|
On November 16 2007 11:33 Manit0u wrote:
Now how I see it is that some pros macro better isn't because they're faster or something, it's because they have better timings/resource management. Unless you want to tell me that there are pros who struggle a lot with "go back to base to build more units" because I find it hard to believe.
Pros also use their numbers to bind buildings, giving them ability to macro when not looking at their base. This gives a huge advantage, but is hard to do efficiently. With MBS, this skill becomes something that everyone has, reducing the gap between a Brilliant player and just a good player.
To put it simple: In my opinion MBS is going to affect the average players only. It's influence on pros will be insignificant and noobs won't be able to handle it anyway.
The problem is that everyone is not designated into specific groups. Everyone is on a continuous scale. MBS shortens this scale. When you get good at a game, it takes more and more effort to get better, if there is a short skill scale, someone who plays 12 hours a day might not be very much better than someone who plays 2 hours a day. Players must be rewarded for putting more time into getting better for competition to work well.
And seriously, RTS games shouldn't really be very physically demanding, mentally - yes, more than any other perhaps, but not physically, you ought to be a leader, not cannon fodder in this type of games after all.
Physical demands are good for games like Dance Dance Revolution etc.
This depends on how good you wish to be. Before I knew of APM, or the proscene I used to play non-money maps with my cousin. We had about 50APM, but we still had really intense games that were really exciting. I never considered starcraft to be physically demanding at all. Starcraft is only physically demanding if your trying to be really good.
Now RTS games are defined by their strategy and their need for quick actions (compared to turnbased games). As you get more and more competative, all aspects of the game should be harder to keep up with, which is why starcraft 2 should be physically demanding at the pro level. If you dont want to push yourself to those physical limits, no probs, your not going to be a pro. You can still enjoy the game however.
|
Manit0u what I was trying to say is if you take away the macro in question and doesen't replace it with something equally time/effort consuming you are limiting the game to less elements of focus and that will result in less diverity in playingstyles.
|
But like someone else mentioned here - going back to base to manually select your buildings to produce units is just one part of macro. The other parts (when, where, which, how many units to build) remain completely unaffected by MBS, so that's where my answer to Fen comes in: by taking away just this one element of macro you give players 1-2 more seconds to micro their units for example, it's not that the players won't know what to do with this spare time. Sure it might feel a bit slower but it's just a feeling, everyone can get used to it after a while.
|
No, its not just a feeling. 1-2 seconds off your units is crucial even in pro-level play. SC micro is incredibly fast and split-second oriented. At stake is the ABILITY to take the attention of your units as well as the sheer mechanical elements of having to macro either using hotkeys or clicking production buildings. Its not an easy thing to do, don't cheapen it.
|
I'm not saying it's easy. I'm just saying that it doesn't pose too much problems for pros and that changing this wouldn't affect them all that much, it's the average players who would be impacted by it the most.
|
It would affect them, as the 1-2 seconds are crucial even then. And it would also decrease the skill difference between them and the rest, which is a bad thing.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 17 2007 02:53 Aphelion wrote:
It would affect them, as the 1-2 seconds are crucial even then. And it would also decrease the skill difference between them and the rest, which is a bad thing.
Ok, I now feel like we are back on day 1 after the SC2 announcement -_-
|
Exactly... we will never get anywhere concrete here without the game being played by a large amount of people without too-specific conditions like at Blizzcon.
|
Giev teh open beta!!!!!
*turns into angry german kid*
|
On November 17 2007 04:34 SoleSteeler wrote:
Exactly... we will never get anywhere concrete here without the game being played by a large amount of people without too-specific conditions like at Blizzcon.
what was wrong with blizzcon?
the universal(i think) response from those who went there and played was that macro required nothing at all, 2 keystrokes and your money dropped to 0 and your supply shot up 20.
|
Nothing was wrong with Blizzcon, but from everything I've read, you could only play 2v2, games were limited to 20 minutes etc. Plus most of your opponents were WoW noobs, right? I just really feel that Blizzard should not make a concrete decision right now; committing to or against MBS.
