|
On October 14 2007 21:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
you think "Even Casy can TvP now" sounds like "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"?
"mbs will ruin competition" and "With MBS suddenly hungtran doesn't need maphack to be good" do resemble and together with Casy thing sound as insane as that quotation from eL.Virus.
On October 15 2007 07:00 ForAdun wrote:
But why do progamers need to be perfect? Why is it neccessary to give them a "helping hand"? Isn't it more interesting to see different styles coming up like it happened and still happens in sc:bw? Do you really want progamers to achieve perfection? Perfection is so... just boring...
Brutalisk didn't said a word about allowing progamers to play perfectly. The words "far" and "little bit" suggest about that in his clauses: "They are very good, obviously, but still far from perfect. Which means that there is room for giving them a little bit of a "helping hand" for macro"
Screw it, just put all the easy mode crap in, just have it all toggle and have it all turned off for ladder and league play. It will be the new generation of $$$BGH$$$ players who everyone just mocks and laughs at while playing competitive mode.
That's exactly the reason why it won't work in this way and toggles like you've suggested won't be implemented. It's only supposition that mbs will ruin something. Dividing ladders in one way or another will be definitely bad.
|
Well it looks like blizzard is going to have to do the dual ladders. At this point, unless they come up with something awsome, they are going to piss off large amounts of people. If pro-noobifications win, then the starcraft veterans will slam starcraft 2 as a weak version of starcraft 1 and SC2 will never reach the level that its predecessor did. If anti-noobification wins, then review sites will slam blizzard for making an 'outdated game'. Either way, starcraft 2 will recieve bad publicity. If blizzard wants starcraft 2 to do well, they have to please both sides of the argument.
|
Sorry this is a little bit tangent but it's in response to some minor points above (by InRaged)
The separation between ladder and non is definitely going to be more like war3, so it won't be a new generation of $$$BGH$$$, it will be more like those people in war3 who host "fast build" and "$$$$" maps. Whatever the automated ladder is set up to do will be the real game, and whatever they let UMS maps do or not do, doesn't matter. They should add as much functionality as possible for UMS authors in War3, including being able to modify the interface (as they could with War3, to a lesser extent than SC2 should have).
As for dividing ladders--there will be at least some division. Again, War3 is a precedent. We're probably going to have not only a 1v1 ladder, but a 2v2, a 3v3, a 4v4, a 5v5, and an FFA ladder. They once promised to add ladders for popular UMS maps in War3 but we never got it. For extremely popular, established UMS that come about in SC2 it would be nice to take them out of the garbage bin and give their players rankings and AMM as well. So "dividing the ladder" should take place to at least this extent. And yes, this applies to money maps because they will be UMS maps too. So there may be a money map ladder with AMM and super easy interface ("mass attack" lol) some day.
On October 15 2007 20:49 Fen wrote:
Well it looks like blizzard is going to have to do the dual ladders. At this point, unless they come up with something awsome, they are going to piss off large amounts of people. If pro-noobifications win, then the starcraft veterans will slam starcraft 2 as a weak version of starcraft 1 and SC2 will never reach the level that its predecessor did. If anti-noobification wins, then review sites will slam blizzard for making an 'outdated game'. Either way, starcraft 2 will recieve bad publicity. If blizzard wants starcraft 2 to do well, they have to please both sides of the argument.
As long as the single player has those "modern" features they won't really get slammed IMO. And unless they aim for replacing SC in korea, they probably won't satisfy us. Right now I'm happy with SC1, not putting my hopes into the people who gave us War3, and not planning on buying a new computer any time soon, but that's just me. If two years from now SC2 is the next BW then I will pick it up then. It's not going to be out of the box--SC wasn't, War3 certainly wasn't, etc. So this is much ado about nothing IMO. We will have this same fight while we play beta, but with less guessing about so many variables. And we will have this same fight about patching, and this same fight about the expansion beta and the expansion patching of SC2. So what's the hurry?
|
On October 15 2007 20:38 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2007 07:00 ForAdun wrote:
But why do progamers need to be perfect? Why is it neccessary to give them a "helping hand"? Isn't it more interesting to see different styles coming up like it happened and still happens in sc:bw? Do you really want progamers to achieve perfection? Perfection is so... just boring... Brutalisk didn't said a word about allowing progamers to play perfectly. The words "far" and "little bit" suggest about that in his clauses: "They are very good, obviously, but still far from perfect. Which means that there is room for giving them a little bit of a "helping hand" for macro"
MBS (and of course automining and autocasting, too) won't just make a little difference, the difference will be huge. These things are designed to help a lot, otherwise they wouldn't make such a big noise in the community. I thought this was already clear to everyone. In bwchart you can see that producing units makes ~20-30% of each game played, sending workers around makes 5-10% depending on the players style. In SC2 it won't be any different for example if MBS and automining are let out.
