In the words of our beloved longtime moderator, ToKoreaWithLove
The MBS discussion thread
This is the last MBS thread you will ever see. We are remaking it as an official thread because quite honestly the previous ones became quite large and quite damaged by spam, stupidity, and useless arguing.
This will be heavily moderated. We will accept no rulebreaking, we will delete posts that don't follow the rules, and we will swing the mean 'ol ban hammer. We will tell you to back off if your clearly don't know what you are talking about. Too harsh? Go somewhere else.
When all is said and done we want this to be a meaningfull thread about something we are all concerned or enthusistic about. We want YOUR opinion, your arguments, your enthusiasm, your fears and your concerns about how this will change the gameplay we all love.
Rules:
1. Educate yourself. If you don't know something, find out. Search, read our articles or find out otherwise. Many of our members are knowledgeable, and if they make a point you don't understand, admit your lack of said knowledge and fix it.
2. Stay ON TOPIC. (!!! !! !! 111 !!!). This thread is meant for MBS discussions, nothing else. Nobody gives a rat's ass about misspelling or your gamei score 200 years ago. If you have something good to say, say it. One-liners or funny remarks does not belong in this thread. A good idea is to state your stance on the matter in your post.
3. Be civil. Insult other members in any way and you are gone.
4. Be smart. Think about your own post, check if it has been said before. When replying to someone else's post - make sure you know what his/hers post is about, that you understand it, and that your disagreement, agreement or addition is properly worded and shows your opinion clearly.
5. Constructive criticism. You are allowed to tell other posters that they are wrong. Criticism should be allowed in any discussion, but it should be done nicely, and you are expected to back up your claims.
6. No polls. I've already read two posts today where forum users (not this forum) admits to making multiple votes on our last poll on this matter. Polls can not be trusted, and should be avoided
7. For the purpose of discussion in this thread, the term "Macro" takes the meaning given to it by StarCraft players. It means "Economy and Production Management", not whatever you think it should mean.
I don't want another flame war between fastest map possible players and those who dont play infinite money maps. It all comes down to the same argument....
I think a majority of the veterans can agree that MBS will cause SC II to be "noobified" and should not be allowed.
While a majority of the newer posters think that it's a newer game so it should be treated as such and we should jump on the bandwagon and have MBS too, then throw it away and come back to SC:BW 2 months after its release...
Based off Blizzcon demo information I've very against the addition of an MBS system. Personally I feel that it slows the game down and tries forcing a larger focus to micro. Blizzard has responded to this by saying that extra things will be added to take up time, but have so far not given an example, unless you count warp gates and prisms, which personally I don't think counts in these regards nor makes up for it. The thing is it's not just about taking up clicks and whatnot, it's about the overall flow of the game, a player's style and battle tactics. Currently with BW there is a forced balanced between micro and macro functions, largely reproduction of units during combat situations. Deciding to take those few seconds during a fight to keep production going or focus solely on microing your control groups is very often game deciding. With mbs it is nearly completely taken out of the equation, frantic clicks and time with your screen away from the battle replaced by a simple, 4z,5d combo to make another wave. Now I know the blizzcon demo was rather limited in these regards but even things like a zealot rush showed just how powerful mbs really was to keep those zealots coming while microing people down.
I completely agree with what NotSorry said above: in my opinion, MBS will take away a HUGE portion of the macro part away. Many said it's just the "mechanics" part and that SC:II is a strategy game, and therefore should sort out the same old parts of the game, and focus on the actual "strategy" of the game.
But, SC allowed people to choose their way of playing: micro over macro such as all in builds (3hatch hydra anyone? ^.-v), or macro over micro which we see a lot more with all the FE builds and what not. If then, MBS was implemented, the game certainly takes away the two distinct options that players can choose over. Not only this, it takes away the dexterity, and the hours players must put in to get their macro better and better.. resulting in the "noobified" version of the game.
MBS will take the SC:II down!!
Oh, and please, oh please bring back the reaver.. that was a futile attempt but hell, it's worth a try.
Starcraft was very macro intensive, however when you got into battles, only the VERY best could macro and micro their army at the same time. Most peoples macro stops completely when they get into battle, leaving macro more of a task to complete when you are not fighitng. Assuming that people are not constantly going to be in battles, its important that people are still challenged when they are in quiet periods of the game. By increasing the amount of micro to compensate the loss of macro, you still dont keep the 'quiet' periods of the game intense, which is what starcraft meant to many people (an intense game from start to finish).
Mbs takes away many macro actions, to keep up the intensity of the game, these MUST be replaced with other macro actions. Seeing as the only new macro actions we've seen so far will have little impact, Mbs cannot stay.
I'm against MBS because it would blur the line between a person that is truly skilled at macro and and micro and someone who isn't. While cycling through your gates is done in less than a second or two there is a chance you could mess up and miss a gate or put to many in a production line, etc. With MBS this will be nonexistent because people can just group as many as is allowed and press "D" or "Z" or whatever will be the new unit hotkeys and have an army on the way.
This has all been sad before but it really is the clear reason why MBS shouldn't be allowed in my opinion. Micro is important but any can micro, it takes a real skilled player to micro and macro and do it well.
