|
Valhalla18444 Posts
teapot none of that is relevant
the discussion here is about the effects of an MBS system on the competitiveness of StarCraft 2. This is a pretty large issue and none of that other garbage you mentioned is in any way related. MBS will make a huge difference in StarCraft 2 (and I'm choosing not to mention whether I think its for the better or for the worse) and listing a bunch of things that 'starcraft already has' doesn't contribute to this thread in any way. You are completely wrong when you say it "won't make a difference".
Stay on topic.
|
On November 10 2007 09:51 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 09:40 Zanno wrote:On November 10 2007 09:15 IdrA wrote:On November 10 2007 08:22 Zanno 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. 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. You could also reverse this argument and claim that anti-MBS players are also wannabe pros with horrible micro and little to no "game sense", who don't want to lose their advantage from memorizing a series of cookie-cutter builds and learning to type 1sz2sz3sz4sz or what have you really fast. Obviously neither this nor your statement is true. thats not equivalent to what he said because having manual macro does not eliminate the importance of game sense and the other aspects of the game. anti mbs players want the game to be more complex and harder because that makes it a better game for competitive play. on the other hand putting mbs in does nearly eliminate the importance of one element of the game. The equivalence is in the absurdity of the two statements. Both cases suggest that suddenly a stronger player will suddenly have problems defeating a weaker player, but MBS will not make it so that a casual newbie player is suddenly even or has the slightest of chances against a hardcore mass gamer. Likewise, you could say that pro-mbs players want the game to be more complex and harder on the micromangement level. I'm just saying that ad hominem attacks against the skill level of pro-MBS players while simulataneously saying "oh, what we want is more skilled" is not the way to approach the argument. This will not persaude Blizzard to remove it. MBS will have a profound impact on low-mid level play, yes, but what needs to be shown is that MBS will stagnate the game at the highest levels of play. That post was not ad hominem at all. CCK was suggesting that speed should not play such a large role in BW and presented MBS as a solution. I was merely stating speed does not pose a large an obstacle as he implied and that through practice you can achieve the necessary speeds. That was it. I have a feeling you are just trolling now. Edit: Let me rephrase that. You aren't practicing against the UI, you are practicing against the people who can more easily and quickly manipulate the UI than you can.
First I'm going to start off addressing a general trend that I see in this thread. To quote FakeSteve (not literally) "and the pro-MBS people admit that speed is an important factor and we go around in circles again".
One of the first thing you learn in many educations (like diagnostics, which is an apt comparison to this thread) is that many questions is not simple yes or no answers. Many people here seem to treat the MBS discussion as yes or no. Either they are rigth and SBS is clearly better or they are wrong and MBS is clearly better.
I don't think this is the situation we have here. Instead we have some kind of arbitrary macro scale which and somewhere along this point lies MBS. Both sides have very valid argument and the point isn't really if either side is rigth it's about what is rigth for the game. Somewhere we have a cut-off point where we say "this much mechanical action is required for macro". Changing this will change the skill requirment but also the entry level and enjoyment of new games (and naturally a host of other things. Let me represent this with a typical graph. Note that this is an example so I'd prefer if the next following 20 posts is not OMG as much blue as possible, please.
Of course the graphs probably doesn't look at all like this in reality.
Naturally life is not this simple but the question is still, where do we place our cut-off point? The easy choice is to say "where the graphs intercept" because that is a minimum loss and a maxium gain for both sides. But it's not that easy because we need to think about which kind of game and what kind of tradeoffs we want.
Both sides are rigth, the question is what is best for the game?
Also, even though it has been brougth up before.
Rigth now we are using SC as our "gold standard" in that we compare everything to it. This is dangerous as SCII will not be the same game and thus a direct comparison is not possible. True, it's not like we can use any other gold standard but it does mean we allways have to keep this in mind.
Now to actually respond to the quoted post.
Isn't that more or less the same thing though? Since your opponent is a human you are competing against him in every aspect of the game. Perhaps it's just me but I prefer to lose because of something else than the fact that I can't click as quickly as my opponent. And I do, frequently. As a casual player you don't get that many games a week and I don't watch that many replays or VODs. Better players consistently beat me down with BO's, new strategies or just better game sense on the new maps. But other players also consistently beat me because they are faster than me.
At the highest, hell even a long way below the highest level, I can see speed being a very important skill. But no other RTS game today has such an insane requirment for even moderatly skilled gamers. I've played BW for almost half my life and it's still one of my favourite past times and I don't think macro in SC is fun. And I doubt new players will think macro is fun either.
The question is, how much would a drop in the speed requirment change the game, and would it be enough to make it significiantly worse in comparison to the gain for new and lower tier players?
I personally don't think so and I don't there has been any compelling arguments for this being the case either.
|
BlackSphinx , let me ask you something mate. You seem to support MBS , and say that with MBS good players will have different things to pay attention to. I want to know what that is , more micro?
What about the macro oriented players? they are forced to do more micro just because there's not much macro to do.
so instead of this , please suggest a way to compensate macro while MBS is implemented, because balance between micro and macro is a fundamental part of the game.
|
On November 10 2007 20:06 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Isn't that more or less the same thing though? Since your opponent is a human you are competing against him in every aspect of the game. Perhaps it's just me but I prefer to lose because of something else than the fact that I can't click as quickly as my opponent. And I do, frequently. As a casual player you don't get that many games a week and I don't watch that many replays or VODs. Better players consistently beat me down with BO's, new strategies or just better game sense on the new maps. But other players also consistently beat me because they are faster than me.
