[D] MBS Discussion - Page 30
Forum Index > Closed |
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
I am going to state my arguments for why I think MBS should not go into the game. If you have read the my more lengthy posts you might note that I have typically leaned towards the MBS side while trying to maintain a sort of neutral perspective. I am not the most gosu player and my perspective on some aspects of the game could very well be lacking. I however would challenge anyone to provide a sufficiently well articulated argument stating why a C- player doesn't understand the repercussions of MBS. Not that it's totally relevant I've just seen this tossed around in this thread with no real support. Sure a B+ player understands the game better than the C- player but the effects of MBS don't affect the majority of the game, and at this point in game production we cannot be 100% of the effects of MBS or how well SC1 player skill will correlate (this is irrelevant i know). Anyway. SBS is a test of manual dexterity smashed in between reaction time, instinct and routine all of which are maintained by some level of multitasking. The implementation of MBS reduces the strain on the player to maintain a 1 million mile per hour mindset and also reduces the correlation between skill and APM. One could argue that by removing SBS they are removing some of the strain of multitasking as it is certainly sufficiently easier to perform 3 keystrokes in under a second than it is 10. Many consider this a very important aspect to the game of starcraft. Starcraft is not just a test of the strategic mind of the player, but also of conditioning/training, hand speed, reaction time, and the ability to juggle multiple tasks. Some players have shown concern that with MBS they are freeing up several seconds here and there where the player may end up being idle. While I do not agree with the majority of these speculations as I feel that the true repercussions of MBS are witnessed in the late game when a player has far too many buildings to hot key properly. At this point in the game most players hotkey their most important buildings and continue to build out of them while "mouse macroing" out of the other buildings as needed. MBS greatly reduces difficulty of managing over 8 unit production buildings (I haven't seen any players that assign buildings to 1 through 0 100%) The ease of this mass management of buildings in the late game has profound changes on the way macro is handled. It also narrows the (currently fairly wide) gap between the "macro mindset" player and the "micro mindset" player. Many people argue (well really i'm the first that i've seen lmao ) that by reducing the difficulty of efficiently producing units out of a number of buildings that are currently not all hotkeyable simultaniously we are reducing the skill ceiling and reducing the gap between the gosu and the cho-gosu. There are also the repercussions of narrowing the gap between micro based and macro based players. That's the best I can do off the top of my head with no prep. I am simply asking all of you that are for MBS to understand this perspective and how important it may or may not be to e-sports. I am simply asking all of you that are against MBS to read my posts previously and perhaps even use my arguments here to counter my arguments on page 25,26,27. All of my posts only exist because the majority of the people within this thread on both sides have done a terrible job at articulating their sides considering we are now on page 30 with absolutely no progress. This post was an attempt at acting as a catalyst for worthy discussion and progress on this topic, If you are a vet and feel I am misunderstanding a concept please correct me or elaborate upon what i've said. Can we please leave the petty skill level nonsense aside and just articulate ourselves well enough so that what we say means only what we mean it to say and that what we mean it to say conveys what we truely think. \ Down with ignorant posts and down with flaming ignorant posts. Up with well articulated non-bias arguments. Thank you Motiva | ||
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
First, the removal of negative feedback from having many production facilities. Currently a player with more resources, bases, and factories will begin to play sloppier, simply becuase he has more to manage. This gives his opponent a chance to come back, since with fewer production facilities and bases, he has less to manage, allowing him to macro more effeciently and possibly harass. With MBS, it seems that a player who takes the advantage will be able to continue to pour out a perfect stream of reinforcements: always more than his opponent. The only way out is micro, and micro can really only get you so far facing a much superior army. No longer can a player be able to build himself out of a bad situation and I find that sad. Second (a lesser point), if multiple fronts of battle is to be the replacement for hard macro, how does the game remain as easy to watch (i.e. it's hard to focus on multiple battles) To Anti-MBS folks, I have a challenge: name me a game that succeeded as an E-sport by listening to the desires of old-schoolers. CS:Source failed miserably due to straying from it's original form, but until Promod succeeds (if indeed it ever comes out), that doesn't really fit my criteria. Desire to create a succesful E-Sport and obeying the whims of the current hardcore crowd are two different things. | ||
