offer (-> more variety in gameplay and more strategies possible, a good thing). If macro is so important and time-consuming, then ALL players (including the best of the best) will inevitably fall back to using only those units that are easy to control and will almost never use anything else. MBS seems to be, in theory, the solution to this problem, that's why I think it's a good idea. And about that team manager: Muirhead quoted the right thing, that's what I meant. Speed/keyboard control is the prime requirement. Strategy or intelligent playing is only a secondary thing. Might be worth a change, right? The rest is your opinion, I don't care. I have mine. And get some manners please. Hmm, let me think. No, I did not get you wrong about the micro units/abilities. I understood everything about it. You did not understand me, I was saying that ghosts, mind control, queens (excluding hallucination - you know why, read my last response again) and so on are not used extremely rare, i's exactly the opposite: those units/spells get more and more popular and they are not hard to use for progamers, even those outside of the top 30 can use them properly in a televised game. So, this was one of your main arguments but you were clearly mistaken, which is why I marked it red. Progamers can manage their bases and their units simultaneously, yes even spellcasters! I don't know where you got your info from that progamers were not able to do that. They are! Get that into your head, please. Queens or ghosts for example are not harder to use than high templars or even vultures. Yes, vultures! That's actually a standard unit which is not so easy to control for a newbie. We are just so used to seeing them controlled flawlessly that we can't imagine them being more than a basic unit. Or marines, medics, siege tanks... have you ever tried controlling 3-4 groups of m&ms plus some tanks and science vessels while reproducing them? Just moving them around is already a pain for a newbie, yet it is completely natural for a progamer. Or lurkers, they actually need to get burrowed and unburrowed all the time, but even average players have no problem with that! Talk about standard units and not worth microing? In what world do you live? Watch new progaming vods and see what's really going on in the progaming scene. Otherwise please do not argue on this level. In your quote about speed or strategy as the "prime reqirement" I did not know that you were taking a team manager as an example. I myself wouldn't trust him when he says that. He wants his team to succeed so why should he offer background information about how his team works? Exactly, for no reason at all. Also, he's just one person and it's just one quote from long ago, that's not really much if you ask me. If a progamer ever says that speed is more important than strategy I will take it more serious. Until then we should agree that strategy is about as important as speed/control and no less. The same for macro management. MBS is a good idea, that's true. But it's also a bad idea and you sure know that. The question is: which side of the fanbase do you want to disturb? The one that already exists and probably stays for a long while or the one that comes and goes by and never shows up again? Or are you clever and choose not to disturb either side? | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 15 2007 03:47 BlackStar wrote: It's still mental. Everyone has the physical capability to smash a button on the keyboard with 400 APM. And that is using only one finger. Haha, funny. I just remembered when I showed my friend that anyone can play the piano by just using one finger to press one key of the keyboard. He tried and hit two keys. | ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
| ||
| ||
