|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 02 2007 15:17 Brutalisk wrote:
All players who play SC2 (or SC2 alpha) for the first time are to be considered newbs because it's a completely new game. So I don't expect e.g. Tasteless to say anything different than "ewww... the game is so easy", because he simply didn't have the need to be fast yet. In SC1 you are constantly busy, whether your opponent sucks or not.
This will change when there are strong opponents with a good understanding of SC2 (not SC1).
i was sitting around playing this game with the greatest RTS minds from War3 and SC. While we played everyone was being VERY competitive and attempting to utilize everything that was in the game. Also note that this is not a "completely new game," it's very VERY similar to Starcraft. Most of the openings you'll be doing early on in SC2 will be surprisingly similar to the ones with SC1. Basically they've made the game 3D and recreated the tech tree while replacing some units with others. It's not THAT different.
The first game i played was a PvP where i went 10 12 gate like you can normally do in SC1, then after i had my ramp covered i got my cybernetics core (the name was diffrent but it's the building to get stalkers). I began pumping stalkers while upgrading the stalker blink ability (instead of getting dragoon range). I then added another gateway, used MBS to macro out of all three gates and went around harassing my opponent.
I'm not saying this is a pro build that will be used in SC2 when it's released, i'm saying the game is VERY easy to pick up because i played SC1 so much and these two games are quite similar. With that being said i don't think you can discount the arguments from the people who have actually played the game. I found MBS in combination with automining to be unbearably easy when compared to SC1.
I also said a lot more than "ewww the game is so easy." I loved SC2, the graphics, the new units, the sounds and music, my only complaint was the easiness of the interface and how it could upset the professional SC community while also lowering the skill gap. Do not put words in my mouth. The rest of your arguments have already been addressed pages back.
|
I'm curious, then, Tasteless: what was determining the winner in most cases? Better micro?
|
On December 02 2007 15:01 Aphelion wrote:
BlackSphinx - thank you for illuminating me. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable of RTSes besides SC.
But I still believe that the essence and greatness of SC is this division between macro and micro, and the equal importance of both. A sequel needs to remain true to that spirit. And there is also no debating that MBS would decreasing multitasking - and I believe such a decrease will be very very significant.
SC is the greatest RTS made. It is not wise to take out a core feature of it with vague promises and uncertain ideas that you will "somehow add more features" to compensate for it.
That I can agree with, it's a point that is defensible. My dream SC2 is a game with SC1's action and WC3's control. It is not (and you can read that on 20 pages of text, flames, and funny stuff) what most here believe.
Now, I've read a nice sarcastic post on saying everything should be made mega hard, à la Dune 2. Too lazy to quote.
Well, really, I think SBS advocates and those that desire no change to the SC interface has a point and it's that 10 years of pwnz0r means something has been done right, somewhere, and that the game is in the middle as far as difficulty vs ease can be. While I believe the middle is a bit farther down the road of easiness, you can't argue with so long of an history.
Now, on saying that because the game is easier, you don't have to work as hard to defeat weaker opponents, that is not true. I've never seen an RTS (ever DoW) that you could just let up and expect to win, except against somebody so much weaker.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 03 2007 03:30 LastPizza wrote:
MBS should be implemented in the game, however there should be an option in game that allows u to turn it on or off such as i have it on and u have it off and vice versa. ppl have to remember SC2 is made for all kinds of gamers. in order for blizzard to capture many gamers. it is essential to include MBS. its more of a personal taste than fairness or being pro like. if u think u r pro then u can turn the option off, and rest who think MBS is more convenient and easy to use then they can have it on. having MBS turned on or off does not contribute to game wins or losses nor does it make u noob or pro.
Please don't repeat arguments needlessly, what you suggested has been discussed countless times. Consider this a warning.
