On December 09 2007 20:12 snowbird wrote: ok so i'll add my 2cents to this topic
all those anti MBS guys seem very short-sighted to me
when jaedong did a double muta harrass on main and expansion at the same time a few days ago, everyone was going "wow, that's nice". how about having muta harrass on 4 bases at the same time? well sadly that's not possible because of the ridicously outdated SC UI, and exactly that is what i hope for in SC2 with MBS. macro and mechanics are an important factor for a RTS, no doubt, but i'd like to see macro that has to do with strategy/micro. what i am trying to say is that you could actually macro your micro, for example with triple harrass or 2 large scale attacks on 2 fronts, while still having the time to efficiently micro these attacks. that's not possible in SC because you have to click your 10 facs every 20sec.
well, i could say more, but you get my point i hope.
Yea that was a great game and set. Quite impressive. I agree with your logic, and it is exactly what I'm talking about, when I talk about how MBS can't lower the Skill Ceiling, because the Skill Ceiling is nonexistent. Or if it does exist it is far beyond our reach.
Well, the anti MBS people think that this kind of micro is a) already possible in SC1 and b) only impressive when you have to macro all the time as well.
Problem: It *is* possible, but the crazier your micro stuff is the more you get behind in production. Which means that SC1's heavy focus on macro *restricts* you. Imagine macro had a voice and personality, then it would effectively say "hey hold on there, what crazy stuff are you trying to do there? Fuck you, come back here and click buildings all the time! Or I will see to it that you lose the game!" SC1's UI forces you to macro all the time and this makes a lot of micro things not viable, unless you play against a newbie. Then you can use ghosts, nukes, whatever... and ignore macro. But that's not going to happen when 2 skilled players play. Late game means heavy macro, and this needs to be changed. Make heavy micro viable again (and heavy macro should ideally still be viable, but not exclusively).
On December 09 2007 20:12 snowbird wrote: ok so i'll add my 2cents to this topic
all those anti MBS guys seem very short-sighted to me
when jaedong did a double muta harrass on main and expansion at the same time a few days ago, everyone was going "wow, that's nice". how about having muta harrass on 4 bases at the same time? well sadly that's not possible because of the ridicously outdated SC UI [...]
Ok, I said I won't discuss SC2 anymore etc. but this drives me mad.
Why do pro MBS people keep acting like they don't understand why some don't want MBS. It's for exactly the same reason they want it in the first place.
It makes the game easier and more convenient. It makes players require less practice to be decent. That's why.
In SC right now you actually need to play quite near perfect to get some wins on ICCup. Yet progamers just walk over those people that walk over almost everyone on ICCup. That's why.
@ForAdun You make a very good point Theres a reason why he's one of the best of all time. (But i must state that I don't think it's because he's better at SBS than other players. Yet Multitasking in general perhaps)
@BlackStar
I understand exactly why some don't want MBS. I would argue however that those people have formed a bias against change and possibility. I would argue further that this bias while certainly necessary in small doses (We do want a true sequal) it is also largely unfounded and just overly apprehensive.
If we wanted to break it down to semantics at this point we could simply argue opinion. That is what seems the most reasonable in most discussions so controversial within a community.
I however have been making an attempt to show the non-mbs users that there is the possibility for positive change while simultaneously streamlining mechanics.
I don't see how taking the focus off the APM aspect and rather focusing on the responsive strategy aspects in handling counters, managing resources and map control ect.
I've seen people use a comparision of Boxer and oov in this argument previously, while there are some obvious issues with this. I would like to state the purposes of it's use here. The previous analogy some number of pages back states something along the lines of Boxer being the more micro based player, and iloveoov being the more macro based player. The argument was that because of MBS Boxer would have equal macro as iloveoov. Please don't nitpick the details of this analogy but rather try to see the point. I say that because I do not think the analogy is perfect, and perhaps someone who understands what i'm saying can be a bit more creative than me at the moment.
Anyway... The reason I bring this up, is because I do not feel that because of MBS the macro will be equal. and While this might be detaching from the analogy, this is why i believe this:
It is not that the macro player has more apm than the micro player, but rather that he focuses on something rather than micro. The macro player focuses on ECONOMY not APM... He builds more drones, goes for the mid-late game approach where he out econ's his opponent and just overwhelms them. He doesn't gain his advantage out of being faster at queue units, but rather having more unit producing buildings and having a larger economy.
The micro based player will fight a macro based opponent, and attempt to execute a timing push and maintain map control by trying to keep on in expos and prevent expos (in much the same way a macro based player will still micro) But the micro based player tries to take the advantage and run with it while he has the unit advantage from not focusing on economy.
