EPTWow, now its the "placement of the AoE that matters more than the cloning"? Omg seriously. Anyone can hotkey a huge mass and spam t click t click accurately, its the selection part of individual spellcasters thats difficult. Don't you think any retard can storm well if its just about placement? Or irradiate with mass vessels? You got to AT LEAST PLAY THE GAME SOME before you say something so gameplay specific like that. This game isn't all theorycrafting with words, you know!
[Poll] MBS implementation (or not) - Page 19
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
Wow, now its the "placement of the AoE that matters more than the cloning"? Omg seriously. Anyone can hotkey a huge mass and spam t click t click accurately, its the selection part of individual spellcasters thats difficult. Don't you think any retard can storm well if its just about placement? Or irradiate with mass vessels? You got to AT LEAST PLAY THE GAME SOME before you say something so gameplay specific like that. This game isn't all theorycrafting with words, you know! | ||
|
KShiduo
Korea (South)17 Posts
| ||
|
noobienoob
United States1173 Posts
On October 18 2007 01:34 1esu wrote: Yeah, these things aren't that bad by themselves, but all of them together is what's making the game too easy. I'd argue that queued buildings has around the same effect as MBS, because it's adding up on making macro that much easier. With MBS, there's still build time and amount of minerals limiting how many units you can make at a time. 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). What I don't like is with rallied auto-mining (especially in combination with MBS), your resource macro is always going to be top-notch, assuming you know what you're doing, allowing you to do your 200/200 max whatever a lot easier. Honestly, MBS to constantly produce your army doesn't have that much of an effect in maxing out as fast as possible; it's the fact that your mining is almost perfect, meaning you'll have all the minerals/production buildings you need to create that army that fast. The problem I have with Radar dome/text warnings is that you become aware of sneak attacks way more easily. In SC, if you're not paying attention to the mini-map/you're busy microing something else, you're often not going to notice the Reaver/DT/Storm Drop, especially if it's a combination attack with multiple attacks coordinated at the same time (audio warnings, as someone pointed out being similar to text warnings, doesn't help that much with this one), but with Radar dome you're going to be aware of the attack before they've even entered your base. Way to intentionally throw the surprise factor out of the game. I just don't like having Interceptors being autobuilt (toggleable or not) because having it on makes you not have to worry at all about rebuilding Interceptors when they've been taken out. It just makes the game require that much more concentration, even though it's something as little as that. But yeah, it's just my opinion on that one. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 18 2007 01:58 Aphelion wrote: Where the hell did you get that 20 min cap from? All Blizz said was they wanted the typical game to be <20 min, just like SC. And really, making the game shorter should be done by adding more possibilities for one player to kill the other, not by making the max easier to attain. That not only decreases the difficulty level, but will actually promote defensive play and turtling, not to mention practically removing the early game. Wow, now its the "placement of the AoE that matters more than the cloning"? Omg seriously. Anyone can hotkey a huge mass and spam t click t click accurately, its the selection part of individual spellcasters thats difficult. Don't you think any retard can storm well if its just about placement? Or irradiate with mass vessels? You got to AT LEAST PLAY THE GAME SOME before you say something so gameplay specific like that. This game isn't all theorycrafting with words, you know! I don't want to start another argument with you, but I'm sorry you have no business telling him to "PLAY THE GAME SOME", when you're no "pro" yourself unless you've vastly improved during this time. I was in your clan SCC a few months back (when I was still active), and even remember watching a couple of your games from one of the in-house tournaments. You are a good player, but it's not like you have this supreme understanding of the game, whereas anyone who disagrees has no clue what they're talking about (although it's true that some really don't, so save it for them). It's pretty clear that he understands the game well enough to discuss it, but simply has equally valid yet differing opinions/viewpoint due to his broad experience with other RTS's. You can attack his arguments, but please don't use personal attacks that lead nowhere. Now, I'm not trying to flame you here, but just saying that there's no need for that kind of attitude. That's all. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
