On December 14 2007 00:44 Fen wrote: Ok, so we're back at square one again.
The only solid argument that the Pro-MBS players have brought up is that MBS will attract more noobs to the game, meaning there will be higher initial sales.
Its a fair argument that has merit. Blizzard however should realise that if they can make a competative game, it might branch out beyond korea, spawning proleagues around the world. If it did that, im sure game sales would skyrocket far higher than they could possibly go without the competative scenes.
So the question for blizzard is, do they play is safe, and cater to the noobs, resulting in strong sales. Or do they cater for the competative scenes in hope that starcraft 2 becomes an even greater phenomenon that Starcraft 1 did and therefore selling record copies?
No need to be that condescending.
Everyone starts out a "noob" by definition. Now, it is in the interest of both Blizzard and the StarCraft community for StarCraft 2 to be a game which caters to newcomers while simultaneously allowing for the deep and engaging gameplay which is a prerequisite for a sprawling pro scene.
The AMM will certainly help a great deal, making sure both new players and experienced veterans can find evenly matched games within seconds of logging on to Battle.net.
I'm not convinced that by "[...] cater[ing] to the noobs [...]" you have to sacrifice the pro scene, nor do I believe that inclusion of MBS would necessarily lower the skill ceiling of the game. One could argue that the Zerg building style in StarCraft is MBS-ish, since you can select multiple larvae at the same time. One could further argue that the Protoss Warp-in technology breaks MBS in some ways. Thus the ramifications of MBS might not be as apparent as some of you claim.
..and so what if it is? Yes, the gameplay might change. Yes, maybe some other skills will be rewarded. So what? Chances are, it'll still be a highly competitive (and much more accessible) game that most of us will play more than is healthy.
On December 13 2007 21:17 Fuu wrote: I can't believe how far the thread went into the stupid assumptions to manage to justify that shitty UI 'evolution'.
If you dont realize it will reduce the skill gap along 1 MAJOR component of the game, then you're blind, stupid or too young. Now if you think that the 'benefits' of such fucking change can compensate, or better balance, thats your personal (and ignorant) point of view.
We'll have to wait the result to see the failure, i mean not for you, but for the true Starcraft players, not guys coming back from Warcraft 3 or switching addicts. Hopefully, as some of you mentioned, the progaming scene won't be able to be as stupid and base their durability on such futile arguments. We may thus keep a good game for a little more time.
Next time it will be the same fight, except you'll be allowed to fuck up another franchise, so i won't mind so much.
On November 09 2007 10:14 FrozenArbiter wrote: In the words of our beloved longtime moderator, ToKoreaWithLove
The MBS discussion thread
This will be heavily moderated. We will accept no rulebreaking, we will delete posts that don't follow the rules, and we will swing the mean 'ol ban hammer. We will tell you to back off if your clearly don't know what you are talking about. Too harsh? Go somewhere else.
Rules:
3. Be civil. Insult other members in any way and you are gone.
4. Be smart. Think about your own post, check if it has been said before. When replying to someone else's post - make sure you know what his/hers post is about, that you understand it, and that your disagreement, agreement or addition is properly worded and shows your opinion clearly.
5. Constructive criticism. You are allowed to tell other posters that they are wrong. Criticism should be allowed in any discussion, but it should be done nicely, and you are expected to back up your claims.
1. Educate yourself. If you don't know something, find out. Search, read our articles or find out otherwise. Many of our members are knowledgeable, and if they make a point you don't understand, admit your lack of said knowledge and fix it.
too bad most of the people he's attacking didn't obey the 1st rule.
I will come, make 1 civil post, backup my arguments the same way it has always been made, but it doesnt matter since you'll never be able to grasp the point.
Then, after my only post, twenty newbs coming from 'i dont know which forums' will make a new account, answer me on how they think it's not AT ALL dangerous without any serious backup (most of the time they don't even play the game well/at all), and full two complete pages of some impressive arguments like : progamers can last longer this way. My post will be forgotten, and they'll think they have a point.
