Poll: How to implement MBS? (Vote): Hotkey,unit: to mass-build unit. (Vote): Hotkey,unit1,tab,unit2,tab,unit3... Hotkeyx3,unit: to mass-build unit. (Vote): Hotkey,unit1,unit2,unit3... Hotkeyx3,unit: to mass-build unit w/ delay. (Vote): Hotkey,unit1,unit2,unit3... Hotkeyx3,unit: to mass-build unit w/o delay. (Vote): Toggle options: e.g., MBS off for ladder. (Vote): No MBS. (Vote): MBS only possible with mouse selection; no hotkey binding. (Vote): MBS w/ arbitrary low limit: e.g. buildings powered by shared pylon, barracks lined up. (Vote): Other.
Multiple Building Selection (MBS)
The following are options for MBS, as poll-arized above. Note that in all options, the scenario is six barracks bound to hotkey 8:
1. Can bind multiple buildings into one hotkey: one press of button will make all buildings make that unit. ie.
8,m. to make 6 marines.
This blanket 8,m mass-build won't allow you to diversify your unit production, which is bad.
2. Can bind multiple buildings into one hotkey: one press to select one unit. Press tab (or some other arbitrary button) to cycle to next building. Make unit. Press tab to cycle to next building, and so on. Not pressing tab will queue up one building, which is undesirable.
8,m,tab,m,tab,m,tab,m,tab,c,tab,c. to make 4 marines, 2 medics (c).
8,8,8,m. to center on barracks and mass-build 6 marines.
This is close to Brood War, with the same number of button presses. Only now, players will be able to bind more buildings to hotkeys, instead of one per hotkey. For mass-build, press hotkey three times (See explanation below).
3 and 4. Can bind multiple buildings into one hotkey: press to make a unit. Selection automatically cycles to next building that is idle or has the least queue.
8,m,m,m,m,c,c. to make 4 marines, 2 medics.
8,8,m,m,m,m,c,c. to center on 6 barracks, making 4 marines and 2 medics.
8,8,8,m. to center on 6 barracks, activating mass build, to make 6 marines.
Pressing 8 twice switches your view to centre of buildings; you can bind buildings from all over the map; pressing 8 twice may thus center your view to middle of nowhere. A good idea, then, to bind buildings in one base.
Pressing 8 thrice, centres view, and allows you to command all buildings to make units with one press. ie. This option has a logical delay: each building is selected (highlighted) for .10 seconds. Therefore, for ten buildings, the selection highlight cycle will amount a full second, which is not critical for casual games, but crucial for professional games. Note: .10 seconds is very generous. I don't think even Nada can order to make 10 marines from 10 barracks in one second?
With Terran, you can still bind buildings regardless of whether there's an add-on; however, the option to mass build add-on units like medics, tanks, and battlecruisers is only possible if all buildings have add-ons. (If you can mass-produce these special units, then they wouldn't be that special now, would they? If you wish to mass-produce them, bind only buildings with add-ons, then.)
For Zerg, this .10 second delay should be non-existent because Zerg is the prolific, mass unit race. Besides, in SC, you can mass-produce anyways by shift-clicking on larvae to produce 12 units at a time.
So don't use this hotkeyx3 (mass build) option when in middle of micro battle or if you don’t want a one-unit army or if you don't want the screen to move or if you just don't want to feel noobish. Side note: I've thought of other buttons to activate this mass-build option such Tab, but for now, pressing the hotkey once more (for a total of three times) seems the most convenient. I've also thought of activating this mass-build after only two presses of hotkey, but players might want to use only the centering function and not the mass-build.
5. Toggle options. MBS turned off for ladder games, for example.
6. No MBS.
7. MBS only possible with mouse selection; no hotkey binding.
8. Allow MBS but with an arbitrary low number of buildings (except for Zerg) that can be bound to a hotkey: for example, only buildings powered by same pylon or only barracks that are lined up together or only hatcheries visible on screen can be bound.
The pro-MBS camp has a point with modernizing User Interface (UI) to incorporate MBS. For example, in RPG, I love the first Final Fantasy but I cannot tolerate its now archaic interface. It is annoying that I need 300 button presses (buy, select item, confirm) just to max out on 100 potions.
When playing SC2 one-player, MBS would be fine.
But it's not so simple when it comes to competitive SC. The game is fun because of the delicate balance between macro and micro. How important is macro? If you can gain an economic advantage, get better unit production, while denying the opponent both, then you will most likely win. (But if your micro is inferior, you might still lose).
SC has these elements: Macromanagement - economy, rate of unit production, upgrades, supply, tech Micromanagement - unit control, focus-fire, flanking, aiming spells Strategy - scouting, counters, timing, when and where to hit, retreat, build orders, feint
MBS affects rate of unit production, while auto-mining, the economy. But rate of unit production is a huge chunk of macro, and if MBS is to be implemented, what element of macro should replace it? This is the big conundrum.
Which RPG game is more diverse? Obviously B. A. strength, intelligence B. strength, intelligence, speed, stamina
I've read a lot of people's comments on MBS, and I've tried to include all the suggestions in this poll. I'm leaning towards Choice 3, of course, which a lot of people have suggested, but it also includes the option of mass-building. For the pro-MBS out there, mass-build pressing 8,8,8,m, is only two more button presses than 8,m. So it's not too much of a hardship. As for the buildings cycling every .10 seconds, can you do better than building ten marines in one second from ten barracks?
Update: Oct 9, 2007 Added to first choice: "This blanket 8,m mass-build won't allow you to diversify your unit production, which is bad."
Update: October 10, 2007
Thanks for all your input.
Conclusions from this poll about MBS implementation:
- Hotkeyx3 is disliked. - Tab preferred in cycling through hotkeyed buildings. - Mass producing preferred with no delay. - Two camps are divided.
If a clearcut side, simplest solution is take majority. Case in point: Soul Hunter got surf.. serf.. um, served.
It's not worth repeating the pros and cons to MBS. You can read them in MBS threads by orangedude and artosis3.
orangedude: "We should be instead focusing on ways to make up for the addition of MBS/automining with additional macro ideas rather than opposing its inclusion into SC2, because we might actually profoundly improve the game as a result of our ideas."
However, what other macrotasks (not microtasks) are offered to counterbalance automation of unit production? 1. Warpgates. 2. Upkeep?? 3. ?? It's hard to think up ideas...
The solution I propose to appease both camps is not in coming up with other macrotasks, but pertains to the MBS sytem itself: how it should be implemented.
Proposed MBS solution:
* Hotkey,unit1,tab,unit2,tab,unit3... to build unit one at a time, cycling through hotkeyed buildings with tab. * Hotkey2x,hold,unit to mass-produce unit at a rate of 4 per second with bonus special effects. * If mouse only, cntrl+click on building to select all similar buildings onscreen, click "mass-build", a new option in command window (bottom right corner of screen), click unit.
Note: Currently in BW, Tab toggles mini-map colours. This function can be switched, let's say, to F5.
Note: I think hotkey2x,hold,unit (hotkey,hotkey+unit or hotkey,holdhotkey,unit) is better than the unpopular hotkey3x,unit. So please substitute this notation to my original post above.
Explanation:
* Brood War macro is preserved; number of button presses stays the same. * Can now bind more buildings to hotkeys, freeing up other hotkeys for units. * Slight improvement to queueing: the first building highlighted is idle or has the least queue. * With two buttons, you can mass-produce one unit at an expert rate: four per second. In other words, the task of clicking on your buildings, one by one, to produce one unit, has been automated. Does this require you to leave your units, your attention turned elsewhere? Yes. Does this take time? Yes. * Hotkey2x forces centering on hotkeyed buildings, away from the battlefield. * Hotkey2x,hold,unit allows mass-building of unit. * Cursor/selection/highlight cycles (the screen transitions smoothly, not abruptly) from building to building with subtle special effects (maybe a grotesque root-like adrenaline vein that branches from one hatchery to the next... or a phasing out/cloaking effect of one gateway to the next... or a Terran battle cry that varies according to the number of buildings bound to a hotkey: "Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badassess! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!" Apone, Aliens.) * Naturally, the more buildings bound, the longer the cycle. * You can queue in other commands while this cycle is happening, including pressing another hotkey to mass-build another unit from a different set of buildings.
** Why the special effects? To appease the fashionable? Maybe. But also to let opponent know (who has vision, of course) that your attention is away from your units for a second or two--a perfect time for them to unleash hold lurkers on your army, for example.
** Why not just hotkey,hold,unit? To prevent a player from accidentally mass-building (pressing hotkey and unit so fast, virtually at the same time).
Repercussions:
* This is better than pure MBS (blanket hotkey,unit) as it allows unit diversity, by tabbing or clicking at each building in selection window. * This is better than pure no MBS. * This is better than toggle, which may segregate communities further. As it is, we have differing tastes: progaming scene, UMS Bound UMS RPG, UMS micro, BGH, Fastest, NoRush, compstomp, novice, experts. Not necessarily a bad thing, but now novice players may feel more confident playing against experts knowing they can keep up with this aspect of unit production. However, they should realize that maintaining supply, expanding, timing expansion, making workers, transferring workers, ensuring economy to support mass production, and keeping minerals low instead of waiting for 1000 minerals to build ten zealots, are not automated for them by MBS. In fact, if their skills are poor in these areas, against an expert, they will likely not even live long enough to build ten gateways... * A pro-gamer will likely not use the MBS feature because it'll take attention away from the battlefield and limit diversity in unit mix. The special effects may also reveal to a scouting opponent a momentary nonattention to the battlefield--a bad thing. But only on high levels of gaming can this be exploited. * Pro-gramers will not use the MBS feature because they can produce faster than 4 units per second. * In professional gaming, even one second away from battlefield is an eternity. In novice play, a second is not as crucial. * Pro-gamers may even avoid using the MBS feature for psychological reasons--it may make them lazy or less alert. Hence, that's why they 'spam' at beginning of a game. * There are times experts may want to use MBS, such as to check which buildings are bound to a hotkey, or if they want to see the special effects. ** The rate of production can be beta-tested. It can even be tweaked to favour Zerg (faster rate) if Blizzard is really differentiating the races, with Zerg being the "swarming", en-masse species, and the Protoss now seeming to be even more the every-single-unit-counts race. ** MBS should apply to unit-producing buildings only, and not to static defense structures like cannons and sunkens to encourage aggression and thwart turtling. Who loves turtlers? Do we need a poll for that...
Please, my brethrens. Whether for or against MBS, we share a common interest: this awesome game. Let us find a way to unite and keep the StarCraft franchise the best ever. Shoot. I sound like an arbiter. For Aiu... StarCraft! ;P
I'm so sick of these MBS threads. So much so that even though you put a lot of time and effort into your post I'm going to completely ignore it and hope this gets closed.
I agree that there's been far to many MBS discussions, but at least this isn't exactly a 'yay mbs' or 'nay mbs' thread. there are some interesting ideas but it doesn't really solve anything.
On October 09 2007 10:03 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm so sick of these MBS threads. So much so that even though you put a lot of time and effort into your post I'm going to completely ignore it and hope this gets closed.
ahaha So true
Prose, I might vote wouldn't you place in only option I like that "Hotkeyx3" thing, which makes no sense for me.
On October 09 2007 10:45 Chill wrote: You know, I think if you really wanted to know the results you could read the current MBS thread. This is just cluttering things up.
I'm going to leave it open, just because I don't know what other mods think. But I really think it should be closed.
The current MBS thread was cluttered. I tried to narrow down the options to a poll, the easiest gauge.
Yes, that Hotkeyx3 thing was confusing. It's a basically a nerfed version of true MBS. I don't know if I can scrap it from the choices. Maybe just 8,m,m,m,m,c,c. as a choice.
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.
Even Blizzard admitted having an enhanced UI leaves more room for them to design new stuff, so having no MBS doesn't leave much room for designers to flex what they are hired to do, design/implement new game concepts and gameplay.
They can cop out and be lazy and just make a rehash of their older game SC1/BW with 3d graphics, new units and cliff walking which to me seems the case atm. 10 year wait for rehash? What happened to SC re imagined?
The game Metroid Prime was totally re imagined in 3d and many metroid fans were scared of change from 2d, but the game was universally accepted by its fans and new players because it felt and played like metroid except it was a totally new and refreshing playing experience from start to end while retaining and feeling like it's roots.
I know there is a line that has to be drawn when implementing new concepts because the goal is to retain sc1's spirit, competitive nature and core gameplay but I think with careful and clever designing, the designers can and should pull something out of their brains that please all. I mean for christ sakes it's been 10+ years.
With that said, 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...
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?
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.
I'd prefer to have no MBS, but at the same time I can understand why MBS might be added and admit that its possible SC2 could kick ass even with the feature implemented. This poll however, being on tl.net, is probably going to have biased results, since most of us are or were hardcore starcraft players. All it'll show is that of the tl.net members who ran across this thread and voted, more would like no MBS.
"MBS only possible with mouse selection; no hotkey binding" probably wouldn't work. Mouse selection selects units only, otherwise you wouldn't be able to quickly select units near buildings because buildings get selected too. You'd have to work around that by forcing the player to "toggle" between building selection and unit selection. Which would just complicate things. Bad idea.
Voted for the real deal: "hotkey + unit to mass build"
I prefer the tab-build option since it's easier than the current system, while also letting you make a good army composition and saving hotkeys for units. Wouldn't want the thrice-click in there though, that would just be ordinary MBS but more annoying, while at the same time making it easy for noobs to massproduce without using any speed.
Of course sc2 should have mbs, I don't see a problem with it, it's just an upgrade to the interface which makes it easier to issue your commands. The outcome of the game should be less about pure speed and more about strategy.
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.
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 .
I don't get all these people saying that a larger pool of newbs makes a game any better or helps the pro scene one bit. The type of people that want mbs are the same type that jumped to war3 because it had better graphics and was newer rather than anything dealing with game play. Whats so great about having a large group of newbs playing $$$$BIG MONEY$$$$.
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.
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
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.
Eh, no. Micro just developed earlier, and I'd argue that its getting even more important just recently. Look at the next-gen protosses. Free, Stork, Bisu - their success and renaissiance is keyed to their incredible control and risky strategies built upon that. Thats why they succeeded where the old Toss Kings failed. Even Anytime, his two OSL final appearances are due to good micromanagement.
And your last two sentences are retarded. I genuinely hope you don't mean that.
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?'
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.
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.
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 15:21 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.
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?
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.
If the poll only allowed high post counts to vote there would be almost NO votes for mbs. The people who came here to speculate on the potential future of sc2 are all in favor of a dumbed down and retard friendly sc2. Those who have been around and actually know why this game is as great as it is are in favor of a prettier and new version of sc that still remains hard and enjoyable.
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?
They are also more likely to, say, register 10 new accounts to vote 10 times for a pro-MBS option. Like that one guy in the topic who says he contributed 10 votes...
Moreover, a poll on TLnet is, by its nature, an expression of the opinions of our members. I'm sure most of us are fully aware of this limitation.
If anything, what you've done makes it appear that TLnet members alone are evenly split on the issue of MBS. Now any random person who sees the poll will think "Half of TLnet wants MBS." which is completely untrue. You've only made the poll less accurate.
Lastly, we wouldn't be looking for others' opinions in a TLnet poll. In fact, I think we already know that most StarCraft players in general are pro-MBS. Either way, you should have just pointed this out in a post rather than screwing up the poll, or created a poll elsewhere (e.g. on the Battle.net forum) and then linked us to it to illustrate your point.
51% what the hell? I know that's not the way everyone who has been playing for more than a few months feels about MBS.
What makes SC into the ultimate competitive RTS is the number of small tasks required to win. Sounds mundane? repetitive? It's what makes StarCraft unique
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 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.
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.
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?
They are also more likely to, say, register 10 new accounts to vote 10 times for a pro-MBS option. Like that one guy in the topic who says he contributed 10 votes...
Moreover, a poll on TLnet is, by its nature, an expression of the opinions of our members. I'm sure most of us are fully aware of this limitation.
If anything, what you've done makes it appear that TLnet members alone are evenly split on the issue of MBS. Now any random person who sees the poll will think "Half of TLnet wants MBS." which is completely untrue. You've only made the poll less accurate.
Lastly, we wouldn't be looking for others' opinions in a TLnet poll. In fact, I think we already know that most StarCraft players in general are pro-MBS. Either way, you should have just pointed this out in a post rather than screwing up the poll, or created a poll elsewhere (e.g. on the Battle.net forum) and then linked us to it to illustrate your point.
The Poll is IP based I think. The only problem would have been registering multiple accounts.
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.
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.
Well then, to make things interesting, let's see if someone who has played BW for a long time, someone with a post count, someone who follows the pro-scene, can stand up and say they support MBS?
Personally, I think if it's toggle-able, it will end up much like B.net is today. You have your casual BGH newbs(Or in this case, MBS players) on one side of the spectrum, and then the serious players on the otherside. If this is the case, then SC2 will still be a success, and hopefully the MBS'ers will be held in the same regard as Fastest-possible and BGH is in BW.
Personally, I think it should be a game type, like UMS or "Greed" or "one on one", except it should be called "Novice" as to remind the players what they are.
On October 10 2007 17:14 YinYang69 wrote: Wow the elitism that is showing up in this thread is horrible. Of course that was to be expected in a TL MBS thread eh?
Don't act as though your position in the argument, or anyone elses for the matter is anything but circumstancial.
On October 10 2007 17:14 YinYang69 wrote: Wow the elitism that is showing up in this thread is horrible. Of course that was to be expected in a TL MBS thread eh?
Since when has anything great been created out of consensus and collective mediocrity? Starcraft is a great game, an elite game. Accept that and move on.
I refer you to this post by Mensrea.
Do not cater to anyone. Forget the fanbase. The road to greatness is marked by courage, innovation and loneliness. Greatness is an autocracy, not a democracy. Greatness is disdainful of the conventional. Hear what the professional players and others involved in the professional scene have to say, but otherwise turn an arrogant deaf ear to the newbs. At the end of the day, the newbs will thank you for it.
Heh, perhaps TL should have a system where new accounts can't vote in a poll until after 24 hours.
I think Blizzard is aware of the problems of MBS. Based on everything I've seen though, they haven't done anything to even moderately offset that loss yet. We'll see, but, that said, I'm not sure it will be the end of the world to have the game focus on army micro more.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
I really don't see tabbing as a middle ground. Essentially, instead of 5z6z7z8z9d0t, you're doing 5z tab z tab z tab z tab d tab t. Not much of a compromise if you ask me. MBS is pretty much either give or take.
A solution that I like is to simply not allow MBS'd buildings to be hotkeyed.
On October 11 2007 13:10 FragKrag wrote: You sound more like a zealot.
I really don't see tabbing as a middle ground. Essentially, instead of 5z6z7z8z9d0t, you're doing 5z tab z tab z tab z tab d tab t. Not much of a compromise if you ask me. MBS is pretty much either give or take.
A solution that I like is to simply not allow MBS'd buildings to be hotkeyed.
Hi there. No, it's not a compromise. I initially preferred 5zzzdt, but as it turns out from the poll, the 'more informed' players prefer more button presses, nothing taken away from Brood War macro. I thought about it. So hence, the tab included. For the MBS users, they could hotkey 5 gateways to mass-produce zealots only, and 2 gateways to mass-produce dragoons or alternate dragoons and high templars.
The only thing I went against the poll's majority is the 'delay' factor. More wanted no delay than with delay. It has a negative connotation so I re-phrased it to 'rate of production'. In essence, pure MBS is overpowered. It enables one to produce 50 units in one shot. That is the problem. I am waiting for feedback to see if people on both camps can agree to applying a scale factor to MBS. The more units to build, the more time it should take. It's logical, ain't it?
I read all of the posts, but it seems to me that a lot of people are upset that other people can and out voted (well voted agaisnt) the general population of TL.net, but I would like to point out, how many times has TL.net banded together to rig other polls?
On, the otherhand I'm a bad player, and I would enjoy the luxory of not having to be super speed to micro and macro well at the same time. Or in otherwords I'm the noobish player (whom a lot of people on TL bash) who is not good enough to play like a pro without praticing like a pro, IE MBS will make me a lot better.
Then again, while thinking of MBS I'm applying it to SC:BW and War3, therefore my opinion on this is worthless having not played SCII yet. On War3 though, I personally had a lot of fun having shorter macro so I could micro my army and hero.
Wow, a pretty useless post, but this is a forum and I figured I would share my thoughts. (and this is bringing up my post count so you elitists (thats what many of you sound like, you guys use nice words like misimformed (or worse), but in the end it says the same thing; we are better than you therefore our opinion means more.) stop picking on people like me who have a rather low post count.)
The two arguments against tab would be that you still don't have to take your eyes of the battlefield (but you do have to stop microing units) and you don't have to "choose" to do macro more vs. micro more, by allowing all your buildings to be hotkeyed to one or two keys. As in, binding 2-0 keys for macro vs. binding your keys to units for ease of micro.
Still though, I think the tab idea is the best. Either that or allowing more hotkeys (like maybe F9-F12 or something)
Mmm. Read through all that, but, still no. MBS isn't a issue that can be easily solved by adding button presses or whatever. Multitasking is a combination of many different skills, and removing any of these is negative.
No to MBS. I'm not desperate for a new game. I can play BW if SC2 doesn't satisfy me. I'll just regard it as a cool single player campaign experience.
there is really only two options.. no MBS or MBS. the only way to satisfy both sides of the equation is to provide something to offset the effects of mbs... and i can't really think of any. you'd need something to allow the player to choose macro-style gaming if they want, meaning more focus on building/expanding/producing units. mbs takes away from the multitasking thus lessening the macro aspect and a lot of the speed/entertainment value. it's not about more button presses, though having less is a side effect of including mbs, but it's more of the attention/multitask required to macro properly in a game. taking your eyes from the battle to produce units/do things in your base and be able to not get your units squashed in a batlle is a very demanding thing to do, and MBS slashes that down the middle so you can watch your units more closesly all the time. all in all i really don't see how MBS can be included without taking away from the nature of starcraft.
The compromise is having it toggle-able. The MBS'ers will be like the BGHers, people who don't care to get better and want a simple starcraft experience.
One problem with pushing the button tab to tab through the buildings is the addition of the alt to show unit hp function. But I agree with Aphelion about MBS not being able to really be solved by button presses, because instead of only being able to select at most ten buildings in SC, with MBS you could have all of your buildings in one hotkey, and therefore you would never need to go back to your base except to add in buildings or change hotkeys.
Lol ionno i say toggle but just balance the game around non toggled setting and stuff what the hardcore community will be useing. After all the avg person might not think too much about imba stuff until the turn into a fan. I dont know why people say no MBS it will be in the game one way or the other blizzard wont ditch stuff never have proably never will. MBS smart cast automine all will be in there the best we can hope for is a toggle and it planned to be balanced around something as redundent and tedious as SC setting or worse WC2 settings lol.
On October 11 2007 14:18 Nintu wrote: The compromise is having it toggle-able. The MBS'ers will be like the BGHers, people who don't care to get better and want a simple starcraft experience.
Yeah, I can see it now.
12 yo bnet kiddie: PFFFT I BEAT YOU EASY 1v1 LT me: ok sure MBS turned off 12 yo bnet kiddie: WTF AS IF, YOU SUCK IF YOU CAN'T USE MBS LOL BL NOOB
On October 11 2007 13:33 randombum wrote: I read all of the posts, but it seems to me that a lot of people are upset that other people can and out voted (well voted agaisnt) the general population of TL.net, but I would like to point out, how many times has TL.net banded together to rig other polls?
On, the otherhand I'm a bad player, and I would enjoy the luxory of not having to be super speed to micro and macro well at the same time. Or in otherwords I'm the noobish player (whom a lot of people on TL bash) who is not good enough to play like a pro without praticing like a pro, IE MBS will make me a lot better.
Then again, while thinking of MBS I'm applying it to SC:BW and War3, therefore my opinion on this is worthless having not played SCII yet. On War3 though, I personally had a lot of fun having shorter macro so I could micro my army and hero.
Wow, a pretty useless post, but this is a forum and I figured I would share my thoughts. (and this is bringing up my post count so you elitists (thats what many of you sound like, you guys use nice words like misimformed (or worse), but in the end it says the same thing; we are better than you therefore our opinion means more.) stop picking on people like me who have a rather low post count.)
It's not the post count that matters but rather the quality of posts that will get you respected around here. There is no wrong opinion as long as you present it as an opinion rather than stating it as a fact.
On October 11 2007 14:18 Nintu wrote: The compromise is having it toggle-able. The MBS'ers will be like the BGHers, people who don't care to get better and want a simple starcraft experience.
Yeah, I can see it now.
12 yo bnet kiddie: PFFFT I BEAT YOU EASY 1v1 LT me: ok sure MBS turned off 12 yo bnet kiddie: WTF AS IF, YOU SUCK IF YOU CAN'T USE MBS LOL BL NOOB
I don't care what 12yo b.net kids think of me now, and I won't care what they think of me when SC2 is released. =P
The solution is to allow MBS but to make only 1 building bindable to a hotkey. We still have the same macro setup from BW, and most of the prombs ppl arent going to use hotkeys anyway.
No such conclusions can be made by such garbage. I love how every Pro-MBSer ignored my original question.
Blizzard must implement every technical/mechanical aspect to allow the spectator to fully appreciate what the player does in the game. The skill level must be increased. We must have freedom to control every aspect of game management or else we would only be adding another fancy title to E-Sports.
One thing is certain - Blizzard has to increase the games watchability level. This goes back to accessibility and by that I mean: how easy is it for someone to watch when they have very little knowledge of the game? We want to evolve E-Sport, yes... We also have to evolve E-Sport as a Spectator sport at the same time and MBS is insignificant in this regard.
This accessibility is a lot different from the learning curve someone who has never played this type of RTS aka adding MBS in to make it easier for them.
Either way if you put MBS in you are losing a fundamental component of what made this game so good in the first place.
Don't fix something that isn't broken. There is no need for it.
On October 11 2007 17:04 Hokay wrote: Deep down SC is a shallow game, macro wise. MBS must stay to prevent a shallow RTS because SC's macro is defined by not having MBS. Amirite?
On October 11 2007 17:04 Hokay wrote: Deep down SC is a shallow game, macro wise. MBS must stay to prevent a shallow RTS because SC's macro is defined by not having MBS. Amirite?
a lot of people have the misconception that EVERYONE at TL play starcraft at a high level. thus, you (being anti-MBSers) claim that we're elitist and we want to be able to retain our skill from bw to sc2
however, this is definitely not the case for MANY TLers, including myself. i'll be the first to admit that i suck at starcraft. on abyss i was 5-4 D rank--not exactly what you would call "elite". but do i blame the interface for me sucking so badly? no, rather i know it's due to my lack of practice, my lack of hotkeys, and my lack of ability to multitask.
i enjoy a good game of starcraft, WITHOUT mbs. in fact, before i played starcraft i played AOE2, and MBS is implemented into that game. after i played starcraft for a while i realized just how much AOE2 sucks, and how ridiculously easy it is.
and i'm into the pro scene. why are the pros so impressive? because i know from first-hand experience that as they are doing these ridiculous micro moves with their armies, they are able to look away from the battle scene momentarily to continue their production cycles because they have such great knowledge about when it's appropriate to do so. to me and to most others, that's simply awe-inspiring. MBS would take away from that.
noobs should be able to have fun playing other noobs. good players should be able to have fun playing other good players.
neither require MBS, and in fact have already been proven to be true with the SC:BW model.
On October 11 2007 17:57 LosingID8 wrote: a lot of people have the misconception that EVERYONE at TL play starcraft at a high level. thus, you (being anti-MBSers) claim that we're elitist and we want to be able to retain our skill from bw to sc2
however, this is definitely not the case for MANY TLers, including myself. i'll be the first to admit that i suck at starcraft. on abyss i was 5-4 D rank--not exactly what you would call "elite". but do i blame the interface for me sucking so badly? no, rather i know it's due to my lack of practice, my lack of hotkeys, and my lack of ability to multitask.
i enjoy a good game of starcraft, WITHOUT mbs. in fact, before i played starcraft i played AOE2, and MBS is implemented into that game. after i played starcraft for a while i realized just how much AOE2 sucks, and how ridiculously easy it is.
and i'm into the pro scene. why are the pros so impressive? because i know from first-hand experience that as they are doing these ridiculous micro moves with their armies, they are able to look away from the battle scene momentarily to continue their production cycles because they have such great knowledge about when it's appropriate to do so. to me and to most others, that's simply awe-inspiring. MBS would take away from that.
noobs should be able to have fun playing other noobs. good players should be able to have fun playing other good players.
neither require MBS, and in fact have already been proven to be true with the SC:BW model.
I like what you have to say. Fun is the most important issue.
On October 11 2007 13:33 randombum wrote: I read all of the posts, but it seems to me that a lot of people are upset that other people can and out voted (well voted agaisnt) the general population of TL.net, but I would like to point out, how many times has TL.net banded together to rig other polls?
On, the otherhand I'm a bad player, and I would enjoy the luxory of not having to be super speed to micro and macro well at the same time. Or in otherwords I'm the noobish player (whom a lot of people on TL bash) who is not good enough to play like a pro without praticing like a pro, IE MBS will make me a lot better.
Then again, while thinking of MBS I'm applying it to SC:BW and War3, therefore my opinion on this is worthless having not played SCII yet. On War3 though, I personally had a lot of fun having shorter macro so I could micro my army and hero.
Wow, a pretty useless post, but this is a forum and I figured I would share my thoughts. (and this is bringing up my post count so you elitists (thats what many of you sound like, you guys use nice words like misimformed (or worse), but in the end it says the same thing; we are better than you therefore our opinion means more.) stop picking on people like me who have a rather low post count.)
There's a difference, somewhat, since this is a poll supposed to represent THIS community, unlike many others ("Greatest game of all time?" etc).
On October 11 2007 13:33 randombum wrote: I read all of the posts, but it seems to me that a lot of people are upset that other people can and out voted (well voted agaisnt) the general population of TL.net, but I would like to point out, how many times has TL.net banded together to rig other polls?