And there's no need to flatter me. I know I'm a terrible player. But at least I have an feeling for how important mechanics are, mostly due to myself not being able to execute them. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On October 18 2007 01:58 Aphelion wrote: Where the hell did you get that 20 min cap from? All Blizz said was they wanted the typical game to be <20 min, just like SC. And really, making the game shorter should be done by adding more possibilities for one player to kill the other, not by making the max easier to attain. That not only decreases the difficulty level, but will actually promote defensive play and turtling, not to mention practically removing the early game. Wow, now its the "placement of the AoE that matters more than the cloning"? Omg seriously. Anyone can hotkey a huge mass and spam t click t click accurately, its the selection part of individual spellcasters thats difficult. Don't you think any retard can storm well if its just about placement? Or irradiate with mass vessels? You got to AT LEAST PLAY THE GAME SOME before you say something so gameplay specific like that. This game isn't all theorycrafting with words, you know! OK, I misquoted, but if you look at western e-sports, or even Korean e-sports, there's an unwritten rule that the majority of matches in a given game should be under 20 minutes. It's more of a problem for the western e-sport scene, as TV producers have no qualms with editing a match they feel was too long before they broadcast it, regardless if it severely damages the quality of the match for spectators. Furthermore, I already said that simplifying something in SC is required in order to add new skill-intensive "ways to kill the enemy", as it's pretty obvious that SC already requires too much of the player as it is so without simplifying something players wouldn't be able to efficiently use the new features, The interface is naturally the first choice as it also lowers the learning curve for SC2. I was referring to the fact that in pro matches, where the mechanical skill is roughly similar, "gosu storms" refer to well-placed storms rather than fast-placed storms, as 1 storm that hits the center of an opponent's army is more efficient than 3 storms that only hit a fraction of the same. At least, that's always the way I thought of it, so I could be wrong. He hasn't played since 2000 or so. For him to argue about specifically about MBS would affect in game, timing-related situations, about what is important and isn't important, etc. with people who have played the game much more and better - I think it is supreme arrogance. He is countering the real life experiences with only his imagination from vods and from reading the forums. You would be entirely right if I were talking about how MBS would affect SC, but we're talking about SC2. The fact is, neither of us have enough information about SC2 to effectively theorize about how MBS will affect SC2's gameplay. Therefore, the best you can draw on is your experience with SC, and the best I can draw on is my design knowledge, my experience with RTSs, and knowledge of SC. Also, I usually make it very clear that it is only my opinion, just as you have your opinion. Finally, I don't deny that physical skill plays a huge role in SC, but I believe that if it's possible to reduce the most mechanical physical skills and still have a game with an equal or higher skill level than SC2, it should be done. And if it can't be done with MBS, I still say one of the other variations of MBS we came up with should be tried out in lieu of removing it entirely. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 18 2007 02:21 KShiduo wrote: Let me think for a second Klocktard. He, he, no. Only question I have left is: why haven't you been banned yet? Oh wait, I know the answer to that one. You've been banned a number of times yet keep coming back for some more. How about you do the honors yourself? Good riddance. Nothing more needs to be said. I have never been banned from this site, maybe beacuse i dont flame? The only thing you try to do with this post is to bait me into flaming you, to get me banned, but as i said i dont do that. There was this guy before flaming me over and over like you calling me clocktard some time ago over right this subject, however that didnt help him at all... From what i gather they ban flamers on a whim here and not people with different oppinions. However since people with different oppinions often start to flame people probably mix them up a bit and thinks that TL bans people for having the "Wrong" oppinions. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On October 18 2007 08:17 1esu wrote: OK, I misquoted, but if you look at western e-sports, or even Korean e-sports, there's an unwritten rule that the majority of matches in a given game should be under 20 minutes. It's more of a problem for the western e-sport scene, as TV producers have no qualms with editing a match they feel was too long before they broadcast it, regardless if it severely damages the quality of the match for spectators. Furthermore, I already said that simplifying something in SC is required in order to add new skill-intensive "ways to kill the enemy", as it's pretty obvious that SC already requires too much of the player as it is so without simplifying something players wouldn't be able to efficiently use the new features, The interface is naturally the first choice as it also lowers the learning curve for SC2. I was referring to the fact that in pro matches, where the mechanical skill is roughly similar, "gosu storms" refer to well-placed storms rather than fast-placed storms, as 1 storm that hits the center of an opponent's army is more efficient than 3 storms that only hit a fraction of the same. At least, that's always the way I thought of it, so I could be wrong. You would be entirely right if I were talking about how MBS would affect SC, but we're talking about SC2. The fact is, neither of us have enough information about SC2 to effectively theorize about how MBS will affect SC2's gameplay. Therefore, the best you can draw on is your