|
On November 12 2007 14:56 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +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?
You're fighting a straw man here. You don't usually see 30 gates in pro gaming. However, if you scale down a bit, you will see many players with 10+ gates late in the game.
|
On November 12 2007 15:02 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +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
Do you expect those thousands of people that watch Pro-gaming in Korea to all be competitive? Its hard to imagine. However, starcraft is a fundamental balance of micro/macro. Thats what I enjoy about it. I don't want to see Sc2 turn into WC4.
|
Just for clarification are we still believing blizzard in their statement that "SC2 will be primary aimed at producing a very highly competitive Esport" as stated in nearly every interview the first week or two after the announcement of SC2 or are we going with "Blizzard wants to make the game easy and fun for the whole family" line?
|
Canada5062 Posts
On November 12 2007 15:35 NotSorry wrote:
Just for clarification are we still believing blizzard in their statement that "SC2 will be primary aimed at producing a very highly competitive Esport" as stated in nearly every interview the first week or two after the announcement of SC2 or are we going with "Blizzard wants to make the game easy and fun for the whole family" line?
From the angles being played by both sides of the debate, it appears the answer is both: the anti-MBSers are the former and the pro-MBSers are the latter.
No wonder people can't get along.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 12 2007 15:15 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2007 15:02 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: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 Do you expect those thousands of people that watch Pro-gaming in Korea to all be competitive? Its hard to imagine. However, starcraft is a fundamental balance of micro/macro. Thats what I enjoy about it. I don't want to see Sc2 turn into WC4.
the large majority of them will be, yes
those that aren't are watching for the star appeal or for fleeting entertainment, and thus will be drawn to it regardless. As long as the game is fast-paced and not 'warcraft 4', it will be interesting to watch, which leaves emphasis on the desires of hardcore spectators and competitive players as the more important goal.
People who don't understand the game or simply watch it casually absolutely won't care if there's an MBS system or not, but people who watch it with interest or play competitively certainly will.
|
On November 12 2007 15:55 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2007 15:15 hacpee wrote:On November 12 2007 15:02 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: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 Do you expect those thousands of people that watch Pro-gaming in Korea to all be competitive? Its hard to imagine. However, starcraft is a fundamental balance of micro/macro. Thats what I enjoy about it. I don't want to see Sc2 turn into WC4. the large majority of them will be, yes those that aren't are watching for the star appeal or for fleeting entertainment, and thus will be drawn to it regardless. As long as the game is fast-paced and not 'warcraft 4', it will be interesting to watch, which leaves emphasis on the desires of hardcore spectators and competitive players as the more important goal. People who don't understand the game or simply watch it casually absolutely won't care if there's an MBS system or not, but people who watch it with interest or play competitively certainly will.
I think you're overestimating the number of people involved in competitive gaming. Either that, your definition of competitive is far different from mine. Let me phrase it a different way. Do you think all those fangirls watching Starcraft are competitive gamers?
In the end, it will boil down to this. People who watch the games will feel the need to copy their idols, that is play the game. They will enjoy being able to select multiple buildings since it is simpler and less frustrating. They don't need to be competitive to enjoy that feature.
|
On November 12 2007 15:35 NotSorry wrote:
Just for clarification are we still believing blizzard in their statement that "SC2 will be primary aimed at producing a very highly competitive Esport" as stated in nearly every interview the first week or two after the announcement of SC2 or are we going with "Blizzard wants to make the game easy and fun for the whole family" line?
Both. Warcraft 3 is fun for the whole family and a popular E-Sport. Just look at how crazy big it is in China. Many SC1 purists do not enjoy WC3's gameplay for various reasons but nobody can claim it is either unpopular or not competitive. I certainly enjoy it.
Starcraft 2 will however go back to SC's roots of a much heavier amount of units and faster gameplay, but will certainly not go back to outdated control mechanisms. The point here is that it would frustrate the many for the pleasure of the few.
A good point that has been made many times is that to first have a pro scene, you need a scene. Dawn Of War is a game good enough (although lacking balance) to warrant a pro scene IMO (god, if Painkiller could, goddamnit), but nobody's playing it. Top hours you have about 250-300 players online. It got some minor cash tournaments, but it's very far from being anything decent.
So, basically, SC2's going for the good old motto that is the hallmark of all games that have passed through time. Easy to learn, but a lifetime to master. You can't go against that.