Show nested quote +Screw it, just put all the easy mode crap in, just have it all toggle and have it all turned off for ladder and league play. It will be the new generation of $$$BGH$$$ players who everyone just mocks and laughs at while playing competitive mode. That's exactly the reason why it won't work in this way and toggles like you've suggested won't be implemented. It's only supposition that mbs will ruin something. Dividing ladders in one way or another will be definitely bad.
Why will it be bad? The only argument I've ever heard was that it would split the community which is yet completely unfounded.
EDIT: my bad, there was another argument of course. "It is not possible to balance the game if there will be two different ladders", well this is also not yet clear. I think it is indeed possible if Blizzard puts some more (or maybe much more) effort in it.
|
Norway28761 Posts
creating the game with toggle-able mbs is a fucking retarded suggestion if one wants to create a competitive game. there would be people fighting about whether the best mbs player or the best non mbs player was the best player for the entire lifespan of the game going past the first month of its conception.
i did kinda like the "make mbs only possible for those who select "novice" but only cause it would be an in your face to everyone who wants to play with mbs, not cause it would actually be a good move. i'd rather have only mbs than have it be toggle-able, no matter how harmful I think that would be for the game. 
|
On October 15 2007 21:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:
creating the game with toggle-able mbs is a fucking retarded suggestion if one wants to create a competitive game. there would be people fighting about whether the best mbs player or the best non mbs player was the best player for the entire lifespan of the game going past the first month of its conception.
I dont think this will be the case at all. Starcraft 2 is going to spawn a lot of competitions. There will be lans, itll go to WCG regardless of how good it is etc. These competitions will chose a ruleset based on what the community considers to be most competative. One option will stand out and starcraft 2's competative scene will be labled as using that ruleset.
|
So the only reason for not having two different ladder systems is that people will be arguing about who's the best?
I thought it has always been that way in any other sports, or not? Isn't it the best part of the competition to have a debate with friends who's top and who's not?
I don't get it, to me it seems that all the arguments against different ladder systems are actually putting this idea into a better light, not worse.
|
I'm sorry, but that just sounds fucking retarded.
There should be a status quo for every player. I don't see how one could possibly argue a MBS player is better than someone who uses a harder interface based on the fact they are controlling every small detail of their army while the other player doesn't.
It's a difference between apples and oranges just like BGH is to Non-money. We've had this argument plenty of times. In BGH you are even more limited once you get to the top ranks because there is very few viable builds, or else the other team will run over you.
|
Norway28761 Posts
you guys really don't see how bad having vastly, vastly different rulesets for different competitions is? this isn't like deciding whether hold lurker or observer on top of turret is allowed or not, the games would essentially be different and there would be a significant transition period necessary for anyone who specialized on one and then chose to play the other..
not to mention that IF competitions chose to host tournaments using SBS rather than mbs, this would harm recruitment into competitive environments even more than creating the game entirely without mbs would. if competitions chose to host tournaments using mbs, then all you have left is diehard starcraft 1 fans who claim that they are actually more skilled than the mbs players.. it wouldn't be good for anything.
(I think starcraft 2 will be a bigger worldwide success for the first couple years if they choose only mbs over only sbs, I just think it will be a worse game and not something people play for 10 years. )
|
There are different ways/modes of playing chess (Slow -> 6+ hours // Rapid -> 15+ minutes // Blitz -> ~5+ minutes // Bullet -> 1-2 minutes, may use time increment up to 30 seconds for all of these modes /// there are Fischer Chess/Chess 960 tournaments, slowly growing more interest), yet they are all competitive and run right next to each other in peace, the competition is not disturbed. The title of the World Champion in slow chess counts as much as the same title in rapid, blitz, bullet or fischer chess. The tournament prices are all about the same. The players jump from one mode to another on any level e.g. Anand Vishwanathan is the new WC in slow chess and rapid chess at the same time now.