My reaction is just the futile attempt to wake up all the true lovers of this game against a mass noobification of the title, which will occur, and not only on the MBS aspect. If mods prefer to ban me than the crowd of the sc2 new forumers who've nothing to do with BW, free to them. I will at least understand that my time on this site is over. I still seriously doubt that someone like mensrea would ban me for loosing my nerves after these 29 pages of Mature pro-mbs arguments.
On December 14 2007 11:26 Fuu wrote: I will come, make 1 civil post, backup my arguments the same way it has always been made, but it doesnt matter since you'll never be able to grasp the point.
Then, after my only post, twenty newbs coming from 'i dont know which forums' will make a new account, answer me on how they think it's not AT ALL dangerous without any serious backup (most of the time they don't even play the game well/at all), and full two complete pages of some impressive arguments like : progamers can last longer this way. My post will be forgotten, and they'll think they have a point.
My reaction is just the futile attempt to wake up all the true lovers of this game against a mass noobification of the title, which will occur, and not only on the MBS aspect. If mods prefer to ban me than the crowd of the sc2 new forumers who've nothing to do with BW, free to them. I will at least understand that my time on this site is over. I still seriously doubt that someone like mensrea would ban me for loosing my nerves after these 29 pages of Mature pro-mbs arguments.
Your problem is that you label people that do not agree with you as n00b. That is an incorrect assumption.
I've been playing games for 22 years. I believe I have some kind of insight into what will happen with certain game design decisions.
MBS can make the game a better game than SC1 if the game is balanced so the player is unable to do a perfect game. Why? A game that is easyto pick up but impossible to master. This is done via multiple ways:
Higher food count Faster gameplay Higher multitasking requirements (which may or may not include macro). More options and possibilities for better control, often via special abilities.
Considering the game is in pre-alpha, we have no idea on what they'll use and how they'll do it (they scrapped Zerg because they didn't like it, so they ARE dedicated to making the best game ever). So, without ever seeing the game, nor Blizzard's plans, nor what is in store for the future, map designs (VERY IMPORTANT) or other important stuff, claiming that people disagreeing with you on a single issue are n00bs is very closeminded.
So, while I can understand your frustration, do not claim to be the voice of all the BW fans. Being a BW fan doesn't imply that all games should be exactly the same.
On December 14 2007 11:26 Fuu wrote: I will come, make 1 civil post, backup my arguments the same way it has always been made, but it doesnt matter since you'll never be able to grasp the point.
Then, after my only post, twenty newbs coming from 'i dont know which forums' will make a new account, answer me on how they think it's not AT ALL dangerous without any serious backup (most of the time they don't even play the game well/at all), and full two complete pages of some impressive arguments like : progamers can last longer this way. My post will be forgotten, and they'll think they have a point.
My reaction is just the futile attempt to wake up all the true lovers of this game against a mass noobification of the title, which will occur, and not only on the MBS aspect. If mods prefer to ban me than the crowd of the sc2 new forumers who've nothing to do with BW, free to them. I will at least understand that my time on this site is over. I still seriously doubt that someone like mensrea would ban me for loosing my nerves after these 29 pages of Mature pro-mbs arguments.
Since, you keep labelling others noobs, what "credentials" do you have to show? What about your experience in RTS games in general? You ask for others to reveal their ICCUP rank, but what about yourself? I know Tasteless at least has something to back himself up with when he is debating, but how do I know that you're not some noob spouting off your theory as you claim others are doing.
The fact is that this MBS issue isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Yes, people "grasp" your point, but they may not AGREE with it. Plus, even this post of yours is incredibly immature and unsubstantiated. Your "civil" posts are always massive flamebait and rarely ever civil.
It is telling however that most MBS supporters have not been playing the game much for the past 2-3 years and most are also not part of the TL community until around when SC2 was released. It may not be an universally true label, but it contains merit.
Since, you keep labelling others noobs, what "SC credentials" do you have to show? You ask for others to reveal their ICCUP rank, but what about yourself? How do I know that you're not some noob spouting off your theory as you claim others are doing.
hes right in general. every good/known player who has posted an opinion has been pretty firmly anti-mbs, not a single one has supported mbs. and judging by apparent game knowledge and the fact that no ones ever heard of any of you, pro-mbs people probably arent very good players.
