|
Sigh, we're now arguing numbers again, im pretty sure this counts as strawman arguing. If you do not have a 50APM with a mouse, then you are not suited to playing a competative game. Thats 1.2 seconds per click. Can you imagine what it would be like playing a FPS game if it took 1.2 seconds after seeing an enemy to get your mouse pointer on them and shoot?
Asla is totally correct. Xellos is faster because the actions are instinctive, and its that instintive ability which allows him to think that much faster and perform more actions per minute. Youll note they never looked at his finger muscle density and compared that with the amature.
Pros spam buttons to keep their hands warm and fast yes, but also so they dont enter a state of relaxation which would severely slow them down. Do you think the pros come out of the game feeling like they just put their muscles to the limit? God no, they could play hours longer at that speed before their hands became the limiting factor to their speed.
|
Canada5062 Posts
Given what we know so far about what we think SC2 will look/feel/play (not much, but also not little either), here's what I will miss about the game if MBS is implemented:
The "oohs and ahhs" of the crowd together with the sweet-queasy rush of adrenaline you get thinking "how the fuck did he make that many units?" when the in-game observer clicks to a part of a map to reveal that one of the players has somehow, unbelievably massed a jaw-dropping legion of units, poised to mete righteous whoop-ass on the unsuspecting armies of the opponent. If you've been following the pro scene, you know what I'm talking about.
That's how Nada, oov and Reach changed the game. They took macro to another plane of existence and swung the pendulum away from the Boxer-style microing that had been touted as the silver bullet solution to the game. There was a dawning that there are different ways of winning - micro, macro and all the subtle shades of balance between the two. The gameplay deepened and took another step to competitive nirvana.
With MBS, seeing a gaggle of units being produced will not be demonstrative of any extraordinary skill - it will be standard fare, even among the most pedestrian players.
At least that is the fear.
Oh, by the way, almost forgot to mention: klockan3 and 1esu are in-bred, noobie morons who should do the rest of us a favor and voluntarily remove themselves from the human gene pool. Thanks.
|
On November 11 2007 10:52 IdrA wrote:
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.
Well IMHO this balance isn't there anymore, macro is dominating, that's why it needs a little tweaking and MBS seems to be the perfect solution for this, as it removes the macro heavyness from the late game.
Warcraft is a different story, there are a lot of features that basically prevent too much macroing, like the upkeep or the fact that you usually have small armies around heroes.
None of this will be in SC2, so saying that macro would be eliminated just seems unreasonable.
It's just about decreasing its importance a bit.
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.
Actually most of these units/abilities ARE very useful. Just think of ghosts vs carriers (lockdown). It has the potential to be extremely strong but no T uses them (okay Boxer sometimes tries to be cute and live up to his "micro god" hype, but often he fails). Instead, every T always gets goliaths.
And why? Because they're much easier to micro, they are a standard attack unit.
At that stage in the game, you simply don't have the time for spellcasters that only hit a single target, regardless of how efficient they are.
You don't have the time because you have to macro so much.
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?
Micro your army better? In late game it's often only a question about A-click and retreat/flank and the use of some common spellcasters like HT, arbiter, defiler. You could do more with the units if you simply had the time to do it.
Or harass your opponent better.
I don't really care, players will find a way. No one will sit there doing nothing. The thought is just stupid.
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.
I know that. In RTS, speed will always count to some degree. But my point is: artificial limitations (like SBS) will REQUIRE a certain speed. But the speed you play with should only be determined by how strong your opponent is. I want the UI to have no part in the gameplay, so to say. In SC1, to be a pro, you'll need, say 75-100 APM just to manage your stuff and to "fight" with the UI. On top of that, you'll need another 75-<open end> APM to actually play the game against your opponent. If the numbers are accurate doesn't matter. The problem with SBS is that you fight the UI AND your opponent. I want the player to fight only the opponent.
so.. it doesnt matter since it only applies late game?(it does apply early game though, just not as much)
No, I just wrote this because anti-MBSers think so bad of MBS. But the thing is, if a game only lasts less than 15 minutes then MBS probably won't do any good or harm at all. It would be irrelevant. It will only make a real difference in a long game, which in SC1 always turns into a macro war, unless the map is already completely mined out, then micro becomes important again. But most games aren't that long.
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?
This statement is about as blanket as saying that MBS would destroy competitive gaming or completely eliminate the need of macroing. 