Ex. OOv vs Boxer, both can micro well but OOv has better overall macro which gives him an edge but with MBS that advantage becomes less important because Boxer can keep up with macro because he doesn't have to jump back to his base and macro and he can just keep microing and press "5" or whatever hotkey he has it on when he sees a ping.
Although there is still the strategy involved and the micro, the lack of the macro aspect will severely detract from the game in my opinion.
So that's my two cents. It's been said before and in a much more eloquent way but this is how I feel.
I'm for MBS myself, but only if Blizzard can maintain a high skill ceiling for the game with something that is more interesting (more interesting than repetitious building selection that is). It's good to have a large difference between a novice and a veteran, but I'd prefer if that macro gameplay were achieved through something that enhances large-scale-attack strategy as a balance to micromanaged tactics. This would balance macro and micro with true strategies and tactics (as a way to maximize the fun of player choices). If that can't be done, however, then SBS should remain. I don't want an endless number of micro-only choices.
I know many people complain that a large body of actions that can be performed hurts the ability of newbies to enjoy the game, but that to a degree is the sign of a good game. If you want a game in which newbies won't be destroyed by pros, then play tic-tac-toe and tell me if that's worth it. Either that or play a slow, turn-based game like Chess. However, there are ways to give newbies a nice learning environment.
Helping out Newbies:
Two separate b.net game-matching/game-finding systems would be the perfect way to help out novices to StarCraft 2. One could be called "Ranked" while the other could be called "Casual." Ranked would match people according to skill and Casual would rank everybody equally (except perhaps in terms of player feedback). Casual wouldn't even keep track of a record (only the number of games played) and would only allow games to be played on the normal speed.
Now, someone complained a while back telling me that to have two different speeds for Casual and Ranked games would be bad thing, since that would supposedly separate all of us gamers into two groups (each with a fundamentally different understanding of the game). However, the opposite would be true. Humans don't think of time like that. We all fundamentally understand that we can do something quickly or slowly and we wouldn't be separated according to that fact.
Of course there will be gamers who would prefer playing at normal speed, and will prefer the lack of a scoring system, but the human brain learns best when it practices things slowly and all gamers would eventually be able to move onto Ranked games (which will run on the fastest setting). Starting out novices at normal speed will actually better unify them with the verteran players who play ranked games.
It's a scientifically proven fact that a novice to something that requires high dexterity will learn best what to do when he (or she) first comes at that task slowly and methodically. In fact, that's what a newbie in StarCraft is: someone who does everything slowly. It's how we learn best. Having Casual matches—limited to normal speed—will give newbies a safe place on b.net to learn the game. Then, if they feel like it, they can move onto Ranked matches (which keep track of wins and skill level).
I for one support MBS. The inclusion of MBS will most definitely alter the game flow of SC2 from what it was in BW, but not necessarily for the worse. My biggest argument is that not including MBS is a completely artificial way to increase the difficulty of the game and certainly not the best.
I think many people fail to appreciate how much the game has evolved. When progaming first took off in around 2001-2002, in most games, nobody required all their control groups. Few games involved players got more than 10 groups of units and production buildings combined. This was already four years after BW came out.
In other words, for about half of BW's lifetime, macro as we know it didn't even exist. Including MBS or not would barely have had made any difference. Of course this was largely due in part to the maps. Now any map with less than two easily accessible geysers and three easily accessible mineral clusters is unimaginable. Previously running out of resources could easily happen by mid-game so the rationing of remaining resources was a prime factor.
Many people claim that BW currently has the perfect "balance" of micro/macro and the optimal "game flow." However, SC2 is not supposed to be like BW, and in fact the balance and game flow in BW today is drastically different from BW 5 years ago. If you don't believe me, watch an OSL final from 2001 or 2002. If you still don't believe me, then I have nothing more to say to you.
In fact, I propose that the trend in maps becoming more macro friendly is an artificial one used to raise the multitasking level required to compete at the top level. In a similar way that not including MBS artificially"dumbs down" a game, I believe that increasing the number and accessibility of expansions artificially "inflates" a game. In my opinion, this trend towards more macro was in part in response to the fact that as time went on, more and more players could play well.
Perhaps one could argue that 5 years ago, the games were less interesting and indeed "dumber" since they involved less macro. Perhaps one could argue that the Lim Jin War was not as impressive because by today's standards, both of them were terrible at macroing. Perhaps one could argue that this is definitely true since progaming is getting more popular by the day in and out of Korea. Essentially, what I'm asking is how do we know if the current balance and game flow is indeed the very best one? Indeed, if map trends are any indication, we are currently moving towards even more macro with double gas in main, two easily accessible natural expansions, maps with 14 geysers, etc. Instead, why not add even more artificial limitations to make it harder to play SC2 (10 units per group, no rallying, etc.)?
As far as I can tell, any practice partner today could have made an OSL run 5 years ago. Killing a group of lurkers with a group of m&m is considered standard now. Stacked mutalisk micro is a prerequisite for playing zerg at the pro level. Plowing through tank lines with perfectly placed storms and zealot charges while macroing off of 3 bases and 12 gates is a daily routine. Moving maxed out armies with fluid control is rather straightforward. In every aspect of the game, micro, macro, timing, strategy, multitasking, the level of gameplay has risen spectacularly in the ten years since BW first came out.