On, the otherhand I'm a bad player, and I would enjoy the luxory of not having to be super speed to micro and macro well at the same time. Or in otherwords I'm the noobish player (whom a lot of people on TL bash) who is not good enough to play like a pro without praticing like a pro, IE MBS will make me a lot better.
Then again, while thinking of MBS I'm applying it to SC:BW and War3, therefore my opinion on this is worthless having not played SCII yet. On War3 though, I personally had a lot of fun having shorter macro so I could micro my army and hero.
Wow, a pretty useless post, but this is a forum and I figured I would share my thoughts. (and this is bringing up my post count so you elitists (thats what many of you sound like, you guys use nice words like misimformed (or worse), but in the end it says the same thing; we are better than you therefore our opinion means more.) stop picking on people like me who have a rather low post count.)
No, this is not useless post. Your honest input leads me to conclude, just as orangedude has eloquently explained in his thread, that Blizzard will not ignore the casual crowd--that the solution is to appease both camps. The default solution is toggle, but for now, let's think of other solutions. Both experts and novices will buy SC2 just for the franchise name alone, but for new initiates, the expectation is a modernized UI which includes MBS.
On October 11 2007 13:33 randombum wrote: I read all of the posts, but it seems to me that a lot of people are upset that other people can and out voted (well voted agaisnt) the general population of TL.net, but I would like to point out, how many times has TL.net banded together to rig other polls?
On, the otherhand I'm a bad player, and I would enjoy the luxory of not having to be super speed to micro and macro well at the same time. Or in otherwords I'm the noobish player (whom a lot of people on TL bash) who is not good enough to play like a pro without praticing like a pro, IE MBS will make me a lot better.
Then again, while thinking of MBS I'm applying it to SC:BW and War3, therefore my opinion on this is worthless having not played SCII yet. On War3 though, I personally had a lot of fun having shorter macro so I could micro my army and hero.
Wow, a pretty useless post, but this is a forum and I figured I would share my thoughts. (and this is bringing up my post count so you elitists (thats what many of you sound like, you guys use nice words like misimformed (or worse), but in the end it says the same thing; we are better than you therefore our opinion means more.) stop picking on people like me who have a rather low post count.)
No, this is not useless post. Your honest input leads me to conclude, just as orangedude has eloquently explained in his thread, that Blizzard will not ignore the casual crowd--that the solution is to appease both camps. The default solution is toggle, but for now, let's think of other solutions. Both experts and novices will buy SC2 just for the franchise name alone, but for new initiates, the expectation is a modernized UI which includes MBS.
No. There's the problem: the UI is not like graphics or a piece of technology to be endlessly improved. It is a part of the game which must be balanced for optimum play. That balance is achieved without MBS.
On October 11 2007 14:28 TheShizno wrote: One problem with pushing the button tab to tab through the buildings is the addition of the alt to show unit hp function.
I am not sure what you mean, but if pressing alt reveals unit hp, then your selection mode changes to your unit. If you go back to by pressing hotkey for your buildings, your first highlighted building will have the least queue.
But I agree with Aphelion about MBS not being able to really be solved by button presses, because instead of only being able to select at most ten buildings in SC, with MBS you could have all of your buildings in one hotkey, ....
Aphelion mentioned more presses, but it does not involve more button presses. It stays the same as Brood War macro. For example, to make 3 zealots, 1 dragoon, 1 high templar:
5,z,6,z,7,z,8,d,9,t = ten button presses 5,z,tab,z,tab,z,tab,d,tab,t = ten button presses
In fact, you can still bind one building per hotkey if you wish, as in the first instance above (no tab would be needed). In which case, it is pure Brood War macro.
... and therefore you would never need to go back to your base except to add in buildings or change hotkeys.
Activating MBS forces you to go back to your base:
hotkey,holdhotkey,unit
By pressing 5 twice, your screen switches to your hotkeyed buildings, just as pressing twice on a hotkey centers your screen on your hotkeyed units. To activate MBS, simply hold 5 on the second press while you press unit key.
5,hold5,z = to command all buildings to make zealots.
Your screen will center on each building for .25 seconds. If there are 8 gateways hotkeyed to 5, then this means a total of 2 seconds that you'll be at your base. Away from battlefield. If 4 gateways, then only 1 second. You can queue other commands, be it pressing 1 for your unit 1, or pressing another building group hotkey to mass-produce other units. Press hotkey 6 which has 8 more gateways, and that's another 2 seconds' worth. For a total of 4 seconds away from battlefield.
It's all explained in my post, but I'll repeat it:
* With two buttons, you can mass-produce one unit at an expert rate: four per second. In other words, the task of clicking on your buildings, one by one, to produce one unit, has been automated. Does this require you to leave your units, your attention turned elsewhere? Yes. Does this take time? Yes. * Hotkey2x forces centering on hotkeyed buildings, away from the battlefield. * Hotkey2x,hold,unit allows mass-building of unit. * Cursor/selection/highlight cycles (the screen transitions smoothly, not abruptly) from building to building with subtle special effects (maybe a grotesque root-like adrenaline vein that branches from one hatchery to the next... or a phasing out/cloaking effect of one gateway to the next... or a Terran battle cry that varies according to the number of buildings bound to a hotkey: "Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badassess! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!" Apone, Aliens.) * Naturally, the more buildings bound, the longer the cycle. * You can queue in other commands while this cycle is happening, including pressing another hotkey to mass-build another unit from a different set of buildings.
I call this applying a scale factor to MBS. The more units involved, the longer your screen dances in your base as center of your screen slides from one building to the next.
I believe he was bringing up the issue of alt+tab minimizing the screen which if the mbs was set to tab during a fight it would be very likely to hit alt tab since you are checking unit health while trying to macro.
On October 12 2007 03:33 NotSorry wrote: I believe he was bringing up the issue of alt+tab minimizing the screen which if the mbs was set to tab during a fight it would be very likely to hit alt tab since you are checking unit health while trying to macro.
Tab is in War3 as well as the alt function... Never been a problem there.
On October 12 2007 03:33 NotSorry wrote: I believe he was bringing up the issue of alt+tab minimizing the screen which if the mbs was set to tab during a fight it would be very likely to hit alt tab since you are checking unit health while trying to macro.
Tab is in War3 as well as the alt function... Never been a problem there.
I'll admit, I've personally had issues with it when playing war3 in a highly micro battle I've alt+tabbed dozens of times and lost because of it.
blizzard isnt going to try to add enough stuff to do to make up for mbs they're adding mbs to make speed less of an aspect.
I'd be absolutely delighted to have a blizzard employee chime in with a response saying that I am wrong regarding this but I just really don't think I am. most people who start out playing rts games have like 30 apm or something if they have no experience beforehand they're going to want those players to get something out of the gaming experience without feeling like theres an endless mountain of things they need to get done that was done automatically for them in other rts games. =[
yup, thats what I have been saying this entire time. Blizzard makes an easier version of SC and they do better with sales. Who gives a fuck if all the old bw players who are retiring/getting too old anyways are mad? Time for a new generation of sc players who dont need the mechanics of the old!
On October 12 2007 07:59 {88}iNcontroL wrote: yup, thats what I have been saying this entire time. Blizzard makes an easier version of SC and they do better with sales. Who gives a fuck if all the old bw players who are retiring/getting too old anyways are mad? Time for a new generation of sc players who dont need the mechanics of the old!
what do you mean? You faded away from bw fairly long before sc2 was being announced etc..afaik.
SC2 will have more money involved in terms of tourneys and leagues. It will also be a big sponsorship oppurtunity. It just wont be as hard as Sc1 so eventually the glitz will fade and the original die hard sc players will feel betrayed.
I really don't believe someone's skill still stays in 1z2z3z4z5z6z7z8z9z 1a2z3z4z4z5z6z7z8z9z. I would like to see mbs. It might make gamers concentrate more on micro and tactics (i'm really tired of seeing macro wars in almost every rep/vod).
On October 12 2007 08:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote: what do you mean? You faded away from bw fairly long before sc2 was being announced etc..afaik.
SC2 will have more money involved in terms of tourneys and leagues. It will also be a big sponsorship oppurtunity. It just wont be as hard as Sc1 so eventually the glitz will fade and the original die hard sc players will feel betrayed.
If by fairly long you mean 6 months then, uhm I guess. I started playing poker late november/december.
But I'm still fully intending to play SC2 obv, just didn't feel like playing starcraft seriously anymore (ie needed a break).
Look at that! 44% for and against MBS! I guess only people against (mainly) MBS are bothering to start topics. If you look at the forums anywhere it looks like 99% of people hate MBS... but the poll speaks otherwise.
I hope (and assume they do) blizzard takes this kind of human behavior into account before changing things because of all the complaints.
On October 13 2007 00:56 DeCoup wrote: Look at that! 44% for and against MBS! I guess only people against (mainly) MBS are bothering to start topics. If you look at the forums anywhere it looks like 99% of people hate MBS... but the poll speaks otherwise.
I hope (and assume they do) blizzard takes this kind of human behavior into account before changing things because of all the complaints.
This poll is no longer valid as it was proxyspammed by people when it was advertised on the battlenet forums.
That being said, Id just like to add something to the discussion. If you were not a good starcraft 1 player. You will not be a good starcraft 2 player. If people actually think that the reason they werent champion starcraft players was because they didnt have MBS then they are seriously deluded.
If this is your argument for MBS, please reconsider. Theres no problem with being a bad player at a game, you dont have to be the best to enjoy.
Nah i mean i hope they don't remove MBS because people complain about it. I hope that they do what they feel is best for the gameplay. Personally i don't really care what they do to the game. When it comes out i'll play it and learn it.
On October 12 2007 11:04 MiniRoman wrote: This shit reminds me of The Last Samurai when everyone is getting owned by that amish machine gun.
But Tom Cruise gets the girl in the end. So SC lives on while getting the girl or something?
Tom Cruise is the warcraft 3 player that went to starcraft to convert them to the new but got awed by their community and converted due to the suckiness of wc3.
Then the machineguns are the new blizzard EZmode game, SC2, wich isnt badly made and moves down all of the culture starcraft had built in favor of the new EZmode wars. The warcraft player survived but ever after he preached of the greatness of starcraft pro wich likeness will never be seen again.
The girl you say? WTF how should i know that? Maybe the girl is his real life now that he dont have to play starcraft 24/7?
On October 13 2007 19:58 PobTheCad wrote: We need MBS , this is not 1998 anymore people will expect advances in the game and not just a rehash of the original.
This notion has been noted a few thousand times. We know that blizzard knows what people expect.
This poll is beyond pointless now because anyone can just use a proxy or even restart their modem/router to refresh their ip and vote again. About 80% of the votes are most likely fake.
actually no, it massively favours anti-mbs, on this site. which is what the poll was to determine we already knew bnet newbs and the like would prefer mbs.
Technically this poll is misleading. In order to get the accurate amount of PRO-MBS people you need to add all of the options together besides NO MBS. So really the pro mbs side has like 50 more votes than it appears to have. So I really don't think that blizzard will take polls like this seriously.
what? the other options were made seperate because they arent pro-mbs or anti-mbs.. we could just as easily say that anyone who votes for the other options obviously doesnt want full mbs, so they should be included in anti-mbs.
On October 14 2007 01:35 IdrA wrote: actually no, it massively favours anti-mbs, on this site. which is what the poll was to determine we already knew bnet newbs and the like would prefer mbs.
This poll was utterly unnecessary.
It's mind-numbingly obvious that TL wants no MBS, and other people want MBS.
On October 14 2007 01:35 IdrA wrote: actually no, it massively favours anti-mbs, on this site. which is what the poll was to determine we already knew bnet newbs and the like would prefer mbs.
This poll was utterly unnecessary.
It's mind-numbingly obvious that TL wants no MBS, and other people want MBS.
edit:
So really, it boils down to:
TL.net vs World?
it boils down to TL + Korea + much of GG.net as well vs "world"
korea needs to voice their opinion, or there needs to be some way of getting it out to the rest of the world. multiple people have said that since we havent seen anything from the koreans it means they dont care.
On October 14 2007 02:58 BlackStar wrote: Aren't there like 50 Korean SC players for every foreign SC player?
Anyway, what do Koreans say about this? Is this debated as much as on English sites?
You read the bnet forums to much, I swear that 50 to 1 quotes comes up every 10seconds on that forum. High level players easily 50+ to 1, total players in general not a chance at even 10 to 1 or even less that than.
On October 14 2007 01:35 IdrA wrote: actually no, it massively favours anti-mbs, on this site. which is what the poll was to determine we already knew bnet newbs and the like would prefer mbs.
This poll was utterly unnecessary.
It's mind-numbingly obvious that TL wants no MBS, and other people want MBS.
edit:
So really, it boils down to:
TL.net vs World?
it boils down to TL + Korea + much of GG.net as well vs noobs
Simple solution. Sell non mbs sc2 in asia and europe and sell mbs sc2 in usa/can/mexico Seriously only like .01% of american fans don't want mbs. e-Sports just isn't a big thing in the usa right now and most people don't care.
On October 14 2007 01:35 IdrA wrote: actually no, it massively favours anti-mbs, on this site. which is what the poll was to determine we already knew bnet newbs and the like would prefer mbs.
This poll was utterly unnecessary.
It's mind-numbingly obvious that TL wants no MBS, and other people want MBS.
edit:
So really, it boils down to:
TL.net vs World?
it boils down to TL + Korea + much of GG.net as well vs noobs
Fixed.
This attitude is exactly why lots of people don't like this site. Plenty of players have been playing sc for years and don't think that mbs will ruin sc2. Saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a noob is not going to make people take your opinion seriously.
On October 14 2007 04:10 eL.Virus wrote: Simple solution. Sell non mbs sc2 in asia and europe and sell mbs sc2 in usa/can/mexico Seriously only like .01% of american fans don't want mbs. e-Sports just isn't a big thing in the usa right now and most people don't care.
Umm, stupid idea. If esports isn't as big as you say in North America why the fuck would Blizzard want to cater to it? Just make it without MBS and let the newbies (that's what they are) play a few casual games and move on like they would anyway. Most of the people that would sustain the game and currently sustain BW do not want MBS in despite this fucked up poll.
On October 14 2007 04:10 eL.Virus wrote: Simple solution. Sell non mbs sc2 in asia and europe and sell mbs sc2 in usa/can/mexico Seriously only like .01% of american fans don't want mbs. e-Sports just isn't a big thing in the usa right now and most people don't care.
Umm, stupid idea. If esports isn't as big as you say in North America why the fuck would Blizzard want to cater to it? Just make it without MBS and let the newbies (that's what they are) play a few casual games and move on like they would anyway. Most of the people that would sustain the game and currently sustain BW do not want MBS in despite this fucked up poll.
Because clearly blizzard doesn't want to piss off 90% of their north american fanbase by selling them an outdated rehash of sc. MONEY=GOOD. GET MORE MONEY BY MAKING GAME APPEAL TO LARGER FANBASE WHICH MEANS MBS IN AMERICA.
The CS scene is leaning towards "pro-mod" for professional gaming vs regular gaming. What about something simular in SC2?
It would solve a lot of "problems" playability vs pro-gaming. And the promod would be more focused towards the hardcore community and their wishes istead of mass-marked sales.
I really don't see why this is such a big issue. There are plenty of solutions that don't result in blizzard just saying SCREW YOU to a portion of the community. Like a divided hardmode ladder and easymode ladder.
Diablo II for example used a hardcore ladder and a softcore ladder and did just fine.
el.Virus. If you don't like this site, get out. I'm quite certain from the tone of your posts you are a b.net poster come here to make it seem like this poll was legitimate.
Don't try. Its clear from the debates about this topic that almost anyone who has played SC at a high level vehemently oppose MBS. Its okay to have your opinion, its not okay to pretend that somehow expert consensus is split or even agrees with you.
On October 14 2007 01:35 IdrA wrote: actually no, it massively favours anti-mbs, on this site. which is what the poll was to determine we already knew bnet newbs and the like would prefer mbs.
This poll was utterly unnecessary.
It's mind-numbingly obvious that TL wants no MBS, and other people want MBS.
edit:
So really, it boils down to:
TL.net vs World?
it boils down to TL + Korea + much of GG.net as well vs "world"
I'm all for mbs and I'm from tl.
I think it's hilarious that you guys don't understand how extremely retarded not adding mbs would be. "hey lets limit the interface so you have to click more just for the reason that you have to be faster to play it"
On October 14 2007 01:35 IdrA wrote: actually no, it massively favours anti-mbs, on this site. which is what the poll was to determine we already knew bnet newbs and the like would prefer mbs.
This poll was utterly unnecessary.
It's mind-numbingly obvious that TL wants no MBS, and other people want MBS.
edit:
So really, it boils down to:
TL.net vs World?
it boils down to TL + Korea + much of GG.net as well vs "world"
I'm all for mbs and I'm from tl.
I think it's hilarious that you guys don't understand how extremely retarded not adding mbs would be. "hey lets limit the interface so you have to click more just for the reason that you have to be faster to play it"
... I just don't have the energy to repeat my argument one more time. I thought someone like you would have at least read things through before making a post like this -_-
On October 14 2007 01:35 IdrA wrote: actually no, it massively favours anti-mbs, on this site. which is what the poll was to determine we already knew bnet newbs and the like would prefer mbs.
This poll was utterly unnecessary.
It's mind-numbingly obvious that TL wants no MBS, and other people want MBS.
edit:
So really, it boils down to:
TL.net vs World?
it boils down to TL + Korea + much of GG.net as well vs "world"
I'm all for mbs and I'm from tl.
I think it's hilarious that you guys don't understand how extremely retarded not adding mbs would be. "hey lets limit the interface so you have to click more just for the reason that you have to be faster to play it"
I agree with this guy.
I haven't read all the posts in this thread and all the other MBS threads, but the general consensus I've gotten is that the majority of "veteran" TL.net doesn't want MBS, and all the wannabe people who want to fit in are just jumping on the bandwagon.
MBS is really not that bad, sure it makes things a bit easier for noobs, but it gets rid of the z3z4z5z6d7d8d9d0t useless hotkey spamming or click-z-click-z-click-z-click-z-click-z which in my opinion is the right way to go with the game.
Yeah, the lack of MBS in SC&BW and the heavy emphasis on macro is a huge part of what makes it competitive, but this is going to be a new game. If you want to stick to the way Starcraft is, just play Starcraft.
Not having MBS in SCII is pretty ridiculous, as it really doesn't change much in the game except for making it easier for people with bad macro. You still have to go and choose different units for each gateway/factory/barracks/whatever if you want a mix for your units, which will most likely be the best way to go; it's not like people are always going to be massing one unit (15 gate fastest map Dragoons ftw?).
edit: so the z3z4z5z6d7d8d9d0t example would turn into something like, 3z(4gates)4d(3gates)5t(1gate), or click on a gate and build templar, and the unit compositions will be constantly changing depending on what the other player has, so it really isn't that much easier.
shut up thats been discussed in 3 threads, and even pro-mbs people agree it isnt a valid argument. games have to have some limitations or theyre no fun. do you want the game to do everything for you? no. an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere. its just a matter of where.
On October 14 2007 07:55 IdrA wrote: shut up thats been discussed in 3 threads, and even pro-mbs people agree it isnt a valid argument. games have to have some limitations or theyre no fun. do you want the game to do everything for you? no. an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere. its just a matter of where.
On October 14 2007 07:55 IdrA wrote: shut up thats been discussed in 3 threads, and even pro-mbs people agree it isnt a valid argument. games have to have some limitations or theyre no fun. do you want the game to do everything for you? no. an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere. its just a matter of where.
wtf? tell me why it's not a valid argument.
i said why.... in the post you just quoted if you want something more indepth you can go ahead and read the hundreds of other times its been addressed in the other MBS threads
On October 14 2007 07:45 noobienoob wrote: MBS is really not that bad, sure it makes things a bit easier for noobs, but it gets rid of the z3z4z5z6d7d8d9d0t useless hotkey spamming or click-z-click-z-click-z-click-z-click-z which in my opinion is the right way to go with the game.
Yeah, the lack of MBS in SC&BW and the heavy emphasis on macro is a huge part of what makes it competitive, but this is going to be a new game. If you want to stick to the way Starcraft is, just play Starcraft.
Not having MBS in SCII is pretty ridiculous, as it really doesn't change much in the game except for making it easier for people with bad macro. You still have to go and choose different units for each gateway/factory/barracks/whatever if you want a mix for your units, which will most likely be the best way to go; it's not like people are always going to be massing one unit (15 gate fastest map Dragoons ftw?).
edit: so the z3z4z5z6d7d8d9d0t example would turn into something like, 3z(4gates)4d(3gates)5t(1gate), or click on a gate and build templar, and the unit compositions will be constantly changing depending on what the other player has, so it really isn't that much easier.
Sorry I don't have time to go read hundreds of pages of posts to look for the answer, but I don't see why this is invalid, especially the part with unit compositions are constantly changing in a game. As far as I can tell, all MBS is really doing is getting rid of the click-z-click-z-click-z-click-z-click-z and opening up more hotkeys for you to work with.
...and I'll shut up now, because I'm just going to be bombarded by posts like this:
On October 14 2007 08:04 KShiduo wrote: How about you learn how to fucking read? Read the frickin' threads.
On October 14 2007 07:55 IdrA wrote: shut up thats been discussed in 3 threads, and even pro-mbs people agree it isnt a valid argument. games have to have some limitations or theyre no fun. do you want the game to do everything for you? no. an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere. its just a matter of where.
Well, i think that they just want to state that the TL core isnt in 100% agreement and thats that.
But ofcourse there will be 2 pages from now with people responding to them saying that theyre wrong and dumb and stupid and so.
Edit: Just saw the more posts, totally unnecesaty to start arguing for pro mbs here since it will just anger people, noobie.
Could you possibly be any more elitist aphelion? You have this posting style of "I am better than everyone and my opinion is the only one that counts". You must not have many friends if you act like this in real life.
Also according to you guys the only thing stopping me from owning bisu is the lack of mbs causing me to fall behind in macro. If this is the case sc progaming is indeed sadder than I had imagined. Why do you guys think that mbs is going to let a bunch of battle.net forum noobers own you progamers? Are you really that bad at strategy and micro and refuse to adapt to a slightly different play style that focuses more on what you do and less on how fast you click it.
We're saying that MBS will make the game less fun, and will reduce the styles among progamers as they all become capable of doing things almost perfectly. With MBS, you won't have the Oovs, the Boxers and the Julys and the Pusans. Their emphasis on exceptional macro and micro will be gone, because now there is less room for improvement in the game. With MBS you can bet that the 500apm monsters will be able to macro perfectly will microing constantly.
Its not that with MBS, bnet noobs will own us "pros". In fact, I think Blizzcon has shown that it may very well be the opposite. It will however, decrease the skill level between say a C and a D, it will unfavorably reward the micro-focused player, and most importantly, it will reduce the amount of multitasking the player requires.
You would have heard all those arguments if you bothered to read the previous arguments in the 50+ pages of debate, but I will repeat them again for your benefit. I want to dispell any notion that macro is just mindless clicking, and that MBS will somehow make the game better through it being more thinking based rather than stupid-apm spamming.
Answer this. Why should I care if it reduces the styles among pros? I would rather play sc2 when it comes out than watch pros play it.
Explain why people who don't care about progamers should care about mbs and I will leave this poll. Btw when sc2 is released and it has mbs I will come here for a good laugh.
On October 14 2007 09:25 eL.Virus wrote: Answer this. Why should I care if it reduces the styles among pros? I would rather play sc2 when it comes out than watch pros play it.
Explain why people who don't care about progamers should care about mbs and I will leave this poll. Btw when sc2 is released and it has mbs I will come here for a good laugh.
Nothing, besides the fact that if you even play SC2 on an okay level, you will realize that there is less multitasking and less fun for those who play competitively. If you are a fastest / BGH player - I'm sure you will want MBS.
Our goal isn't to appeal to you. TL.net's role is to represent the views of the competitive community, the ones who want more than pew-pew lasers, the ones who will play this game for more than 3 months until the next flashy no substance game comes out. We are the ones who want SC2 to carry off where SC left off as a great e-sport. See the entire column on the right? Thats proof of our dedication to the professional scene.
If that doesn't include you, thats okay. We simply don't have a common ground for discussion. You have a different vision of the game than we do, and that is entirely fine. But don't come rigging our polls so that Blizzard will think that TL.net, a forum devoted to the professional scene, is split on the issue of MBS. We aren't. 80% of us don't want MBS. You are fair to make your own poll on your own forum. Don't come causing our views to be misrepresented.
[QUOTE]On October 14 2007 09:34 Aphelion wrote: [QUOTE]On October 14 2007 09:25 eL.Virus wrote:
If that doesn't include you, thats okay. We simply don't have a common ground for discussion. You have a different vision of the game than we do, and that is entirely fine. But don't come rigging our polls so that Blizzard will think that TL.net, a forum devoted to the professional scene, is split on the issue of MBS. We aren't. 80% of us don't want MBS. You are fair to make your own poll on your own forum. Don't come causing our views to be misrepresented.[/QUOTE]
Pish, this is karma. I can't count how many times we fucked up other people's polls.
So I'm taking it everyone who's in favor of no MBS is also in favor of selecting warp-gates one at a time and clicking where each unit will go one at a time, rinsing and repeating the hotkey pattern everytime the cooldown is done.. not that it's a bad thing, because it's very macro intensive and will definitely show who's faster in clicking speed.. or maybe it's to encourage the use of regular gateways, since that's easier and everyone from the original SC is already used to that system anyway.
no mbs favors protoss and zerg so it is bad from a balance point. Protoss don't need to make as many units as terran and zerg get multiple larva selection. Protoss can click on zealot once and get the effect that clicking on marine twice has.
On October 14 2007 09:44 Aphelion wrote: But as long as you continue think macro is about clicking speed rather multitasking and mechanics - all debate is lost on you.
I never said I believed macro is about clicking speed rather than multitasking and mechanics. Then again it'd be pretty hard to multitask this way, wouldn't it? ..unless whatever else you were multitasking was where you planned to put your units anyway, of course. Did you mean using the mini-map to accurately place all your units while you were multitasking other stuff instead of moving the screen to the location? Wow, that would be quite a skill to master.
Meh, there are a number of things I wouldn't mind MBS for - like setting rally points. Why? Cause unlike producing units, it's tedious to the point where it's unfeasible to manually re-set the rally points for a relatively large number of un-hotkeyed gateways.
Warpgates, I dunno how they'll work exactly but if the same thing holds true, ie it would be unfeasible to use them should MBS not be in the game, then I'm all for MBS being used for warpgates.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there was no B.Net advertisement for this poll, yet 54 voted in favor of the "interface improvements" in general and 34 voted against. Since most of the interface changes are in the same spirit as MBS (cloning, autocasting interceptors, smartcasting) I'd wager that the anti-MBS people would also be against most of the other interface changes (or they haven't thought about them enough to make a decision).
And in regards to Idra, I'll say again that while the pro-MBS side agrees that limitations are necessary, they believe that UI limitations should stop when there is no longer a decision to be made. The traditional argument has been that the decision is made at "I want to build x of y", and therefore the interface should make it as easy as possible to execute that decision; any added difficulty in the execution is thus considered "artificial". Now, there is the counter-argument that difficult-to-execute macro creates a decision on when to take your attention off of your army to go back to your base. The effectiveness of this counter-argument depends on whether that one decision is crucial enough to SC2's gameplay to outweigh the "artificiality" introduced to the interface. I personally don't think it is, but that's for the beta to determine.
Edit: IMO, one of the major arguments underlying this debate that has never been explicitly mentioned is whether SC2 skill should be more physical-based or mental-based. I'd love for it to be 50/50, but even then SC vets will likely think that it's "too easy", given how predominant physical skill is in SC.
On October 14 2007 08:47 eL.Virus wrote: Also according to you guys the only thing stopping me from owning bisu is the lack of mbs causing me to fall behind in macro. If this is the case sc progaming is indeed sadder than I had imagined. Why do you guys think that mbs is going to let a bunch of battle.net forum noobers own you progamers? Are you really that bad at strategy and micro and refuse to adapt to a slightly different play style that focuses more on what you do and less on how fast you click it.
why the HELL do you post this nobody posted ANYTHING even remotely similar to what you claim we posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there was no B.Net advertisement for this poll, yet 54 voted in favor of the "interface improvements" in general and 34 voted against. Since most of the interface changes are in the same spirit as MBS (cloning, autocasting interceptors, smartcasting) I'd wager that the anti-MBS people would also be against most of the other interface changes (or they haven't thought about them enough to make a decision).
And in regards to Idra, I'll say again that while the pro-MBS side agrees that limitations are necessary, they believe that UI limitations should stop when there is no longer a decision to be made. The traditional argument has been that the decision is made at "I want to build x of y", and therefore the interface should make it as easy as possible to execute that decision; any added difficulty in the execution is thus considered "artificial". Now, there is the counter-argument that difficult-to-execute macro creates a decision on when to take your attention off of your army to go back to your base. The effectiveness of this counter-argument depends on whether that one decision is crucial enough to SC2's gameplay to outweigh the "artificiality" introduced to the interface. I personally don't think it is, but that's for the beta to determine.
Edit: IMO, one of the major arguments underlying this debate that has never been explicitly mentioned is whether SC2 skill should be more physical-based or mental-based. I'd love for it to be 50/50, but even then SC vets will likely think that it's "too easy", given how predominant physical skill is in SC.
Um, no.
Starcraft's speed is a mental ability, not a physical one. The average computer user can type at 60 wpm or more, right? Well 60 wpm *5 characters/word = 300 apm. Add one mouse click per second and you have a 360 apm. Very very few people do not have the physical skill to do this. It is almost entirely a mental skill until you get up to 400+ apm, where some people will have trouble simply moving their fingers that quickly.
Also, that other poll was just for ANY UI improvements. You can be the most avid anti-MBS person in the world, but you'd still have voted "yes" if you wanted 18 selectable units at a time or color-coded minimap pings. ANY IU improvement would mean you'd vote yes. It should have been 100% to 0%.
