|
On December 07 2007 03:56 ForAdun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2007 03:21 Klockan3 wrote: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. 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 wants to follow it's 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.
Im sorry, but i think i said i wanted people who havent played a lot the last years? Players that werent a part of the macro revolution or maybe players who even left beacuse of the macro revolution? Or players who didn't even notice that starcraft had a bad UI beacuse they played such a long time ago that starcrafts competition didn't have any better?
Someone who have played starcraft a lot the past years have obviously accepted the UI, i want people who played starcraft a lot on a quite high level but stopped at some time atleast 3 years ago, but such people are probably not here for obvious reasons.
And i respect that you have played for 6 years, i know there are some veterans here but there are even more semi new players. I just try to bring up another point to this otherwise stalled topic, not to assault or to be annoying.
|
On December 07 2007 04:06 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2007 03:56 ForAdun wrote:On December 07 2007 03:21 Klockan3 wrote: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. 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 wants to follow it's 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. Im sorry, but i think i said i wanted people who havent played a lot the last years? Players that werent a part of the macro revolution or maybe players who even left beacuse of the macro revolution? Or players who didn't even notice that starcraft had a bad UI beacuse they played such a long time ago that starcrafts competition didn't have any better? Someone who have played starcraft a lot the past years have obviously accepted the UI, i want people who played starcraft a lot on a quite high level but stopped at some time atleast 3 years ago, but such people are probably not here for obvious reasons. And i respect that you have played for 6 years, i know there are some veterans here but there are even more semi new players. I just try to bring up another point to this otherwise stalled topic, not to assault or to be annoying.
Ok, what is your point then?
I only see you looking for a specific type of SC player who had not shown up yet afaik. My guess is: that type of player is very rare (for good reasons). I think I had 1-2 friends who were like that but they left for different reasons.
SC has never become a macro-orientated game. It has always been very macro-orientated as much as it has always been very micro-orientated. You get my point?
Reach for example. He was the macro-beast, able to beat even Boxer because of sheer masses 6 years ago already. The battle between micro- and macro-gamers is an everlasting story that began right after competition was born in SC 7 years ago (or even earlier?).
Nada wasn't the first to show macro-play. He was just the leading person, he was able to show strong macro-management and to win with it. The rise of macro-gamers started because of him but macro-play itself was born before him.
I just forgot his nickname, a well-known polish zerg player who met Boxer in the WCG finals at that time. He played macro-orientated. Nowadays he struggles a lot because he never really trained micro-play. Damn, what was his nickname...
Well, I just want to say that good macro without good micro is meaningless.
Everything becomes standard after some time, so does micro. Macro was standard before micro in my opinion. I also think that Nada took so long to become #1 because he struggled with being accurate so much. I saw old VOD's from him and he obviously had a sloppy control, especially in TvZ.
The best SC progamers these days have trained a good mix of all. They can handle micro, macro, accuracy, multitasking, timing, because it is all neccessary.
Things could've been going different. What if Boxer was a macro-orientated player?
You see, it doesn't really make sense to ask for people who liked SC only because of some style. There are too many different styles and they are all great.
|
I think a good comparison to what SC2 is now would be C&C Generals. Both games have the flashiness that would pull in casual gamers, and both games have modern RTS UI's. Generals is actually very similar to SC in many ways. For example, you have 3 races, 1 of which being very micro-oriented like Terran. Overall i had a lot of fun with the game, but it could have been much better without a few things.
1-MBS effect: No, Generals didn't have MBS, but it had the same effect MBS would have on SC2. In Generals, almost every unit builds very fast. I think even some of the highest tech units are faster than a zealot's build time in SC. This means there is no point in having more than 2-3 factories. So this only ties up 2-3 of your hotkeys for the entire game. i have found that virtually every game you play, your opponent will be macroing just as well as you.
2-Automine effect: Generals does have automine, but another problem comes from the fact that you don't need more than 2-7 workers per base. So after a couple minutes of playing, you don't have to look at your command center again unless your under attack. SC2 with automine is just a couple keystrokes every 10 seconds away from this.