On December 14 2007 11:26 Fuu wrote: I will come, make 1 civil post, backup my arguments the same way it has always been made, but it doesnt matter since you'll never be able to grasp the point.
Then, after my only post, twenty newbs coming from 'i dont know which forums' will make a new account, answer me on how they think it's not AT ALL dangerous without any serious backup (most of the time they don't even play the game well/at all), and full two complete pages of some impressive arguments like : progamers can last longer this way. My post will be forgotten, and they'll think they have a point.
My reaction is just the futile attempt to wake up all the true lovers of this game against a mass noobification of the title, which will occur, and not only on the MBS aspect. If mods prefer to ban me than the crowd of the sc2 new forumers who've nothing to do with BW, free to them. I will at least understand that my time on this site is over. I still seriously doubt that someone like mensrea would ban me for loosing my nerves after these 29 pages of Mature pro-mbs arguments.
Your problem is that you label people that do not agree with you as n00b. That is an incorrect assumption.
I've been playing games for 22 years. I believe I have some kind of insight into what will happen with certain game design decisions.
MBS can make the game a better game than SC1 if the game is balanced so the player is unable to do a perfect game. Why? A game that is easyto pick up but impossible to master. This is done via multiple ways:
Higher food count Faster gameplay Higher multitasking requirements (which may or may not include macro). More options and possibilities for better control, often via special abilities.
Considering the game is in pre-alpha, we have no idea on what they'll use and how they'll do it (they scrapped Zerg because they didn't like it, so they ARE dedicated to making the best game ever). So, without ever seeing the game, nor Blizzard's plans, nor what is in store for the future, map designs (VERY IMPORTANT) or other important stuff, claiming that people disagreeing with you on a single issue are n00bs is very closeminded.
So, while I can understand your frustration, do not claim to be the voice of all the BW fans. Being a BW fan doesn't imply that all games should be exactly the same.
his concern is not really closed minded, go find a pro mbs player and i'll play if the point isn't legitimate enough for you. the concern is there are a bunch of people who are somewhere in the D+ (on iccup) range making bad arguments about a game they don't really understand. the 'ideal' game your talking about is half way contradicted by the 'faster game play' and 'higher multitasking requirements' since your not filling that void with anything--especially not good arguments.
I'll delete the progamer longevity post if people wish it, it was more something I found interesting, and the only real reason its in this thread is that I wanted to provide a situation in which SC and SC2 progaming scenes coexist to each other's mutual benefit. Such a situation counters the presumption that since SC2 will wipe out the SC proscene/community, SC2 should be designed as closely as possible to the BW template in order to eliminate the risk of any lost competitiveness. I admit that I didn't really present it as such, but I was just following a train of thought inspired by Tasteless's comment about handspeed and age, and didn't have the time to better organize my post.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand SC as well as someone who's played it for the last several years; but in my efforts to educate myself in game design, I made sure I played and gained at least a decent understanding of many games from many different genres, and there are certain principles that I've come to recognize from such studies that apply across all genres of games.
One of them is that iterative testing of design principle x to see its consequences is always superior to listening to a focus group's opinions (however qualified) of what x's consequences might be. Thus, I've always argued for allowing MBS to be properly tested in a feature-complete version of SC2 before being judged, preferably on a closed/open beta scale. While the opinions of those who played an internal alpha version of the game at Blizzcon are certainly helpful in terms of identifying possible problem areas, I think everyone can agree that the state of the game is insufficient to judge MBS as good, neutral, or bad. Simply stating that "MBS will ruin SC2" because it "makes macro too easy" or posting pictures of someone driving off a golf tee and someone playing putt-putt doesn't help anyone, and hurts the chances of anyone who has a say in SC2's design taking you seriously. Saying something like "the player no longer is required to constantly return to their base, thus reducing the multitasking required in the lategame to considerably lower levels" helps by pinpointing a negative consequence, thus allowing the design team to concentrate on finding solutions to said consequence.
