EPTHis point still stands, regardless of B rank or not.
[D] MBS Discussion - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2752 Posts
His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On November 10 2007 01:08 Chill wrote: I'm MBS indifferent. The thing about Brood War, is there are no barriers to entry; the game is intuitive. The skill ceiling is also remarkably high. This is the ideal game - minutes to learn, a lifetime to master. MBS does make the game more accessible to new players. But it also lowers the skill ceiling. The argument that it encourages more harassment and micromanagement is fine, but in Starcraft you can still play like that WHILE macroing. The point is, between micro, macro and "tactics" (ie. harassment, or even strategy or whatever you want to call overarching game plan) you often often have to sacrifice one even at the highest levels. So what is going to replace that? I think the game is fine being reduced to simply micro and "tactics", but you must see that the skill ceiling is much lower. First off, for new players today BW has a very high barrier to entry. Part of this is due to the fact that most BWers have at least a year of experience on the noob, but it's mostly due to the interface. As you well know BW has two interfaces: the point-and-click interface, and the hotkey-based interface. The former is very intuitive, and is designed for newbies to pick up and be able to play quickly; the latter is designed for experts, and is deliberately difficult to master. However, due to the improved efficiency of the hotkey system virtually no one who plays low-money BW using point-and-click nowadays, thus forcing the new player to learn the unintuitive hotkey-based system right off the bat if they wish to ever win a game. I consider this a pretty significant barrier to entry. Secondly, I agree that MBS, even with new gameplay elements designed around it, will likely lower the physical skill ceiling. However, this lost skill will not drift off into the virtual void, but rather willl transfer to the mental skills, like decision-making speed, game sense and timing. With macro specifically, this would be a shift in importance from unit-producing mechanics to expansion timing, supply timing, etc. I personally believe that mental skills have a much higher skill ceiling than physical skills, so I think this shift from physically-dominant to mentally-dominant will be good for SC2. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote: Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no? On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote: As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense. On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well. His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not. I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive. If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
SBSers don't want MBS it's not as challenging and fun. MBSers want MBS because they feel SBS is a limitation. As HonestTea already stated, limitation is a basis for competition. SBS keeps the frantic pace and balance of BW intact. The addition of MBS will shift the entire focus of the game to army management, there is no arguing this. Many so-called new macro techniques will not fill the gap or are not necessarily macro at all. You also have to keep in mind that Blizzard is creating this as a "hardcore" competitive game, and in competition limitation is necessary. We were all new once and understand how SBS can be frustrating (it still is to me, I'm a lazy player), but never once did I think of it as a limitation. It was simply part of the game. Sorry for the choppy writing, I wanted to keep this as concise as possible. | ||
|
teapot
United Kingdom266 Posts
MBS ≠ Macro MBS is like Multiple Unit Selection (MUS) which is ALREADY IN THE GAME. A building is just a stationary unit that takes up more room. Its ability is to make more units. The management of buildings is IDENTICAL to the management of units, hot-keys or control buttons. MBS is an issue concerning the MICROMANAGEMENT of static units (buildings). Please stop referring to MBS as a macro issue. Blizzard are just expanding the same luxury you have of mobile units to static units. If you defend multiple selection for mobile units (and I may as well add hot-key-able control groups here) you should defend it for static units as well. Case closed. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote: I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive. If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it. As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous. As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On November 10 2007 06:24 teapot wrote: MBS = Micro MBS ≠ Macro MBS is like Multiple Unit Selection (MUS) which is ALREADY IN THE GAME. A building is just a stationary unit that takes up more room. Its ability is to make more units. The management of buildings is IDENTICAL to the management of units, hot-keys or control buttons. MBS is an issue concerning the MICROMANAGEMENT of static units (buildings). Please stop referring to MBS as a macro issue. Blizzard are just expanding the same luxury you have of mobile units to static units. If you defend multiple selection for mobile units (and I may as well add hot-key-able control groups here) you should defend it for static units as well. Case closed. I hate arguing definitions but you are very, very wrong. This, I doubt, anyone will argue. Producing units and controlling them are two separate things. There is a reason why you hear about timing so often in BW, it's not timing of when to have your marines dodge lurker spines, it's timing of when to produce or not produce units. One contributes to the flow of the game and one essentially is the flow of the game. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On November 10 2007 06:24 teapot wrote: MBS = Micro MBS ≠ Macro MBS is like Multiple Unit Selection (MUS) which is ALREADY IN THE GAME. A building is just a stationary unit that takes up more room. Its ability is to make more units. The management of buildings is IDENTICAL to the management of units, hot-keys or control buttons. MBS is an issue concerning the MICROMANAGEMENT of static units (buildings). Please stop referring to MBS as a macro issue. Blizzard are just expanding the same luxury you have of mobile units to static units. If you defend multiple selection for mobile units (and I may as well add hot-key-able control groups here) you should defend it for static units as well. Case closed. On November 09 2007 10:08 thedeadhaji wrote: # Educate yourself. If you don't know something, find out. Search, read our articles, or find out otherwise. Read the official Blizzard website and announcements. Questions that could have been answered through your own research and time input will be met with a cold shoulder, at best. 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. # Be smart. Think about your own post: does it add to the discussion, has it has been said before. Redundant content is worse than old fashioned spam, in that it demands more from the moderation staff. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On November 09 2007 21:06 Aesop wrote: Once more, more condensed: 1) MBS is not the only aspect involved in what is commonly called "macro-management". This should be noted above all. Ok. What are the other aspects of macro, and why can't I do them like a progamer? | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
| ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2752 Posts
On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote: As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous. As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence. Isn't that a little absurd though? This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second? Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive? I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle. But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast. SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking. Just some thougths. Edit: Ban bumatlarge please. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On November 10 2007 05:16 1esu wrote: Secondly, I agree that MBS, even with new gameplay elements designed around it, will likely lower the physical skill ceiling. However, this lost skill will not drift off into the virtual void, but rather willl transfer to the mental skills, like decision-making speed, game sense and timing. With macro specifically, this would be a shift in importance from unit-producing mechanics to expansion timing, supply timing, etc. I personally believe that mental skills have a much higher skill ceiling than physical skills, so I think this shift from physically-dominant to mentally-dominant will be good for SC2. I can learn decision making, timing, expansion timing, supply timing from watching replays. Its not really an effective barrier between me and a progamer | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Isn't that a little absurd though? This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second? Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive? I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle. But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast. SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking. Just some thougths. Edit: Ban bumatlarge please. This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition. That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
 Your ID seems a little familiar too, which given how old school you are, isn't that surprising.I don't want to respond to all of your post right now so I'll just pick a couple of things, and perhaps get back to it later: What I see now, is an enormous amount of players who desire to have SC2 use the EXACT SAME SKILLSET as SC1 required. To which I issue this question: why? I wouldn't want that. Especially since one of the main skills of SC1 domination is to be able to overcome the interface. How boring a skill is that? Learning funnier skills like "Crazy stalker Blink harass" sounds seriously more fun, and don't say it's because I don't like challenges. I love 'em. The thing is awesome stalker blink harass (having stalker vs stalker battles in which I can blink away the unit being focused upon is a dream I've been nursing ever since the SC2 announcment) is still possible without MBS.. SC2 doesn't have to have an identical skillset, but I'd like it to keep the balance between micro and macro, since I love having to zip back and forth between my army and my main. Note that I used the term MBS a bit less because I believe it's a small concern compared to the ability to Hotkey an infinite amount of units at once, for example, since MBS will do nothing to help you build a balanced army, or keep a good economy if you can't handle everything. I think you will find that the resistance towards smartcasting and unlimited unit selection is significantly less widespread around here, than it is for MBS. I'm pretty much of the opinion that neither of the above UI improvements are going to hurt the micro/macro balance, and therefore I don't mind them. Now, I am also of the opinion that bashing a game mechanic without experiencing it first is quite surprising, as we do not know except by hearsay what it's like to play with it, and what changes it brings. I doubt SC2's advanced control scheme breaks the game, as the game will obviously be balanced around it. As you might be aware, quite a few members from these forums played the game at Blizzcon, and while I think they unanimously (as far as I know) agreed that it's a very fun game to play, pretty much all of them felt the macro had been simplified too much. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote: I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. I don't think this is true of most MBSers, except a few who are wannabe pros. I think most of them instead believe spending time on micro, tactics, multi-front battles, harassment, etc is more fun than clicking the same building repeatedly. It's not that they want to be more highly skilled than they legitimately should be, it's just that they prefer a game that emphasizes and rewards that style of play. I think this is key to understanding their point of view. The best analogy that's been given to illustrate this so far is the organ vs. piano (although still not perfect). The organ takes far greater technical skill to play than the piano, but both instruments are capable of producing beautiful music. However, the simplicity and ease of learning the piano has led to its massive popularity over the organ (even at the professional level). | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2752 Posts
On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote: This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition. That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game. Because it's a strategy game and not a clicking simulator? I'd have no problem at all if APM was a deciding factor. In high level play. As if you wanted to be in the top 20 % or so you should need top skills in everything. I also have no problem with fast playing being a skill that can make up for other things at lower play. Obviously an insanely fast player can multitask the hell out of me even though his play is sloppy. I just don't think it should be *the* deciding factor for casual gamers. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On November 10 2007 07:28 teamsolid wrote: I don't think this is true of most MBSers, except a few who are wannabe pros. I think most of them instead believe spending time on micro, tactics, multi-front battles, harassment, etc is more fun than clicking the same building repeatedly. It's not that they want to be more highly skilled than they legitimately should be, it's just that they prefer a game that emphasizes and rewards that style of play. I think this is key to understanding their point of view. This is a good point, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions. Though you must admit, one of the key arguments is that SBS limits the player, which is somewhat synonymous with being too lazy to practice. However, asking SC2 to be micro oriented is like asking WC4 to be macro oriented. Balance between macro and micro has always been a key characteristic of the SC franchise. It might lean a little towards macro 40/60 but still the point stands. Go to a WC forum and ask that their sequel be more economy and macro oriented and they'll tell you to play SC, come here and ask for a micro oriented game, we'll tell you to play WC. Not out of spitefulness or anger, but because these are the defining styles of both games. | ||
| ||