He has a point, though. Macro and speed in general is too important in SC. Micro and strategy is less important than it should be. The pro teams in Korea only look after very fast players, regardless of their initial skill or "game understanding", because this "can come later" (some team manager said that in an old interview).
That's why a shift in general gameplay is necessary. Micro needs to be more important. MBS will help. It would mean that a 500 APM monster would no longer have a speed advantage over a 400 APM monster (that's what the anti MBS posters don't like), but this is a necessary evil. Players need to concentrate more on micro and strategy instead of just "out-clicking" your opponent. I don't see this as a disadvantage or "dumbing down" of the game. It's quite the opposite in my book.
A pure macro player should never have an edge over a pure micro player, or at least equal chances... macro is a far too "dumb" skill. Micro is harder and significantly different in each game situation, and therefore should be valued more. But in SC today, it's like 40% micro 60% macro or at best 50/50. It should be 60/40, and the 40 are only there to keep the player busy during times where there is no fighting. If there is fighting, what's so wrong with having more attention for your army?
Just imagine how many units you could use that aren't viable in SC1 because they're too difficult to use (ghosts, queens, dark archons, hallucination, disruption web vs. Terran...) All the stuff no one does in SC1 because it's too hard to micro could suddenly become viable and this could change the game completely (for the better, hopefully) because there's more variety. Macro is stupid and repetitious. If you like it, that's okay, but much more people don't like it, especially the casual gamers. So you have to adapt to it. Or stay with SC1.
Computer games are different from a "real" sports, where nothing ever changes anymore. There is always room for improvement (graphics, UI, new units, balance changes, ...) and the majority of people tends to dislike artificial limitations or an "outdated" UI. Blizzard almost has no chance, except when MBS is so bad that it really cripples competitive play (I don't think this is going to happen though). Then, they'd have to advertise SBS as being an essential feature, so that the casual gamers and game reviewers "get" it and don't start flaming the game for its "outdated" UI.
On October 14 2007 08:47 eL.Virus wrote: Also according to you guys the only thing stopping me from owning bisu is the lack of mbs causing me to fall behind in macro. If this is the case sc progaming is indeed sadder than I had imagined. Why do you guys think that mbs is going to let a bunch of battle.net forum noobers own you progamers? Are you really that bad at strategy and micro and refuse to adapt to a slightly different play style that focuses more on what you do and less on how fast you click it.
why the HELL do you post this nobody posted ANYTHING even remotely similar to what you claim we posted
For me, "Even Casy can TvP now", "mbs will ruin competition", "With MBS suddenly hungtran doesn't need maphack to be good" sound pretty similar to what he claims anti-mbs crowd posted.
On October 14 2007 21:11 Brutalisk wrote: He has a point, though. Macro and speed in general is too important in SC. Micro and strategy is less important than it should be. The pro teams in Korea only look after very fast players, regardless of their initial skill or "game understanding", because this "can come later" (some team manager said that in an old interview).
That's why a shift in general gameplay is necessary. Micro needs to be more important. MBS will help. It would mean that a 500 APM monster would no longer have a speed advantage over a 400 APM monster (that's what the anti MBS posters don't like), but this is a necessary evil. Players need to concentrate more on micro and strategy instead of just "out-clicking" your opponent. I don't see this as a disadvantage or "dumbing down" of the game. It's quite the opposite in my book.
A pure macro player should never have an edge over a pure micro player, or at least equal chances... macro is a far too "dumb" skill. Micro is harder and different in each game situation, and therefore should be valued more. But in SC today, it's like 40% micro 60% macro or at best 50/50. It should be 60/40, and the 40 are only there to keep the player busy during times where there is no fighting. If there is fighting, what's so wrong with having more attention for your army?
Just imagine how many units you could use that aren't viable in SC1 because they're too difficult to use (ghosts, queens, dark archons, hallucination, disruption web vs. Terran...) All the stuff no one does in SC1 because it's too hard to micro could suddenly become viable and this could change the game completely (for the better, hopefully) because there's more variety. Macro is stupid and repetitious. If you like it, that's okay, but much more people don't like it, especially the casual gamers. So you have to adapt to it. Or stay with SC1.
I can't even tell how much bull**** you're talking. I marked everything red that is wrong, wrong and wrong again by fact. And I was very careful with the marks! I will cover the rest of your post in the following:
That unknown team manager saying speed is more important than strategy in an old interview that nobody ever read. WTF?? Could you please tell me the link to this fictionary interview? Or have you ever tried playing competitively on a ladder? Obviously not. If you don't know strategies you can't have a positive score. That's a fact, not an opinion.
Then, you don't even tell why you want APM to be less important. Come on, say it! Can't you get above 150 APM or what? Do you feel small? Nobody can "out-click" anybody, perhaps you feel that way because you don't understand enough about sc:bw. Get a better understanding of this game and you can beat 500 APM monsters with crappy 150-200 APM. No kidding.
How do you come to the conclusion that macro-players have an edge over micro-players? Micro and macro is about 50/50 in sc:bw and it differs a lot by matchup/strategy. One game is more micro-intensive, another one is more macro-intensive. I doubt that you ever used bwchart to analyse games. It's a very accurate tool to tell game statistics. Nothing's wrong about paying attention to the army if there's fighting, but here's the counter-question: what's wrong about not paying attention to the army if there's fighting? The answer is always: nothing. Only your animosity against macro-players, maybe.
Too hard to micro, lol come on. It is supposed to be hard, but that doesn't make it too hard. Or - once again - only for you it may be too hard, but not for us! This is exactly what we want! It must be hard for everybody so that only a few can master it - those who invest time to train it. The others must realize that they can only use those units if they don't manage their bases at the same time. It is sure fun to talk to friends, play games, eat donuts and make love to some girl while driving a car, all at the same time - but it is not very clever. By the way just to let you know: hallucination and disruption web against terran is not used because it isn't cost-effective. Got nothing to do with our (in)ability to use it. To me this proves that you don't know competitive sc.
For your statement about macro and stupidity I would like to murder you. Just kidding. Or maybe I am serious. I don't know.
you think "Even Casy can TvP now" sounds like "Also according to you guys the only thing stopping me from owning bisu is the lack of mbs causing me to fall behind in macro"?
FakeSteve: So can you offer some insight about judging skill? it must be hard to choose the best members for the team, what spefically do you look for in terms of skill?
[Aficionado]: keyboard skill, mouse scroll speed, attitude playing SC, some dedication to playing SC [Aficionado]: I believe good hardware skill makes the best [Aficionado]: usually people who has good strategic mind makes good result but I think they coudn't climb the highest level : )
FakeSteve: Interesting
[Aficionado]: ^^ for example, July had not any strat play during the 2 years [Aficionado]: But he made it StarLeague champion [Aficionado]: A person who has good basic skill and mind will approach the top level if he has enough practice : )
Personally I don't see why this is such a horrible thing. Of course people with immense dedication will learn the strategies after years of training. I respect people who are capable of moving/thinking quickly and multitasking just as much as those who have a deep knowledge of the game.
The only solution for me is that SC2 has two modes. One mode, lets call it - "pro mode". Withouth MBS,automining etc.. This mode will be used for Korea,WCG,big cash tournaments. And "noob mode" with MBS and all the WC3 stuff. This will be used for battle.net, friendly games, etc... As SC2 is expected to be super-big in pro-gaming I see this as the only way everyone to be happy.
FakeSteve: So can you offer some insight about judging skill? it must be hard to choose the best members for the team, what spefically do you look for in terms of skill?
[Aficionado]: keyboard skill, mouse scroll speed, attitude playing SC, some dedication to playing SC [Aficionado]: I believe good hardware skill makes the best [Aficionado]: usually people who has good strategic mind makes good result but I think they coudn't climb the highest level : )
FakeSteve: Interesting
[Aficionado]: ^^ for example, July had not any strat play during the 2 years [Aficionado]: But he made it StarLeague champion [Aficionado]: A person who has good basic skill and mind will approach the top level if he has enough practice : )
Personally I don't see why this is such a horrible thing. Of course people with immense dedication will learn the strategies after years of training. I respect people who are capable of moving/thinking quickly and multitasking just as much as those who have a deep knowledge of the game.
Of course this is not a horrible thing at all. I don't really know which side you are taking in this debate so I can't respond directly.
Anyways, July had pretty bad times against iloveoov and then there was this long reign of macro and strategy which never really ended. + Show Spoiler +
I think Hwasin is one good example that a good unit control doesn't make you win games, see his game against Savior on Un'Goro Crater. He won in a very oov-like manner. I don't know if the spoiler is neccessary since the game is from the past month I think.
Since iloveoov only had an average unit control I think he was equal in skill to July, so the only thing that could really make him superior to him was his knowledge about strategy. Or Savior: he is known to have great multitasking abilities and being a great strategiest with his indepth-knowledge of the game. If you watch older FPVods from him you may realize that back then he wasn't really speedy, he just timed things well and he didn't blunder as much as other progamers. This is to prove that strategy/decision making is as (if not more) important as APM/multitasking/speed even in sc:bw.
On October 14 2007 02:58 BlackStar wrote: Aren't there like 50 Korean SC players for every foreign SC player?
Anyway, what do Koreans say about this? Is this debated as much as on English sites?
You read the bnet forums to much, I swear that 50 to 1 quotes comes up every 10seconds on that forum. High level players easily 50+ to 1, total players in general not a chance at even 10 to 1 or even less that than.
ForAdun: I don't expect anyone to like what I said. But it's my firm opinion after many years of following the pro scene and playing myself. I'm not playing competitively, and I don't have more than 150 APM, but that's all besides the point. I don't want to be pro. I just think that the gameplay could be improved. For everyone.
You got me wrong about the micro units/abilities. I said that they're too hard for everyone to use. Including the best of the best progamers. Ghosts, hallucination, mind control, queens and so on are used so extremely rarely, you could almost say they're never used. Yet they're all there for a reason, and they are not bad, it's just that most often it's not worth microing them.
And that's why I think that macro should take a step back in order to allow the players to use the whole array of units/abilities that the game has to offer (-> more variety in gameplay and more strategies possible, a good thing). If macro is so important and time-consuming, then ALL players (including the best of the best) will inevitably fall back to using only those units that are easy to control and will almost never use anything else. MBS seems to be, in theory, the solution to this problem, that's why I think it's a good idea.
And about that team manager: Muirhead quoted the right thing, that's what I meant. Speed/keyboard control is the prime requirement. Strategy or intelligent playing is only a secondary thing. Might be worth a change, right?
The rest is your opinion, I don't care. I have mine. And get some manners please.
On October 15 2007 01:51 pirate cod wrote: I like Starcraft and Brood War for everything it is. Changing the game play changes the game and I don't want another game, I want a sequel.
well technically a sequel is another game... but i still know what you mean.
On October 15 2007 01:22 Brutalisk wrote: ForAdun: I don't expect anyone to like what I said. But it's my firm opinion after many years of following the pro scene and playing myself. I'm not playing competitively, and I don't have more than 150 APM, but that's all besides the point. I don't want to be pro. I just think that the gameplay could be improved. For everyone.
You got me wrong about the micro units/abilities. I said that they're too hard for everyone to use. Including the best of the best progamers. Ghosts, hallucination, mind control, queens and so on are used so extremely rarely, you could almost say they're never used. Yet they're all there for a reason, and they are not bad, it's just that most often it's not worth microing them.
And that's why I think that macro should take a step back in order to allow the players to use the whole array of units/abilities that the game has to offer (-> more variety in gameplay and more strategies possible, a good thing). If macro is so important and time-consuming, then ALL players (including the best of the best) will inevitably fall back to using only those units that are easy to control and will almost never use anything else. MBS seems to be, in theory, the solution to this problem, that's why I think it's a good idea.
And about that team manager: Muirhead quoted the right thing, that's what I meant. Speed/keyboard control is the prime requirement. Strategy or intelligent playing is only a secondary thing. Might be worth a change, right?
The rest is your opinion, I don't care. I have mine. And get some manners please.
That is part of the problem. By setting the bar so high we WANT it to be close to impossible to master just like any other athletic sport because when a player such as Boxer proves the impossible to be possible everyone looks at him in awe, i.e. the time he microed something like 12 ghosts to lockdown a dozen BCs and win.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there was no B.Net advertisement for this poll, yet 54 voted in favor of the "interface improvements" in general and 34 voted against. Since most of the interface changes are in the same spirit as MBS (cloning, autocasting interceptors, smartcasting) I'd wager that the anti-MBS people would also be against most of the other interface changes (or they haven't thought about them enough to make a decision).
And in regards to Idra, I'll say again that while the pro-MBS side agrees that limitations are necessary, they believe that UI limitations should stop when there is no longer a decision to be made. The traditional argument has been that the decision is made at "I want to build x of y", and therefore the interface should make it as easy as possible to execute that decision; any added difficulty in the execution is thus considered "artificial". Now, there is the counter-argument that difficult-to-execute macro creates a decision on when to take your attention off of your army to go back to your base. The effectiveness of this counter-argument depends on whether that one decision is crucial enough to SC2's gameplay to outweigh the "artificiality" introduced to the interface. I personally don't think it is, but that's for the beta to determine.
Edit: IMO, one of the major arguments underlying this debate that has never been explicitly mentioned is whether SC2 skill should be more physical-based or mental-based. I'd love for it to be 50/50, but even then SC vets will likely think that it's "too easy", given how predominant physical skill is in SC.
Um, no.
Starcraft's speed is a mental ability, not a physical one. The average computer user can type at 60 wpm or more, right? Well 60 wpm *5 characters/word = 300 apm. Add one mouse click per second and you have a 360 apm. Very very few people do not have the physical skill to do this. It is almost entirely a mental skill until you get up to 400+ apm, where some people will have trouble simply moving their fingers that quickly.
typing speed is with 2 hands, almost all keyboard actions in bw are done with 1 hand
On October 15 2007 01:22 Brutalisk wrote: ForAdun: I don't expect anyone to like what I said. But it's my firm opinion after many years of following the pro scene and playing myself. I'm not playing competitively, and I don't have more than 150 APM, but that's all besides the point. I don't want to be pro. I just think that the gameplay could be improved. For everyone.
You got me wrong about the micro units/abilities. I said that they're too hard for everyone to use. Including the best of the best progamers. Ghosts, hallucination, mind control, queens and so on are used so extremely rarely, you could almost say they're never used. Yet they're all there for a reason, and they are not bad, it's just that most often it's not worth microing them.
And that's why I think that macro should take a step back in order to allow the players to use the whole array of units/abilities that the game has to offer (-> more variety in gameplay and more strategies possible, a good thing). If macro is so important and time-consuming, then ALL players (including the best of the best) will inevitably fall back to using only those units that are easy to control and will almost never use anything else. MBS seems to be, in theory, the solution to this problem, that's why I think it's a good idea.
And about that team manager: Muirhead quoted the right thing, that's what I meant. Speed/keyboard control is the prime requirement. Strategy or intelligent playing is only a secondary thing. Might be worth a change, right?
The rest is your opinion, I don't care. I have mine. And get some manners please.
Hmm, let me think. No, I did not get you wrong about the micro units/abilities. I understood everything about it. You did not understand me, I was saying that ghosts, mind control, queens (excluding hallucination - you know why, read my last response again) and so on are not used extremely rare, i's exactly the opposite: those units/spells get more and more popular and they are not hard to use for progamers, even those outside of the top 30 can use them properly in a televised game. So, this was one of your main arguments but you were clearly mistaken, which is why I marked it red. Progamers can manage their bases and their units simultaneously, yes even spellcasters! I don't know where you got your info from that progamers were not able to do that. They are! Get that into your head, please. Queens or ghosts for example are not harder to use than high templars or even vultures. Yes, vultures! That's actually a standard unit which is not so easy to control for a newbie. We are just so used to seeing them controlled flawlessly that we can't imagine them being more than a basic unit. Or marines, medics, siege tanks... have you ever tried controlling 3-4 groups of m&ms plus some tanks and science vessels while reproducing them? Just moving them around is already a pain for a newbie, yet it is completely natural for a progamer. Or lurkers, they actually need to get burrowed and unburrowed all the time, but even average players have no problem with that! Talk about standard units and not worth microing? In what world do you live? Watch new progaming vods and see what's really going on in the progaming scene. Otherwise please do not argue on this level.
In your quote about speed or strategy as the "prime reqirement" I did not know that you were taking a team manager as an example. I myself wouldn't trust him when he says that. He wants his team to succeed so why should he offer background information about how his team works? Exactly, for no reason at all. Also, he's just one person and it's just one quote from long ago, that's not really much if you ask me. If a progamer ever says that speed is more important than strategy I will take it more serious. Until then we should agree that strategy is about as important as speed/control and no less. The same for macro management.
MBS is a good idea, that's true. But it's also a bad idea and you sure know that. The question is: which side of the fanbase do you want to disturb? The one that already exists and probably stays for a long while or the one that comes and goes by and never shows up again?
Or are you clever and choose not to disturb either side?
On October 15 2007 03:47 BlackStar wrote: It's still mental. Everyone has the physical capability to smash a button on the keyboard with 400 APM. And that is using only one finger.
Haha, funny. I just remembered when I showed my friend that anyone can play the piano by just using one finger to press one key of the keyboard. He tried and hit two keys.
Screw it, just put all the easy mode crap in, just have it all toggle and have it all turned off for ladder and league play. It will be the new generation of $$$BGH$$$ players who everyone just mocks and laughs at while playing competitive mode. So the random newbs are happy for the first 2-3 months till they move to the newest game with better graphics and fully automatic play.
On October 14 2007 21:11 Brutalisk wrote: He has a point, though. Macro and speed in general is too important in SC. Micro and strategy is less important than it should be. The pro teams in Korea only look after very fast players, regardless of their initial skill or "game understanding", because this "can come later" (some team manager said that in an old interview).
That's why a shift in general gameplay is necessary. Micro needs to be more important. MBS will help. It would mean that a 500 APM monster would no longer have a speed advantage over a 400 APM monster (that's what the anti MBS posters don't like), but this is a necessary evil. Players need to concentrate more on micro and strategy instead of just "out-clicking" your opponent. I don't see this as a disadvantage or "dumbing down" of the game. It's quite the opposite in my book.
A pure macro player should never have an edge over a pure micro player, or at least equal chances... macro is a far too "dumb" skill. Micro is harder and different in each game situation, and therefore should be valued more. But in SC today, it's like 40% micro 60% macro or at best 50/50. It should be 60/40, and the 40 are only there to keep the player busy during times where there is no fighting. If there is fighting, what's so wrong with having more attention for your army?
Just imagine how many units you could use that aren't viable in SC1 because they're too difficult to use (ghosts, queens, dark archons, hallucination, disruption web vs. Terran...) All the stuff no one does in SC1 because it's too hard to micro could suddenly become viable and this could change the game completely (for the better, hopefully) because there's more variety. Macro is stupid and repetitious. If you like it, that's okay, but much more people don't like it, especially the casual gamers. So you have to adapt to it. Or stay with SC1.
I can't even tell how much bull**** you're talking. I marked everything red that is wrong, wrong and wrong again by fact. And I was very careful with the marks! I will cover the rest of your post in the following:
That unknown team manager saying speed is more important than strategy in an old interview that nobody ever read. WTF?? Could you please tell me the link to this fictionary interview? Or have you ever tried playing competitively on a ladder? Obviously not. If you don't know strategies you can't have a positive score. That's a fact, not an opinion.
Then, you don't even tell why you want APM to be less important. Come on, say it! Can't you get above 150 APM or what? Do you feel small? Nobody can "out-click" anybody, perhaps you feel that way because you don't understand enough about sc:bw. Get a better understanding of this game and you can beat 500 APM monsters with crappy 150-200 APM. No kidding.
How do you come to the conclusion that macro-players have an edge over micro-players? Micro and macro is about 50/50 in sc:bw and it differs a lot by matchup/strategy. One game is more micro-intensive, another one is more macro-intensive. I doubt that you ever used bwchart to analyse games. It's a very accurate tool to tell game statistics. Nothing's wrong about paying attention to the army if there's fighting, but here's the counter-question: what's wrong about not paying attention to the army if there's fighting? The answer is always: nothing. Only your animosity against macro-players, maybe.
Too hard to micro, lol come on. It is supposed to be hard, but that doesn't make it too hard. Or - once again - only for you it may be too hard, but not for us! This is exactly what we want! It must be hard for everybody so that only a few can master it - those who invest time to train it. The others must realize that they can only use those units if they don't manage their bases at the same time. It is sure fun to talk to friends, play games, eat donuts and make love to some girl while driving a car, all at the same time - but it is not very clever. By the way just to let you know: hallucination and disruption web against terran is not used because it isn't cost-effective. Got nothing to do with our (in)ability to use it. To me this proves that you don't know competitive sc.
For your statement about macro and stupidity I would like to murder you. Just kidding. Or maybe I am serious. I don't know.
Why aren't you banned yet??? Mods didn't tolerate such retarded flaming and complete ignorance back in the day.
JulyZerg had 1300 gamei when he was recruited, and the "unknown" team manager is the manager of the fucking SKT1, it's unknown to you only because you're an ignorant little fuck. Also, 1300 was very low, I had to mention it, because you obviously couldn't know that.
On October 14 2007 23:13 mdb wrote: The only solution for me is that SC2 has two modes. One mode, lets call it - "pro mode". Withouth MBS,automining etc.. This mode will be used for Korea,WCG,big cash tournaments. And "noob mode" with MBS and all the WC3 stuff. This will be used for battle.net, friendly games, etc... As SC2 is expected to be super-big in pro-gaming I see this as the only way everyone to be happy.
On October 15 2007 04:08 NotSorry wrote: Screw it, just put all the easy mode crap in, just have it all toggle and have it all turned off for ladder and league play. It will be the new generation of $$$BGH$$$ players who everyone just mocks and laughs at while playing competitive mode. So the random newbs are happy for the first 2-3 months till they move to the newest game with better graphics and fully automatic play.
And which should Blizzard balance the game for? SC was designed assuming SBS, and SC2 is being designed assuming MBS. It is effectively impossible to balance for both modes simultaneously, so Blizzard will have to commit to one or the other if they want SC2 to be well-balanced.
The best and most likely solution, imo, would be for Blizzard to release the game with MBS (assuming that it doesn't cripple competitive play) and have someone make a mod that implements SBS (or, alternatively, go the whole nine yards and recreate the SC interface or even SC in SC2), with the gameplay rebalanced accordingly. Even if MBS doesn't harm the gameplay at all, there will still be a considerable portion of SC players who feel that the new interface is too "different", and this will be a good alternative for them.
Well of course it should be balanced around competitive play, you think people that play BGH could even tell what balance is, seriously go join one of the games and all you hear is X is imba, Y is imba. You think they really care about balance? All they want is to have 15gate goons all coming out at once.
Then there's no point in including MBS in the first place, since the gameplay with MBS will be horribly broken if the game is designed with SBS in mind. It'd be the same result as if you just tacked MBS onto SC without any other changes.
So? If your not in competitive play, balance isn't a big deal anyways. Even in SC BW the balance is different at different skill levels. MBS players will be people looking for a casual, easy game on BGH. Its noob mode. Balance isn't important.
Huh? Balance is crucial for a fun gameplay experience, no matter what level you are. An RTS is much less fun for everyone if there's one dominant strategy that will always win over others. And the reason you hear BGHers say "x is imba, y is imba" is because in BGH, they are imbalanced. Blizzard didn't design the game with infinite resources in mind, and therefore units that are not used in low-money because they are cost-ineffective are used in BGH, and they end up imbalancing the game. Similar imbalances would happen with MBS in an SC2 designed around SBS.
On October 15 2007 05:11 Aphelion wrote: Balance isn't important.
It sure is, saying that low level players dont care about balance is extremely ignorant. Sure it takes more imbalances for it to be noticeable at low level, but its still important to be there.
If for example toss>all at low level then all low level players would go toss and it would get extremely boring after a short while with only mirrors so they would quit quite soon then.
On October 15 2007 04:27 lololol wrote: Why aren't you banned yet??? Mods didn't tolerate such retarded flaming and complete ignorance back in the day.
JulyZerg had 1300 gamei when he was recruited, and the "unknown" team manager is the manager of the fucking SKT1, it's unknown to you only because you're an ignorant little fuck. Also, 1300 was very low, I had to mention it, because you obviously couldn't know that.
Well, I can't find any flames in my posts. Some may find me ignorant, like you for example, but that's just taste. I find it more ignorant to talk about the progaming scene not knowing too much about it.
I didn't know that it was the SKT T1 (yes, that's spelled correctly) manager who said that, but is that a crime? From my point of view no, it is not. Or do I have to explain to you what crime is? I know that 1300 was low since I myself was only 1500. Poor me, I was better than July yet I'm not a pro.
you were very very ignorant and honestly, that's worse than flaming. (unless your ignorance is the kind of ignorance where you ask a question, instead of dismiss information you didn't have as unimportant, while it was important.)
i dont feel like banning tho but you should really educate yourself more before formulating opinions on these boards.
On October 15 2007 03:48 ForAdun wrote: Progamers can manage their bases and their units simultaneously, yes even spellcasters! I don't know where you got your info from that progamers were not able to do that. They are! [...]
I see it differently. The longer the game lasts, the more progamers are struggling to keep up with all the tasks. It's really not difficult to see. They are very good, obviously, but still far from perfect. Which means that there is room for giving them a little bit of a "helping hand" for macro (with MBS), without making the game too easy or boring.
MBS is a good idea, that's true. But it's also a bad idea and you sure know that. The question is: which side of the fanbase do you want to disturb? The one that already exists and probably stays for a long while or the one that comes and goes by and never shows up again?
Or are you clever and choose not to disturb either side?
I think that MBS must be tried out (and Blizzard is doing it), and tested thoroughly during beta. If it turns out to be seriously damaging to competitive play, and there's no way to work around it, then they should leave it out of course. I want the game to be competitive. I just hope that MBS works and that SC2 gameplay is different (different, not easier) from SC1: less macro intensive, more micro/harass/tactics intensive.
But why do progamers need to be perfect? Why is it neccessary to give them a "helping hand"? Isn't it more interesting to see different styles coming up like it happened and still happens in sc:bw? Do you really want progamers to achieve perfection? Perfection is so... just boring...
This is why I didn't want to bother reading all the pages of posts in the other MBS threads; they all go off topic and into bitching/flaming/spamming mode.
Like someone said, the game is already being developed with MBS in mind (warp-gates as an example); it's going to be too much trouble to go back and rebalance it for SBS, so unfortunately I'm pretty sure they are going to stick with MBS.
Either way, I don't really care. The only thing that kind of bothers me is the auto-mining, since that allows you to completely ignore your workers except for pressing the hotkey to build them every once in a while.
Stupidity has become an epidemic in the SC2 forums. Read the other threads, don't come up with some dumb excuse not to. Yes, there are some flames in there but for the most part they are good discussions and most of them also tear the pro-MBS mentality a new one. Most of the time pro-MBSers slowly fade away only to pop up to regurgitate the same old arguments in new threads.
On October 15 2007 07:08 noobienoob wrote: Either way, I don't really care. The only thing that kind of bothers me is the auto-mining, since that allows you to completely ignore your workers except for pressing the hotkey to build them every once in a while.
I dunno, there are plenty of other things you have to do with your workers: using them to build buildings (and remembering to send them back to mine, unless you shift-click the minerals), and moving them en masse, whether for maynarding, all-in defense or rush, or retreating from a drop if you have no defense. I wouldn't say you'd get away with ignoring them with automine, but you don't have to go back every time and hold their hand on the way to the resources.
Still, having a slight pause before the newly built worker goes to the minerals, like the pause units take in between shift-clicked actions in SC, might be a better solution. That's why we have betas.
On October 15 2007 04:08 NotSorry wrote: Screw it, just put all the easy mode crap in, just have it all toggle and have it all turned off for ladder and league play. It will be the new generation of $$$BGH$$$ players who everyone just mocks and laughs at while playing competitive mode. So the random newbs are happy for the first 2-3 months till they move to the newest game with better graphics and fully automatic play.
On October 15 2007 07:08 noobienoob wrote: Either way, I don't really care. The only thing that kind of bothers me is the auto-mining, since that allows you to completely ignore your workers except for pressing the hotkey to build them every once in a while.
I dunno, there are plenty of other things you have to do with your workers: using them to build buildings (and remembering to send them back to mine, unless you shift-click the minerals), and moving them en masse, whether for maynarding, all-in defense or rush, or retreating from a drop if you have no defense. I wouldn't say you'd get away with ignoring them with automine, but you don't have to go back every time and hold their hand on the way to the resources.
Still, having a slight pause before the newly built worker goes to the minerals, like the pause units take in between shift-clicked actions in SC, might be a better solution. That's why we have betas.
Well, that's obvious, but I meant the macroing part of workers. Actually having to go through and constantly tell your workers to go and mine in each base/expansion every few seconds is a lot more work than just pressing the hotkey for each building and not worrying about telling it to go mine. A lot more work. The consequences of not keeping up with this are also very significant.
I honestly think that people are exaggerating how much of an advantage MBS actually gives. It really doesn't make things SO MUCH EASIER that they no longer have to worry about macro. You'll still have plenty to worry about macroing, there's just slightly less keys/clicks to press. From what I see only big advantage you get over SBS is the ability to change rally points much more easily, which I think is actually a nice thing.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread, obviously most people have already made up their mind on which side they are on, and they aren't going to change it, no matter what is said, so it's pointless on debating about it. On another note, I tried reading through some of the pages of those threads posted, but the retardedness of some of the posts in there were really just that bad. There's just too many essay-length pointless posts or arguments just going around in a circle, not really making any progress with what they're trying to argue, with the occasional 5-post noob jumping in and saying "FUKC U PRO-MBS=U NUB," to get through. Lol it's pretty funny though. I do agree that they are making the game interface a lot easier, which is a bad thing as many people pointed out, but MBS isn't the sole reason for it.