Rest assured that if the game is too "n00bish" it will be fixed.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 12 2007 16:06 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2007 15:55 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On November 12 2007 15:15 hacpee wrote:On November 12 2007 15:02 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: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 Do you expect those thousands of people that watch Pro-gaming in Korea to all be competitive? Its hard to imagine. However, starcraft is a fundamental balance of micro/macro. Thats what I enjoy about it. I don't want to see Sc2 turn into WC4. the large majority of them will be, yes those that aren't are watching for the star appeal or for fleeting entertainment, and thus will be drawn to it regardless. As long as the game is fast-paced and not 'warcraft 4', it will be interesting to watch, which leaves emphasis on the desires of hardcore spectators and competitive players as the more important goal. People who don't understand the game or simply watch it casually absolutely won't care if there's an MBS system or not, but people who watch it with interest or play competitively certainly will. I think you're overestimating the number of people involved in competitive gaming. Either that, your definition of competitive is far different from mine. Let me phrase it a different way. Do you think all those fangirls watching Starcraft are competitive gamers? In the end, it will boil down to this. People who watch the games will feel the need to copy their idols, that is play the game. They will enjoy being able to select multiple buildings since it is simpler and less frustrating. They don't need to be competitive to enjoy that feature.
The fangirls are there because of star appeal, as I said.
The point you just made is where opinion differs and the ability to convince each other ends, as I believe the general populace will enjoy the game regardless, but competitive players (and to clear that up, I mean pretty much anyone who plays in clan leagues or on ladders; people who play to improve and win) will tend to dislike the MBS system. You believe that the general populace won't enjoy the game without MBS, and that competitive players really won't care.
Neither of us can convince the other that we're correct 
|
On November 12 2007 16:06 BlackSphinx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2007 15:35 NotSorry wrote:
Just for clarification are we still believing blizzard in their statement that "SC2 will be primary aimed at producing a very highly competitive Esport" as stated in nearly every interview the first week or two after the announcement of SC2 or are we going with "Blizzard wants to make the game easy and fun for the whole family" line? Both. Warcraft 3 is fun for the whole family..
That can be debated in my opinion. At the basic level, WC3 takes much more skill than Starcraft does since it emphasizes micro and micro will always take more skill than macro. If you're a newb at WC3, you will be totally lost. If you're a newb at starcraft, you won't be as lost.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 12 2007 16:17 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2007 16:06 BlackSphinx wrote:On November 12 2007 15:35 NotSorry wrote:
Just for clarification are we still believing blizzard in their statement that "SC2 will be primary aimed at producing a very highly competitive Esport" as stated in nearly every interview the first week or two after the announcement of SC2 or are we going with "Blizzard wants to make the game easy and fun for the whole family" line? Both. Warcraft 3 is fun for the whole family.. That can be debated in my opinion. At the basic level, WC3 takes much more skill than Starcraft does since it emphasizes micro and micro will always take more skill than macro. If you're a newb at WC3, you will be totally lost. If you're a newb at starcraft, you won't be as lost.
That's completely untrue. I have a friend who's played WarCraft 3 since it came out, and when I was trying out the game a few months back I lucked out three or four wins out of the thirty games we played.
If I was brand new to StarCraft there's no way I could steal a win from someone who's played it as long as I have
|
On November 12 2007 16:13 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2007 16:06 hacpee wrote:On November 12 2007 15:55 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On November 12 2007 15:15 hacpee wrote:On November 12 2007 15:02 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: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 Do you expect those thousands of people that watch Pro-gaming in Korea to all be competitive? Its hard to imagine. However, starcraft is a fundamental balance of micro/macro. Thats what I enjoy about it. I don't want to see Sc2 turn into WC4. the large majority of them will be, yes those that aren't are watching for the star appeal or for fleeting entertainment, and thus will be drawn to it regardless. As long as the game is fast-paced and not 'warcraft 4', it will be interesting to watch, which leaves emphasis on the desires of hardcore spectators and competitive players as the more important goal. People who don't understand the game or simply watch it casually absolutely won't care if there's an MBS system or not, but people who watch it with interest or play competitively certainly will. I think you're overestimating the number of people involved in competitive gaming. Either that, your definition of competitive is far different from mine. Let me phrase it a different way. Do you think all those fangirls watching Starcraft are competitive gamers? In the end, it will boil down to this. People who watch the games will feel the need to copy their idols, that is play the game. They will enjoy being able to select multiple buildings since it is simpler and less frustrating. They don't need to be competitive to enjoy that feature. The fangirls are there because of star appeal, as I said. The point you just made is where opinion differs and the ability to convince each other ends, as I believe the general populace will enjoy the game regardless, but competitive players (and to clear that up, I mean pretty much anyone who plays in clan leagues or on ladders; people who play to improve and win) will tend to dislike the MBS system. You believe that the general populace won't enjoy the game without MBS, and that competitive players really won't care. Neither of us can convince the other that we're correct
I believe that MBS will make the game more enjoyable, just like attack move does. There are many things in Starcraft that frustrates the average newb, and SBS is one of them. I also believe that MBS needs to be implemented in a way that discourages pro-gamers from using it and keeps the ceiling high.
