EPT[Poll] MBS implementation (or not) - Page 18
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
And as you might have guessed, it didn't change anything. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
 | ||
|
KoveN-
Australia503 Posts
So is there interest for this or not? I won't bother if you Pro-MBS'ers are gonna chicken out ^^ | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
On October 17 2007 12:54 1esu wrote: I don't believe that any game developer is infalliable, I just believe that Blizzard is better equipped than any other RTS developer to devote the time and energy necessary to making an extremely competitive game that has MBS. If they can't do it, then it probably can't be done, and only then SC2 should return to SBS. I just think we should have respect enough for Blizzard to give them the time they need to see if SC2 can be competitive with MBS, rather than shout that MBS should be removed immediately, as many have done in these debates. In regards to (c), being able to max out faster than 13 minutes is an intended consequence of MBS. Blizzard has stated they want SC2 games to be under 20 minutes, and MBS, in making it easier to max out and easier to capitalize on economic advantages, makes the game shorter. I do agree, however, that Blizzard should be careful to avoid the "slippery slope", where making a comeback once you've fallen behind becomes very difficult. In regards to (d), a lot of it was because many of the features Blizzard is planning on implementing (most of which they haven't told us about) to keep the skill curve high while having an easier-to-use interface weren't in the build. Therefore, MBS had a larger impact on the perceived difficulty of the game by veterans than it would if those missing features were in the build. That's why we should wait until a feature-complete build before making a final judgement on MBS in SC2. P.S. Sorry for the double post, I meant to copy the CA response over but I was tired and clicked the post button before I realized. Plus, this is the second post today I had to rewrite because of a misclick. Firstly, I can't equate Blizzard then with Blizzard now. While the culture is probably the same, the fact that the SC2 team is almost completely changed from the SC1 team means that they are barely better-equipped than any other RTS-maker. Browder DID make CnC3, after all. While he seems more personable than before, it is key to note that he hasn't actually proved game-making competence between then and now. I'm withholding judgment on him - I won't say he's unconditionally bad, but I don't trust him completely either. faster than 13 minute max makes it a pure macro game. 13 min maxes are rare in SC - that they're so commonplace in SC2 without optimal build orders or high-skill players yet is quite worrying. It should not be a macro fest of "who can make 200/200 fastest". There should be micro battles that have some sort of impact. Games end in under 20 minutes in most SC1 games, too - max time does not need to be shorter. Plus, this is 13 minutes under normal speed or whatever - under fastest speed, it'd be under 10! That's way too easy and fast. I agree with the last point - nothing is final yet - but I would still urge Blizzard to reconsider based on what we've seen so far. If they can present a working model with MBS that addresses all the competitive concerns, I'll be happy. It's really not a "MBS vs no MBS", it's an "easy game vs hard game" issue. And until they prove to me that MBS won't make it easy, I am going to be against MBS. | ||
|
noobienoob
United States1173 Posts
Auto-mining 36 Unit Selection Cap (or whatever it is) Multiple Building Construction (with 1 worker) Multiple Caster Spell Casting ex. casting 3 drop-pods/snipes in three different places with three different ghosts Various Text Warnings ex. when under attack, etc. Radar Dome Auto-building (Interceptors) (the list is bigger but I'm too tired/lazy to remember the rest atm) What I listed at the top is what I feel (especially the ones in bold) areREALLY going to make the game too easy, as they make everyone suddenly become micro/macro/attention gods compared to what was possible in the original. Yeah, MBS is also a part of what is noobifying SCII, but it alone isn't going to make the game too easy. Compared to the other things, MBS really isn't that bad. Like I said, I do agree that the game at the moment seems like it's going to have competitive issues being too easy, but I think you guys are putting too much blame on MBS alone. | ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
| ||
|
KoveN-
Australia503 Posts
| ||
LosingID8
CA10829 Posts