I am still indifferent on the MBS issue, but I've been wanting to make a post here for a few days now about how we really define "competition" and "lowering skill-ceilings" and the like. Buuut I would mostly get negative reactions 
|
Waiting for beta sounds is a nice, comforting, sit-on-the-fence position, but it doesn't work in reality unless you are prepared to redo a large part of the development cycle if MBS doesn't work out. MBS and other UI changes have to be decided to even begin balancing other aspects of the game. I don't think even Blizzard is prepared to do that, and frankly I doubt they even care enough about our concerns to do so.
|
I've read through alot of stuff in the forum about MBS. Before I'm against MBS, but now I turned pro MBS. I think people against MBS are mainly afraid. (Most likely due to war3) Just think, war3 is like SC, with a supply cap of 40food, and units have original SC dmg, but 10x the original SC hp. Spells are 75% less effective etc. Personally i think SC >> war3.
The main reason I started posting is because I had a question which I couldnt understand: if MBS were implemented, then what would happen to Zerg? All your hatcheries are rallied to the mineral field, u go mass build drone, OK fine. Next moment you mass lings, and all lings runs into the mineral field? WTF???
|
On November 17 2007 04:53 SoleSteeler wrote:
Nothing was wrong with Blizzcon, but from everything I've read, you could only play 2v2, games were limited to 20 minutes etc. Plus most of your opponents were WoW noobs, right? I just really feel that Blizzard should not make a concrete decision right now; committing to or against MBS. i dont really see how any of that is relevant. the fact is everyone who went said it took no effort/time/attention to macro efficiently.
|
On November 17 2007 05:48 sidz wrote:
The main reason I started posting is because I had a question which I couldnt understand: if MBS were implemented, then what would happen to Zerg? All your hatcheries are rallied to the mineral field, u go mass build drone, OK fine. Next moment you mass lings, and all lings runs into the mineral field? WTF???
i dont think thats ever been addressed, it seems like they would have to totally revamp zerg production to have MBS affect all of the races evenly.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
A lot of good discussion here. Originally i was pro MBS after considering some of the points made by the discussion sparked on earlier SC2 topics. I knew eventually i would have to play the game myself and see what this new Starcraft was really like with these interface changes. After attending Blizzcon i can absolutely say i am against features such as MBS. Do not be confused however, i am not against interface upgrades entirely, i am only against what will damage Starcraft 2 as a sport. MBS makes this game unbearably easy to play and i have yet to see any evidence of new features that the player will not have to juggle thus making up for this easy. Easy games don't make for impressive esports. I want to break up my argument into several points.
The beauty of Starcraft:
I believe from the bottom of my heart that Starcraft is the greatest game ever made, parts of this game were intentional and others most definitely were not. The incredible unit combination and unit abilities mixed with the rate of production was clearly intentional, i wont spend time talking about this though; clearly Blizzard is spending a lot of time and effort into unit creativity and balance. What was unintentional was the outcome of the interface. Starcraft was made almost ten years ago, this makes the interface rather old by most standards. What was unforeseen within this interface was the sport like quality which it generates. The starcraft player is much more than a strategist, anyone who thinks that the master starcraft player can only grasp strategy is sorely mistaken, for this is one of many factors that makes for a good Starcraft player. This is not a withdrawn game by any means, it is the most demanding and taxing competitive game ever created, this isn't just my opinion either, I've been told this from counterstrike to warcraft 3 players as well. Starcraft essentially requires the player to become every aspect of the race he is playing. The game starts with just workers, the SC player must consciously produce each unit and also consciously micromanage that unit it's desired minerals. This is only the starting point however, eventually the game picks up and more tasks must be juggled. The master starcraft player is conscious of his workers, his army that he attacks with, his minimap, his supply, his upgrades, his unit production, EVERYTHING. This must all be balanced in his mind while he executes it with cool precision. He is not just a strategist, he is a calculator (timing out his pylons), a piano player (macroing on his keyboard), a sword fighter (microing with his mouse), a poker player (choosing what openings to play, when to bluff etc), an economist (choosing how to utilize expos), a psychologist (analyzing the other players decisions) and many more things. Aspects such as these are what make this game appealing as a sport. There is a fascination with a player who can seamlessly preform these tasks with precision, it keeps the competitive level high since there are so many factors to utilize. This is the beautiful esport that we all love and know: Starcraft
Sadly it wasn't blizzard that picked up on this, it was the Koreans. The koreans saw into the matrix and realized what beauty there was inside it. Thus the sport of Starcraft grew, we have found so many unique things that a starcraft player can utilize that it seems no one person can stay on top forever. This game is constantly evolving. I believe we need to build off what has worked. Unfortunately most people who have experienced Starcraft won't learn all these features beause the game comes with no information that informs the player of all these different methods. Instead you get a strategy guide full of bullshit and no information on where to attend tournaments and ladders. If you want to master this game and your not korean, you'll have to go underground. However if Blizzard released information on these topics with it's game, obviously more people would learn. I propose they keep SBS and other features in SC2 but release a guide teaching players how old Starcraft pros mastered them.
