|
On October 19 2007 17:53 glassmazarin wrote:Hi guys. Im a long time lurker, but felt like posting now  Ive been playing bw for some good 7 years or something and im following the proscene, and i am really an antiMBSer by heart.. i love bw with all its little quirks and i hope sc2 can still retain this wonderful micro vs macro balance and not just give us new stuff to micro instead (war3 style). however, my friend's got this argument which i think is really valid: if you asked a hardcore warcraft2 player before sc1 was released if u should be able to select more units in bw (9 was max), or be able to hotkey buildings (macro in war2 is insane >.< ), or even lose the extremely grid based gameplay (ok maby its not completely lost in bw :p) he would most likely argue that these are very important features for the RTS to be able to play at a hardcore level and would be 'noobifying' the gameplay. and to some extent the war2 player is right, i mean try to micro and macro everything to perfection in war2 at its fastest speed, its extremely demanding and hard to do since the interface is restricting us (compared to bw) and the game speed is very high. still, blizzard made bw (sc) which focused more on micro than war2 and the interface was made easier, and bw is (imho) the best competetive game ever made.. see the pattern? :> this is what makes me think bliz can make an extremely competetive RTS even if they keep MBS if they just can come up with more stuff like the warp gates (macro intense, we need more macro in sc2 atm) and not just add more micro (one of the great things with bw is that you can never babysit your armies) and thats why i feel we are not 100% doomed with the introduction of MBS.. still i would absolutely love it if they announced that MBS is cut since i really want that macro vs micro balance to be left intact 
These are pretty much my thoughts on the subject. Based on my long experience with SC, I feel that the inclusion of MBS might significantly minimize the role of macro. At the same time, however, I must acknowledge that its entirely possible for Blizzard to introduce MBS in SC2 while not diminishing the role of macro. Perhaps they could introduce a not-so-simple sort of MBS, or perhaps they could complicate macro in other ways. I dont know. But I wont label it impossible.
In any case, SC2 is a new game being developed 10 years after the first. I'd hate to think they'd stick to the exact formula of its predecessor, despite it being a phenomenal success, simply because I feel it will limit progression. 10 years after the first I'd like for Blizzard to try and better the game with SC2. I have no stance on the inclusion or exclusion of MBS, but I fully support Blizzard's effort in testing it out, simply because it shows they're considering all possibilities. And that bodes well for us.
I'm also sure Blizzard are well aware of the community reactions to the possible inclusion of MBS. I remember reading somewhere that the SC veterans found macro in SC2 underwhelming at Blizzcon. I'm sure they made the developers aware of this. So now Blizzard is faced with the options of dropping MBS, keeping it, or modifying it to make macro harder, all in the name of producing a game that betters the first, appeals to mass crowds, and has the potential to be a sport.
As far as the discussion in this thread goes, I'd say both parties are equally to blame for its degeneration. It seems to have become more about nit-picking and finding grammatical flaws and insulting the other parties. I doubt there are more than a few people on either side who've actually partaken in this thread while remaining reasonable. FA comes to mind, though. In any case, both parties have made strong arguments, but all the verbal clutter has obscured them.
|
By the way, would it be possible for Blizzard to release two betas, one with and the other without MBS, for the purpose of mass-testing both versions out? If this sounds stupid, please remember I know nothing about computers and less about game development.
Also, I remember reading wayyy back that they had some korean pros/semi-pros testing the game out for them. Was that true?
|
You guys are mixing up the "we have to ban to 'enforce' quality" and "We will just ban anyone we feel like banning and we have no reason to act maturely because no one can deny us this".
They have nothing to do with each other.
And for the record, I am one of those people who does have the 'proper opinion' and the proper augments and all. Just because I have issues with the ad hominem and the intimidation that doesn't mean I am on the other side of the debate.
Why did I say what I said? Because I want the anti-MBS side to have a strong argument. And because I want the competitive/esport Starcraft community to have a good image.
|
Norway10161 Posts
On October 19 2007 18:58 BlackStar wrote:
You guys are mixing up the "we have to ban to 'enforce' quality" and "We will just ban anyone we feel like banning and we have no reason to act maturely because no one can deny us this".