On December 02 2007 18:54 Markus wrote:I agree with Aphelion. SC2 should be as difficult as possible to play. Hence they need to make sure you cannot select more than 1 unit at a time. None of this having 3, 4, 8, 9 units all selected and issuing a order. You should have to select each of your units individually and issue the orders to all of them. Being able to order multiple units at a time a command is ruining the game. Also they need to remove the 'attack move' function. You should have to select each unit individually and individually select a target for each unit that you have. If you can't do that your too much of a noob and don't deserve to play SC. SC is for the competitive community and if you can't macro all your units individually your a noob, and don't deserve to play. Aphelion is onto something you really should all listen to him. PS. If anyone couldn't tell I was being sarcastic 
Not even gonna read past the first line - old argument, stop repeating it. Don't do this again plz.
EDIT: Didn't mean for it to come out so harsh, just don't repeat this particular argument, it's been done to death.
On December 01 2007 10:16 SoleSteeler wrote:
Hehe mani, that was because it was my 2nd game playing it in 2-3 years, and I was rusty... I know I could easily get it so I could spend my cash faster (that's what my problem was, not spending my money, couldn't keep making production buildings fast enough, I pretty much maxed out though in our ~10-15 minute game though).
In SC2 it would be even easier to keep spending because you can queue build orders... If I could have queued up 2 workers to build a bunch of farms, and then another worker or two to keep building production buildings it would be quite easy.
You can queue buildings in AoX :O
|
Really? I was holding shift and everything but couldn't make it happen... guess I'll try harder next time
|
Sweden33719 Posts
It's a little confusing, but you can do it if you hold shift after doing like B R (build farm). Or something like that, I always screw up.
|
On December 03 2007 05:21 SoleSteeler wrote:
God, everyone please read the thread before posting. All this shit has been brought up countless times before.
QFT, not to mention there's an entire thread about this, so it doesn't even require reading this thread.
It's important to point out, however, that MBS by itself can be "turned off" without any change in the code; the two players simply agree to not shift-click any of their buildings. Only problem is that the game wouldn't be balanced around this "fix", but a UMS map which alters the gameplay elements to reflect the self-imposed restriction could easily flourish.
|
On December 03 2007 13:58 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2007 05:21 SoleSteeler wrote:
God, everyone please read the thread before posting. All this shit has been brought up countless times before.
QFT, not to mention there's an entire thread about this, so it doesn't even require reading this thread. It's important to point out, however, that MBS by itself can be "turned off" without any change in the code; the two players simply agree to not shift-click any of their buildings. Only problem is that the game wouldn't be balanced around this "fix", but a UMS map which alters the gameplay elements to reflect the self-imposed restriction could easily flourish.
We ain't playing no fringe, gay-ass, UMS. We're the heirs to the best RTS ever. We will just go back to the old game.
|
On December 03 2007 15:22 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2007 13:58 1esu wrote:On December 03 2007 05:21 SoleSteeler wrote:
God, everyone please read the thread before posting. All this shit has been brought up countless times before.
QFT, not to mention there's an entire thread about this, so it doesn't even require reading this thread. It's important to point out, however, that MBS by itself can be "turned off" without any change in the code; the two players simply agree to not shift-click any of their buildings. Only problem is that the game wouldn't be balanced around this "fix", but a UMS map which alters the gameplay elements to reflect the self-imposed restriction could easily flourish. We ain't playing no fringe, gay-ass, UMS. We're the heirs to the best RTS ever. We will just go back to the old game.
Then, honestly, go back to BW and stop wasting our time, since BW will always be better at copying BW gameplay as exactly as possible than SC2.
If you disagree that this is what you want, look at your overall position: for every change that makes SC2 more than an expansion pack for SC, including the graphical changes (though those objections are more implied than outright stated), you argue that that change will hurt competitive play, and should thus be scrapped before the majority of the balance work begins. Such a position requires proof that an RTS with any/all of those changes will never be as (or even close to as) competitive as BW no matter what other changes are made, in order to justify scrapping them before playtesting. Such proofs are impossible to formulate. Just because BW is the best competitive RTS of all time does not mean that an RTS that is not a carbon copy of BW cannot match or exceed its competitive success.
Almost every other serious anti-MBSer accepts that change away from BW has the possibility of being good or at least neutral; why can't you?
|
There are changes that can hurt and changes that can help. MBS, is I believe, one of the former, and the reasons why we believe so are well documented in this thread. I cannot prove anything. But I can stipulate, and I can give well documented arguments for my stipulations.