But what I really don't understand is people with the belief that there is no way MBS can be in a game and still have gameplay as competitive as a game with SBS. There seems to be an underlying conviction among many of the anti-MBS arguments that RTS games must have complex controls in order to have highly competitive gameplay. After all, it would be quite difficult to argue that, given relatively equal competitiveness, an SC2 with MBS would not be superior to an SC2 with SBS, unless you believed that a sufficiently-competitive SC2 with MBS was an oxymoron. Yet there are many examples of games in other genres that have simpler controls than their predecessors yet are as competitive, or even more competitive: for FPSs, we have CS and Painkiller, which both feature easier movement than Quake 3; for racing games, we have Kart Rider, which features much easier controls than PGR3 yet is arguably more competitive; and for fighting games, we have Super Smash Bros. Melee, which is based on a simple direction+force+button system for almost every move and yet is as competitive a game as all of its counterparts in e-sports. With all these examples of games with simple controls and extremely competitive gameplay, what proof is there that an RTS such as SC2 can't have simpler controls and yet maintain a very high level of competitiveness?
There are two arguments that are valid even outside the context of SC and SC2; you could replace the SC-specific terms with others referring to different games and the arguments would work equally well. I could elaborate on another argument about simpler controls allowing for a larger newbie flow, particularly from other genres, and thus a larger competitive community (sorry Fen, but I at least have never cared about initial sales) outside of Korea, since after all, just as not all competitive SC players are WC2 veterans, it follows that not all future competitive SC2 players will be SC veterans; but this post has gone long enough for the time being.
As for "filling the void" concerning solutions to the constructive concerns posed by anti-MBSers, I'll give it a go in my next post, to make up for the progamer longevity diversion.
we will lose a lot unfortunately with the introduction of MBS, like that above. If you refuse to admit that this is a skill initself rather than a simple transition from "4d from "1d2d3d4d5d" or whatever, then you don't appreciate the game one bit.
keep the game old school and let new comers appreciate the beauty!
we will lose a lot unfortunately with the introduction of MBS, like that above. If you refuse to admit that this is a skill initself rather than a simple transition from "4d from "1d2d3d4d5d" or whatever, then you don't appreciate the game one bit.
keep the game old school and let new comers appreciate the beauty!
You're being sarcastic or trolling right? lol.
To assume that since we see little problems with changing the focus of the game, and that since we view a true strategy game not focusing so tightly on APM. If we feel that it shouldn't be such a test of the strategic mind of a player we are obviously just ignorant 5 year olds that just started playing yesterday.
I have yet to see 1 sufficient argument against MBS that argues accurately to why we don't need it. I could argue that we don't need it pretty well (and if you really can't come up with a better argument against MBS, I'll do it for you if you ask even if i'm not against MBS.. COME ON). I'd much rather have a real debate on this subject rather than anti-MBS players just saying "Your noob and don't understand" and pro-MBS people just stating why the feel MBS is necessary and ect ect. I don't agree with the majority of the people's reasons on why MBS is necessary. I however haven't seen 1 sufficient argument to disprove the majority of these sub-par arguments.
BUT in my personal opinion I think the focus of the game shouldn't be a test of -how fast he clicks those barracks- but rather -he clicks those barracks while doing everything else he was doing- This does not mean that I do not appreciate the game whatsoever. There are no grounds for that statement and I'd prefer it if you provided grounds for your statements before you just sound foolish. But perhaps that's why no one cares to provide a true rebuttal to my several pages of arguments and instead just tells me that I'm too young, too inexperienced, or I just don't understand the game. Just plain ignorant bias nonsense.
Provide an argument. Not a video showing how impressive high APM can be, followed by a statement that pretty much correlates to: If you don't think the higher APM that is required the better you're stupid and don't understand the game.
In my opinion "Starcraft 50" would be played without PC, Keyboard, or Mouse. Rather just a helmet which communicates with your brain and your opponent(s) helmet. Completely surpassing physical demands and instead relying on intelligence, creativity, and mental reaction time/awareness....
Should the player with only 5-6 fingers be at such a disadvantage?