They have nothing to do with each other.
And for the record, I am one of those people who does have the 'proper opinion' and the proper augments and all. Just because I have issues with the ad hominem and the intimidation that doesn't mean I am on the other side of the debate.
Why did I say what I said? Because I want the anti-MBS side to have a strong argument. And because I want the competitive/esport Starcraft community to have a good image.
Let it go already. Despite all the whining in this thread nobody has been banned except the one guy who really took it too far with rea. I'm at half a mind to ban you for being partly responsible for running this thread offtopic, but I'm not gonna because you are at least a semi-quality poster.
If you have questions regarding the rules of this site feel free to read them and issue a direct question to any of the staff if you want clarification.
|
On October 19 2007 18:17 Markus wrote:
I'm not going to go into a 20 page explanation like some of you, and I know I'm going to anger some SC fanboys... but:
Anything short of an Age of Empires style hot key system will be a serious, and i mean serious, disappointment. I shall explain what that is, because from what I've read, I'm quite sure many of you have never played any other game in your life:
In Age of Empires, you can set hotkeys to go to your 'next' military building. You can pretty much set one for each type of military building you have. So I'll do a SC comparison. For example if your protoss, you can set your 'next gateway' key to almost any key on your keyboard, be it the letter 'A', the letter 'J', even numpad key '1'. If you only had 1 gateway created, and you pressed that hotkey (say 'A'), that gateway would be selected (no matter where you were on the map). If you had 2 gateways, the first time you pressed your 'A' key would go to one gateway, the next time you pressed it the next one would be selected (and the first would not be selected anymore), press it again and that first one would be selected, and it would keep switching between the 2 of them each time you pressed your 'A' key. If you had 3 or more gateways, each time you pressed your hot key you would rotate between all the gateways you have created so far.
Along with this, you could set the hot key to create units from that building to anything you want. You could set them anywhere, but you normally you want your 'create' hot keys right next to your building hot keys for easy access. So continuing the example, you can have your 'create Zealot' hot key set to 'S'. And for the examples sake, lets say you've set your 'create Hightemplar' hot key to 'D' and you have the buildings required for you to make high templars up already. To quickly make some zealots from all 3 buildings, all you hit was: A, S, A, S, A, S, which would obviously have all 3 gateways making 1 zealot each. To queue up some more zealots you just pressed 'S' a few more times while rotating through your gateways. Much of the Age 'macro' was rotating through your buildings hitting A, S, D, A, D, S, A, S, S, then rotating through your nexus to quickly make probes using similar hotkeys, and then getting back to your military units quickly and micro'ing them furiously.
Along with being able to rotate through your buildings individually, you can also select 1, 2, 3, or as many as you want and group them. If you grouped say 4 gateways into say group '9', and you wanted to make zealots from all 4 gateways, you obviously would only have to press 9, S quickly to have all 4 gateways making 1 zealot each. 9, D, D, D to have all 4 gateways making 3 high templars each.
Thats what made Age so good, the quick easy access to your buildings and the ability to rotate through them and make units quickly. SC2 must be like this, or have something similar that works just as good.
Having good controls does _not_ noobify the game. It takes more skill to micro and macro in an Age game (sorry SC fanboys). What does noobify a game is say having a limit on how many workers can gather a resource at a time (WC3 goldmine). Being penalized for having a bigger army (WC3 Upkeep) noobifies a game. Being penalized for having a bigger eco (BFME2, more 'workers' you have, the less your additional ones gather) noobifies games. A game where map control means nothing noobifies the game. A game where somehow it is more effective to have all your army in 1 spot (WC3, AOE3), and not spread out over the map, noobifies the game.
Anyways I've wrote more than I've intended, I might get to 20 pages if I keep going. But anything short of a good MBS such as Age of Empires MBS will be a serious serious letdown.
I played Age 1 and 2 both for quite a bit before I played a single multiplayer game of SC. I only discovered SC after my comp was unable to handle AoM. However, they don't quite compare. Age is a much more macro oriented game than SC, and that is due to its many resources and constant need to babysit your economy. And although ctrl+b/l/a is very useful, it is not significantly easier than the F-key or double tap hotkey method used to macro in SC.