Ok, I just want to analyse this quickly. You say that you are only beaten because someone is faster than you? I think you are just not able to admit that they are a better player. APM means ACTIONS per minute. Simply being a faster clicker does nothing for you. You must back every click up with a logical thought process. Someone who has a high APM is not just clicking faster, they are thinking faster. Unless your a complete nubbins using a mouse, your limitation is how well you can think through your actions. This is why many peoples games fall apart as the game gets later. There is more to do, but they cant think fast enough to have complete control. It has almost nothing to do with how fast you can click.
MBS removes the stresses on the brain by lowering the amount of thought processes required. Making it easier to play. More thought processes equals more stress on the brain, meaning the player who is faster at working everything out ends up at an advantage, which they should be.
If you dont think this holds true. Think about typing. The average person here on TL should be able to do 60 WPM. assuming 4 letters per word and 1 for space bar. You have a 300 APM when typing. Why doesnt it seem so fast? Because your brain has learned typing down to an instinctual action and therefore the thought processes are lightning fast.
|
A common criticism against SBS (and in a similar vein, auto-mining) as a skill differentiator is that the only "skill" it differentiates is the mechanical finger dance. I believe this is a narrow-minded view. By happy accident or ingenious construction, the existence of SBS in SC forces players to pay a substantial additional price of focus (or apm, if you prefer) for economy and production. It is this cost that allows:
- attacks to be made on a players econ and production by engaging their attention - effective strategic punishment of both over-harassment and over-expansion - low and high econ strategies to be both viable
and a host of other gameplay interactions that give SC the depth of strategic choices required for both a diverse and competitive playing field.
Now, it is generally accepted that you can't micro everywhere and, that effective micro, in the form of efficient and effective unit control, is a form of skill. However, micro is not the only action that requires focus! Macro, in the form of econ and production, requires focus as well.
Every expansion you take not only expends a cost in resources, units and map control, but also one on your concentration. The time consuming nature of assigning workers to an expansion means that a heavy harass from your opponent can dissuade you from expanding even if you are able to beat back their advances. If expansion maintenance did not require constant breaks in your focus from your army, then the harass will naturally become less effective in slowing down your expansion efforts.
On the opposite side, harassment requires focus, and the heavier the harassment, the less focus you have to expand, produce, and respond to the opponent's own harassment. In this way, since both expansion and harassment requires focus, over-expansion and over-harassment are kept in check by the game mechanics -- i.e. strategic play is encouraged by forcing players to make hard decisions on where to invest their focus. When you strengthen macro by requiring less focus, you are in effect weakening the value of harassment and encouraging a more uniform expansion and harassment policy for both players.
Furthermore, the uniqueness in SC in that both high econ and low econ strategies are viable (i.e. PvZ) comes in part due to the fact that high econ means low micro. To outproduce someone, you require a substantial investment of focus on things that don't relate to controlling your army -- leading to the choice of 200/200 and half as much time to control it, or half that army but you can micro the hell out of what you have. If there's no longer a requirement of time for macro, then you either end up with harass strong enough to keep macro down (WC3) or macro strong enough that micro becomes irrelevant (SupCom). More importantly, the middle ground between macro and micro is destroyed.
Now, in no way am I saying that a lighter emphasis on using your focus for macro makes for weaker gameplay, but part of what makes SC unique lies in the fact that both macro and micro require focus to be spent -- it is this tension on finding where to spend it that provides a huge amount of strategic depth in a ten year old game. Macro is not just a finger-dance, it is the end result of deliberate decisions in how and when to spend limited focus. It encourages and rewards players to efficiently spend their time in a balanced fashion. It allows for a diversity of contrasting playing styles that match up well against each other.
I think MBS is a good feature, but if the same tension of SC is to be kept, then its use must be tempered by an investment in focus -- i.e.: time. I don't recall who first suggested it, but the idea of forcing all MBS commands to execute at 180apm is one that I would support. Seeing your army get slaughtered while the computer is busy clicking buttons is a pretty good way of reinforcing the idea that focus matters.
|
It's the other way around. I know perfectly well what I should do but I'm not fast enough to do it. I probably have better dexterity that many people here on TL in certain areas but not in Starcraft because manual dexterity is unique for every task and it's something that takes a lot of practice to get. If you don't belive me just try doing something that takes a lot of dexterity with your hands that you are not practiced in and try to do it well and you will see that you fail.
If I actually liked playing a game where I macro out of 12 factories constantly I would probably be very good at it. I don't because when I decide to build 12 vultures I want 12 vultures to be built just like when I want 12 units to move I click once for them to move. Which is the main reason I play 2on2s because there's not as much mechanical macro in it and I can focus on other things that I find more intresting.
And I can safely say that I'm beaten because I have low APM because there's plenty of games where I know exactly what to do I just cant macro of 4-5 bases because I don't play enough to have the kind of mechanical speed to compete. One prime example is a terran taking his nat then his min only and then not moving untill he has 200 supply. It's not very hard to anticipate what he's going to do, it's not very hard to plan what you are going to do but it's extremly frustrating when you see your cash building up and once he rolls out your flank can be insanely good but it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what HE had in APM. It matters that I didn't have the mechanical speed to keep up. I lost that game more than he won it but it was still a question about mechanical speed.