Brutalisk
794 Posts
But the problem with this is not that this means that MBS will destroy the competitiveness of SC2. The problem is that we've already discussed a long time ago that MBS on top of SC1 cannnot work. The game has to be changed slightly, balanced for the use of MBS. In other words: the game must be more complex to play than SC1 is, so that there's a lot of room for improvement and that it's still impossible to master. SC1 with MBS, as it is, would probably be possible to master. But it's Blizzard's job to introduce a better UI and make the gameplay itself better in return. SC1's high competitiveness is more or less directly tied to its hard UI. The anti MBS people like to show that only with a hard UI can a game be very competitive. But in my opinion, and the opinion of others, that must be broken, so that the game itself becomes at least as competitive. That's the better solution, and it would probably increase the gaming experience for newbs, pros and spectators alike. Because there will be more spectacular actions in the game than is possible or viable in SC1. But that's an old argument. It just shows how we're going circles again and again. | ||
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On December 15 2007 06:45 Brutalisk wrote: @Motiva: No, Idra has a point there, but this is only because SC1 on the very highest levels of play is mostly, like 75% roughly estimated, about mechanics. The Koreans are exactly dominant because they train much more, train much more mechanics, have far higher APMs (starting from 250 until up to 500 or 600) and so on. Strategy-wise, they are top notch, they know the game inside-out, they know every counter and every viable strategy. So the deciding factor is multitasking, or in other words: mechanics (macro and micro mechanics). But the problem with this is not that this means MBS will destroy the competitiveness. The problem is that we've already discussed a long time ago that MBS on top of SC1 cannnot work. The game has to be changed slightly, balanced for the use of MBS. In other words: the game must be more complex to play than SC1 is, so that there's a lot of room for improvement and that it's still impossible to master. SC1 with MBS, as it is, would probably be possible to master. But it's Blizzard's job to introduce a better UI and make the gameplay itself better in return. But that's an old argument. It just shows how we're going circles again and again. Hmmm I can agree with the first half of your post with the exception of how you jump from mechanics and training relating to multitasking. I'm not sure I follow you there as you can see different levels of mechanics abuse, strategy efficiency and all of this within the pro gaming scene. I don't understand how this makes the deciding factor suddenly multitasking (I am not disagreeing simply asking for a better articulation on this) I view multitasking as a mechanic of the brain which all humans possess and can certainly be trained itself, and thus some players will be better at multitasking within a certain set of parameters better than other players (You could argue that this is part of their training, but everything I've seen leaves me to believe that they do not actually directly train multitasking itself, but that some of their training methodologies my help improve multitaking). Also if they knew every viable strategy the metagame would not evolve and their would be little room for evolution within the game. Viable strategies change as the average strategy changes ect. Also. I would like to see any evidence what so ever as to how SC1 on top of MBS would not work and would make the game in any way masterable (we are talking about maintaining the 12 unit selection cap ect ect ect) I would say that there will always be room for improvement within SC1 because of the metagame and the innate number of mistakes the occur every game that makes it to the late game. If possible I would ask you to reiterate why MBS would break SC1, or atleast point me in the direction of that discussion. I am interested.... I didn't disagree with everything IdrA said, but even a lot of what he said that I agree with on some level has no real evidence behind it. If the logic behind why SC1 with MBS would ruin SC1 is sufficient. I am willing to retract some of my statements as wrong -- (It would obviously ruin the current metagame and introduce changes into the game... I'm talking about how it would make the game masterable and all that jazz -- and please leave wc3 out of this logic as it is not a good example of the repercussion of MBS within SC1) And yes, this discussion is going in circles, so I've begun attempting to argue both sides (as I state in my original post on pg25, I am not truly against either method as I am profiecent enough in SBS to have a good start, and I am also willing to try change, as while as skill or apm intensive as you can argue SBS. We haven't seen the effects of it within this brand new game which none of us have played enough to have a formed a real opinion on the matter without some shade of ignorance.) | ||