Of course, the rate at which players improve at SC2 will no doubt dwarf that of BW, so many will argue that MBS is necessary to maintain a skill gap. However, I have strong faith in Blizzard to design SC2 to have incredible depth, even more than BW, that even after 5 years, any need to make the game even more difficult can at the very least be addressed by innovative mapmaking. Not including MBS to make a game harder is not the way to do it.
[As for everyone who has played the game (I haven't) and think that MBS dumbs the game down, I think that can be in part be attributed to not having opponents of a similar level. But this is another point altogether.]
The basic idea behind any game is to make a set of rules that a) gives the players an objective, and b) makes it reasonably challenging to reach that objective.
For the purposes of MBS, we will be focusing on B.
In any great sport or game, B (challenge) is accomplished by laying down a set of arbitrary rules. For example, soccer (football). The genius of soccer is that it is based around a single brilliant rule: You can't touch the ball with your hands. Why? Really, there is no good reason. But it is because of this rule that soccer is the beautiful game that it is.
The no-hands rule is totally, completely arbitrary: there's no logic behind it. It is also incredibly restricting. However, it creates the right level of difficulty and challenge. Because of that no-hands rule, players must develop a certain level of skill. And that's where all the fun and beauty lies.
Different players overcome the arbitrary no-hands rule in different ways, reflecting their personal strengths and style. Ronaldhino with ball-on-string control. Beckham with pinpoint manipulation. Henry with pace and grace. Pirlo with vision, Drogba with strength, and Gattuso with heart. Pele wouldn't have been Pele if he could have just picked up the ball and ran with it. In short, the no-hands rule gives each individual player a personality, an identity.
The same goes for any other good sport or game. Take basketball. Why is the goal 10 feet in the air? No reason. But it because of it, players develop silky smooth jumpshots, jaw-dropping fingerroll layups, and majestic dunks. Why do you have to dribble once every two steps? Again, no real reason. But because of it, fans get to enjoy killer crossovers and complicated pivot post moves.
The same basic concept is true with video games, especially multiplayer video games. Developers spend many sleepless nights trying to find the perfect set of rules, balanced between not restrictive enough, and too restrictive. The games that are wildly successful find the right balance between presenting a challenge yet leaving room for individual triumph. Street Fighter II. Halo. And StarCraft.
I understand that Blizzard is a corporation, and StarCraft II is a product. But SC doesn't need to be very noob-friendly to sell. In fact, the strength of SC:BW, the reason for it's longevity, is its value as a competitive game.
I also understand why MBS might make sense for developers. There are many good reasons: it makes the game more accessible, reduces the rote mechanics of play, etc. And there seem to be no real good reason to NOT have MBS. But you have to remember that the rules in sports - no hands in soccer, 10-feet hoop in basketball - they are all completely arbitrary. There's no good, logical explanation behind those rules either. There's no logical reason to not have MBS, but there's also no logical reason to force a basketball player to dribble every two steps. Except for the fact that it creates a challenge that makes the game better
I write all this because it feels that "MBS for beginners" would be akin to saying "beginners get to use their hands" in soccer. (Or "beginners get to dunk on a lower hoop; beginners are allowed to take five steps" in basketball) It would reduce the challenge level, and threaten to break the game.
I write this not as a SC veteran, or even a SC gosu. I'm a terrible player, and MBS is exactly the kind of feature that would make me much better. I'm not asking Blizzard to make the game needlessly difficult, like Ninja Gaiden Black. All I'm asking is that the SC II designers remember that I enjoy practicing my soccer ball control. I enjoy finding the right balance between my jumpshot and my ball handling. In that same vein, I enjoy struggling to improving my macro, and I enjoy finding the right balance between my macro and my micro.
Honesttea, I am not sure if your analogy applies to broodwar /starcraft in the same way as it does to soccer. You say yourself
The no-hands rule is totally, completely arbitrary: there's no logic behind it. It is also incredibly restricting. However, it creates the right level of difficulty and challenge. Because of that no-hands rule, players must develop a certain level of skill. And that's where all the fun and beauty lies.
. Now, the reason to have this kind of restriction (play only with your feet) is to develop certain complex mechanics with the devices that remain to you - your feet. Now, if not including MBS would allow you to develop any kind of complex mechanics, where you could express yourself and form an individual style, it would be alright. But SBS creates the same need and the same environment for everyone, there is no room for creativity in this area, that is why I think your analogy is flawed in this point. For me MBS removes a purely mechanical aspect, not an aspect where you can display style and creativity.
It more resembles strapping a 50 kg weight to the back of the football player, which certainly makes it harder to accomplish mastery, but only on the basis of a purely mechanical limitation, not as a limitation which allows you to develop certain other skills.
To add some more meat to this post, the main reasons to HAVE MBS are in my opinion (not in any specific order):
- remove a purely mechanical limitation on gameplay (as stated above) - match the UI of comparable games - allow creativity and innovation in fields through freeing up "management time".
