EPTBut steps like Blizzard are taking are not encouraging. I will not be playing a shittier game simply because it is newer and stealing more hype.
[D] MBS Discussion - Page 11
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
But steps like Blizzard are taking are not encouraging. I will not be playing a shittier game simply because it is newer and stealing more hype. | ||
|
Chodorkovskiy
Israel459 Posts
| ||
|
Dariush
Romania330 Posts
Also blizzard actually is somewhat listening to the community this time around.they earned my trust again. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
Dariush
Romania330 Posts
| ||
|
Gobol
37 Posts
Anyway what I was trying to say was I've seen people saying that you shouldn't be able to be good at SC2 unless you put in 12 hours a day practice. IMO this is not the direction SC2 should be heading. In fact if you asked most people on this board "do you like WOW and why?" most of them would respond "I hate WOW because there's no skill in it, all that matters is how much time you sink into it". And yet now a lot of people are saying SC2 should be like this? That the only way you should be at the top of the game is to sink a massive amount of time into it? IMO the game should reward players who "get" the game more and think analytically about it, rather than those that just mass games. Poker is a perfect example of how it should work (although I hate the game itself  ). There are countless people that sink massive amount of time into grinding mid stake poker, and they probably put in more hours than anyone else who plays. But they are not highly skilled and they never will be highly skilled because they don't "get" the game and they don't think about it. The truly top players almost always rose to the highest limits in a very short period of time because they thought about and analysed the game. It isn't a function of how much time they sunk into it. Although most of them obviously do play a massive amount, this isn't the reason they are good at poker, it's just that they are making an extremely good hourly rate. (And there are some cases of top players who maintain very high skill on very little play such as Ozzy).WC3 is also similar. Tod for example has stated that he hardly practices at all, instead he thinks deeply about the game for an hour or two a day. And there have been several instances of people coming back from retirement and being right at the top of the game. The anti-MBS side agree that no MBS will result in people needing more practice time to rise to the top and maintain that level. I say that this is not a desirable outcome. I want a game where the main reason I win is because I understand the game better and think better than my opponent. | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
Some speculation: SC2 will probably demand a lot more attention, careful planning and micro than SC1, because there are so many different units and strategies available. Many units can move over terrain or teleport or "magically appear" somewhere (warp gates, warp cannons, nydus canal). This means you have far more things to worry about. The skill to adapt to your opponent, something which all SC1 players like, will be much more important (think of Savior in his prime - he was really good at scouting, adapting, countering and killing his opponent even long before lategame, simply because he was the smarter player and always made the right decisions and always had the right units at the right time). In SC1, you can win a game simply because you had more routine and better mechanical macro than your opponent. In SC2, it seems like this won't help you so much, which I believe is a good thing. APM, keyboard dexterity and so on might not be so important anymore, even for pros. The faster one will still have an advantage (that's the nature of RTS, after all) but not a big one. Players who understand the game better will be more successful. It also would mean that players outside Korea can finally win a WCG or two. I don't think that copying will become more effective then. Each game and each situation is different, and requires a new plan. In SC1 there's already a lot of copying going on. PvZ players copied the "Bisu build" (I know that it's not really his invention, but he showed that it can be very effective, that's why the FE->corsair opening is getting more popular), ZvT players copied Savior's 3 hatch muta into fast defiler builds, and so on. Every pro copies it, and the noobs copy it too. The pros are all at almost the same level of mechanical skill, so the only thing that's really a challenge for them is to correctly adapt the strategy to the current game situation. And this is exactly what many players will fail to do well. Shark's ZvT isn't Savior's just because he uses the same general build, and a random newbie's PvZ isn't Bisu's just because he copies the general idea of the Bisu build. This is the case in SC1 and this will still be the case in SC2). Game understanding is the most valuable skill there is, so this is what SC2 should focus on. The game should be so diverse in terms of strategies and unit choices (ideally, every unit/ability