Natsu, presumably the more hotkeys that are used up by hatcheries the less you have to use to control your units, but you're right of course (I was hyperbolizing with the zerg example).
The way I see MUS playing out is that most players will have one control group of their entire army, with individual control groups within that army of different unit types that require individual micro (tanks, ghosts, templar, what have you). [Another factor to consider here is that SC2 will feature an entirely new wrinkle: ground units that have a certain degree of terrain independence. Certainly reapers, at the least, will require their own hotkey for base raiding purposes.]
ForAdun, I think you're right in that my argument does rely on the pie-in-the-sky notion that these matchups will require more diverse units or that Blizzard is even planning it that way (although it does seem to be a big priority for them to increase the use of all units with what they're doing with the ghost). I'm hopeful, at least, that this will be the case though.
And of course mass production will be necessary in SC2, and MBS will make it easier to do that. The question still comes down, though, to whether or not this makes the game itself easier. There's no way to test this, it seems, but I'm hopeful that new mechanics for harassment and scouting (semi-terrain independent ground units) and more micro-heavy casters and such will provide ample difficulty to make up for the relative ease of production.
Actually I dont think its going to be dumb at all. Players arent going to wait until they have 1500 mins and 500 gas to build a M&M army from their barracks. They are going to build it progressively. They would usually jump back to their base, spend 250 mins, then jump back to the combat. If you only have 250 mins to spend, then 5 marines isnt a rare thing to do. You just click your barracks hotkey and then m. Goodbye money. In a few seconds time you might want to add some medics, hit your barracks hotkey, hit medic hotkey.
Also, with MBS, the game will allocate your barracks to build. So if 5 of your 7 barracks's are building units, and you hit ure barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines will be allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. You dont have to jump back to your base and select the barracks you want to build from.
Consider this senario. A player wants to keep a strong medic marine force throughout the game. He hotkeys all his barrack's to 1, and maps his hotkeys so q = marine and w = medic. He then practices, so that every couple of seconds he clicks 1q, or 1w. This really isnt a hard thing to do, its an extremely fast movement of the fingers that can be repeated between micro actions while his mouse moves between his units on the battlefield. He sets his rally points up and he constantly produces, at the fastest rate possible, and has total control over the ratio of units. Assuming he does the same thing for his command centers with 2q when he wants more scvs. This player only has to go back to his base to build buildings and has perfect macro. I personally would hate to see this senario, but it would be soo viable.
Ok, not I know that this post is getting long, and your eyes are beggining to water but Ive got one more point to bring up. DAWN OF WAR DOESNT HAVE MBS. I cannot believe that this hasnt been brought up before. Im not a DoW player so I never knew until I played it tonight. This game did quite well among the public, its fatal flaw being in its pathing AI, and not its UI. This game actually had a decent competative scene as well. It came out after warcraft 3, so its not an oldschool game. The designers had the opportunity to add it in, and they chose not to. Is this not proof that it MBS will not harm sales?
Dawn of War doesn't have MBS because you never, ever, EVER build more than one of any unit producing building. I played it competitively for two years, I should know. To be fair, though, DoW did have an easy-mode "macro killer" called "overwatch" where you right click any unit icon and it is automatically produced each time you have the money, so your rax will send a constant stream of Marines to the battle every time you have 200 requisition, for example. So to be fair, Dawn of War did have a bit of an easy-mode interface which is arguably more nooby than MBS.
There wont be a "harder" UI without MBS, since ppl cant know what doesnt exist. There can be a "easier" UI with MBS, the arguments are NOT symmetrical.
Blizzard cant maintain the skill ceiling and make the game more accessible to new players at the same time. I think those two excludes each other. On top of that, I think starcraft is very accessible to new players, the arguments in the thread saying "more accessible to new players" are more than likely to mean "accessible for middle-class player"
Simplest macro(?): Personally, when I started playing starcraft, I won games simply by: going to war with an equal sized army, we go forth and back, WHILE I rally my new built units to the battle and opponent not. I lose more units, but I won the battle and the game.
PS. I take no side, I just state the facts. while (facts==my_opinions)
On December 08 2007 03:00 Lazerflip... wrote: Dawn of War doesn't have MBS because you never, ever, EVER build more than one of any unit producing building.