Hmmm I talk too much, and I may have digressed, but perhaps you'll see where i'm coming from.
I am not totally against abolishing MBS, as SBS does not directly make the game worse, it's just a change in focus. I haven't played SC2 so i'm not going to get my panties in a bunch, but rather I look forward to an opportunity to test both within the new framework of counters, timings, and all new aspects as they present themselves.
This articulates where the difficulty is in SBS macro down very well.
The problems themselves are quite easy. Im sure no-one lost because they didnt know what 15 + 6 is. You lost because the problems started happening faster, and your brain got flooded with lots of simple questions which require relatively no thought on their own, but together, stress out the brain and cause it to faulter.
This is where the difficulty of macro in starcraft is. The tasks themselves are easy, but when you are flooded with them, they put stress on your brain. SBS macro adds stress to your brain while playing. Multitasking macro with something else such as micro actions adds even more pressure. The best players are the ones that can handle the most amount of pressure. The ones that can macro and micro the best when the game is really intense. Prioritising what actions are important is also a very important skill, it ensures that the actions which the brain can process are the ones that are most beneficial to the game.
MBS relieves the pressure on the brain by reducing the amount of problems it has to deal with leaving it less stressful than its predecessor, which is what I personally dont want. I want a game where I come out of feeling like my brain was pushed to the limits coordinating all the actions that were required of me.
Now for people that are arguing that the game is too macro heavy and therefore we should add MBS. Your argument is basically that you wish to remove the need for prioritising actions. Prioritising actions is a very important strategical element. No-one can do everything, but players can choose where they focus the bulk of their actions. Choosing the correct actions to focus on is a good strategical move, and choosing the wrong actions is bad. It sets players apart and is good for competition.
If you want the need for prioritising actions to stay, then your arguing the wrong argument by arguing pro-MBS. MBS will reduce the stress on the brain by all the little actions. If players still have to prioritise, players will prioritise where they can gain the most. If macro is a more important factor, then the game will still end up being a macro war at the end. The only thing that can change the game from a macro game to more of a micro game is a shift in balance. Maybe AOE spells could be made better, so that microing properely is much more rewarding than macroing properely or production buildings could be made more expensive, limiting the effective amounts that you would want to build and increasing the time it takes to mass large armys etc.
Someday I'll get to answering the real meat of the discussion, but for right now a quick response to Fen will have to do...
I think there's a critical difference in how each of us view your analogy as relating to MBS.
First, with macro the 'problems' are often relatively the same, making the intellectual difficulty much less than your analogy would imply. If SC2 is designed such that the optimal unit distribution for a given situation changes more frequently, then MBS macro will become more difficult due to the shift-clicking necessary to switch buildings in and out of hotkey groups. To use your marine-medic example from earlier, 5m5c (with five barracks set to 5) will give you 5 marines and 5 queued medics - hardly an optimal distribution or production rate. If you wanted 4 marines and 1 medic per command, then you'd have to shift-click a barrack and hotkey it into another group, thus making it 5m6c. The shift-clicking/hotkey process may seem trivial, but the time investment adds up the more you have to do it. Also, if more diverse unit distributions are rewarded by the design, the macro mechanics become harder in turn - '5m6g7c', for example.
Secondly, I view MBS not as reducing the number of problems, but rather as making those problems easier to answer. With MBS, you still have to command (for example) gates to produce goons as soon as you have the resources to do so, leading to macro commands being issued just as frequently as with SBS - the difference is the command is '4d' instead of '4d5d6d7d8d9d0d' or 'click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d'. IMHO, it's more like using your keypad to answer the questions in the above mental exercise instead of clicking the numbers and enter using the mouse.
As for the latter half of your post, I understand your concern but I don't have time to respond to it right now.
On December 10 2007 01:39 1esu wrote: To use your marine-medic example from earlier, 5m5c (with five barracks set to 5) will give you 5 marines and 5 queued medics - hardly an optimal distribution or production rate. If you wanted 4 marines and 1 medic per command, then you'd have to shift-click a barrack and hotkey it into another group, thus making it 5m6c. The shift-clicking/hotkey process may seem trivial, but the time investment adds up the more you have to do it. Also, if more diverse unit distributions are rewarded by the design, the macro mechanics become harder in turn - '5m6g7c', for example.
If your using my example from above, then the person playing does not have the 500 minerals and 125 gas to just que all that stuff up. In my example, the player was constantly clicking 5m every time he had 50 minerals spare, and changing it to a 5c when he wanted a medic. The game would then produce these units in the fastest way possible, meaning his 5 barracks are macroing perfectly. This would be perfect excecution of macro without even having to go near his base.