Furthermore, I am not sure about the exact usage of the word "macro". But shouldn't it be referring to prioritizing what to build, adding production facilities as needed, setting up and managing expansions? All this goes beyond simply tabbing to your production facilities, clicking each and pressing a key. So only a part of what "macro" is is affected by MBS.
I'm against MBS (there's no topic about smartcasting and automining so I'm saying it here: I'm against these things, too). I was about to type "I think..." but that wouldn't be true because I know that MBS will decrease the skill level in SC2 compared to SC. Lets take "multitasking" as an example. Afaik nobody was talking about it before there was a pro-scene in Korea. This means that without a pro-scene, multitasking wouldn't even be known to amateurs. Now what is "multitasking" exactly? Multitasking is the way of handling many actions seemingly at once to gain advantage. In SC this makes people "superior" to others and is one main reason for new stars to rise up. Examples will be given by many other people in this thread (keywords: oov, boxer), I don't really want to talk about it for the 100th time. What makes multitasking possible? We know it from movies: the advocate is talking to somebody on his mobile phone while the office boy lets him sign papers. Or anything like that. This is multitasking and is made possible through the amount of informations to handle. In SC we have micro and macro - the most essential parts of the game, the basics. There are different kinds of players. There is one who goes to war like a soldier, he packs his stuff and is ready to fight and only to fight. Then there's one who isn't too interested in fighting so he just collects money, builds up and goes into holidays when the map is clean. They both are not aware of multitasking so no matter how good they may be at what they do - they will probably lose the war when their opponent simply is more active than them, when their opponent knows about multitasking. In other words: someone who combines micro and macro will most likely beat either player. Of course there is the strategy part left but this is a question of intelligence, knowledge and creativity, not activity.
Now some random thoughts. Shooter games. They are the definition of micro. I myself played Quake 3 Arena for some years. I would still play it if my computer wasn't so laggy. Well, when SC2 comes out I would have to buy a new computer anyway. Whatever. Q3 is very competitive and 100% balanced which makes it perfect for skilled players to prove what they are able to. I don't like CS but yeah, this counts for that game, too I won't go too much into detail about shooter games because this topic is all about RTS. Yet, I don't know a single game that is so competitive and only takes macro skills. Why is that? Do not argue that macro is not fun, because that's wrong. There are games that only take macro skills (they just aren't competitive as far as I know) Roller Coaster Tycoon, The Sims, Second Life, Sim City, Klo-Manager, Harvest Moon and many more. Many people actually like these games, there is no action involved, no fighting. These games are peaceful and enjoyable. And they are macro-based or to be more accurate they are nothing but macro. There are even games based on macro that actually have fighting involved like Pharao, but you have no control over the battle!! (what the? fun?) The following site is only available in german (sorry, I can't find comparable sites in english), it contains some more games like the ones I mentioned: http://www.staedtebauen.de/forum/ Now, why aren't these games competitive? I think it is because they don't appeal the big crowd, especially not the younger generations. Buf if they were boring they wouldn't sell! This should not give answers, this was just to make you think.
I will now try to explain why it is so important to make macro as hard as micro in a game of RTS. If you get minerals you get units. If you get units you can fight. If you can fight you can win. This is how SC worked, this is how SC2 will work. Minerals - Units - Fight. 3 steps to victory. Gathering, building and fighting. By taking out some of the skill needed for gathering and building and by forcing players to do mostly fighting you make a joke of the first 2 steps. You wouldn't take out any of the skill needed for micro, so why would you do this to macro?
On November 09 2007 17:45 Aesop wrote: It more resembles strapping a 50 kg weight to the back of the football player, which certainly makes it harder to accomplish mastery, but only on the basis of a purely mechanical limitation, not as a limitation which allows you to develop certain other skills.
I must say I am really disappointed about this analogy. If you think macro is a 50kg weight you don't know anything. Anything!
On November 09 2007 17:45 Aesop wrote: It more resembles strapping a 50 kg weight to the back of the football player, which certainly makes it harder to accomplish mastery, but only on the basis of a purely mechanical limitation, not as a limitation which allows you to develop certain other skills.
I must say I am really disappointed about this analogy. If you think macro is a 50kg weight you don't know anything. Anything!
The analogy was not directed towards saying that current macro is like this (note the "resembles"). It was to point out that there are at minimum two kinds of articifial limitations: Those that spark creativity (soccer analogy) and those that might not (weight analogy).
So you're saying that you didn't say that macro is a 50kg weight. Ok. You can sure tell me which limitation is your analogy for macro: soccer or weight?
On November 09 2007 16:35 HonestTea wrote: The basic idea behind any game is to make a set of rules that a) gives the players an objective, and b) makes it reasonably challenging to reach that objective.
For the purposes of MBS, we will be focusing on B.
In any great sport or game, B (challenge) is accomplished by laying down a set of arbitrary rules. For example, soccer (football). The genius of soccer is that it is based around a single brilliant rule: You can't touch the ball with your hands. Why? Really, there is no good reason. But it is because of this rule that soccer is the beautiful game that it is.
The no-hands rule is totally, completely arbitrary: there's no logic behind it. It is also incredibly restricting. However, it creates the right level of difficulty and challenge. Because of that no-hands rule, players must develop a certain level of skill. And that's where all the fun and beauty lies.