3-Mass Unit selection: This is what killed the game for me. I know many people here think of MBS as more of a threat, but I think this is the gamebreaker. Just think of what took more practice to get right in your training. Was it 3t4t5v6v7v8v, or was it 1a2a3a4a5a6a 2t3t4t plus extra mouse micro. Not to mention that this slows down the gameplay intensity significantly.
4-Hard counters: We're seeing a bit of this in SC2 already. It was also what kind of ruined the actual gameplay of Generals, UI aside. For example, there was this Chinese gun turret that could single handedly rip up about 50-60 infantry (literally), yet just a single light tank could beat it 1 on 1. Whenever the game is based on hard counters such as immortal beats tank, marines beat immortal, the players will eventually find only a few powerful units that work in any given situation (think of the tanks in any C&C game).
|
On December 07 2007 04:42 NatsuTerran wrote:
I think a good comparison to what SC2 is now would be C&C Generals. Both games have the flashiness that would pull in casual gamers, and both games have modern RTS UI's. Generals is actually very similar to SC in many ways. For example, you have 3 races, 1 of which being very micro-oriented like Terran. Overall i had a lot of fun with the game, but it could have been much better without a few things.
1-MBS effect: No, Generals didn't have MBS, but it had the same effect MBS would have on SC2. In Generals, almost every unit builds very fast. I think even some of the highest tech units are faster than a zealot's build time in SC. This means there is no point in having more than 2-3 factories. So this only ties up 2-3 of your hotkeys for the entire game. i have found that virtually every game you play, your opponent will be macroing just as well as you.
2-Automine effect: Generals does have automine, but another problem comes from the fact that you don't need more than 2-7 workers per base. So after a couple minutes of playing, you don't have to look at your command center again unless your under attack. SC2 with automine is just a couple keystrokes every 10 seconds away from this.
3-Mass Unit selection: This is what killed the game for me. I know many people here think of MBS as more of a threat, but I think this is the gamebreaker. Just think of what took more practice to get right in your training. Was it 3t4t5v6v7v8v, or was it 1a2a3a4a5a6a 2t3t4t plus extra mouse micro. Not to mention that this slows down the gameplay intensity significantly.
4-Hard counters: We're seeing a bit of this in SC2 already. It was also what kind of ruined the actual gameplay of Generals, UI aside. For example, there was this Chinese gun turret that could single handedly rip up about 50-60 infantry (literally), yet just a single light tank could beat it 1 on 1. Whenever the game is based on hard counters such as immortal beats tank, marines beat immortal, the players will eventually find only a few powerful units that work in any given situation (think of the tanks in any C&C game).
I like your first 3 points. Very well explained, I totally agree.
The 4th is too speculative, we don't have enough information about these systems in SC2. And don't forget that hard counters exist in SC or SC:BW, too.
|
Sheesh what an uproar.
It seems pretty clear that MBS will alter the flow of gameplay (at least at the higher competitive levels) relative to BW. Will it compact the distribution of skill among the population of competitive players? I think this is far from as certain as some here seem to believe.
Take "Joe", who has, say, 100 apm, and "John" who has 150 (arbitrary numbers). Joe and John are of the same approximate intellect, and both know when to make the decision to produce more units. But because John is faster, he wins a majority of the time over Joe by virtue of superior troop levels. Enter MBS. Now there is a negligible difference in time spent executing the decision to produce units between Joe and John. Does that necessarily mean that there is a (significant) decrease in the skill gap between them? After all, John still has the dexterity advantage (otherwise, why would there have been a difference in apm between two players with the same knowledge of the game and decision-making ability?), so what he does in his freed up time (troop positioning, battle micro, force partitioning, additional harassment, more effective use of casters, management of higher diversity armies, whatever) is likely to be more effective than what Joe does, and thus the advantage is maintained. The extent to which it is maintained is obviously indeterminable, but my guess (and it is just a guess of course) is that John would still beat Joe with about the same regularity as he did pre-MBS. This really is the true test though: whether or not the decrease in skill gap created by MBS can be made up for in whatever activities occupy the freed-up time. I'm optimistic that it can.