As for
On December 10 2007 01:39 1esu wrote: Secondly, I view MBS not as reducing the number of problems, but rather as making those problems easier to answer. With MBS, you still have to command (for example) gates to produce goons as soon as you have the resources to do so, leading to macro commands being issued just as frequently as with SBS - the difference is the command is '4d' instead of '4d5d6d7d8d9d0d' or 'click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d'. IMHO, it's more like using your keypad to answer the questions in the above mental exercise instead of clicking the numbers and enter using the mouse.
I agree with you here. You do make the problems easier to answer. The difficulty in SBS is coordinating 5d6d7d8d9d0d not the thought processes of what do I want to build. But coordinating this does tie up your brain, and while you are doing this action, your cognitive abilities are weakend. The better player's brain is better at multitasking this coordination with the other thought processes he needs to be thinking of.
I'd also like to add one more thing, that is not aimed at you 1esu.
To everyone that is saying MBS leaves room for more micro ect. This only occurs if you are in battle. If you are not in battle, there is very little micromanagement that is required of you. People WILL be sitting there doing idling. If they are not in battle, they are aware of what the situation on the map is and it is not an appropriate time to attack. They will have nothing to do but wait for their numbers to build up.
In starcraft currently, when 2 large armys go into battle. Micro becomes much more important. Poor micro in large battles could mean a loss of 80-100 food. Something which having good macro throughout the battle is not going to make up for. When large battles occur in the starcraft proscene, the pros DO switch their emphasis to the battle at hand. They then macro during the battle only when they can spare a few seconds where their micro actions will not be as effective as macro actions. Late game is very macro based, most of the time players are building stuff, but thats because there are no micro actions that are worth doing in comparison to building more units. They are either not in a big battle, or there are no micro actions that the player can perform that will greatly influence the battle. It has very little to do with the fact that it requires lots of actions to macro.
EDIT: Actually I just had a great idea. For anyone who wants to know the required micro in starcraft, go out and play a team melee game. Designate one person as the macroer and one person as the microer. The microer may only perform micro actions and the same for the macroer. Make a rule, no spamming APM, and then go see the Bwchart on the replay.
And the ones that do will lose to the ones that don't... that spend the extra time doing additional scouting, doing additional harassment, rearranging forces, probing the enemy's territory, etc. Of course I have to admit that this is speculative, but you have to admit that the "they will idle" sentiment is also just speculative.
To really tell one way or the other, we need some kind of an experiment. I came up with this last night... I hope Blizzard at least considers doing something like it since they're the only ones in a position to do so.
(In spoiler tags so as not to break anyone's scroll wheel that doesn't want to read...) + Show Spoiler +
Goals:
Broadly, to determine what impact MBS has on competitive gameplay in sc2. Specifically, to see if MBS decreases the skill gaps between strong players and weaker players.
Materials and Methods:
Participants:
30 or so advanced (but not elite) starcraft: brood war players. Take them from ICCUP rankings if possible... making sure to get a range of players from B- to D+. Players would be compensated for their time (although you could probably get them to volunteer).
Procedures:
-Training phase:
Have the players play against each other on sc2 for two weeks, allowing them to develop a familiarity with the game. For the sake of getting the maximum depth out of this training period, all the players should be limited to one race and to playing the mirror matchup only. Both MBS and SBS would be used during this training period (SBS would be performed voluntarily, and by both players in the matchup).
-Experimental phase:
For the first week of the experimental phase, half the players solely play MBS against each other, the other half plays solely SBS against each other. Each player plays every other player at least 10 - 15 times. For the second week, the two groups switch (so if you played SBS matches, you now play with MBS and vice versa. This designed done to account for any order effect). All games are MIRROR MATCHUPS. This is necessary to ensure that any balance issues won't affect the results, and that any balance issues that might changes by changing the UI also don't affect the results.
-Analysis: Each player will have an average win/loss record against every other player for both MBS and SBS. Simply do a 2-tailed t-test on all this data (there will be tons with 30 players) and see whether or not these win/loss records change significantly (p=.05, natch). Or if you want to be more sophisticated, add in the factor of game time and map selection and do it with an ANOVA. You could also record APM if you were curious as to how that would change.
Results:
-If there's no change in the average of the average win/loss records between players, then MBS has not affected the competitiveness of the game. Keep MBS in the game.
-If it increases the skill gap, then someone MBS has somehow created more opportunities for the better players to distinguish themselves. Keep MBS in the game.
-If it decreases the skill gap, then MBS has decreased the available opportunities for better players to distinguish themselves. Remove MBS or add more factors to the game until the skill gaps are back to normal.