should be viable and useable) that there is no need for a lot of "physical skill" anymore. Instead, the players' skill should be defined by their choices in each game (smart or stupid choice), and win or lose accordingly. A gameplay based purely on mechanics should not be rewarded so much. Speed will still play a role, simply because it's an RTS. Even in WC3 where you command far fewer units you can make use of 200+ APM so I don't see why newbies with 100 APM should suddenly become "gods" in SC2. Speed is always a factor. But the game shouldn't put too much emphasis on speed. If you do, you'll just prevent all players from really playing the game in a smart way. If the players are so overwhelmed because the game is so fast-paced, then they will all use mostly basic strategies. Because they are the simplest. The less time you give the players to control their units and think about their actions, the more you reward a macro-style gameplay, and the less Boxers, Garimtos and YellOws you will see after a few years. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
Aesop
Hungary11305 Posts
On November 14 2007 11:49 Brutalisk wrote: Game understanding is the most valuable skill there is, so this is what SC2 should focus on. The game should be so diverse in terms of strategies and unit choices (ideally, every unit/ability should be viable and useable) that there is no need for a lot of "physical skill" anymore. Instead, the players' skill should be defined by their choices in each game (smart or stupid choice), and win or lose accordingly. A gameplay based purely on mechanics should not be rewarded so much. Speed will still play a role, simply because it's an RTS. Even in WC3 where you command far fewer units you can make use of 200+ APM so I don't see why newbies with 100 APM should suddenly become "gods" in SC2. I agree wholeheartedly with most of this post and I have one thing to add. Speed also plays a very crucial role in games which are more focused on game understanding. In these, reactive speed becomes more important, as you have to adapt rapidly to what your opponent is throwing at you. The need for continual speed might be reduced a little bit, but you are still required to make counter-decisions in splitseconds and execute moves with utmost efficiency. So MBS does not equal "no speed needed", rather it shifts the speed from "continual" to "situational". | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On November 14 2007 10:42 Gobol wrote: Sigh just lost a big post. Anyway what I was trying to say was I've seen people saying that you shouldn't be able to be good at SC2 unless you put in 12 hours a day practice. IMO this is not the direction SC2 should be heading. In fact if you asked most people on this board "do you like WOW and why?" most of them would respond "I hate WOW because there's no skill in it, all that matters is how much time you sink into it". And yet now a lot of people are saying SC2 should be like this? That the only way you should be at the top of the game is to sink a massive amount of time into it? Ok this argument is painful. The best starcraft players play 12 hours a day because they need to be in top shape for their games. This is true of any competative sport and is how it should be. Wow is TOTALLY different, because your not trying to get better when you play, your trying to find new items which give you a statistical advantage over your opponent. WC3 is also similar. Tod for example has stated that he hardly practices at all, instead he thinks deeply about the game for an hour or two a day. And there have been several instances of people coming back from retirement and being right at the top of the game. I find this to be a very bad point. Has anyone else noticed that the best Warcraft 3 players have been at the top forever while in starcraft we see a new champ every few months? In starcraft, the best know their game just like Tod knows warcraft 3, but they also have to keep in shape to stay at the best. This effects the pro-scene a lot, making it diverse and cutthroat (something which is representative of all great competative sports), but doesnt effect the rest of starcraft anywhere near as much as everyone makes out. Rather than learning to be really fast, the best way to get better at starcraft is learning the game better. This will continue on to starcraft 2 regardless of which style they implement. The anti-MBS side agree that no MBS will result in people needing more practice time to rise to the top and maintain that level. I say that this is not a desirable outcome. I want a game where the main reason I win is because I understand the game better and think better than my opponent. This of course is opinion based, But I think a game that constantly challenges you to be faster and better is much more fun than a game where you can learn it and then be confident in your abilities forever more. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17768 Posts