My feeling is that by and large SC2 will be a highly competitive game with a similar relative distribution of skill as found in BW. But it will, because of MBS, play very differently than BW in the sense that the game flow will have changed, and likely relatively more time will be spent with an army than at the base. Is this in and of itself a bad thing? Not for me, because I don't consider the flow of gameplay to be particularly integral to the starcraft experience, but I can see how so many of you who have so much experience with BW would feel negatively about the changes in flow.
|
That's what I think too, and I also think that MBS won't effectively lower the skill ceiling, because the skill ceiling in SC1 is so INCREDIBLY HIGH that no one will ever reach it (it's just not possible for a human being to be that fast), so lowering it a bit doesn't cause ANY harm.
Instead, look at the current pro situation: games after 15 or 20 minutes (or maybe it's better to say: after 150 supply) usually are a *mess*, especially the matchups PvP, PvT, TvT and ZvZ (although ZvZ almost never lasts so long). The battles there are just horrible, and no one can really control his units efficiently. Most micro being done is A-click and move/retreat, with a few spells and flanking here and there. The best displays of micro are always seen in early and mid game, in late game macro is much more important and consumes too much of your time, so you have to make sacrifices in micro all the time. The longer the game lasts, the more important mechanics become, and the less important strategy becomes.
Balance between macro and micro? Not anymore then.
That's where MBS will change things, and this change is necessary IMHO.
As an added bonus, it will lower the entry barrier for new players, because NO OTHER popular RTS game has such a "hard" UI anymore.
If SC1's UI was really the best, then all other games would copy it, but all other games, including Blizzard's newer games, include some form of MBS.
Is this really because they have no clue? I don't think so... I bet they know a lot more about the matter than most of us.
|
On December 07 2007 03:35 GeneralStan wrote:Show nested quote +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
One weak analogy deserves another, as they say...
|
On December 07 2007 17:10 Brutalisk wrote:
That's what I think too, and I also think that MBS won't effectively lower the skill ceiling, because the skill ceiling in SC1 is so INCREDIBLY HIGH that no one will ever reach it (it's just not possible for a human being to be that fast), so lowering it a bit doesn't cause ANY harm.
Instead, look at the current pro situation: games after 15 or 20 minutes (or maybe it's better to say: after 150 supply) usually are a *mess*, especially the matchups PvP, PvT, TvT and ZvZ (although ZvZ almost never lasts so long). The battles there are just horrible, and no one can really control his units efficiently. Most micro being done is A-click and move/retreat, with a few spells and flanking here and there. The best displays of micro are always seen in early and mid game, in late game macro is much more important and consumes too much of your time, so you have to make sacrifices in micro all the time. The longer the game lasts, the more important mechanics become, and the less important strategy becomes.
Balance between macro and micro? Not anymore then.
That's where MBS will change things, and this change is necessary IMHO.
As an added bonus, it will lower the entry barrier for new players, because NO OTHER popular RTS game has such a "hard" UI anymore.
If SC1's UI was really the best, then all other games would copy it, but all other games, including Blizzard's newer games, include some form of MBS.
Is this really because they have no clue? I don't think so... I bet they know a lot more about the matter than most of us.
By responding to your post I'm also responding to talismania's post, so lets go.
You're wrong when you say that in the late game macro is more important than micro. It's simply not true by fact, check BWChart for the statistics - you'll always find macro percentages below micro percentages. Why? Because micro is more important than macro in SC:BW (!!!), I guess about 10-20%, sometimes 30%. I can't be more accurate because it differs a lot.
I thought you were kidding when you said that most micro "is A-click and move/retreat" but then I read "with a few spells and flanking here and there" which made me wonder. Hey, just summarize it: A-click, move, retreat, spell, flank, hmmm sounds like a whole lot, not? But that's not even all! There is grouping, regrouping, catching straying units, dodging spells, now that may be about it (but I think there's even more). In addition you also have to control units without hotkeys sometimes, especially zerg users must do that heavily. Tasks over tasks in, before and after every single battle, repeating each command over and over again. Sounds like easy micro? You're funny.