Which is exactly my point. No other RTS game has this kind of mechanical skill requirment for casual gamers. Casual gamers do not want this kind of skill requirment. They'd be perfectly happy with any other kind of speed requirment but they don't want to do things that they feel are pointless when they know they don't have to.
If there is not a conscious thougth behind an action it shouldn't be in the game.
Edit: The focus argument is good but surely there must be better ways to divert focus than forcing the player to click 20 times on 10 buildings? It's like waiting at a stop sign, you have to do it and it takes your time but it's not particularly funny.
I'd rather take away other UI improvments like automine because those actually have a thougth behind them like "I have to go back and reassign SCV's" or add things like deconstructing buildings, switching addons or timing your merc hiring. All of these requiries you to have an increased ammount of focus on your macro but none of them artifically requires you to spend a significant ammount of time doing them once you made your decision.
|
I'd rather take away other UI improvments like automine because those actually have a thougth behind them like "I have to go back and reassign SCV's" or add things like deconstructing buildings, switching addons or timing your merc hiring.
I'd agree that decisions like add-ons and merc hiring increase choice and flexibility in strategic ways, but I don't think that's the same as saying that they are macro decisions. A macro decision involves a choice in how to spend your time, not a choice on tech or unit choice -- that's just micro with buildings.
I can understand your plight in the extreme amount of dexterity required to play at even a nominal level. I support MBS and auto-mining as interface enhancements, but I think their use has to involve trade-offs with time. When you produce from six factories using two keystrokes, you should have to sit there for a couple of seconds without being able to give your units orders. That wouldn't be an interface limitation, it should be accepted as part of the gameplay.
|
Here's another viewpoint that I'm sure will be popular.
In a low level game Starcraft is too centered on macro.
From reading the Penny Arcade boards the number one complaint by new players in Starcraft is that it's only about producing units and using attack move to kill the enemy.
For a totally new player this makes sense. It's efficent to select all your units (you don't have that many, probably only two controll groups or so) and send them to the enemy. They will do reasonably well with their own AI given the time investment (that is two clicks). On the other hand their base will do absolutly nothing if they don't spend a significant ammount of their apm (which is probably ~30-40) on it building units, buildings and workers.
When it actually comes to doing battle the 40 APM player who tries to pull a boxer with his 6 units or so is naturally going to get crusched by the 40 APM player who doesn't really care about what his units are doing as long as he's building more of them. Add the fact that most new players like to actually watch the action as much as possible (something that more proficent BW players quickly learn not to do, if your units are doing well macro instead) you have an even greater problem.
"I'd rather play DoW because it means I don't have to spend 90 % of my time starring at my base" is in my oppinion a valid complaint and I think MBS would change this situation drastically.
|
On November 11 2007 00:36 Fen wrote: [...] MBS removes the stresses on the brain by lowering the amount of thought processes required. Making it easier to play. More thought processes equals more stress on the brain, meaning the player who is faster at working everything out ends up at an advantage, which they should be.
Sorry, but what twist of mind makes that true. I don't see how thinking " I want to build 5 zealots" and then selecting 5 gateways and pressing z, requires significantly less thought then thinking " I want to build 5 zealots" and then individually selecting a gateway and pressing z five times. If you really need to think that much about clicking and pressing buttons, sc is probably not a game for you.
If you dont think this holds true. Think about typing. The average person here on TL should be able to do 60 WPM. assuming 4 letters per word and 1 for space bar. You have a 300 APM when typing. Why doesn't it seem so fast? Because your brain has learned typing down to an instinctual action and therefore the thought processes are lightning fast.
You seem to forget most people use two hands two type. (And keyboards have been specifically designed around this use.) Not many people here would be able to type 60 WPM with one hand on their mouse.
But this was not my primary reason for posting.
Something I have noticed about the MBS debate is that it seems to focus on using MBS to construct units. Obviously, there are more situations were you may want to select more than one building at a time, and for some of these MBS will actually improve gameplay by making certain tactics more viable. These situations mainly involve situations where buildings act very much like other units. i.e. lifting off and moving Terran buildings, raising and submerging supply depots, focus firing static defenses.
To start with the last. I have seen people claim in previous MBS discussions that MBS would overpower static defense, because it would allow you to focus fire them more easily. Clearly, this is partly true, focus firing static defenses is a powerful tactic (just as focus firing any other unit), but not necessarily overpowered since there are enough other variables in power of static defense buildings to balance things out. So allowing MBS for static defenses will (after balancing) just mean that to be truly effective they will have to be focus fired. Compared to not focus firing this adds to gameplay.
Being able to use MBS to simultaneously raise and lower multiple supply depots, allows for all sorts of innovative strats. I see no reason not to allow this.
I'm not sure how being able to lift off all your buildings at once will effect the game, but the effect will be minimal. It just seems logical that you could select a group buildings and order them to move to a certain location.
It is because of these situations that I'm pretty sure that some form of MBS will make it into the game. The question remains if it should allow you to build units while selecting more than one building. (For those of you thinking allowing MBS, but not building in MBS is silly; This already so for worker units, you can't build buildings while selecting more than one worker.) On this point I'm sort of on the fence. I agree with those arguing that choosing between macroing and microing during a large encounter is an important part of the SC gameplay. MBS will clearly effect this balance. To what extent depends on the MBS implementation chosen.