And even then, top players STILL hotkeyed production buildings at least through the feudal age (and come on, flushing is the only way to play 1v1 AoC) because that enables you not have to split your attention from the army. I guarantee you even skill level in Age would affected if players could just go 5-T and make Hussars from 20 stables. And this is a game that has a much, much more broken macro / micro balance compared to SC. While that game has a weird unit control / micro of sorts, the controls in SC are 10 times crisper and more intuitive.
Thats going off-topic though. I am real glad to see another Ager on these forums, but I don't feel the Age experience is support for MBS like the way you claim it to be. SC is a much better game anyways, it should stick to its fundamentals.
|
On October 19 2007 17:53 glassmazarin wrote:
my friend's got this argument which i think is really valid:
if you asked a hardcore warcraft2 player before sc1 was released if u should be able to select more units in bw (9 was max), or be able to hotkey buildings (macro in war2 is insane >.< ), or even lose the extremely grid based gameplay (ok maby its not completely lost in bw :p) he would most likely argue that these are very important features for the RTS to be able to play at a hardcore level and would be 'noobifying' the gameplay.
and to some extent the war2 player is right, i mean try to micro and macro everything to perfection in war2 at its fastest speed, its extremely demanding and hard to do since the interface is restricting us (compared to bw) and the game speed is very high.
still, blizzard made bw (sc) which focused more on micro than war2 and the interface was made easier, and bw is (imho) the best competetive game ever made..
see the pattern? :>
I've made that argument about a month ago. Not sure how many people understood what my message was though.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=59068
|
On October 20 2007 02:26 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2007 17:53 glassmazarin wrote:
my friend's got this argument which i think is really valid:
if you asked a hardcore warcraft2 player before sc1 was released if u should be able to select more units in bw (9 was max), or be able to hotkey buildings (macro in war2 is insane >.< ), or even lose the extremely grid based gameplay (ok maby its not completely lost in bw :p) he would most likely argue that these are very important features for the RTS to be able to play at a hardcore level and would be 'noobifying' the gameplay.
and to some extent the war2 player is right, i mean try to micro and macro everything to perfection in war2 at its fastest speed, its extremely demanding and hard to do since the interface is restricting us (compared to bw) and the game speed is very high.
still, blizzard made bw (sc) which focused more on micro than war2 and the interface was made easier, and bw is (imho) the best competetive game ever made..
see the pattern? :>
I've made that argument about a month ago. Not sure how many people understood what my message was though. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=59068
ya, and a month ago people pointed out that they have continued with that pattern in other rts games, and none of them are near as good as broodwar.
too difficult to play is bad, too easy to play is bad. broodwar's interface is good because it is challenging enough that it isnt boring to play, but not so hard that dealing with the interface detracts from the game itself.
|
Norway10161 Posts
Also the war2 interface was pretty clumpsy compared to the very well tuned (exception: p) interface in bw.
|
On October 20 2007 02:29 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2007 02:26 orangedude wrote:On October 19 2007 17:53 glassmazarin wrote:
my friend's got this argument which i think is really valid:
if you asked a hardcore warcraft2 player before sc1 was released if u should be able to select more units in bw (9 was max), or be able to hotkey buildings (macro in war2 is insane >.< ), or even lose the extremely grid based gameplay (ok maby its not completely lost in bw :p) he would most likely argue that these are very important features for the RTS to be able to play at a hardcore level and would be 'noobifying' the gameplay.
and to some extent the war2 player is right, i mean try to micro and macro everything to perfection in war2 at its fastest speed, its extremely demanding and hard to do since the interface is restricting us (compared to bw) and the game speed is very high.
still, blizzard made bw (sc) which focused more on micro than war2 and the interface was made easier, and bw is (imho) the best competetive game ever made..
see the pattern? :>
I've made that argument about a month ago. Not sure how many people understood what my message was though. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=59068 ya, and a month ago people pointed out that they have continued with that pattern in other rts games, and none of them are near as good as broodwar. too difficult to play is bad, too easy to play is bad. broodwar's interface is good because it is challenging enough that it isnt boring to play, but not so hard that dealing with the interface detracts from the game itself.
