EPTAnyways , I can see SC2 with MBS + automine too much similar to WC3 without heroes.Now at least it's without heroes
I hope blizzard will have the balls to exclude MBS , or at least replace it with other macro moves.
[D] MBS Discussion - Page 9
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Dariush
Romania330 Posts
Anyways , I can see SC2 with MBS + automine too much similar to WC3 without heroes.Now at least it's without heroes I hope blizzard will have the balls to exclude MBS , or at least replace it with other macro moves. | ||
|
BlackSphinx
Canada317 Posts
On November 12 2007 16:43 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: 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. SC1 was released in the 90s. That's the big difference. People are used to certain interface options now and you can expect the game to have horrendous ratings if the control isn't top notch. Moreover, it will annoy BW purists, but I can assure you that pro WC3 players making the switch to SC2 will not care. I would simply like to reiterate that competitive RTS players are not only present in SC. | ||
|
Wonders
Australia753 Posts
On November 12 2007 16:06 hacpee wrote: 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? The number of people involved in competitive gaming, that is, the number who know about the Korean pro scene and know what it takes to be good at the game vastly outnumber the money map players and UMS players. Even on public battle net servers, at least during Korean hours, there's more 1:1 Luna or Python than the rest of the games combined. And this is the tip of the iceberg; like Steve said there are many times more playing in private games on battle net, or playing on private battle net servers, or on hamachi, or on LAN at any one of thousands of PC bangs in Korea. On November 12 2007 16:29 hacpee wrote: 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. I don't understand how being a newb gamer by your own admission enables you to see how much easier SC is than WC3. And the AI in starcraft is obviously worse than that in warcraft 3. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On November 12 2007 00:17 Fen wrote: 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. You are the one arguing numbers, it's you who posted 50 mouse only apm, and now you act like it was me, lol, and again, there is another of your favorite out of place comparisons, this time between reaction time and average speed, which are very different things. Also, when someone now doesn't fit your theory, he just isn't suited for a competitive game and there's suddenly no need to fit him in, funny. So how much effective APM do you think you have? Let's say it's 300(which is pretty high) and half of it is mouse only, so you make 150 clicks per minute, or one click per 0.4 seconds. Can you imagine what it would be like playing a FPS game if it took 0.4 seconds after seeing an enemy to get your mouse pointer on them and shoot? Among students the average reaction time is between 0.2 and 0.25 seconds, so they should easily achieve 600 effective APM, right? Progamers have around 0.15, so they should have a lot more? Or your comparisons are ridiculous? So pros instinctively play the game and typists instinctively type, advanced typists type 700+ CPM, so progamers are just dumber and slower thinkers than typists(and on top of that a lot of their actions are spam) and typists are about to take over the BW proscene? Or your comparisons are ridiculous? After that you're talking about muscle density and having weak fingers, again comparisons that have nothing to do with the topic, especially when it's about dexterity, speed, accuracy and hand/eye coordination, which are NOT strength, so wtf are you talking about? When playing I always know what I am gonna do next(especially when queueing units in multiple buildings, which according to you requires so much though), my fingers are NOT stopping and waiting for my next thought(rofl), they are moving constantly, so the limiting factor is the physical dexterity, not a slow though process, which is ridiculous. Misinterpreting everything that isn't convinient for you and out of place comparisons and examples certainly means you're right though, I concede. Edit: Another very funny thing is that you were the one arguing numbers with your comparisons with typing and now when it's used against you it's suddenly strawman arguement, nice way to shoot YOURSELF in the leg kid, not to mention you DON'T actually have any other argument besides that and you're complaining about others ripping it apart? What a bunch of redicilous bullshit. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17261 Posts
 Perhaps it is time for us to debate a more crucial thing that can affect SC2 much more than MBS (yes, there are things that can "noobify" it even more) which would be the god damned unlimited unit selection. Personally I don't care if there will be MBS or SBS in SC2 as I've played both BW and WC3 extensively (still I'd like to see MBS implemented as it is something that I didn't ever need in WC3 and always craved for in BW) but UUS would totally cripple the game for me. | ||