I agree though that if an artificial limitation is needed for competitive gaming, then Blizzard should consider dropping it in favor of SBS. But I absolutely don't believe that MBS would be bad for competitive gaming. That some of you like to macro like mad or even like the "keyboard dexterity" aspect (like Tasteless) is OK, but most people in the world don't like it, so you'll have to adapt or don't play SC2.
SC2 is the perfect chance for MBS to prove itself. It's the successor to the best RTS game, Blizzard pays a lot of attention to game balance, and it's not supposed to be as micro heavy as WC3.
mensrea:
1esu did some of the most well-written posts on the subject (at least in the older threads). Much better than your flames. Is this some kind of grudge?
Hmm.. something tells me that I should make a backup of my posts. *done*
|
SBS adds a strategical element to the game as you'll have more things to do than you can actually do; you'll have to prioritize. It's impossible for a human to do a lot actions at the exact same time, thus you have to do the actions you find most important and delay others. With more practice you can be able to do more actions at just about the same time.
To me it seems rather obvious that the extra strategical depth you get from SBS is a main factor that progamers can practice 16hours per day and still have things to improve. For total newbies there's enough going on already and they don't really need the extra element of multitasking you get from SBS as they can hardly multitask at all. And as said before, new players tend to like watching the fights more than just sitting in their base producing and a-moving while the fight is going on.
If mbs is implemented for everyone and used in tournaments I think the game would be more about details and perfection than prioritizing and efficiency. There would less of a difference between a player practicing 8hours a day compared to 16h. One thought crossed my mind though about this though.
There are hardly any other sport which require you to put as much time into practice as sc progaming. Top cs teams like fnatic have 5-6 hours scheduled practice a day. Maybe it's because the competition is so weak, or maybe it doesn't really matter much if they practice 5h or 15h - maybe other factors play a bigger role. In Europe and America it's hardly accepted to play computer games as much as the korean progamers do (no girlfriend because it takes up time, hardly have time for anything else than practicing, eating and sleeping). Practice should matter a lot, but you shouldn't be totally ruled out of the competition if you do 10-12h instead of 15h. I mean, even if you are the best F1 driver in the whole world and earn millions you still aren't just practicing\training the whole day.
I can understand that e-sports are met with an initial scepticism from the media in European countries if practicing the whole day is mere necessity in order to win.
What would happen on a professional level if MBS was implemented?
Maybe MBS would reduce the amount of practice hours for progamers and other things would matter more?
Maybe the game would become incredibly random if things are "too easy" on a prolevel?
Maybe it would still have 16h as a requirement to compete with the best?
I just got this hunch that esports would be more widely accepted outside of Asia if you wouldn't have to sacrifice social life totally in order to one day in some year have a chance to finally stand on the rostrum. It would probably be less impressive to watch top players in action if MBS is in the game though.
|
On November 10 2007 20:06 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 09:51 mahnini wrote: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. 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.
Speed will always be a skill requirement. There will always be someone that pushes the envelop and forces everyone else to play faster. With MBS the speed will just be more micro than macro by a very, very large margin. This is what has been done with BW, someone pushed the speed requirements and as a result, you have to step up your game.
I think your view of moderately skill gamers is skewed, BW has been around for many years now so of course you can expect the level that you would call "moderately skilled" to be higher than that of shorter lived games. SC2 will be a new game with new mechanics and strategies and everyone will have to start over.
What I consider a "moderate" player is a public game player. Of course, this view will be skewed if you view moderate skill as C on ICCup. This is very easy to do, because many of those that still do play are competitive players. However, you have to remember that it's still a competitive ladder where people practice intensively. The speed requirement to be a moderate player on Bnet is very reachable, but the speed requirement to be a moderate competitive gamer can only be reached with practice.
Is this not the way it should be?
|
On November 12 2007 05:34 Brutalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2007 10:52 IdrA wrote:
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. Well IMHO this balance isn't there anymore, macro is dominating, that's why it needs a little tweaking and MBS seems to be the perfect solution for this, as it removes the macro heavyness from the late game. Warcraft is a different story, there are a lot of features that basically prevent too much macroing, like the upkeep or the fact that you usually have small armies around heroes. None of this will be in SC2, so saying that macro would be eliminated just seems unreasonable. It's just about decreasing its importance a bit. macro isnt dominating, pros like justin who can macro well but have mediocre micro cant win anything. you have to have both (or be absolutely incredible at one) to succeed.