Different players overcome the arbitrary no-hands rule in different ways, reflecting their personal strengths and style. Ronaldhino with ball-on-string control. Beckham with pinpoint manipulation. Henry with pace and grace. Pirlo with vision, Drogba with strength, and Gattuso with heart. Pele wouldn't have been Pele if he could have just picked up the ball and ran with it. In short, the no-hands rule gives each individual player a personality, an identity.
The same goes for any other good sport or game. Take basketball. Why is the goal 10 feet in the air? No reason. But it because of it, players develop silky smooth jumpshots, jaw-dropping fingerroll layups, and majestic dunks. Why do you have to dribble once every two steps? Again, no real reason. But because of it, fans get to enjoy killer crossovers and complicated pivot post moves.
The same basic concept is true with video games, especially multiplayer video games. Developers spend many sleepless nights trying to find the perfect set of rules, balanced between not restrictive enough, and too restrictive. The games that are wildly successful find the right balance between presenting a challenge yet leaving room for individual triumph. Street Fighter II. Halo. And StarCraft.
I understand that Blizzard is a corporation, and StarCraft II is a product. But SC doesn't need to be very noob-friendly to sell. In fact, the strength of SC:BW, the reason for it's longevity, is its value as a competitive game.
I also understand why MBS might make sense for developers. There are many good reasons: it makes the game more accessible, reduces the rote mechanics of play, etc. And there seem to be no real good reason to NOT have MBS. But you have to remember that the rules in sports - no hands in soccer, 10-feet hoop in basketball - they are all completely arbitrary. There's no good, logical explanation behind those rules either. There's no logical reason to not have MBS, but there's also no logical reason to force a basketball player to dribble every two steps. Except for the fact that it creates a challenge that makes the game better
I write all this because it feels that "MBS for beginners" would be akin to saying "beginners get to use their hands" in soccer. (Or "beginners get to dunk on a lower hoop; beginners are allowed to take five steps" in basketball) It would reduce the challenge level, and threaten to break the game.
I write this not as a SC veteran, or even a SC gosu. I'm a terrible player, and MBS is exactly the kind of feature that would make me much better. I'm not asking Blizzard to make the game needlessly difficult, like Ninja Gaiden Black. All I'm asking is that the SC II designers remember that I enjoy practicing my soccer ball control. I enjoy finding the right balance between my jumpshot and my ball handling. In that same vein, I enjoy struggling to improving my macro, and I enjoy finding the right balance between my macro and my micro.
You are like taking the words directly out of my mouth, but you say it much better. I completely agree on every single point made here, I hope blizzard reads these O_o
On November 09 2007 20:20 ForAdun wrote: So you're saying that you didn't say that macro is a 50kg weight. Ok. You can sure tell me which limitation is your analogy for macro: soccer or weight?
The idea isn't that there is a correct analogy, its that in this case no analogy works since depending on if you are pro or anti mbs you can easily choose the analogy which fits.
In this case restricting soccer to not allow hands is necessary for the game and its impossible to argue against. However if you saw mbs as putting weights on the soccer players shoes it would only hurt the game and this too is impossible to argue against.
As such any metaphor is wasted since they only work if you already have the same opinion as the one who made the analogy in the first place.
And for those that haven't been here for a long time, I'm pro mbs but that doesn't matter in this post anyway. I'm done discussing this topic a long time ago, so I'm just keeping it on track now.
On November 09 2007 20:20 ForAdun wrote: So you're saying that you didn't say that macro is a 50kg weight. Ok. You can sure tell me which limitation is your analogy for macro: soccer or weight?
Once more, more condensed:
1) MBS is not the only aspect involved in what is commonly called "macro-management". This should be noted above all. 2) When implementing articifial limitations to what a player can do, check beforehand if it is more like a weight-limitation or a soccer-limitation. Of course, there are many shades of grey, but in general limitations should have the character of soccer limitations and not of weight ones.
To quote azndsh who made a similar point:
azndsh wrote: However, I have strong faith in Blizzard to design SC2 to have incredible depth, even more than BW, that even after 5 years, any need to make the game even more difficult can at the very least be addressed by innovative mapmaking. Not including MBS to make a game harder is not the way to do it.
Once more: Not including MBS is ONE way of distinguishing good players from bad ones, but it might not be a good one. If there are valid other options (and I am too quite confident there WILL BE), MBS should be in the game.
Hmm, yeah Aesop. But you made the analogy so you must stand to it. When I asked you if I understood you correctly you said I didn't understand you correctly so you must either leave the analogy out or explain how you really mean it. Until now I don't see any explanation so I will handle your posts like you never made an analogy about 50kg weights. You can still admit that I understood your analogy correctly or you can try and find a better explanation, it's up to you. HonestTea made an analogy that we understand and are able to use for our own argumentation. This is how it goes in a debate.
Edit: I understood your analogy totally Aesop, you only said that I did not. Which was untrue and a bit offending. This way you can't argue. What polutes the topic is saying that a person doesn't understand this or that if he/she obviously did understand everything. If this topic turns out to be one of the past topics about MBS which all went like debates from politicians then the level of the discussion sinks below anything and the topic won't last much longer. This goes mostly to CuddleCuteKitten because of his following post.