|
Fuu
198 Posts
Actually, there's no good starcraft player nor true lover of this game (read not one who switched for good to wc3) who advocates in favor of MBS. It's totally uneeded, and dangerous for reasons that many stated before. I would be happy if people who still play and enjoy the game could have a little more weight in the decision than a bunch of switchers who wants to compete in all the games newly available, or are waiting eagerly to change their boring wc3. And if the later's not the case, then stick to it. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On November 12 2007 21:54 Fuu wrote: wc3 doesn't suck because of MBSOf course it goes nowhere, since once again the wc3 crowd infested the forum, and the pro mbs are always so noisy. Actually, there's no good starcraft player nor true lover of this game (read not one who switched for good to wc3) who advocates in favor of MBS. It's totally uneeded, and dangerous for reasons that many stated before. I would be happy if people who still play and enjoy the game could have a little more weight in the decision than a bunch of switchers who wants to compete in all the games newly available, or are waiting eagerly to change their boring wc3. And if the later's not the case, then stick to it. | ||
|
Fuu
198 Posts
| ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On November 12 2007 17:44 BlackSphinx wrote: I would simply like to reiterate that competitive RTS players are not only present in SC. There are also competitive Checkers players, but if a sequel to Chess was in production, would you want to hear what they had to say? | ||
|
Guybrush
Spain4744 Posts
Would be interesting to read his thoughts about it. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17261 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On November 12 2007 23:39 NonY[rC] wrote: There are also competitive Checkers players, but if a sequel to Chess was in production, would you want to hear what they had to say? A quote so nice it has to be read twice~ | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2620 Posts
On November 12 2007 21:54 Fuu wrote: Of course it goes nowhere, since once again the wc3 crowd infested the forum, and the pro mbs are always so noisy. Actually, there's no good starcraft player nor true lover of this game (read not one who switched for good to wc3) who advocates in favor of MBS. It's totally uneeded, and dangerous for reasons that many stated before. I would be happy if people who still play and enjoy the game could have a little more weight in the decision than a bunch of switchers who wants to compete in all the games newly available, or are waiting eagerly to change their boring wc3. And if the later's not the case, then stick to it. That's precisly the kind of attitude we don't need in this thread. It's also exactly the kind of hypebole we don't need in this thread. Seriously people if your not going to make a decent argument don't bother posting. Anyway, are we allowed to discuss other UI changes in this thread as well and/or potential gameplay additions that would add more macro? | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote: This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition. That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game. I'm sure most of you know who Fisheye is (and for those who don't, he used to be one of the best non-korean protoss players, I think his best finish in a really big tournament was 2nd in the WCG 2003 but he's won many others, was definitely one of the best players outside korea overall), and he had right around 100~ APM, yet macroed very, very well. Sure, he was also famous for using great strategy, but his PvT macro was top-notch. Another example of this is Nazgul, who yet again played right around the low to mid 100s (and, like fisheye, was also one of the very best non-koreans). Both of them were/are very good strategically which I guess made up for their somewhat lower APM. On November 10 2007 18:34 Locke. wrote: Actually it's just the opposite. You would never become a professional athlete if you expect to love every aspect of the sport you are playing. The same holds true for proffesional musicians, professional actors and progamers. In every field to get to the highest levels you have to do things you don't always love. A different question. I have seen the repeated argument that MBS will make people focus more on micro. But coming to think of it MBS will allow people to produce a lot more units in the same time period compared to no MBS. So the difference in unit count between a player that constantly produce and a player who focus on micro and doesn't produce constantly will be huge thus rendering the micro useless and actually making the game even more macro oriented. I think the problem is the possibility that someone spending all their time microing can still maintain a similiar level of unit production as someone spending much more of their time on macro. Everyone playing the same way micro/macor balance wise would suck, although it doesn't have to happen this way just because MBS is