| Forum Index > Closed |
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 03 2007 06:52 SoleSteeler wrote: I'm curious, then, Tasteless: what was determining the winner in most cases? Better micro? better micro. There just wasn't enough to do to get ahead in other ways. I'm sure there will be tons of cool rushes and stuff like that, but it seems like they want macro to be as easy as possible. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
Starcraft was great because it was a two sided game. It had both macro and micro while many other RTS games didn't. And while we actually dream about a future with RTS games that are three sided or four sided, improving on SC, it seems that the Blizzcon build was one sided like Tasteless describes. | ||
|
Lazerflip!
United States25 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On December 04 2007 11:59 Lazerflip! wrote: I think the whole notion of having "two game modes", that is to say, the ability to toggle MBS on or off, is a bit silly. It would serve only to fragment the community by introducing a "newbie mode" that most casual players would use, and their skill would generally be very low which would limit their activity to those games only. Essentially, SC2 would be a lot less active because even in BW, newbies and good players are playing the same game. If you gave no option for MBS, this would basically "force" everyone to raise their skill whether they like it or not, and if you are honest with yourself I'm sure you will find that the more tasks you perform and the more difficult the game is to master, the more rewarding it is when you finally do get better. I won't even go into what MBS could do to the competitive scene, because I think the general consensus is that it would destroy it and I don't want to beat a dead horse. Actually casual noob sc:bw players play BGH and FMP or Zero Clutter, then you have the real players playing pro maps and what not. I see no difference. Eventually they may graduate on to pro maps and join the competition. | ||
|
InterWill
Sweden117 Posts
On December 06 2007 20:15 CharlieMurphy wrote: Actually casual noob sc:bw players play BGH and FMP or Zero Clutter, then you have the real players playing pro maps and what not. I see no difference. Eventually they may graduate on to pro maps and join the competition. In contrast, many noob war3 players play regular ladder games; be it 1on1 or RT. Once you start playing BGH/Zero Clutter maps you choose a different path than the "practice hard, go pro" route since not much of your skill will carry over from the money maps to ladder play. Warcraft III, if anything, has shown that unification of the players is a good thing. The AMM ladder enables people to quickly find fair games against evenly matched opponents (disregarding the smurf-factor), which makes the game very easy to get into (a push of a button), compared to SC where there can be quite a hassle to find a good game, especially for someone just starting out. The War3 AMM ladder ensures that players will start out with the same set of rules regardless of skill level and that what they learn will indeed make them better players. In StarCraft, new players might be inclined to start playing money maps because they're easier (essentially stripping away a huge part of the core game). However doing so essentially dooms them, as they won't learn the basics of the core game, and thus will have a hard time "graduating on to pro maps". | ||
|
_PulSe_
United States541 Posts
The MBS side pretty much thinks that well if i want to do things as fast as i think them up and the game should help me out to make that how i play. The SBS side come across as accepting the fact that they have to put the training time in to be able to act out what they think as fast. This i think is the only way to go if it comes competition. Whether or not this sells as an awesome game for 12 year old DoW addicts .... who knows. Hopefully blizzard will be able to make the choices necessary for both. I dont see it happen however because the money that may be lost by not doing the MBS may be too many. Long live brood war | ||
|
Lazerflip!
United States25 Posts
On December 06 2007 20:15 CharlieMurphy wrote: Actually casual noob sc:bw players play BGH and FMP or Zero Clutter, then you have the real players playing pro maps and what not. I see no difference. Eventually they may graduate on to pro maps and join the competition. I would imagine it's a much smoother transition from playing BGH into playing legitimate maps than it is to make the transition from MBS to regular play. I also want to know; what are we DOING to let Blizzard know what a mistake MBS would be? Almost everyone agrees at least in SOME WAY that it would dumb down the gameplay severely and be a disservice to the SC community and the RTS community in general, yet as it stands, Blizzard STILL PLANS TO IMPLEMENT MBS. Something has to be done before this whole silly idea gets too set in stone and Blizzard becomes unwilling to change. You don't want the Alpha/Beta builds to be your last chance to convince them of their blunder, because by that point it may be too far gone. On December 06 2007 08:53 MyLostTemple wrote: better micro. There just wasn't enough to do to get ahead in other ways. I'm sure there will be tons of cool rushes and stuff like that, but it seems like they want macro to be as easy as possible. What does this sound like to you? I know what it sounds like to me...Warcraft 3. And I doubt ANY of you want that. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On December 06 2007 22:41 _PulSe_ wrote: I dont see it happen however because the money that may be lost by not doing the MBS may be too many. Long live brood war No money will be lost at all. This is irrational fear. Long live brood war | ||
|
Lazerflip!
