|
I'm going to quote Fen from the "Imagine MBS in SC1" thread because I think it is a very good analogy.
On October 10 2007 22:54 Fen wrote:Ok, came here because I thought of a good analogy  Take 2 chess players, put em up against each other in a no time limit game. What happens? They get into a stalemate, or one person makes a mistake due to lapse in concentration and the other capitalises and wins. Take 2 chess players and put em in a game of Suicide chess (5 seconds to move your piece). Suddenly the game takes on a new dynamic, they have all this info they need to process and not enough time to do so. The winner in this game is the person who can quickly analyse whats going on and make the correct decision. This is how RTS games should be. Players should be constantly in a race against not only the player they are against, but time itself. They have a whole lot of info they have to process, they have a very short space of time to chose a course of action. The person who is able to make good decisions fast wins. How this relates to starcraft and MBS? The more stuff you automate, or improve the UI (as you prombsers will call it), the less the players have to process. Suicide chess is hard (and a whole heap of fun) because there is a lot of thought processes that are requried to execute a good chess move, and these are not doable. In starcraft, the thought processes are not as complex, but there are a lot more of them, once again flooding the person and requiring them to make quick decisions and actions. Take out a whole heap of the thought processes, and you get stuck with a much more boring game.
Now my favorite part of Starcraft is the speed required to play this game well. MBS, automining, whatever features used to "improve" the AI (the idle worker thing in the corner of War3 is fucking retarded, how stupid are people) would all detract from the speed and intensity of this game. We all know while our economies are slow the game is dull, we make up for this by doing little scouting tricks, ling/lot micro, anything to kill time and gain our advantage. We do this because we can. We play this game very quickly and we've gotten build timing down to seconds. We've all become very good at this game. As our economies grow, our bases get larger and our army becomes stronger. We fight for maps. We harass eachother. We expand further. We clash heads. When the game is full in we are busy fucking bees and I love it. I would hate to be able to loom over my army and just watch them chill. Microing "really hard" wont make up for the lack of base management and a dumbed down macro system. I've lost countless games by allowing my macro to slip. Forgetting to add a pylon while I'm attacking. Not being able to make the 3 extra gateways I need to keep my money low because a nexus is being attacked somewhere. Being able to find the time and useing each second to its maximum is possible in this game and that's what makes it so great. A game where literally every second can count is crazy.
Basically I don't want "UI Improvements" to slow the game down.
|
Think of the UMS sector! I think it could outdo WC3's custom games sector. We need MBS.
|
I agree very much that a good rts should be based on fast decision making by the players. Having mbs has nothing to do with decision making though. It is when you already have made the decision to make 10 marines that it just takes longer to actually do it.
|
On October 10 2007 17:03 Aphelion wrote:
We need concrete data to back up our opinion. Blizzard could easily read the SC2 forums, see a few posters who really only post there and conclude that they are representative of the overall TL population.
We know even better the opinion of these Battle.net people. Blizzard knows too, and specifically came to us instead. A TL pool should reflect a TL opinion. That concept is all too obvious.
And as far as SC is concerned, the typical TL member is light years ahead in terms of understanding than the average Battle.net member. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Quoted for emphasis.
|
On October 10 2007 19:48 Element)LoGiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2007 19:39 LonelyMargarita wrote:On October 10 2007 16:33 Element)LoGiC wrote:On October 10 2007 16:19 Aphelion wrote:On October 10 2007 13:40 Element)LoGiC wrote: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. I didn't do it because I think they are informed, I did it because they will be buying the game, and generating income for blizzard just as we are. Don't forget that they are here to make money as well. Of course most of the people on teamliquid.net want it, but unfortunately, as you can see, there are also a lot of uninformed players that do, and blizzard isn't only going to listen to educated people on the matter. The poll was rigged before, and as I have basically opened up the floodgates for newbies to vote, we see the entire picture. EDIT: we are still winning anyway, but perhaps you've come to realize the problem blizzard is faced with? A TL poll should reflect the opinon of TL forum members. Not a bunch of retard noobs registering to hijack the TL name. We know the opinion of the tl.net members. These battle.net people. They aren't retard noobs. They aren't less than human. Their opinions matter, even if they aren't as "educated" or "informed". This post has reflected very poorly on how well you understand... anything. You purposely posted the link on battle.net's forum to ruin the poll and derail the thread. You should just accept that you are in the minority of educated gamers, and let us have an accurate polling of tl.net REGULARS (i.e. people who find the poll thread themselves). Incorrect.
Take a look at the thread again. They are human, sure, but they are inferior at Starcraft. If you want Starcraft to be competitive you don't cater to the noobs. There are at least 4 Battle.net regulars just flaming, and when you look at the other MBS threads, you see that they just recycle the same shit over and over again.
|
On October 11 2007 02:52 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2007 17:03 Aphelion wrote:
We need concrete data to back up our opinion. Blizzard could easily read the SC2 forums, see a few posters who really only post there and conclude that they are representative of the overall TL population.
We know even better the opinion of these Battle.net people. Blizzard knows too, and specifically came to us instead. A TL pool should reflect a TL opinion. That concept is all too obvious.