liosama
Australia843 Posts
I'm not going to try go into some physiological aspects of the brain to try prove wether or not no-MBS uses more or less 'brain power' or whatever. I think that is overkill. 'Aim' in starcraft is a 'skill' in the same sense that aim in a first person shooter (CS or quake world or quake 3 CPMA/ other professional e-sport orientated games are). Clicking on a building and building a unit at insane speeds such as the one i mentioned isn't something a newb can pick up in a few days. I'm a crap starcraft player and I'm not old school either, many times in game I build 2 units from one gate and the other has 3 queued up with all the rest having 1 queued and one has nothing in queue. Then I switch over to my micro and such and such happens. Perfecting building selection and building a unit is something which, call it mechanics or whatever you have to, it is a skill that is spectator friendly AND challenging to the actual player. It's not about the concept of building something, its about the mechanical aspect of making sure that each one of your buildings is building something. And as you have mentioned auto-mine, I may as well give my input on this. I really can't come up with a 'valid argument' as to why there should be no auto-mine other than to say for similar reasons as to why there should be no MBS, there should be no auto-mine, leave that shit for WC3, and have SC have the same physics, same mechanics, same macro/micro balance as it had in SC1. I don't think the game has to be changed 'slighty' to work with mbs. Just remove MBS and keep the game as is. A change in physics, and mechanics happened to CS to make CS:S (inevitable though) and what happened to the whole cs community? they all jumped back to 1.6 and now they're all waiting for the promod which I personally believe is horrid after all the talk on it. And as for the whole WC2 to WC3 transition, WC2 when it was made came into a world where the word e-sport didn't exist, same for starcraft (which improved a lot from WC2), but it introduced that word (or maybe it was quake-world?). But now that 'e-sport' is already here, and WC3 set its scene, and SC1 has its scene, there is no need to 'modify' SC1 mulityplayer as an 'upgrade' step in the same sense that WC3 went from SC1. Single player I understand but that is not our discussion. No 'argument' can make me change your mind to become 'anti-mbs', the way I see it, it is a binary process, you like mbs, I don't. | ||
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
IdrA and Tasteless have more credibility than some of you ever will yet you continue to pick a fight with them. Major props to Tasteless for taking control of this discussion. Your shoutcasting has definitely helped you articulate yourself better. Good job! I cannot believe he hasn't lost his head yet. Why isn't he a forum mod? There are a few things I could add, but I'm way to lazy to do so. Ah, fuck it. I better contribute unlike those who have the inherent ability to talk out of their ass. Since I decided to post this I might as well expand. This thread is like watching a cat chase it's own tail. It gets old very fast. Back on topic: A team of Korean Pro Gamers will start testing the game before beta. Their input will be essential. So stop the presses; stop the speculation; stop bickering. There WILL be many changes. Be patient, we'll find out in good time. As I said let them do their jobs. I'm exhausted. This topic is exhausted. It needs some rest. Let it go. I'll finish off on this note: There is more than enough empirical evidence to support some of Idra's claims. The guy might fail to explain all the variables in which factor into his diagnosis, but he has strong merit. Anyone who has played this game for over 6+++ years and have followed the pro gaming scene from the beginning would know this. Drop your biases. Many of us have played many other games as well. The reason we come back to BW is no other RTS is like it. I rather not explain that in greater detail though. Again, exhausted. There is nothing wrong with the current UI; many of the bugs and glitches have been fixed so there really is no need to modify it as it stands. For a sequel? Sure, but I would only make a few modifications myself. The