On November 09 2007 21:44 ForAdun wrote: Hmm, yeah Aesop. But you made the analogy so you must stand to it. When I asked you if I understood you correctly you said I didn't understand you correctly so you must either leave the analogy out or explain how you really mean it. Until now I don't see any explanation so I will handle your posts like you never made an analogy about 50kg weights. You can still admit that I understood your analogy correctly or you can try and find a better explanation, it's up to you. HonestTea made an analogy that we understand and are able to use for our own argumentation. This is how it goes in a debate.
I think he explained it sufficently. I at least understand it perfectly. It seems more like you don't understand it.
There are different way to place aribitrary restrictions on players.
Some of them reward creativity and create a totally different type of game (no hands in soccer, using rackets in tennis etc). These change the entire idea and way the game has to be played.
But some restricitons add nothing to the game. If you give every player on a soccer field an additional 50 kg's of weigth the game would change but the idea of it would not change. The players would simply have to adapt to the weigth purely mechanically (by weigth training probably) and change their playstyle into something slower to compensate for the weigth. The ideas of the game has not changed, but the playstyle certainly has and brute strength counts for more.
Similarly, requiring players to click more could be an example of this. The question is if it would really be that negative since it actually speeds up the game and makes it more exciting. However it would still be preferble to do this in some other way.
I'm a huge proponent on just increasing the speed instead of having artifical limitations placed on the players. Should accomplish more or less the same thing.
Anyway, this is a poor way of debating as previous posters have allready said.
I would define macro and micro as relative values.
Imagine StarCraft had no units that fought with each other, had no enemy bases to destroy, and was simply a race to see who could reach 200/200 supply and 2000 min/gas in the bank first. In that case, the winner of a game of StarCraft would be decided only by how well that player acquired resources, devised/executed a build order, made expansions, and trained units. And, basically, I would then argue that it is those actions which would comprised the actual "micro" of the game since they are the actual actions by which we end the game.
If we break down the actions performed in RTS games, we have a small number of starting actions based upon initial conditions. As those actions are performed, they open up new, specific actions that previously weren't available. As the game progresses, this highly-logical string of actions becomes longer and longer until we reach the point where we are performing the kinds of actions that directly connect with the fundamental goals of the game (in a way where there are no performable actions that would better interface with the final goal). These game-ending actions are what I would call the "micro."
In StarCraft, the highest stage of micro would be defined by the actions that directly damage your opponent's base structures as well as his ability to defend. These are the last actions to perform in a logical string of actions you can perform (or can have performed for you). Essentially, if you can destroy all your opponent's buildings you win. Somewhere behind that we'll find the actions that directly prevent him from damaging your defenses and your base structures. On and on it goes until we get all the way back to our beginning actions that are the most indirectly connected to our final goals.
You can think of macro and micro as an incline leading toward a flat top (like part of a mesa). The more macro we perform, the more actions we will be able to string out until we reach the actions that are micro. The whole time we're performing these actions, we will want to perform more macro which will then string out to even more micro.
Building an expansion in StarCraft is always macro since that doesn't directly translate to ending the game. For instance, you can build an expansion when your opponent is basically already dead and the resources you collect won't help you finish him off before he is finished off. Micro actions cannot lead to macro actions either. For instance, you can destroy an enemy expansion, and free up more resources for your economy to collect, but to the exact degree that destroying his expansion creates this situation for you, that is actually a more macro concern behind the act of damaging his structures.
While this does get confusing, the actions that directly damage your opponent's ability to defend and directly damaged his base are the dead-end actions of the game. Even if all you did was select your whole army and attack-moved them to a location on the mini-map, and relied upon individual unit AI to initiate attacks, those AI-initiated actions would be the end micro (the computer is simply helping you by performing those actions for you). Even when on defense and you micro your HT to cast Storm and kill a group of enemy units, you're still directly damaging your opponent's ability to defend with the kind of action that is the most fundamentally interfaced with that result, and, since that is one of your end goals, that is a greater form of micro in comparison to defense (which is a more macro action). So, at best, we can say that good micro opens up macro possibilities and will meet the concerns of macro actions, but cannot lead to macro actions since they actually lead to the dead end of a string instead.
Well, that's basically what I think anyways. Even if I'm wrong I still like my definition of macro/micro.
Now in terms of the MBS debate, it's very good to have a game with a huge number of macro actions that can be performed since that leads to a large number of micro actions, and a large number of interesting choices for player's to make in terms of deciding what actions will provide the best benefit in a given situation. SBS is good at providing this kind of good gameplay, and I must admit that I can see how it is fun in its own ways.
The reason I'm pro MBS is just the fact that I know other kinds of macro actions, such as large-scale army configurations/movements, and simultaneous battles, and map-location-specific unit production (like a proxie) would be far more interesting and fun than repetitiously selecting my buildings and hitting "p" over and over again. Unless MBS were first implemented, these kinds of macro actions are not as important and not really as available. The reason is because I'm pretty sure that SBS makes generic kinds of macro, which regard your army as a very singular object and your unit production as a giant mass to feed your singular army, faster and more powerful.