As for the definition of competitive, it doesn't really matter. The newbs who play the game will still outnumber the competitive people. Things like auto-mining and MBS will simply encourage the newbs to stop playing money maps and start playing the real game. They are the training wheels of RTS, and need to be there so more people will shift from ums and money maps to competitive play. However, you are limited with training wheels on, and it is my opinion that MBS and Auto-mining should limit you, just like training wheels do.
|
On November 12 2007 16:19 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2007 16:17 hacpee wrote:On November 12 2007 16:06 BlackSphinx wrote:On November 12 2007 15:35 NotSorry wrote:
Just for clarification are we still believing blizzard in their statement that "SC2 will be primary aimed at producing a very highly competitive Esport" as stated in nearly every interview the first week or two after the announcement of SC2 or are we going with "Blizzard wants to make the game easy and fun for the whole family" line? Both. Warcraft 3 is fun for the whole family.. That can be debated in my opinion. At the basic level, WC3 takes much more skill than Starcraft does since it emphasizes micro and micro will always take more skill than macro. If you're a newb at WC3, you will be totally lost. If you're a newb at starcraft, you won't be as lost. That's completely untrue. I have a friend who's played WarCraft 3 since it came out, and when I was trying out the game a few months back I lucked out three or four wins out of the thirty games we played. If I was brand new to StarCraft there's no way I could steal a win from someone who's played it as long as I have
You're assuming that the masses(family) are skilled players. That is simply untrue. Most people who pick up RTS games aren't skilled, and don't have great micro-management. Warcraft 3 has a higher learning curve than Starcraft because it emphasizes micro so much.
I'm a pretty newb gamer, so I know how much easier SC is than WC3. When I first played versus the computer on a non money map in starcraft, I won. The only previous experience I had was the terran campaign. In WC3, I crawled past a good portion of of the campaign before I played my first real game against the computer, but I still managed to be totally owned. 10 tries later, I still didn't win.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Honestly I find the micromanagement in warcraft 3 much more simplistic than the micro in StarCraft.
I've got a ton of friends around here who play WarCraft 3 and found StarCraft much more difficult. Obviously not a truly reflective sample, but its the extent of my experience on the subject 
|
On November 12 2007 16:33 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Honestly I find the micromanagement in warcraft 3 much more simplistic than the micro in StarCraft.
Thats because you're approaching it from the standpoint of a skilled gamer. Approach it from the viewpoint of a total newb to gaming. No skills, no prior RTS experience. Thats what makes a game family friendly. Thats what makes Starcraft family friendly. Its very easy to understand the basics. And thats what makes MBS so crucial. It makes the game easier and more family friendly. Who knows, maybe the real game might be played more instead of money maps and UMS.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 12 2007 16:39 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2007 16:33 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Honestly I find the micromanagement in warcraft 3 much more simplistic than the micro in StarCraft. Thats because you're approaching it from the standpoint of a skilled gamer. Approach it from the viewpoint of a total newb to gaming. No skills, no prior RTS experience. Thats what makes a game family friendly. Thats what makes Starcraft family friendly. Its very easy to understand the basics. And thats what makes MBS so crucial. It makes the game easier and more family friendly. Who knows, maybe the real game might be played more instead of money maps and UMS.
StarCraft 2 won't fail without MBS. Its predecessor became the most successful RTS of all time without it. MBS isn't crucial.
Back around in circles. I say it isn't important but it will annoy competitive players, you say it'll be too hard without it and nobody will play StarCraft 2 sans MBS.
|
On November 12 2007 16:43 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2007 16:39 hacpee wrote:On November 12 2007 16:33 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Honestly I find the micromanagement in warcraft 3 much more simplistic than the micro in StarCraft. Thats because you're approaching it from the standpoint of a skilled gamer. Approach it from the viewpoint of a total newb to gaming. No skills, no prior RTS experience. Thats what makes a game family friendly. Thats what makes Starcraft family friendly. Its very easy to understand the basics. And thats what makes MBS so crucial. It makes the game easier and more family friendly. Who knows, maybe the real game might be played more instead of money maps and UMS. StarCraft 2 won't fail without MBS. Its predecessor became the most successful RTS of all time without it. MBS isn't crucial. Back around in circles. I say it isn't important but it will annoy competitive players, you say it'll be too hard without it and nobody will play StarCraft 2 sans MBS.