Bonus:
You can actually do this in BW right now if you can hack BW to allow for MBS... if those hacks exist (they probably do) this experiment could theoretically be done right now.
And the ones that do will lose to the ones that don't... that spend the extra time doing additional scouting, doing additional harassment, rearranging forces, probing the enemy's territory, etc. Of course I have to admit that this is speculative, but you have to admit that the "they will idle" sentiment is also just speculative.
To really tell one way or the other, we need some kind of an experiment. I came up with this last night... I hope Blizzard at least considers doing something like it since they're the only ones in a position to do so.
(In spoiler tags so as not to break anyone's scroll wheel that doesn't want to read...) + Show Spoiler +
Goals:
Broadly, to determine what impact MBS has on competitive gameplay in sc2. Specifically, to see if MBS decreases the skill gaps between strong players and weaker players.
Materials and Methods:
Participants:
30 or so advanced (but not elite) starcraft: brood war players. Take them from ICCUP rankings if possible... making sure to get a range of players from B- to D+. Players would be compensated for their time (although you could probably get them to volunteer).
Procedures:
-Training phase:
Have the players play against each other on sc2 for two weeks, allowing them to develop a familiarity with the game. For the sake of getting the maximum depth out of this training period, all the players should be limited to one race and to playing the mirror matchup only. Both MBS and SBS would be used during this training period (SBS would be performed voluntarily, and by both players in the matchup).
-Experimental phase:
For the first week of the experimental phase, half the players solely play MBS against each other, the other half plays solely SBS against each other. Each player plays every other player at least 10 - 15 times. For the second week, the two groups switch (so if you played SBS matches, you now play with MBS and vice versa. This designed done to account for any order effect). All games are MIRROR MATCHUPS. This is necessary to ensure that any balance issues won't affect the results, and that any balance issues that might changes by changing the UI also don't affect the results.
-Analysis: Each player will have an average win/loss record against every other player for both MBS and SBS. Simply do a 2-tailed t-test on all this data (there will be tons with 30 players) and see whether or not these win/loss records change significantly (p=.05, natch). Or if you want to be more sophisticated, add in the factor of game time and map selection and do it with an ANOVA. You could also record APM if you were curious as to how that would change.
Results:
-If there's no change in the average of the average win/loss records between players, then MBS has not affected the competitiveness of the game. Keep MBS in the game.
-If it increases the skill gap, then someone MBS has somehow created more opportunities for the better players to distinguish themselves. Keep MBS in the game.
-If it decreases the skill gap, then MBS has decreased the available opportunities for better players to distinguish themselves. Remove MBS or add more factors to the game until the skill gaps are back to normal.
Bonus:
You can actually do this in BW right now if you can hack BW to allow for MBS... if those hacks exist (they probably do) this experiment could theoretically be done right now.
Sigh, someone didnt read my post.
I specifically stated that it is not an appropriate time to attack, this counts for harrassing as well. I specifically stated that the player has adequete knowledge of whats going on in the map, scouting would just result in dead units. As for rearranging forces (the only suggestion you have that I didnt already take into account), thats a rediculously small task to make up for all the time that MBS and Automine will take away.
Please think your posts through, because its really frustrating having to rebut the same poorly thought out arguments over and over again.
As for your perfect way of testing, how bout you suggest something that is viable.
The only way I can think of, would be to play a team melee game in starcraft, but have one person just performing the macro actions that would not exist if MBS and Automine existed.
It's probably correct that players will have less to do when there is no battle, but that doesn't have to mean anything, positive or negative. In SC1, you are constantly busy. In SC2 with MBS, it will be more dynamic. If there's a big battle going on, you will be just as busy as with SC1. If nothing happens, you won't have to do so much. But I doubt that this is a problem. Look at the first 5-7 minutes or so (depending on map and build orders) of SC1, they are often all the same, there's almost nothing to do and many players spam to get their fingers warmed up or to keep a certain APM level all the time. SC2 will provide a faster start due to starting with 6 workers, and then less things to do when the game is running but there is currently no battle situation (and no plan to engage in one, either). As a result, the "spammers" might continue to spam during that time, or you might want to rearrange your troops. This is something that almost never happens in SC1 due to the time you have to spend on macroing all the while. You know, like arranging your zerglings or goons in a row or something like that. People do things like that in SC1 early game when there's not much to do yet, too. Things like that also count as micro, that would be one example of why MBS allows you to spend more time on micro.