On November 09 2007 22:05 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: But some restricitons add nothing to the game. If you give every player on a soccer field an additional 50 kg's of weigth the game would change but the idea of it would not change. The players would simply have to adapt to the weigth purely mechanically (by weigth training probably) and change their playstyle into something slower to compensate for the weigth. The ideas of the game has not changed, but the playstyle certainly has and brute strength counts for more.
Similarly, requiring players to click more could be an example of this. The question is if it would really be that negative since it actually speeds up the game and makes it more exciting. However it would still be preferble to do this in some other way.
However in starcraft it does not just require more mechanical speed. It DOES add an element. If you have to go to your base and spend 10 seconds getting your macro stuff done, the skill isnt how fast you can click those buildings, the skill is when do you go back to do it. Do you sacrifice microing a battle to go back to your base and macro? Do you attack or do you macro? Can you confidently go back to your base and macro, leaving another area of the map that needs your attention vacant?
This is the element that will be lost from starcraft if MBS is added. These dilemas which are constantly in the minds of players is what makes starcraft such a hectic and intense game. If your looking at the two analogies, MBS fits into the soccer players not being able to handle the ball. Its a limitation yes, but the limitation opens up a new area for players to show their skill, and new ways of handling problems. It adds Multitasking to the game, which is one of the gameplay factors that has made starcraft 1 as big as it is today.
EDIT: To Tiptup, interesting little read about macro and micro. However the general rule we go by to make understanding macro from micro goes like this.
If your using a unit apart from a drone. Its a micro action If your using a building or a drone, its a macro action. The only time this doesnt hold true is when your attacking with drones.
On November 09 2007 22:24 Fen wrote: This is the element that will be lost from starcraft if MBS is added. These dilemas which are constantly in the minds of players is what makes starcraft such a hectic and intense game. If your looking at the two analogies, MBS fits into the soccer players not being able to handle the ball. Its a limitation yes, but the limitation opens up a new area for players to show their skill, and new ways of handling problems. It adds Multitasking to the game, which is one of the gameplay factors that has made starcraft 1 as big as it is today.
I completely agree with you. Micro, in terms of babysitting our individual units is very powerful in SC, and those powerful kinds of actions sit in a sort of balance with the three, primary, macro actions of building peons/units, setting rally points, and telling our peons to collect a resource all game long. I myself would definitely want that kind of balance to remain. It would be sad to see that disappear and the whole game be reduced to micro. Macro is an undeniably fun balance for micro. However, what if it were possible to introduce a kind of balancing macro that could focus more on large-scale strategy decisions. Such as trying to outflank your opponent with your entire army on the scale of the entire map itself?
If we had MBS in BW, the kind of macro I would prefer (like army configurations, army paths, multiple battles, large-scale flanking, proxies, smart tech-paths, and the like) would not be all that strong in comparison to individual unit micro, and we'd lose the macro/micro balance. But, if it were possible to strengthen those types of macro actions by having skill with them pay off in big ways, wouldn't it be worth it to weaken the bonuses that come from skillfully performing SBS and peon management?
Again, if Blizzard can't strengthen the kind of macro I'd like, then I believe they should carry SBS over into SC2, but I know the kind of game I'd aim for, and that game wouldn't need SBS. I have a large interface improvement I've been working on which would strengthen strategic macro, but its not quite finished yet. When it is I'll post it in a new thread and see what you guys think. At the very least, if my interface is deficient, the "fastest" game speed can be increased to insane levels.
On November 09 2007 22:24 Fen wrote: This is the element that will be lost from starcraft if MBS is added.
And i can say no, these elements wont be removed, however they will be changed so that you wont have to leave your army as often, you will still have to leave it quite a lot anyway for everything base related that doesn't get removed with mbs.
As i said, those analogies only holds if you already believe in mbs and are thus useless.
In your opinion if we include mbs and instead adds volatile buildings which means you have to click on each building every minute or they start to rapidly lose health and then explode we would have an just as deep game as before, right? We can even include things so that different buildings have to be clicked at different intervals to raise the bar even further! If you are against this, then you can also see that not having mbs in is flawed in some aspects.
So the analogy isn't crystal clear even if you dont want to see the flaws.
The element that I am referring to is multitasking. If you read my post you will see this. You cannot argue that with MBS there will be more multitasking so that post is worthless Klockan.
The reason I enjoy SC:BW is because of the strategic depth of the game. A player is required to make constant strategic and tactical decisions over the course of the game, and for a given level of ability, the player who makes the best decisions wins. So on some level, I'm in favor of anything that improves the number of decisions a player makes as well as the efficacy of those decisions (ie, how much those decisions affect the outcome of a game). Now, I don't want this to mean that proper strategic and tactical knowledge should completely swamp the effects of skill (ie, "dancing" your fingers across the keyboard, macroing building the appropriate units from 12 gates all in the space of 5 seconds), but I think the the strategy is the interesting part. I love watching innovative or unexpected things, and I'm of the opinion that they should be encouraged. Don't get me wrong, a good, old-fashioned goon vs. carrier fight is nice. But I'm much happier to see a Terran throw up 5 ports and lock down some observers.
