|
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?
I've been massing games lately. I think that when I'll be at my top in a few weeks I'll be able to attain B level. It is also my immediate goal. I am NOT CURRENTLY B level (C- would be closer, mainly because of mass WC3 induced problems of lack of production buildings). I'm sorry if it was phrased wrong, english is not my 1st language.
I also beleive my post was voiced more towards the opinion of a gamer of vaster horizons than only Brood War, than the voice of an high end Brood War player.
I wished to clear that for all people who wish to dismiss my argument over that sentence. My knowledge of the game is, however, sufficient to voice an intelligent argument, in my opinion at least.
Now, if I find I cannot attain that level I'll issue an official apology of sucktitude.
Edit: Adding, I will start officially laddering ICCup monday morninat 9AM EST (I hope to play at least 20 games). Under the name BlackSphinx. You will be welcome to check my advance and praise me if I manage, and bash me if I fail.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 10 2007 09:45 Tiptup wrote:Yes, good advice. I'm glad someone as educated as you is moderating this debate. Otherwise things could easily get out hand. For instance, macro means what it means in StarCraft. We wouldn't want people to erroneously think that StarCraft 2 is a different game from the original StarCraft. We need to remain educated. [/b]
its the definition of a word, not a suggestion on the mechanics of starcraft 2. Obviously starcraft 2 will be a different game, but that doesn't change what we use the word "macro" for in this discussion. We are simplifying the word 'macro', for the purpose of discussion in this thread, to what it has come to mean in StarCraft. This is to avoid arguments based on semantics.
If you'd like to continue being an ignorant jackass, please do it on some other forum. Otherwise, feel free to resume posting, but know that being ignorant towards a moderator in a thread as closely watched as this one is probably not a good idea.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On November 10 2007 09:32 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 09:21 Aesop wrote:So macro: - Building units
- Rallying units
- Constructing buildings
- Sending workers to resources
- Setting up expansions
Nice post there Aesop, I think this basic list should be pasted in the OP to prevent further confusion about definitions. You can't use the excuse "I didn't know" if it's right there in the OP.
Honestly you can't use "I didn't know" even if it's not in the OP, because it's stated in the entire SC2 forum guidelines that you must "do your homework" before posting.
|
On November 10 2007 09:51 mahnini wrote:
That post 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.
|
On November 10 2007 09:54 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 09:39 1esu wrote:On November 10 2007 07:37 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 07:28 teamsolid wrote:On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. A definition needs to be cleared up here, on what pro-MBS arguers mean by "limitation", specifically "artificial limitation". To quote myself:
A theoretically perfect UI would allow you to execute any decision in the minimum number of keystrokes possible. The standard FPS interface is a good example of this: I want to crouch, I hit C; I want to jump, I hit the spacebar; I want to fire at that guy, I point and click. In SC, on the other hand, if I want to build 7 zealots, I must hit 14 keys placed at awkward (for a normal typist) positions on the keyboard, or alternate between clicking a gateway and hitting the z 'key' 14 times. This is what I call an "artificial UI limitation": making certain decisions much more difficult to execute using the UI to increase the difficulty of a game. This, also, is the pro-MBS's side's answer to "where do you stop making the game easier?": We stop at the point where the player makes a decision.
EDIT: For Aesop's definition, So macro: - Building units
- Rallying units
- Constructing buildings
- Sending workers to resources
- Setting up expansions
While that's a great list of the mechanical aspects of macro, I think the theoretical aspects should also be included, like: - Adapting your BO to your opponent's BO/strategy - Utilizing your resources to build the most efficient number and type of units to battle your opponent's army - Macro-related timing (expansions, supply) Can we lay off the definition stuff? My point still stands either way, achieving good SBS macro is not impossible, it just requires practice that pro MBSers do not want to put in. Should this really be the way to shape a competitive game?