It is a fact that many RTSes have come since SC and failed to measured up. It is a fact that they have an overemphasize upon ease of use, gimmicky features, and flashy graphics which have prevented them from being as competitive as BW. Is such a stretch, to argue that the same motivations would hurt a sequel of BW? I am not arguing against change for the sake of argument. I gave reasons specifically rooted in gameplay for my opposition. Are these arguments 100% prophetic? No. But they are more than whatever the MBS has come up with, which is basically either
1.) Wait and see what Blizzard comes up with or
2.) Why have artificial limitations! There is no skill involved in clicking, you should be able to win with 50APM!
MBS people keep saying that we can't tell what the game is like before seeing it! Blizzcon players only played it for a day, you are all noobs right now, you can't tell how game play with be like! With you guys basically shoving away all concrete data, isn't it hypocritical to ask us to come up with concrete proof?
Lastly, I will never ever ever settle for a UMS game being the core competitive game. It is insulting, it is fringe, and it has no chance at either expanding its player base or having a competitive proscene. The major benefit of SC2 is that it will make the SC franchise mainstream again, and that it will introduce the competitive pro scene to newer players and give it a broader audience. Having an special UMS map or "option" will take away from all that. If that is the solution offered to anti-MBSers, I will go back to BW. And I'll be staying there indefinitely.
SC has proven the current UI works. It is not up to us to refute your change-for-change sake ideas. We do not have to show that it is definitely impossible for a game with MBS to work - although we have given several arguments which strongly suggest so. No, the arguments we have given are sufficient - the burden of proof is upon you to positively show that MBS improves the gameplay and further retains SC's great and unique characteristics. We have BW and 9 years of RTS history on our side. What have you?
|
The SC2 map editor will be very powerful. It is said that the WC3 map editor is also powerful (I've never seen/tried it), and the SC2 one will be even more powerful.
This means that if one aspect of the game (e.g. MBS) sucks and there is no official patch planned to deal with that problem, then the community itself can balance the game. If the resulting UMS maps turn out to be really great, then there's no problem in using them for competitive play.
It's not like every UMS has to be a fun map. By the way, most competitive players already play on UMS maps often.  (1v1 maps with observer slots - you can't have that in normal melee mode. The community worked around that problem already).
And about the "We have 9 years and the success BW on our side": I'll repeat an old argument (because yours is old too): when people speak of why BW is so successful as an e-sport, they always mention balance, depth, uniqueness of the races, but never the UI.
What proof do you have that the restrictive UI is truly necessary for the game to be competitive? So you see, we have no proofs, but you don't really have some either.
I agree that big changes always involve a risk, but the pro MBS side has given enough reasonable speculation already why it's a good idea to at least try to implement MBS, and only remove it if it definately doesn't work at all. But until the game is more complete, we really can't say that yet.
|
On December 03 2007 18:10 Aphelion wrote:
There are changes that can hurt and changes that can help. MBS, is I believe, one of the former, and the reasons why we believe so are well documented in this thread. I cannot prove anything. But I can stipulate, and I can give well documented arguments for my stipulations.
I don't have much time right now, but I will comment on this, as it's a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument - there is no us, my argument was directed solely at your (Aphelion's) position that MBS should be removed before playtesting, as the game needs to be constructed around the UI and Blizzard shouldn't waste their time balancing around an UI which will never be competitive. The fact that Blizzard is one of the few companies that can spend another "half of a development cycle" rebalancing around SBS if MBS didn't work (likely less, since they have BW to work off in that case) aside, this position requires proof that trying to make a highly competitive game with MBS is impossible. Else, there's no reason why Blizzard shouldn't at least playtest the game before making a decision on whether MBS is competitively viable.