UI isn't outdated and it isn't old. That is complete nonsense. There are very few games that have lasted as long as SC:BW. It is right up there with Chess. Sure, we want something new and innovative only if it has substance. This isn't even alpha. Think of it as a funnel effect. You start off with something really broad like MBS where the player is able to group anything and everything and then you scale it down afterwards. This is basic programming. So take everything you hear with a grain of salt. It in itself has no substance yet. Wait 6-8 months and you'll see some major tweaking, but right now they're trying to balance all the units out (truly one of the hardest things to do). The ability to multi-task and know your keyboard is a skill. If you can recall, neurologists have studied such players like Xellos to see where their brain activity lies while playing the game. Watch the WCG documentary to see what I'm talking about and you'll find out more for yourself: + Show Spoiler + They play instinctively based on the flow of the game. The best players don't need any more time to think about what to do. It comes naturally to them. Yes, MBS could help those who are slower, but then we would have to question the dynamics of the game. If you look at the recent results in the OSL/MSL/Pro League you will notice there are many mediocre pro gamers: some have great micro and no macro while the others have great mechanics, but lack the micro. In order to become the best you need both. Obviously we need to change some elements, but their should still be some rules in place to limit the player's control. Study the Pro Gaming scene in chronological order and look at the bonjwas. Look at their eras and how they changed the game/play style. Human beings are limited and the BW UI is so diverse and as a result we get huge variances between every era. The game has come a long way from the old school eras. Now players have to spend 12-18 hours a day just to hold a spot in the top 10-30 of KESPA. /end rant | ||
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On December 15 2007 07:43 liosama wrote: No motiva i was actually serious, not being sarcastic nor trolling. I'm not going to try go into some physiological aspects of the brain to try prove wether or not no-MBS uses more or less 'brain power' or whatever. I think that is overkill. 'Aim' in starcraft is a 'skill' in the same sense that aim in a first person shooter (CS or quake world or quake 3 CPMA/ other professional e-sport orientated games are). Clicking on a building and building a unit at insane speeds such as the one i mentioned isn't something a newb can pick up in a few days. I'm a crap starcraft player and I'm not old school either, many times in game I build 2 units from one gate and the other has 3 queued up with all the rest having 1 queued and one has nothing in queue. Then I switch over to my micro and such and such happens. Perfecting building selection and building a unit is something which, call it mechanics or whatever you have to, it is a skill that is spectator friendly AND challenging to the actual player. It's not about the concept of building something, its about the mechanical aspect of making sure that each one of your buildings is building something. And as you have mentioned auto-mine, I may as well give my input on this. I really can't come up with a 'valid argument' as to why there should be no auto-mine other than to say for similar reasons as to why there should be no MBS, there should be no auto-mine, leave that shit for WC3, and have SC have the same physics, same mechanics, same macro/micro balance as it had in SC1. I don't think the game has to be changed 'slighty' to work with mbs. Just remove MBS and keep the game as is. A change in physics, and mechanics happened to CS to make CS:S (inevitable though) and what happened to the whole cs community? they all jumped back to 1.6 and now they're all waiting for the promod which I personally believe is horrid after all the talk on it. And as for the whole WC2 to WC3 transition, WC2 when it was made came into a world where the word e-sport didn't exist, same for starcraft (which improved a lot from WC2), but it introduced that word (or maybe it was quake-world?). But now that 'e-sport' is already here, and WC3 set its scene, and SC1 has its scene, there is no need to 'modify' SC1 mulityplayer as an 'upgrade' step in the same sense that WC3 went from SC1. Single player I understand but that is not our discussion. No 'argument' can make me change your mind to become 'anti-mbs', the way I see it, it is a binary process, you like mbs, I don't. Actually I don't disagree with the majority of your statements and as for MBS i can go either way. I simply think people are writting MBS off as noobafying the game without any real substance. Yes that macro/apm in that video is very impressive. That doesn't mean it's necessary to Starcraft 2. There are countless aspects of the game that a player could find beautiful ect That doesn't mean they are essential to the game. The real problem I had with your argument was the statement that you simply showed a video of some impressive macro and not in exact words said If you don't appreciate this you don't appreciate the game. That is an absurd statement. That is all. This thread is getting alittle redundant. but whatever. As for persuading me towards being anti-mbs... I have reasons why I disagree with the implementation of MBS... My reasons are stated on page 30 above this post. I also have no problem with the idea and implementation and then further testing of MBS within Starcraft. My previous posts state these arguments. | ||