On October 15 2007 17:21 noobienoob wrote: I honestly think that people are exaggerating how much of an advantage MBS actually gives. It really doesn't make things SO MUCH EASIER that they no longer have to worry about macro. You'll still have plenty to worry about macroing, there's just slightly less keys/clicks to press. From what I see only big advantage you get over SBS is the ability to change rally points much more easily, which I think is actually a nice thing.
This is like saying you still have to worry about car crashes but you don't need a seatbelt anymore. Does that make sense?
On October 14 2007 21:56 Liquid`Drone wrote: you think "Even Casy can TvP now" sounds like "Also according to you guys the only thing stopping me from owning bisu is the lack of mbs causing me to fall behind in macro"?
"mbs will ruin competition" and "With MBS suddenly hungtran doesn't need maphack to be good" do resemble and together with Casy thing sound as insane as that quotation from eL.Virus.
On October 15 2007 07:00 ForAdun wrote: But why do progamers need to be perfect? Why is it neccessary to give them a "helping hand"? Isn't it more interesting to see different styles coming up like it happened and still happens in sc:bw? Do you really want progamers to achieve perfection? Perfection is so... just boring...
Brutalisk didn't said a word about allowing progamers to play perfectly. The words "far" and "little bit" suggest about that in his clauses: "They are very good, obviously, but still far from perfect. Which means that there is room for giving them a little bit of a "helping hand" for macro"
Screw it, just put all the easy mode crap in, just have it all toggle and have it all turned off for ladder and league play. It will be the new generation of $$$BGH$$$ players who everyone just mocks and laughs at while playing competitive mode.
That's exactly the reason why it won't work in this way and toggles like you've suggested won't be implemented. It's only supposition that mbs will ruin something. Dividing ladders in one way or another will be definitely bad.
Well it looks like blizzard is going to have to do the dual ladders. At this point, unless they come up with something awsome, they are going to piss off large amounts of people. If pro-noobifications win, then the starcraft veterans will slam starcraft 2 as a weak version of starcraft 1 and SC2 will never reach the level that its predecessor did. If anti-noobification wins, then review sites will slam blizzard for making an 'outdated game'. Either way, starcraft 2 will recieve bad publicity. If blizzard wants starcraft 2 to do well, they have to please both sides of the argument.
Sorry this is a little bit tangent but it's in response to some minor points above (by InRaged)
The separation between ladder and non is definitely going to be more like war3, so it won't be a new generation of $$$BGH$$$, it will be more like those people in war3 who host "fast build" and "$$$$" maps. Whatever the automated ladder is set up to do will be the real game, and whatever they let UMS maps do or not do, doesn't matter. They should add as much functionality as possible for UMS authors in War3, including being able to modify the interface (as they could with War3, to a lesser extent than SC2 should have).
As for dividing ladders--there will be at least some division. Again, War3 is a precedent. We're probably going to have not only a 1v1 ladder, but a 2v2, a 3v3, a 4v4, a 5v5, and an FFA ladder. They once promised to add ladders for popular UMS maps in War3 but we never got it. For extremely popular, established UMS that come about in SC2 it would be nice to take them out of the garbage bin and give their players rankings and AMM as well. So "dividing the ladder" should take place to at least this extent. And yes, this applies to money maps because they will be UMS maps too. So there may be a money map ladder with AMM and super easy interface ("mass attack" lol) some day.
On October 15 2007 20:49 Fen wrote: Well it looks like blizzard is going to have to do the dual ladders. At this point, unless they come up with something awsome, they are going to piss off large amounts of people. If pro-noobifications win, then the starcraft veterans will slam starcraft 2 as a weak version of starcraft 1 and SC2 will never reach the level that its predecessor did. If anti-noobification wins, then review sites will slam blizzard for making an 'outdated game'. Either way, starcraft 2 will recieve bad publicity. If blizzard wants starcraft 2 to do well, they have to please both sides of the argument.
As long as the single player has those "modern" features they won't really get slammed IMO. And unless they aim for replacing SC in korea, they probably won't satisfy us. Right now I'm happy with SC1, not putting my hopes into the people who gave us War3, and not planning on buying a new computer any time soon, but that's just me. If two years from now SC2 is the next BW then I will pick it up then. It's not going to be out of the box--SC wasn't, War3 certainly wasn't, etc. So this is much ado about nothing IMO. We will have this same fight while we play beta, but with less guessing about so many variables. And we will have this same fight about patching, and this same fight about the expansion beta and the expansion patching of SC2. So what's the hurry?
On October 15 2007 07:00 ForAdun wrote: But why do progamers need to be perfect? Why is it neccessary to give them a "helping hand"? Isn't it more interesting to see different styles coming up like it happened and still happens in sc:bw? Do you really want progamers to achieve perfection? Perfection is so... just boring...
Brutalisk didn't said a word about allowing progamers to play perfectly. The words "far" and "little bit" suggest about that in his clauses: "They are very good, obviously, but still far from perfect. Which means that there is room for giving them a little bit of a "helping hand" for macro"
MBS (and of course automining and autocasting, too) won't just make a little difference, the difference will be huge. These things are designed to help a lot, otherwise they wouldn't make such a big noise in the community. I thought this was already clear to everyone. In bwchart you can see that producing units makes ~20-30% of each game played, sending workers around makes 5-10% depending on the players style. In SC2 it won't be any different for example if MBS and automining are let out.
Screw it, just put all the easy mode crap in, just have it all toggle and have it all turned off for ladder and league play. It will be the new generation of $$$BGH$$$ players who everyone just mocks and laughs at while playing competitive mode.
That's exactly the reason why it won't work in this way and toggles like you've suggested won't be implemented. It's only supposition that mbs will ruin something. Dividing ladders in one way or another will be definitely bad.
Why will it be bad? The only argument I've ever heard was that it would split the community which is yet completely unfounded.
EDIT: my bad, there was another argument of course. "It is not possible to balance the game if there will be two different ladders", well this is also not yet clear. I think it is indeed possible if Blizzard puts some more (or maybe much more) effort in it.
creating the game with toggle-able mbs is a fucking retarded suggestion if one wants to create a competitive game. there would be people fighting about whether the best mbs player or the best non mbs player was the best player for the entire lifespan of the game going past the first month of its conception.
i did kinda like the "make mbs only possible for those who select "novice" but only cause it would be an in your face to everyone who wants to play with mbs, not cause it would actually be a good move. i'd rather have only mbs than have it be toggle-able, no matter how harmful I think that would be for the game.
On October 15 2007 21:22 Liquid`Drone wrote: creating the game with toggle-able mbs is a fucking retarded suggestion if one wants to create a competitive game. there would be people fighting about whether the best mbs player or the best non mbs player was the best player for the entire lifespan of the game going past the first month of its conception.
I dont think this will be the case at all. Starcraft 2 is going to spawn a lot of competitions. There will be lans, itll go to WCG regardless of how good it is etc. These competitions will chose a ruleset based on what the community considers to be most competative. One option will stand out and starcraft 2's competative scene will be labled as using that ruleset.
So the only reason for not having two different ladder systems is that people will be arguing about who's the best? I thought it has always been that way in any other sports, or not? Isn't it the best part of the competition to have a debate with friends who's top and who's not?
I don't get it, to me it seems that all the arguments against different ladder systems are actually putting this idea into a better light, not worse.
There should be a status quo for every player. I don't see how one could possibly argue a MBS player is better than someone who uses a harder interface based on the fact they are controlling every small detail of their army while the other player doesn't.
It's a difference between apples and oranges just like BGH is to Non-money. We've had this argument plenty of times. In BGH you are even more limited once you get to the top ranks because there is very few viable builds, or else the other team will run over you.
you guys really don't see how bad having vastly, vastly different rulesets for different competitions is? this isn't like deciding whether hold lurker or observer on top of turret is allowed or not, the games would essentially be different and there would be a significant transition period necessary for anyone who specialized on one and then chose to play the other..
not to mention that IF competitions chose to host tournaments using SBS rather than mbs, this would harm recruitment into competitive environments even more than creating the game entirely without mbs would. if competitions chose to host tournaments using mbs, then all you have left is diehard starcraft 1 fans who claim that they are actually more skilled than the mbs players.. it wouldn't be good for anything. (I think starcraft 2 will be a bigger worldwide success for the first couple years if they choose only mbs over only sbs, I just think it will be a worse game and not something people play for 10 years. )
There are different ways/modes of playing chess (Slow -> 6+ hours // Rapid -> 15+ minutes // Blitz -> ~5+ minutes // Bullet -> 1-2 minutes, may use time increment up to 30 seconds for all of these modes /// there are Fischer Chess/Chess 960 tournaments, slowly growing more interest), yet they are all competitive and run right next to each other in peace, the competition is not disturbed. The title of the World Champion in slow chess counts as much as the same title in rapid, blitz, bullet or fischer chess. The tournament prices are all about the same. The players jump from one mode to another on any level e.g. Anand Vishwanathan is the new WC in slow chess and rapid chess at the same time now.
You sure get my point.
edit: I forgot to mention blind-folded chess. Sorry @ fans
chess is like the only good example of this working out though, but this is probably because chess players and people who follow chess are so mature and intelligent that they're not ones to get caught up in petty discussions
MMA competitions also have vastly different rulesets and there people have constantly been having debates about whether a person fighting in pride would beat a person fighting in ufc etc.. all the time.. before certain crocop fights there have been discussions whether it should be with pride rules or K1 rules as they favour different fighters..
and in chess aren't those different rules just a sheer necessity because without a timelimit, the game can last longer than anyone will bother paying attention and is honestly partially decided based on the patience of both players.. and while chess is successful, there's no reason to believe that the chess model is preferable.. imagine if football was played where some leagues played without offside and others played with offside.. it would just be retarded.. (to be fair, there are SLIGHT differences in refereeing between different leagues. but nothing comparable to mbs / sbs)
Bleh I'm so sick of the MBS controversy. Here's how I basically feel about it: If blizzard ends up releasing SC2, and it ends up being a dissapointment... back to original SC and SCREW IT.
On October 15 2007 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: chess is like the only good example of this working out though, but this is probably because chess players and people who follow chess are so mature and intelligent that they're not ones to get caught up in petty discussions
Haha, you'd wonder... I'm playing regularly on chessbase.com (besides real chess) and the discussions there can be either mad, stupid or high leveled, I guess you'd go crazy after a while Also, the chess world was split in two for a couple of years since the FIDE made rules/decisions that the classical chess scene didn't accept, so there were even two (!) World Champions at that time. One year ago they battled it out (Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov) to unite the chess world again but it is still not all clear if everything went right. Even the match itself was full of suspicious actions and goings, who knows. Chess is still famous because it is addicting to some and fascinating to others. It's the game itself that makes things work. People organizing tourneys and such is just a result of the magic of the game.
MMA competitions also have vastly different rulesets and there people have constantly been having debates about whether a person fighting in pride would beat a person fighting in ufc etc.. all the time.. before certain crocop fights there have been discussions whether it should be with pride rules or K1 rules as they favour different fighters..
That's indeed a problem, but I think it's better to keep the best fighter a secret anyway. This creates rumours and debates and therefore interest.
and in chess aren't those different rules just a sheer necessity because without a timelimit, the game can last longer than anyone will bother paying attention and is honestly partially decided based on the patience of both players.. and while chess is successful, there's no reason to believe that the chess model is preferable..
I don't know. It works, that's all I know.
imagine if football was played where some leagues played without offside and others played with offside.. it would just be retarded.. (to be fair, there are SLIGHT differences in refereeing between different leagues. but nothing comparable to mbs / sbs)
I am not sure if I understood it correctly but I think I got the message. Yes, I agree that this would cause trouble. I think professional football players are able to advance to a new ruleset but the overall interest of newcomers could be disturbed. There's a good chance that it wouldn't change anything at all but it's an unneccessary risk to take since things work well already.
I think I got another good example now: In Diablo 2 you have two different modes, softcore and hardcore or SC/HC in short. Also you have the option to fight players (PvP) instead of monsters (PvM). I have been playing Diablo 2 and LoD until several years ago and I know some of the changes the scene made over time. For PvP they made a duel-league for different character-levels. They changed the rulesets all the time to balance characters and teams. And that was just one part of it. The most PvP players were public players. They just created a game, some people joined and they had a good fight for some hours. It never became boring although it was completely imbalanced. People were camping at the front door and everyone complained. The Paladin was overpowered, the Sorceress no less, the Druid was a joke. I checked back to the scene maybe once every year and everytime I realized nothing changed about it, ever. They kept fighting imbalanced fights even if they had a weaker character. Cheaters annoyed and still annoy the scene all the time but people keep playing the game. Some get the best items or they just dupe them, others have the "Crappiest Crap Of Crappy-The-Clown" but are still having fun. Many play for items, some only want to level up. Others play in fun-modes like errr... what was it. Yeah, Ironman for example. You'd wonder how many people love to play that. Especially in the HC scene there are sooo many fans and freaks that you'd ask where they all come from. I don't know but I know their community doesn't get any smaller, they always get fresh interest from new players. There's so much more I could tell about the Diablo 2 scene but I'd like to end here, it's getting much. Real fans of a game always find a way to to keep it fun and enjoy the challenge. I don't see why it should be any different in SC2 no matter how many different ladder systems there will be.
diablo 2 is hardly a competitive game i know that "who can get level 99 the fastest" is some kind of competition but really.. it's not a competitive game by nature.
You hurt many feelings by saying that... Don't forget that if you jump over a wall you're proud of it, no matter how low it was. Competition doesn't only happen on top level.
On October 16 2007 00:12 ForAdun wrote: You hurt many feelings by saying that... Don't forget that if you jump over a wall you're proud of it, no matter how low it was. Competition doesn't only happen on top level.
Lol ya f u Drone you incensenitive dick.
I can't believe the MBS is winning this poll now Sad. I don't really see what it adds to a game and why they feel the need to take the edge off of a great game. I know they are making SC2 not BW3 but BW3 would be wayyyyyyyyy sweeter.
On October 16 2007 00:12 ForAdun wrote: You hurt many feelings by saying that... Don't forget that if you jump over a wall you're proud of it, no matter how low it was. Competition doesn't only happen on top level.
That isnt true at all. Where the hell did you get that metaphor? If you jump over a wall that you barely have to lift your feet for you dont even fucking register this as an event let alone an accomplishment. And NOBODY plays D2 "competetively." Not when you are comparing it to SC/SC2 where there are professional teams, giant tourneys and tons of money being shuffled around in various events. Playing with friends on HC does not constitute (even remotely) compatition, again when comparing to SC/SC2.
A lot of the posters in here make statements that I cant help but to respond to because they are SO fucking bad and illogical. I feel like a lot of smart people in here are arguing for a dumb cause and getting caught up in not having a clue as to what they are talking about (pro-mbs people). Listen: we get it, you want a easier SC so you too can be talked about on forums and share some glory. News Flash: You wont be shit because making this game easier is only going to drive out the real talent and bring in a muddy mess of mediocre players playing an easy game that will crash 1 year post release.
On October 16 2007 00:12 ForAdun wrote: You hurt many feelings by saying that... Don't forget that if you jump over a wall you're proud of it, no matter how low it was. Competition doesn't only happen on top level.
That isnt true at all. Where the hell did you get that metaphor? If you jump over a wall that you barely have to lift your feet for you dont even fucking register this as an event let alone an accomplishment. And NOBODY plays D2 "competetively." Not when you are comparing it to SC/SC2 where there are professional teams, giant tourneys and tons of money being shuffled around in various events. Playing with friends on HC does not constitute (even remotely) compatition, again when comparing to SC/SC2.
A lot of the posters in here make statements that I cant help but to respond to because they are SO fucking bad and illogical. I feel like a lot of smart people in here are arguing for a dumb cause and getting caught up in not having a clue as to what they are talking about (pro-mbs people). Listen: we get it, you want a easier SC so you too can be talked about on forums and share some glory. News Flash: You wont be shit because making this game easier is only going to drive out the real talent and bring in a muddy mess of mediocre players playing an easy game that will crash 1 year post release.
I guess it's a good thing that nothing anyone says on the forum is a true reflection of their opinion. Posts are derivative of peoples need for other people to see their opinions, and in a subtle way be sensitive to that which makes them who they are.
However, people like you exert an influence on the general populace, and even have a chance at changing their opinions in subtle ways.
Could you please take that into consideration next time you feel like being a condescending asshole?
On October 16 2007 00:12 ForAdun wrote: You hurt many feelings by saying that... Don't forget that if you jump over a wall you're proud of it, no matter how low it was. Competition doesn't only happen on top level.
Listen: we get it, you want a easier SC so you too can be talked about on forums and share some glory. News Flash: You wont be shit because making this game easier is only going to drive out the real talent and bring in a muddy mess of mediocre players playing an easy game that will crash 1 year post release.
This is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know what to say. I stopped responding in the MBS debate, because I realized I would never be able to change the opinions of people like you, but just realize that this is totally false.
On October 16 2007 03:04 NotSorry wrote: Whats the big deal about splitting the community, hell look at how split it already is/always has been with SC1 and BW.
Just because somewhat of a split in the community has happened in BW, doesn't mean it should be actively encouraged or engineered into SC2. It should be minimized as much as possible.
@ iNc: who said I was talking about a 2cm wall? It is your imagination that fooled you, my metaphor was all correct. If you like a stronger metaphor, here it is: the wall must be climbed and is 8 meters high. Makes some yawn, makes others proud. What's your problem, man? And if you don't see the competition in Diablo 2 that's your milk, I myself see some competition in it and if only for 12-year-olds. Just because you are on a much higher level doesn't make your experience/view the only one in this world. Many people feel good after a small success. Climb the 50 meters wall but don't say you're ultimately right.
And it seems to me that you got me totally wrong, because I am anti MBS. Surprised?
uh you said a wall of "any" size hence my elaboration. The comparison with D2 was flawed in that you were comparing it to SC for reasons I stated but you chose to ignore.
@ element)logic: No, I express my opinion in the way I feel. I debated this issue with a calm and logical voice earlier, produced no results. Instead of hitting my head on the wall with the issue, I am laughing at those with bloody foreheads.
@orangedude: Yeah, its false.. right. That'd be true if it werent for the fact that every single decent non korean has said that MBS is garbage. Name ONE decent non korean who is semi known in the community for their bw skills that thinks MBS is a good idea and should be welcomed.
On October 16 2007 04:34 {88}iNcontroL wrote: @orangedude: Yeah, its false.. right. That'd be true if it werent for the fact that every single decent non korean has said that MBS is garbage. Name ONE decent non korean who is semi known in the community for their bw skills that thinks MBS is a good idea and should be welcomed.
On October 16 2007 02:06 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Listen: we get it, you want a easier SC so you too can be talked about on forums and share some glory. News Flash: You wont be shit because making this game easier is only going to drive out the real talent and bring in a muddy mess of mediocre players playing an easy game that will crash 1 year post release.
No, iNcontrol. Your perception of the viewpoint of the pro-MBS side (minus random noobs) is flawed (what I quoted). Secondly, there are decent players who believe in the wait-and-see approach and make a judgment after extensive beta testing (which I agree with). I'm not going into any more detail, as I don't want to spend anymore time in pointless arguments with neither side budging.
I feel sorry for blizzard. No matter what they do they will end up pissing off a LOT of people over something as silly as a debate about multiple building selection. If I was in control at blizzard I would be ready to say SCREW THESE NERDS LETS JUST MAKE ANOTHER WOW EXPANSION! Warcraft 3 has mbs and it hasn't DIED after around 4 years. Why do you think mbs sc2 will DIE in a year if it has mbs?
On October 16 2007 05:27 eL.Virus wrote: I feel sorry for blizzard. No matter what they do they will end up pissing off a LOT of people over something as silly as a debate about multiple building selection. If I was in control at blizzard I would be ready to say SCREW THESE NERDS LETS JUST MAKE ANOTHER WOW EXPANSION! Warcraft 3 has mbs and it hasn't DIED after around 4 years. Why do you think mbs sc2 will DIE in a year if it has mbs?
You didn't read carefully. We were talking about competitive SC2, not SC2 as a whole.
Even competitive War3 didn't crash in Korea for at least 3 years. That game has next to zero macro involved + is an extremely poor spectator sport for many reasons. Also, the War3 competitive scene is expanding in other regions today like China (and is larger than SC), although it will never approach the mainstream success of the Korean SC scene.
On October 16 2007 05:27 eL.Virus wrote: I feel sorry for blizzard. No matter what they do they will end up pissing off a LOT of people over something as silly as a debate about multiple building selection. If I was in control at blizzard I would be ready to say SCREW THESE NERDS LETS JUST MAKE ANOTHER WOW EXPANSION! Warcraft 3 has mbs and it hasn't DIED after around 4 years. Why do you think mbs sc2 will DIE in a year if it has mbs?
You didn't read carefully. We were talking about competitive SC2, not SC2 as a whole.
competitive wc3 isn't dead either. Don't know where you get this idea from. The wcg had a bunch of wc3 matches.
All I am trying to point out is that sc2 will at worst be like wc3 in the competitive scene.
On October 16 2007 05:41 eL.Virus wrote: competitive wc3 isn't dead either. Don't know where you get this idea from. The wcg had a bunch of wc3 matches.
All I am trying to point out is that sc2 will at worst be like wc3 in the competitive scene.
I didn't even talk about competitive WC3, you really need to read more carefully and to not confuse accounts. Means I don't know where you get the idea from that I got the idea that competitive WC3 is dead. Got it?
I know WC3 is very popular and the competitive scene isn't any smaller than that of sc:bw but I think SC2 will be much bigger if it is harder to play then WC3. I'd like it to be much harder (or say about as hard as sc:bw). I mean why not? Can't be a bad thing.
And well, I don't want SC2 to "at worst be like wc3", really not. I want it to be the big brother of SC2 and since it is definitely possible to do that I don't see a reason to go a different road.
On October 16 2007 06:08 ForAdun wrote: Who said that? I did not, I only argued against MBS (and automining and autocasting) that it will make the game worse. I never said how much worse.
It's been quoted three times in the last 15 posts. Many others have expressed a similar sentiment countless times. When you say "we" in your post, I assume you share their views.
Well, then you misunderstood which part of our opinion is the same. "We" only share one opinion: MBS is not good or not as good as Blizzard expects. One may say MBS will completely destroy SC2, another one says it will only make it slightly worse, another one says MBS is satan and another one says it can be bad or good but he thinks it's bad. This example is to demonstrate how easy it is to misunderstand people if you don't see every person as an individual with his/her individual opinion.
In that case, I also share your opinion on this. There would be less misunderstanding if you didn't write:
On October 16 2007 05:34 ForAdun wrote: We were talking about competitive SC2
and instead stated your own view. It also shows why making blanket-statements like the ones quoted earlier make no sense, since everyone has different thoughts.
I also think MBS may slightly detract from gameplay, but maybe the other benefits from attracting a larger fanbase could make up for it and cause the net effect to be positive rather than negative. That's why I'm going to wait for further testing.
On October 16 2007 04:34 {88}iNcontroL wrote: @orangedude: Yeah, its false.. right. That'd be true if it werent for the fact that every single decent non korean has said that MBS is garbage. Name ONE decent non korean who is semi known in the community for their bw skills that thinks MBS is a good idea and should be welcomed.
On October 16 2007 02:06 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Listen: we get it, you want a easier SC so you too can be talked about on forums and share some glory. News Flash: You wont be shit because making this game easier is only going to drive out the real talent and bring in a muddy mess of mediocre players playing an easy game that will crash 1 year post release.
No, iNcontrol. Your perception of the viewpoint of the pro-MBS side (minus random noobs) is flawed (what I quoted). Secondly, there are decent players who believe in the wait-and-see approach and make a judgment after extensive beta testing (which I agree with). I'm not going into any more detail, as I don't want to spend anymore time in pointless arguments with neither side budging.
I asked you to name one decent player who is known that thinks MBS will be a good thing. You cant and ignore the request.
You also state my projection of the future will be flawed. Great, you very well could be right. But then, I could be just as right so we are left with a wash.
No, I said your perception of the people who argue for pro-MBS (besides noobs) is flawed. As for the other, most people are pretty sure it won't crash in 1 year, regardless of MBS seeing as how it's a Blizzard game. Again, even War3 lasted a while in Korea and is still going comparatively strong around the world (with nearly no macro in the game).
Why should I have to name decent players who think MBS will be a good thing, when even I think it might be slightly bad for gameplay? I can however name some who wish to give it time and further testing before making a certain judgment, but I won't.
On October 16 2007 05:34 ForAdun wrote: You didn't read carefully. We were talking about competitive SC2, not SC2 as a whole.
and instead stated your own view. It also shows why making blanket-statements like the ones quoted earlier make no sense, since everyone has different thoughts.
I also think MBS may slightly detract from gameplay, but maybe the other benefits from attracting a larger fanbase could make up for it and cause the net effect to be positive rather than negative. That's why I'm going to wait for further testing.
What, lol. The quote does not include any views/opinions from anybody so I really don't get what you're trying to tell me. I only pointed at what the topic is. In this case I'd say less misunderstanding comes only from reading the account first, then the whole post, and of course from being correct, not mixing up quotes/accounts/opinions. I didn't generalize anything, it's not my fault if someone misunderstands me that much (this is not directed against you as you may know).
I agree to the rest of your post except that I think the negative effect will be higher.
On October 16 2007 06:45 orangedude wrote: In that case, I also share your opinion on this. There would be less misunderstanding if you didn't write:
On October 16 2007 05:34 ForAdun wrote: You didn't read carefully. We were talking about competitive SC2, not SC2 as a whole.
and instead stated your own view. It also shows why making blanket-statements like the ones quoted earlier make no sense, since everyone has different thoughts.
I also think MBS may slightly detract from gameplay, but maybe the other benefits from attracting a larger fanbase could make up for it and cause the net effect to be positive rather than negative. That's why I'm going to wait for further testing.
What, lol. The quote does not include any views/opinions from anybody so I really don't get what you're trying to tell me. In this case I'd say less misunderstanding comes only from reading the account first, then the whole post, and of course from being correct, not mixing up quotes/accounts/opinions. I didn't generalize anything, it's not my fault if someone misunderstands me that much (this is not directed against you as you may know).
I agree to the rest of your post except that I think the negative effect will be higher.
No no, not your quote, but the earlier one that really was a generalization. Too many misunderstandings here... sigh
On October 16 2007 07:14 orangedude wrote: No, I said your perception of the people who argue for pro-MBS (besides noobs) is flawed. As for the other, most people are pretty sure it won't crash in 1 year, regardless of MBS seeing as how it's a Blizzard game. Again, even War3 lasted a while in Korea and is still going comparatively strong around the world (with nearly no macro in the game).
Why should I have to name decent players who think MBS will be a good thing, when even I think it might be slightly bad for gameplay? I can however name some who wish to give it time and further testing before making a certain judgment, but I won't.
No, you cannot name a good player who thinks there might be a chance that MBS is a good idea. You really cant. Saying "I wont" does not do anything to make me think otherwise.
Uh CS is a "valve" game but source for all intensive purposes "crashed." Dont get literal on me you know what I mean.
How is my opinion flawed? I am generally arguing that those who want MBS are noobies NOW seeking to become better players not through work and practice but rather through a new game that is made easier for them. This is deplorable and the source of my angst.
Maybe you missed them, but they definitely exist. Look through the threads yourself. I don't have time to hand-pick them out for you.
Your opinion is flawed (especially how you first stated it), because you made blanket generalizations on how other people think. If you want to use it against BNet forum posters, then fine, but not about all the TL.net posters. I don't want to be a pro at SC2, but I do like watching VODs of pros playing so I want the E-Sports scene to expand.
Anyways, there's no new arguments here. Nothing useful will come out of this.
On October 16 2007 07:14 orangedude wrote: No, I said your perception of the people who argue for pro-MBS (besides noobs) is flawed. As for the other, most people are pretty sure it won't crash in 1 year, regardless of MBS seeing as how it's a Blizzard game. Again, even War3 lasted a while in Korea and is still going comparatively strong around the world (with nearly no macro in the game).
Why should I have to name decent players who think MBS will be a good thing, when even I think it might be slightly bad for gameplay? I can however name some who wish to give it time and further testing before making a certain judgment, but I won't.
No, you cannot name a good player who thinks there might be a chance that MBS is a good idea. You really cant. Saying "I wont" does not do anything to make me think otherwise.
Uh CS is a "valve" game but source for all intensive purposes "crashed." Dont get literal on me you know what I mean.
How is my opinion flawed? I am generally arguing that those who want MBS are noobies NOW seeking to become better players not through work and practice but rather through a new game that is made easier for them. This is deplorable and the source of my angst.
I don't know if you consider Mani a "good player", but he stated very early on that after playing SC2 at blizzcon, he enjoyed MBS because it allowed him to do things that he wanted to do in SC but physically couldn't.
All of the better pro-MBS arguers are arguing for MBS from a design standpoint, not because we're lazy noobs who want an easier game. To say so is to attack our motives for supporting MBS, which is a serious insult to us. Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
I don't think you can necessarily say it has to be easier with MBS. Just imagine, in 1,000,000 years, there will be games you will control with your mind. In those games there will be no interface. And they will be very hard.
The question is not whether the game can be hard with MBS, but whether computers are powerful enough to add to the game in a way that will make it so (and whether the keyboard and mouse interface are limiting as well).
On October 16 2007 07:14 orangedude wrote: No, I said your perception of the people who argue for pro-MBS (besides noobs) is flawed. As for the other, most people are pretty sure it won't crash in 1 year, regardless of MBS seeing as how it's a Blizzard game. Again, even War3 lasted a while in Korea and is still going comparatively strong around the world (with nearly no macro in the game).
Why should I have to name decent players who think MBS will be a good thing, when even I think it might be slightly bad for gameplay? I can however name some who wish to give it time and further testing before making a certain judgment, but I won't.
No, you cannot name a good player who thinks there might be a chance that MBS is a good idea. You really cant. Saying "I wont" does not do anything to make me think otherwise.