I may be wrong here, but I think what 1esu is trying to imply is that there are many pro-MBSers who indeed wish to become highly-skilled SC2 players (e.g. players migrating from other RTS's), and they are willing to put in as much time and practice as necessary to achieve that. However, they would rather prefer to spend time training in a game that doesn't make them feel artificially limited by the interface. I doubt they are afraid of the time-commitment or skill level. They would just rather play a game that makes them spend those clicks on more interesting actions that vary every game instead than repeated clicks on buildings. You would never become a professional athlete if you didn't love every aspect of the sport you were playing. Same holds true for pro-gamers.
On November 10 2007 09:39 1esu wrote:
A theoretically perfect UI would allow you to execute any decision in the minimum number of keystrokes possible. The standard FPS interface is a good example of this: I want to crouch, I hit C; I want to jump, I hit the spacebar; I want to fire at that guy, I point and click. In SC, on the other hand, if I want to build 7 zealots, I must hit 14 keys placed at awkward (for a normal typist) positions on the keyboard, or alternate between clicking a gateway and hitting the z 'key' 14 times. This is what I call an "artificial UI limitation": making certain decisions much more difficult to execute using the UI to increase the difficulty of a game. This, also, is the pro-MBS's side's answer to "where do you stop making the game easier?": We stop at the point where the player makes a decision.
I think this definition of "artificial limitations" is pretty important to understanding the other side of the debate, and was never as clearly defined as something like macro. I'm not going to say either side is correct, but it always helps to think about why some people believe what they do.
|
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.
I tend to disagree on MBSers being people desiring less of a challenge, I believe this is false. The game isn't going to be easier with MBS, because fast and focused people will find other areas of domination than macro. This is seen in WC3, and even in Dawn of War. God, you can automatically build units in Dawn of War by right clicking the icon. They just keep coming. It's not like SC2 is going to be that extreme. If it was, then I'd say it's a bad idea, be cause at that point it would detract from overall experience.
I beleive the main argument of gamers desiring MBS is that catering to weaker players will be beneficial in the long run for the game, and that being limited by the UI when there is no requirement to do so is not fun.
SC, being balanced over not having MBS, is an exception, since the UI is that way for a reason: that kind of control was unheard of in the 90s. But if SC2 is balanced over MBS and then it get cut, making a large amount of players enjoy the game less, it can be no good for the game.
Competitiveness doesn't really matter in there. The game will be competitive from the get go, barring any crazy imbalance.
|
On November 10 2007 09:54 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 09:39 1esu wrote:On November 10 2007 07:37 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 07:28 teamsolid wrote:On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. A definition needs to be cleared up here, on what pro-MBS arguers mean by "limitation", specifically "artificial limitation". To quote myself:
A theoretically perfect UI would allow you to execute any decision in the minimum number of keystrokes possible. The standard FPS interface is a good example of this: I want to crouch, I hit C; I want to jump, I hit the spacebar; I want to fire at that guy, I point and click. In SC, on the other hand, if I want to build 7 zealots, I must hit 14 keys placed at awkward (for a normal typist) positions on the keyboard, or alternate between clicking a gateway and hitting the z 'key' 14 times. This is what I call an "artificial UI limitation": making certain decisions much more difficult to execute using the UI to increase the difficulty of a game. This, also, is the pro-MBS's side's answer to "where do you stop making the game easier?": We stop at the point where the player makes a decision.
EDIT: For Aesop's definition, So macro: - Building units
- Rallying units
- Constructing buildings
- Sending workers to resources
- Setting up expansions
While that's a great list of the mechanical aspects of macro, I think the theoretical aspects should also be included, like: - Adapting your BO to your opponent's BO/strategy - Utilizing your resources to build the most efficient number and type of units to battle your opponent's army - Macro-related timing (expansions, supply) Can we lay off the definition stuff? My point still stands either way, achieving good SBS macro is not impossible, it just requires practice that pro MBSers do not want to put in. Should this really be the way to shape a competitive game?