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On December 15 2007 07:57 Showtime! wrote: Oh for God's sake, IdrA and Tasteless have more credibility than some of you ever will yet you continue to pick a fight with them. Major props to Tasteless for taking control of this discussion. Your shoutcasting has definitely helped you articulate yourself better. Good job! I cannot believe he hasn't lost his head yet. Why isn't he a forum mod? There are a few things I could add, but I'm way to lazy to do so. Ah, fuck it. I better contribute unlike those who have the inherent ability to talk out of their ass. Since I decided to post this I might as well expand. This thread is like watching a cat chase it's own tail. It gets old very fast. Back on topic: A team of Korean Pro Gamers will start testing the game before beta. Their input will be essential. So stop the presses; stop the speculation; stop bickering. There WILL be many changes. Be patient, we'll find out in good time. As I said let them do their jobs. I'm exhausted. This topic is exhausted. It needs some rest. Let it go. I'll finish off on this note: There is more than enough empirical evidence to support some of Idra's claims. The guy might fail to explain all the variables in which factor into his diagnosis, but he has strong merit. Anyone who has played this game for over 6+++ years and have followed the pro gaming scene from the beginning would know this. Drop your biases. Many of us have played many other games as well. The reason we come back to BW is no other RTS is like it. I rather not explain that in greater detail though. Again, exhausted. There is nothing wrong with the current UI; many of the bugs and glitches have been fixed so there really is no need to modify it as it stands. For a sequel? Sure, but I would only make a few modifications myself. The UI isn't outdated and it isn't old. That is complete nonsense. There are very few games that have lasted as long as SC:BW. It is right up there with Chess. Sure, we want something new and innovative only if it has substance. This isn't even alpha. Think of it as a funnel effect. You start off with something really broad like MBS where the player is able to group anything and everything and then you scale it down afterwards. This is basic programming. So take everything you hear with a grain of salt. It in itself has no substance yet. Wait 6-8 months and you'll see some major tweaking, but right now they're trying to balance all the units out (truly one of the hardest things to do). The ability to multi-task and know your keyboard is a skill. If you can recall, neurologists have studied such players like Xellos to see where their brain activity lies while playing the game. Watch the WCG documentary to see what I'm talking about and you'll find out more for yourself: + Show Spoiler + They play instinctively based on the flow of the game. The best players don't need any more time to think about what to do. It comes naturally to them. Yes, MBS could help those who are slower, but then we would have to question the dynamics of the game. If you look at the recent results in the OSL/MSL/Pro League you will notice there are many mediocre pro gamers: some have great micro and no macro while the others have great mechanics, but lack the micro. In order to become the best you need both. Obviously we need to change some elements, but their should still be some rules in place to limit the player's control. Study the Pro Gaming scene in chronological order and look at the bonjwas. Look at their eras and how they changed the game/play style. Human beings are limited and the BW UI is so diverse and as a result we get huge variances between every era. The game has come a long way from the old school eras. Now players have to spend 12-18 hours a day just to hold a spot in the top 10-30 of KESPA. /end rant I wasn't aware that disagreeing on a controversial topic was picking a fight. I am very aware of the credibility of Tasteless and IdrA. I have a lot of respect for both of their works and admire a lot of what they do. This does not mean that they are infallible and that I am doing wrong by disagreeing with them on a topic. If they think I am not being respectful, then my apologies