United States25 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On December 06 2007 23:58 Lazerflip! wrote: Think a little bit. And you'll understand that you make as much assumptions when stating that mbs will make Blizzard lose money. You will also understand that there are huge differences between starcraft and warcraft 3 even if you don't count the UI. And you will also understand that CnC3 will never and wouldn't ever touch starcraft even if it had the same UI, however it would hurt its sales a ton which would rule it out from wcg instantly. Generally you are just spamming uneducated shit here and the effect you give is only making the anti-mbs side look bad. If you don't even understand how extremely crucial a good UI is for game sales... | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
I want to give you a clear view of what I see happening in SC2. In SC we have people complaining "omg I just got beaten by a 3-month-newb, I must train more" but in SC2 they will say "omg I've trained for 1 more year but I still don't have a better percentage against these newbies". A horror-scenario. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On December 07 2007 01:06 ForAdun wrote: In my eyes MBS and that 150-selection-cap are features that fulfill the same need that potential cheaters feel. They can't compete so they get a helping hand. In SC there was/is a cheat called multi-command which allowed the cheater to produce units from all his barracks at the same time, to give commands to all of his units with just 1 key, etc. With that cheat an average player can handle things as well as a progamer or even better. A skill jump from say 60% to 90%. I want to give you a clear view of what I see happening in SC2. In SC we have people complaining "omg I just got beaten by a 3-month-newb, I must train more" but in SC2 they will say "omg I've trained for 1 more year but I still don't have a better percentage against these newbies". A horror-scenario. Truth: Different people have different skill caps. Starcraft is one of the few games were everyone can continue and climb since the dumb UI means that even the dumbest person benefits from 10 more effective apm. Not having mbs in the game is like forcing soccer players to play with boots. It hurts the players a lot more than it adds to the game, and yes lack of mbs hurts players since it forces them to train 24/7 just to learn to click buildings as fast as possible and in the end when everyone train as equally we will have exactly the same people on top as with mbs. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On December 07 2007 01:19 Klockan3 wrote: Truth: Different people have different skill caps. Starcraft is one of the few games were everyone can continue and climb since the dumb UI means that even the dumbest person benefits from 10 more effective apm. Not having mbs in the game is like forcing soccer players to play with boots. It hurts the players a lot more than it adds to the game, and yes lack of mbs hurts players since it forces them to train 24/7 just to learn to click buildings as fast as possible and in the end when everyone train as equally we will have exactly the same people on top as with mbs. Nobody is forced to train at all. That counters your whole argument, sorry. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On December 07 2007 00:18 Klockan3 wrote: Generally you are just spamming uneducated shit here and the effect you give is only making the anti-mbs side look bad. If you don't even understand how extremely crucial a good UI is for game sales... Yes, Klockan is posting scientifically proved theories and he has the evidence to back it all up. On December 07 2007 01:19 Klockan3 wrote: Not having mbs in the game is like forcing soccer players to play with boots. It hurts the players a lot more than it adds to the game, and yes lack of mbs hurts players since it forces them to train 24/7 just to learn to click buildings as fast as possible and in the end when everyone train as equally we will have exactly the same people on top as with mbs. A brilliant example of this. Players are NOT forced to do anything to play a game but just play. Competative gamers will approach this game with a drive to learn how to play, because they know that learning the mechanics is how to get better. As long as the game is considered a good competative medium, competative gamers will have the drive to get good at it, regardless of what is required of the player to be the best. They will chose to train to make themselves better. Casual gamers will approach the game with an attitude of "I want to do something fun". If they think winning is fun, then they will head on the path of the competative gamer. If they think units killing other units is fun (which will be the pulling factor of 90% of casual gamers), then the sucess of the game has to do with how exciting the battles are. MBS will mean little to these people, at most it will be a slight annoyance. MBS will not break the game for casual gamers. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On December 07 2007 01:59 Fen wrote: Casual gamers will approach the game with an attitude of "I want to do something fun". If they think winning is fun, then they will head on the path of the competative gamer. If they think units killing other units is fun (which will be the pulling factor of 90% of casual gamers), then the sucess of the game has to do with how exciting the battles are. MBS will mean little to these people, at most it will be a slight annoyance. MBS will not break the game for casual gamers. Then the problem comes, most not so hardcore players don't consider it fun to have to micro their buildings making the game frustrating for them instead of fun. A better anbalogy is, would you play an FPS wich doesn't have any mouselook in it? Edit: Or analog thumbsticks, i mean clear cut keyboard FPS like most of them released before starcraft. Second edit: And to make myself clear to the mods, im arguing about the casaul draw of including MBS, saying that MBS wont effect how casauls view the game is naive at best. | ||
|
Lazerflip!