Since, you keep labelling others noobs, what "SC credentials" do you have to show? You ask for others to reveal their ICCUP rank, but what about yourself? How do I know that you're not some noob spouting off your theory as you claim others are doing.
hes right in general. every good/known player who has posted an opinion has been pretty firmly anti-mbs, not a single one has supported mbs. and judging by apparent game knowledge and the fact that no ones ever heard of any of you, pro-mbs people probably arent very good players.
There may be some merit in this. But another perspective:
The majority of the Anti-MBS players while being more skilled, this higher skill level has assisted in their development of a bias in which they feel the more change the worse. This correlation these players develop is largely unfounded. A very similar thing happened to the top WCII players when SC came out.
If i was a 350+ APM top korean pro and I saw changes like this implemented into the game. I would be thinking FUCK I MIGHT HAVE TO RELEARN A GAME AND THIS MIGHT AFFECT MY STATUS WITHIN THE PRO COMMUNITY... If you've been raping hard and have become accusstomed to these norms that we see within Starcraft 1 it's pretty obvious you'd be against MBS as you've become very good at SBS and that's just another edge you'd have against another player on Day1.
A player that has spent 9 years perfecting his play obviously doesn't want to start at ground 0 on Day 1. This is obvious. However this is an entirely different subject and may be considered off topic here. I think it should be addressed.
However, I don't think that it provides a sufficient argument against MBS. Change is happening whether you think it's necessary or not. This is the core of the MBS argument on both sides.
I think many of the pro MBS people (including myself) have already played the game back when it came out, so they are to be considered "oldschool" and probably very experienced, although not necessarily high skilled right now. I for one am pretty much inactive since several years, but I still stay up to date with current progaming news/games/VODs and so on. I also know how several top foreigners play.
Someone made a guess that pro MBS people have been around longer in the scene, because they know how the game was played back then, which was pretty much totally different than now. There was less focus on macro, there was beauty in finding out new strategies, build orders and so on. Now, the game is streamlined so much, and mechanics have become such a central part of the game. This might be one of the reasons (not the only one) why some pro MBS people want MBS, not SBS again. Because we've seen the changes in Starcraft and maybe don't really like it so much anymore (but still more than other RTS). We wish that the skill ceiling remains unreachable (which would effectively mean that MBS will NOT "noobify" the game at all), but only that the distribution of micro and macro is changed a little bit. We don't want a game which is essentially not so hard but only made hard because of the UI. We want a game that is hard and complex per se, with the UI being reasonably easy, meaning that there should be no "stupid obstacles" like SBS or 12-unit-selection or only 10 hotkeys.
[drunk post] Ok, Im a very bad golfer. Should I have a say in the design of the next pro course? No!!!! What is annoying a lot of the anti-MBS people, is that it is very clear that a person does not understand starcraft and is then turning around and claiming that their starcraft theorycrafting is right. Starcraft 2 is a sequel to starcraft 1. It should follow in the same lines. If blizzard was going to make an entirely new game, then thats fine. They could have decided to make something else. However they chose to do Starcraft 2. A sequel to a game that is VERY well established. They should be listening closely to the people who play starcraft today. The community which has allowed starcraft to become the collosal game that it is today. And im sorry, but this does not include the Dawn of war pros, or the Warcraft 3 pros. This concerns the competative starcraft gamers. If you dont understand starcraft 1, then your opinon should mean less than someone who does understand it. If your bored of warcraft 3 and want a new game, then by all means, campaign for warcraft 4 and have the changes you want placed in it. Im sure most of the competative starcraft crowd will not fight you over it. However if you want a new game and figure, starcraft 2 looks good, lets make it into what I (a non starcraft 1 player) want, then your going to piss off a large community.
When warcraft 3 came out, im not sure how big the reaction was from starcraft players. Did they turn around and start bashing it for having MBS and Automine? I wasnt around back then, but I dont think they did. Thats because it was a sequel for another game. A game that did not concern them. Starcraft 2 DOES concern them. Starcraft 2 is the sequel to a game that has a very established community that loves the current style of the game. To come in and say, well your all wrong, we dont like your game is just a kick in the face to all those who worship starcraft and have been waiting eagerly for its sequel. To think that a community that is very old would be pushed out of the way for a bunch of people who have very little understanding of the game is infuriating. Blizzard made starcraft, but it is the starcraft community's game. We made starcraft what it is today. We are the ones that make starcraft the number one competative RTS game.