Uh CS is a "valve" game but source for all intensive purposes "crashed." Dont get literal on me you know what I mean.
How is my opinion flawed? I am generally arguing that those who want MBS are noobies NOW seeking to become better players not through work and practice but rather through a new game that is made easier for them. This is deplorable and the source of my angst.
I don't know if you consider Mani a "good player", but he stated very early on that after playing SC2 at blizzcon, he enjoyed MBS because it allowed him to do things that he wanted to do in SC but physically couldn't.
All of the better pro-MBS arguers are arguing for MBS from a design standpoint, not because we're lazy noobs who want an easier game. To say so is to attack our motives for supporting MBS, which is a serious insult to us. Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
No. Mani despite being an amazing community leader is NOT a good player. Not even close.
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype.
The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument.
Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply.
But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game).
The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast.
As I have repeated many times, reality is sometimes counterintuitive, so it may very well be that MBS somehow makes SC2 a better piece of software from a professional gaming perpsective. Who knows? But, the collective experience of most hardcore SC gamers suggests otherwise. I believe MBS will nerf the game and that it will strip the gameplay of some of the skill curve that made SC so enjoyable to play - and to watch as a spectator sport 10 fucking years after its initial release. Think about that.
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype.
The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument.
Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply.
But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game).
The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast.
As I have repeated many times, reality is sometimes counterintuitive, so it may very well be that MBS somehow makes SC2 a better piece of software from a professional gaming perpsective. Who knows? But, the collective experience of most hardcore SC gamers suggests otherwise. I believe MBS will nerf the game and that it will strip the gameplay of some of the skill curve that made SC so enjoyable to play - and to watch as a spectator sport 10 fucking years after its initial release. Think about that.
You do know that sc2 is being made by a US company and they would be wise not to just say "screw you we are making sc2 for Korea to their loyal us fans". Saying that new players do not matter and that sc2 should only appeal to Koreans is by far one of the saddest things I have read here.
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype.
The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument.
Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply.
But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game).
The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast.
As I have repeated many times, reality is sometimes counterintuitive, so it may very well be that MBS somehow makes SC2 a better piece of software from a professional gaming perpsective. Who knows? But, the collective experience of most hardcore SC gamers suggests otherwise. I believe MBS will nerf the game and that it will strip the gameplay of some of the skill curve that made SC so enjoyable to play - and to watch as a spectator sport 10 fucking years after its initial release. Think about that.
You do know that sc2 is being made by a US company and they would be wise not to just say "screw you we are making sc2 for Korea to their loyal us fans". Saying that new players do not matter and that sc2 should only appeal to Koreans is by far one of the saddest things I have read here.
I highly doubt no-MBS would decrease game sales. I HIGHLY highly doubt it. People will not say "oh, this game doesn't have MBS, so I'm not going to buy it." The casual player honestly will not care. If there are good graphics and a solid storyline along with decent gameplay, it will sell well among the average gamer simply because it is StarCraft's successor.
Thus, Blizzard should only have to worry about the elite playing community. This achieves lasting benefits due to, as previously stated, raised skill ceiling and overall superior competitive gameplay. Catering to the amateur community offers Blizzard very little gain; it will cost them dearly amongst devoted players.
SC2 must be a viable e-sport at the highest echelons - that is, it cannot be like WC3.
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype.
The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument.
Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply.
But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game).
The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast.
As I have repeated many times, reality is sometimes counterintuitive, so it may very well be that MBS somehow makes SC2 a better piece of software from a professional gaming perpsective. Who knows? But, the collective experience of most hardcore SC gamers suggests otherwise. I believe MBS will nerf the game and that it will strip the gameplay of some of the skill curve that made SC so enjoyable to play - and to watch as a spectator sport 10 fucking years after its initial release. Think about that.
You do know that sc2 is being made by a US company and they would be wise not to just say "screw you we are making sc2 for Korea to their loyal us fans". Saying that new players do not matter and that sc2 should only appeal to Koreans is by far one of the saddest things I have read here.
You fucking idiot. How old are you? Did you even read my post?
You have somehow perverted my argument for top-down innovation and leadership into a jingoistic piece on Korean geopolitical hegemony.
Dumbass simpletons like you need to be eradicated from the gene pool. You are banned fucker.
I personally think the best solution is the "Hotkey,unit1,tab,unit2,tab,unit3..." is the best solution (yes that means getting rid of the 'Hotkeyx3,unit: to mass-build unit.' part of the poll option), as speed-wise (for pros) it shouldnt be much faster than clicking on the buildings, especially if you take your hand off the mouse to do it. So basically what it does then is provide a way to still look at other parts of the map (such as your army/battle) while queuing units at the same rate as manually clicking on each building.
On October 16 2007 13:10 mensrea wrote: ...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
Irrelevant
One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype.
This is what we are arguing about, all you've done here is assume your position is correct and make some irrelevant conclusions off it. By assuming my side of the argument (that MBS will be good for the competitive scene) I can just as easily as say "The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement is being closely adhered to by the dev team".
The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument.
There are retarded arguments on both sides, you should ignore them rather than label them as the only arguments the pro MBS side have. The pro gaming experience in Korea doesn't suggest that, just like the pro gaming experience in China doesn't suggest that MBS would make the game better. There's way too many other factors as to why SC is so large in Korea.
Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply.
Not many people deny ROC was a steaming pile of crap. But it was not designed from the start as a competitive game. And when they got better people to work on TFT they produced a truly excellent game. Most SC players have their opinion of W3 based off ROC, which is why there is so much undeserved hate for TFT.
A fairly fair metric is total prize money for tournaments in 2007. And by this metric W3 is >> 10% of SC.
But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game).
This is bullshit. So what if it has the most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. The segregation of the SC community is a BAD thing. There's a couple of hundred korean player's that are competing for the major tournaments and for everyone else in the world there is some nothing. I don't want that and I doubt Blizzard wants that.
The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast.
This is irrelevant again, if we were talking about adding MBS to SC then sure they are useful analogies, but this is a new game.
The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument.
There are retarded arguments on both sides, you should ignore them rather than label them as the only arguments the pro MBS side have. The pro gaming experience in Korea doesn't suggest that, just like the pro gaming experience in China doesn't suggest that MBS would make the game better. There's way too many other factors as to why SC is so large in Korea.
mensrea wasn't arguing why SC is so large in Korea, he was talking about competition and what Koreans think about it. As far as I know most Korean progamers have a bad feeling about MBS and some about automining, too. I haven't heard of a single progamer who says that he likes the idea of MBS, or do you have more accurate informations?
Say someone was trying to introduce a new sport, something like basketball except with shorter hoops. People say that it's like basketball, except that it's too easy to score and anyone can dunk, and they say "that's irrelevant, if we were talking about having shorter hoops in basketball then it's a useful analogy, but this is a different sport".
On October 16 2007 20:50 Wonders wrote: Edit: to the last sentence of Gobol's post.
Say someone was trying to introduce a new sport, something like basketball except with shorter hoops. People say that it's like basketball, except that it's too easy to score and anyone can dunk, and they say "that's irrelevant, if we were talking about having shorter hoops in basketball then it's a useful analogy, but this is a different sport".
Well, we arent introducing mbs to starcraft, instead we are getting a new game with mbs.
So instead it would be a new game, with new rules, different ball, different team sizes, different field sizes, different scoring rules and then also shorter hoops. It might shift the focus on players ability to dunk to something else wich comes from the other changes, it creates another game and it doesnt necesarily need to be easier/harder.
Same thing as how soccer isnt easier than icehockey, eventhough it got bigger goals.
A better comparison is the choice to play with larger table tennis balls to slow down the game since it was going to fast, wich actually happened.
The fact that both are computer games is already enough to be able to compare them and to be able to make an analogy between them.
Not to mention that SC and SCII are both RTS games, both made by the same company and even by the same people under the same name who claim to just reimagine their first game rather than reinvent it.
Same thing as how soccer isnt easier than icehockey, eventhough it got bigger goals.
If ice hockey had to goals the size of football(soccer for americans) then yes, scoring would be too easy. Same with football having goals the size of ice hockey. So comparing the two and the effect that changing one more into what the other sport has works very very well.
If having a bigger goal would make scoring harder, which would be counter intuitive, then the comparison fails and the two games are just too different in nature.
Gobol. Stop nitpicking at mensrea's post and recognize the very real points he made. How is his first point about Bush and Microsoft bullshit? Its a very good example that you can't take PR statements by organizations for granted. So many MBS people have been going "the game will be good because Blizzard will design it with MBS in mind and make it competitive", without delving into th the actual features which make a game good. If you insist on claiming that the allusion to politics is irrelevant instead of admitting this obvious point, you are just trolling for a response.
You say that mensrea had a predetemined conclusion. I suggest that it is you that is making this mistake. It is without question that MBS is not included for competitive reasons, and that it will not a feature most likely to be conducive to professional play. This is a point repeatedly emphasized by anyone who has posted in these forums that is any good at BW, and supported with real game examples. That is not to say MBS will definitely cause a worsening of the competitive, skill-based game. But it is most likely to do so by far. Anyone who watched the professional scene knows the immense importance of SC's mechanics upon its success. Anyone who played BW at a decent level attests to the attraction of such mechanical requirements. That you are willing to dispute this fact - without even offering real arguments to the contrary, casts doubts about your sincerity for a fair argument.
You are so eager to downplay the professional scene, you say that Blizzard should not cater to them for fear of "segregating the SC community". There won't even be a respectable SC scene without the Korean professionals. There'd be a few dozen diehard fans like War2 consisting of the same people, then the mass of pathetic 13 year old money mappers. That we are more than that is completely due to the game's success professionally. That is the "SC Community" you want to favor over the Korean professionals. It is because of these few hundred Korean players that there is something for the rest of us. Mensrea's analogy to the NBA is very relevant. There may only be a few big Jordans and Magic in the NBA, but its because the game being made for them that there are thousands of kids emulating them. You must be dense if you cannot see the connection.
You are so eager to downplay the professional scene, you say that Blizzard should not cater to them for fear of "segregating the SC community". There won't even be a respectable SC scene without the Korean professionals. There'd be a few dozen diehard fans like War2 consisting of the same people, then the mass of pathetic 13 year old money mappers. That we are more than that is completely due to the game's success professionally. That is the "SC Community" you want to favor over the Korean professionals. It is because of these few hundred Korean players that there is something for the rest of us. Mensrea's analogy to the NBA is very relevant. There may only be a few big Jordans and Magic in the NBA, but its because the game being made for them that there are thousands of kids emulating them. You must be dense if you cannot see the connection.
I just wonder, do you really belive that the pro scene were the reason basketball grew so heavily a hundred years ago? There were no pro scene then, the pro scene comes from the mass of amateurs wanting to get better and finaly creating the pro scene.
Pros are just normal people, they arent special ones going to special games or sports, they are just a bit more dedicated than the rest and probably got a better affinity for the game. The larger fanbase you have, the more and better pros you get, thats just how it is and thats why the koreans beat the shit out of the rest of the world.
Just a side note: Calling someone a newbie in this forum to validate one's point is absurd, because compared to Korean pro-gamers, all posters in this thread are newbies. Yes, even hardcore sc gamers and hardcore sc spectators. Since the gap to pro-gamers is so large, it does not matter what your degree of newbiness is. With that in mind, we should concentrate on arguments rather than what the 1on1 skill of the poster is.
On October 17 2007 01:55 Lomin wrote: Just a side note: Calling someone a newbie in this forum to validate one's point is absurd, because compared to Korean pro-gamers, all posters in this thread are newbies. Yes, even hardcore sc gamers and hardcore sc spectators. Since the gap to pro-gamers is so large, it does not matter what your degree of newbiness is. With that in mind, we should concentrate on arguments rather than what the 1on1 skill of the poster is.
I think that he just mocked the policy of TL to treat low count posters badly and not actually meaning it.
On October 17 2007 01:55 Lomin wrote: Just a side note: Calling someone a newbie in this forum to validate one's point is absurd, because compared to Korean pro-gamers, all posters in this thread are newbies. Yes, even hardcore sc gamers and hardcore sc spectators. Since the gap to pro-gamers is so large, it does not matter what your degree of newbiness is. With that in mind, we should concentrate on arguments rather than what the 1on1 skill of the poster is.
No. There is a relative skill difference even if none of us are close to progaming level. Some are better at the game than others, and when there is a preponderence of skill on one side vs the other - that does merit consideration.
Its not simply BW skill either. Respect gained over time is valued in this community - even if that may not be the norm on other forums you are used to.
Gobol's point about the PR "fluff" is spot on. The only way you can dismiss Blizzard's dedication to the competative nature of the game due to MBS is if you've already made the assumption that MBS is against competativeness, which is not an assumption that is accepted.
As for as sports analogies go, can we please stop including them. MBS is its own thing with its own impact on competativeness. You say MBS is like cycling with training wheels, I say MBS is like cycling with a sleek modern 21 speed bike instead of a 1 gear clunker. Any analogy made to another sport is a weak anology, and I could think of a thousand analogies that make MBS sound good and a 1000 that make it sound bad.
Klockan3, your adolescence is beginning to take its toll on my patience, thin as that is to begin with. I believe your intentions are good, but there is only so much raw ignorance I can endure. Shut up, observe and learn.
Gobol, your sophomoric little dissection of my post is clear evidence of your profound nescience of SC and the pro gaming scene. As is my policy, I will not try a rebuttal against silliness such as yours (my time is too valuable for that). Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain and I am unable to claim for myself anything even remotely approaching divinity.
So, I will simply flame you, instead.
You have neither the pedigree as a gamer nor the experience of having lived in Korea and covered the pro gaming scene to be posting anything but humbly worded questions on this particular topic. Yes, it is that obvious. If you have the itch to write on subjects that you are ill-equipped to opine on, try posting something in the General Forum where there is a higher tolerance threshold for juvenile attention-seekers wishing to publish petulant rants on topics for which little in the way of actual knowledge is required. Or, since your youth is obvious, if you simply wish to do something to vent some of your pent-up, pubescent angst, go jerk yourself a soda with one hand on your keyboard and the TL site on screen.
You got off lightly, you half-witted Neanderthal. I usually just ban people who are as obviously impaired as you are.
Geezus, now I remember why I left this place the first time. Where the heck are my tranquilizers when I need them.
On October 17 2007 03:24 GeneralStan wrote: Gobol's point about the PR "fluff" is spot on. The only way you can dismiss Blizzard's dedication to the competative nature of the game due to MBS is if you've already made the assumption that MBS is against competativeness, which is not an assumption that is accepted.
As for as sports analogies go, can we please stop including them. MBS is its own thing with its own impact on competativeness. You say MBS is like cycling with training wheels, I say MBS is like cycling with a sleek modern 21 speed bike instead of a 1 gear clunker. Any analogy made to another sport is a weak anology, and I could think of a thousand analogies that make MBS sound good and a 1000 that make it sound bad.
"You say MBS is like cycling with training wheels, I say MBS is like cycling with a sleek modern 21 speed bike instead of a 1 gear clunker."
What? On what basis? Have you even been following the debate here?
Good gawd, these kids are on a rampage. I am going to stop posting on this subject and start banning from now on. That is a promise. It will be no big loss.
And for crissakes, I really do wish people would at least take the time to read between the lines and figure out that I am neither for nor against MBS on SC2 (because I have yet to play the game).
I've read every line of every post about MBS on both this forum and the Battle.net forums.
My only point is that making an analogy based on a sport is based only on an opinion. The only valid comparison would be simliar features in other RTS games, but no non-Blizzard RTS has attracted competition, so we're basically on our own wondering if MBS is good or bad for competiton. I just get sick of seeing "Starcraft II with MBS is like Cycling with training wheels" It's nothing like that. It's nothing like any of the hundred analogies i've seen it compared to.
Okay. As much as I agree to you mensrea, this is going too far. You can keep your anger to yourself and argue like a man but you decide to start a flamewar that only you can win as you know. I don't have respect for that. I'll leave this topic.
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
I wasn't talking about Blizzard PR, I was referring to the direct quote from Dustin in the latest Q&A. It is fact that Blizzard has a combination of raw talent and a dedication to making their games as good as possible, even if it takes years, that exceeds any of their peers in the RTS industry. So I'm sorry if the fact that I have faith in them to make a highly competitive game with a more accessible interface makes you think of me as an "unconscious lemming".
One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype.
The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument.
First, the fact is that SC2 is not an expansion of SC, it is a sequel. If SC2 was an expansion of SC (and the PR people certainly make it seem so) I would totally agree with you and every other anti-MBS poster. But the fact is, SC2 is a sequel, and while sequels generally remain true to the core concept of their predecessors, they usually have considerably different gameplay. The precise control of large armies is a core concept of SC gameplay; the exponential difficulty curve in producing greater numbers of units is peripheral at best (though an important feature for balance, which I'll get to later in this post). Therefore, accounts of how MBS would hurt SC2 based on SC1 gameplay experience must be taken with a grain of salt, and certainly should not be considered "empirical". First-hand accounts from Blizzcon may seem more valid, but just as you wouldn't judge SC based on SC alpha, you shouldn't judge SC2 based on SC2 alpha.
Secondly, to paraphrase Dustin again, accessibility AND longevity are very important to a healthy, successful competitive community. Making a game accessible to new players is a principle of multiplayer game design that is much older than the SC competitive scene. At the beginning, the SC interface was accessible because it offered two options to the new player: point-and-click or hotkey. Everyone started with the former, and gradually moved to the latter en-masse. However, nowadays new players cannot play BW as it was meant to be played with any modicum of skill without learning the hotkey-based system, which was intended to be the expert-only, difficult-to-master part of the interface. Therefore, the SC interface is now inaccessible, especially considering the more streamlined interfaces used in contemporary RTS games.
Third, the designers stated at the beginning that the interface was being streamlined so that new, skill intensive features could be added. SC already demanded too much from the player, so keeping the interface as is would effectively restrict the designers from including more features, since no one would have the time to use them.
Finally, it is true that MBS reduces the importance of the "static" skills associated with macro mechanics, e.g. building units via hotkeys. I call these skills "static" because they are not situationally-dependent; the basic hotkey patterns to build units follow the same progressions regardless of external factors like your opponent, their strategy, or the map. On the other hand, there are "dynamic" skills such as goon micro and expansion timing, which are situationally dependent; how you apply those skills, or whether you use them at all, varies depending on external factors. Now, if SC2 just included MBS without adding anything else, that would indeed reduce the skill ceiling. However, what they're doing is replacing those "lost" static skills with new features that all (so far) involve dynamic skills. It's true there aren't many such features so far, but just because the PR hasn't told us about them doesn't mean that they're not there.
N.B. That last argument relies on the assumption that dynamic skills are inherently deeper, more prestigious, and have a greater effect on widening the skill curve than static skills. I can defend this assumption if you disagree, but this post will be long enough as is.
Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply.
First, ROC sucks in comparison to TFT, just like vanilla SC sucks in comparison to BW. It's likely many people think SC2 will suck upon release also, unless the open beta is longer than a year.
Secondly, Blizzard went in a totally different direction with WC3, enough so that it's practically irrelevant to our discussions here. WC3 is a hybrid-genre game, as much an RPG as it is an RTS, as inspired by D&D as it was by SC. It's a totally different style of game, with its heroes, creeps, and upkeep, and so it's not surprising at all that SC players didn't like its flavor. And I think Blizzard was pretty successful in their endeavour in the long run, when you consider how ambitious a concept it really was.
But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game).
First, you ignore new players at the risk of losing the opportunity for a competitive community exponentially larger than the one SC currently has (not as much so in Korea, but take your blinders off for a second and consider the rest of the world). Again, making the game accessible to new players is one of the fundamental facets of multiplayer game design, and is even more important in creating a sequel as a considerable part of your community will have experience with the predecessor that the new players don't. Have you heard of competitive combat flight simulators? Sounds like a great idea, don't you think? I mean, who doesn't like watching dogfights in Top Gun, and fighter planes are too expensive for recreational use, so simulating dogfights via computers would make for a good competitive game. Now, have you played a combat flight simulator? I doubt you have, because the learning curve is so high that it's practically impossible to retain new players long enough for them to become competitive.
Secondly, SC's success in Korea is far better explained by it being in the right place at the right time than the difficulty of the interface. Although, considering that the other favorite game in Korea is Baduk, which also has a very difficult learning curve (and an even higher skill ceiling), you could say that the Korean culture is more receptive to high learning curves than others.
Finally, only a small portion of non-Korean people who have played SC at one point or another have ever heard of the Korean competitive scene, much less visited this site or watched a VOD. Even if SC2 is the best thing since kimchi in Korea, that will have little effect on its popularity elsewhere in the world, though it may cause players aware of it to play longer. Personally, I'd prefer that the gameplay primarily keeps players playing, rather than the knowledge that SC2 is a huge e-sport in another country (not saying that it doesn't for SC, but you're implying that popularity in Korea -> popularity elsewhere).
The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast.
Sports also don't have sequels. Again, if this was an expansion of SC I'd agree, but it's a different game by definition. Sports are also not computer games, in so many respects that I can't name them all, but I can give you two: a) sports' physicality is obvious; and b) sports have extensive instructional programs, so that while the skill curve may be very high, the learning curve is very low.
BTW, that last analogy doesn't make any sense; casual bicycle enthusiasts use training wheels?
P.S. I lost about half this post in an absent-minded misclick when my gf called from work, so forgive me if it's too truncated in parts; I like rewriting the same material as much as anyone else.
On October 17 2007 03:24 GeneralStan wrote: Gobol's point about the PR "fluff" is spot on. The only way you can dismiss Blizzard's dedication to the competative nature of the game due to MBS is if you've already made the assumption that MBS is against competativeness, which is not an assumption that is accepted.
As for as sports analogies go, can we please stop including them. MBS is its own thing with its own impact on competativeness. You say MBS is like cycling with training wheels, I say MBS is like cycling with a sleek modern 21 speed bike instead of a 1 gear clunker. Any analogy made to another sport is a weak anology, and I could think of a thousand analogies that make MBS sound good and a 1000 that make it sound bad.
And for crissakes, I really do wish people would at least take the time to read between the lines and figure out that I am neither for nor against MBS on SC2 (because I have yet to play the game).
I'm neither for nor against MBS in SC2 either for the same reasons, though you should have stated that out front like I usually do. I just don't like how the anti-MBS posters want to have MBS taken out before it's properly playtested, which would be a mistake of epic proportions. Not that I'm saying Blizzard would do it, but seeing how they've responding to the Soul Hunter, Reaver, Firebat, etc. I get a little worried.
However, what they're doing is replacing those "lost" static skills with new features that all (so far) involve dynamic skills. It's true there aren't many such features so far, but just because the PR hasn't told us about them doesn't mean that they're not there.
I don't understand how taking away from unit/building management that required you to look away from your force for a significant amount of time and replacing it with unit management that doesn't require you to look away and thus multitask makes sense to you. I really don't. This type of multitasking is a huge aspect of sc, and taking it away only affects good players. It's like playing basketball against somebody who just started, except you can't make 3 point shots and dunk. This will severely limit the good player, but the new player couldn't have done anything else anyway.
MBS is just here to satisfy the kind of player that repeats "OWNED" after every BGH opponent they somehow manage to fumble into killing.
However, what they're doing is replacing those "lost" static skills with new features that all (so far) involve dynamic skills. It's true there aren't many such features so far, but just because the PR hasn't told us about them doesn't mean that they're not there.
I don't understand how taking away from unit/building management that required you to look away from your force for a significant amount of time and replacing it with unit management that doesn't require you to look away and thus multitask makes sense to you. I really don't. This type of multitasking is a huge aspect of sc, and taking it away only affects good players. It's like playing basketball against somebody who just started, except you can't make 3 point shots and dunk. This will severely limit the good player, but the new player couldn't have done anything else anyway.
MBS is just here to satisfy the kind of player that repeats "OWNED" after every BGH opponent they somehow manage to fumble into killing.
I was speaking generally about skill, multitasking is another argument entirely, and one I agree with. MBS does reduce multitasking, and Blizzard will have to find ways (preferably involving dynamic skills) to bring that degree of multitasking back through other means.
However, (and this is totally conjecture) I don't think MBS will have as much effect on the whole game as some make it out to be. First, MBS only starts seriously affecting the game in the mid/late-game period, when players run out of hotkeys to bind buildings with. At this point, you'll have to start worrying about protecting your economies, and economy damage is much more effective with MBS since there's no negative feedback associated with a significant economy advantage (since greater numbers of units aren't harder to produce). Therefore, you're going to have to really pay attention to your bases so that you can defend against incoming attacks, since static defense is still an inefficient use of resources in most cases and you can't afford to throw away an expansion.
Other anti-MBS arguments I agree with: The removal of the negative feedback associated with multiple unit-producing buildings could lead to a "slippery slope" of economic losses being too difficult to come back from; and MBS should only apply to unit-producing buildings.
Finally, I've never played BGH, nor have I ever been interested in it; it's almost an entirely different game from SC.
With a few exceptions, most of you MBS supporters don't follow the pro scene very closely or play the game very much competitively. Else this debate would not be so difficult and some of the things you nit pick on or write long theoretical paragraphs about would seem to be self- evident and nondebatable.
I am not going to argue with those of you who never even truly tasted the flavor of the original game. You should all just accept the fact that actually playing the game and witnessing this will give you an entirely different perspective, a better and more accurate perspective.
As rude as it is to say it, some of you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
I wasn't talking about Blizzard PR, I was referring to the direct quote from Dustin in the latest Q&A. It is fact that Blizzard has a combination of raw talent and a dedication to making their games as good as possible, even if it takes years, that exceeds any of their peers in the RTS industry. So I'm sorry if the fact that I have faith in them to make a highly competitive game with a more accessible interface makes you think of me as an "unconscious lemming".
Something I'd like to point out: Blind faith in blizzard.
Blizzard is definitely not infallible. The last time they came out with a good RTS was 1998, and that team is, for the most part, no longer working for Blizzard. With a nine year gap and a changed squad working on it, I would say the StarCraft 2 squad now has about as much similarity with the original StarCraft squad as modern PvZ does with the 2001 matchup.
While I respect and thank Blizzard for this endeavor and the degree to which they are communicating with the community, I honestly have little faith in how well the design team will be able to incorporate the ideas. Unfortunately, the evidence available to us speaks against it.
a) At least for this site, most popularly supported ideas have not been implemented [DT scythe, removal of mothership among others] and questions about core development have been mostly dodged. They've given details with, at most, a middling impact on gameplay. As to large issues such as MBS, they answer with a "we are not sure yet".
b) Blizzard wants to make money. They do not want to alienate those ignorant posters who have no idea how StarCraft is played because they're paying just as much for each copy of the game as we are. And there are more of them.
c) At blizzcon, TL vets were maxing out incredibly easily in short periods of time without even trying/planning for it. StarCraft took an immense amount of time before 13-minute maxes became commonplace even among the pro scene. If it is so easy for an amateur player to do it on a game he's never played before.. I just don't think the skill ceiling is nearly high enough.
d) pursuant to point c, I recognize that the game has changed since its Blizzcon formation. However, the key issue, that of MBS, has not been addressed. While the TLers who went to blizzcon attributed some of the reason the game was so simple to the inadequacies of their opponents, it's key to note that a lot of it was just because MBS made macro way too simplistic.
This is probably one of the very few threads that I ever would even bother replying in. Just the idea of making auto-mine, auto-repair, auto-build, multiple building selection, yada yada yada is disgusting to me. What has caused us as Starcraft players to want to drift towards the things that games such as Warcraft 3, and Command and Conquer contains, when they are not even nearly as great in popularity and skill gap.
Warcraft 3 has been out for a good amount of time, a few years, and they have less players than a game that is twice its age! Doesn't it make you wonder why? Why is Starcraft so popular? What would make someone to choose Starcraft, a game that has been on the market, 10 years this upcoming winter, when there are games with newer interfaces, newer and more advanced graphics, and everyone is leveled out in the beginning to allow an early start to become a reknown player such as Boxer who was known within a year after the game was out. That could be you! You can be the next boxer! All you have to do, is choose what game to play!
But as you can see obviously, these games don't even last very long. The new C&C Tiberian Wars for example, is doing horrible. I personally went 40-2 in the game, and I never played the C&C's that came before it. Is that what we are trying to do? Do you really want it possible for someone who has NEVER before played a game with no knowledge of build orders and timing to be able to do so well? I personally do not.
When we think about what can make Starcraft II such a great game, we have to think about what it is going to be based on. Starcraft: Brood War obviously will be the answer. We all know for a fact, since we all view TeamLiquid that Starcraft: Brood War is one of the most competitive games out there, we have prize purses of hundreds of thousands of dollars, players have fan clubs of hundreds of thousands, and people are making a living off playing a game! While that is at the professional league, we have players who don't even play in the competitive scene, nor are they even AWARE of it. Yet they have happily doing their business being a fan of the game that we all love.
If we are going to make Starcraft II a competitor in the RTS Competitive scene, we have to understand what makes games stable in that scene. First of all, we need a skill differential between those who play hours on end to get good, and keep that skill, and those who play one game a week, playing vs random computers on a fastest map possible. Of course we will want the person who plays 12 hours a day, perfecting every tiny detail about their play to be able to win flawlessly against the latter.
By taking away things that people take months to perfect, such as automining, and auto-repair, auto-building interceptors etc... takes away things that people spend months, if not years to perfect. The skill gap will be greatly reduced. Multiple Building Selection once again, takes away that gap that differentiates a skilled learned player and one who just bought the game that week.
It is a known fact that Starcraft is a macro-orientated game. For instance, we focus our times timing expansions, build orders, reacting to our opponents build orders, creating the right amount and type of units, the production of supplies, or in starcraft II's case, food, building production, etc... When we take away things that make Starcraft what it is, it loses that feeling. I have not played Starcraft II, but just through all of the press, it seems as if it is being more orientated to micro. Why should a player such as the monster, cheater terran (iloveoov), give up his amazing skills so someone who just bought the game can preform in macro management in such a way that it competes with him.