On December 10 2007 05:03 Brutalisk wrote: It's probably correct that players will have less to do when there is no battle, but that doesn't have to mean anything, positive or negative. In SC1, you are constantly busy. In SC2 with MBS, it will be more dynamic. If there's a big battle going on, you will be just as busy as with SC1. If nothing happens, you won't have to do so much. But I doubt that this is a problem. Look at the first 5-7 minutes or so (depending on map and build orders) of SC1, they are often all the same, there's almost nothing to do and many players spam to get their fingers warmed up or to keep a certain APM level all the time. SC2 will provide a faster start due to starting with 6 workers, and then less things to do when the game is running but there is currently no battle situation (and no plan to engage in one, either). As a result, the "spammers" might continue to spam during that time, or you might want to rearrange your troops. This is something that almost never happens in SC1 due to the time you have to spend on macroing all the while. You know, like arranging your zerglings or goons in a row or something like that. People do things like that in SC1 early game when there's not much to do yet, too. Things like that also count as micro, that would be one example of why MBS allows you to spend more time on micro.
But that, (in my opinon) goes against what starcraft is all about. Sure in starcraft the first few minutes are pretty boring, but once the game gets going, its an intense experience that never lets up until gg is called.
It sounds like to me the problem with MBS is that it allows you to macro while keeping your focus on the battle. If its simply button smash time that people are complaining about then having tabbed MBS (for early to mid game) is identical to hotkeying buildings, afterall
5m6m7m8m9m0m is the same as 5m-tab-m-tab-m-tab-m-tab-m-tab-m
when it comes to the amount of actions required.
game dominance doesn't depend on the 2-3 seconds to click through your production buildings, it depends on the 10+ seconds you lose when you don't macro to focus on micro. Personally my biggest problem is that i just plain forget to go to my production buildings, and this is something that will happen regardless of MBS or SBS.
I know that MBS easing macro is one of the biggest concerns, but are people concerned about the fact that MBS opens more control groups for units? Or do people generally agree that thats a good thing?
what's your age ? When did you start playing SC (I mean BW, obviously in your case) ? What's your level (please try to stay objective) ?
Maybe you think these questions are irrelevant here ? I would however not risk myself to argue that much if i was not even able to realize why the actual game is still there, and still so great. Indeed, i dont think you can have a clear view on the question if you're a young/beginner.
There's no fucking hope with you guys. If you already want that, i imagine Blizzard would have no remorse to oversimplify it since they'll make more money this way.
Your arguments are still very nice, but answer the damn questions, just for my own curiosity.
This articulates where the difficulty is in SBS macro down very well.
The problems themselves are quite easy. Im sure no-one lost because they didnt know what 15 + 6 is. You lost because the problems started happening faster, and your brain got flooded with lots of simple questions which require relatively no thought on their own, but together, stress out the brain and cause it to faulter.
This is where the difficulty of macro in starcraft is. The tasks themselves are easy, but when you are flooded with them, they put stress on your brain. SBS macro adds stress to your brain while playing. Multitasking macro with something else such as micro actions adds even more pressure. The best players are the ones that can handle the most amount of pressure. The ones that can macro and micro the best when the game is really intense. Prioritising what actions are important is also a very important skill, it ensures that the actions which the brain can process are the ones that are most beneficial to the game.
MBS relieves the pressure on the brain by reducing the amount of problems it has to deal with leaving it less stressful than its predecessor, which is what I personally dont want. I want a game where I come out of feeling like my brain was pushed to the limits coordinating all the actions that were required of me.
Now for people that are arguing that the game is too macro heavy and therefore we should add MBS. Your argument is basically that you wish to remove the need for prioritising actions. Prioritising actions is a very important strategical element. No-one can do everything, but players can choose where they focus the bulk of their actions. Choosing the correct actions to focus on is a good strategical move, and choosing the wrong actions is bad. It sets players apart and is good for competition.
If you want the need for prioritising actions to stay, then your arguing the wrong argument by arguing pro-MBS. MBS will reduce the stress on the brain by all the little actions. If players still have to prioritise, players will prioritise where they can gain the most. If macro is a more important factor, then the game will still end up being a macro war at the end. The only thing that can change the game from a macro game to more of a micro game is a shift in balance. Maybe AOE spells could be made better, so that microing properely is much more rewarding than macroing properely or production buildings could be made more expensive, limiting the effective amounts that you would want to build and increasing the time it takes to mass large armys etc.
Hmmm I'm going to attempt to respond to this in a lot fewer word than i previously would.
First I would say that it is a blind bias to state that since we are pro-MBS we are arguing the WRONG argument. That's just plain bias, you haven't played the game and you've only formed an OPINION on what you want and expect out of a game with endless possibilities of mechanics.