This post is a rant, and im a little drunk so im not sure if it makes a whole lot of sense. It doesnt really argue a point, but hopefully will provide people with an insight as to why there is hostility to the pro-MBS argument from the anti-MBS. If you can come up with an argument why starcraft should not be made for people who are currently playing (that doesnt involve blizzard making profit) then i'd be very interested in hearing it.
If this post turns out to be totally crap, i'll delete it in the morning [/drunk post]
Sometimes, a big change makes a game better. WC3 is probably far better than WC2, although it's radically different, but still it's its sequel. WC2 will be the last popular RTS game with such a crude UI, and SC1 is bound to suffer the same fate. Does this mean that all future RTS will suck? Sometime in the future, we'll maybe have fundamentally different input devices than nowadays. Should an extremely competitvive RTS game then suddenly not be possible anymore?
You should start thinking how to make the game itself challenging enough, without looking at ways to make the UI hard in order to introduce a secondary, "independent" skillset (namely how good you are at manipulating the crude UI and multitasking with it despite the obvious obstacles it has). The UI will always change and adapt to the current input devices. Make the game hard and complex, and the UI just an efficient tool to manipulate what's going on into the game. Do not make the UI "part of the game". That would be the ideal situation, and MBS is one of the steps towards that goal. Yes, gameplay will not be like in SC1, but as long as it still turns out to be extremely competitive, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
On December 15 2007 01:30 Fen wrote: [drunk post] Ok, Im a very bad golfer. Should I have a say in the design of the next pro course? No!!!! What is annoying a lot of the anti-MBS people, is that it is very clear that a person does not understand starcraft and is then turning around and claiming that their starcraft theorycrafting is right. Starcraft 2 is a sequel to starcraft 1. It should follow in the same lines. If blizzard was going to make an entirely new game, then thats fine. They could have decided to make something else. However they chose to do Starcraft 2. A sequel to a game that is VERY well established. They should be listening closely to the people who play starcraft today. The community which has allowed starcraft to become the collosal game that it is today. And im sorry, but this does not include the Dawn of war pros, or the Warcraft 3 pros. This concerns the competative starcraft gamers. If you dont understand starcraft 1, then your opinon should mean less than someone who does understand it. If your bored of warcraft 3 and want a new game, then by all means, campaign for warcraft 4 and have the changes you want placed in it. Im sure most of the competative starcraft crowd will not fight you over it. However if you want a new game and figure, starcraft 2 looks good, lets make it into what I (a non starcraft 1 player) want, then your going to piss off a large community.
When warcraft 3 came out, im not sure how big the reaction was from starcraft players. Did they turn around and start bashing it for having MBS and Automine? I wasnt around back then, but I dont think they did. Thats because it was a sequel for another game. A game that did not concern them. Starcraft 2 DOES concern them. Starcraft 2 is the sequel to a game that has a very established community that loves the current style of the game. To come in and say, well your all wrong, we dont like your game is just a kick in the face to all those who worship starcraft and have been waiting eagerly for its sequel. To think that a community that is very old would be pushed out of the way for a bunch of people who have very little understanding of the game is infuriating. Blizzard made starcraft, but it is the starcraft community's game. We made starcraft what it is today. We are the ones that make starcraft the number one competative RTS game.
This post is a rant, and im a little drunk so im not sure if it makes a whole lot of sense. It doesnt really argue a point, but hopefully will provide people with an insight as to why there is hostility to the pro-MBS argument from the anti-MBS. If you can come up with an argument why starcraft should not be made for people who are currently playing (that doesnt involve blizzard making profit) then i'd be very interested in hearing it.
If this post turns out to be totally crap, i'll delete it in the morning [/drunk post]
lol not a bad post, I agree with the majority of what you say.