Yup, you've misinterpreted what my main message was. I agreed with all of these points (because I know better), but what I tried to explain was that the newer generation of RTS players of 10 years later would not understand. In their eyes, it's very likely that dealing with the interface would appear so hard that it detracts from the game itself.
On October 20 2007 02:31 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:
Also the war2 interface was pretty clumpsy compared to the very well tuned (exception: p) interface in bw.
It was more along the lines of this. I was basically saying that people who were used to other RTS or haven't played SC for many years would think that SC's interface is "archaic" or "clumpsy" as well, regardless of the fact that it might actually be good for gameplay. They just wouldn't understand, because they don't know any better. As evidence of this, I provided quotes from reviews of a somewhat recent RTS called Armies of Exigo, where the game was slammed for its outdated UI.
Anyways, I'm sure this has been debated enough. Plenty of arguments were thrown back and forth until everyone got tired and frustrated.
|
On October 20 2007 02:52 orangedude wrote:
Anyways, I'm sure this has been debated enough. Plenty of arguments were thrown back and forth until everyone got tired and frustrated.
yep, just like every other topic.
we point out that the modifications would make the game shittier. then you say that you have to make the game shittier to get a bunch of newbs to play.
its been pretty well hashed out.
|
On October 20 2007 02:52 orangedude wrote:
I agreed with all of these points (because I know better), but what I tried to explain was that the newer generation of RTS players of 10 years later would not understand. In their eyes, it's very likely that dealing with the interface would appear so hard that it detracts from the game itself.
I understand and respect your point of view, but these guys who been playing RTS games for the last 10 years have not been playing anything that has reached anywhere near the level that starcraft has (unless they are warcraft 3 players, which has done pretty good). I dont think their opinion should be even considered in this case (I know it sounds elitist and shit). If they havent experienced broodwar and its gameplay, then they are missing out on the biggest RTS game ever released, we shouldnt make the sequel catered towards these people becuase theyve never bothered to try starcraft out in a competative envrionment.
One thing that ive noticed (and this is not directed at you orangedude), is that a lot of people are asking for things in sc2 which are just stupid. Its because they are soo used to other RTS games which are just filled with gimicks to satisfy the crowds. If blizzard follows the same path, then its very possible that starcraft 2 will become just like the hundreds of other crappy RTS games out there. Maybe its not the safe option to go anti-MBS and anti-smartcasting, but I just dont see starcraft 2 being a huge game that is the RTS standard for the next 10 years with them implemented.
|
On October 20 2007 04:19 IdrA wrote:
yep, just like every other topic.
we point out that the modifications would make the game shittier. then you say that you have to make the game shittier to get a bunch of newbs to play.
its been pretty well hashed out.
I don't accept this summary of the debate at all.
|
On October 20 2007 04:59 GeneralStan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2007 04:19 IdrA wrote:
yep, just like every other topic.
we point out that the modifications would make the game shittier. then you say that you have to make the game shittier to get a bunch of newbs to play.
its been pretty well hashed out. I don't accept this summary of the debate at all.
sucks for you
|
On October 20 2007 04:19 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2007 02:52 orangedude wrote:
Anyways, I'm sure this has been debated enough. Plenty of arguments were thrown back and forth until everyone got tired and frustrated. yep, just like every other topic. we point out that the modifications would make the game shittier. then you say that you have to make the game shittier to get a bunch of newbs to play. its been pretty well hashed out.
Wrong. You missed out on all the important details. No further comment to this.