I think it is a very poor decision that blizzard is partaking in reducing the things that make Starcraft such a skill differentiated game, and lowering that skill gap to allow players be able to play just as well if not better than those who practice hundreds of hours every week?
On October 16 2007 13:10 mensrea wrote: ...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype.
This is what we are arguing about, all you've done here is assume your position is correct and make some irrelevant conclusions off it. By assuming my side of the argument (that MBS will be good for the competitive scene) I can just as easily as say "The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement is being closely adhered to by the dev team".
The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument.
There are retarded arguments on both sides, you should ignore them rather than label them as the only arguments the pro MBS side have. The pro gaming experience in Korea doesn't suggest that, just like the pro gaming experience in China doesn't suggest that MBS would make the game better. There's way too many other factors as to why SC is so large in Korea.
Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply.
Not many people deny ROC was a steaming pile of crap. But it was not designed from the start as a competitive game. And when they got better people to work on TFT they produced a truly excellent game. Most SC players have their opinion of W3 based off ROC, which is why there is so much undeserved hate for TFT.
A fairly fair metric is total prize money for tournaments in 2007. And by this metric W3 is >> 10% of SC.
But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game).
This is bullshit. So what if it has the most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. The segregation of the SC community is a BAD thing. There's a couple of hundred korean player's that are competing for the major tournaments and for everyone else in the world there is some nothing. I don't want that and I doubt Blizzard wants that.
The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast.
This is irrelevant again, if we were talking about adding MBS to SC then sure they are useful analogies, but this is a new game.
Just by reading your post, you seem to be uninformed about what makes Starcraft so great. Of course many people from around the globe can say that they play starcraft because its fun. They play starcraft because you can always learn and get better. Some play because they want to become pro, and some because they want to be #1.
It is without a doubt, people are drawn to the game because there is always a higher level of skill that can be attained. Everyone on starcraft is competitive in some form or fashion, even UsEast there are clans that make you tryout and beat their recruiter to join, there are UMS games with the title "Diplomacy Noob = Ban". It is most probable that they are not aware of the pro gaming scene at all, except for hearing boxer's name here or there. I'm starting to assume you are one of these players. Maybe Fastest is what you play? That's what I am assuming just by the way you are being perceived.
So in order for Blizzard to create a game that will LAST and become a COMPETITIVE game, there has to be a HUGE GAP in skill between someone who plays 24/7 trains hard as hell only playing against top tier players and someone who plays with his little sister trying to beat a computer 2v1.
You say there are many factors that create skill, and just so you know, the more factors you take away, the more closer the top tier player is to the player who plays with his 5 year old sister. Some of the factors that take place in any single game of ANY Real Time Strategy game would be:
Macro management (Supply production, Expanding, Resource Income, Building Production, Unit production) Micromanagement (Unit Positioning, Unit Control) Timing (When to Attack, When to Expand, When to Retreat, When to Flank, When to Harass, When to Build Units, When to Build Buildings) Build Order (When to build buildings and units to attain your goal the fastest) Adaptation to your opponent (Scouting, reading, acting on your opponents own build/macro/micro/timing push/what build order etc...) Terrain uses (siege tanks on cliff, drops on cliffs, use trees as semi-shield, walling) Strategy (Everything else)
Obviously there are a lot of factors that are needed to take into account as to what makes games a game. But what makes a game BETTER than all of the rest? We as starcraft players are competitive so we want to be able to get better and better. Once we are the best, we get bored and quit and move on, but with starcraft, we can't ever be the best so we don't get bored, so we always want to get better)
Obviously Starcraft II is not going to be Starcraft: Brood War with new units etc... It will be an entire new GUI, new graphics, new everything. But so was Command and Conquer, and do you not remember that Australian kid who won 1st prize without EVER playing the game before? Do you want that to happen with Starcraft II? Do you want to reduce the game to allow players who are NOT as skilled to win against those who have been training for a long time? If so, then please, this forum is not for you.
I'm not going to add anything else, but these last two pages contain some of the most eloquently written and reasoned posts about the MBS debate I've seen yet. Both sides made excellent points (with a few useless/ignorant posts mixed in between), but let's just try to keep this civil here if possible.
On October 17 2007 08:56 orangedude wrote: I'm not going to add anything else, but these last two pages contain some of the most eloquently written and reasoned posts about the MBS debate I've seen yet. Both sides made excellent points (with a few useless/ignorant posts mixed in between), but let's just try to keep this civil here if possible.
On October 17 2007 08:43 CaucasianAsian wrote: Just by reading your post, you seem to be uninformed about what makes Starcraft so great. Of course many people from around the globe can say that they play starcraft because its fun. They play starcraft because you can always learn and get better. Some play because they want to become pro, and some because they want to be #1.
It is without a doubt, people are drawn to the game because there is always a higher level of skill that can be attained. Everyone on starcraft is competitive in some form or fashion, even UsEast there are clans that make you tryout and beat their recruiter to join, there are UMS games with the title "Diplomacy Noob = Ban". It is most probable that they are not aware of the pro gaming scene at all, except for hearing boxer's name here or there. I'm starting to assume you are one of these players. Maybe Fastest is what you play? That's what I am assuming just by the way you are being perceived.
I haven't played SC for probably 2 years now, but I did use to be of a fairly high level (top 8 of WGTOUR way back when it was the only ladder around), and I did follow the Korean scene closely for a long time. The thing is I have also played W3 at a fairly high level for the last 2 years too which I feel gives me a bit more insight into what makes a game competitive. Most of the people here have only played SC at a competitive level which limits how much they can understand what something like MBS will do to a RTS.
So in order for Blizzard to create a game that will LAST and become a COMPETITIVE game, there has to be a HUGE GAP in skill between someone who plays 24/7 trains hard as hell only playing against top tier players and someone who plays with his little sister trying to beat a computer 2v1.
I think you vastly underestimate just how simple a game can be and yet have near unlimited potential for skill. Have you seen The King of Kong? Games like Donkey Kong or Pacman are so incredibly simple and lacking in options for the player and yet people are still getting better at them like 25 years on. And they're playing against a computer. You could put every skill reducing feature into SC2 and it's still going to be such a complex game that there will be a huge skill gap between someone who is good and someone who is bad. The thing that can destroy this aren't UI improvements but massive imbalance in the game (which then suddenly reduces the players valid options greatly).
You say there are many factors that create skill, and just so you know, the more factors you take away, the more closer the top tier player is to the player who plays with his 5 year old sister. Some of the factors that take place in any single game of ANY Real Time Strategy game would be:
Macro management (Supply production, Expanding, Resource Income, Building Production, Unit production) Micromanagement (Unit Positioning, Unit Control) Timing (When to Attack, When to Expand, When to Retreat, When to Flank, When to Harass, When to Build Units, When to Build Buildings) Build Order (When to build buildings and units to attain your goal the fastest) Adaptation to your opponent (Scouting, reading, acting on your opponents own build/macro/micro/timing push/what build order etc...) Terrain uses (siege tanks on cliff, drops on cliffs, use trees as semi-shield, walling) Strategy (Everything else)
Obviously there are a lot of factors that are needed to take into account as to what makes games a game. But what makes a game BETTER than all of the rest? We as starcraft players are competitive so we want to be able to get better and better. Once we are the best, we get bored and quit and move on, but with starcraft, we can't ever be the best so we don't get bored, so we always want to get better)
This is the main point I disagree with from the anti MBS side. Taking these factors away doesn't reduce the skill gap between players. From SC to WC3 they took out a lot of these things - in particular there is essentially 0 macro skill, but the skill gap between players is basically the same in the two games. When something is taken away, the other areas are focused on more and the skill difference due to these factors increases.
Obviously Starcraft II is not going to be Starcraft: Brood War with new units etc... It will be an entire new GUI, new graphics, new everything. But so was Command and Conquer, and do you not remember that Australian kid who won 1st prize without EVER playing the game before? Do you want that to happen with Starcraft II? Do you want to reduce the game to allow players who are NOT as skilled to win against those who have been training for a long time? If so, then please, this forum is not for you.
Noone knew about that CnC comp until the day of the competition, so only people who had turned up for the CS comp or to spectate the CS comp entered it. If everyone who enters a comp is a noob then a noob has to win. As for CnC itself, I haven't played the game so I cannot comment, but I suspect the reason it's uncompetitive (apart from a lack of popularity) is that it's probably massively imbalanced to the point of there being only 1 viable strategy.
On October 17 2007 08:43 CaucasianAsian wrote: So in order for Blizzard to create a game that will LAST and become a COMPETITIVE game, there has to be a HUGE GAP in skill between someone who plays 24/7 trains hard as hell only playing against top tier players and someone who plays with his little sister trying to beat a computer 2v1.
You say there are many factors that create skill, and just so you know, the more factors you take away, the more closer the top tier player is to the player who plays with his 5 year old sister. Some of the factors that take place in any single game of ANY Real Time Strategy game would be:
Macro management (Supply production, Expanding, Resource Income, Building Production, Unit production) Micromanagement (Unit Positioning, Unit Control) Timing (When to Attack, When to Expand, When to Retreat, When to Flank, When to Harass, When to Build Units, When to Build Buildings) Build Order (When to build buildings and units to attain your goal the fastest) Adaptation to your opponent (Scouting, reading, acting on your opponents own build/macro/micro/timing push/what build order etc...) Terrain uses (siege tanks on cliff, drops on cliffs, use trees as semi-shield, walling) Strategy (Everything else)
Nice skill breakdown, but I don't see the logic in listing all of these skills, only one (the italicized) of which is clearly affected by MBS, and then concluding that noobs ~= pros in SC2 because this one skill has been reduced in importance by MBS.
If the skill curve is going to be reduced significantly at all by this single reduction, its in the very bottom tiers. That's effectively the same thing as smoothening out the initial learning curve, which I believe is a good thing.
EDIT: I'd also like to see this Australian guy; if he even made it to WCG, the lone Australian there lost 1-2 in the group stage, and that one win was against the 0-3 guy. Also, the C&C3 finals was a Scrin v. Scrin match in which both players used the same build for both maps: a couple Buzzers and then mass Seeker tanks, followed in the second map by Tripods from one player. As with all new RTSs, C&C3 is imbalanced.
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
I wasn't talking about Blizzard PR, I was referring to the direct quote from Dustin in the latest Q&A. It is fact that Blizzard has a combination of raw talent and a dedication to making their games as good as possible, even if it takes years, that exceeds any of their peers in the RTS industry. So I'm sorry if the fact that I have faith in them to make a highly competitive game with a more accessible interface makes you think of me as an "unconscious lemming".
Something I'd like to point out: Blind faith in blizzard.
Blizzard is definitely not infallible. The last time they came out with a good RTS was 1998, and that team is, for the most part, no longer working for Blizzard. With a nine year gap and a changed squad working on it, I would say the StarCraft 2 squad now has about as much similarity with the original StarCraft squad as modern PvZ does with the 2001 matchup.
I don't believe that any game developer is infalliable, I just believe that Blizzard is better equipped than any other RTS developer to devote the time and energy necessary to making an extremely competitive game that has MBS. If they can't do it, then it probably can't be done, and only then SC2 should return to SBS. I just think we should have respect enough for Blizzard to give them the time they need to see if SC2 can be competitive with MBS, rather than shout that MBS should be removed immediately, as many have done in these debates.
In regards to (c), being able to max out faster than 13 minutes is an intended consequence of MBS. Blizzard has stated they want SC2 games to be under 20 minutes, and MBS, in making it easier to max out and easier to capitalize on economic advantages, makes the game shorter. I do agree, however, that Blizzard should be careful to avoid the "slippery slope", where making a comeback once you've fallen behind becomes very difficult.
In regards to (d), a lot of it was because many of the features Blizzard is planning on implementing (most of which they haven't told us about) to keep the skill curve high while having an easier-to-use interface weren't in the build. Therefore, MBS had a larger impact on the perceived difficulty of the game by veterans than it would if those missing features were in the build. That's why we should wait until a feature-complete build before making a final judgement on MBS in SC2.
P.S. Sorry for the double post, I meant to copy the CA response over but I was tired and clicked the post button before I realized. Plus, this is the second post today I had to rewrite because of a misclick.
How about a tournament Pro-MBS vs Against. We get the best players of both sides to play bo5 to see who really knows the game better and to expose the players who have no idea what they're talking about.
Yes, I'm being serious I will be willing to organise this
Not to mention it's already been done; orangedude agreed to play Tasteless so the latter could get an idea of how well he knew BW. Tasteless won of course, cuz he's fcking Tasteless, but he said that orangedude wasn't as bad as he expected, iirc.
And as you might have guessed, it didn't change anything.
I was watching those games, I know what happened. You MBS people should stop being so defensive. Grudge matches has been a way the community has bonded. Some of the defining moments in our history has been formed that way. (Fakesteve vs Mani, tfeign vs ahk-gosu).
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
I wasn't talking about Blizzard PR, I was referring to the direct quote from Dustin in the latest Q&A. It is fact that Blizzard has a combination of raw talent and a dedication to making their games as good as possible, even if it takes years, that exceeds any of their peers in the RTS industry. So I'm sorry if the fact that I have faith in them to make a highly competitive game with a more accessible interface makes you think of me as an "unconscious lemming".
Something I'd like to point out: Blind faith in blizzard.
Blizzard is definitely not infallible. The last time they came out with a good RTS was 1998, and that team is, for the most part, no longer working for Blizzard. With a nine year gap and a changed squad working on it, I would say the StarCraft 2 squad now has about as much similarity with the original StarCraft squad as modern PvZ does with the 2001 matchup.
I don't believe that any game developer is infalliable, I just believe that Blizzard is better equipped than any other RTS developer to devote the time and energy necessary to making an extremely competitive game that has MBS. If they can't do it, then it probably can't be done, and only then SC2 should return to SBS. I just think we should have respect enough for Blizzard to give them the time they need to see if SC2 can be competitive with MBS, rather than shout that MBS should be removed immediately, as many have done in these debates.
In regards to (c), being able to max out faster than 13 minutes is an intended consequence of MBS. Blizzard has stated they want SC2 games to be under 20 minutes, and MBS, in making it easier to max out and easier to capitalize on economic advantages, makes the game shorter. I do agree, however, that Blizzard should be careful to avoid the "slippery slope", where making a comeback once you've fallen behind becomes very difficult.
In regards to (d), a lot of it was because many of the features Blizzard is planning on implementing (most of which they haven't told us about) to keep the skill curve high while having an easier-to-use interface weren't in the build. Therefore, MBS had a larger impact on the perceived difficulty of the game by veterans than it would if those missing features were in the build. That's why we should wait until a feature-complete build before making a final judgement on MBS in SC2.
P.S. Sorry for the double post, I meant to copy the CA response over but I was tired and clicked the post button before I realized. Plus, this is the second post today I had to rewrite because of a misclick.
Firstly, I can't equate Blizzard then with Blizzard now. While the culture is probably the same, the fact that the SC2 team is almost completely changed from the SC1 team means that they are barely better-equipped than any other RTS-maker. Browder DID make CnC3, after all. While he seems more personable than before, it is key to note that he hasn't actually proved game-making competence between then and now. I'm withholding judgment on him - I won't say he's unconditionally bad, but I don't trust him completely either.
faster than 13 minute max makes it a pure macro game. 13 min maxes are rare in SC - that they're so commonplace in SC2 without optimal build orders or high-skill players yet is quite worrying. It should not be a macro fest of "who can make 200/200 fastest". There should be micro battles that have some sort of impact. Games end in under 20 minutes in most SC1 games, too - max time does not need to be shorter. Plus, this is 13 minutes under normal speed or whatever - under fastest speed, it'd be under 10! That's way too easy and fast.
I agree with the last point - nothing is final yet - but I would still urge Blizzard to reconsider based on what we've seen so far. If they can present a working model with MBS that addresses all the competitive concerns, I'll be happy. It's really not a "MBS vs no MBS", it's an "easy game vs hard game" issue. And until they prove to me that MBS won't make it easy, I am going to be against MBS.
What a lot of you anti-MBS people aren't getting is that MBS isn't the only thing making SCII too easy as people who played it at blizzcon pointed out. There's a lot of other factors that are making it too easy, and in my opinion MBS is only a having a small effect compared to how badly the other factors are noobifying the game.
Auto-mining 36 Unit Selection Cap (or whatever it is) Multiple Building Construction (with 1 worker) Multiple Caster Spell Casting ex. casting 3 drop-pods/snipes in three different places with three different ghosts Various Text Warnings ex. when under attack, etc. Radar Dome Auto-building (Interceptors) (the list is bigger but I'm too tired/lazy to remember the rest atm)
What I listed at the top is what I feel (especially the ones in bold) areREALLY going to make the game too easy, as they make everyone suddenly become micro/macro/attention gods compared to what was possible in the original. Yeah, MBS is also a part of what is noobifying SCII, but it alone isn't going to make the game too easy. Compared to the other things, MBS really isn't that bad. Like I said, I do agree that the game at the moment seems like it's going to have competitive issues being too easy, but I think you guys are putting too much blame on MBS alone.
Have to agree people are getting so caught up with MBS destroying the game they forgot about the many other things that will destroy the game as well, auto-mining, unlimited selection, smart casting, alone their effect won't be as harmful as MBS, but they are still harmful non the less.
automining: i think this is kind of bad, but only when it's COUPLED with MBS is it really horrible. unit selection cap: for me a larger unit selection cap is fine, as long as it isn't too large. something like 24 isn't too unreasonable--i just want to see all the wire frames of the units to check for health. multible building construction: isn't this sort of like way-points but with making buildings? i don't see how this is that horrible, especially in the early game when much of it is timing based and you have limited resources. for instance in early game PvT: after making another pylon the worker makes a forge using 150 minerals that you needed to make a dragoon because the terran all of a sudden attacked. it'd actually do you more harm than good in that situation. text warnings: they give you auditory warnings in SC1: we are under attack, research complete, etc. don't think it'll have too much impact. radar dome: i don't know enough about the specifics to comment on this auto-building interceptors: they should either take this out or make it toggle-able. if you're good at keeping money really low, it could get frustrating having your money never get above like 150 because of the interceptors autobuilding.
the reason why MBS is such a large issue is because it reduces multitasking, which in turn makes the game easier. pro-MBS players make it sound like it's impossible to have fun playing starcraft: brood war because of the interface. anyone that has played starcraft for more than a few months knows how ridiculous that statement is. it's not the fact that we are in love with pressing 1v2v3v4t5t or anything like that. it's the fact that (especially in late game) it forces you to take your screen away from the battle instead of constantly hovering over your 200/200 army 8 minutes into the game. this is something we do not want. one of the hallmarks of starcraft is that there is never time to sit there and watch a battle happen. thoughts in your head are hectic, the action happening in the game is chaotic. you can't just be worrying about that battle. you need to focus on other things like your unit production back in your base, resetting rally points, etc. we like the fact that it is literally impossible to play a perfect game (very high ceiling) and that there is ALWAYS room to improve your multitasking.
*edit* and once again, i will say flat out that i suck at starcraft. i'm not saying this because i am "gosu" and want to have my skills from sc1 transfer over to sc2. in bwchart my hotkey (grouping) usage is only 2-3% most games (which, for those who don't know, is basically not using hotkeys)
edit: Yeah, I guess Multiple Building Construction isn't that bad, but it still frees up a good amount of concentration time, let's just take a probe queuing up 3-4 buildings as an example. In the original SC you'd have to wait for the probe to move to the location in order for it to build a building and then after it'd be ready to build another building, but in SCII you can just tell that one probe to queue up the four buildings very rapidly and then tell it to go back to mining right after, and while it's doing that you can concentrate on multitasking something else. Similar thing with SCV's queuing up supply depots.
I dunno with the unit selection cap, I guess I'm thinking stimming 50 marines instantly and being able to move them away from danger/focus fire all at the same time is a bad thing. Maybe I'm just scared of noob terrans being able to easily out-micro my ling/lurk/filer micro lol
On October 17 2007 16:26 noobienoob wrote: There's a lot of other factors that are making it too easy, and in my opinion MBS is only a having a small effect compared to how badly the other factors are noobifying the game.
Auto-mining 36 Unit Selection Cap (or whatever it is) Multiple Building Construction (with 1 worker) Multiple Caster Spell Casting ex. casting 3 drop-pods/snipes in three different places with three different ghosts
People are very much aware of this. MBS is just the feature that symbolizes the other ones.
But yes, auto-rally mining and smart cast are also very bad.
Autosplit and unit selection cap are not such a big deal. queuing up several buildings is also kind of questionable. I can see someone queue op three supply depots with terran.
I think Nony has said that auto-rally mining and smart cast are worse than MBS.
I'm so happy to read the last few posts. I thought everyone forgot about auto-mining so I didn't bring it up, I thought "Might aswell stick to MBS, that's a fight we can win."
I think MBS should be with Auto-mining and smart casting in the 'Novice' game mode. (Like UMS, etc..)
I also have to somewhat agree with Nony about automining. It really does change a huge aspect of the game. Can you imagine if the ONLY times you tell workers to mine, are at the very beginning, and when you're migrating workers? (And I suppose after an scv/probe is done building something). Fucking disgusting. Stop trying to perfect something(macro) that was never meant to be perfect!
Even these kids were too much for mensrea. These guys should have been gone ages ago, but nooo... makes me sick. There is no point on arguing with them because it is just a waste of time. If I wanted to write a 12 page article as to why such features shouldn't be implemented I would ask for $600 up front; besides, it's not even my problem. I am certain Blizzard will figure it out for thenselves. We've given them enough valid points for research.
Now how about we all just give it a rest, move on with our lives and just be happy when we get news of the zerg and beta.
There is only so much that we have to work with, but one thing is clear: 'some' of us know what makes a good strategic, competitive game.
I'm tired of doing Blizzard's work for them: 'Pillars, where's my pay cheque baby?'
On October 17 2007 23:33 KShiduo wrote: There is only so much that we have to work with, but one thing is clear: 'some' of us know what makes a good strategic, competitive game.
You wont ever end this discussion by posting something as biased as this, only way is to swallow your pride and look from someone elses perspective. Sure you can go ahead and think that you have the best oppinions and that people who have other oppinions are stupid or lacks knowledge, but it wont take you anywere thinking like that.
This issue isnt one sided, there isnt a "Good" side. Its just like politics, each side has both negative and positive things about them its just a matter of how you predict the outcomes to be and what you prioritise. Clearly the nay sayers think that the most important issue is to keep the korean pro community intact, at all costs. The smart yay sayers however thinks that we can expand so that its no longer a korean pro community and instead an international pro community wich can only be achieved by a large influx of new players outside korea.
Then the dumb yay sayers say "Its not as frustrating to play with mbs wich is why i want it in" wich ofcourse is true, and is the reason mbs will result in more players playing the game. This however shouldnt be seen as the only pro mbs argument.
And lastly, just realise that there is just as much evidence for that mbs wont affect the pro scene much at all as the opposite. However, mbs will affect the number of new players a lot simply beacuse less frustration=more enjoyment = more players staying long enough to get the hang of the game. New players arent stupid as some here thinks, however they often lack patience.
newbs want mbs? give it to them, but add a new trick that's gonna make them have to develop mechanics anyway(kinda like that protoss thing where you have to click to warp in units to batlefield). problem solved.
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
I wasn't talking about Blizzard PR, I was referring to the direct quote from Dustin in the latest Q&A. It is fact that Blizzard has a combination of raw talent and a dedication to making their games as good as possible, even if it takes years, that exceeds any of their peers in the RTS industry. So I'm sorry if the fact that I have faith in them to make a highly competitive game with a more accessible interface makes you think of me as an "unconscious lemming".
Something I'd like to point out: Blind faith in blizzard.
Blizzard is definitely not infallible. The last time they came out with a good RTS was 1998, and that team is, for the most part, no longer working for Blizzard. With a nine year gap and a changed squad working on it, I would say the StarCraft 2 squad now has about as much similarity with the original StarCraft squad as modern PvZ does with the 2001 matchup.
I don't believe that any game developer is infalliable, I just believe that Blizzard is better equipped than any other RTS developer to devote the time and energy necessary to making an extremely competitive game that has MBS. If they can't do it, then it probably can't be done, and only then SC2 should return to SBS. I just think we should have respect enough for Blizzard to give them the time they need to see if SC2 can be competitive with MBS, rather than shout that MBS should be removed immediately, as many have done in these debates.
In regards to (c), being able to max out faster than 13 minutes is an intended consequence of MBS. Blizzard has stated they want SC2 games to be under 20 minutes, and MBS, in making it easier to max out and easier to capitalize on economic advantages, makes the game shorter. I do agree, however, that Blizzard should be careful to avoid the "slippery slope", where making a comeback once you've fallen behind becomes very difficult.
In regards to (d), a lot of it was because many of the features Blizzard is planning on implementing (most of which they haven't told us about) to keep the skill curve high while having an easier-to-use interface weren't in the build. Therefore, MBS had a larger impact on the perceived difficulty of the game by veterans than it would if those missing features were in the build. That's why we should wait until a feature-complete build before making a final judgement on MBS in SC2.
P.S. Sorry for the double post, I meant to copy the CA response over but I was tired and clicked the post button before I realized. Plus, this is the second post today I had to rewrite because of a misclick.
Firstly, I can't equate Blizzard then with Blizzard now. While the culture is probably the same, the fact that the SC2 team is almost completely changed from the SC1 team means that they are barely better-equipped than any other RTS-maker. Browder DID make CnC3, after all. While he seems more personable than before, it is key to note that he hasn't actually proved game-making competence between then and now. I'm withholding judgment on him - I won't say he's unconditionally bad, but I don't trust him completely either.
faster than 13 minute max makes it a pure macro game. 13 min maxes are rare in SC - that they're so commonplace in SC2 without optimal build orders or high-skill players yet is quite worrying. It should not be a macro fest of "who can make 200/200 fastest". There should be micro battles that have some sort of impact. Games end in under 20 minutes in most SC1 games, too - max time does not need to be shorter. Plus, this is 13 minutes under normal speed or whatever - under fastest speed, it'd be under 10! That's way too easy and fast.
I think it's more the fact that Blizzard is the only developer company that's its own publisher (except EA, but they make so many different titles that they're internally divided into the publisher/developer relationship), which allows it to patch its games as many times as it desires. Most developer companies are only allowed x patches, an expansion, and x more patches by their publisher, and that's it; that's why many RTS games end up being competitively unbalanced. If MBS or other interface changes are killing the competitiveness of SC2, Blizzard WILL patch it out, preferably during the beta.
I think micro will still play a heavy role, just with larger armies than we're used to seeing in SC1. Also, I know most SC games end in under 20 minutes, but Blizzard is talking about a cap - the average time they're aiming for is now 10-15 min between two players of equal skill, even if they go heavy macro-style. In SC, if both players go heavy macro, games can easily last 30 min - 1 hour. I do agree that 10 minutes would be too fast under fastest - though I'd sooner advocate upping the supply limit before kicking out MBS.
On October 17 2007 16:26 noobienoob wrote: Multiple Building Construction (with 1 worker) Multiple Caster Spell Casting ex. casting 3 drop-pods/snipes in three different places with three different ghosts Radar Dome Auto-building (Interceptors)
Just going to comment on these for the time being. 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).
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.
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!
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.
On October 17 2007 16:26 noobienoob wrote: Multiple Building Construction (with 1 worker) Multiple Caster Spell Casting ex. casting 3 drop-pods/snipes in three different places with three different ghosts Radar Dome Auto-building (Interceptors)
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).
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.
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.
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
I wasn't talking about Blizzard PR, I was referring to the direct quote from Dustin in the latest Q&A. It is fact that Blizzard has a combination of raw talent and a dedication to making their games as good as possible, even if it takes years, that exceeds any of their peers in the RTS industry. So I'm sorry if the fact that I have faith in them to make a highly competitive game with a more accessible interface makes you think of me as an "unconscious lemming".
Something I'd like to point out: Blind faith in blizzard.
Blizzard is definitely not infallible. The last time they came out with a good RTS was 1998, and that team is, for the most part, no longer working for Blizzard. With a nine year gap and a changed squad working on it, I would say the StarCraft 2 squad now has about as much similarity with the original StarCraft squad as modern PvZ does with the 2001 matchup.
I don't believe that any game developer is infalliable, I just believe that Blizzard is better equipped than any other RTS developer to devote the time and energy necessary to making an extremely competitive game that has MBS. If they can't do it, then it probably can't be done, and only then SC2 should return to SBS. I just think we should have respect enough for Blizzard to give them the time they need to see if SC2 can be competitive with MBS, rather than shout that MBS should be removed immediately, as many have done in these debates.
In regards to (c), being able to max out faster than 13 minutes is an intended consequence of MBS. Blizzard has stated they want SC2 games to be under 20 minutes, and MBS, in making it easier to max out and easier to capitalize on economic advantages, makes the game shorter. I do agree, however, that Blizzard should be careful to avoid the "slippery slope", where making a comeback once you've fallen behind becomes very difficult.
In regards to (d), a lot of it was because many of the features Blizzard is planning on implementing (most of which they haven't told us about) to keep the skill curve high while having an easier-to-use interface weren't in the build. Therefore, MBS had a larger impact on the perceived difficulty of the game by veterans than it would if those missing features were in the build. That's why we should wait until a feature-complete build before making a final judgement on MBS in SC2.
P.S. Sorry for the double post, I meant to copy the CA response over but I was tired and clicked the post button before I realized. Plus, this is the second post today I had to rewrite because of a misclick.
Firstly, I can't equate Blizzard then with Blizzard now. While the culture is probably the same, the fact that the SC2 team is almost completely changed from the SC1 team means that they are barely better-equipped than any other RTS-maker. Browder DID make CnC3, after all. While he seems more personable than before, it is key to note that he hasn't actually proved game-making competence between then and now. I'm withholding judgment on him - I won't say he's unconditionally bad, but I don't trust him completely either.
faster than 13 minute max makes it a pure macro game. 13 min maxes are rare in SC - that they're so commonplace in SC2 without optimal build orders or high-skill players yet is quite worrying. It should not be a macro fest of "who can make 200/200 fastest". There should be micro battles that have some sort of impact. Games end in under 20 minutes in most SC1 games, too - max time does not need to be shorter. Plus, this is 13 minutes under normal speed or whatever - under fastest speed, it'd be under 10! That's way too easy and fast.