If you are willing to allow MBS to be playtested, I fully accept your and others right to voice concerns on how MBS will affect SC2 based on how it affects SC, and those concerns are valuable in pinpointing possible problem areas that the design team will need to work on.
|
On December 03 2007 19:33 Brutalisk wrote:The SC2 map editor will be very powerful. It is said that the WC3 map editor is also powerful (I've never seen/tried it), and the SC2 one will be even more powerful. This means that if one aspect of the game (e.g. MBS) sucks and there is no official patch planned to deal with that problem, then the community itself can balance the game. If the resulting UMS maps turn out to be really great, then there's no problem in using them for competitive play. It's not like every UMS has to be a fun map. By the way, most competitive players already play on UMS maps often. (1v1 maps with observer slots - you can't have that in normal melee mode. The community worked around that problem already). And about the "We have 9 years and the success BW on our side": I'll repeat an old argument (because yours is old too): when people speak of why BW is so successful as an e-sport, they always mention balance, depth, uniqueness of the races, but never the UI. What proof do you have that the restrictive UI is truly necessary for the game to be competitive? So you see, we have no proofs, but you don't really have some either. I agree that big changes always involve a risk, but the pro MBS side has given enough reasonable speculation already why it's a good idea to at least try to implement MBS, and only remove it if it definately doesn't work at all. But until the game is more complete, we really can't say that yet.
I hate to post in such silly threads, but I have to call you out on BS on this one. Even though they don't mention the UI in their critiques it is implied when they say it is the best RTS game ever and the most balanced. You have to read in between the lines. You guys keep going back and forth on this subject. I don't know what more to say because almost everyone is blind on the matter unless they actually tested part of the alpha and from the three day experience I think it is safe to say that it will in fact hurt balance but take that with a grain of salt because Blizz still has over a year to fix things.
You might say they will add new features i.e. creeping to make it more complicated but I have yet to see anything that stresses anymore management from the actual player. What if they add more special abilities/spells for units? Not going to happen because Blizzard according to Blizzard right now because they already said they will keep the same number of spells for units and template: move, stop, attack, patrol, spells, etc.
|
The problem that myself and many others are realising, is that SC2 is being built off the warcraft 3 model rather than the starcraft model. Instead of taking starcraft and building apon that, theyve taken warcraft 3, and worked towards starcrafting it up. Its because of this, that the dev team is using warcraft 3 features such MBS as something that is just logically there.
Now its a long shot asking for this, but I think that when it comes round to beta testing time, there needs to be 2 betas. One which is SBS and one which is MBS. A few weeks of thousands of people playing online with both versions and we'll see very quickly where the public stands. I think that more people would be playing the MBS version, but the SBS version will have a much more alive and exciting scene. It will also give insight to players reactions when comparing the two, allowing blizzard to accurately gauge the effects of either implementation.
|
On December 04 2007 03:58 Fen wrote:
The problem that myself and many others are realising, is that SC2 is being built off the warcraft 3 model rather than the starcraft model.
Whatever gives you that idea? Aside from MBS and automining, which had close to zero impact on War3's gameplay, how is SC2 anywhere even close to War3? Have you even played War3 for any length of time?
|
On December 04 2007 04:11 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2007 03:58 Fen wrote:
The problem that myself and many others are realising, is that SC2 is being built off the warcraft 3 model rather than the starcraft model. Whatever gives you that idea? Aside from MBS and automining, which had close to zero impact on War3's gameplay, how is SC2 anywhere even close to War3? Have you even played War3 for any length of time?
This really isnt even an argumentative post. Its just a stupid one.
Yes ive played lots of warcraft 3. Obviously it looks different and plays different, but that is due to changing emphasis on units and buildings and the artwork. The UI of warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 are almost identical, with only the real difference being SC2's higher unit cap.
|
This is perhaps the main thing that leans me toward being pro-MBS. Basically, as the game goes on, the game becomes more and more macro based and the following occurs, assuming no MBS:
1. If you want/need to neglect micro at the front lines, you can attack move your groups, and at least do OK in most situations. If you attack move to the wrong spot or at the wrong time, it's not necessarily the end of the world (although in some situations it is, so you need to know when to slack) since your troops will either do some damage or wait till you can get back to them.