Ideally, the game machenics should be such that not using MBS to build units is much more effective then building units using MBS. Much like micromanaging your troops is much more effective then just attack moving them into the opposing army. In such a situation MBS (at high level competetive play) )will only see use as a fall back mechanism when there is no time to macro properly.
This already true to some extent for the current implementation of MBS, ordering to build a unit will build one unit in all selected buildings if possible. This implementation is kinda in flexible and will give undesirable results unless precisely the right number of buildings are hotkeyed, since pressing one button will typically build more units then you might want to, draining all your resources and allowing to build some different stuff as well. The gain of doing it "by hand" is very marginal though, with the main problem being that it still allows you to macro relatively effictively without taking your eyes of the battlefield.
So, in order to make building via MBS viable, the mechanics of the game have to be tweaked in such a way that "micro" macroing is much more effective than MBS macroing. I, however, don't really see how this could be done without resorting to extremely artificial measures like slowing down production when using MBS, which seem very undesirable.
So ultimately I don't see building via MBS making it in the game. (Although a random thought has popped up in my head, that you cou could add MBS while removing rallying points from the game entirely. This way you have to spent a lot more time sending your troops to the front manually even though building them is earier. As an add bonus you get rid of rally-mining.)
|
On November 10 2007 23:03 Dariush wrote: BlackSphinx , let me ask you something mate. You seem to support MBS , and say that with MBS good players will have different things to pay attention to. I want to know what that is , more micro?
What about the macro oriented players? they are forced to do more micro just because there's not much macro to do.
so instead of this , please suggest a way to compensate macro while MBS is implemented, because balance between micro and macro is a fundamental part of the game.
Macro oriented players, in the StarCraft sense of the word, well, it's almost a certainty they will almost be inexistant in SC2. Basically, players like Oov will have to find a new style, playing a new game. This is quite normal. My WC3 style is quite different from my WC2 style =p.
Now, let's dredge again WC3. In that case, an immense amount of control is used to micro the army and Hero micro (both actions can be seen as totally separate from the other) to have the best possible amount of advantage given by the heroes.
So, yes, you can expect time taken away from macro will be given to micro. when using SC's sense of the term.
However, in WC3's lingo, Macro is not only base building and unit building/selection, but also army position, creeping pattern selection / creepjacking and map control / area denial.
Area denial is a bit special. An example is Turtle Rock where, if even with a small army you are in the middle of the map and your opponent is stuck on the periphery, you can force them to keep going around only through better army position, giving you more time which is the most important ressource in an fixed economy setting. That's the kind of things that happen when you don't seperate your armies often, except for some creeping or harassing cases. I don't think that'll be part of SC2, but it's a way to illustrate what players do and what stems out of a radically different environment.
So, yeah, different games, different lingo. As of such, time will be given more to micro in SC2, however I believe we can expect the signification itself of the word "macro" to change from pure base control to a more broader sense, WC3 like. Especially since a heavy amount of WC3 players will move from WC3 to SC2 and bring their definitions with them. Expect heated arguments over t3h intarnets.
Anyway, macro players then will be players in SC2 that end up controlling the game via good map position and area control / denial, and maybe less micromanagement than other players. People that followed the early times of WC3 will remember Apex-X and SK.Insomnia, and more recently SK.Miou that fit into that style.
As I do not hold a preference between SC and WC3, I do not see this as a bad thing, as SC2 will join both games in a way, and will make for a very intense spectator sport. However I can understand that for a large amount of people in the infamously hardcore TL crowd, this is a case for a Darth Vader level "NOOOOooo!".
Again, it is my belief that forcing some kind of "menial macro tasks" on the players will only detract from the gameplay. I think also that SC2's gameplay will be, because that's the direction I curently see from videos / People having played / Blizzard feedback, drastically different from the one in Brood War. The difference is that me, compared to many in these parts, do not think that it is a bad thing, but a good one. I am thrilled to see the direction this game is taking, because it is in my opinion the right one for both a cometitive game and a spectacular spectator's game. Keep in mind Blizzard has a goal, and that is to supplant FPSes as a spectator E-sport. No easy task, especailly if you are in the US/Canada area.
SC1 is all fun, and fantastic, but that doesn't cut it.
On ways to make macro harder despite MBS being a part of it, I just cannot find one that would be fun. And fun is very important here. If some of you have some, that let's hear them. I for one would just prefer to let the game be balanced and take it's own course after release.
|
On November 11 2007 02:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Here's another viewpoint that I'm sure will be popular.
In a low level game Starcraft is too centered on macro.
From reading the Penny Arcade boards the number one complaint by new players in Starcraft is that it's only about producing units and using attack move to kill the enemy.
For a totally new player this makes sense. It's efficent to select all your units (you don't have that many, probably only two controll groups or so) and send them to the enemy. They will do reasonably well with their own AI given the time investment (that is two clicks). On the other hand their base will do absolutly nothing if they don't spend a significant ammount of their apm (which is probably ~30-40) on it building units, buildings and workers.
When it actually comes to doing battle the 40 APM player who tries to pull a boxer with his 6 units or so is naturally going to get crusched by the 40 APM player who doesn't really care about what his units are doing as long as he's building more of them. Add the fact that most new players like to actually watch the action as much as possible (something that more proficent BW players quickly learn not to do, if your units are doing well macro instead) you have an even greater problem.