I think it's more the fact that Blizzard is the only developer company that's its own publisher (except EA, but they make so many different titles that they're internally divided into the publisher/developer relationship), which allows it to patch its games as many times as it desires. Most developer companies are only allowed x patches, an expansion, and x more patches by their publisher, and that's it; that's why many RTS games end up being competitively unbalanced. If MBS or other interface changes are killing the competitiveness of SC2, Blizzard WILL patch it out, preferably during the beta.
I think micro will still play a heavy role, just with larger armies than we're used to seeing in SC1. Also, I know most SC games end in under 20 minutes, but Blizzard is talking about a cap - the average time they're aiming for is now 10-15 min between two players of equal skill, even if they go heavy macro-style. In SC, if both players go heavy macro, games can easily last 30 min - 1 hour. I do agree that 10 minutes would be too fast under fastest - though I'd sooner advocate upping the supply limit before kicking out MBS.
On October 17 2007 16:26 noobienoob wrote: Multiple Building Construction (with 1 worker) Multiple Caster Spell Casting ex. casting 3 drop-pods/snipes in three different places with three different ghosts Radar Dome Auto-building (Interceptors)
Just going to comment on these for the time being. 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
TL.net doesn't work that way. If we did, this place would have drowned in the mass of ignorance, stupidity, immaturity and selfishness long ago. It is the mods like Rekrul that have kept people in check. If being a mod meant that every good poster had to give up their opinion - this place would have run out of good posters long ago and the inmates would run the asylum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On October 18 2007 12:00 MyLostTemple wrote: looks like TL.net got owned by the internet. usually it works the other way around
Wendy Strachan's sitting there on her computer re-voting over and over for MBS.
As for the discussion at hand. I thought Id add another cog to this argument. In warcraft 3, the editor allows every unit to have its properties changed, you can create entirely new units if you want using it. This will continue into starcraft 2. So if someone (even blizzard themselves) decides to make a map, but changes the properties of the buildings so they are units, then they will be able to be all selected at the same time. This way, UMS'ing MBS is easy. However its not so easy to go the other way. Maybe blizzard should do this. BGH was a blizzard map, and its one of the most played maps on battlenet. This way, everyone can play their MBS game, but not detract from the competative side.
On October 18 2007 16:10 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: There absolutely should be an expected standard in opinions. Opinions posted on this site should be well-informed and well thought out.
You are contradicting yourself right here. Opinions are opinions, not facts. Opinions you don't agree with can be supported using facts you accept and can be well thought out.
You are making the assumption that all well-informed and well thought out opinions are all basically the same.
Right here we don't have the same opinion. Using your logic either your or my opinion is not well informed or well thought out.
This means that every time people disagree one of them deserves to be banned.
You are contradicting yourself right here. Opinions are opinions, not facts. Opinions you don't agree with can be supported using facts you accept and can be well thought out.
Absolutely, the point is not to enforce a monopoly on opinion, but to make sure that an opinion posted is one that is reasoned and well-articulated.
The way I see it "I liked the movie because the lead actors were strong, the plot was well developed and the director had a consistent vision, demonstrated with his use of time as a motif" is a much better opinion then "I just liked it, okay"
On October 18 2007 17:06 BlackStar wrote: You are contradicting yourself right here. Opinions are opinions, not facts. Opinions you don't agree with can be supported using facts you accept and can be well thought out.
I didn't fucking contradict myself. I said that in order for an opinion to pass the grade around here, it has to be well-informed and well thought out. I didn't say that someone's opinion has to jive with mine. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but if someone developed their standpoint before thinking it through or figuring out the details, they sure as fuck better not post it amidst a discussion full of people on either side who have done so. We have a standard at this website which requires people to THINK BEFORE THEY POST. The only difference in opinion here is whether or not mensrea is fit to make decisions about a poster's thought process, and you are certainly unqualified to judge mensrea's capabilities. As long as a post is sensible there is absolutely no reason a moderator would take issue with it.
You are making the assumption that all well-informed and well thought out opinions are all basically the same.
What on earth is this 2+2=5 bullshit? I made a post that could have been used as an example in fucking Neutrality 101. People have to think about things before they post; which side of the fence they're on does not matter to the moderators.
Right here we don't have the same opinion. Using your logic either your or my opinion is not well informed or well thought out.
If your 'opinion' is that I contradicted myself by stating "we have standards" and then clearly outlining those standards, then your 'opinion' is fucking stupid. On this subject, my opinion IS well thought out and well-informed, because I've been at this site for four fucking years. I know what's expected here.
This means that every time people disagree one of them deserves to be banned.
Again, more 2+2=5 nonsense.
Here's the bottom line: People are entitled to their opinions, but people shouldn't post in discussion topics without understanding the things being discussed.
For those of you wondering why that post is a little over the top:
Here I am making a point about the posting standards we have at TL (specifically, read before you post), and the response I get is a bunch of nonsense that takes what I said and makes it something completely different. This is a problem.
You are either misunderstanding, or equivocating, what mensrea meant by 'expected standard' of opinions.
The issue was not the quality of the posts in which opinions are expressed, but how far an opinion is removed from the norm.
I don't understand why your post has to go with so much verbal violence. Again, 'practice what you preach', otherwise it will only be counter productive.
Blackstar, you are treading on some thin ice. TL.net's administrative system isn't legalistic - its based upon established community and common sense. Ignore that at your own peril.
The rest of the newer posters should seriously try to understand this too.
On October 18 2007 18:31 BlackStar wrote: Well, if I change my opinion to agree with FakeSteve because otherwise I will be banned I don't think the basic of my opinion meets his standards.
There is no opinion.
We have a different definition of 'well thought out and well-informed', but my definition is what flies at this site.
And nobody will ban just you for arguing with me
I don't get 'this post sucks' and 'i disagree with this post' confused.
On October 18 2007 16:10 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: Opinions posted on this site should be well-informed and well thought out.
I think the thing was that when i state my oppinions i back them up, i dont fling out personal attacks, sure i can argue a bit harshly sometimes when people keeps repeating themselves or when they come with very flawed arguments but ive never come with gibberish arguments and if im prooved wrong in a heated discussion i apologise.
Look at my posting history, ive taken much shit on this site for my oppinions, and i havent attacked other peoples oppinions at all just their reasoning. If someone cant defend their reasoning then their oppinions dont meet any standard at all imo, and if they cant take that their reasoning is being questioned they shouldnt step into the argumentation since then they clearly dont want to argue.
And lately i barely post in these mbs argumentation threads beacuse they dont lead anywere, i just go in here and there to take out very flawed points since i am a bit sensitive to bad arguing. Sure, sometimes i make flawed arguments too, but then its always against someone else making flawed arguments and its to proove a point that flawed arguments are really useless since in effect they dont lead anywere they are just hard and annoying to argue against.
And for mensrea, as long as i dont get banned for thinking that in the end mbs will be good for the game im happy. Sure you/he might have a grudge on me for being on the opposite side of the argument, but as long as he acts proffesionally as a moderator i wont mind.
On October 18 2007 20:23 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: Hey man, I'm not commenting on your posts one way or another
I'm just telling BlackStar the business
Yeah, but mensrea was commenting on my stuff, then blackstar was commenting on mensrea, so that was like the base of the whole argument i thought.
But i think that we all can agree that posts with "Bad oppinions" as in "Oppinions that dont have any roots in reality and dont intend to ever have" are what you can be banned for. However a mod shouldnt ban someone for having a different valid oppinion, the hard thing is to see if someones oppinion is valid if it isnt the same as yours though.
On October 18 2007 20:23 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: Hey man, I'm not commenting on your posts one way or another
I'm just telling BlackStar the business
Yeah, but mensrea was commenting on my stuff, then blackstar was commenting on mensrea, so that was like the base of the whole argument i thought.
But i think that we all can agree that posts with "Bad oppinions" as in "Oppinions that dont have any roots in reality and dont intend to ever have" are what you can be banned for. However a mod shouldnt ban someone for having a different valid oppinion, the hard thing is to see if someones oppinion is valid if it isnt the same as yours though.
We don't ban users for having different opinions. You can have whatever opinion you want on this site, with the exception of racism and similar topics. I would however ban a troll pretty quick. To use mbs as an example - we all want the best sc2 possible, so we want to bring out all the valid arguments both for and against.
But! If someone wants to engage in a meaningfull discussion they have an obligation to educate themselves on the existing facts. They should also be able to voice their opinion in a credible way, showing that they in fact have enough knowledge of the deeper parts of starcraft gameplay to make an informed decition about the subject. If you fail to do either of these and just rambles on on your own, you are what is usually refered to as a troll. Plenty of sc forums have tons of these, but we usually keep them away here. I don't think that casual players are a less important user base than the avid progamers - in fact, the majority of the userbase are casual players - but I think that they don't know enough to make an informed decition in many cases, and I think mbs or sbs won't change their game experience much anyway.
On October 18 2007 21:24 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: But! If someone wants to engage in a meaningfull discussion they have an obligation to educate themselves on the existing facts. They should also be able to voice their opinion in a credible way, showing that they in fact have enough knowledge of the deeper parts of starcraft gameplay to make an informed decition about the subject. If you fail to do either of these and just rambles on on your own, you are what is usually refered to as a troll. Plenty of sc forums have tons of these, but we usually keep them away here.
And here, ive read every mbs topic, every post. I know all the arguments of both sides, i know what sepparates fros from each other, i know what makes the current pro community thrive and why it evolved like it did.
Mbs will stir things up, thats for sure, the question is if the result when things settles will be better or worse than before. That is impossible to know, and even progamers cant know much about that since the changes to the game are to many and to large for anyone to make a clear picture on how it will play out when 2 competetive players try to overcome each other.
All the pro players just see the current way being torned up by all the stirring wich makes them want to preserve what they have, its natural and every community fights change since they are afraid of the unknown.
But really, without change we wouldnt have starcraft and you cant say that starcraft is the ultimate RTS to ever come since then we wouldnt be here discussing this new game wich have the potential to be even better than starcraft.
And ive even said that if mbs turns out to kill the competetiveness of the game (Wich i doubt ofcourse) it should be removed and no doubt Blizzard will remove or change it in such a case. But it should be given a chance before that happens, like play a month with it in a competetive ladder then ask the top 100 what they think about it.(Easy way is to make the beta ladder have some price money)
All the pro players just see the current way being torned up by all the stirring wich makes them want to preserve what they have, its natural and every community fights change since they are afraid of the unknown.
this isn't even addressing someone's argument -- it's pyschoanalytical assumption. since you've read every argument, you must know that the reasons seasoned starcraft argue against mbs runs deeper than simply "keeping the ways that enabled us to succeed"
All the pro players just see the current way being torned up by all the stirring wich makes them want to preserve what they have, its natural and every community fights change since they are afraid of the unknown.
this isn't even addressing someone's argument -- it's pyschoanalytical assumption. since you've read every argument, you must know that the reasons seasoned starcraft argue against mbs runs deeper than simply "keeping the ways that enabled us to succeed"
I didnt say that theyre trying to keep their ways to success, im saying that theyre happy with what they got now and dont want to risk that losing that feeling with this change.
Like, if you go to a restaurant and get your favorite dish every day. Then one day they decided to ask you if they should change the dish to make it more popular, then you would obviously say no since you love that dish and dont want to risk them ruining it.
To go on with the same example, the customers that dont like the current dish would obviously say yes since they have nothing to lose on the deal and are probably in the majority. Now this isnt a perfect example, and i put it with the advantage towards anti mbs on purpose but it isnt as biased as many other examples.
yo're doing the same thing. you can't infer about a group's motives like that. the anti-mbs argument isn't so easily summed up. i thought about the same thing and mentioned it a dozen pages back or so, but it's just a possibility, certainly nothing to base a counter-argument off of.
On October 19 2007 03:31 CTStalker wrote: yo're doing the same thing. you can't infer about a group's motives like that. the anti-mbs argument isn't so easily summed up. i thought about the same thing and mentioned it a dozen pages back or so, but it's just a possibility, certainly nothing to base a counter-argument off of.
So your saying that im wrong, that people here dont want mbs removed simply beacuse they think that it will hurt the game they like?
I mean, there is no other reason to be anti mbs, if they dont care about the game getting changed then they wouldnt even be here discussing.
Frankly I think there is a double standard on this site about posting standards in regards to the MBS debate. I feel like a Pro-MBSer is held to much higher standards in his/her posting. ProMBSers are rightfully flamed / banned when their arguements are weak/shallow/stupid, but Anti-MBS posters are not held to similar standards (I don't really feel like digging up examples of stupid Anti-MBS posts, but I could).
I think Mensrea was probably just in a bad mood, but I got flamed out in what I thought was a reasonable post, and now I'm in his list of "stupid pro-mbsers" which is ironic, because I'm not even proMBS!
On October 19 2007 03:31 CTStalker wrote: yo're doing the same thing. you can't infer about a group's motives like that. the anti-mbs argument isn't so easily summed up. i thought about the same thing and mentioned it a dozen pages back or so, but it's just a possibility, certainly nothing to base a counter-argument off of.
I mean, there is no other reason to be anti mbs, if they dont care about the game getting changed then they wouldnt even be here discussing.
well now you've clearly demonstrated that you haven't read all of the anti-MBS arguments, or, if you have, then you understood none of them.
On October 19 2007 03:31 CTStalker wrote: yo're doing the same thing. you can't infer about a group's motives like that. the anti-mbs argument isn't so easily summed up. i thought about the same thing and mentioned it a dozen pages back or so, but it's just a possibility, certainly nothing to base a counter-argument off of.
I mean, there is no other reason to be anti mbs, if they dont care about the game getting changed then they wouldnt even be here discussing.
well now you've clearly demonstrated that you haven't read all of the anti-MBS arguments, or, if you have, then you understood none of them.
Well, now you mustve missunderstood something.
We have 2 criteria: Criteria A: You must care about starcraft 2 and thus also about starcraft to a certain degree. If you dont care you wouldnt be here arguing.
Criteria B: You must think that mbs will hurt the game. If you dont think that mbs will hurt the game in any way then you have no reason to be against it. Hurting the game can be seen as hurting the proscene, or any other aspect since hurting parts of a game is also hurting the game just like hurting your arm is also hurting you.
Now, find me any anti mbs person here that is not filling both of those please.
All the pro players just see the current way being torned up by all the stirring wich makes them want to preserve what they have, its natural and every community fights change since they are afraid of the unknown.
This is what you said. Everyone knows that sc2 will bring changes, but what you wrote here implies that it's the idea of change that sc veterans reject, when, in actuality, it's the individual effect of those changes on gameplay that people are concerned about.
your last post clears up perhaps what you originally meant a bit, but what i was trying to point out was your polarization of the anti-mbs arugment
All the pro players just see the current way being torned up by all the stirring wich makes them want to preserve what they have, its natural and every community fights change since they are afraid of the unknown.
This is what you said. Everyone knows that sc2 will bring changes, but what you wrote here implies that it's the idea of change that sc veterans reject, when, in actuality, it's the individual effect of those changes on gameplay that people are concerned about.
your last post clears up perhaps what you originally meant a bit, but what i was trying to point out was your polarization of the anti-mbs arugment
Well, I didnt said they rejected all change, but i see now that you could interpret it that way.
Noone knows exactly how mbs will change the game, noone knows if the game will be better/worse of it. Its quite easy to see both the pro's and con's of it, wich means that the effect I mentioned there becomes a large factor on wich side you choose. Logic prevails when it has a large advantage, but when the sides are as close as now logic cant decide this.
And if you look around the veteran community do detest all the changes more or less, but as I said the threads were the fear isn't based on logic they cant win wich makes those threads short lived. Same as how these mbs threads can live on forever since logic favors neighter side.
CTStalker: You're right that his quote was a generalization that doesn't really work in this case, but I'm sure it is at least true to a "certain extent". For instance, almost every single new change that has been announced in SC2 was always met with a lot of negative opinion initially. Things from being 3-D, reapers, ghost model, mothership, stasis orb, cobra, thor, soul hunter, etc. Some were rightfully garbage ideas like the "soul hunter", and ended up being removed, while 3-D graphics are here to stay and any debate pretty much died out. Thor also ended up being accepted even though the concept initially sounded dumb.
I would know, because I feel the same way after playing SC for almost 9 years (with breaks in between) and I would love to see SC2 turn out exactly as SC did except with newer graphics as well. However, sometimes it helps to take a step back and think a bit from a different perspective.
What I dislike is when some TL posters (there are quite a few) reach the conclusion that MBS will 100% surely destroy SC2 based on the limited info about the game we currently have and extrapolating most arguments from the "perfection" of SC. Anyone who is that sure of themselves and attack others for not sharing their views is overconfident and quite arrogant IMO, regardless of whatever logic they try to use to support themselves, because we simply don't have that much of SC2 to work with yet (Zerg isn't even in the game).
Many veterans (including Mensrea and FA) realize the potential advantages of adding MBS (esp. the larger fanbase --> competition) alongside the disadvantages that it may bring and thus choose to wait until beta to make a final judgment. Even though they are more inclined to believe MBS has an overall negative impact, they are still willing to 'wait-and-see" before adamantly demanding its removal, and I feel this is the most logical way.
I will do the same, except that I believe that the pros may in fact outweigh the cons in the end, but I do expect Blizzard to abandon MBS if this is not in fact true.
Yes, but I only fear that we may not know the LONG TERM effects of MBS until it is too late. Beta itself may not show the true colors of what MBS will do to our desired gameplay. But I too will wait and see.
On October 19 2007 03:31 CTStalker wrote: you can't infer about a group's motives like that. the anti-mbs argument isn't so easily summed up. i thought about the same thing and mentioned it a dozen pages back or so, but it's just a possibility, certainly nothing to base a counter-argument off of.
This is true for the better arguers of the pro-MBS side as well (on TL.net, not the opinions of noobs). Their position is not easily summed up, yet false and inflammatory generalizations are often made against them, but most of these attacks are not expected to be well-backed with logic or reasoning.
On October 19 2007 05:07 Klogon wrote: Yes, but I only fear that we may not know the LONG TERM effects of MBS until it is too late. Beta itself may not show the true colors of what MBS will do to our desired gameplay. But I too will wait and see.
Beta will at least make it clearer, I think that everyone can agree with that.
And just like I said, if they check the top beta players on their opinions and see if its hard for players to differentiate(Aka there is a very large top were you can't really pick the better players) I am sure that they will get valid responses.
On October 19 2007 08:23 Aphelion wrote: MBS is a basic feature of the game that is required to be settled before other parts can even be balanced.
It cannot wait until beta, unless Blizzard is prepared to spend another half a development cycle just for balancing if it turns out MBS is bad.
I agree. If sc2 reaches beta stage with mbs and all of the auto stuff it will be balanced with this in mind.
The little I know about the game at this stage seems to be heavily geared towards massive focus on micromanagement in the way that almost every unit have some sort of ability that needs to be used for them to reach their maximum effectiveness. Even a unit as basic as zealots have something extra in sc2.
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.
(Oh, gawd, I stay away for a day and this is what happens. Apologies to everyone in advance for my long post to come. I think the recent posts by TKWL and Klogon contain good points that should be discussed properly. But, I think some clarification is required on what we do here at TL.net.)
BlackStar + others:
Spare me your patronizing condescension. I will "calm down" when you start informing yourself before you decide to dispense advice. Why do people with little or no experience building and running a successful site for years think they have somehow stumbled upon the recipe for ideal forum moderation that we have not thought of and tried already. Please. Can you be any more disrespectful?
"There should not be an expected standard in opinions" you say? You believe that the role of mods is to stay neutral in discussions?
Listen up.
The prescription you propose has been tried before on other sites, most notably on the now-defunct broodwar.com. It does not work. If mods stay "neutral" on all opinions, if you allow any and all opinions to be posted without imposing standards, if you let "free speech" reign absolutely or even in the same area code as absolutely, the level of the site deteriorates and the very same people who had advocated "free speech for all" so forcefully and vociferously before somehow find an excuse to stay away. The site dies. That is just the way it is, a rule of cyberspace as immutable and inexorable as any validated law of physics. Do you understand? That is the reality, not some theorycraft notion of the way we wish things would work.
And simply overwhelming stupid opinions with rational counters is also an inadequate solution - as you and others here have witnessed first hand, MOST STUPID PEOPLE DO NOT ACTUALLY REALIZE THEY ARE STUPID AND THAT THEIR OPINIONS ARE STUPID. They do not accept better opinions. They simply do not understand them. On the other hand, stupid people are supremely gifted at misinterpreting the opinions of others and knocking down strawman arguments they have conjured up with their fanciful imaginations.
Sometimes, when faced with such monstrous obtuseness, the best solution is to flame the hell out of such idiots, shout them down, and, if necessary, ban them. Yes, kiddies, sometimes the use of force is justified - in cyberspace and in real life. If this attitude offends your fragile sensitivities, then stay away from this site and go back to your fucking pie-in-the-sky-we-are-the-world John Lennon songs.
Fakesteve and TKWL, bless their bleeding hearts, are being charitable to all of you. Why do people think TL has some obligation to the general public to keep access open to everyone with a keyboard and net connection? We do not. We are a private site run by volunteers on our own fucking time. Is this news to any of you? The TL Ten Commandments clearly state that THIS IS OUR HOUSE. We run this site the way we see fit. Our prime imperative is to make this a kick ass site for pro gaming news and discussions. We have a duty to ban anyone, even everyone, if we feel it is necessary to achieve this objective, applying the only set of standards that matter on this site - OUR OWN. And why should it be OUR standards you say and not yours? BECAUSE THIS IS OUR HOUSE. If you do not like that, start your own damn site and see how well you fare.
Now all this thunder and fire-breathing may sound Fascist enough to send Mussolini's rotting corpse running for the hills wailing in terror, but consider this important piece of reality (there's that word again) - TL.net is, by most reasonable accounts, one of the top pro gaming websites on the world wide web, both in quality and popularity (although the latter is never really something we strive for). Our discussion forums in particular are among the most active in the RTS gaming community. This should mean something to all of you who think our rules are too harsh and/or not "pragmatic". If our standards are so truly dreadful, if the mods here are so truly draconian and unfair, if our rules are so impractical, well the reality is we would have been flushed down the cyberspace toilet a long time ago. The results, OUR results, speak for themselves. So stop fretting about some notional threat to your goddamn civil liberties. Geezus. We are reasonable people here (this isn't an opinion - the results prove this assertion), but we are on a mission, so you need to let us do our work.
Some of you may still feel that imposing standards unilaterally is somehow not right, that it is undemocratic, that it is unfair, that it offends the rules of civil society, that it somehow violates your human rights. These are basically the same people who want to live in a world without any consequences (at least not to themselves). They want to be able to write whatever they want secure in the knowledge that they are absolutely immune to any adverse consequences as long as they have a card that reads "it's only my opinion!" What madness. Kids, in real life, there are consequences to voicing stupid opinions whether you feel it's justified or not - consequences imposed on you by others who have the authority and/or power. You receive a failing grade. You get fired from your job or demoted. You get your face kicked in, etc., etc. That is just the way life works. Accept it. If you do not like it, then the practical solution, at least as it applies to our forum, is to inform yourself and stop voicing stupid opinions. Give that a try.
p.s. Contrary to popular perception, I do not ban people for being "against my opinion". Some think so, but they are simply unable or unwilling to read between the lines. I do detest debating on this forum. I find it is a waste of my time. So, when someone decides to engage me, I expect them to come with something I can respect. I do not mind an intelligent argument. I certainly enjoy engaging in spirited discourse at the right level. If I was not able to accept (intelligent) contrary opinions, I would not be friends with Nazgul (yeah, we got to know each other by flaming the hell out of each other on BW.com). But, almost without exception, the kinds of arguments I get slapped with instead are nothing more than the petulant, nitpicking, juvenile rants of a half-educated attention-seeker who thinks he has one-upped me because he found a spelling mistake in my written argument. To make matters worse, these people are incapable of reading between the lines, so I am forced to further waste my time by clarifying to these idiots the most elementary assumptions, again and again. I find such nonsense unbearable. This is a gun fight, so bring a gun, not a fucking knife. If you are not properly armed, the consequences are entirely yours.
mensrea, it's enough. I can't take that anymore. You seem not to realize that people have the right to make mistakes and they also have the right to be uninformed which is why we tell them the truth several times, we reason our opinions well and we don't run away with "you're stupid and I am right get over it". Who do you think you are? An Admin you are, or a Mod, but definitely not a leader or what. The only reason why you have some might here is because others gave it to you. Yes, you didn't have any might at all before someone picked you up and said "could you help us out on tl.net, please?". The thing is: now you have some might. You must use it carefully and yes, you have to be pragmatic up to some point. I am so disgusted by your hatred and arrogance I can't take it anymore. People are not stupid, they are different from you that is! If you can't live in a world with different people you are free to drink and forget or maybe just hang yourself.
I myself tried my best to argue on a good level with people that I don't see as stupid, only as des-informed or lazy which is not a crime. But you make it look like a crime! What you're doing is worse than cutting out important parts of an interview, you ban opinions claiming they are nothing but stupidity which is exactly what any dictator would do!
Think about it, I never flipped out before on this board because I don't want to get banned but this time I risk it with this post. I don't want to let you and your misguided views get away with this.
This site has it's own rules and I can live with it. But I am dead serious you're breaking it's rules.
You guys are retards for attempting to argue with Mensrea. He is not simply saying "You are stupid and I am right, so stfu." He has shown many times why you guys are simply not qualified and informed enough in your arguments - but you insist on dodging concrete issues and debating about your theoretical fancies. Any retarded opinion can be made to seem valid if you distance yourself from reality.
ForAdun, maybe you should see who wrote the rules of the site? I can't bear it everytime I see the influx of numbskulls who think this place is like a wanna be cyber-democracy like the usual internet forum cesspools you are used to. IMO, the mods have already been far too lenient with the huge mass of new posters. The basic rules of the site are being bent more than ever, and I feel that the texture of the site is being warped by those who are ignorant of how it works. We are in need of a few Rekrul drunken rampages. Perhaps this will be the beginning of change for the better?
On October 19 2007 14:22 Aphelion wrote: You guys are retards for attempting to argue with Mensrea. He is not simply saying "You are stupid and I am right, so stfu." He has shown many times why you guys are simply not qualified and informed enough in your arguments - but you insist on dodging concrete issues and debating about your theoretical fancies. Any retarded opinion can be made to seem valid if you distance yourself from reality.
ForAdun, maybe you should see who wrote the rules of the site? I can't bear it everytime I see the influx of numbskulls who think this place is like a wanna be cyber-democracy like the usual internet forum cesspools you are used to. IMO, the mods have already been far too lenient with the huge mass of new posters. The basic rules of the site are being bent more than ever, and I feel that the texture of the site is being warped by those who are ignorant of how it works. We are in need of a few Rekrul drunken rampages. Perhaps this will be the beginning of change for the better?
I actually share mensrea's opinions in this thread and I also thought that some people seem to be stupid (tho I can't judge about that since I don't know them in reality) but what he's doing now is horrible. I could live with it if he said that he's actually sorry for being like that but he isn't even sorry. He seems to enjoy it. The responses he got were not that bad, he's totally overreacting.
edit: you know, to earn respect from others you must show respect to them. From what I see here happen it seems like it could be his own fault for not being respected. I myself didn't receive any disrespectful posts which probably results from my own respect for others, for all others.
Btw I am aware of the fact that mensrea put a lot of work into this site, for that I have respect. This doesn't give him the right to blame others for their opinions. Just opinions and nothing else.
The responses he got didn't seem bad because of 2 reasons
1.) They were careful, and tried to frame their opinions in an theoretical framework which masks the stupidity of their ideas when compared with concrete facts. This is also why the many of the pro-MBSers always start from a blank slate, a very theoretical approach that ignores scrutiny from actual experience and data. Like I said, anyone can seem reasonable when the debate is conducted in language that is far removed from solid common sense and reality. How do you think politicians have gotten away with stuff since the dawn of time? Orwellian doublespeak is an age old problem.
2.) The First Amendment argument has undeserved respect, especially in an internet site like this. Freedom of opinion always sounds good - but usually needs caveats to be applicable. The Internet is filled with trolls and retards, protected by the anonymity and restrained by common social mores. TL.net has shown that dictatorship, even when arbitrary and capricious, is warranted and necessary as quality control. Why do you think Rekrul is so loved? He has banned far more, and for far less, than Mensrea has. Mensrea has actually yet to ban any of you and spent time explaining things to you. That is the height of leniency. If you wish to stay long at this site, you better realize this fast.
On October 19 2007 14:52 Aphelion wrote: The responses he got didn't seem bad because of 2 reasons
1.) They were careful, and tried to frame their opinions in an theoretical framework which masks the stupidity of their ideas when compared with concrete facts. This is also why the many of the pro-MBSers always start from a blank slate, a very theoretical approach that ignores scrutiny from actual experience and data. Like I said, anyone can seem reasonable when the debate is conducted in language that is far removed from solid common sense and reality. How do you think politicians have gotten away with stuff since the dawn of time? Orwellian doublespeak is an age old problem.
2.) The First Amendment argument has undeserved respect, especially in an internet site like this. Freedom of opinion always sounds good - but usually needs caveats to be applicable. The Internet is filled with trolls and retards, protected by the anonymity and restrained by common social mores. TL.net has shown that dictatorship, even when arbitrary and capricious, is warranted and necessary as quality control. Why do you think Rekrul is so loved? He has banned far more, and for far less, than Mensrea has. Mensrea has actually yet to ban any of you and spent time explaining things to you. That is the height of leniency. If you wish to stay long at this site, you better realize this fast.
Still, it's a site for the community and not against it, this is something that we all must realize.