experience with SC, and the best I can draw on is my design knowledge, my experience with RTSs, and knowledge of SC. Also, I usually make it very clear that it is only my opinion, just as you have your opinion. Finally, I don't deny that physical skill plays a huge role in SC, but I believe that if it's possible to reduce the most mechanical physical skills and still have a game with an equal or higher skill level than SC2, it should be done. And if it can't be done with MBS, I still say one of the other variations of MBS we came up with should be tried out in lieu of removing it entirely. I will comment only about the storming part of your post, because the rest of your post is only speculation. I just have to say I rank design and experience with non-Blizzard RTSes very very very low on the credibility list when it comes to SC2. Like I have said before, I think they are more warning signs and mistakes rather than guides and precedents. But that is my vision of what the game should be - you are free to have yours. In regards to storming: seriously, do you think a kid doesn't realize that its about maximizing AoE damage? The point is so trivial that I can't believe you brought it up. Some people may have better pattern recognition and movement prediction skills than others, and hence storm better. But the great hinderance to ppl storming well is the speed constraint : individually selecting the nearest templar with energy (which moves slower than your army), and casting storms while needing to control the rest of your army. You have not played SC much and do not realize how something that simple can be difficult. It would be incredibly easy if I can just hotkey all my 6-7 templar and just let storms fly wherever, since the game would take care of selecting the appropriate templar, and all I would have to do is look at enemy locations and let storms fry. It is much much easier, I assure you. This is one of the most glaring examples I find that you simply don't know what you are talking about due to lacking real playing experience. You didn't even realize that almost no one uses cloning to storm, and you brought up the accuracy issue as if it were the only issue, not realizing that it is completely trivial knowledge. There are so many subtle parts of the game you lose out by just watching VODs and not playing at least for a little bit. | ||
|
KoveN-
Australia503 Posts
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. Who the hell is talking about heroes and upkeep?! This thread is about MBS, could you dodge what I said any more? WC3 has MBS and automine, heroes and upkeep are not the reason it's a shit game at a competetive level. | ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
On October 18 2007 11:12 KoveN- wrote: Who the hell is talking about heroes and upkeep?! This thread is about MBS, could you dodge what I said any more? WC3 has MBS and automine, heroes and upkeep are not the reason it's a shit game at a competetive level. god I pray that other TLnetters dont think like you on this because you couldnt be further from the truth if you want I can destroy your retarded conclusion on wc3 | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 18 2007 11:12 KoveN- wrote: WC3 has MBS and automine, heroes and upkeep are not the reason it's a shit game at a competetive level. In wc3 you hardly use mbs and autmine. In wc3 games work like this: First few minutes: You build ~6 more workers to a total of 11, they go and autowork but it doesnt matter much since you dont have much to do at this stage anyway. Later you dont ever build more unless you go for an expo wich is most often not worth it unless the games get very long or you do some risky try to get an early win. Staying with 1 base is the safe way to play wc3. Mbs is never used other than to group your different buildings so you can tab through them instead of binding up excess hotkeys, never to mass produce, since you never build more than 2 of any unit production structure and when you build 2 you use 1 to make units and 1 to research uppgrades. And then since wc3 players hardly ever use up all their hotkeys they could easily devote 3 of them to the unit production structures instead of just 1, it wouldnt matter since theyre still different kinds so its still 2 clicks per unit you want. The difference is from 1,g,2,s,3,w to tab,g,tab,s, tab, w in that game. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 18 2007 11:12 KoveN- wrote: WC3 has MBS and automine, heroes and upkeep are not the reason it's a shit game at a competetive level. You clearly have no experience with competitive War3 whatsoever, but since this is on an SC site it's not really unexpected, so I guess we'll just have to let this one slide. But I'll just say that you're doing a disservice to other anti-MBS TL.net posters who should at least have a reasonable understanding of the differences between War3 and SC. Now if you had stated that adding MBS will bring it slightly "closer" to War3, and you dislike anything of this sort then you at least have a legit personal preference, which others have expressed and I will respect this. However, even with MBS the two games are still fundamentally different, because there are so many other factors that reduce the significance of macro in War3 (heroes and upkeep are two of the most important, which you failed to realize). Anyways, this has all been said and done before, and you haven't suddenly stumbled upon a brand new argument or anything so I'll give it a rest. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On October 18 2007 10:08 Aphelion wrote: I will comment only about the storming part of your post, because the rest of your post is only speculation. I just have to say I rank design and experience with non-Blizzard RTSes very very very low on the credibility list when it comes to SC2. Like I have said before, I think they are more warning signs and mistakes rather than guides and precedents. But that is my vision of what the game should be - you are free to have yours. In regards to storming: seriously, do you think a kid doesn't realize that its about maximizing AoE damage? The point is so trivial that I can't believe you brought it up. Some people may have better pattern recognition and movement prediction skills than others, and hence storm better. But the great hinderance to ppl storming well is the speed constraint : individually selecting the nearest templar with energy (which moves slower than your army), and casting storms while needing to control the rest of your army. You have not played SC much and do not realize how something that simple can be difficult. It would be incredibly easy if I can just hotkey all my 6-7 templar and just let storms fly wherever, since the game would take care of selecting the appropriate templar, and all I would have to do is look at enemy locations and let storms fry. It is much much easier, I assure you. This is one of the most glaring examples I find that you simply don't know what you are talking about due to lacking real playing experience. You didn't even realize that almost no one uses cloning to storm, and you brought up the accuracy issue as if it were the only issue, not realizing that it is completely trivial knowledge. There are so many subtle parts of the game you lose out by just watching VODs and not playing at least for a little bit. I was talking about pros only, and assuming that being pros, they would have similar physical skill, which includes the speed constraint you're talking about. Of course I realize that there's a speed and accuracy constraint with selecting HTs, but I was assuming equal skill in that to point out other places where skill is involved. Anyways, it's a single small point, not even about MBS, that I just threw out without thinking about it; you can tell that from the fact that I put 'cloning' in there. And that is one of the most glaring examples of why there's no point in arguing against you right now; you ignore several logical arguments for pages until you find the chance to leap on one of the mistakes I make in the rare moments I talk about SC in this discussion, and then think that you've totally destroyed all those arguments you passed off as 'speculative' without treating them as seriously as you would have me treat your arguments. The fact is, your talk about how MBS will destroy SC2 because it would destroy SC, a game balanced around a totally different interface, is just as 'speculative' as any of my arguments. At least I have pointed to several examples of games that did or didn't heed the principles I'm basing my arguments on, and how they succeeded or failed respectively. All you can really point to is the opinions of good SC players who didn't like how MBS was implemented in the Blizzcon build; all that means is that Blizzard should be more careful with designing SC2 around MBS. Pointing out that SC is a better competitive game than any other pure RTS that uses MBS out there is true, but it doesn't follow that MBS is the reason why; unit and race balance for example is a much better explanation than the interface as to why SC is more competitive. And saying that you don't consider universal principles of good game design to be applicable to SC2 just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't mean this post to be a flame, but as of late your arrogance and utter hostility towards those who don't share your view, even if they know far more about what makes a good game than you do, is really harming the credibility of your position. And that's a shame, since some of your arguments are quite good, in my opinion. And you do keep me from overstepping my bounds at times.  | ||
|
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On October 18 2007 09:04 Klockan3 wrote: I have never been banned from this site, maybe beacuse i dont flame? The only thing you try to do with this post is to bait me into flaming you, to get me banned, but as i said i dont do that. There was this guy before flaming me over and over like you calling me clocktard some time ago over right this subject, however that didnt help him at all... From what i gather they ban flamers on a whim here and not people with different oppinions. However since people with different oppinions often start to flame people probably mix them up a bit and thinks that TL bans people for having the "Wrong" oppinions. Wrong. You are on my hit list. Your redeeming grace is that you seem like a nice enough person. That will only get you so far here and in life. This site needs to be held to a higher sort of standard than the kind being demonstrated by your infantile opinions. There are no right or wrong opinions, true - but there are better ones. Your opinions are so far removed from the expected standard that you drive people (including your truly) into conniptions. Have the good sense to recognize this, think, learn from others, and improve. Govern yourself accordingly. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On October 18 2007 13:07 1esu wrote: I was talking about pros only, and assuming that being pros, they would have similar physical skill, which includes the speed constraint you're talking about. Of course I realize that there's a speed and accuracy constraint with selecting HTs, but I was assuming equal skill in that to point out other places where skill is involved. Anyways, it's a single small point, not even about MBS, that I just threw out without thinking about it; you can tell that from the fact that I put 'cloning' in there. And that is one of the most glaring examples of why there's no point in arguing against you right now; you ignore several logical arguments for pages until you find the chance to leap on one of the mistakes I make in the rare moments I talk about SC in this discussion, and then think that you've totally destroyed all those arguments you passed off as 'speculative' without treating them as seriously as you would have me treat your arguments. The fact is, your talk about how MBS will destroy SC2 because it would destroy SC, a game balanced around a totally different interface, is just as 'speculative' as any of my arguments. At least I have pointed to several examples of games that did or didn't heed the principles I'm basing my arguments on, and how they succeeded or failed respectively. All you can really point to is the opinions of good SC players who didn't like how MBS was implemented in the Blizzcon build; all that means is that Blizzard should be more careful with designing SC2 around MBS. Pointing out that SC is a better competitive game than any other pure RTS that uses MBS out there is true, but it doesn't follow that MBS is the reason why; unit and race balance for example is a much better explanation than the interface as to why SC is more competitive. And saying that you don't consider universal principles of good game design to be applicable to SC2 just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't mean this post to be a flame, but as of late your arrogance and utter hostility towards those who don't share your view, even if they know far more about what makes a good game than you do, is really harming the credibility of your position. And that's a shame, since some of your arguments are quite good, in my opinion. And you do keep me from overstepping my bounds at times. I am not trying to simply pounce on your occasional mistakes. In fact, I consider most of your more theoretical and logical arguments the more flawed ones, because you are inclined to start upon a tabula rasa for your argument, something I consider fundamentally flawed because of all the complexities of a RTS game. Based upon that, you can make statements like "no one can prove the benefits and problems of MBS, because this is a brand new game and no one knows how it will turn out". I think this method for development is the recipe for failure. The factors and conditions are so vast, so great, the game is borne of so many years of evolution and brilliant minds modeling its strategy - you simply cannot treat it as a logical construct from basic principles. The only valid way to approach this problem of game design is take an existing, successful model in BW and rebuild it from there. This is why I place so much emphasis on the opinions of successful players, because they are the best barometer of what changes to a game will do. It may seem to you that this method of game analysis is overly conservative and will lead to SC1.2, but I believe this is the only way. I proceed upon the belief that SC1 was a happy accident, and I base this belief on the vastly different way this game has evolved than it was conceived, the enormous impact of progamers and maps and reliance on quirks in the engine. I do not believe such a great game can be recreated or emulated based upon pure dissection and reverse engineering of its parts - we must make always make changes with the original game in mind and with BW as a reference. This is the reason for my frustration, of my seeming ignoring all arguments put forward from the pro-MBS side (except for a select few). I don't think you guys realize the incredible ACCIDENT we had in BW, and you guys proceed along to debate this game under the assumption that everything can be recreated from scratch. Despite the HUGE uncertainties in theorycrafting a new game that doesn't even exist, you proceed to give detailed explanations and examples about why MBS would be so great. Yet you ignore the anti-MBS arguments, based upon existing SC experience, saying "Its a different game! Blizzard will balance it based upon a different UI! Things will be totally different!". Do you not see the double standard involved in this? What compounds my frustration is that many of you either grossly simplify facts about existing SC gameplay or get it wrong entirely. With the exception of a few, you guys are talking about a non-existent game you want reconstructed based upon your principles, and despite the great leaps of imagination you take in doing so, you are ready to utterly dismiss existing experience of long time players. You guys don't have a concrete reference in your debate, which leads to your arguments being utterly farfetched and removed from reality. Its not that I am unwilling to debate your points - we simply don't have a common ground for debate. If you are so willing to dismiss the lessons we have gained from SC, then all your arguments are just so much sound and fury, signifying nothing. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On October 18 2007 13:32 mensrea wrote: Your opinions are so far removed from the expected standard that you drive people (including your truly) into conniptions. Have the good sense to recognize this, think, learn from others, and improve. I really think you need to calm down. There should not be an expected standard in opinions. And I also think that moderators should try to remain neutral in discussions as much as possible. You aren't only not doing that, but you are also flaming people back who got banned and deserved it, but that isn't helping either. Now I know that this site has quite novel rules. But really, I think moderators should try and set an example for others rather than just being above the law. Yes, I know that tl.net admits it's not fair and that's all fine. But let's be pragmatic. It just doesn't work. TL.net has the right not to be fair. But it's very contra-productive to what TL.net is trying to do. The way some people here discuss MBS and the way some moderators govern this board really isn't helping our side of the debate either. I know many of you, including myself, are getting sick of and frustrated by the repeated arguments and the ignorance of some people. But if we want to convince the other side the only thing we can do is be patient and try to tolerate their ignorance. Ooh, and you will see that in the end, after they have played more SC or after they experienced the SCII beta themselves, many will change their opinion. Yes, we can give up on them and just throw them off the site. But no one gains from that. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
We are being quite fair. This place is a private house, not a court of law. If it is obvious that you are stupid, you should be banned. Thats how it should always work. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On October 18 2007 14:03 Aphelion wrote: I am not trying to simply pounce on your occasional mistakes. In fact, I consider most of your more theoretical and logical arguments the more flawed ones, because you are inclined to start upon a tabula rasa for your argument, something I consider fundamentally flawed because of all the complexities of a RTS game. Based upon that, you can make statements like "no one can prove the benefits and problems of MBS, because this is a brand new game and no one knows how it will turn out". I think this method for development is the recipe for failure. The factors and conditions are so vast, so great, the game is borne of so many years of evolution and brilliant minds modeling its strategy - you simply cannot treat it as a logical construct from basic principles. The only valid way to approach this problem of game design is take an existing, successful model in BW and rebuild it from there. This is why I place so much emphasis on the opinions of successful players, because they are the best barometer of what changes to a game will do. It may seem to you that this method of game analysis is overly conservative and will lead to SC1.2, but I believe this is the only way. I proceed upon the belief that SC1 was a happy accident, and I base this belief on the vastly different way this game has evolved than it was conceived, the enormous impact of progamers and maps and reliance on quirks in the engine. I do not believe such a great game can be recreated or emulated based upon pure dissection and reverse engineering of its parts - we must make always make changes with the original game in mind and with BW as a reference. This is the reason for my frustration, of my seeming ignoring all arguments put forward from the pro-MBS side (except for a select few). I don't think you guys realize the incredible ACCIDENT we had in BW, and you guys proceed along to debate this game under the assumption that everything can be recreated from scratch. Despite the HUGE uncertainties in theorycrafting a new game that doesn't even exist, you proceed to give detailed explanations and examples about why MBS would be so great. Yet you ignore the anti-MBS arguments, based upon existing SC experience, saying "Its a different game! Blizzard will balance it based upon a different UI! Things will be totally different!". Do you not see the double standard involved in this? What compounds my frustration is that many of you either grossly simplify facts about existing SC gameplay or get it wrong entirely. With the exception of a few, you guys are talking about a non-existent game you want reconstructed based upon your principles, and despite the great leaps of imagination you take in doing so, you are ready to utterly dismiss existing experience of long time players. You guys don't have a concrete reference in your debate, which leads to your arguments being utterly farfetched and removed from reality. Its not that I am unwilling to debate your points - we simply don't have a common ground for debate. If you are so willing to dismiss the lessons we have gained from SC, then all your arguments are just so much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Nice explanation! Out of the major arguments I've put forth (the kind I repeat in several posts), only two to my recollection have been tabula rasa: the argument for accessibility, and the argument for iterative design. Those arguments are tabula rasa because the successful implementation of accessible gameplay and the proper use of iterative design are both essential to any good game, regardless of the genre or even the medium. I'd like to elaborate on the iterative design argument here for a bit since it relates to much of your post, so hear me out. The "happy accident" of SC that you refer to is known in game design as "emergent gameplay": it's present in every game that has ever been played, in