"I'd rather play DoW because it means I don't have to spend 90 % of my time starring at my base" is in my oppinion a valid complaint and I think MBS would change this situation drastically.
Let me present a more realistic example:
It's typical in a TvZ to have to pump MnM from 8-10 raxes + 2 fact tanks + 1 port vessels + 3 CC SCVs, send SCVs to minerals and hotkey your new units. To do this you need at least 120 APM and this is with perfect timing and no useless actions, which isn't possible, so in an actual game with 30% useless actions(usually there's a lot more in pro matches) and human errors(like overqueueing, so you have to go back and cancel), you'll need upwards of 170 APM and this is WITHOUT attacking the enemy or defending or microing ANYTHING, which you obviously need to do, so in the end you have even higher APM requirement just to macro properly in a real game.
Not only low level starcraft is too centered on macro, every level of starcraft play is too centered on macro, that's why you can see Hwasin, probably the best Terran ATM, having 2500+ minerals in the bank, forgetting to macro in the middle of a battle, queuing 5 SCVs in a CC, e.t.c. and this is in a serious match against Savior, which I gave as an example in an earlier topic + Show Spoiler [VOD] + So even if Hwasin could heavily benefit a lot from MBS, who wouldn't? It will make everyone "better", so it actually won't make a real change between different player skill levels, because there is no reachable skill ceiling and there will still be what to improve for everyone, while at the same time this will benefit the spectator part of the game and make the game A LOT more accesible and entertaining for newer players, which is an enourmous benefit.
Also, macro in pro games is NOT about clicking the production buildings faster, every pro does this in a VERY short time period with differences, so small they barely make a difference(if at all).
Thinking that iloveoov has scary macro, just because he SUPPOSEDLY spends a few miliseconds less in queueing units is ridiculous at the least.
Macro in pro games IS about proper timing in queueing new units right before the previous ones finish and not forgetting to macro in the mid of a battle, choosing when exactly in that battle to press these 8 hotkeys for production buildings, when to stop production of workers/army units and build new production buildings, how much of them to build, when to expand and lots of intricate details.
You know that Savior's macro is(or was) scary, but he has shit APM for a pro. He obviously isn't faster than other pros, but his macro is better, because macro is not about who is faster in clicking those damn buildings.
|
Hungary11232 Posts
Maybe I am opening another pandora box here, but I would like to ask another question about MBS. So far we have mostly been arguing about whether MBS should be in the game or not. However, I think that with some certainty it will be part of the game (if toggleable or not, who knows), as seen on the Blizzcon and as Blizzard (imo) won't take a step back from the comfort the wc3 UI offered. So, to put a bold figure: with 99% it will be part of the game.
That being said, I am not sure what the immediate consequences for the gameplay would be (maybe those who have tested the game can enlighten us a bit). This is of course a highly speculative issue, yet (if allowed) I would be interested in what everyone else thinks.
Things I can come up with: - More diverse unit mixes: There is enough time bring the strenghts to bear of different unit types in your army.
- More usage of situational precision abilities. Consider the abilities almost forgotten in Broodwar for the one of the other reason: Maelstrom, Ensnare, Optical Flare, Cleanse, Lockdown (Ghosts in genereal) ... ; I know some of these might be autocast in sc2, but still there are some useful, yet quite underused abilities, most likely because the time invested into using them is too high compared to other management tasks.
- Macro-management switching from "doing" to "making good decisions", that is with more and more relevant decisions. You will have to decide for every terran production building whether to have a reactor or a science lab addon, with Protoss you have to choose where exactly to warp in your units (I do not fully understand the concept of a warpgate, but it sounds like your units can appear anywhere where you have pylon range; is that about correct?), no idea how zerg will be specified.
To take warcraft III as an example: The game can can cope with less focus on unit production as you can spend your resources in more ways - you can invest them into items instead of units, for example, and you are working with an additional resource, namely experience which translates into hero levels. So my expectation would be that you will have more diverse ways of spending money and reaching 200 / 200 supply, thus shifting the weight towards strategic decisions.
So, what more?
|
no one is saying going around and clicking the buildings is a difficult task.
its the fact that you have to spend time doing it that makes the real difference. it becomes part of strategy/time management, in that you have to choose when to go back to your base and spend a second producing units. if you dont choose the proper time to do that then you either leave your units in the middle of a battle or dont have reinforcements.
also the fact that producing units requires time adds depth to the game. because it is impossible to do everything perfectly at once you have to sacrifice some parts of the game to accomplish others. thats obvious in progamer's play style, oov has insane macro but his micro slips occasionally (and used to be just plain bad by pro standards), boxer with great micro and harass along with 3k mins in the bank, etc. it adds variety to the pro scene, because players have to choose what to focus on, which makes everyone's playstyle unique. if everyone can macro perfectly without any investment of time then all their time will be spent on microing, so everyone will end up playing the same, or at least much more similarly than they do in bw.
|
My take on this is sort of a cop-out, but I really think we should wait and see how it works in the beta, with all (most) of the functionality in the game done, ideally including the "extra tasks" Blizzard has said will be happening.
Yes, I am fully aware that many players here played the pre-alpha version at Blizzcon, and to reiterate the argument again against that is that you were limited to 20 minute games, you were playing, usually, vastly inferior opponents, the games units, buildings, functionality was incomplete, could only play 2v2 games etc.