1.) You talk about maskerade. Doesn't that sound a little bit pathetic/paranoid? I know some people like to do so but if they're really so good at it, how do you think they can be spotted? I found only one or two of these guys in this topic who obviously wanted to make a joke of the debate, all the others stayed calm as you said and kept arguing without any suspicous actions. Stating that there were more retards - mainly pro-MBSers you say - is pathetic and ignorant. It's based on nothing. If I was pro-MBS I could also say that most anti-MBSers are retards trying to dump the thread just by claming they were right. I could say they aren't funding their arguments on logic and experience, only on personal likings - which cannot really be refuted easily since many anti-MBSers outed themselves as hardcore fans of sc:bw like me.
Politics is complicated, we shouldn't take it as an example since we probably don't understand anything about it. I once thought I do but I was wrong. Leave politics to others.
2.) I don't agree that Rekrul is really so loved. I don't like him and his opinions at all but that got nothing to do with the trouble faced in this topic so lets take that aside. Please.
Well, Freedom of an opinion doesn't only sound good, it sounds fantastic. Do you really think your living standards come from nowhere? Mine come from freedom fighters, from people who actually died for their beliefs. I can't imagine what happened back then and I am not sure if I would do the same. I guess I won't, I am weak and - as a matter of youth, I am 21 years old - afraid of dying.
Last but not least, anonymity is actually what makes the internet what it is. You shouldn't blame it. The internet is a safe place because of anonymity. It's a good thing and must be held high.
I'll end my response with a comment to the "dictatorship" of tl.net you were talking about. It doesn't exist, never did. When people get banned here there's always a good reason for it. But people didn't get discriminated. Until now.
1. Its very real. There are several among here who have tried again and again to evade specifics - and talk in generalities. This is a forum of substance, not a circus of empty words. I disagree that ideas are all relative. Eventually, there are absurdities which are self-evident. Those who do know better must put their foot down at this point. To let it go on would be to ruin the purpose of all discussion and consequently the forum.
2. Rekrul is very capricious and acts on a whim, but his willingness to ban is the reason why TL.net has maintained its high quality to today. If we don't maintain it (and I think we are softening) we will quickly see a lowering of standards. That this thread even exists is bad sign.
And please, don't confuse political ideals with the workings of the internet. It should be obvious to anyone that the First Amendment cannot even remotely apply in this situation. There is a drastic difference in anonymous forum posting and person to person communication. I shouldn't have to elaborate on this fact. And while you make like the anonymity, for the purposes of keeping discourse at an acceptable level, you HAVE to realize that measures must be taken. It is proven that anonymity and easy access causes huge accumulation of retardation.
In any case, whether you like it or not, this is the way this site has always worked, and that will continue. Again, this is our house. If you don't like it - leave.
On October 19 2007 15:48 Aphelion wrote: 1. Its very real. There are several among here who have tried again and again to evade specifics - and talk in generalities. This is a forum of substance, not a circus of empty words. I disagree that ideas are all relative. Eventually, there are absurdities which are self-evident. Those who do know better must put their foot down at this point. To let it go on would be to ruin the purpose of all discussion and consequently the forum.
2. Rekrul is very capricious and acts on a whim, but his willingness to ban is the reason why TL.net has maintained its high quality to today. If we don't maintain it (and I think we are softening) we will quickly see a lowering of standards. That this thread even exists is bad sign.
And please, don't confuse political ideals with the workings of the internet. It should be obvious to anyone that the First Amendment cannot even remotely apply in this situation. There is a drastic difference in anonymous forum posting and person to person communication. I shouldn't have to elaborate on this fact. And while you make like the anonymity, for the purposes of keeping discourse at an acceptable level, you HAVE to realize that measures must be taken. It is proven that anonymity and easy access causes huge accumulation of retardation.
In any case, whether you like it or not, this is the way this site has always worked, and that will continue. Again, this is our house. If you don't like it - leave.
What I had to say is already said. To some things you say I disagree but most of it makes sense so I don't find it neccessary to keep arguing. But what I marked red just left me bluffed. Did I miss something? Who exactly are you? Do we need to know you? If you're not some VIP or anything like that you should better realize who you are and who you are not. You are not part of the tl.net staff if I am informed correctly.
edit: edited one error in my last post, I meant anti-MBSers outing themselves as hardcore fans, not pro-MBSers.
No, I definitely do not a special status here - if I implied otherwise that I apologize.
But I still fill justified in using my words. I have a personal attachment to this community, and therefore I choose "our" instead of "theirs" when I typed that. I already foresaw people nitpicking at it, but I felt it was most accurate to what I felt. I believe it would be wide-held sentiment of most TL.netters too that the rules speak for us as a whole.
I believe that it is insulting of you to post in this manner when you clearly have not grasped the rudiments of how this place works. But I respect this site and its rules - if any mod have a issue with the way I posted, I will similarly accept their judgment.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
A note about longevity: there might come a RTS game that's better than SC1 and SC2, and becomes more popular, so SC2 won't live for 10 years like SC1 did. In which case it's not really SC2's fault. SC1 had zero competition until now, but the competition might get more fierce soon.
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.
I meant play it safe with the competitive community. There will be a decent existing pro-scene right out of the gate, if you just keep it exactly like BW. Going the other way is the riskier move for E-Sports, but may or may not pay off in the end depending on how talented Blizzard is at upping the skill level requirements.
On October 20 2007 20:14 Gandalf wrote: 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.
Exactly. Personally, I don't care much for what I see right now and I keep telling myself that I'll let my friend buy it and I'll play it there just to see if it sucks as much as I think it will. But really, I know I'll be one of the first suckers to buy it =[
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.
Most people buy a game and find out if it's good or bad afterwards, from their own experience, especially when it comes to hot titles such as these.
A similar case was CS:S. I tested the beta and was a bit sceptical, but thought: "I'll give it the benefit of a doubt." Perhaps it would still get popular or replace, or tweaked later on.. In the end it just sort of sucked, kind of like a date with an only moderately attractive girl who isn't very talkative..
Also, there may not even be a demo out beforehand, and if there was, multiplayer is one of the major reasons people buy games today, and I'll doubt it'd have full multiplayer functionality. (Singleplayer games get ripped off big time in comparison.)
Companies today do not want revenues from front-heavy productions like games one to five years from now, but rather in the first 3-6 months. That's usually when they sell the bulk, and that's where they usually where they themselves deem it a success or failure.
This question, while still at heart of the game, has now become too tiresome for people to debate seriously - which is a shame since I came up with a solution myself that I thought got the best of all worlds without making any compromises.
Another problem is also the elitist attitue here (not gonna argue wether it's right or wonrg, just the attitude now) which often clouds the main function of what an interface is and what it's supposed to achieve! Let me give you some examples:
Here the hardcore fans may have the approach that there must be a clear distinction between a good and a bad player. All well there but continuing down that line; It shouldn't be too easy! Uhm, okay? What does this mean now? That the interface itself should be difficult or cumbersome? In what way? Hard to execute from a physical perspective, in the sense that you have to break your fingers trying to nail awkward key combinations or just too many of them for no real reason? Even further down the line I've seem suggestions where you'd actually be punished!??! for utilizing MBS (which would be in the game then of course) in the sense that it wouldn't work very well, inaccurate or drain even more resources etc etc. Now this doesn't just encroach on the boarder of retardoland, this is like pioneering way into idiotopia, beyond reason.
1) An interface should be intuitive. 2) Easy to use.
and somewhere down the line we have..
3) Improve gameplay, not hamper it (here discussion can take place, and there may be nuances, but not countering 1 or 2.)
Much longer than intended first, just like my very own MBS-thread with imo one of the better solutions yet, only it was locked by an admin who just like many others was tired with this topic and instead locked it.. Well your loss!.. maybe
On October 23 2007 01:40 Luhh wrote: 1) An interface should be intuitive. 2) Easy to use.
Yes to number 1, No to number 2.
The easiest interface in the world would be one with 2 buttons. Obviously that is not going to be fun. Why? Because when you play a game, you want to be challenged enough so its an accomplishment when you do something hard, but is not too hard so that you become frustrated. This is the simple problem with the noobification argument. Where do you draw the line on too hard?
Starcraft vets are very good at accomplishing the harder feats in starcraft, and are rewarded for doing so. They see that if the game becomes easier/noobified, there will be the loss of that acomplishment and satisfaction. One of the biggest problems I think with Warcraft 3 was simply, the lack of being able to do something crazy hard. Think back to a time when youve performed something that you wouldnt have usually been able to do (maybe beaten a certain song in Guitar hero or something), Its that satisfaction that starcraft players get when they attempt something hard and pull it off.
The less skilled starcraft players draw the line much lower. They are in a position where the acomplishment feeling comes at a much lower skill level than the vets. Instead of 'accurately cloning 6 HT's to storm a group.' their acomplishment will be more around the 'built an army of 60 carriers'. To a player who plays at the lower level, they find the tasks of the game too hard and therefore frustrating, which is why they want to remove them from the game. Fastest map and BGH are popular because they noobify the game and lower the skill level required. This means that their achievement goals of building 60 carriers or whatever are attainable without needing the skill that is required by normal starcraft. Vets dont play this mode because they are not challenged by it, and achieving 60 carriers is not a goal that they see is an achievement of skill.
Ultimatly blizzard will have to make a decision. However I think its easier to make a hard game and then let the community mod it to make it easier rather than to make an easy game and the have to rely on the community to make it competative. People just arent going to bother with the latter, while we can garrentee they will with the former.
On October 23 2007 01:40 Luhh wrote: 1) An interface should be intuitive. 2) Easy to use.
Yes to number 1, No to number 2.
The easiest interface in the world would be one with 2 buttons. Obviously that is not going to be fun. Why? Because when you play a game, you want to be challenged enough so its an accomplishment when you do something hard, but is not too hard so that you become frustrated. This is the simple problem with the noobification argument. Where do you draw the line on too hard?
Starcraft vets are very good at accomplishing the harder feats in starcraft, and are rewarded for doing so. They see that if the game becomes easier/noobified, there will be the loss of that acomplishment and satisfaction. One of the biggest problems I think with Warcraft 3 was simply, the lack of being able to do something crazy hard. Think back to a time when youve performed something that you wouldnt have usually been able to do (maybe beaten a certain song in Guitar hero or something), Its that satisfaction that starcraft players get when they attempt something hard and pull it off.
The less skilled starcraft players draw the line much lower. They are in a position where the acomplishment feeling comes at a much lower skill level than the vets. Instead of 'accurately cloning 6 HT's to storm a group.' their acomplishment will be more around the 'built an army of 60 carriers'. To a player who plays at the lower level, they find the tasks of the game too hard and therefore frustrating, which is why they want to remove them from the game. Fastest map and BGH are popular because they noobify the game and lower the skill level required. This means that their achievement goals of building 60 carriers or whatever are attainable without needing the skill that is required by normal starcraft. Vets dont play this mode because they are not challenged by it, and achieving 60 carriers is not a goal that they see is an achievement of skill.
Ultimatly blizzard will have to make a decision. However I think its easier to make a hard game and then let the community mod it to make it easier rather than to make an easy game and the have to rely on the community to make it competative. People just arent going to bother with the latter, while we can garrentee they will with the former.
With easy to use, I didn't mean the easiest UI possible, since that wouldn't be capable of handling all the actions and orders and hotkeys you'd like to use. What I meant by was an easy was an easy (or the easiest possible) way to achieve the same result through the interface without sacrificing functionality.
Complexity for the sake of complexity is generally a big no-no. If the interface is the only difference between a good and a bad player, then it's a rather poor game, no? Okay, I admit I'm playing the devils advocate here a bit, but a better interface is needed, and it won't be the thing that makes or breaks this game. My five cents.
On October 23 2007 01:40 Luhh wrote: 1) An interface should be intuitive. 2) Easy to use.
Yes to number 1, No to number 2.
The easiest interface in the world would be one with 2 buttons. Obviously that is not going to be fun. Why? Because when you play a game, you want to be challenged enough so its an accomplishment when you do something hard, but is not too hard so that you become frustrated. This is the simple problem with the noobification argument. Where do you draw the line on too hard?
Starcraft vets are very good at accomplishing the harder feats in starcraft, and are rewarded for doing so. They see that if the game becomes easier/noobified, there will be the loss of that acomplishment and satisfaction. One of the biggest problems I think with Warcraft 3 was simply, the lack of being able to do something crazy hard. Think back to a time when youve performed something that you wouldnt have usually been able to do (maybe beaten a certain song in Guitar hero or something), Its that satisfaction that starcraft players get when they attempt something hard and pull it off.
The less skilled starcraft players draw the line much lower. They are in a position where the acomplishment feeling comes at a much lower skill level than the vets. Instead of 'accurately cloning 6 HT's to storm a group.' their acomplishment will be more around the 'built an army of 60 carriers'. To a player who plays at the lower level, they find the tasks of the game too hard and therefore frustrating, which is why they want to remove them from the game. Fastest map and BGH are popular because they noobify the game and lower the skill level required. This means that their achievement goals of building 60 carriers or whatever are attainable without needing the skill that is required by normal starcraft. Vets dont play this mode because they are not challenged by it, and achieving 60 carriers is not a goal that they see is an achievement of skill.
Ultimatly blizzard will have to make a decision. However I think its easier to make a hard game and then let the community mod it to make it easier rather than to make an easy game and the have to rely on the community to make it competative. People just arent going to bother with the latter, while we can garrentee they will with the former.
Agree on all your points except the part about Warcraft 3. If you've ever played War3 at a higher level, you would realize how amazing some of the plays really are. There are plenty of "WTFHAX" moments in many games with two players of the top level, but most are not immediately obvious without a deep understanding of the game (hence why War3 is a poor spectator sport). I have often sat in amazement just while watching Grubby's replays while he was in his prime.
Orangedude, you're not the most shitty poster on this issue, and actually you even try to put sense in some of your posts. That's why i will try my best not to flame.
If you've ever played SC at a higher level, you would realize that you currently know nothing. I mean, sorry to be mean, but in the games against tasteless you loose to one fucking zealot. The way you handle each one of his zealot rushes makes me think you have NO idea about even basic micro in SC. I remember one game (when you start at 3, don't really remember the map), where you let your probes spaced and idle when the first zlot comes to them, and you actually loose half of them this way. I mean, the peons management (to save them for ex) is the VERY BASIS of micro management in the game. Don't tell me you know how to micro but don't manage to do it, it's obvious you don't even try to move them.
Now just try to answer the next question. I don't need a reply presenting how bad no-MBS would be for SC2 from a politico economico social Blizzard point of view. I just need you answer the following :
With a so poor understanding of SC micro, since obviously the fundamentals are not clearly understood, how would you be able to judge the absolute necessity of keeping the balance macro/micro as it is ? I mean, if you don't even have an idea of what micro is in the game ? How would you be able to understand what MBS really involves, if you don't even know what's the balance i'm talking about ?
I agree that people with poor understanding of WC3 should stop claiming things, myself included. But do you think that, even if i am strongly against MBS and 'improvments' to make the game easy, I will spend my days and nights on War4 forums trying to convince you that it's bad. I mean, common, i will surely post my views on the question, then leave all of you alone (to fuck up the things up and eagerly wait for SC3).
So, in order to be clear : you have no idea why it would be so dangerous (or maybe you have a little idea now, after reading the countless interesting posts on the matter). The main reason you mentioned is not totally idiot, but for sure not worth it. If you are satisfied with War3, stick to it and wait your turn.
Fuu, those few games were really not representative of my usual games. I hadn't played for like a few months before just jumping in and facing Tasteless. I posted a few other reps from months earlier, but I'm sure you never checked those out. Granted, I'm not an awesome SC player, but I just started playing SC again a few days ago and tried out iCCup and am nearing C-.
If you think I don't know what micro is, how do you think I was able to play War3 at a decently high level? That game is like 80% micro.
I don't say that you don't know what micro is. Maybe your micro is very efficient, that's not the point here
I say that, in that game, obviously you had no idea what the very basic micro should be in this situation. That's totally different. The fact that you didn't play for months changes nothing here actually, it's just a lack of understanding thus a lack of proper reaction. If you don't know what to do there, i suppose there're plenty of other things you don't know about SC.
PS: i'm not speaking about your 'level' here. The fact you play WC3 pretty good could lead you to get a 'low decent' level in SC, keeping however a very poor sense of the game.
No, I just failed mechanically in those games because I was so rusty (and forgot things). I know how to handle a zealot harass... it's not hard. You just stack the probes up and attack it when it comes, or send the attacked probe to a distant patch. And I just don't handle manner pylon well, esp seeing as how most of the people I faced don't use it in games (game 3 was much better when he didn't use it on me).
After I play a bit more iCCup (after my midterms are over), you'll see that I'm a much better player, and I'll be rising up the ranks there.
In fact, ask me any detailed SC related question (preferably about Protoss) and I can answer you right here and now.
Ok, so start playing seriously, climb the ranks there, understand why the game is beautiful and doesn't benefit to be simplified. It won't change the fact that your point against no-MBS will still be valid in a sense. It will change the fact you won't want any simplification anymore, which could destroy the delicate balance which leads you to play ICCup 10 years after the game release and rise up ranks, while you were a decently high level W3 player.
It could happen (yes, yes, in some cases it happens!) that you still prefer W3 as a whole. If so, you have to understand some SC players don't want to walk in the same 80% micro shitty direction. So, as i already said, pass your turn on this one and come back for W4.
No no, you got me wrong there. I prefer SC as a whole to W3 and I do think it's a beautiful and superior game (I haven't even touched War3 aside from watching replays in over a year). I have never claimed otherwise. Why else would I follow the SC pro scene so carefully and watch several VODs a week? I just don't dislike War3 as some other SC players do.
I'm not arguing for MBS to make the game easier for myself, so you must be misunderstanding my points. I'm not even suggesting that they must add it in the game, but only that we should wait for beta and fully test it before deciding. This probably won't change no matter how good I get at SC. I don't even know why I have to defend myself/correct your opinions about me when you can just point out the flaws in my arguments if you think I'm wrong.
This very balance is without doubt one of the point which makes SC so enjoyable and challenging.
Despite the fact your point against it is perfectly valid in my eyes, it's absolutely not worth the change. It's necessary to mention the probable side effects, as you did, but it does not balance the loss. No game should even thinks about canceling one of its good components to hit a (slightly) more large number of customers.
I don't know why you think we should trade it, except if you care more about Blizzard finances than about the greatness of the game.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On October 23 2007 10:58 orangedude wrote: 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). I don't plan on trying to convince you (and I don't think you'll convince me), so can't we just agree to disagree and that 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 (because 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.
Ok, so you signed up a little before this. Caught me on that. Whoopty-doo. Have you contributed or posted in other way other than MBS? Is it not true that 90% of all your posts about this fucking shitstorm? This little debate about MBS is your pet project, and you know it.
You are getting on more and more on my nerves by the minute. You are fucking arrogant, even if you try to mask it. You compliment and consequently try to brush off good posts of anti-MBSers by saying "great points", like you are some goddamn arbiter of debate who approves when the little kids meet your standards. When someone ardently disagrees with you and points out your flaws, you say they "don't understand you" then rephrase a simple point in four paragraphs to twist the meaning and equivocate with a little vocabulary tricks. If a point based upon BW experience comes up, you either claim its irrelevance or dodge around it with vague and unquantifiable points that "MBS will somehow broaden the base significantly, and somehow improve progaming". If an anti-MBSser wavers a little, you claim them as pro-MBS because they think beta-testing it may not be a bad idea, even all their actual points and arguments have suggested that MBS is bad for the game. And in the case that a person gets tired of you and decides to leave the debate, you hound them out for a "dispassionate response". You are just a fucking troll.
Lastly, you insinuate that the mods selectively regulate their site based upon their own ideas. Do you not remember how your little thread was REEDITTED to remove your disgraceful remarks after it got stuck in a shithole, and your two-week temp ban discretely lifted? After that display of leniency, I am astounded that you have the audacity to imply that the mods are against you?
You are just an articulate troll and you bring nothing to this site. Past the initial few pages of responses, your presence has generated neither intelligent insight nor camaraderie. I don't understand why you are still allowed here, but I sure hope it changes. Soon.
I post here because I'm genuinely interested in SC2 (and it's future E-Sports scene), and Tasteless' initial thread caught my attention (before that, I was just a lurker). I have no idea why you are here though, since you seem to hate everything about SC2. You have absolutely no right to decide when and where I choose to express my opinions. I read a lot of other threads, including live reports, every single Final Edit (awesome work), the power rankings, and so on and greatly appreciate every aspect of this excellent site, including its community.
I have never once implied that the mods were against me, but I do know that one of the rules on this site is "no flaming" allowed. My temp ban from a long time ago was well-deserved, mainly because you pissed me off so much with your ignorance that I lost my temper. I was about to again in the other MBS thread when you openly attacked me and falsely accused me of all kinds of crap, but I stopped myself because I knew it wouldn't resolve anything. I took my 1-day temp ban to heart, and learned my lesson (to control my anger). You disagree with their lifting of the ban, because it was "lenient" to you? You don't have any right to question the mods' actions, and I hope you understand this.
You, on the other hand, continue your endless flaming of everyone who disagrees with you, mainly because you haven't suffered any consequences for breaking one of the site's commandments repeatedly. You even attempt to disguise your flames with well-constructed paragraphs and openly call other people trolls. Might I remind you how many "fuck"'s, insults and derogatory remarks one of your posts contained in that same thread that directly led to its temporary closing?
They are just being nice to you, because you are a veteran (sharing a similar opinion is just a bonus). This is written in the ten commandments that veterans receive preferential treatment, so I'm not surprised at all that you are still allowed to continue your endless tirade of flaming. I doubt this is going to change anytime soon, but there's nothing at all to be proud of that you can win a battle than you can't possibly lose.
Anyways, I hate arguing with you, because you always end up making completely uncalled for and untrue personal attacks at my character. At the very least, other posters simply criticize my SC skill level, which I can somewhat understand since I'm not the best SC player in the world. I didn't even want to post this response, but I just needed to defend myself against entirely false accusations. This is my last post addressed to you and your ugly personal remarks.
If your goal was to get this thread closed. Congratulations, you've just succeeded (although it should've died long ago anyways). Too bad it's a pretty underhanded approach to doing so.
I pissed you off with my ignorance? I was the one who wanted to LEAVE the goddamn thread. You hounded me back wanting a "dispassionate" response. You took me leaving the thread as a victory for your argument. I NEVER flamed you before that. Nice job making shit up when those few pages have all be deleted. And your ban was two weeks, and the thread deleted. For their own reasons, the mods changed your suspension to two days and editted the thread to remove your offense (something I've never seen before). Is that not leniency? If that is questioning the mods, then what the fuck is this?
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.
You say that I flame everyone who disagrees with me. Not true. I respected 1esu's opinion, even if I felt his credentials and arguments were lacking, because he was sincerely trying to debate a point. You however, are one of those who would twist and distort arguments to no end to suit your purpose. You flood your posts with points which are completely unprovable and stretches by any reasonable measure, and you nitpick on veteran's posts which actually do contain substance. You have taken all meaning out of an originally important debate.
You may cry foul for all you wish, but the fact stands that every single point I just made is true. A person gets only the benefit of the doubt only for so long. These 60+ pages of debate have revealed your true colors as an insincere and terrible poster. You can't cry wolf anymore.
Oh really, so this is your idea of respecting someone's opinion?
On October 18 2007 01:58 Aphelion wrote: 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!
His response:
On October 18 2007 13:07 1esu wrote: 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 questioned his credibility and his understanding of the game when he made a truly stupid point. But I never claimed that he was simply out here to win a debate regardless of consequences, even if I feel the way he puts his points forward is counterproductive.
You, on the other hand, are just a troll. You would do anything to win a debate, and you would willfuly twist arguments and develop completely illogical and convoluted theories to try to hold on to your original point. I have zero respect for you at all, because your insincerity is a disrespect to this entire forum.
Guess what, 1esu was right. You do show open hostility and arrogance towards anyone who disagrees with you. I can find countless quotes of this happening littered throughout the forums.
Just because I defend myself and what I truly believe in, that makes me insincere and a troll? Just because you said so? Oh please. Show me where I twisted any arguments (if I ever did, I might've just misunderstood or misinterpreted but I've never done it purposefully). It's far more often that you have twisted my posts to make me look worse. I only debate this because it's on a topic that I actually care about (SC2), since I am also a big fan of SC and the Korean scene.
Okay, I'm done here. Someone just close this thread. I don't want to spend one more second arguing with this guy who just knows how to hurl out insults.
After the first 10 pages you can make that argument. After 60+ pages of increasingly convoluted arguments to save your point and continous nitpicking of the truly qualified, it is clear that it is deliberate. Its not just any specific instances, its the entire way you word arguments and gradually shifting to cover your bases. That lies at the root of most veteran's frustration with you and how arguments start degenerated into name-calling. Its because you deserve it.
And the personal attacks continue... I've never "nitpicked" any veterans' arguments. I've only pointed problems out when one of them occasionally makes a sweeping general statement to categorize all people who are not anti-MBS as noobs who have zero understanding of the game. In fact, I generally agree on most of their points and can see their reasons for their beliefs.
I'm one of the few still posting, because most others simply don't make very convincing arguments or don't care enough to keep going. Even then, I tend to only respond when someone makes an attack directed at me or if someone legitimately misinterpreted the meaning of one of my statements (like IntoTheWow).
I'm not at all surprised that some veterans are annoyed, because if it weren't for me and a few of us left, these forums would be unanimously anti-MBS, which they would much prefer. I won't blame them either, because they truly believe that MBS is a very bad thing. At the same time, I really do believe that the benefits in other areas (non-gameplay wise) that come along with it could potentially make up for it. Thus, I advocate to wait until beta and if need-be, I'm all for removing it then.
I've been watching the MBS debate for a long time here, and the last page has made me want to respond more than anything else I've ever read.
There are some good Anti-MBS posters out there (nony jumps immediately to mind), but unforunately Aphelion is not one of them.
Since the inception of the MBS debate you have argued as though the wind of fate was behind your back, as though you were fighting for some grand cause which made all of your ridiculous flaming justifable. Never have I read a poster whose arrogance and smarminess seethed from every word of his posts. Whenever an anti-MBS poster makes a good argument, you are there to reiterate and gloat. You have contributed little of substantiation to the debate, instead content to flame with whoever disagrees with you and speak for the mods and the Tl.net community as though you alone could give word to their collective conscious. I think its bullshit, I think you are a liability to the Anti-MBS side and a discredit to the entire debate.
Orangedude has tried his hardest to present a rational point and counter point, speaking for the Pro-MBS side in the face of a massive deluge of Anti-MBS sentiment.
There is a point in this debate and that is that both sides have a valid point in the argument, and whenver I hear somebody from either side toss it aside like there is none, I am frustrated.
Firstly, your all emo. You sound as bad as DoTA'ers and it makes me sick. You sound like DoTA'ers trying to explain why they are good players because they are 'good at DoTA metagame'. Yes the word they created because obviously DoTA has no macro, and little micro (you control 1 guy for gods sake), and there must be something that differentiates DoTA from a game of solitaire. I haven't seen a valid argument against MBS yet. The best the lot of you can come up with are the same as those 'expert DoTAers' who don't want their game to change ever. Even though there are huge huge huge flaws in that game.
Secondly, Orangedude Idra and Aphelion, stop posting please. You 3 account for 40% of the posts in this topic. I did find it funny orangedude got accused of trolling by one of those 2 other trolls. I guess it takes one to know one.
Idra you are an idiot. Your a first class DoTA'er. This is no compliment. No, I won't bother explaining myself, there is no point. But you must have great SC metagame knowledge.
Orangedude stop feeding these trolls. Even in this MBS poll, in this site, there are more people that think there should be a MBS than those who are against it. Needless to say, outside of this site, probably 95%+ of people will want a MBS. There is no reason to argue. Blizzard would have to be idiots not to put one in. Hopefully it is as good as the AoE2:Conquerers MBS.
Aphelion I was polite because you say you used to play AoC. But now that I have read most of your posts, and seen how many you have, more than anyone else by far, well I'm not going to be anymore. You flat out must have sucked at AoC to have the opinions you do. Seriously. Almost everything you say is completely untrue unless your a sub 1600 player. There are a few valid points that you have, but not many.
And considering how bad I am very sure you are at one game, you should not be one to talk so much about what you do about another. Because if your good at one game, you're probably going to be good at the next one you play, and the inverse (where I think you are) is true as well. There are only 2 points you have that are true, which I will address, in your last reply to me. Everything else you stated, completely untrue. Completely.
On October 20 2007 09:59 Aphelion wrote: Age micro is more like a constant grind, whereas SC's micro is like a flame, ready to explode into brilliance at any moment.
This is true. Because SC has no MBS. Because of that, you are not constantly creating your armies even in battle. You lose your army in SC your in trouble, lose your army in AoC you just make another a little ways back. Again, because of no MBS.
On October 20 2007 09:59 Aphelion wrote: 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.
This is also technically true. I re-installed AoC so I would have my facts straight, well and so I could play it again. If you did 5TTTTT, yes, you don't get all the hussars from all the stables in group 5. But this is a non-issue. Because you could scroll through your stables so fast with your 'next stable' hot key and mass queue hussars yourself if you were any good at all. Good players never had a problem queuing units (again you must not have been a very good player at all to have any troubles), and this MBS model is by far the best one I've seen in any game so far.
Everything else, completely untrue, and you should start posting less before I start calling you a DoTA'er.
Anyways I've said my peace, and it really doesn't matter what I say or what anyone replies to this will say. Because like I said, even on a site like this, more people are pro-MBS than those that aren't, and 95% of anyone else will definately want the good controls of a good MBS. So it is inevitable that there will be MBS. Like it or not. Hopefully it will be good like AoE2:Conquerers.
Like I said, I only responded when someone made an attack directed personally at me or if someone legitimately misinterpreted the meaning of one of my statements (like IntoTheWow did). I'm not allowed to defend myself? Otherwise, I'm all for letting this thread die its long overdue death, and definitely not out here to "troll".
EPT