Second the test. While I will not argue that there is no analogy between the faster, more intelligent, skilled player ect ect ect
Instead I would like to point out the differences. You're comparing a routine (for any established player) to an impulsive analysis of data (impulsive may not be a sufficient word, but i'm not going to fret over word choice at this point).
The real thought in this comes from reading your opponent. Lets say it's mid game and you've got 4 Facts. You're on the battlefield fighting your opponent and he shows up with a bunch of wraiths. You've only got tanks and a few vultures at this point, but your armory did finish not long ago.
This is where reading and reacting quick-as-hell matters the most.
with MBS this is a simple 4g with SBS this is a simple 4g5g6g7g Is that really a game deciding factor? The intelligence of this derives from your ability to quickly know how to counter. while sure theres a .5 second difference in queues from 4 to 7. That is not going to break the game, instead you gain .5 seconds to accurately run your tanks and vultures, put up a few turrents, and perhaps use your marines to hold em off until golis pop.
One might argue that the better player knows the order in which to do all of these actions, and the worse player does them in a less efficient order. The differernce has little to do with whether the player pressed 4g5g6g7g or just pressed 44 and mouse macro'd....
and mouse macroing most likely takes about a second longer. We're dealing with <2second operations that take place about every 15 seconds. The real skill is in knowing when to do it.
This does not negate the need to prioritise actions. You obviously want to queue the goliaths as they are the best counter you have at the moment. You obviously want to run your tanks and vultures before they die for no reason. You obviously might want to use a scan to counter his cloak. You obviously might realize those 6 marines 2 screens away are idle. mbs changes the focus not the priorities. It frees up 2 seconds, and the real effects of this freed time aren't even realized unless the game is past a certain point.
Hmmm I could elaborate, and will if asked to. But i think this is obvious.
Thank you for your time.
EDIT: Hmmm I also would ask you, relating back to that link. If a person is quick as hell with those math problems, and can shout out the answers at amazing speeds, but has no idea how to use a keyboard. The slightly slower person who is a master at the numpad rapes him hard. But then this non-keyboard efficient users laughs to himself and goes and gets a mic, and a program to change his voice into text and laughs at the slow archaic keyboard user.... You could relate this to the evolution between SBS and MBS if you like.
what's your age ? When did you start playing SC (I mean BW, obviously in your case) ? What's your level (please try to stay objective) ?
Maybe you think these questions are irrelevant here ? I would however not risk myself to argue that much if i was not even able to realize why the actual game is still there, and still so great. Indeed, i dont think you can have a clear view on the question if you're a young/beginner.
There's no fucking hope with you guys. If you already want that, i imagine Blizzard would have no remorse to oversimplify it since they'll make more money this way.
Your arguments are still very nice, but answer the damn questions, just for my own curiosity.
Though this is off-topic, and I think my arguments speak for themselves without me. I will merit a response.
I am currently 22 years old, I live in Houston Texas, and this is my first step into the TL.net community -- meaning This is the first thread and perhaps the only I've posted in so far. I've been reading the forums inbetween live SC matches (I am fairly nocturnal ) and I am an avid watcher of the MSL, OSL, and Proleagues -- Almost every night... so I must also say WOOT live SC every night in December except the 28th lol.
I STARTED playing Starcraft 2 months after it was released, and BW the day it came out. Unfortunately though, I STOPPED playing starcraft around 2001-2002. I was considered pretty skilled back then, but that's only relative, as that entire skill range is a joke these days. Hmmm I started again perhaps 6-8 weeks ago. I've grown up a lot since then and I am a lot more competitive than I used to be.
The years I played back in the day did gain me a huge understand of the game, and I have not forgotten any of that. But the game has changed a lot. Today I am your average Zerg player. I excel at ZvZ I am decent at ZvP and my ZvT (unless they fuck their timing push up) is terrible. Really though, I have no training partner and this is my biggest problem.
I should note that I was a random player for the 4ish years I did play actively from the point of release. So my understanding of all of the races is fairly extensive.
I like to think my iccup rating would be around a c- if i played enough on there. (speculation)
I hope this is enough to satisfy your curiosity. but I would like to ask -> Don't you think blizzard would make more money from a competitive game that could sweep the western world as it did Korea? Some say it's just a matter of time and the right game, and my arguments only aim to help a lot of the vets realize -> The game is going to change substaintially the counters will all be changing with units, and thus timing, build order, yada yada also changes.... Change isn't bad, and perhaps we should give MBS a chance. WC3 was not a chance @ MBS it was a chance at removing the economy out of an RTS and saying here Take this hero and these items instead.
in regards to your earlier claim that War3 is in fact just as difficult and competitive as starcraft... i think this needs to be rebutted. Every war3 player i have spoken to seems to say Starcraft is more competitive and requires more practice than war3.