And as far as SC is concerned, the typical TL member is light years ahead in terms of understanding than the average Battle.net member. That is a fact, not an opinion. Quoted for emphasis.
I feel you.
|
The people on the bnet forums who are for MBS only give examples such as "BW's UI is outdated" or "MBS reduces 'mundane' clicking"
It was a terrible idea to post this poll on a board full of destructive retards.
Also, recently, there have been quite a few trolls on tl.net as well (One example being Hokay)
|
On October 10 2007 04:29 SoleSteeler wrote:
Get rid of MBS if you can't find a way to make 'elite' players stand out
Agreed, none of us have even played sc2 yet, and comparing it to sc1 is highly illogical. Let's wait and see exactly how the game plays out before entering nerd-rage about something like this. As much as I dislike the idea of sc2 being about who can get around a poor interface the best, I will definitely recognize the fact that there needs to be a significant edge that mechanically skilled players should be able to exploit. I was a mindless macro-bot in sc1, so i feel a little biased toward No MBS, but it's kinda silly since nobody has played sc2 yet and it's not even close to finished...
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
uh several posters here have played sc2 (at blizzcon etc) and have ALL complained about mbs and how dumbed down it makes the game.
It isnt pure speculation on their part, its experience.
|
On October 11 2007 04:55 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
uh several posters here have played sc2 (at blizzcon etc) and have ALL complained about mbs and how dumbed down it makes the game.
It isnt pure speculation on their part, its experience.
You know, given that there's also unlimited unit selection(last I checked), you're probably right. I really think it's just that the two shouldn't co-exist, if it's one or the other I think it could work.
SBS and unlimited unit selection, or atleast larger groups of 16+, would be my personal ideal. But then again, what the fuck do I know? I haven't played the alpha, and it's still got a long way to go.
|
On October 11 2007 04:55 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
uh several posters here have played sc2 (at blizzcon etc) and have ALL complained about mbs and how dumbed down it makes the game.
It isnt pure speculation on their part, its experience.
Their experience at Blizzcon isnt worth much really, they didnt play any competetive players at all.
You get just as much experience of it from playing wc3, all you know is that macro will take less clicks and thats what they learned at Blizzcon and they didnt learn anything more. It wasnt news to anyone really that macro would take less clicks, and if you define "Its to easy" as "Its faster to do than starcraft" then ofcourse its to easy to macro in sc2.
So tbh there isnt really any experience about this out in the public, since as far as i know there havent been any tournaments or other competetive things in sc2 yet and you wouldnt listen to people who only played it casauly, would you?
|
the nature of their comments was "you hit 2 hotkeys and all your money went to 0 and your supply shot up 20 and you could go do other shit"
competetive environment or not, that is exactly what we're afraid of.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
lool
Did they really just argue that because the games they played werent for money the experience with MBS is mute? Give me a fucking break.
Did you know they test race tracks before a NASCAR event? Like, right after they make them! And believe it or not, they actually consider the opinions of those testers legit! ODD?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
His point is that they were playing total beginners so they didn't get challenged. IMO you can still tell, to a degree, what effect MBS will have, but it's something to keep in mind.
|
Exactly your experience at blizzcon don't account for much. You didn't play against other competitive players, you haven't full learn the game inside and out yet, haven't exploited and try add on exchanges, scavenging and selling buildings, cannon moving, none of that stuff. BO haven't been optimized yet, the game is barely grounds up. For all you know you can't just hit 9 M to build marines cause its a necessity to go back to your base to either exchange add ons or scavenge building for different tech, lift up some depots, or merge them for a wall in or god knows what else.
Anyway if there was a option of "wait and see" on the poll that was what I would have voted.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Testie played a 2v2 vs grubby and he still thought MBS made SC2 slower than Sc1 so it's not all from the people who played WoW players.
|
A few games isn't going to show much really. It takes some times for game balance to come to light, whether from race and unit imbalance or from poor UI mechanics and AI flaws. I understand why there is so much nerdrage, if we imagine SC1 with MBS we'll be getting a completely gimp game. But SC2 is not SC1 and I'm sure blizzard is aware of the issue.
|
its not a matter of balance, its a matter of how easy it will be to macro. you dont need to play multiple games to be able to tell that. and its not a coincidence that EVERY good player whos posted an opinion and EVERY person who played at blizzcon has said that the macro will be way too easy.
and if blizzard believes they will make more money by making sc2 a mediocre game that appeals to newbs they may do it, regardless of the effect it has on the quality of the game.
|
True MBS will make the unit building part of macro more convenient. I posted a few examples of how we can keep mouse speed and macro important by implementing more things and I'm sure blizzard has plenty of creative juice running through their head. But if you believe by making unit producing more convenient we are noobifying the game or simplifying it than there's no convincing otherwise.
|
On October 11 2007 09:01 YinYang69 wrote:
True MBS will make the unit building part of macro more convenient. I posted a few examples of how we can keep mouse speed and macro important by implementing more things and I'm sure blizzard has plenty of creative juice running through their head. But if you believe by making unit producing more convenient we are noobifying the game or simplifying it than there's no convincing otherwise.
Hi there. Can you reiterate these few examples of other macro tasks to keep us busy. I only have two right now. Warpgates and Upkeep. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