Show nested quote +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. Actually most of these units/abilities ARE very useful. Just think of ghosts vs carriers (lockdown). It has the potential to be extremely strong but no T uses them (okay Boxer sometimes tries to be cute and live up to his "micro god" hype, but often he fails). Instead, every T always gets goliaths. And why? Because they're much easier to micro, they are a standard attack unit. At that stage in the game, you simply don't have the time for spellcasters that only hit a single target, regardless of how efficient they are. You don't have the time because you have to macro so much.
uh
they are used, when the player judges that the time and resources a tech switch would cost are worth taking out the carriers. if your opponent is only making carriers to supplement a solid ground army, as is more common, its not worth it, so people only do it when the opponent has lots of carrs, because at that point it is worthwhile.
Show nested quote +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? Micro your army better? In late game it's often only a question about A-click and retreat/flank and the use of some common spellcasters like HT, arbiter, defiler. You could do more with the units if you simply had the time to do it. Or harass your opponent better. I don't really care, players will find a way. No one will sit there doing nothing. The thought is just stupid.
i hate this argument because it comes off as elitist and it sounds bad and everything but honestly... this is why the opinions of lesser players should hold less merit. progamers are constantly controlling every part of their army, or multiple armies. just because at your (or my) level it doesnt happen doesnt mean it doesnt happen at all.
Show nested quote +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. I know that. In RTS, speed will always count to some degree. But my point is: artificial limitations (like SBS) will REQUIRE a certain speed. But the speed you play with should only be determined by how strong your opponent is. I want the UI to have no part in the gameplay, so to say. In SC1, to be a pro, you'll need, say 75-100 APM just to manage your stuff and to "fight" with the UI. On top of that, you'll need another 75-<open end> APM to actually play the game against your opponent. If the numbers are accurate doesn't matter. The problem with SBS is that you fight the UI AND your opponent. I want the player to fight only the opponent.
Show nested quote +so.. it doesnt matter since it only applies late game?(it does apply early game though, just not as much) No, I just wrote this because anti-MBSers think so bad of MBS. But the thing is, if a game only lasts less than 15 minutes then MBS probably won't do any good or harm at all. It would be irrelevant. It will only make a real difference in a long game, which in SC1 always turns into a macro war, unless the map is already completely mined out, then micro becomes important again. But most games aren't that long.
how often do you watch replays? every other tvp turns into a half map vs half map macro war in which case mbs would have a MASSIVE effect. in tvz you generally have quite a few barracks early on in the game, etc.
Show nested quote +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? This statement is about as blanket as saying that MBS would destroy competitive gaming or completely eliminate the need of macroing. I agree though that if an artificial limitation is needed for competitive gaming, then Blizzard should consider dropping it in favor of SBS. But I absolutely don't believe that MBS would be bad for competitive gaming. That some of you like to macro like mad or even like the "keyboard dexterity" aspect (like Tasteless) is OK, but most people in the world don't like it, so you'll have to adapt or don't play SC2. SC2 is the perfect chance for MBS to prove itself. It's the successor to the best RTS game, Blizzard pays a lot of attention to game balance, and it's not supposed to be as micro heavy as WC3.
mbs has had chances to prove itself. in all the shitty little rts' that no one wants to play. sc2 being successful is far more important than giving mbs another shot.
|
It's impossible to correlate a games succes with MBS or not though since RTS games are not similar enough. You could remove MBS from an unbalanced game and it would still not be good.
I also don't really buy the progaming argument that top gamers macro would no longer be impressive because you can't translate current SC macro to SCII macro. Sure if someone built exactly as many units in SCII with MBS as oOV does now it probably wouldn't be that impressive.
But if we instead see Reach macro from 7 expansions with 40 (warp)gates that would most likely still be very impressive. I expect you'd have to see a shift in mapmaking towards maps with more expansions (or possibly more resources, remember that there are yellow minerals and all that kind of stuff) and other factors such as map control and properly rallying your troops to the front line would be more important than they are now.
I guess the troop ammounts in macro heavy maps and with MBS would be more similar to fastest possible maps than what we see today seeing as those are made to remove as much of the problems with macro as possible.
I'm not sure that would be a negative thing though because I'd love to see those kinds of forces on a real map with terrain and expansions.