Another thing to think of regarding MBS: If they include MBS in SC2 nothing will prevent you from selecting just one building at the time if that works better for you (more control), but if they won't you would be satisfied but all the people who want MBS would not. So by including MBS Blizzard actually wants to cater to everyone, as everyone will be able to play how he likes to, after all, you don't have to use all the new features, do you? The same goes for UUS so I stopped hating the idea, let my opponent crump his one hotkey with all units and second with all buildings while I'll make use of more of them which will give me more control over smaller groups so I can just outmaneuver/outmacro him and proceed to win the game. | ||
|
Chodorkovskiy
Israel459 Posts
On November 14 2007 22:09 Manit0u wrote:Another thing to think of regarding MBS: If they include MBS in SC2 nothing will prevent you from selecting just one building at the time if that works better for you (more control), but if they won't you would be satisfied but all the people who want MBS would not. So by including MBS Blizzard actually wants to cater to everyone, as everyone will be able to play how he likes to, after all, you don't have to use all the new features, do you? The same goes for UUS so I stopped hating the idea, let my opponent crump his one hotkey with all units and second with all buildings while I'll make use of more of them which will give me more control over smaller groups so I can just outmaneuver/outmacro him and proceed to win the game. You can't be serious. This is like suggesting snooker players not to use rests. Of course everybody will use every tool in their arsenal, the idea is not to have such tools in the first place. While I personally support the UI improvements, this is not what my opinion is based on. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17768 Posts
I want SC2 to be a Real Time Strategy game, not Real Time Manual Dexterity one. But that's just my opinion. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
Wikipedia sums it nicely. Turn-based: A player of a turn-based game is allowed a period of analysis (sometimes bounded, sometimes unbounded) before committing to a game action, ensuring a separation between the game flow and the thinking process, which in turn presumably leads to more optimal choices. A real-time game is designed to prevent people from always making the optimal choice. There simply isn't enough time to think. If actions are made easier to perform, then players get little pockets of time in every game when they can analyze and optimize. I honestly don't understand how you can be a fan of SC1 and feel that making SC2 require the same manual dexterity will diminish the emphasis on strategy. | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On November 15 2007 01:00 Manit0u wrote: I just stated how I see it and what I think of it and to sum everything up: I want SC2 to be a Real Time Strategy game, not Real Time Manual Dexterity one. But that's just my opinion. Strategical depth of chess, with the added element of multitasking, macro, and micro that will still be existent in any RTS, MBS or not. That's what I want too. | ||
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
| ||
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
On November 15 2007 01:44 Chill wrote: You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want strategical depth, real-time games are not for you. this post really invalidates your opinion | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2818 Posts
Example: Boxer moving his base in the game against yellow is pretty deep on the strategical level as he first designed a strategy and then anticipated yellows response and shifted his base ahead of it. He did loose but it was pretty cool. I don't think the problem is that people can't think about deep plays, anticipate their opponents reactions and plan ahead either, I think it's usually the ammount of work you have to put in to make such a plan work that makes it a bad idea. To optimally fake a drop as zerg you have to scout a drop avenue where the enemy has a unit, get overlords and your own army in position, fake the drop so that he sees it, belives it (that is not to obvious) and has enough time to get out of position and then attack. And since it's entirely possible that he's to busy to notice or is just playing a cookie cutter build either way it migth still fail. But the thougth can still be there, most people have brains that work a lot faster than you can even play SC either way. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
Why does it invalidate my opinion. Maybe we have different definitions of "depth". I think you can see the difference between having 3 seconds to make a decision versus 20 minutes. An example is me losing my third base, and I have an opportunity to counter. If I had infinite time to think, I would check what units he had where, our tech paths, and what I expect will happen in the future. But in RTS, the longer I wait, the less chance of success my counter has. So you send a scout, give it half a second of thought and then make a decision. This isn't strategically deep. Give me an example of strategical depth in any real time game to validate your opinion. | ||
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
| ||
| ||