Battles are horrible? Nobody can control his units efficiently? The only way I can forgive you saying that is that you don't know many VOD's/replays from really strong gamers.
A few examples of players who are near perfection in SC:BW: Hwasin, Bisu, Savior, Stork, Iris, Jaedong... more to come.
At least 5 players who already come close to perfection and you say it is impossible to master SC? 5 years ago you were right, today you're not. Things have changed drastically and I highly doubt Blizzard is well informed about the true situation.
A "neccessary change" through MBS is a joke. Nothing is neccessary, SC:BW is flawless and SC2 doesn't need childish features, either. If in SC2 Blizzard wants to compensate for MBS and mass-unit-selection (maybe call it MUS?) they must find new ways of hardening micro-management! Do you understand? They must add even more actions to the actions done in SC micro! But which? Do you have any ideas? I don't, because there is no room for improvement.
I say mission impossible, SC2 will never be competitive enough if they keep ignoring these arguments.
The SC UI isn't "the best", it's just very good. I don't see the UI of other RTS games being an argument because they are all much less popular than SC. You want to know why they didn't copy the SC UI? Because SC is old. They were all afraid of their titles not selling good enough. What they didn't realize is that only the overall quality and marketing make the selling numbers, the improved UI is just a feature for newbies who don't want others to be better than themselves.
Childish envy.
|
On December 07 2007 17:10 Brutalisk wrote:
That's what I think too, and I also think that MBS won't effectively lower the skill ceiling, because the skill ceiling in SC1 is so INCREDIBLY HIGH that no one will ever reach it (it's just not possible for a human being to be that fast), so lowering it a bit doesn't cause ANY harm.
Instead, look at the current pro situation: games after 15 or 20 minutes (or maybe it's better to say: after 150 supply) usually are a *mess*, especially the matchups PvP, PvT, TvT and ZvZ (although ZvZ almost never lasts so long). The battles there are just horrible, and no one can really control his units efficiently. Most micro being done is A-click and move/retreat, with a few spells and flanking here and there. The best displays of micro are always seen in early and mid game, in late game macro is much more important and consumes too much of your time, so you have to make sacrifices in micro all the time. The longer the game lasts, the more important mechanics become, and the less important strategy becomes.
Balance between macro and micro? Not anymore then.
That's where MBS will change things, and this change is necessary IMHO.
As an added bonus, it will lower the entry barrier for new players, because NO OTHER popular RTS game has such a "hard" UI anymore.
If SC1's UI was really the best, then all other games would copy it, but all other games, including Blizzard's newer games, include some form of MBS.
Is this really because they have no clue? I don't think so... I bet they know a lot more about the matter than most of us.
Agreed. No pro have perfect play now and no pro will have perfect play with MBS either, skill celing is just to high.
ForAdun: Look at the micro and you will see it. You see perfect play because there is no mistakes and it's the best play you've ever seen but that does not mean it could not be better. There are serious differences between the pro's handling in early/midgame compared to a 200/200 suppy situation and they are quite obvious.
|
On December 07 2007 17:10 Brutalisk wrote:
Instead, look at the current pro situation: games after 15 or 20 minutes (or maybe it's better to say: after 150 supply) usually are a *mess*, especially the matchups PvP, PvT, TvT and ZvZ (although ZvZ almost never lasts so long). The battles there are just horrible, and no one can really control his units efficiently. Most micro being done is A-click and move/retreat, with a few spells and flanking here and there. The best displays of micro are always seen in early and mid game, in late game macro is much more important and consumes too much of your time, so you have to make sacrifices in micro all the time. The longer the game lasts, the more important mechanics become, and the less important strategy becomes.
Balance between macro and micro? Not anymore then.
Starcraft is Dynamic.