unit selection cap: for me a larger unit selection cap is fine, as long as it isn't too large. something like 24 isn't too unreasonable--i just want to see all the wire frames of the units to check for health. multible building construction: isn't this sort of like way-points but with making buildings? i don't see how this is that horrible, especially in the early game when much of it is timing based and you have limited resources. for instance in early game PvT: after making another pylon the worker makes a forge using 150 minerals that you needed to make a dragoon because the terran all of a sudden attacked. it'd actually do you more harm than good in that situation. text warnings: they give you auditory warnings in SC1: we are under attack, research complete, etc. don't think it'll have too much impact. radar dome: i don't know enough about the specifics to comment on this auto-building interceptors: they should either take this out or make it toggle-able. if you're good at keeping money really low, it could get frustrating having your money never get above like 150 because of the interceptors autobuilding. the reason why MBS is such a large issue is because it reduces multitasking, which in turn makes the game easier. pro-MBS players make it sound like it's impossible to have fun playing starcraft: brood war because of the interface. anyone that has played starcraft for more than a few months knows how ridiculous that statement is. it's not the fact that we are in love with pressing 1v2v3v4t5t or anything like that. it's the fact that (especially in late game) it forces you to take your screen away from the battle instead of constantly hovering over your 200/200 army 8 minutes into the game. this is something we do not want. one of the hallmarks of starcraft is that there is never time to sit there and watch a battle happen. thoughts in your head are hectic, the action happening in the game is chaotic. you can't just be worrying about that battle. you need to focus on other things like your unit production back in your base, resetting rally points, etc. we like the fact that it is literally impossible to play a perfect game (very high ceiling) and that there is ALWAYS room to improve your multitasking. *edit* and once again, i will say flat out that i suck at starcraft. i'm not saying this because i am "gosu" and want to have my skills from sc1 transfer over to sc2. in bwchart my hotkey (grouping) usage is only 2-3% most games (which, for those who don't know, is basically not using hotkeys) | ||
|
noobienoob
United States1173 Posts
edit: Yeah, I guess Multiple Building Construction isn't that bad, but it still frees up a good amount of concentration time, let's just take a probe queuing up 3-4 buildings as an example. In the original SC you'd have to wait for the probe to move to the location in order for it to build a building and then after it'd be ready to build another building, but in SCII you can just tell that one probe to queue up the four buildings very rapidly and then tell it to go back to mining right after, and while it's doing that you can concentrate on multitasking something else. Similar thing with SCV's queuing up supply depots. I dunno with the unit selection cap, I guess I'm thinking stimming 50 marines instantly and being able to move them away from danger/focus fire all at the same time is a bad thing. Maybe I'm just scared of noob terrans being able to easily out-micro my ling/lurk/filer micro lol  | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On October 17 2007 16:26 noobienoob wrote: There's a lot of other factors that are making it too easy, and in my opinion MBS is only a having a small effect compared to how badly the other factors are noobifying the game. Auto-mining 36 Unit Selection Cap (or whatever it is) Multiple Building Construction (with 1 worker) Multiple Caster Spell Casting ex. casting 3 drop-pods/snipes in three different places with three different ghosts People are very much aware of this. MBS is just the feature that symbolizes the other ones. But yes, auto-rally mining and smart cast are also very bad. Autosplit and unit selection cap are not such a big deal. queuing up several buildings is also kind of questionable. I can see someone queue op three supply depots with terran. I think Nony has said that auto-rally mining and smart cast are worse than MBS. | ||
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
| ||
|
404.Nintu
Canada1723 Posts
I think MBS should be with Auto-mining and smart casting in the 'Novice' game mode. (Like UMS, etc..) I also have to somewhat agree with Nony about automining. It really does change a huge aspect of the game. Can you imagine if the ONLY times you tell workers to mine, are at the very beginning, and when you're migrating workers? (And I suppose after an scv/probe is done building something). Fucking disgusting. Stop trying to perfect something(macro) that was never meant to be perfect! | ||
|
KShiduo
Korea (South)17 Posts
Now how about we all just give it a rest, move on with our lives and just be happy when we get news of the zerg and beta. There is only so much that we have to work with, but one thing is clear: 'some' of us know what makes a good strategic, competitive game. I'm tired of doing Blizzard's work for them: 'Pillars, where's my pay cheque baby?' | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