The definitions are necessary because otherwise, as in your case, people misunderstand the arguments without them. It's not that those supporting the pro-MBS side are too lazy to achieve good SBS macro mechanics, and therefore they want to make the game easier. It's that pro-MBSers tend to agree that the interface should be easy to use, and the rest of the game should be where the real skill and difficulty lies.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Aaaaaaaaand anti-MBSers tend to agree that presence of mind and handspeed are in fact real skills that need to be developed in order for the game to be more competitive
and we go round in circles again
Anyone have something new to add?
|
A toggle feature could be interesting; it would give an easy welcome to new gamers and maintain the challenges for progamers. For some people in the middle it would be worse though, those who became good with mbs and then have to "relearn" the game later when\if they want to change to tournament playing.
Keep in mind that blizzard is aiming very high with this game. Well made RTS games aren't seen often, and I know of a lot of people who don't really play much anymore but are still longing to test sc2; gamers who once played sc with friends, gamers who only play wow but have heard so many promising rumours about this new game called sc2, gamers who just got their first pc a month ago... There's a huge amount of people who's going to test the game and know nothing about rts gaming or anything like it. For all these I think MBS would help to give a more pleasant feeling, especially in their first months. To me it seems these gamers want to see how their units fight and not come to the point where "there's so much building to do I almost don't have time to watch the fights". Even with MBS implemented they will end up having a lot of money stacked up.
On a professional level there's hardly any doubt that you want the game to be as intense as possible, and then it's better not to have MBS. However for new gamers I really think MBS would improve the gameplay. I tried to show my little brother how geniously sc is, but for some very strange reason the fingerdancing and intense multitasking didn't appeal much to him.
I hope blizzard can find a good solution to it. Otherwise being able to toggle MBS on and off could at least please all the new gamers and the elite, even if the gamers starting with MBS and then having to change to play in teamleagues would hate it. Cutting your losses?
|
Mergesort, I will have to throw a Monkey Wrench in your toggle idea.
Balance. How do you balance an RTS over 2 vastly different control schemes?
|
On November 10 2007 10:32 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Aaaaaaaaand anti-MBSers tend to agree that presence of mind and handspeed are in fact real skills that need to be developed in order for the game to be more competitive
and we go round in circles again
Anyone have something new to add?
I know it's an argument that we've covered before, but it's important to nip it in the bud before it takes seed again.
I think we should try and collect a summary of all the major arguments posed by both sides on the OP of this discussion, because there's always been different people repeating the same arguments over and over in every MBS discussion so far because they don't have the time to go through ~80 pages of reading before posting.
|
I don't think SBS is an artificial limitation at all. In fact I'd argue that most games have fun elements that require a lot of skill in similar ways. My whole issue is that I believe that the skill needed to work with SBS in StarCraft could potentially be aimed at other elements of the game (assuming Blizzard is smart enough to do this), and that MBS could be a good thing in that event. I'm not sure why that would be impossible to agree with.
On November 10 2007 10:02 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 09:45 Tiptup wrote:
Yes, good advice. I'm glad someone as educated as you is moderating this debate. Otherwise things could easily get out hand. For instance, macro means what it means in StarCraft. We wouldn't want people to erroneously think that StarCraft 2 is a different game from the original StarCraft. We need to remain educated. its the definition of a word, not a suggestion on the mechanics of starcraft 2. Obviously starcraft 2 will be a different game, but that doesn't change what we use the word "macro" for in this discussion. We are simplifying the word 'macro', for the purpose of discussion in this thread, to what it has come to mean in StarCraft. This is to avoid arguments based on semantics. If you'd like to continue being an ignorant jackass, please do it on some other forum.
Avoiding semantics is very good in many situations. I don't see why you believe I would disagree with that. In fact I agree that using term "macro" in the way that you wish is actually a good idea. Did I somewhere say that I would do otherwise? I'm not sure why you're repeating your argument.
My admittedly sarcastic point about StarCraft 2 was actually to point out the fact that this is a StarCraft 2 forum and that, as a result, I believe that talking about my "macro" definition was understandable mistake in this thread. (Even then, my posts weren't "arguing" semantics. I can work with any sort of definition if need be and I stated that much. I was very clear about what I was meaning in my posts and how that specific context affected my opinions on this issue.) Basically, there was no list of definitions that I was supposed to stick to while in this thread and I mistakenly tried to broaden the common definition for "macro" (while remaining true to it). If you think I'm uneducated, and an ignorant jackass for that mistake, then I'll simply assume you know what you're talking about.