Are you aware the winner of the WCG War3 grand finals this year was a player who came back from being inactive only a few weeks before hand? Grubby told me he practices only and hour or two a day and then picks up a bit more a week before a major event. Todd told d4d after an interview that he finds SC much much much more competitive and difficult to master than war3 and he has a great admiration for SC progamers.
I think your making a contradictory argument by saying we need an easy interface in order to have a successful esport game. The game must be hard or the players wont require endless practice and the game itself will be come less impressive.
Hmmm you bring up a good point, that may need clarifying. While, I've made 3 long winded posts each i think contains some reference to warcraft 3 thus I am not sure exactly which comments you are speaking of.
I do however feel that with WC3 containing MBS that a lot of players use an analogy to WC3 a lot where it shouldn't be used. I also feel that you make a good point which I should address. If you feel that what continues within this post contradicts something I said earlier it is possible that I made a mistake, or that I need to articulate more clearly. Either way It makes it easier if /quote is used.
Now if i directly said "Warcraft 3 is in fact just as difficult and competitive as starcraft" I would have been mistaken, and was most likely just trying to say WC3 is a difficult and competitive game.
I was not aware of that Grubby doesn't practice a lot. In all honesty though, this does not surprise me. Why does this not surprise me? Because within Warcraft 3 there is very little that can suprise you. You practice and train in Starcraft not so you can be the fastest 4sd5sd6sd7sd player but rather so you will be prepared for anything. This has to do with hard counters, pace, economy, and macro. Warcraft 3 has less of each of these things, and focuses entirely on micro.
Micro is not something that is easily practiced and is primarily instinctual.
If you talk to a player that has just picked WC3, and they just went 2-40 in WC3... The odds are they have no idea why they lost. Warcraft 3 is prolly just as difficult to the ignorant player as SC is(That same player would prolly go 2-40 in SC too). In Starcraft they can be like wow I just got out produced that's why I lost. In WC3 they're like WTF I have 2x the army he had and he lost 3 units i lost my entire army. That's with some micro too (poor albeit).
I have much more appreciation for Starcraft programer than I do for WC3 progamers, and I also feel that SC is a much better esport and spectator sport.
But those aren't the real points of your post. The real point of your post was:
I think your making a contradictory argument by saying we need an easy interface in order to have a successful esport game. The game must be hard or the players wont require endless practice and the game itself will be come less impressive.
Well first. The primary facet of my argument has nothing to do with the direct simplification of the user interface. This same primary facet of my argument has nothing to do directly with the success or lack of success of the game as a sport.
Obviously the game should be hard so the it requires practice or it will become less impressive.
However, since those aren't my arguments and i have made an attempt to clarify my views of Warcraft 3 you will find that there is no contradiction (and if there is it doesn't negate my point)
I would ask you though. Has Grubby always practiced only 1-2 hours a day or when the game first came out was practicing more? My point is Warcraft 3 is much more predictable than SC and predictability leads to the ability to master. This doesn't have anything to do with the dulling of the user interface, but rather a dulling of the actual mechanics of gameplay. Which I discuss fairly thoroughly in my previous posts.
Sure the metagame in WC3 might evolve. That doesn't mean it's unpredictable. The unpredictability comes from the ability to successfully stray from the metagame. Metagame = The expected set of strategies from a certain set of players and matchups... In WC3 due to the nature of soft counters it's typically more important(than being unpredictable) to get a wider range of units and use each unit to it's maximum potential.
Edit: I wasn't saying that we need an easier interface, but rather I was arguing that an easier interface does not directly yield an easier game with a lower skill ceiling, but rather an easier interface allows more time to focus on the actual game that is present. -- This is the main point in almost every post of mine on this thread -
On December 10 2007 01:39 1esu wrote: To use your marine-medic example from earlier, 5m5c (with five barracks set to 5) will give you 5 marines and 5 queued medics - hardly an optimal distribution or production rate. If you wanted 4 marines and 1 medic per command, then you'd have to shift-click a barrack and hotkey it into another group, thus making it 5m6c. The shift-clicking/hotkey process may seem trivial, but the time investment adds up the more you have to do it. Also, if more diverse unit distributions are rewarded by the design, the macro mechanics become harder in turn - '5m6g7c', for example.
If your using my example from above, then the person playing does not have the 500 minerals and 125 gas to just que all that stuff up. In my example, the player was constantly clicking 5m every time he had 50 minerals spare, and changing it to a 5c when he wanted a medic. The game would then produce these units in the fastest way possible, meaning his 5 barracks are macroing perfectly. This would be perfect excecution of macro without even having to go near his base.