keep easy mode out of competitive play | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 17 2007 23:33 KShiduo wrote: There is only so much that we have to work with, but one thing is clear: 'some' of us know what makes a good strategic, competitive game. You wont ever end this discussion by posting something as biased as this, only way is to swallow your pride and look from someone elses perspective. Sure you can go ahead and think that you have the best oppinions and that people who have other oppinions are stupid or lacks knowledge, but it wont take you anywere thinking like that. This issue isnt one sided, there isnt a "Good" side. Its just like politics, each side has both negative and positive things about them its just a matter of how you predict the outcomes to be and what you prioritise. Clearly the nay sayers think that the most important issue is to keep the korean pro community intact, at all costs. The smart yay sayers however thinks that we can expand so that its no longer a korean pro community and instead an international pro community wich can only be achieved by a large influx of new players outside korea. Then the dumb yay sayers say "Its not as frustrating to play with mbs wich is why i want it in" wich ofcourse is true, and is the reason mbs will result in more players playing the game. This however shouldnt be seen as the only pro mbs argument. And lastly, just realise that there is just as much evidence for that mbs wont affect the pro scene much at all as the opposite. However, mbs will affect the number of new players a lot simply beacuse less frustration=more enjoyment = more players staying long enough to get the hang of the game. New players arent stupid as some here thinks, however they often lack patience. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
| ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On October 17 2007 16:02 Last Romantic wrote: Firstly, I can't equate Blizzard then with Blizzard now. While the culture is probably the same, the fact that the SC2 team is almost completely changed from the SC1 team means that they are barely better-equipped than any other RTS-maker. Browder DID make CnC3, after all. While he seems more personable than before, it is key to note that he hasn't actually proved game-making competence between then and now. I'm withholding judgment on him - I won't say he's unconditionally bad, but I don't trust him completely either. faster than 13 minute max makes it a pure macro game. 13 min maxes are rare in SC - that they're so commonplace in SC2 without optimal build orders or high-skill players yet is quite worrying. It should not be a macro fest of "who can make 200/200 fastest". There should be micro battles that have some sort of impact. Games end in under 20 minutes in most SC1 games, too - max time does not need to be shorter. Plus, this is 13 minutes under normal speed or whatever - under fastest speed, it'd be under 10! That's way too easy and fast. I think it's more the fact that Blizzard is the only developer company that's its own publisher (except EA, but they make so many different titles that they're internally divided into the publisher/developer relationship), which allows it to patch its games as many times as it desires. Most developer companies are only allowed x patches, an expansion, and x more patches by their publisher, and that's it; that's why many RTS games end up being competitively unbalanced. If MBS or other interface changes are killing the competitiveness of SC2, Blizzard WILL patch it out, preferably during the beta. I think micro will still play a heavy role, just with larger armies than we're used to seeing in SC1. Also, I know most SC games end in under 20 minutes, but Blizzard is talking about a cap - the average time they're aiming for is now 10-15 min between two players of equal skill, even if they go heavy macro-style. In SC, if both players go heavy macro, games can easily last 30 min - 1 hour. I do agree that 10 minutes would be too fast under fastest - though I'd sooner advocate upping the supply limit before kicking out MBS. On October 17 2007 16:26 noobienoob wrote: Multiple Building Construction (with 1 worker) Multiple Caster Spell Casting ex. casting 3 drop-pods/snipes in three different places with three different ghosts Radar Dome Auto-building (Interceptors) Just going to comment on these for the time being. MBC will likely not be used at high levels for timing reasons, or players wanting to leave options open - making the "queued" buildings use up minerals like queued units would make this even less of an issue. The only way imo that Blizzard could get away with keeping smartcasting out would be to allow AoE damage/effects to be stacked, so players have the option of using all of their storms (for example) in one place, or cloning to put individual storms in different places. Anyways, it's the placement of AoE that matters more than the cloning, and smartcasting doesn't affect that. Radar Domes, as far as I could tell from the video, only gave you a second or two more warning that an enemy force was approaching, it's not like it's maphacking. Finally, I really don't understand why a toggleable interceptor autobuild would make the game too easy (and yes, I think they already said that autobuild was toggleable like in WC3). On October 17 2007 16:53 KoveN- wrote: I love the whole "We will make SC2 with all the features of WC3 but it won't turn out anything like WC3!" mentality. Huh, I didn't know that SC2 was going to have heroes, creep, upkeep, random damage...I think it's pretty obvious where I'm going with this: there are so many more features that are better at explaining why SC players don't like WC3 than the interface that it's pointless to bring the game up in discussions about the interface. | ||
| ||