Tonight I was producing constantly from 4 tau barrack's, which were all sending troops into the massive clusterfuck in the middle of a 3v3 matchup. I'm new to the game so I figured it was a valid point.
On December 08 2007 03:15 sidz wrote: There wont be a "harder" UI without MBS, since ppl cant know what doesnt exist. There can be a "easier" UI with MBS, the arguments are NOT symmetrical.
Blizzard cant maintain the skill ceiling and make the game more accessible to new players at the same time. I think those two excludes each other. On top of that, I think starcraft is very accessible to new players, the arguments in the thread saying "more accessible to new players" are more than likely to mean "accessible for middle-class player"
Simplest macro(?): Personally, when I started playing starcraft, I won games simply by: going to war with an equal sized army, we go forth and back, WHILE I rally my new built units to the battle and opponent not. I lose more units, but I won the battle and the game.
PS. I take no side, I just state the facts. while (facts==my_opinions)
Uh? Facts can be proven by evidence. What evidence do you have? The above is a mix of opinions, not facts. Some of it may be right, some may not. You can't join the debate and say "Hello, I own the power of truth, what I say is universally right." but it sounds like you just said that. Especially what you said about "harder" and "easier" UI. Facts? Come on...
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.
Watch the major battles in late game. Yes, Anytime is facing a crappy player, but he's still playing at his usual 300+ APM. His late game control consists of a-attacking all his groups repeatedly, sometimes by minimap, then going back to macro his gateways. Basically it's like 90% attention on macro, 10% on micro, even while a major battle is going on (and 100% macro during rest of game).
What this means is that if you are spending more effort on micro than macro, then you are being inefficient with your apm. You could be playing much better by having sloppier unit control than your opponent, but outproduce him than vice versa.
No, this is what we call an exception to the rule of thumb: Anytime is known for his macro not his micro. When your economy starts to falter it turns into a micro heavy game.
I cannot believe we're still having this discussion. It is absolutely stupid. Blizzard will make the final decision and their testers will address this.
They have more than enough resources and IT on the subject already. Let them do their jobs.
Anytime isn't "known" for his macro, he's just another well-rounded Toss player. Pusan is known for his macro. Oov is known for his macro. Anyways, the fact that Anytime can dominate without paying any attention to micro means that his style works.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er0hSB7qkIo Watch the major battles in late game. Yes, Anytime is facing a crappy player, but he's still playing at his usual 300+ APM. His late game control consists of a-attacking all his groups repeatedly, sometimes by minimap, then going back to macro his gateways. Basically it's like 90% attention on macro, 10% on micro, even while a major battle is going on (and 100% macro during rest of game).
What this means is that if you are spending more effort on micro than macro, then you are being inefficient with your apm. You could be playing much better by having sloppier unit control than your opponent, but outproduce him than vice versa.
Right after you said "Anytime is facing a crappy player, but" I only read a lot of "bla bla bla" (of course not, I kept reading but in my opinion the story ended at that point). This is not meant to be disrespectful, I just say that this game proves exactly nothing. It's a walkover, a bash, a confidence-booster. Anytime completely owned his opponent from start to finish, he was even talking to commentators while battling, producing, owning... he didn't play for money or a title. I saw some other progamers do the same in that show. It's just a show-off for progamers, no more. In our debate these games have no place. That would be unproductive and unprofessional. You can use SL/ML/PL games as examples, but not (sorry) that crap. It was a walkover, not a game, I'm sorry.
Spending more/equal/a bit less time on micro than macro is how real games are going. It's never 10/90 or 20/80, in a rare case it can be 30/70. In a competitive game it's almost always 40/60 (60/40) or 50/50. Of course I'm not talking about dead-end TvT games where a draw would be the most fair result. You know, I like your enthusiasm but you must understand that some things are written in stone. One of these things is that macro and micro are about equally neccessary in SC (in my opinion micro is more important because macro can be mastered much easier but bleh). It's a given.
PS: my style works, too. Give me a random newbie and chances are that I beat him to the heavens without looking at the screen. I feel so good now
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Also, with MBS, the game will allocate your barracks to build. So if 5 of your 7 barracks's are building units, and you hit ure barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines will be allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. You dont have to jump back to your base and select the barracks you want to build from.