Also, before i go any further, those who think comparing MBS to SC1 is some type of fallacy because SC2 is a different game are grossly mistaken. The same rules apply, i played the game, trust me, it's VERY similar to starcraft, just new units and a disgustingly easy interface.
Possible Imbalances with MBS
Starcraft players originally had to preform one action for every one unit they built, the result is a player who has fast macro abilities is rewarded by receiving units slightly faster thus giving him or her an advantage. MBS messes up this advantage. Technically a fast player could macro individually as minerals came in, producing individually out of each gateway and staying slightly ahead. A less attentive player, however, is rewarded for not paying attention and can macro with less actions and catch up more quickly than he could if this feature was not in the game. Weaker players must be punished for lack of action, this is simply what will keep the game competitive. The top of the skill celling has been lowered and the bottom has been raised, the gap is smaller now.
MBS could also lead to matchup imbalances. Imagine PVZ, as we all know P require a very balanced unit combination early on, they must mass up a zealots, dragoons, templars observers etc. At times zerg can get away with only making one unit combination, lets say zerg is massing up hydars for a few minutes--the zerg player will have to preform less macro actions:
Protoss:
4t5z6d7o (i wont bother putting a DT in here)
Zerg:
4sh5so
The APM argument:
Starcraft is a game that requires a high amount of APM, i want SC2 to also require high APM. There seems to be arguments that come from the MBS side where war3 is pointed out as a high apm game and therefor sc2 will have high apm. This is irrelevant because the origins of this high apm will be from unit micro, just like war3. Most of the actions in war3 are centered around unit manipulation, in Starcraft less than half of those actions are unit microing. I believe it is necessary to have APM that comes in a similar fashion to the original SC.
If one matchup requires a player to mass many different types of units while the other requires less diversity it means one player is forced to juggle more tasks, this seems unfair to me. The beauty of SBS is that it acts as an equalizer for unit production, every unit requires one action, this keeps macro on somewhat of a similar scale and keeps starcraft very competitive.
This game is already too easy:
With auto mining making sure my probes mine by themselves and auto split making sure they don't all get stuck on one patch i have less to deal with. Now apparently i can macro like reach with one action?... What exactly am i supposed to be doing? More micro intensive stuff? This doesn't seem to be very starcraftish to me, it seems more like someone else's idea of what starcraft should be. I've heard some talk about how they can harass workers more easily now... absolutely not. You can select 150 units in one group, that will make moving my probes away from storm drops or lurker drops MUCH MUCH easier. The bottom line is that blizzard has yet to explain what these new tasks are that SC2 players will have to deal with. I don't believe there are any, i certainty didn't see them at blizzcon. Every competitive player i spoke with is very much so against MBS, even some of the top war3 players i've spoken to seem confused as to why blizzard claims this game will be a big esport and then remove competitive aspects of the game. There is already a huge SC community who will automatically jump on the esport bandwagon if sc2 has a similar interface, it would make sense to appeal to these people. The last thing i want to see is SC2 as a successful game that will always be remembered as easier and newbier than the original SC.
We must keep MBS as a setting that is kept out of the esports scene.
|
I have yet to see a game that is too easy.
No game is too easy when played against humans.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 17 2007 09:59 BlackSphinx wrote:
I have yet to see a game that is too easy.
No game is too easy when played against humans.
you missed the point
|
Rock, paper, scissors isn't "easy" but it also doesn't require "skill".
|
Beautiful post Tasteless, thanks for writing it. Although, I don't agree with some of the logic. What about CS or any other FPS? All of them are incredibly easy to get into and play. You just point and shoot. What about Kart Rider, the 2nd most popular televised game in Korea? You just drive. I think it's mainly the competitive human nature that drives the skill level of those games to such heights.
On November 17 2007 08:34 MyLostTemple wrote:
He is not just a strategist, he is a calculator (timing out his pylons), a piano player (macroing on his keyboard), a sword fighter (microing with his mouse), a poker player (choosing what openings to play, when to bluff etc), an economist (choosing how to utilize expos), a psychologist (analyzing the other players decisions) and many more things. Aspects such as these are what make this game appealing as a sport.
He's still a calculator, a piano player (by microing w/keyboard), a sword fighter, a poker player, an economist and a psychologist even with MBS, assuming that Blizzard does a good job with the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