It starts off very micro orientated. No player has any trouble keeping up with macro at this stage so the only thing that can set 2 people apart is micro.
As the game progresses, it becomes harder to micro and macro effectively at the same time, the game then develops a balance, where macro and micro are both equally important as a loss of a bunch of troops can mean GG, and not keeping up with macro will leave you too far behind to catch up.
As we hit late game, macro becomes slightly more important than micro (about a 40% micro, 60% macro split). Players at this point in the game are trying to overwhelm their opponent with large scale numbers and better 'overall strategies'. At this stage, players are rewarded for there ability to coordinate their entire base and army. Macro is favoured slightly, but brilliant micro moves still have a huge impact on the game.
As we then hit VERY late game, the game takes on a micro style again. Resources are a more scarce and players have to play carefully with their units, because a lost battle at this point will not leave them enough resources to come back.
In starcraft required levels of Macro and Micro vary throughout the game.
If you take a game such as Warcraft 3, youll notice its 100% micro the entire way through. If you add MBS to starcraft 2, it will still retain more macro than warcraft 3, but the game will take on a VERY heavy micro feel. Also, with MBS, controlling a large base is no harder than controlling a small base and therefore there will be very little fluctuation, it will be 90% micro 10% macro The whole way through.
I love the dynamic nature of starcraft, in which there is more than 1 way to beat your opponent. Features like MBS will do serious harm to that dynamic nature, leaving only 1 path to victory.
EDIT: To Cuddlykitten. Players CAN micro their units as effectively in late game as they could in early game, however doing this would require them to neglect the other areas of the game. This is one of the fundamental skills that starcraft tests in a person. The Ability to prioritise their actions. Why would you want anyone to even become close to managing everything perfectly. The second that happens, the game will die completely. Everyone can work to become better at starcraft, from the person who just started playing all the way up to Bisu. You want a skill ceiling that is impossible to reach. It gives players something to strive harder for, to be higher than all their opponents.
|
@ CuddleCuteKitten
Uhm, you're not talking to some random newb here. I know micro very well, most progamers don't have "flawless" micro but some do.
You're misunderstanding my argument. I did not say MBS leads to "perfect" play.
I said MBS makes macro-management too easy (which either leaves out punishment for heavy focuse on micro or because of that makes micro-management easier). Then add MUS (massive-unit-selection) to it and micro gets even easier...
So we end up having two legal cheats called UI improvement, multitasking becomes a joke and progamers are out of a job. I'm exaggerating? Yes, a bit.
But only a bit.
If you understand me this time you may counter my argument.
|
You might as well add a button that allows you to select your entire army while you're at it.
|
On December 07 2007 22:34 Lazerflip... wrote:
You might as well add a button that allows you to select your entire army while you're at it.
Which is exactly what Blizzard is doing.
edit:
One reason why I like the fact that SC offers a lot of room for failure and why I want such thing in SC2, too (this is a VOD from the proleague match Samsung Khan vs ESTRO):
+ Show Spoiler +
edit2:
I mean it's from Hanbit vs ESTRO. I was hasty hiding the rest in spoiler tags.
|
On December 07 2007 03:19 Prose wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2007 01:32 FrozenArbiter wrote:On December 05 2007 15:00 D10 wrote:
What if eveytime you build a unit your screen moves to that building regardless of hotkey using, or some kind of mechanism that makes your come back to your base several times during the game, other than that i dont think MBS will impact the game negatively if sc2 is balanced with that in mind, and i dont see a reason why the game couldnt carry on the awesome sc1 felling of micro and macro. 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.
Exacly, I meant something like, everytime you select a group of buildings your screen moves to one of the selected buildings, or some similar mechanism, if you build your structures together, then you could just HIT 7 move to your base while selecting a build, clicking each structure to build different units and whatnot, and it would conserve the necessity to macro fast and on the right timing.
|
It occurred to me this morning that perhaps alot of the concern about MBS stems from how production typically works in BW. In BW, most matchups tend to involve only one, maybe two, types of production facilities. For Terran, it's either factories or barracks (sometimes starport) depending on the matchup. For Protoss, it's largely gateways (with robo and stargate). And for Zerg of course it's just the hatcheries.