Actually in most games that do have MBS's, all that I've played, if 5 of your 7 barracks are building units and you hit your barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines do _not_ get allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. In fact the first 2 marines are queue'd in the first 2 barracks which are already creating marines, leading to terrible terrible inefficiency. The only way the spare barracks start creating marines if your hitting your barracks hotkey and then m, is if you have enough minerals for all 7 to make 1 marine each, in which your first 5 barracks now have queued 1 more marine and then those 2 spare ones start creating those 2 marines. This might not sound like much but in a really high level game this really decides who has 8 marines and who has 5... who has 20 to someone elses 13... who wins and who loses.
I can't say if SC2's MBS will be smarter and be able to do what you think it will. But most MBS's do not do what you think they do, and it is no cakewalk to keep all your barrack's producing as much as possible with no inefficiency.
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Consider this senario. A player wants to keep a strong medic marine force throughout the game. He hotkeys all his barrack's to 1, and maps his hotkeys so q = marine and w = medic. He then practices, so that every couple of seconds he clicks 1q, or 1w. This really isnt a hard thing to do, its an extremely fast movement of the fingers that can be repeated between micro actions while his mouse moves between his units on the battlefield. He sets his rally points up and he constantly produces, at the fastest rate possible, and has total control over the ratio of units. Assuming he does the same thing for his command centers with 2q when he wants more scvs. This player only has to go back to his base to build buildings and has perfect macro. I personally would hate to see this senario, but it would be soo viable.
Other games that I've played with MBS are like this, and its great. The battles are quicker, theres more of them, and it takes more skill to play than you think. And what I mean is from that is from what I read you don't think it takes much skill to play a game designed like this. But it actually takes a tremendous amount of skill to play a game designed like this.
At lower levels, if you have a lot of extra minerals sitting doing nothing, your right, it isn't hard to hit 1q or 1w and have all the barrack's producing. Your right, thats easy.
At the highest level it takes a tremendous amount of skill to make sure as soon as you get that 50 minerals it is spent creating a marine. And not sitting queued up in a barracks so, even though that 1 marine will pop out eventually, your current forces are outnumbered by your opponent who does have good macro.
And this is where all your anti-mbs arguements fall to shambles. You take examples of low level play of games that do have MBS, or have an inaccurate representation of what a MBS really does. Your arguments are just 'Starcraft is the greatest game ever, nothing should be changed at all' and 'were pro because we play Starcraft'. You guys should try to get good at some other games and your opinions might change a little.
I feel it's also worth clarifying that MBS does not decrease the "amount" of macro. The number of macro decisions stays the same, but less time is needed to execute them. So time spent macroing (or at least the production aspect of macro) is decreased, but not the amount of macro decisions. It basically just subtracts X% of time from clicking buildings and adds that X% to clicking units.
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Also, with MBS, the game will allocate your barracks to build. So if 5 of your 7 barracks's are building units, and you hit ure barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines will be allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. You dont have to jump back to your base and select the barracks you want to build from.
Actually in most games that do have MBS's, all that I've played, if 5 of your 7 barracks are building units and you hit your barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines do _not_ get allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. In fact the first 2 marines are queue'd in the first 2 barracks which are already creating marines, leading to terrible terrible inefficiency.
And in what games did you see that? I think that in all RTSs I played that had MBS it was always the spare buildings picking up production. It's the only reasonably way to do it.
On December 08 2007 03:00 Lazerflip... wrote: Dawn of War doesn't have MBS because you never, ever, EVER build more than one of any unit producing building.
Tonight I was producing constantly from 4 tau barrack's, which were all sending troops into the massive clusterfuck in the middle of a 3v3 matchup. I'm new to the game so I figured it was a valid point.
Having played Dawn of War competitively on the highest level for 2 years following it's release (World Cyber Games, etc.) I can tell you with certainty that this is not a viable strat. Making more than one barracks means you are automatically a newbie and you just don't do it on a high level of play. BW players often try to do this when they come to DoW, but they soon learn otherwise. The only reason to play with more than one barracks is if you are playing on quickstart (unlimited money games for newbies) and then you are a noob anyhow. Since you are new to the game, though, I forgive you =].