Which I guess is my main point; If MBS does indeed mean that progamers can macro more then by all means throw more macro at them untill they can't handle it anymore.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Its more a question of watchability and the skill gap
With a system so simplified, there won't be any pros with better macro than other pros. It takes away an element of competition. The way StarCraft is right now, there are disparities in macro between even the top progamers, and with an MBS system in place, it becomes too easy and that disparity vanishes. Every progamer will have the same level of macro, its not as fun to watch for people who appreciate what a strong mechanical player can currently do in StarCraft.
Like in your post you say 'lets throw macro at them until they can't handle it anymore.' That won't happen, because the system is too easy with an MBS feature. You aren't adding an element of competitiveness, you're taking it away in favor of ease of use. Don't forget that 
|
On November 12 2007 08:43 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Its more a question of watchability and the skill gap With a system so simplified, there won't be any pros with better macro than other pros. It takes away an element of competition. The way StarCraft is right now, there are disparities in macro between even the top progamers, and with an MBS system in place, it becomes too easy and that disparity vanishes. Every progamer will have the same level of macro, its not as fun to watch for people who appreciate what a strong mechanical player can currently do in StarCraft. Like in your post you say 'lets throw macro at them until they can't handle it anymore.' That won't happen, because the system is too easy with an MBS feature. You aren't adding an element of competitiveness, you're taking it away in favor of ease of use. Don't forget that
I disagree. The maps have become more and more macro orientated during the years and the progamers have been steadily getting better at macro as well. If one was to take the current generation of progamers and compare them to the old generation and the old maps the difference is huge. Just increasing everyone skill does not mean that there won't be differences.
Similarly even with an easier UI just increasing the ammount of possible macro (a lot more macro oriented maps) untill progamers cannot keep up anymore would mean that there would still be those a the top who could do it better than their peers.
Every year the pro's become better at macro and every year we get maps that stretch that ability. MBS would be a huge leap but I think the principle is the same.
Also, macro is not just about clicking fast becuse all progamers can do that. The real macro pro's have sick timing and intuition when it comes to building units and expanding which MBS doesn't really automate. (Yes MBS will help with the multitasking in making those decisions but see the next point)
And a point from way back. The more you use MBS the worse your macro get. It's logical because if you build 10 tanks in a single click you just spent 1500 minerals and 1000 gas which you shouldn't have had in the bank in the first place. Especially not if your a progamer who has access to an improved UI. I'm sure many progamers would still do this late game when there's to many other things going on but remember if you increase everything so that there are more expansion running they will have more gates, more units and more places to defend.
MBS will make it easier to handle those things but there is still a limit and as long as no one hits the roof there will still be skill differences.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
I see your point
You may be correct but I still sincerely doubt it, I see more limitation on the skill cap than anything with an MBS system.
|
And what about all the people who don't give a shit about spectating and watching progamers? What about people who just want to play the game and enjoy it without the need for struggling too much?
I know that most of you doesn't want any "noobs" to play the game, you want it to be elite. I can understand that. Just tell me, why in almost every single post someone mentions progamers? "Imagine Oov... Consider Boxer... Blahblahblah"
This game is for EVERYONE, not just progamers! And it's made to be PLAYED and not watched (mainly)!
The only thing I want to ask of you is that you should stop looking at SC2 through BW proscene prism as - in my opinion - it won't do anyone any good.
Now I'll try to step away from any SC2 threads until I fail again  Have fun.
|
Hungary11291 Posts
On November 12 2007 09:30 Manit0u wrote:
And what about all the people who don't give a shit about spectating and watching progamers? What about people who just want to play the game and enjoy it without the need for struggling too much?
I think everyone is (should be) aware of the dilemma blizzard is facing: 1) Create a game which is enjoyable for the casual player, which triggers sales above all - it is a company relieing on selling their stuff. 2) Create a game which allows professional competition with perfect balance and a reasonable skillgap (the famous: easy to learn, hard to master). There would not be anything watchworthy or fascinating about a game where about 100 players could reach the highest level of play without many differences and where the win chances would be around 50% for all - there needs to be a possibility to become a hero, to become unique, to become dominating to keep fans and sponsors interested. As this is a site concerned with progaming, mainly the second part is being articulated, but I think everyone is aware of the needs of the first group.