that was not my intention -- they however have said nothing of the sort... Now as for the rest of your post.... I must say that I agree with just about everything you say. If i had to nitpick (of which i do not expect a response as you are indeed exhausted and this thread is indeed worn out) 1)+ Show Spoiler + A team of Korean Pro Gamers will start testing the game before beta. Their input will be essential. So stop the presses; stop the speculation; stop bickering. There WILL be many changes. Be patient, we'll find out in good time. As I said let them do their jobs. On the same tangent of thought -- I am simply saying that the majority of the players in this thread against MBS should -also- drop their biases and acknowledge the possibility of different dynamics within the game. without naming any specifics within these respective games... Look at the difference between WC1, WC2, WC3... WC2 just improved upon the first and this included some UI enchancments. WC3 ran in a new direction with the game. I think -everyone- here is not looking for an insanely radical change like in WC2 to WC3 but more of a change like WC1 to WC2. 2) + Show Spoiler + They play instinctively based on the flow of the game. The best players don't need any more time to think about what to do. It comes naturally to them. Yes, MBS could help those who are slower, but then we would have to question the dynamics of the game. Here i simply feel the need to state two things. First the best players don't need anymore time hence the effects of MBS are less severe and hardly lower the true skill ceiling. and Second... Isn't the whole point of the sequel to question some of the dynamics of the game in order to attempt to find ways to improve the game? I certainly hope we aren't all going to switch over to SC2 just because of the graphics. | ||
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
| ||
Brutalisk
794 Posts
On December 15 2007 07:57 Showtime! wrote: Oh for God's sake, IdrA and Tasteless have more credibility than some of you ever will yet you continue to pick a fight with them. [...] Ok, cool, so they are right, by default. End of discussion. Do not post any more. Why the hell is this thread so long? Do not contribute new ideas. Do not imagine new/alternate gameplay. Do not do anything, just keep on playing SC1. Hope that Blizzard re-releases SC1 just with a 2 written all over it. If not, mimic the WC2 hardcore crowd and call all SC2 players noobs forever after. Witness how your community shrinks all the time and is soon forgotten. The end. A good plan. After all, SC1 = perfect, and perfect is perfect, so SC2 can't possibly be better. | ||
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
To Anti-MBS folks, I have a challenge: name me a game that succeeded as an E-sport by listening to the desires of old-schoolers. CS:Source failed miserably due to straying from it's original form, but until Promod succeeds (if indeed it ever comes out), that doesn't really fit my criteria. heres a better challenge: name another game as successful(esports) and good(game quality) as sc1 | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
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. no, like just about everyone else except tasteless and a few others ive stopped arguing and reading every post because its utterly pointless. if you read the first 2 threads linked in the op 2-3 solid anti-mbs arguments, for which there is no real rebuttal, are made multiple times. at the same time pro-mbs players rely solely on the idea that mbs will add strategical depth to the game, completely unfounded, and on the assumption that blizzard will be able to compensate for the lack of macro with other tasks, also unfounded and looking to be entirely untrue from the information released so far. anti-mbs clearly "won", but retards like brutalisk keep spamming the same shitty arguments and irrelevant or flat out wrong points over and over. and then people like you join the argument, are completely unaware of all the points that have already been made, and post shit like Evidence to support this argument? 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) if you dont recognize that koreans are lightyears ahead of us in mechanics, moreso than the strategical portion of the game, i dont see how you can claim to be knowledgeable enough about the game, especially when discussing the esports aspect of the whole thing, to hold an informed discussion about it. | ||
SoleSteeler
Canada5306 Posts
On December 15 2007 10:53 Aphelion wrote: I have ten times more respect for the hardcore WC2 crowd than I have for any of the new RTSes these days, including WC3. Why is that? | ||