Oh and I see you edited your post with the following:
On November 10 2007 10:02 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Otherwise, feel free to resume posting, but know that being ignorant towards a moderator in a thread as closely watched as this one is probably not a good idea.
Well, tecnically I was already following your directive in the previous post. But that's good advice in general, so, thanks. 
Also, even when considering people who follow the SC2 forum guidelines and "do their homework" as a result (as well as follow Mensrea's well-written, ten commandments), I still didn't know that, by addressing the definition of "macro," I was in fact making a horrible, "uneducated" mistake. Essentially I didn't know I deserved to flamed by a moderator. I'll remember this in the future, however.
|
BlackSphinx: One idea is to decide what you prioritize and balance it mainly out from that, meaning balance it out from pro level where the balance issues matters the most. The difference between terran and toss if you add mbs could change balance a bit, but not radically imo. In the beta there's an icon which you can click and you'd get all your gateways (for example). Maybe they could have an icon with that for larvas instead of hatchs to make things easier for the zerg as well. Would still have to do some work if you aren't just going to mass 1 or 2 types of units though. Basically try to have it so that the MBS helps each race equally much.
An analogy to balance with toggle mode would be balancing a game where you have 1on1\2on2\3on3\4on4\ffa. You balance out from 1on1 but still have teamplay balance in the back of your head. I don't think toggle mode which was suggested by some others here is the ideal solution, but it could be a decent compromise.
|
Well, balancing towards one or the other option will create frictions and anger.
You should have seen the craziness in EverQuest when Verant admitted not giving a damn about PvP balance because all they wanted was PvE balance.
I believe it would be best for Blizzard to stay out of that kind of things.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 10 2007 11:05 Tiptup wrote:
words
Two-day ban for this, drop the sarcasm and stay the fuck on topic
|
On November 10 2007 10:39 Mergesort wrote:
A toggle feature could be interesting; it would give an easy welcome to new gamers and maintain the challenges for progamers. For some people in the middle it would be worse though, those who became good with mbs and then have to "relearn" the game later when\if they want to change to tournament playing.
Keep in mind that blizzard is aiming very high with this game. Well made RTS games aren't seen often, and I know of a lot of people who don't really play much anymore but are still longing to test sc2; gamers who once played sc with friends, gamers who only play wow but have heard so many promising rumours about this new game called sc2, gamers who just got their first pc a month ago... There's a huge amount of people who's going to test the game and know nothing about rts gaming or anything like it. For all these I think MBS would help to give a more pleasant feeling, especially in their first months. To me it seems these gamers want to see how their units fight and not come to the point where "there's so much building to do I almost don't have time to watch the fights". Even with MBS implemented they will end up having a lot of money stacked up.
On a professional level there's hardly any doubt that you want the game to be as intense as possible, and then it's better not to have MBS. However for new gamers I really think MBS would improve the gameplay. I tried to show my little brother how geniously sc is, but for some very strange reason the fingerdancing and intense multitasking didn't appeal much to him.
I hope blizzard can find a good solution to it. Otherwise being able to toggle MBS on and off could at least please all the new gamers and the elite, even if the gamers starting with MBS and then having to change to play in teamleagues would hate it. Cutting your losses?
A toggle has been explained many times b4, but I don't think blizzard wants to split the community, imagine being on b.net on SC2 and going to the tab and seeing "MBS ONLY", or "NO MBS NOOBS". And than you have different teams and clans devoted to only mbs or non mbs, similar to like 'fastest players' vs 'non-money' players.. but imagine this MUCH MUCH worse
|
On November 10 2007 15:07 saranghaeCY- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 10:39 Mergesort wrote:
A toggle feature could be interesting; it would give an easy welcome to new gamers and maintain the challenges for progamers. For some people in the middle it would be worse though, those who became good with mbs and then have to "relearn" the game later when\if they want to change to tournament playing.