It is the most successful RTS; yet most people play money maps and UMS. Do you get what I mean? Yes, StarCraft 2 will still enjoy success if it doesn't have MBS. However, MBS is a feature that will attract people to the game and even introduce them to low resource maps.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Most people don't play UMS and money maps. The competitive following of StarCraft is much, much broader.
Yes you can go onto USWest at midday and see a lot of UMS and Fastest Map Ever games, but the sheer number of people playing privately on Bnet or on other servers far outweighs that group. Hell, Bnet is more active when the koreans are around anyway, and most of what you see are 1v1 games on current pro maps.
This is a hard fact, you're wrong on this account. I do see your point, but again, this is where opinion comes into play and its futile to argue something like this.
|
On November 12 2007 16:54 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Most people don't play UMS and money maps. The competitive following of StarCraft is much, much broader.
Yes you can go onto USWest at midday and see a lot of UMS and Fastest Map Ever games, but the sheer number of people playing privately on Bnet or on other servers far outweighs that group. Hell, Bnet is more active when the koreans are around anyway, and most of what you see are 1v1 games on current pro maps.
This is a hard fact, you're wrong on this account. I do see your point, but again, this is where opinion comes into play and its futile to argue something like this.
And you have a source to accompany your "hard fact"?
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
I don't need a source. The venue for UMS and moneymap games is Bnet, and there are hundreds of thousands of StarCraft players in Korea and China that barely ever play on Bnet. There are tons of private servers and ladders, and a lot of offline play.
If you insist on blatantly suggesting my word isn't good, an article released about six months ago listed the most played games in Korea. Topping the list was Kart Rider at like 2.75million players, and StarCraft was second at like 2.1million. You can be sure that the vast majority of those players aren't 'ums and moneymap' players.
|
On November 12 2007 15:35 NotSorry wrote:
Just for clarification are we still believing blizzard in their statement that "SC2 will be primary aimed at producing a very highly competitive Esport" as stated in nearly every interview the first week or two after the announcement of SC2 or are we going with "Blizzard wants to make the game easy and fun for the whole family" line?
The short answer, for myself at least, would be "both."
The long answer: I believe that it's possible to design SC2 around a simpler control system (including features such as MBS, automine, and smartcast) such that the gameplay still has a very high degree of competitiveness/strategic depth, possibly equal to or maybe even greater than SC.* There are good arguments as to why MBS in isolation might hurt the competitive potential of SC2's gameplay, and many of those arguments are helpful in that they point out specific areas where MBS might hurt the gameplay. But it's always important to keep in mind that MBS and the other interface changes won't be in isolation; rather they're the base which the rest of the design works off of, and those other elements can compensate for effects that MBS would have in isolation.
For example, it's pretty clear that MBS is likely to significantly reduce the average level of multitasking required of a player, especially in the lategame. However, including gameplay elements that have attention-intensive features increases the level of multitasking, and enough of those could actually make SC2 have a greater level of multitasking than SC (not that I'd necessarily recommend it). Now, there are people who are concerned that the majority of these new features that we've heard of are micro-based than macro-based; this is also a valid concern, but it's a concern that has nothing to do with the competitiveness of the game, but rather the feel.
And that's the real problem, because there are multiple meta-arguments contained in this debate, of which "competitiveness" is only one. To name a couple of others:
- Audience: the effect of MBS on new players' (whether noobs or competitive players of other RTS games) entry into the SC2 competitive community.
- Feel: the effect of MBS on the "feel" of micro and macro in SC2 as compared to BW
- Skill Transferance: the effect of MBS on SC veterans' transfer of skills from BW; i.e. how many and of which types of veterans' skills should be carried over or require re-learning?
In some of these meta-arguments the pro-MBS side has better points, in others the anti-MBS side has better points. That's what makes the debate as a whole so complicated.
* To those who say "why need a simpler control system in the first place?" I turn to a well-founded belief in game design: if there are two games of equal gameplay depth, and one's controls are much easier to learn/use than the other's, the former will always be the better game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