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On December 15 2007 11:18 IdrA wrote: no, like just about everyone else except tasteless and a few others ive stopped arguing and reading every post because its utterly pointless. if you read the first 2 threads linked in the op 2-3 solid anti-mbs arguments, for which there is no real rebuttal, are made multiple times. at the same time pro-mbs players rely solely on the idea that mbs will add strategical depth to the game, completely unfounded, and on the assumption that blizzard will be able to compensate for the lack of macro with other tasks, also unfounded and looking to be entirely untrue from the information released so far. anti-mbs clearly "won", but retards like brutalisk keep spamming the same shitty arguments and irrelevant or flat out wrong points over and over. and then people like you join the argument, are completely unaware of all the points that have already been made, and post shit like if you dont recognize that koreans are lightyears ahead of us in mechanics, moreso than the strategical portion of the game, i dont see how you can claim to be knowledgeable enough about the game, especially when discussing the esports aspect of the whole thing, to hold an informed discussion about it. Well. I don't see how you can go from "koreans are so dominant because their multitasking is 2x better than ours" then when I ask for evidence of this you say: "if you dont recognize that koreans are lightyears ahead of us in mechanics, moreso than the strategical portion of the game, i dont see how you can claim to be knowledgeable enough about the game" Well... Did you read the post you were replying to? I asked for evidence that the koreans were superior in general multitasking -- not mechanics or the strategic part of the game. Whatever, It's not like I don't blame you for not keeping up with this entire thread as 99.99% of it is way over-redundant. And I could write out a very long and repetitive rebuttal on why since Koreans are superior in mechanics that changing the mechanics does not provide them an even greater edge. Especially considering the game is on a completely different engine. I won't elaborate on this, because really it's not important or relevant. Now as for the argument being won by anti-mbs... I don't even see how this is possible. What you really mean is that noone came up with a sufficient rebuttal. I am going to go back and read some of those threads and try to find exactly where this victory took place. I have a feeling that my posts on page 25,26,27 are a sufficient rebuttal against the victory -- not necessarily what is said. The entire theme of my post was simply that the anti-mbs people are being alittle bias in their formation of their opinion.... Very similar to the means i provided for my anti-mbs perspective at the top of this page. In fact I'd be suprised to find any fundamental difference between that "victory" and my post for SBS on this page. No sufficient argument has been provided for my arguments on page 25,26,27.... I've had a few anti-MBS members of this forum concede that my arguments are very well formulated and noone has provided a sufficient rebuttal. I am not going to claim victory though because 90% of the logic behind why or why not this functionality is or is not needed is opinion. PRO-MBS -- Change is good, it's a sequal lets see what we can do with the mechanics to change the game up slightly and ect ect ect while still not totally breaking the game. An attempt to do the opposite of breaking the game. Support of this perspective requires a bias against the way things are on some level. Anti-MBS -- Change is eh, unnecessary in relation to the majority of the functionality of the game. We want the game to focus on the same skill sets, provide the same correlation between APM and skill. To be frank. Both perspective are full of shit for the majority of their arguments. I have yet to see (but i'm going to check the threads you mentioned tomorrow) an argument on either said that didn't have some sort of bias within. Everyone should agree that MBS/SBS is an integral part of the macro orientation of the game and perhaps the possibility of some sort of compromise should be the topic of discussion -- not your wrong I'm right... oh yea? stfu noob what's your iCCup rank? yea? Point proven! This circle-jerking of arguments is just redundant and worn and tired for all of us. I've only been posting for ~5 pages and aside from the argument i formed against MBS today, I've done nothing but repeat myself for those 5 pages again and again because bias is getting in the way of logic on both sides. Though my if put into word my initial 3 posts prolly range somewhere around 10 pages long. Theres not much else I could do but repeat myself. Instead I move to plea that we all drop our biases -- realize that the game will be very similar while at the same time realizing that the game will be very different. I'm sick as shit, and it's late I'm done here until tomorrow I just want to leave on a note that I hope will atleast provide some sort of evidence for atleast something I said here -- if nothing else it's interesting if you haven't seen it before http://www.geocities.com/area51/comet/2481/beta.html | ||