Keep in mind that blizzard is aiming very high with this game. Well made RTS games aren't seen often, and I know of a lot of people who don't really play much anymore but are still longing to test sc2; gamers who once played sc with friends, gamers who only play wow but have heard so many promising rumours about this new game called sc2, gamers who just got their first pc a month ago... There's a huge amount of people who's going to test the game and know nothing about rts gaming or anything like it. For all these I think MBS would help to give a more pleasant feeling, especially in their first months. To me it seems these gamers want to see how their units fight and not come to the point where "there's so much building to do I almost don't have time to watch the fights". Even with MBS implemented they will end up having a lot of money stacked up.
On a professional level there's hardly any doubt that you want the game to be as intense as possible, and then it's better not to have MBS. However for new gamers I really think MBS would improve the gameplay. I tried to show my little brother how geniously sc is, but for some very strange reason the fingerdancing and intense multitasking didn't appeal much to him.
I hope blizzard can find a good solution to it. Otherwise being able to toggle MBS on and off could at least please all the new gamers and the elite, even if the gamers starting with MBS and then having to change to play in teamleagues would hate it. Cutting your losses? A toggle has been explained many times b4, but I don't think blizzard wants to split the community, imagine being on b.net on SC2 and going to the tab and seeing "MBS ONLY", or "NO MBS NOOBS". And than you have different teams and clans devoted to only mbs or non mbs, similar to like 'fastest players' vs 'non-money' players.. but imagine this MUCH MUCH worse
Well there could be a solution. What about the notion that the single-player has a MBS and SBS toggle. That way the new people and the young would be able to play the campaign like most of them probably would off the bat. Then there could be an entire tutorial in the custom games section about SBS. or even it could be when you get to the last campaign or something and it switches over to SBS. People will find it challenging and blizzard can edit the first couple missions with increasing difficulty for the ones still getting used to it so it isn't completely shoved in their face. That would be a way for people to slowly get accustomed to the new style without having to lose 80 times to people with TL_ in their name for some reason.
Then in Online play it would all be SBS and it can be toggleable for ums games. That way if they TRULY want to play the game MBS style they can make ums maps for it. I for one remember the first time i played online a long time back and i had to go back and relearn the game anyways, simply because online gameplay is extremely more fast paced and it brings it to the core gameplay, I don't see what the problem would be if people saw it as a new experience.
P.S. I would find it hilarious if blizzard just changed it online to SBS and then used the ESRB notice "game experience might change during online play" thing as their excuse and was just like "i toldya so" that would be priceless
|
As long as games stay between about 7-20min im fine with MBS.
|
On November 10 2007 10:17 teamsolid wrote:
...They would just rather play a game that makes them spend those clicks on more interesting actions that vary every game instead than repeated clicks on buildings. You would never become a professional athlete if you didn't love every aspect of the sport you were playing. Same holds true for pro-gamers.
.
Actually it's just the opposite. You would never become a professional athlete if you expect to love every aspect of the sport you are playing. The same holds true for proffesional musicians, professional actors and progamers. In every field to get to the highest levels you have to do things you don't always love.
A different question. I have seen the repeated argument that MBS will make people focus more on micro. But coming to think of it MBS will allow people to produce a lot more units in the same time period compared to no MBS. So the difference in unit count between a player that constantly produce and a player who focus on micro and doesn't produce constantly will be huge thus rendering the micro useless and actually making the game even more macro oriented.
|
SC is already rife with training wheels. One more won't make a difference.
A list of things that are done to make things easier for you.
- Build queues
- Multiple unit selection
- Rally points
- Unit AI
- hot-key-able groups
- way-points
All these things have been implemented to stop you fighting the interface. You are so used to them now that the idea of playing without them sounds like hell. In two years time after SC2 has an established user base. New players will ask themselves how people managed to play with SBS, old-timers will chuckle and ask themselves the same question. In the same way people look back on Dune 2 style single unit selection as archaic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