But how do we know this will be the same case in SC2? Suppose certain matchups (like PvT) don't boil down to just tanks and vultures vs goons and zealots anymore, but require a broader and more diverse array of units. This would necessitate production from many different structures, which increases the hotkeys that would be taken up by these structures, which in turn decreases the hotkeys available for managing forces (I'm ignoring MUS because presumably it will be advantageous to control smaller groups anyways instead of just tabbing through an enormous army trying to find the unit type you're looking for). So elite players might take to instead individually selecting structures again, as in SC2.
And consider the zerg... will it really be maximally efficient in SC2 to just hotkey all your hatcheries together and just hit 1sz or whatever? It doesn't seem like there will be many times during games that necessitate building lings out of all available hatcheries. More likely than not, a balance of units will be favored, which means, again, that players will resort to individually selecting out each hatchery in order to build a mix of units at the same time.
|
On December 08 2007 01:30 talismania wrote:
It occurred to me this morning that perhaps alot of the concern about MBS stems from how production typically works in BW. In BW, most matchups tend to involve only one, maybe two, types of production facilities. For Terran, it's either factories or barracks (sometimes starport) depending on the matchup. For Protoss, it's largely gateways (with robo and stargate). And for Zerg of course it's just the hatcheries.
But how do we know this will be the same case in SC2? Suppose certain matchups (like PvT) don't boil down to just tanks and vultures vs goons and zealots anymore, but require a broader and more diverse array of units. This would necessitate production from many different structures, which increases the hotkeys that would be taken up by these structures, which in turn decreases the hotkeys available for managing forces (I'm ignoring MUS because presumably it will be advantageous to control smaller groups anyways instead of just tabbing through an enormous army trying to find the unit type you're looking for). So elite players might take to instead individually selecting structures again, as in SC2.
And consider the zerg... will it really be maximally efficient in SC2 to just hotkey all your hatcheries together and just hit 1sz or whatever? It doesn't seem like there will be many times during games that necessitate building lings out of all available hatcheries. More likely than not, a balance of units will be favored, which means, again, that players will resort to individually selecting out each hatchery in order to build a mix of units at the same time.
Well written and a good point but there's one flaw in your argumentation: Blizzard says they want SC2 to be a game of massive armies which means that there's a lot of canon fodder, simply because that is one of the main mechanics in any RTS game; just like in real war. That means you have to produce many units of the same type in a short period of time. Having this in mind what do you think is more likely? Will progamers mainly produce 1 unit-type out of all their hatcheries or not?
In my eyes the first set of units will be 1 type only, the next set will be 2 types and lets say the third set will be 3 types just as an example. The first set will take "no time at all", the second set will not take more than 1 second, the third set will take 1-2 seconds at best. Yes that is realistic if you consider how fast progamers are.
The impact MBS will have is crazy.
Oh and trust me, MUS will have it's own big impact on micro-management. It is hard to control 5-6 groups of units in SC because of the UI. With MUS it would be so easy that it would also take "no time at all". And there's no more room for error. Lazy players won't forget 1 group of units anymore. But this is one of the main reasons why gosus are gosus and the rest is not.
|
But how hard is it to just bind half your hatches on 1 key, and the other half on the other? No one said you have to bind everything to a single hotkey. That would be just dumb. The same could be said if you will require different types of production: 5 rax on 1 key, 5 facs on another, a port or 2 on another. But I highly doubt it's gonna be better to buy an assortment of units rather than specializing in one type as in bw. RTS just doesn't work that way. It will cost mounds of resources to buy the extra production buildings, not to mention all the extra upgrades and research abilities.
|
How many units will you be able to select at one time, exactly?
|
About MUS, they should make different units count differently towards the cap. Just as units in transporters don't all count equally.
I think here it is possible to compromise a bit. But not with auto rally and MBS.
|
Automine more than anything scares the pants off of me. It really does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