On October 20 2007 04:50 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2007 02:52 orangedude wrote:
I agreed with all of these points (because I know better), but what I tried to explain was that the newer generation of RTS players of 10 years later would not understand. In their eyes, it's very likely that dealing with the interface would appear so hard that it detracts from the game itself. I understand and respect your point of view, but these guys who been playing RTS games for the last 10 years have not been playing anything that has reached anywhere near the level that starcraft has (unless they are warcraft 3 players, which has done pretty good). I dont think their opinion should be even considered in this case (I know it sounds elitist and shit). If they havent experienced broodwar and its gameplay, then they are missing out on the biggest RTS game ever released, we shouldnt make the sequel catered towards these people becuase theyve never bothered to try starcraft out in a competative envrionment. One thing that ive noticed (and this is not directed at you orangedude), is that a lot of people are asking for things in sc2 which are just stupid. Its because they are soo used to other RTS games which are just filled with gimicks to satisfy the crowds. If blizzard follows the same path, then its very possible that starcraft 2 will become just like the hundreds of other crappy RTS games out there. Maybe its not the safe option to go anti-MBS and anti-smartcasting, but I just dont see starcraft 2 being a huge game that is the RTS standard for the next 10 years with them implemented.
I agree with most of your points. Basically, the burden ultimately falls on the developers at Blizzard. I'm sure they're well aware of the opinions of TL.net and even addressed them in the last two Q&A's (personally by Dustin Browder).
It's up to them to choose who to prioritize more highly, the newer generation (which could lead to a new loyal fanbase/competitive community) or the current loyal SC elite community (play it safe and stick with what works).
I'm sure it involves a lot of compromise and tough decision making the whole way through. I know that I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in Blizzard's shoes. They might inevitably end up pissing off one group or the other.
|
On October 20 2007 05:41 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2007 04:19 IdrA wrote:On October 20 2007 02:52 orangedude wrote:
Anyways, I'm sure this has been debated enough. Plenty of arguments were thrown back and forth until everyone got tired and frustrated. yep, just like every other topic. we point out that the modifications would make the game shittier. then you say that you have to make the game shittier to get a bunch of newbs to play. its been pretty well hashed out. Wrong. You missed out on all the important details. No further comment to this.
no, thats pretty much what all your page long posts boil down to. you can dress it up as much as you want, there is no sound counterargument to the fact that mbs and all other similar features will detract from sc2 as a competetive sequel to starcraft.
your arguments have all been about how we have to accept a downgrade to get the necessary playerbase or how its acceptable to eliminate sc-esque gameplay in the interest of marketing.
|
On October 19 2007 22:48 Aphelion wrote:
I played Age 1 and 2 both for quite a bit before I played a single multiplayer game of SC. I only discovered SC after my comp was unable to handle AoM. However, they don't quite compare. Age is a much more macro oriented game than SC, and that is due to its many resources and constant need to babysit your economy. And although ctrl+b/l/a is very useful, it is not significantly easier than the F-key or double tap hotkey method used to macro in SC.
Yea nice to see another Ager. I played age quite a lot, have only been playing SC a lot lately because they totally ruined AOE3. Don't buy it, no one plays AOE3 already. The only people that play AOE3 are peepz that want to be 'the best player' of a 'game that no one plays'. Just so they can be 'good' at something, where they would be very 'average' if they played a popular game. Mmmm sounds like a lot of SC peepz.
But I must disagree with you on almost everything you wrote about Age MBS. Yes Age macro >>>> SC macro, but once you could rotate through your buildings quickly, the game was _all_ about your micro vs their micro. Even moreso than SC because you _needed_ to micro your units that countered their units before they micro'd their units that countered yours first. Also, hotkeying your ctrl+b/l/a _was_ significantly easier..... much much much much easier than trying to keep zealot / zergling / whatever production up here in SC. Age control >>>> SC control. It's no contest. And I kinda can't believe you really could say its not. Once it became second nature to you, you could rotate through your buildings so fast and make units so fast, that most of your attention was on your units micro'ing them furiously, while having a much superior macro because of the MBS.
On October 19 2007 22:48 Aphelion wrote:
And even then, top players STILL hotkeyed production buildings at least through the feudal age (and come on, flushing is the only way to play 1v1 AoC) because that enables you not have to split your attention from the army. I guarantee you even skill level in Age would affected if players could just go 5-T and make Hussars from 20 stables. And this is a game that has a much, much more broken macro / micro balance compared to SC. While that game has a weird unit control / micro of sorts, the controls in SC are 10 times crisper and more intuitive.