You sure get my point.
edit: I forgot to mention blind-folded chess. Sorry @ fans 
|
Norway28761 Posts
chess is like the only good example of this working out though, but this is probably because chess players and people who follow chess are so mature and intelligent that they're not ones to get caught up in petty discussions
MMA competitions also have vastly different rulesets and there people have constantly been having debates about whether a person fighting in pride would beat a person fighting in ufc etc.. all the time.. before certain crocop fights there have been discussions whether it should be with pride rules or K1 rules as they favour different fighters..
and in chess aren't those different rules just a sheer necessity because without a timelimit, the game can last longer than anyone will bother paying attention and is honestly partially decided based on the patience of both players.. and while chess is successful, there's no reason to believe that the chess model is preferable..
imagine if football was played where some leagues played without offside and others played with offside.. it would just be retarded.. (to be fair, there are SLIGHT differences in refereeing between different leagues. but nothing comparable to mbs / sbs)
|
Bleh I'm so sick of the MBS controversy. Here's how I basically feel about it: If blizzard ends up releasing SC2, and it ends up being a dissapointment... back to original SC and SCREW IT.
|
On October 15 2007 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
chess is like the only good example of this working out though, but this is probably because chess players and people who follow chess are so mature and intelligent that they're not ones to get caught up in petty discussions
Haha, you'd wonder... 
I'm playing regularly on chessbase.com (besides real chess) and the discussions there can be either mad, stupid or high leveled, I guess you'd go crazy after a while
Also, the chess world was split in two for a couple of years since the FIDE made rules/decisions that the classical chess scene didn't accept, so there were even two (!) World Champions at that time. One year ago they battled it out (Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov) to unite the chess world again but it is still not all clear if everything went right. Even the match itself was full of suspicious actions and goings, who knows.
Chess is still famous because it is addicting to some and fascinating to others. It's the game itself that makes things work. People organizing tourneys and such is just a result of the magic of the game.
MMA competitions also have vastly different rulesets and there people have constantly been having debates about whether a person fighting in pride would beat a person fighting in ufc etc.. all the time.. before certain crocop fights there have been discussions whether it should be with pride rules or K1 rules as they favour different fighters..
That's indeed a problem, but I think it's better to keep the best fighter a secret anyway. This creates rumours and debates and therefore interest.
and in chess aren't those different rules just a sheer necessity because without a timelimit, the game can last longer than anyone will bother paying attention and is honestly partially decided based on the patience of both players.. and while chess is successful, there's no reason to believe that the chess model is preferable..
I don't know. It works, that's all I know.
imagine if football was played where some leagues played without offside and others played with offside.. it would just be retarded.. (to be fair, there are SLIGHT differences in refereeing between different leagues. but nothing comparable to mbs / sbs)
I am not sure if I understood it correctly but I think I got the message. Yes, I agree that this would cause trouble. I think professional football players are able to advance to a new ruleset but the overall interest of newcomers could be disturbed. There's a good chance that it wouldn't change anything at all but it's an unneccessary risk to take since things work well already.
I think I got another good example now:
In Diablo 2 you have two different modes, softcore and hardcore or SC/HC in short. Also you have the option to fight players (PvP) instead of monsters (PvM). I have been playing Diablo 2 and LoD until several years ago and I know some of the changes the scene made over time. For PvP they made a duel-league for different character-levels. They changed the rulesets all the time to balance characters and teams. And that was just one part of it. The most PvP players were public players. They just created a game, some people joined and they had a good fight for some hours. It never became boring although it was completely imbalanced. People were camping at the front door and everyone complained. The Paladin was overpowered, the Sorceress no less, the Druid was a joke. I checked back to the scene maybe once every year and everytime I realized nothing changed about it, ever. They kept fighting imbalanced fights even if they had a weaker character.
Cheaters annoyed and still annoy the scene all the time but people keep playing the game. Some get the best items or they just dupe them, others have the "Crappiest Crap Of Crappy-The-Clown" but are still having fun. Many play for items, some only want to level up. Others play in fun-modes like errr... what was it. Yeah, Ironman for example. You'd wonder how many people love to play that. Especially in the HC scene there are sooo many fans and freaks that you'd ask where they all come from. I don't know but I know their community doesn't get any smaller, they always get fresh interest from new players.