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Also, with MBS, the game will allocate your barracks to build. So if 5 of your 7 barracks's are building units, and you hit ure barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines will be allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. You dont have to jump back to your base and select the barracks you want to build from.
Actually in most games that do have MBS's, all that I've played, if 5 of your 7 barracks are building units and you hit your barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines do _not_ get allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. In fact the first 2 marines are queue'd in the first 2 barracks which are already creating marines, leading to terrible terrible inefficiency. The only way the spare barracks start creating marines if your hitting your barracks hotkey and then m, is if you have enough minerals for all 7 to make 1 marine each, in which your first 5 barracks now have queued 1 more marine and then those 2 spare ones start creating those 2 marines. This might not sound like much but in a really high level game this really decides who has 8 marines and who has 5... who has 20 to someone elses 13... who wins and who loses.
I can't say if SC2's MBS will be smarter and be able to do what you think it will. But most MBS's do not do what you think they do, and it is no cakewalk to keep all your barrack's producing as much as possible with no inefficiency.
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Consider this senario. A player wants to keep a strong medic marine force throughout the game. He hotkeys all his barrack's to 1, and maps his hotkeys so q = marine and w = medic. He then practices, so that every couple of seconds he clicks 1q, or 1w. This really isnt a hard thing to do, its an extremely fast movement of the fingers that can be repeated between micro actions while his mouse moves between his units on the battlefield. He sets his rally points up and he constantly produces, at the fastest rate possible, and has total control over the ratio of units. Assuming he does the same thing for his command centers with 2q when he wants more scvs. This player only has to go back to his base to build buildings and has perfect macro. I personally would hate to see this senario, but it would be soo viable.
Other games that I've played with MBS are like this, and its great. The battles are quicker, theres more of them, and it takes more skill to play than you think. And what I mean is from that is from what I read you don't think it takes much skill to play a game designed like this. But it actually takes a tremendous amount of skill to play a game designed like this.
At lower levels, if you have a lot of extra minerals sitting doing nothing, your right, it isn't hard to hit 1q or 1w and have all the barrack's producing. Your right, thats easy.
At the highest level it takes a tremendous amount of skill to make sure as soon as you get that 50 minerals it is spent creating a marine. And not sitting queued up in a barracks so, even though that 1 marine will pop out eventually, your current forces are outnumbered by your opponent who does have good macro.
And this is where all your anti-mbs arguements fall to shambles. You take examples of low level play of games that do have MBS, or have an inaccurate representation of what a MBS really does. Your arguments are just 'Starcraft is the greatest game ever, nothing should be changed at all' and 'were pro because we play Starcraft'. You guys should try to get good at some other games and your opinions might change a little.
447 words, and I can counter it all with 3.
Go play Warcraft
Ill elaborate. In warcraft, if you group a bunch of buildings, when you build units, they will be automatically built in a way so that production time is at its lowest. If there is a spare barracks, the first units will be built there. If there are no spare barrack's the building which is going to be finished building first will get the qued up units. This will work exactly the same in Starcraft 2 if MBS is implemented, making all my points valid (apart from the dawn of war one ).
EDIT: Teamsolid (sorry talisman), that was a god awful example using Anytime versing someone who wasnt in the same league as him. You ask why in a noob-stomp there is no empahsis on micro? Because there was no need for any. What was he going to do? Dodge tank shots? All he needed to do was steamroll his opponent with his superior army. Whats funny is that he did do a decent amount of micro in the end with his big pushes into the enemy's expo and base, yet you slag the game as 90% macro because up until that point there was almost no fighting at all?
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Also, with MBS, the game will allocate your barracks to build. So if 5 of your 7 barracks's are building units, and you hit ure barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines will be allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. You dont have to jump back to your base and select the barracks you want to build from.
Actually in most games that do have MBS's, all that I've played, if 5 of your 7 barracks are building units and you hit your barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines do _not_ get allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. In fact the first 2 marines are queue'd in the first 2 barracks which are already creating marines, leading to terrible terrible inefficiency.
And in what games did you see that? I think that in all RTSs I played that had MBS it was always the spare buildings picking up production. It's the only reasonably way to do it.
WC3 doesn't.