Other than flushing is the only way to play 1v1, everything else is completely untrue. At least the better you got. The better you got, the more you split up your armies to attack from different sides (in the feudal age, in 1v1's), because killing off small groups of workers really really made a difference in feudal wars. I can't remember how many buildings you could put in a group.... like 8 or something, but you could do 5-T to make enough hussars from enough stables. At the very least go 5-T-6-T... would easily get you enough units no matter if you totally skirmwhoring. And Age controls >>>> SC controls and Age macro/micro balance >>>>> SC macro/micro.
I would have SC fanboys up in arms if I were in charge of the development team. I have played many many RTS's, and I would try to take the best of them all to make the best game possible with the SC feel. Age MBS, Age randomness of maps, SC quickness of attacking, SC/Age quickness of units dying and having to remake them quickly, and SC units. With somehow a BFME2 economic model (without the many flaws or things they did to noobify BFME2). That would be a perfect game for me 
|
No one plays SC is pretty much impossible to be the top. SC might be the hardest game for a player to break into the top tiers for. You underestimate the gigantic amount of people still practicing and mass gaming, especially if you include the Koreans. No, no, no we play SC because we love the game, and DESPITE how difficult it is to rise to the top.
I disagree about your accessment of Age micro vs SC micro. While micro is very important in Age, it doesn't have the crispness and intuitiveness of the SC interface. This is even with the different stances and formations in Age. I had zero trouble adjusting to the SC interface coming from Age, but going back for the occasional game I felt handicapped. Units respond much more instantly in SC, and I like the fact that units block each other. And by control, I mean specifically unit control, not interface. SC units like vultures, lurkers, marines, reavers, even lings and goons - they all offer much more exciting and cooler possibilities than Age micro. Age micro is more like a constant grind, whereas SC's micro is like a flame, ready to explode into brilliance at any moment.
Your last paragraphs show to me you don't really know much of SC yet. SC plays quite quite differently from Age and other RTSes, the gameplay is so much tighter and evolved. The things you mentioned - MBS, random map, they would ruin SC. You won't get the "feel" of SC that way.
In Age, you could hotkey many buildings together, but not produce from them. If you did 5-T 5TTTTT for example, all the hussars get produced in the first stable. Its not a true MBS, though the ctrl-hotkey aspect mimicks it. It steal takes some attention away from your units. But Age needs it and SC does not due to Age base layouts and buildings being much more sprawled out than SC .Being able to hotkey screen locations and double tapping hotkeys to a clump of gateways is sufficient for SC. Adding a true MBS even Age doesn't have is definitely overkill.
|
is awesome32277 Posts
On October 20 2007 05:41 orangedude wrote:
It's up to them to choose who to prioritize more highly, the newer generation (which could lead to a new loyal fanbase/competitive community) or the current loyal SC elite community (play it safe and stick with what works).
Are you kidding me? Going with the newer generation is going safe. Not the other way around.
You could take AoE3, skin units to bw, add mroe blur, more blend, make graphic requirements high, put some nice photoshopped pics everywhere, call it "StarCraft II" and every average gamer would buy it.
On the other hand, for true gamers to buy it, you need to actually make a good game.
But yeah, a big % of TL's regulars are going to buy it whether its a competitive game or not.
|
On October 20 2007 16:26 IntoTheWow wrote:
But yeah, a big % of TL's regulars are going to buy it whether its a competitive game or not.
Big % is about what?
I would like to buy the game when it's fun but then I would ask for how long it stays fun and then I would wonder if it's worth the money (take Diablo 2 as an example, it was very expensive), then I would wonder if the fun is still fun when the competition isn't as high as in SC.
Those are important questions while there's only one answer to each that I can live with.
I think a bigger % of TL's regulars (thanks for that one, I'm still learning english) will not buy SC2 if the answers are unclear/negative to them, mostly because of the factor money. To waste or not to waste?
WC3 would've sold many many more copies if the game attracted more SC gamers. It didn't, so it was mostly newbs who bought it.
|
I'm pretty sure almost everyone whos played SC for a significant amount of time will buy SC2 even if it turns out to be really crap. When it comes to the "veterans" its not a question of purchasing it, but of it having enough substance to provide longevity and enough depth to succeed as a sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