There's so much more I could tell about the Diablo 2 scene but I'd like to end here, it's getting much.
Real fans of a game always find a way to to keep it fun and enjoy the challenge. I don't see why it should be any different in SC2 no matter how many different ladder systems there will be.
|
Norway28761 Posts
diablo 2 is hardly a competitive game
i know that "who can get level 99 the fastest" is some kind of competition but really.. it's not a competitive game by nature.
|
You hurt many feelings by saying that...
Don't forget that if you jump over a wall you're proud of it, no matter how low it was. Competition doesn't only happen on top level.
|
On October 16 2007 00:12 ForAdun wrote:
You hurt many feelings by saying that...
Don't forget that if you jump over a wall you're proud of it, no matter how low it was. Competition doesn't only happen on top level.
Lol ya f u Drone you incensenitive dick.
I can't believe the MBS is winning this poll now Sad. I don't really see what it adds to a game and why they feel the need to take the edge off of a great game. I know they are making SC2 not BW3 but BW3 would be wayyyyyyyyy sweeter.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 16 2007 00:12 ForAdun wrote:
You hurt many feelings by saying that...
Don't forget that if you jump over a wall you're proud of it, no matter how low it was. Competition doesn't only happen on top level.
That isnt true at all. Where the hell did you get that metaphor? If you jump over a wall that you barely have to lift your feet for you dont even fucking register this as an event let alone an accomplishment. And NOBODY plays D2 "competetively." Not when you are comparing it to SC/SC2 where there are professional teams, giant tourneys and tons of money being shuffled around in various events. Playing with friends on HC does not constitute (even remotely) compatition, again when comparing to SC/SC2.
A lot of the posters in here make statements that I cant help but to respond to because they are SO fucking bad and illogical. I feel like a lot of smart people in here are arguing for a dumb cause and getting caught up in not having a clue as to what they are talking about (pro-mbs people). Listen: we get it, you want a easier SC so you too can be talked about on forums and share some glory. News Flash: You wont be shit because making this game easier is only going to drive out the real talent and bring in a muddy mess of mediocre players playing an easy game that will crash 1 year post release.
|
On October 16 2007 02:06 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 00:12 ForAdun wrote:
You hurt many feelings by saying that...
Don't forget that if you jump over a wall you're proud of it, no matter how low it was. Competition doesn't only happen on top level. That isnt true at all. Where the hell did you get that metaphor? If you jump over a wall that you barely have to lift your feet for you dont even fucking register this as an event let alone an accomplishment. And NOBODY plays D2 "competetively." Not when you are comparing it to SC/SC2 where there are professional teams, giant tourneys and tons of money being shuffled around in various events. Playing with friends on HC does not constitute (even remotely) compatition, again when comparing to SC/SC2. A lot of the posters in here make statements that I cant help but to respond to because they are SO fucking bad and illogical. I feel like a lot of smart people in here are arguing for a dumb cause and getting caught up in not having a clue as to what they are talking about (pro-mbs people). Listen: we get it, you want a easier SC so you too can be talked about on forums and share some glory. News Flash: You wont be shit because making this game easier is only going to drive out the real talent and bring in a muddy mess of mediocre players playing an easy game that will crash 1 year post release.
I guess it's a good thing that nothing anyone says on the forum is a true reflection of their opinion. Posts are derivative of peoples need for other people to see their opinions, and in a subtle way be sensitive to that which makes them who they are.
However, people like you exert an influence on the general populace, and even have a chance at changing their opinions in subtle ways.
Could you please take that into consideration next time you feel like being a condescending asshole?
|
On October 16 2007 02:06 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 00:12 ForAdun wrote:
You hurt many feelings by saying that...
Don't forget that if you jump over a wall you're proud of it, no matter how low it was. Competition doesn't only happen on top level. Listen: we get it, you want a easier SC so you too can be talked about on forums and share some glory. News Flash: You wont be shit because making this game easier is only going to drive out the real talent and bring in a muddy mess of mediocre players playing an easy game that will crash 1 year post release.
This is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know what to say. I stopped responding in the MBS debate, because I realized I would never be able to change the opinions of people like you, but just realize that this is totally false.
|
I definitely think that MBS shouldn't be togglable...mainly because of balance issues and splitting the community in 2.
However, it should available for UMS, there is no question about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