implemented, it's just something I fear. On November 12 2007 06:09 Mergesort wrote: 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. I don't think you have to practice 16 hours a day because of how the game plays, if Warcraft 3 was the Korean game of choice I'm sure their progamers would be playing 16 hours a day as well. It's just a testament to how insanely competitive and cutthroat the progaming scene currently is. In a way, this is an argument for adding MBS, as if it would mean a bigger scene (with more reasonable salaries for lower end players) the health advantages of this would probably outweigh any loss in gameplay depth. Even so, to be the very best, most people would probably still be forced to dedicate that much time to playing.. I don't know how much Chinese table tennis pros practice, but I'd imagine the situation is similiar. Anytime the competition becomes very hard, and the rewards are only really worth it if you get to the top, I think we'll see this happening. I'm not super familiar with the Go or Chess professional scenes, but I think it's pretty much the same there - to become a pro, you have to LIVE the game more or less. On November 12 2007 16:49 hacpee wrote: 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. WC3 has MBS, yet I think a very common complaint among the Warcraft 3 players (I mean the ones who like to play ladder etc) is that such a large % of the community is playing custom games (IE DoTA). I don't think MBS will introduce a change eitherway in this regard. On November 12 2007 20:19 Manit0u wrote: I'm not sure if this thread is going anywhere any more Perhaps it is time for us to debate a more crucial thing that can affect SC2 much more than MBS (yes, there are things that can "noobify" it even more) which would be the god damned unlimited unit selection. Personally I don't care if there will be MBS or SBS in SC2 as I've played both BW and WC3 extensively (still I'd like to see MBS implemented as it is something that I didn't ever need in WC3 and always craved for in BW) but UUS would totally cripple the game for me. If you feel up to it, opening a thread about it would be a good idea. For me, it never seemed that bad as I'm sure in order to manage, you'll still need to split your units up in smaller groups. I'd be interested to hear why you think it's bad, as for me the, the only reason I can come up with at the top of my head is that it doesn't feel right (very un-blizzardish I suppose), and that's hardly much of a reason On November 12 2007 21:54 Fuu wrote: Of course it goes nowhere, since once again the wc3 crowd infested the forum, and the pro mbs are always so noisy. Actually, there's no good starcraft player nor true lover of this game (read not one who switched for good to wc3) who advocates in favor of MBS. It's totally uneeded, and dangerous for reasons that many stated before. I would be happy if people who still play and enjoy the game could have a little more weight in the decision than a bunch of switchers who wants to compete in all the games newly available, or are waiting eagerly to change their boring wc3. And if the later's not the case, then stick to it. I'd appreciate it if comments such as "the wc3 crowd" and "infested" were not used in the same sentence. I very much value the input of anyone from the WC3 community, as I believe that while I don't enjoy the game that much personally, it's a very good game and I'm quite sure a lot of smart players play it. Furthermore, a lot of them have both WC3 and SC experience, making their input very valuable. Okay, this is about all I felt like commenting on right now, and I'm very happy that after reading through this entire thread, I found almost nothing off-topic or in need of moderating !EDIT: On November 13 2007 04:48 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: That's precisly the kind of attitude we don't need in this thread. It's also exactly the kind of hypebole we don't need in this thread. Seriously people if your not going to make a decent argument don't bother posting. Anyway, are we allowed to discuss other UI changes in this thread as well and/or potential gameplay additions that would add more macro? Well, gameplay additions resulting in more macro is definitely on topic, given the direction the topic has taken. Seems kinda silly to talk so much about it and then not be allowed to come up with ideas for how to go about it Other UI changes, hm, with how the thread has progressed maybe we'd just be better off renaming it to something more UI-general, that might be more productive. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
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. The feel of the game is pretty much the only reason I post in MBS threads (sometimes I get sidetracked -.-). Again, to understand this you have to have played starcraft and understood it on a different level than the average gamer. There is much more beyond macro than repetitive clicking and now matter how hard I try to get this point across it is always looked over or blanketed with "add different macro requirements." Like what? It is pointless to argue for MBS in this fashion (most of this thread), you're swimming upriver with nearly the entire competitive BW community pushing you back. How about instead of arguing why MBS should be added, present ideas to replace the OBVIOUS hole that will be left without SBS. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17261 Posts