different degrees. In any game, strategies and tactics continually evolve as people play the game, even more so in computer games because the code may play out in ways that the programmers didn't intend for it to, i.e. glitches. Unfortunately, emergent gameplay is extremely difficult to predict if you just look at the rules for a game; it would take a clever person to figure out discovered check from the rules of chess or the situation of ko from the basic rules of go. The best way to discover emergent gameplay is, and probably will always be, to play the game. Thus, we get to iterative design; the methodology of developing a game by constantly developing new builds with small changes and playtesting them heavily to find bugs, glitches, or see what effect a new gameplay element has on different aspects of the gameplay. Blizzard, unlike many other non-MMO game developers, takes iterative design significantly past the public release of the game, to the point where the game has years of tweaking behind it. If you look at it this way, much of the gameplay of SC is no "accident". The rest can be explained by the Korean professionals; if your job is to play the same game day in and day out, of course you are going to find new ways to manipulate the game that the developers never even thought could happen. Now, you're probably wondering, "well, what's your point?" My point is, by advocating to cut MBS entirely with nothing else but an analysis of how MBS would affect SC's gameplay negatively and the fact that there was a negative response from many experienced SC players who played (albeit intensively) a single build of SC2, you're arguing against Blizzard developing in an iterative fashion and seeing if a SC2 with an easier interface can be made into a extremely competitive game. That's the primary reason I think it is safe to wait until SC2 is feature-complete before making a final judgement on MBS's effect on SC2 gameplay. That's also the reason why, though I take the objections to MBS by experienced players more seriously than most, I take their opinion with a grain of salt as the real authorities are the designers and playtesters who experience the SC2 build day in and day out. But enough of that, I'm going to take up your offer and make an argument for MBS (or at least for giving MBS a chance) starting with BW: It is clear that MBS alone in BW hurts the gameplay for a variety of reasons. First, it removes the negative feedback loop that makes units more difficult to produce simultaneously as the number of unit-producing buildings increases. This removal has several consequences: it is easier to max out more quickly; it reduces the skill gap between players who had mastered the production of units at the high end of the difficulty curve and those who had not; and it makes comebacks from an economic disadvantage more difficult. Secondly, it reduces the amount of multitasking required to play the game proficiently, which causes another drop in the skill gap. I think these two reasons are sufficient enough to prove that MBS by itself in BW is a bad idea. Now, let's think of two positive aspects of MBS in BW. First, it smoothens the learning curve by making the hotkey-based interface easier to manipulate, thus making the game more accessible to new players. Secondly, it allows for the addition of new attention-intensive gameplay elements. BW on fastest already tests the limits of the average brain's capacity for multitasking, so adding new elements without first decreasing the multitasking load would result in players either ignoring the new element or sacrificing their attention on another element for the new element. Now, it's an established principle in multiplayer games that greater accessibility is always better for a game and its community up to the point where it begins to significantly limit the depth of the gameplay. But MBS in BW does significantly limit the depth of the gameplay, which is where the second benefit comes in. By adding new gameplay elements, Blizzard can at least bring the multitasking load of BW with MBS up to par with the multitasking load of BW with SBS. Resolving the lack of a negative feedback loop associated with simultaneous unit production is more difficult, as it involves making changes to gameplay elements to offset the consequences of the removal of the loop, but it is by no means impossible. So therefore, if Blizzard is able to tweak BW so that it retains its depth of gameplay while using MBS, the new BW will be a better game as it is just as competitive and deep but more accessible than BW with SBS. That being said, it wouldn't make sense to not give Blizzard the chance to see if BW can be altered to work with MBS, especially if going back to SBS was always an option. P.S. My personal 'concrete reference' is the knowledge of game design that I've been steadily building over the past 8 or so years in the ultimate hope of one day becoming a designer. Many of my points are reflected in books on game design; I can send you the Amazon links if you're interested. | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
On October 18 2007 14:47 BlackStar wrote: I really think you need to calm down. There should not be an expected standard in opinions. And I also think that moderators should try to remain neutral in discussions as much as possible. There absolutely should be an expected standard in opinions. Opinions posted on this site should be well-informed and well thought out. Mensrea is an excellent judge of whether or not those qualities are apparent in a post. | ||
| ||