|
On November 12 2007 09:30 Manit0u wrote:And what about all the people who don't give a shit about spectating and watching progamers? What about people who just want to play the game and enjoy it without the need for struggling too much? I know that most of you doesn't want any "noobs" to play the game, you want it to be elite. I can understand that. Just tell me, why in almost every single post someone mentions progamers? "Imagine Oov... Consider Boxer... Blahblahblah" This game is for EVERYONE, not just progamers! And it's made to be PLAYED and not watched (mainly)! The only thing I want to ask of you is that you should stop looking at SC2 through BW proscene prism as - in my opinion - it won't do anyone any good. Now I'll try to step away from any SC2 threads until I fail again Have fun.
actually blizz said their main goal was competetive gaming. whether thats just a publicity line or not, at least theyre aware of it.
but if you want to look at EVERYONE then anti-mbs people can stop bitching about speed. the average player in the entire player pool is a random bnet pubbie. you dont need more than 50 apm to be successful playing those, if you're smart.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 12 2007 09:30 Manit0u wrote:And what about all the people who don't give a shit about spectating and watching progamers? What about people who just want to play the game and enjoy it without the need for struggling too much? I know that most of you doesn't want any "noobs" to play the game, you want it to be elite. I can understand that. Just tell me, why in almost every single post someone mentions progamers? "Imagine Oov... Consider Boxer... Blahblahblah" This game is for EVERYONE, not just progamers! And it's made to be PLAYED and not watched (mainly)! The only thing I want to ask of you is that you should stop looking at SC2 through BW proscene prism as - in my opinion - it won't do anyone any good. Now I'll try to step away from any SC2 threads until I fail again Have fun.
its not like the game won't be fun without MBS. People will play it and enjoy it regardless. Lots of people really like StarCraft, you know.
The main argument is that people will approve no matter what blizzard decides on this matter, but the competitive side of it will suffer with an MBS system.
|
On spectating.
I think that for mr.n00b that'll end up watching pros of his favorite game, which he really enjoyed the campaign of but really gets his ass kicked online, will not understand how the quick production of units is such a big deal, but will understand, and will be very excited and wanting for more, when he'll see immense battles and out of this world micromanagement.
Micromanagement is far more spectacular for the regular guy than macromanagement. It's not even a contest. Yes, us gamers who spend a lot of time studying the game will see the finesse and delicacy of an heavy macro TvP match, but mr.n00b will just think "COME ON! FIGHT ALREADY! GEEZ...".
A game boasting more micro and a larger average number of units will go a longer way in breaking the barrier of E-Sports vs mainstream media than a game like SC1.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On November 12 2007 13:17 BlackSphinx wrote:
On spectating.
I think that for mr.n00b that'll end up watching pros of his favorite game, which he really enjoyed the campaign of but really gets his ass kicked online, will not understand how the quick production of units is such a big deal, but will understand, and will be very excited and wanting for more, when he'll see immense battles and out of this world micromanagement.
Micromanagement is far more spectacular for the regular guy than macromanagement. It's not even a contest. Yes, us gamers who spend a lot of time studying the game will see the finesse and delicacy of an heavy macro TvP match, but mr.n00b will just think "COME ON! FIGHT ALREADY! GEEZ...".
A game boasting more micro and a larger average number of units will go a longer way in breaking the barrier of E-Sports vs mainstream media than a game like SC1.
Unfortunately, this may be true and is probably the best argument for adopting MBS. As with so many things, "better" does not always mean "popular". Hooray for the masses.
|
On November 12 2007 13:17 BlackSphinx wrote:
On spectating.
I think that for mr.n00b that'll end up watching pros of his favorite game, which he really enjoyed the campaign of but really gets his ass kicked online, will not understand how the quick production of units is such a big deal, but will understand, and will be very excited and wanting for more, when he'll see immense battles and out of this world micromanagement.
Micromanagement is far more spectacular for the regular guy than macromanagement. It's not even a contest. Yes, us gamers who spend a lot of time studying the game will see the finesse and delicacy of an heavy macro TvP match, but mr.n00b will just think "COME ON! FIGHT ALREADY! GEEZ...".
A game boasting more micro and a larger average number of units will go a longer way in breaking the barrier of E-Sports vs mainstream media than a game like SC1.
this hasnt got anything to do with MBS though, its just the mechanics of the matchup that lead to players turtling and massing units.
edit: i agree with what youre saying though
|
The macro/micro balance of Starcraft is what makes it the best RTS, even 8 years after it was released. That said,there needs to be MBS for Starcraft 2. Blizzard has always catered to the majority; that fact is what makes Blizzard so successful. Blizzard released a dumbed down version of Everquest with World of Warcraft and ran away with a big hit.The reason people like Starcraft so much is because it was way easier to play than Warcraft 2. Diablo 2, similarly, evolved from the original Diablo to become simpler; things like running, additional hot-keys, no friendly fire, and way-points made the game more enjoyable.Now, with Starcraft 2, Blizzard needs to follow the same formula in order to become a huge hit. Because many games out there already have MBS, an omission by Blizzard will result in lackluster reviews and an indifference among the masses. Starcraft 2 needs MBS and will have MBS.