On November 13 2007 04:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: If you feel up to it, opening a thread about it would be a good idea. For me, it never seemed that bad as I'm sure in order to manage, you'll still need to split your units up in smaller groups. I'd be interested to hear why you think it's bad, as for me the, the only reason I can come up with at the top of my head is that it doesn't feel right (very un-blizzardish I suppose), and that's hardly much of a reason I'd appreciate it if comments such as "the wc3 crowd" and "infested" were not used in the same sentence. I very much value the input of anyone from the WC3 community, as I believe that while I don't enjoy the game that much personally, it's a very good game and I'm quite sure a lot of smart players play it. Furthermore, a lot of them have both WC3 and SC experience, making their input very valuable. Ad 1: Naah, I don't really think like opening the thread about it. But UUS is just something beyond my imagination, MBS can (and for most people will) make your resources management harder and more uncontrollable while UUS will make your whole army a chaos (if you use it of course). It must really suck to not know how many units you have, where are they and the fact you can't send your lots in front of goons for example. Ad 2: I don't think WC3 players can give some more input regarding the MBS topic since (like I have stated many times before) this game just doesn't give you the means to use it properly, very few buildings, very few units - why the hell implement MBS there anyway? Armies of Exigo on the other hand is a great representative of macro gaming with MBS imo. You get a shitload of units there, you have smartcasting, automining and everything else Blizzard wants to put in SC2. It's real shame that so few people played it, this game was a perfect example of how to make an outstanding RTS (maybe because SC gamers made it): 1. Fast paced gameplay. 2. A lot of room for innovative strategies. 3. Extremely micro and macro heavy (yes, MBS didn't kill macro there at all and trust me, there were many people - including myself - who just couldn't handle unit production mid/late game while still fighting battles). So, to conclude it: If SC2 is going to be AoX in space - I'm all for it because it's going to be AWESOME!!! *prepares for a lot of "BLASPHEMER!!!" PM* Edit: It all reminded me about this awesome thing Muhweli did: http://www.gamershell.com/download_9797.shtml It's very slow dl though  Edit2: Found a better link and updated. | ||
|
Prose
Canada314 Posts
With no scale factor, the result is illogical: time.to.build.1.tank = time.to.build.12.tanks With a scale factor of 4 units per second, the result is more sensible: time.to.build.1.tank < time.to.build.12.tanks .25 seconds < 3 seconds So, how to implement this? Via an example, with 8 gateways bound to hotkey 5, you have three options: 5,z,z,z,z,d,d,t,t ..... to build 4 zealots, 2 dragoons, 2 high templars 5,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z ..... to build 8 zealots hold5,z ..... to build 8 zealots Option 1 gives you diversity of units without taking your attention away from the battlefield. Option 2 gives you a faster way to massbuild one unit without taking your attention away from the battlefield. Option 3 allows you to massbuild with press of two buttons, but holding the hotkey forces your attention away from the battlefield by centering your screen onto your hotkeyed buildings (a function of pressing a hotkey twice). You are also forced to watch animation as each building gets highlighted (cycling through) for .25 seconds. So, with 8 buildings, that is .25s x 8 = 2.0 seconds of animation time. In a newbie game, 2.0 seconds is nothing, but in a pro-game, it can spell doom to have your attention away from battlefield that long. Pros will not use option 3, but it's there for newbs. Will newbs beat pros using option 3? NO. Think about it. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
|
Prose
Canada314 Posts
On November 12 2007 14:56 Zanno wrote: 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? Ah, excellent point. In a game between MBS users, it's already an intrinsic advantage that player B with eight gateways gets eight units, while player A with one gateway is only getting one unit. So why make their 'time cost' the same? Hacpee, I think you're on the right path. Something has to be done to MBS implementation, because right now, it makes the time.to.build.1.tank = time.to.build.8.tanks, which is illogical. It should be time.to.build.1.tank < time.to.build.8.tanks. As Zanno pointed out, we can't really alter the intrinsic factor of cost, but I think time and attention can be scale-factored. After all, it takes more time and attention to build 8 tanks over 1 tank. | ||
| ||