On December 10 2007 01:39 1esu wrote: Secondly, I view MBS not as reducing the number of problems, but rather as making those problems easier to answer. With MBS, you still have to command (for example) gates to produce goons as soon as you have the resources to do so, leading to macro commands being issued just as frequently as with SBS - the difference is the command is '4d' instead of '4d5d6d7d8d9d0d' or 'click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d'. IMHO, it's more like using your keypad to answer the questions in the above mental exercise instead of clicking the numbers and enter using the mouse.
I agree with you here. You do make the problems easier to answer. The difficulty in SBS is coordinating 5d6d7d8d9d0d not the thought processes of what do I want to build. But coordinating this does tie up your brain, and while you are doing this action, your cognitive abilities are weakend. The better player's brain is better at multitasking this coordination with the other thought processes he needs to be thinking of.
I'd also like to add one more thing, that is not aimed at you 1esu.
To everyone that is saying MBS leaves room for more micro ect. This only occurs if you are in battle. If you are not in battle, there is very little micromanagement that is required of you. People WILL be sitting there doing idling. If they are not in battle, they are aware of what the situation on the map is and it is not an appropriate time to attack. They will have nothing to do but wait for their numbers to build up.
In starcraft currently, when 2 large armys go into battle. Micro becomes much more important. Poor micro in large battles could mean a loss of 80-100 food. Something which having good macro throughout the battle is not going to make up for. When large battles occur in the starcraft proscene, the pros DO switch their emphasis to the battle at hand. They then macro during the battle only when they can spare a few seconds where their micro actions will not be as effective as macro actions. Late game is very macro based, most of the time players are building stuff, but thats because there are no micro actions that are worth doing in comparison to building more units. They are either not in a big battle, or there are no micro actions that the player can perform that will greatly influence the battle. It has very little to do with the fact that it requires lots of actions to macro.
EDIT: Actually I just had a great idea. For anyone who wants to know the required micro in starcraft, go out and play a team melee game. Designate one person as the macroer and one person as the microer. The microer may only perform micro actions and the same for the macroer. Make a rule, no spamming APM, and then go see the Bwchart on the replay.
@Fen Hmmm I replied to your first post with the test/puzzle game, and I had not read this post at that time. So now I will discuss some of the things in this post, and hopefully you will read this before replying to my initial reply....
When you say "The difficulty in SBS is coordinating 5d6d7d8d9d0d not the thought processes of what do I want to build. But coordinating this does tie up your brain, and while you are doing this action, your cognitive abilities are weakend."
I have to disagree with this. I would argue instead that it is not that their cognitive abilities are weakened but rather that their ability to prioritize is challenged(you could argue that this is cognition but it's not the point). A lesser player would not even be using 5d6d7d ect so this doesn't really apply to that bracket of player.
A slightly more experienced player may use 5d6d when in that macro mindset, but it's not that their not good enough at running their fingers over the hotkeys as it is they're so busy scrambling that they forget to macro all together.
The pros don't panic when they're forced to scramble to save their own ass. Instead they play it in a routine and have done this enough to know the best way to priotize in order to get this done in the fastest manner. 5d6d7d8d is second nature to them, and so will 5d.... For the lesser player building units while doing 4 other things at once is not second nature, and it won't be regardless of how easy building units while doing 4 other things can be relative to the past.
In the example with the medics and marines - You have a good point that is good macro, and it's mechanically easier to execute on the keyboard. The problem I have with this is that, it's not MBS that made this macro perfect, but rather the players abiltity to monitor his mineral count, prioritize the spending of his minerals, and scale his economy to the number of his producting buildings accurately that makes this macro so beautiful.
This example and the arguments for and against it have led me to believe that more skilled players will be assigning the same building type to multiple hotkeys during the late game. Even the best players in the world can't keep their mineral count down so low at all times. It's perfectly common to want to build more variety of out of your 5 factories than 5 vultures.
I feel most zerg players will end up putting all their hatcheries on more than 1 hot key just for the sake of larva management... You've got 3 hatcheries with 3 larva each (ya ya ya bad macro already) but you don't want to just press 4sd and make 9 drones... Instead you might want to make 3 drones 6 zerglings and 3 Hydras......... Yada yada yada I think you get my point.
The same reason most of you aren't arguing in a thread similar to this one about 150 selection unit cap is because the better players will still use smaller groups.... I'd argue to ask if anyone has realize that this might also be the more viable strategy for the more adept player as well in the case of MBS?
EPT
Theres a reason why he's one of the best of all time. (But i must state that I don't think it's because he's better at SBS than other players. Yet Multitasking in general perhaps)