I know that you can still get a general sense of the game from the above, and I appreciate everyone's reports from Blizzcon about the conditions of MBS, but I really hope that Blizzard doesn't make a concrete decision on the matter before the beta. IE: saying "There will (not) be MBS in SC2", without trying it on a more balanced, massive scale than was seen at Blizzcon. (like a beta)
I used to be pro-MBS but I am now anti-MBS, especially if Blizzard doesn't make "interesting" things for the players to do besides microing (or however you want to phrase that). I also don't believe for a second that reviews or sales of the game will suffer due to MBS being in or not.
However I am absolutely open-minded to new ideas, and am 100% willing to try the game with and without MBS to see how it plays.
I've seen people (not in this topic) say that Blizzard designing SC so well was an "accident", as proof of their other games. I think this is a really ignorant thing to say; all of their games have been wildly successful on all levels (casual, semi-casual, hardcore, pro etc., maybe not D2 for pro). My point here is that I have faith that Blizzard can do some pretty crazy things that will make us go "...nice!" which could easily solve the macro issue, while maintaining MBS.
We simply don't have enough info to really say for sure either way.
And I still like seeing this discussion so I don't think that we should stop
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
CuteCuddlyKitten: Your posts are the most well-written and well thought out pro-MBS posts in this thread so far
So, you know, thank you for providing a reasonable argument from the less popular side
|
On November 11 2007 04:14 Aesop wrote:- More diverse unit mixes: There is enough time bring the strenghts to bear of different unit types in your army.
- More usage of situational precision abilities. Consider the abilities almost forgotten in Broodwar for the one of the other reason: Maelstrom, Ensnare, Optical Flare, Cleanse, Lockdown (Ghosts in genereal) ... ; I know some of these might be autocast in sc2, but still there are some useful, yet quite underused abilities, most likely because the time invested into using them is too high compared to other management tasks.
- Macro-management switching from "doing" to "making good decisions", that is with more and more relevant decisions. You will have to decide for every terran production building whether to have a reactor or a science lab addon, with Protoss you have to choose where exactly to warp in your units (I do not fully understand the concept of a warpgate, but it sounds like your units can appear anywhere where you have pylon range; is that about correct?), no idea how zerg will be specified.
To take warcraft III as an example: The game can can cope with less focus on unit production as you can spend your resources in more ways - you can invest them into items instead of units, for example, and you are working with an additional resource, namely experience which translates into hero levels. So my expectation would be that you will have more diverse ways of spending money and reaching 200 / 200 supply, thus shifting the weight towards strategic decisions.
Yes, exactly (@ all points, also @ warpgate question).
MBS will change the gameplay, and macro-heavy players will have to adapt, but I doubt that the game would become easier.
The problem with SBS in a game as fast-paced as SC is that some units, abilities and strategies which are sometimes strong but always hard to micro will be used rarely, if at all. This just shows how important macro is, and that there is no true balance between micro and macro. SC1 was designed to have a big variety of units/abilities and strategies, to allow for very diverse games in theory, but in practice several of them are so hard to micro that they are almost never used. So, as a result, most games consist of 1 general strategy against 1 general strategy (e.g. vulture/tank vs zeal/goon) with armies consisting of only a few units, mostly standard units, because they are the easiest to micro.
Think of an analogy: imagine that in chess, you'd have to make your move within 0.5 seconds, or you lose the game (or w/e). There would be people arguing that this is a great thing because it forces the players to think and react insanely fast. But the main problem with it (in analogy to SC1) is that one unit probably won't be used at all: the Knight, because it has such a special movement requiring you to take a deeper look at it, which would cost too much time with the new rule) You can compare this to SC1 units like ghosts or dark archons which are almost never used simply because no one has the time to use them, although they can be good in some situations.
So we see that the game offers a lot more potential, but players can't use it. Whether you're the best pro in the world or the worst noob, you'll always fall back to units which you can handle easily because anything that takes too much time or APM is your enemy. Some units/abilities are hard to micro but "essential", like the high templar or defiler, so you will use them regularly no matter what, but all those units/abilities which are hard to micro but only useful in some situations or under special circumstances (like ghosts) are probably completely ignored by all players because the high speed and constant macroing simply does not grant you enough time to use them well.
This means that SBS (not MBS) essentially dumbs the game down a bit. If you reward high speed so much, then advanced tactics/strategies won't ever be used because they require too much time.
Now, MBS will make macro less important (but it will only remove the "tedious" physical aspect of macro. The mental aspect is still there, so there will still be players who have better management than others). In effect, players will have more time available to do all the stuff they wish to do, to use all units/abilities, even if they're only useful in very few situations. The game will potentially be more diverse, which can only be a good thing.
And about that "dexterity = good" argument, I mean come on... if I want to do something that requires dexterity then I play something else, but not a real time strategy game. Why force a dexterity element into a game like SC? Really, why? Is that good design?
Besides, MBS will only affect the later stages of the game. Early on, you need a more diverse unit combination anyway so you have to select each gateway/unit manually. In late game however, when you want to produce 15 zealots at once, then MBS will help you and make a difference. Before that, it's very unlikely.
If MBS was fundamentally bad then no game would ever include it, but all newer games do include it, even Blizzard thinks it's a good idea. Are they doing this because they think that taking a huge risk is a good thing, or because they want the game to suck? I don't think so... Just because SC1 is still the best RTS doesn't mean that it's only because of SBS. Think of the nearly perfect balance of the game, and the uniqueness of each race... these are the two main aspects SC1 always was praised for (and rightfully so).