However, this does not mean that just because someone is pro-MBS that they are ignorant, inexperienced or wrong. Obviously there are going to be more people for change (MBS) that have not played the game to the extent of the majority of this community compared to those whom are against MBS. This is just an obvious fact about the way bias forms and all that jazz.
As for an argument for why Starcraft should not be made for people who are currently playing....
That's just plain silly. Of course any game should take note of the community that forms within any game when planning a sequal. Should BGH and FPM players get an equal say or do they not qualify even though they still play? Should we form some sort of bias between "real players" and "not real players" I know where the majority of us stand on this. Down with FPM and BGH... Amen... But this should atleast provide a perspective.
Also, Obviously Blizzard should not make the game exclusively for those currently playing. They shouldn't make the game for only new players. Obviously a middle ground has to exist in order for the game to be successful as an e-sport.
Professional Starcraft would not be as impressive if it was the same 15 Pros that originated back in the early 00's. The game has to evolve even without a sequel. The big question is how much evolution and in which direction do we want the game to evolve? A sequel provides an opportunity to direct this evolution hence why this thread even exists.
On December 15 2007 01:59 Brutalisk wrote: Sometimes, a big change makes a game better. WC3 is probably far better than WC2, although it's radically different, but still it's its sequel. WC2 will be the last popular RTS game with such a crude UI, and SC1 is bound to suffer the same fate. Does this mean that all future RTS will suck? Sometime in the future, we'll maybe have fundamentally different input devices than nowadays. Should an extremely competitvive RTS game then suddenly not be possible anymore?
You should start thinking how to make the game itself challenging enough, without looking at ways to make the UI hard in order to introduce a secondary, "independent" skillset (namely how good you are at manipulating the crude UI and multitasking with it despite the obvious obstacles it has). The UI will always change and adapt to the current input devices. Make the game hard and complex, and the UI just an efficient tool to manipulate what's going on into the game. Do not make the UI "part of the game". That would be the ideal situation, and MBS is one of the steps towards that goal. Yes, gameplay will not be like in SC1, but as long as it still turns out to be extremely competitive, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Since, you keep labelling others noobs, what "SC credentials" do you have to show? You ask for others to reveal their ICCUP rank, but what about yourself? How do I know that you're not some noob spouting off your theory as you claim others are doing.
hes right in general. every good/known player who has posted an opinion has been pretty firmly anti-mbs, not a single one has supported mbs. and judging by apparent game knowledge and the fact that no ones ever heard of any of you, pro-mbs people probably arent very good players.
There may be some merit in this. But another perspective:
The majority of the Anti-MBS players while being more skilled, this higher skill level has assisted in their development of a bias in which they feel the more change the worse. This correlation these players develop is largely unfounded. A very similar thing happened to the top WCII players when SC came out.
If i was a 350+ APM top korean pro and I saw changes like this implemented into the game. I would be thinking FUCK I MIGHT HAVE TO RELEARN A GAME AND THIS MIGHT AFFECT MY STATUS WITHIN THE PRO COMMUNITY... If you've been raping hard and have become accusstomed to these norms that we see within Starcraft 1 it's pretty obvious you'd be against MBS as you've become very good at SBS and that's just another edge you'd have against another player on Day1.
A player that has spent 9 years perfecting his play obviously doesn't want to start at ground 0 on Day 1. This is obvious. However this is an entirely different subject and may be considered off topic here. I think it should be addressed.
However, I don't think that it provides a sufficient argument against MBS. Change is happening whether you think it's necessary or not. This is the core of the MBS argument on both sides.
actually it would benefit good non koreans far, far more to have MBS. koreans are so dominant because their multitasking is 2x better than ours. add in MBS and you cut way down on that, allowing top foreigners to be competetive even in the pro scene. keeping manual macro in the game preserves the korean's headstart, but we all still want it anyway just because of the impact it would have on the quality of the game.
and in another post you said that there havent been any valid arguments against mbs. are you retarded or have you just not read any of this or the other threads?