Brutalisk
794 Posts
We *ALL* spam old arguments over and over again, just reformulated. Especially the anti MBS retards always keep on saying "MBS = noob, you have no credibility, you don't know what pros need, SC1 is perfect so why change it", and so on. There's absolutely no need to discuss this anymore because they won't change their mind anyway, and they always repeat that crap. They are too short-sighted and narrow-minded. They rely on the success of SC1, say that their argument is therefor "well-founded" and ours is "speculation". Can we change that? No. SC1 is the *ONLY* game that's so successful, but we already said hundreds of times that this is absolutely not necessarily because of SBS. You just like to think so. Just stay with SC1 and all is well. You are exactly like the WC2 crowd when SC1 came out. Now I'm really out here (except for reading), it's getting way too personal again. Arguments are obviously over, and I'm not in for (further) insults. MBS will be in anyway, so the world already decided what's better. | ||
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On December 15 2007 19:04 Brutalisk wrote: Yeah well the discussion is pretty much at an end. We *ALL* spam old arguments over and over again, just reformulated. This discussion will continue until we get a definitive answer from blizzard. The fact that even though the same arguments are repeated, these threads gets huge replies shows that this means a lot to a lot of people. Especially the anti MBS retards always keep on saying "MBS = noob, you have no credibility, you don't know what pros need, SC1 is perfect so why change it", and so on. Very mature of you. I would happily bet money that you are dumber than 90% of the anti-MBS'ers just due to this post alone. There's absolutely no need to discuss this anymore because they won't change their mind anyway, and they always repeat that crap. They are too short-sighted and narrow-minded. This could be said straight back to you. They rely on the success of SC1, say that their argument is therefor "well-founded" and ours is "speculation". Can we change that? No. SC1 is the *ONLY* game that's so successful, but we already said hundreds of times that this is absolutely not necessarily because of SBS. You just like to think so. The argument IS well founded. Also you are just speculating that SBS has nothing to do with the sucess of SC1 Just stay with SC1 and all is well. You are exactly like the WC2 crowd when SC1 came out. If you dont like our version of what we want starcraft 2 to be like, then just stay with whatever game your playing at the moment. Now I'm really out here (except for reading), it's getting way too personal again. Arguments are obviously over, and I'm not in for (further) insults. You figured of course the best way to do this would be to throw your insults around and then leave a hero before anyone responded? MBS will be in anyway, so the world already decided what's better. Because you are a blizzard insider and you know more than the public? A very immature and poorly thought out post Brutalisk. I'm glad that your not longer going to post in this topic again. Goodbye. | ||
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html?_r=2&8dpc&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Therefore the point that "All pro sc players hate mbs" is kinda moot since its obvious why they think so. And no, they aren't lying when they say that they think it will ruin THE game and not their game, however their subconscious makes them hate the mechanic in general wich is shown in the link above and makes them side against it. And im not saying that sc pro's are monkeys, read the whole article. If you read this part you understand why the sides can never unite, and why each of the sides think that the other side is so dumb: But in general, people deal with cognitive dissonance — the clashing of conflicting thoughts — by eliminating one of the thoughts. The notion that the toaster is desirable conflicts with the knowledge that you just passed it up, so you banish the notion. The cognitive dissonance is gone; you are smug. Of course, when you see others engaging in this sort of rationalization, it can look silly or pathological, as if they have a desperate need to justify themselves or are cynically telling lies they couldn’t possibly believe themselves. .... “If little children and primates show pretty much the same pattern you see in adults, it calls into question just how deliberate these rationalization processes are,” he says. “We tend to think people have an explicit agenda to rewrite history to make themselves look right, but that’s an outsider’s perspective. This experiment shows that there isn’t always much conscious thought going on.” And if anyone here seriously believes that they themselves stands outside this unconcious behavior they are pretty dumb themselves. And yes, that includes me. | ||
| ||