Simple things should be simple, and hard things should be hard. In SC1, everything is hard, even the most trivial things. This is bad design, if you ask me. For example, if I decide to build 1 zealot, this is a simple decision, and in SBS or MBS it's just a matter of clicking on 1 gateway and pressing 'z'. But if I decide to build 20 zealots, then we have a problem with SBS: the decision is just as simple again, but I suddenly have to invest a lot more time/clicks.
(Of course, you can't really blame SC1 for being like that, because in 1998 the only thing that mattered was that the UI is better than the WC2 UI. Blizzard did that, and everyone was happy. Now, they have to improve SC1's UI again, because the market respectively the players' demands have changed.)
The UI should be as simple as possible, in any game, in any program. In a lot of other genres, for example FPS games, you already have that situation. There's not much you can do to make the UI any easier. It's perfect! And no one complains that the gameplay is too easy! But in SC1 there's a LOT of clutter and artificial limitations, and some players even like it that way. Is it really necessary? I don't think so. Time for a change.
Bleh. I wanted to make a short post but now this has happened. Anyway, I guess it's my last post on this subject.
|
On November 11 2007 10:12 Brutalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2007 04:14 Aesop wrote:- More diverse unit mixes: There is enough time bring the strenghts to bear of different unit types in your army.
- More usage of situational precision abilities. Consider the abilities almost forgotten in Broodwar for the one of the other reason: Maelstrom, Ensnare, Optical Flare, Cleanse, Lockdown (Ghosts in genereal) ... ; I know some of these might be autocast in sc2, but still there are some useful, yet quite underused abilities, most likely because the time invested into using them is too high compared to other management tasks.
- Macro-management switching from "doing" to "making good decisions", that is with more and more relevant decisions. You will have to decide for every terran production building whether to have a reactor or a science lab addon, with Protoss you have to choose where exactly to warp in your units (I do not fully understand the concept of a warpgate, but it sounds like your units can appear anywhere where you have pylon range; is that about correct?), no idea how zerg will be specified.
To take warcraft III as an example: The game can can cope with less focus on unit production as you can spend your resources in more ways - you can invest them into items instead of units, for example, and you are working with an additional resource, namely experience which translates into hero levels. So my expectation would be that you will have more diverse ways of spending money and reaching 200 / 200 supply, thus shifting the weight towards strategic decisions.
Yes, exactly (@ all points, also @ warpgate question). MBS will change the gameplay, and macro-heavy players will have to adapt, but I doubt that the game would become easier. thats what the warcraft line is for, the game designers have said they want to keep the two worlds seperate. a big part of starcraft is that it places emphasis on both macro and micro.
The problem with SBS in a game as fast-paced as SC is that some units, abilities and strategies which are sometimes strong but always hard to micro will be used rarely, if at all. This just shows how important macro is, and that there is no true balance between micro and macro. SC1 was designed to have a big variety of units/abilities and strategies, to allow for very diverse games in theory, but in practice several of them are so hard to micro that they are almost never used. So, as a result, most games consist of 1 general strategy against 1 general strategy (e.g. vulture/tank vs zeal/goon) with armies consisting of only a few units, mostly standard units, because they are the easiest to micro.
odd units like ghosts, da's, queens are used in certain situations, when theyre useful, but on the whole they arent cost efficient. they arent used because they arent worth it, not because players dont have the time to use them. ghosts are only worth the gas, tech time, mana time when they can inflict really big damage, like locking down carriers/bcs. and you see ghosts used in those situations, when it seems like other solutions wont work. same with da's, mostly arent used because mael costs quite a bit of mana and dts are more useful. but once your opponent has a bunch of ultras maelstrom becomes very efficient and players start using them.
Think of an analogy: imagine that in chess, you'd have to make your move within 0.5 seconds, or you lose the game (or w/e). There would be people arguing that this is a great thing because it forces the players to think and react insanely fast. But the main problem with it (in analogy to SC1) is that one unit probably won't be used at all: the Knight, because it has such a special movement requiring you to take a deeper look at it, which would cost too much time with the new rule) You can compare this to SC1 units like ghosts or dark archons which are almost never used simply because no one has the time to use them, although they can be good in some situations. So we see that the game offers a lot more potential, but players can't use it. Whether you're the best pro in the world or the worst noob, you'll always fall back to units which you can handle easily because anything that takes too much time or APM is your enemy. Some units/abilities are hard to micro but "essential", like the high templar or defiler, so you will use them regularly no matter what, but all those units/abilities which are hard to micro but only useful in some situations or under special circumstances (like ghosts) are probably completely ignored by all players because the high speed and constant macroing simply does not grant you enough time to use them well. This means that SBS (not MBS) essentially dumbs the game down a bit. If you reward high speed so much, then advanced tactics/strategies won't ever be used because they require too much time. anti-mbs people say that alot.. but what would you prefer players do? what tactical elements of the game are being left out because players have to go back to their base every once in a while? as for the lesser used spellcasters, like i said they arent used because theyre inefficient, not because players cant make time for them.