Since, you keep labelling others noobs, what "SC credentials" do you have to show? You ask for others to reveal their ICCUP rank, but what about yourself? How do I know that you're not some noob spouting off your theory as you claim others are doing.
hes right in general. every good/known player who has posted an opinion has been pretty firmly anti-mbs, not a single one has supported mbs. and judging by apparent game knowledge and the fact that no ones ever heard of any of you, pro-mbs people probably arent very good players.
There may be some merit in this. But another perspective:
The majority of the Anti-MBS players while being more skilled, this higher skill level has assisted in their development of a bias in which they feel the more change the worse. This correlation these players develop is largely unfounded. A very similar thing happened to the top WCII players when SC came out.
If i was a 350+ APM top korean pro and I saw changes like this implemented into the game. I would be thinking FUCK I MIGHT HAVE TO RELEARN A GAME AND THIS MIGHT AFFECT MY STATUS WITHIN THE PRO COMMUNITY... If you've been raping hard and have become accusstomed to these norms that we see within Starcraft 1 it's pretty obvious you'd be against MBS as you've become very good at SBS and that's just another edge you'd have against another player on Day1.
A player that has spent 9 years perfecting his play obviously doesn't want to start at ground 0 on Day 1. This is obvious. However this is an entirely different subject and may be considered off topic here. I think it should be addressed.
However, I don't think that it provides a sufficient argument against MBS. Change is happening whether you think it's necessary or not. This is the core of the MBS argument on both sides.
actually it would benefit good non koreans far, far more to have MBS. koreans are so dominant because their multitasking is 2x better than ours. add in MBS and you cut way down on that, allowing top foreigners to be competetive even in the pro scene. keeping manual macro in the game preserves the korean's headstart, but we all still want it anyway just because of the impact it would have on the quality of the game.
and in another post you said that there havent been any valid arguments against mbs. are you retarded or have you just not read any of this or the other threads?
ROFL first. Your post is 95% speculation.
actually it would benefit good non koreans far, far more to have MBS.
Evidence to support this argument?
koreans are so dominant because their multitasking is 2x better than ours.
Please provide sufficient evidence that it is multitasking in which they are superior and not simply training regime and culture. (if your arguing that superior training ect leads to better multitasking, That is what you should say, but still yet please provide some evidence for this)
keeping manual macro in the game preserves the korean's headstart
While this is still speculation, I do mildly agree. However I'd like to see you provide any concrete evidence for this.
and in another post you said that there havent been any valid arguments against mbs. are you retarded or have you just not read any of this or the other threads?
LOL Have you read my numerous posts in this thread? Didn't think so.
Please provide 1 (Or even 2) arguments that are against MBS that I can't invalidate on some level. Please. (to make this less redundunt for both of us, I would recommend reading my multi-page arguments that start on page 25 and continue to this page.[My arguments are not infallible and since I'm clearly a retarded n00b and your such a gosu genius it shouldn't be too hard. LOL])
However even if there were 500 arguments that were valid and against MBS that doesn't mean that MBS is unncessary if the contrasting arguments are stronger.
I don't think i should have to spam the forum guidelines. Please follow them. I think they say something about not just talking out of your ass and backing up your arguments. Please do so.
EDIT: If there is anything in any of my posts you would like me to provide even more support for I will try my best. Just ask me.
EDIT2: I'm also curious as to how adding MBS reduces the overall multitasking if you consider 5sd6sd7sd8sd as one conceptual task. You still have to build units.... Automine directly reduces multitasking because it is a task that you no longer have to do. But Automine isn't what we're talking about... Simply trying to provide more support to my perspective on this particular point.
Also the point of my post was simply to state that Vets will naturally have a bias against change since they have worked very hard for a very long time at coming close to perfection as possible. Anyone who's been struggling at becoming the best at something for 10 years will not normally greet change with open arms. At the same time inexperienced players might greet change a little too willingly. Luckily this thread should have little to do with player skill and more to do with the necessity of MBS. Stating that inexperienced players don't know wtf they're talking about is an unfounded argument considering we're talking about a game everyone is going to have to learn and no one has mastered yet. Sure the past is relative, but that's all it is. Change is happening we should discuss it instead of what the majority of these posts have become consisting of "You're wrong" arguments with no foundation.
EPT
