|
If Blizzard Entertainment wants to take RTS E-Sports to the next level they will change the interface slightly, but exclude MBS and auto-mine from the final product. It is all about balance: you have to focus on the whole, not one aspect. MBS and auto-mine will greatly hamper this as more focus will lie on your army.
This has been said about 5,000 times. Many of us have played a fully playable TvP, PvP, TvT demo in the alpha phase and it's pretty clear that these two features will dumb the game down. There are many variables at play. Sure, many of us played WoW newbs who were to busy looking at the 'pruddy colors.'
If anything, Blizzard should make the game just as addictive and harder to master than SC:BW. It would appear they are the only ones capable of take Pro Gaming to the next level.
SCII should be addictive, tricky to master, easy to follow for the spectators and each game should last around 15 minutes.
A question for those 'for MBS': 'Why fix something that isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed?'
|
Who posted this poll on battle.net? Funny how it went from 107 - 28 to 113 - 88.
|
CA10831 Posts
On October 10 2007 09:02 NotSorry wrote:
Who posted this poll on battle.net? Funny how it went from 107 - 28 to 113 - 88. lmao so sad
|
On October 10 2007 07:19 XCetron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2007 06:48 IdrA wrote:On October 10 2007 06:37 brambolius wrote:One question for all you "NO MBS" voters. Why not pick the "MBS OPTIONS" choice instead? Its basicly the best of both worlds so why not? It will probably compare to BGH/Fastest type maps. As people get more into the game they stop playing(using) bgh/fastest maps(MBS). And Blizzard is happy becouse they can implement this new function and hype about it  . So ppl of tl.net, change ur IP's and revote plz  eh, it can segment the community to do it like that. when you have a significant step between 'skill levels' like that, it discourages some people from making the transistion. like, some of the people who play money maps now could potentially become good low money players, they just never have any desire to switch. if there was no money/low money seperation there would be no big jump to make, they would just gradually progress up low money (assuming that was all there was to play) so keeping everything more continuous is better, if possible. gotta take into consideration how a large percentage of those money players would have switched to other games instead of going for low money. I mean you cant say that anyone that played money map would have played low money had that been the only choice for melee. There still plenty of UMS and such to play and they coulda just went on to WC3
no, but how much does having people in a money community really add to the game?
having 40 people who would otherwise just play money games leave for another game but have 5 more people(otherwise money players) playing low money would be well worth it imo.
the only problem is if people dont start playing the game at all because theres no 'entry level', but i dont really think thats a problem since at the very beginning you're unaware of the different between money and low money (or mbs and sbs) anyway. you're just picking up the absolute basics at that point.
|
|
|
On October 10 2007 06:20 Brutalisk wrote:
SBS ultimately leads to the downfall of several great players like Boxer or Yellow who concentrate on the micro and strategy side. MBS will help them in a SC world that's increasingly defined by macro.
Saying that there is still a balance between macro and micro is just not true anymore. It was in 1998-2003 or so. Macro needs to take a step back. MBS will prevent stupid APM machines from becoming too good.
Plus, it'll be easier for newbies, which means the scene gets bigger.
downfall?
did you miss the part where boxer made it to the starleague finals after/during oovs period of domination+macro revolution?
or how july beat the shit out of oov with insanely aggressive micro oriented strategies when oov seemed unbeatable?
none of the players who have ever won anything are 'stupid apm machines', one dimensional players are forever stuck as practice partners losing in the minor leagues. just because you cant appreciate the depth of the game doesnt mean it isnt there.
|
|
|
Yes, it was about 80% "No MBS" until some newb decided to ruin the poll. I'll take it that 80% was the accurate result.
I wish there was a way to make a poll where only people with X number of posts or more could vote.
|
|
|
On October 10 2007 10:19 LonelyMargarita wrote:
Yes, it was about 80% "No MBS" until some newb decided to ruin the poll. I'll take it that 80% was the accurate result.
I wish there was a way to make a poll where only people with X number of posts or more could vote.
Element has betrayed you!
|
Can we make a public poll or restrict it to certain post counts?
|
well it just confirms what everyone already knew, newbs want it and informed players dont.
|
|
|
On October 10 2007 11:22 IdrA wrote:
well it just confirms what everyone already knew, newbs want it and informed players dont.
informed? More like sc pros and wannabes a like.
|
ya random battle.net trash is definetly more informed than sc pros
|
On October 10 2007 11:22 IdrA wrote:
well it just confirms what everyone already knew, newbs want it and informed players dont.
Nailed it.
|
On October 10 2007 03:16 MyLostTemple wrote:
fuck MBS
keep starcraft elite
seriously.. If you advocate mbs then you clearly do not realize the beauty of sc.
|
On October 10 2007 11:22 IdrA wrote:
well it just confirms what everyone already knew, newbs want it and informed players dont.
|
On October 10 2007 03:16 MyLostTemple wrote:
fuck MBS
keep starcraft elite
I think if there is any place Blizzard needs to come through, and prove that they're listening to us, it is here. Starcraft is art! Keep it pure and keep it beautiful!
|
On October 09 2007 15:54 Hokay wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2007 15:21 DTDominion wrote:
So basically, no matter how much evidence is presented to you that effective implementation of MBS is impossible, you still think that Blizzard's game designers should do it because it makes them lazy and stupid if they don't?
Fine logic there. What evidence? SC2 is barely finished. EDIT: Also I said if Blizzard cannot implement MBS while retaining a competitive level like SC1 it should not be in. Which is why I am waiting for beta. Fine reading comprehension there.
Fair enough, but you have to see the contradiction between this:
if Blizzard cannot deliver a good or better competitive game compared to SC1 while retaining MBS, than MBS has to go. I'm waiting for beta...
and this:
If there is no MBS, I will be disappointed at blizzards game designers for being lazy and incompetent because they couldn't implement another way for SC2's macro to be competitive/skillful as SC1's macro while having MBS.
My bad for eventually descending into mindless skimming, but I'm not sure your post somehow magically got better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