MBS is going to be implemented in SC2, however, thats not to say that MBS should be the choice for gaming at the professional level. We learn in Economics101 that all things have trade-offs. You need to sacrifice one thing in order to get something else. MBS should be implemented with the same mentality. There should be a penalty for using MBS, period.
What that penalty is can be highly debated. In my opinion, the best way to implement the penalty would be to make units produced with MBS take longer to build.
For example, and this is only an example, lets say we have a penalty for any unit that is produced with an MBS grouping greater than 2. I'll call it the "MBS Penalty" The penalty would be 1 second per building that goes over the 2 building limit. So, if I have 2 gateways hot-keyed to my 1 button, when I press 1z, my zealots(lots) will not suffer any penalties. However, if I have 3 gateways hot-keyed to that button, and I press 1z, all three of my lots will take 1 second longer to build. With 4 gateways, the lots will take 2 seconds longer. With 5 Gateways, it will take 3 seconds and so on and so forth.
This way, when Newb Joe six-pack thinks that clicking each gateway is a huge chore, he can simplify the work by using MBS. However, Joe will still be a noob and will suffer for using the shortcut. Over time, Joe can learn that by using smaller gateway groups, he can build units faster. Instead of using 1z for 6 gateways and suffering a 4 second penalty on all the zealots, he might hotkey the gateways into two groups of 3. With a few presses, 1z2z, he can reduce his penalty to 1 second! And god forbid that he increases his apm and uses 3 groups for his six gateways.Then he will suffer no penalty at all!
If you want, you can take this idea even further. You can introduce a one second que cool-down in addition to the MBS Penalty. So, when Joe is still at his newbish stages and hot-keys 6 gateways to one button, he will suffer even further than in the first example. If he presses 1z, each gateway will wait in line. Gateway 1 will go first and suffer no cooldown. Gateway 2 will need to wait 1 second after gateway one ques up to start queing. Gateway 3 will need to wait a second after Gateway 2 starts queing and etc. Over time, Joe 6pack will realize that if he ques his units up 1 second before the previous units are finished, he will have eliminated the 1 second que cool-down. Thus, improvement is achieved!
I have similar ideas for mining. I think auto-mining is great. However, it takes away from the skill of the game. A 4 second idle time for workers before they start auto-mining will encourage pro players to pay attention to their workers. At the same time, it will make the game easier at the newb level.
These are just suggestions in implementing MBS. Starcraft is not a game tailored for the elite. There are a small group of pro-gamers that have mastered it, but they pale in comparison to the millions of players who haven't mastered Starcraft. Just because the pro players don't like mbs doesn't mean that it shouldn't be implemented. However, MBS can be implemented in a way that discourages skilled players from using it too much. Thanks for reading my suggestions; what are yours?
|
On November 12 2007 14:26 hacpee wrote:What that penalty is can be highly debated. In my opinion, the best way to implement the penalty would be to make units produced with MBS take longer to build. That already exists in MBS intrinsically. If you queue 30 zealots in 30 gates what the hell did you have 3000 minerals in the bank to begin with?
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 12 2007 13:17 BlackSphinx wrote:
On spectating.
I think that for mr.n00b that'll end up watching pros of his favorite game, which he really enjoyed the campaign of but really gets his ass kicked online, will not understand how the quick production of units is such a big deal, but will understand, and will be very excited and wanting for more, when he'll see immense battles and out of this world micromanagement.
Micromanagement is far more spectacular for the regular guy than macromanagement. It's not even a contest. Yes, us gamers who spend a lot of time studying the game will see the finesse and delicacy of an heavy macro TvP match, but mr.n00b will just think "COME ON! FIGHT ALREADY! GEEZ...".
A game boasting more micro and a larger average number of units will go a longer way in breaking the barrier of E-Sports vs mainstream media than a game like SC1.
How much of the spectator base do people who aren't competitive themselves make up? I'd wager its a very small percentage.
Still, its a good point
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