United States25 Posts
I will reiterate my previous point; these players new to SC aren't familiar with the MBS debate, and won't care either way. And to quote the old adage, "why change a winning formula"? | ||
|
Prose
Canada314 Posts
On December 06 2007 01:32 FrozenArbiter wrote: Motion sickness from having your screen jump between 30 gateways would be pretty bad. Hmm... 30 gateways. With a scale factor of 4 units per second, that would be 7.5 seconds your screen will be on your gateways (.25 seconds per gateway). FA, I don't think D10 meant to switch back to the battlefield and gateways 30 times. Just once. If 8 gateways, it's a 2-second event. If 30 gateways, 7.5 seconds worth. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On December 07 2007 02:59 Lazerflip! wrote: I will reiterate my previous point; these players new to SC aren't familiar with the MBS debate, and won't care either way. And to quote the old adage, "why change a winning formula"? I've played starcraft from the very begining unlike you. Its mostly those who have played a lot the latest years wich dislike mbs, atleast from my experience people who hasn't played a lot of starcraft the latest years but still played a lot of starcraft earlier is for mbs. If im wrong can someone please correct me, but aint most people here at TL fairly new to playing starcraft a lot, lets say you started to play a lot 3 years ago, or atleast after wc3? I would be interested in seeing what the people who played more hardcore the first years have to say. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On December 07 2007 02:59 Lazerflip! wrote: Your comparisons are ludicrous. A more fair comparison would be "MBS is to RTS, as Auto-aim is to FPS". Your comparison is also ludicrous. MBS is nothing like Auto aim, and we could spend all day thinking of what MBS is lie, but it wouldn't help the debate so lets not. Leave the weak analogies at home | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On December 07 2007 03:21 Klockan3 wrote: I've played starcraft from the very begining unlike you. Its mostly those who have played a lot the latest years wich dislike mbs, atleast from my experience people who hasn't played a lot of starcraft the latest years but still played a lot of starcraft earlier is for mbs. If im wrong can someone please correct me, but aint most people here at TL fairly new to playing starcraft a lot, lets say you started to play a lot 3 years ago, or atleast after wc3? I would be interested in seeing what the people who played more hardcore the first years have to say. People like me? I started playing and training SC:BW nearly 6 years ago. I've been following the progaming scene from the very beginning and I had some "gosu" oldschool friends that are mostly unknown these days. I've also been following more known gamers/clans. Like GG were Elky was member. I loved the feeling at that time and sometimes in the past years I wished these times back. In the end I always accepted that things were changing drastically, I've changed with them. I trained even harder to stay close to "gosu" and besides training myself I'm also trying to help out average players to become much better. I have about 20k replays, 1000 vods, 10k observed games and 10k own games banked in my mind. Don't know how much for real, I only know it's a whole lot. Before all that - the first 2 years of SC - I played single player only because I had no internet. Then I played LoD for a while and I don't know why but after that I got interested in playing SC again, this time multiplayer. Sometimes I went more or less inactive but all in all I kept playing, watching, following. WC3 came out and I knew that it sucks beforehand. I still blame friends who started playing it. Most of them came back after a while and said that I was right. I never gave a damn about graphics. I always knew that this trend was bad, even before I started training I knew it, when I was just another bloody newbie. I'm against MBS because of all that. Because of that knowledge about the game and the competition and the progaming scene. I've been talking to many of my friends in the internet about their opinions and I blame every single of them who wants to play SC2 just because everyone else will play it and not because they think it will be better than SC. That mentality just stinks. I've been arguing a lot in this forum because I want as many people to think about it as possible. I want them to think twice before they jump off board. I want to let all of them know what they'll be missing if SC2 turns out to be any worse than SC. SC isn't holy, it's just the best PC game of all time. If SC2 shall follow its footsteps then Blizzard has to goddamn realize what they are actually doing. They have to wake up, listen to us oldschoolers and learn from it. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  42622Calm  3945Rain 3396Horang2 1122Bisu 788firebathero  471Soma 241Flash 235Snow 190Zeus 164[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games B2W.Neo1248 hiko514 crisheroes433 Lowko321 RotterdaM238 Happy202 Sick140 Liquid`VortiX110 QueenE52 febbydoto8 |
|
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
Classic vs herO
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
OSC
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
