|
Well that's where our opinions differ then, because I don't think it's absolutely not worth the change (due to the possible benefits). Can't we just agree to disagree, because all sides have valid points?
On October 23 2007 10:57 Aphelion wrote:
Fuu, don't feed him. He signed up on this site just for his one thread about this. Don't give him the satisfaction of couching bad ideas in over abstract formats. Everyone that has spoken has spoken, the TL consensus has been clear. You are just giving him a platform on the TL name. Let this topic die.
Aphelion. Just shut up please with your blatantly false accusations. Just because I never posted much before this thread (before Tasteless' thread about competitive issues caught my attention, and I started posting there), doesn't mean I never visited the site. You don't know anything about me. I've been a regular visitor here for almost a year, but only used the site to download VODs and follow the E-Sports scene while lurking. Notice also how I started an MBS thread 5 months after I first signed up for a TL.net account. Oh, I must've warped back in time just to sign up before coming back to post a thread.
Secondly, I don't try to make my points abstract. If it appears that way to you, it's probably because you don't understand my point of view or you just disagree with them.
Lastly, I was going to let this thread die except when I noticed a response from IntoTheWow to one of my posts that had misinterpreted one of my comments. So, I just posted to correct the misconception, not because I wanted to bring up any new points. Feel free to let the thread die now.
|
On October 23 2007 10:57 Aphelion wrote:
Fuu, don't feed him. He signed up on this site just for his one thread about this. Don't give him the satisfaction of couching bad ideas in over abstract formats. Everyone that has spoken has spoken, the TL consensus has been clear. You are just giving him a platform on the TL name. Let this topic die.
I tried to preach as you did for about your last 100 posts, cause it hurts 
Each time i promise to myself that i'll stop but, you know.
|
On October 23 2007 11:00 Fuu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2007 10:57 Aphelion wrote:
Fuu, don't feed him. He signed up on this site just for his one thread about this. Don't give him the satisfaction of couching bad ideas in over abstract formats. Everyone that has spoken has spoken, the TL consensus has been clear. You are just giving him a platform on the TL name. Let this topic die. I tried to preach as you did for about your last 100 posts, cause it hurts Each time i promise to myself that i'll stop but, you know.
If by preaching, you mean him flaming the hell out of anyone who was pro-MBS then he sure did a great job. Fortunately most of the mods are also against MBS, so of course he suffers no consequences.
|
actually just about everyone who understand the game on even a passable level is anti-mbs, consequently most of the pro-mbs people have very little understanding of the game and so are hard to reason with. that is why you just end up getting flamed.
|
Either anti-MBS or willing to wait and see. It's not all black and white here like some make it out to be.
|
if it goes into beta with mbs, mbs will stay. the masses are going to prefer it simply because it makes their gameplay easier and they wont see any reason/have any desire to call for its removal. also major effects wont be seen until the competetive scene really develops, as early on macro wouldnt be a big defining factor anyway. just like in bw, the mechanics would become more important over time as the best strategies got hashed out.
so basically yes, it is black and white. advocating going into beta with mbs is 99% pro-mbs.
|
If so, then a couple veterans are "pro-MBS" under your definition. That includes FrozenArbiter and mensrea off the top of my head, because they are willing to wait for beta testing.
|
well then they are more optimistic about it changing during/after, because if you read their posts they are quite clearly not in favor of mbs.
you, on the other hand, have actively argued in favor of mbs.
|
On October 23 2007 11:37 IdrA wrote:
so basically yes, it is black and white. advocating going into beta with mbs is 99% pro-mbs.
So did you just contradict yourself?
That's what I initially argued for (although still I took into account the various downsides of MBS), but I changed my opinion to just wait for beta and have it removed if it doesn't work out (if you've read my more recent posts), because I'm also optimistic about the possibility of changing during beta.
|
it is black and white, they can hope it will change, that doesnt mean it will. for the reasons i stated, if sc2 goes into beta with mbs its very very unlikely it will be removed.
given that mindset, judging by previous posts i think its pretty clear that they would not want mbs whereas you and all the other war3 players would.
|
Then why are you arguing with me here? If it's that serious and since Blizzard already knows the general consensus at TL.net (from their Q&A responses), you should be looking for more drastic measures to make Blizzard change their mind. Flaming the pro-MBS people for their opinions aren't going to change anything. Actually, I would buy and play SC2 regardless of it had MBS or not.
|
i think pointing out just how stupid pro-mbs arguments are serves that purpose pretty well considering blizz reads these forums.
|
It's not going to be enough, if you truly wanted change to happen before beta comes out. There's only a limited amount of time until then you know? I think Blizzard is already well aware that the majority of TL.net is against MBS and have read their arguments for it.
Secondly, maybe you are annoyed with me because my points are not completely stupid and are not as easily dismissed as some of the other pro-MBS arguments (that I think are stupid as well). Thus, my SC skill is used to disqualify my arguments instead.
|
well then what else is there to do? seeing as they do read the site this is the next best thing to a one on one discussion, and we almost have that since steve said he included the mbs debate in his last monthly report. cant do much more than make arguments for and shoot down arguments against.
|
That's up to you to figure out. I'm sure that you and I both know posting on the these threads are not going to make a big enough impact.
Also, flaming a poster for being a noob isn't going to turn any heads at Blizzard. If you prove his arguments wrong, then you might actually get somewhere. Unfortunately, this cannot always be done as there are valid points on both sides of the debate.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Wether the first version of the beta has MBS or not, I think there almost has to be a version that does. So it can be said that, yeah, we beta tested MBS and it didn't work out/it worked out very well.
|
..
why wouldnt it?
plenty of convincing arguments have been made against mbs. theres nothing else TO do. assuming they are willing to make changes and listen to reason it should be enough, if they wont/dont, nothings gonna change.
|
That's because Blizzard already knows. There's only one anti-MBS argument, and that's that MBS ruins the "perfect micro/macro balance" in SC, thus potentially leading to a lowering of the skill cap. This one argument has never changed, so what more can they possibly learn from reading these threads? They addressed this in the Q&A's, saying they will let the player choose micro or macro and also work on raising the skill level in SC2.
|
no
1. eliminates macro as a determining factor in the game, making the gameplay less diverse and so less fun to watch
2. makes the game easier(too easy) to play, less challenging is less fun for most gamers
3. lowers the skill cap by taking away part of what makes a good player good
but above all, blizz has stated they want to design sc2 to be an esport. bw is the only computer game that has sustained a REAL esports scene, and it has done it for 9 years. none of the other dumbed down easy-to-use shit games have even come close. why fuck with what works?
|
1. Restating the "micro/macro" balance in different words. By ruin, you know that I mean shifting the balance more towards the micro side.
2 & 3. are the same point. Less challenging is exactly because the skill cap has been lowered, and you argue that this is a potential consequence of point 1.
Blizzard already understands the above, as shown by their answers to the Q&A, so there is nothing more to be learned from these threads.
You're absolutely right. They do want to design SC2 as an E-Sport, but the problem is that the primary factor that defines the success of the an E-Sport is the number of gamers and fans involved in the sport rather than just the difficulty of the game. For example, CS is considered to be the most successful E-Sport outside of Korea, even though I think SC is a much better game and would play SC over CS anyday.
Why change what works? Because we might get an even much larger pro-scene than the current one, even if it involves taking a risk. Foreign players may even be able to compete with Koreans, because there could be far more people playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