Many years of 2 crypt garg harassing n00belves tells me that. If you start a garg, and then select both crypts and have enough money only for 1, it'll usually (sometimes it doesn't, seems to be building order based) strap it over the other garg, making for quite inefficient macro. I always macro manually in these situations, because it's unreliable and I don't have time to remmeber what crypt I built 1st.
On DoW not having MBS, well, you can put multiple buildings in one hotkey and control them separately without looking at base. Though, only in extremely rare occasions did I build 2 Tau barracks.
Edit: Just read your post claiming it does. This is extremely weird, and I wonder if it got patched lately, because I know for a fact that it (wasn't?) that way.
Well after a bit of testing, I cannot get the warcraft 3 engine to faulter.
Also, I have no idea how you put multiple buildings in one hotkey when playing DoW, to do this you are required to have 2 buildings selected which requires MBS (unless theres some secret way I don't know about)
Correct me if i get any facts wrong. I don't debate this daily like some of you may or may not. But I do feel that it is something vital to the game play and feel of Starcraft 2.
The primary argument against multiple building selection is that it detracts from the "skill" or more directly the "APM" required to amass a sizable force while multitasking -- as it condenses the number of tasks required for the same operation.
The primary arguement for MBS is that the lack of it is just old fashioned, detracts from the User Interface, and that the game shouldn't revolve around APM = Skill -- as manually selecting each building and ordering it to build requires more actions.
I found both of these to be reasonable arguments, albeit a bit oversimplified in the manner just stated.
Now this leads me to raise the question:
In what way would MBS truly hurt the game? Which leads me to the question does the necessity of high APM really increase the skill "ceiling" and does it truly make the game more competitive? II am going to assume we all lean a bit closer to the competitive rather than the casual.
Well I feel that the necessity of high APM does increase the skill ceiling if such a thing exists in the first place. I do not feel that gosu skill is a direct result of high APM, but rather that there is a loose correlation to APM and skill. The obvious truth is if your Actions are actually doing something, and you do more actions then you do more. (Although there is the entire argument of Action Quality, in which case MBS just equates to My 2 Actions > Your 15 Actions[to the non MBS user])
This brings me to:
Do the additional actions required by a macro system lacking MBS provide more of an unnecessary time sink or a necessary time sink?
Does effective management of these time sinks equate to skill? (Is the player who hot keys all of his buildings better than the player that hot keys one in the same area and then 'mouse macros'?)
Essentially More APM required for the same macromanagement equates to more time or more speed and Skill has something to do with less time more speed
It seems i've raised more questions than I've answered, but reading a large portion of this 24 Page thread has lead me to believe that there is a lot of bias in the perceptions of necessity(or lack of) people have about MBS.
Multiple Building Selection is necessary *IF* the fastest player in the world still cant keep up with the game at it's more intense moment. (You'll see the best starcraft players in the world have drones sit for upwards of many seconds. You'll see imperfect micro on some level almost every game. You'll even see buildings sit unused for a few seconds here and there)
Is it more important to require a high count of actions to produce a high count of units, or is it more important that these players capitalize on timing and prefection?
The beauty of starcraft is that on the highest levels it requires as close to perfection as you can get, but nobody is perfect. Not even Savior, Bisu, Stork, GGPlay.....(I could continue my way down the KeSPA) They all make countless mistakes in any seriously intense game. MBS won't make or break Starcraft 2. What will make or break SC2 is whether or not there is more to do than is actually possible.
This leads me to the conclusion that MBS is neither good or bad, and it really depends on all of the other mechanics.
Although I hate to do it, I must bring up another game.
With little to no economy management, MBS, and completely removing the focus off of Macro Top Warcraft 3 pros still have ridiculously "skilled" APM compared to a novice.
Most people when presented with this argue that WC3 is all soft counters, hero matchups, and 100% micro over macro. Whatever you want to argue what WC3 is, that's fine This thread is about Starcraft 2. My point is that Warcraft 3 Still requires a very high level of skill with MBS and less Timesinks involved in effectively macroing. How did WC3 do this? It changed the focus into a bunch of timesinks involving micro (heros, higher unit hp which yields more time to react ect ect). Or in short, it focuses on different game mechanics.