2. If you want/need to neglect macro (as in building units/workers/base management) for a time while you micro on the front lines, you automatically fall behind in the big picutre unless you are at a critical junction... like a timed push. Why? Because you can't pick when to build units, you have to build them every so many seconds or you get behind. You can pick when you want to attack in most instances... so you can be slack there, but not ever slack on macro.
In a nutshell, that is it. My other argument, which is perhaps beaten to death, is just that there is always room to improve micro on any game that goes beyond the 6 minute mark... pro or no. The only way I see is to slow down the game or put in MBS.
OK, I probably won't post on this for another 4 months, but I felt compelled today to say something as this topic is always at the top of the forum.
|
On December 04 2007 03:58 Fen wrote:
Now its a long shot asking for this, but I think that when it comes round to beta testing time, there needs to be 2 betas. One which is SBS and one which is MBS. A few weeks of thousands of people playing online with both versions and we'll see very quickly where the public stands. I think that more people would be playing the MBS version, but the SBS version will have a much more alive and exciting scene. It will also give insight to players reactions when comparing the two, allowing blizzard to accurately gauge the effects of either implementation.
This isn't actually that difficult, as I've said all you need is for both beta testers to agree to not shift-click their buildings, and boom, you've got SBS. Unfortunately, there's likely to be at least a few imbalances due to the fact that the game is designed assuming both players are using MBS, but I still think it's a good experiment to run.
|
On December 04 2007 04:49 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2007 04:11 teamsolid wrote:On December 04 2007 03:58 Fen wrote:
The problem that myself and many others are realising, is that SC2 is being built off the warcraft 3 model rather than the starcraft model. Whatever gives you that idea? Aside from MBS and automining, which had close to zero impact on War3's gameplay, how is SC2 anywhere even close to War3? Have you even played War3 for any length of time? This really isnt even an argumentative post. Its just a stupid one. Yes ive played lots of warcraft 3. Obviously it looks different and plays different, but that is due to changing emphasis on units and buildings and the artwork. The UI of warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 are almost identical, with only the real difference being SC2's higher unit cap.
No where in your previous post do you refer specifically to the UI. Express yourself more clearly, because otherwise that kind of argument "SC2 is turning into War3" has been debunked like 1000 times.
|
On December 03 2007 01:35 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2007 22:43 NotSorry wrote:
Another point that seems to get over looked is just how powerful MBS will be for focus firing you're static defenses, such a sunkens and and cannons. Being able to mass selection those and focus them makes them extreme more dangerous than they were before. This really isnt a problem of MBS. Its just something that will have to be balanced. Im an advocate for anti-MBS, but I dont mind having MBS as long as ure screen is centered on the buildings while they are selected, which would allow you to focus fire defenses. The only reason I want SBS is so a player cant spend the entire game babysitting his army and macroin with a couple of hotkeys. I want them to be forced to move their view around the map, bouncing back and forth between their base and their troops to keep everything running smooth. If you could double click your barracks and select all of them on screen, Id have no problems. But if you could hotkey groups of barrack's so you dont have to return to base to macro, then thats when I draw the line and say no. I think this is a fair sacrifice. The noob players are not going to hotkey their buildings anyways. They just want the ability to select a bunch of them and expend all their money. The more competative gamers, well they should man up.
I like this idea. I still also like the tab idea (you can MBS, but you have to hit tab to go through each building)
Having SBS does two things:
1.) makes players look away from their units to manage their base. players must make decision as to whether they should micro, or macro
2.) takes time to select each building. speed issue, the faster a player is, the better he macro he will have
Fen's idea incorporates 1., and tab (sort of, pressing tab is faster than clicking, for some) incorporates 2.
Would it be pointless to suggest the combination of both? So let's say you can only hot key one building at a time. You hit 5 it selects your barracks, you hit 5 again and it centers on that barracks, just like now. Only now, you can double click that rax (if it's in your vision), and select all the other barracks around it, and you can cycle through each one with tab. So, 5, 5, double click, m tab m tab m tab m tab m tab m tab etc.
Am I just being silly, or is that a fair compromise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