Now, MBS will make macro less important (but it will only remove the "tedious" physical aspect of macro. The mental aspect is still there, so there will still be players who have better management than others). In effect, players will have more time available to do all the stuff they wish to do, to use all units/abilities, even if they're only useful in very few situations. The game will potentially be more diverse, which can only be a good thing.
nope, less diverse. like in a previous post it might be tedious, but the real important point is that you have to go back to your base and spend time producing units. im not gonna repeat myself, read the last post i made for the implications.
And about that "dexterity = good" argument, I mean come on... if I want to do something that requires dexterity then I play something else, but not a real time strategy game. Why force a dexterity element into a game like SC? Really, why? Is that good design?
because it is a _real time_ strategy game. if you want purely mental you can play turn based games like chess. part of real time is that execution is part of the gameplay too.
Besides, MBS will only affect the later stages of the game. Early on, you need a more diverse unit combination anyway so you have to select each gateway/unit manually. In late game however, when you want to produce 15 zealots at once, then MBS will help you and make a difference. Before that, it's very unlikely.
so.. it doesnt matter since it only applies late game?(it does apply early game though, just not as much)
If MBS was fundamentally bad then no game would ever include it, but all newer games do include it, even Blizzard thinks it's a good idea. Are they doing this because they think that taking a huge risk is a good thing, or because they want the game to suck? I don't think so... Just because SC1 is still the best RTS doesn't mean that it's only because of SBS. Think of the nearly perfect balance of the game, and the uniqueness of each race... these are the two main aspects SC1 always was praised for (and rightfully so). its included, and theyre thinking about including it, for the mass audience. however theyve also said they want sc2 to support esports. the argument is that mbs with starcraft gameplay will be worse, particularly for competetive gaming.
Simple things should be simple, and hard things should be hard. In SC1, everything is hard, even the most trivial things. This is bad design, if you ask me. For example, if I decide to build 1 zealot, this is a simple decision, and in SBS or MBS it's just a matter of clicking on 1 gateway and pressing 'z'. But if I decide to build 20 zealots, then we have a problem with SBS: the decision is just as simple again, but I suddenly have to invest a lot more time/clicks.
its still simple, just time consuming. and while that may be labeled an artificial limitation it improves the game (for reasons already discussed)
(Of course, you can't really blame SC1 for being like that, because in 1998 the only thing that mattered was that the UI is better than the WC2 UI. Blizzard did that, and everyone was happy. Now, they have to improve SC1's UI again, because the market respectively the players' demands have changed.)
The UI should be as simple as possible, in any game, in any program. In a lot of other genres, for example FPS games, you already have that situation. There's not much you can do to make the UI any easier. It's perfect! And no one complains that the gameplay is too easy! But in SC1 there's a LOT of clutter and artificial limitations, and some players even like it that way. Is it really necessary? I don't think so.
blanket statements like "The UI should be as simple as possible" are shortsighted. what matters is the end product. if 'artificial limitations' produce the best game, why avoid them simply because theyre artificial?
|
On November 11 2007 02:40 Trias wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2007 00:36 Fen wrote: [...] MBS removes the stresses on the brain by lowering the amount of thought processes required. Making it easier to play. More thought processes equals more stress on the brain, meaning the player who is faster at working everything out ends up at an advantage, which they should be.
Sorry, but what twist of mind makes that true. I don't see how thinking " I want to build 5 zealots" and then selecting 5 gateways and pressing z, requires significantly less thought then thinking " I want to build 5 zealots" and then individually selecting a gateway and pressing z five times.
Every concious action requires thinking. Even if the action is to move your mouse, it still requires thought. Dont try argue this point because youll just end up looking stupid. Every action requires thought. Due to the immense amount of actions required in starcraft, people are limited by their ability to think through their actions, not because the muscles in their fingers are too weak to move at the correct speed.
You seem to forget most people use two hands two type. (And keyboards have been specifically designed around this use.) Not many people here would be able to type 60 WPM with one hand on their mouse.
You obviously missed the point here. Lets half this number for 1 hand on the keyboard and then add say 50apm for the mouse, you still have a higher APM than what most people have. Happy? The numbers are not important, its the argument behind it. And that argument is that mechanical skill is not the limiting factor in APM.
I used typing just as an example of something that you do with your fingers MUCH faster than playing starcraft. And the reason its possible is because your able to think faster when typing, not because your fingers get stronger when you go to type.
|
The WPM arguement is completely out of place, just like the other comparisons to something unrelated, that are quite popular is this topic.
The mouse is the limiting factor(if you are faster with the keyboard that is, some people may have this reversed), if you have 50 apm with the mouse you won't be able to select more than 50 buildings a minute and even if you can type a million words per minute, that would mean shit, because you could queue 50 units and that's it, you won't have a 500 050 APM, you'll have 100 and this has nothing to do with thinking about building new units(lol), it's purely mechanical speed and accuracy, because you can never think as slow as you move, that's why pros spam actions - to keep their hands warm and fast, so they are as fast as possible when needed, not because it makes them think faster, lol.
|
Have you seen the wcg documentary about xellos? At one point in the movie the experts decide to test xellos to find out why he is so much more efficient than a amateur gamer. Well the biggest factor is that almost every move he makes in the game, wether it is keyboard or mouse, is instinctive. So he doesnt have to think his actions through. The amateur on the other hand must check the keyboard to find the correct keys and has to put alot more effort in thinking the next task at hand, be it mechanical or not. So this means xellos is faster because he has to concentrate less on what he is about to do.
|
|
|
|