This leads me to speculate on the possibilities of other Game Mechanics within Starcraft 2 if MBS is to be considered a viable game mechanic (because the majority of us have played Wc3 and we prefer Starcraft)
With MBS this adds a lot of focus onto Micro (while obviously not to the level of WC3 this can also be seen with the new viable abuses of terrain and abilities like blink) unless additional mechanics are added to macromanagement (The new warp unit for protoss for example)
The other factor which I think needs to be brought up in this, is that this is not WC3 and a major factor in macromanement is the scaling of your economy to the production of the buildings themselves. This does not require higher APM than anything else, yet any player that can do this perfectly over his opponent generates a massive advantage. I don't care how many buildings you can select if you can't scale them properly to your economy or your economy to them, then your production will be worse than mine.
In that early to early-mid game where the players don't have enough buildings to really make MBS stand out as a big difference in mechanics this same "economy scaling" is still just as important. At this point in the game Build Orders make a huge difference, if your playing ZvZ and you 9 pool to your opponents 12hatch FE then you have the advantage for a short period of time. MBS doesn't have anything to do with this directly but it is still relative. If only that it shows that there are far more dynamics to the game than many of these simplified posts would have you believe and that MBS only has limited effects. It also shows that APM is only a correlation to skill and is not absolute.
eh This has turned out to be far too long of a post. This is far more of a complicated matter than I can articulate in a few paragraphs.
I guess to sum up, since I just realized how much I've ranted and typed:
MBS is neither a mechanic that will make or break Starcraft 2. MBS has it's pros and cons and I personally feel that if they were to keep the game exactly how it were, but only to add MBS, new units, and prettier graphics then the focus of the game would change a lot. Then MBS would simply reduce the accuracy of the correlation between skill and APM. There is far too many dynamics to the game to simply state that because it reduces the required APM it lowers the skill ceiling. As in SC there is far too much to possibly do that really if you imagine MBS within starcraft, it just changes the focus and opens up entirely new windows of opportunity. The only players I can see this hurting are those players that have spent the past 5 years + of mastering this 1 game, and will have trouble adapting away from their robotic hot key spamming routines. But I can see those that have spent the past 5 years+ mastering this 1 game and are excellent at adapting to not lose a step, because if you can cognitively maintain 300 APM while triple+ tasking and reading your opponent as well as effectively managing all of the other dynamics i mention within this post and all those that I forget -- Well then odds are you'll be the more skilled player regardless of MBS.
If blizzard complicates all of the timing, micro, economy management, match ups, and needed unit distribution well then the changes provided by MBS really wane in comparison.
If you read the whole thing, I commend you. I don't think I would have. But I didn't set out to write this much -- and please dont castrate me because my paragraph formation is sub par, or I misspelled the same word 3 times. Well... feel free to, but your missing the point
Thank you for your time.
EDIT: Also-- while i'm still thinking about it... Can keys be remapped in SC2? Has anything been released on this? Because if so, this completely changes a lot of the dynamics of hotkeying. If not well then we know what to expect. but this still leads me back to -- it's still far too early for us to tell. I could say a lot more, but instead I'm gonna go play. -- and please pick this apart, I'm sure my logic is not perfect as this was all off the moment, and each comment i could formulate lead to many more. In fact I need to stop editing this before this leads to an entire book on my obvservations and speculations on the subject.
Warcraft 3 did always queue from the first to the last building in the group no matter if they are idle or not, but a few versions ago it was changed, you can probably find it in the changelogs.
MBS is also definitely not as easy as some people make it out to be... overqueueing will force high level players to macro the old fashioned way, when they can. By overqueueing I mean that if you have money for 3 units, but you have only 2 buildings idle in the selected group, then one unit is gonna be queued in an already producing bulding and your macro will suffer or you'll have to go trough every building to find out where it is and cancel it, and in both cases you're being quite inssuficient. You can also wait for the full amount of money in the bank for all buildings to queue an aditional unit, but that's also not the most efficient way and takes constant attention.
And a question to the Blizzcon attendees: at what speed did you play SC2, cause I heard it was locked to Normal and all the videos I saw were on Normal and these "arguements" that macro is too easy, because you've played it and you know it, are retarded and rediculous, since macro is too easy on Normal game speed in SC:BW, too.
EPT
).