So that's the perspective I'm going to be arguing from. If we disagree on what makes the game enjoyable to play and watch, it's likely we'll disagree on what will make SC2 good.
My point:
I'm pro-MBS. Other posters have mentioned that on some level, it's an arbitrary limitation on players executing the game. I agree with this. The interface is there so that players may input their decisions, imposing their will on their units. The well-designed interface makes this task fluid and simple. Restrictions like unit/building selection limits necessarily impede this task, all other things equal.
Now, the way I see it, the most important decision players make right now is how to allocate their time. Do they spend time microing their Ghost to go around locking down stuff? Do they micro their queens, spawning broodlings on all of those nasty temps? Nope, too time consuming for not enough reward. If they short-cut the time, their units die and they waste resources. If they spend the time, they don't have enough chance to macro properly and end up with 3K banked and 100 supply left.
Now, "APM" or "attention" (whatever you want to call it) is a scarce resource in the game. A player must allocate his time as effectively as he can to win. What SBS does is make it much, much costlier for a player to spend time microing those micro-intense units like Ghosts and Queens: microing that queen might net you a kill on the high temp and get your unit out alive, but in the time it took you to do that, maybe you could've had expanded and pumped out a bunch of ultra/lings.
All adding MBS does is lower the costs of microing such units dramatically. It makes it so that, instead of having to completely neglect his base, a player will be able to give the queen the necessary level of attention and only miss half a step in his macro rather than a full three steps. From what we've seen so far, SC2 is going to have more "micro-intensive" (the blink goons, stasis orbs, etc.) than BW did. This means that, for these units to be used effectively, players will need to spend more time microing them than they did on corresponding units in the original game. If they maintain SBS, what we'll see is these units being underused: using these units will be very costly because of macro players are forced to not do while microing. On the other hand, if we see MBS included, macro will become less expensive. Players will be able to not fall drastically behind because they were using their stalkers or reapers to the peak of their efficacy.
So what this all amounts to is giving players more latitude to use their skill in a way that executes their decisions better. Instead of taking 10s to execute the split-second decision to make lots and goons, it takes maybe 1s and lets you use those other 9 to harass flawlessly with your stalkers or set up some crazy illusion fake-out around an expansion sensor tower while you move your real army into position at the front of their main and a warp prism moves around to the back of their base to warp some units from your Warp Gate. Things that are conceptually possible now but impractical because of limitations on micro/macro time would become realistic if MBS were implemented.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you suddenly added MBS to BW, the game would become quite imbalanced. But on the other hand, if SC2 is designed properly, there will be a whole range from which players can choose to spend their time. I for one can't wait to see cloaked ghosts running in to snipe temps only to see the toss swing an observer into place when he sees the cloak distortion, micro his high temps back and blink some stalkers on top of the ghosts.
In summation:
By decreasing the cost (in time) of macro by adding MBS, we effectively encourage players to spend more time microing, allowing their split-second tactical decisions on the battlefield to have a greater impact on the game. It encourages players to harass, to perform simultaneous attacks on multiple locations, and allows them the necessary time to perform the clever, Boxer-like moves that make the game so interesting and enjoyable.
On November 09 2007 23:42 Fen wrote: The element that I am referring to is multitasking. If you read my post you will see this. You cannot argue that with MBS there will be more multitasking so that post is worthless Klockan.
The argument is that multitasking wont be lost, not that there will be more than before. That fits very well into the weight analogy since the soccer players no longer needs to think so much about how they move since they can move along the field very easily without heavy weights, but thinking on how you move is still very important eventhough its not as important with the heavily restricted movement the weights give them.
With this i dont say that the weight analogy is better, that would make me no better than you, instead i say that they don't matter since neighter analogy fits the perspective of both sides.
On November 09 2007 23:42 Fen wrote: The element that I am referring to is multitasking. If you read my post you will see this. You cannot argue that with MBS there will be more multitasking so that post is worthless Klockan.
The argument is that multitasking wont be lost, not that there will be more than before. That fits very well into the weight analogy since the soccer players no longer needs to think so much about how they move since they can move along the field very easily without heavy weights, but thinking on how you move is still very important eventhough its not as important with the heavily restricted movement the weights give them.
With this i dont say that the weight analogy is better, that would make me no better than you, instead i say that they don't matter since neighter analogy fits the perspective of both sides.
I think that both analogies fit fine. Both display a situation where a competative medium would impose a restriction for the sake of making something harder. Yes a player would have to think a little bit more about his movements if he had weights, however it would be great for seperating people based on their fittness. The reason why we do not implement it in soccer however is because its dangerous for health and would be innappropriate.
It would be in no way innapropriate to implement SBS in starcraft 2 for the sake of making the game require more multitasking. We've already seen that SBS can work in a competative game. As for MBS's effect on multitasking, it WILL have a huge effect. Its not the clicking, its the attention that someone has to place on another part of the map that makes SBS difficult. You have to control more things at once.
Klockan As i said, those analogies only holds if you already believe in mbs and are thus useless.
In your opinion if we include mbs and instead adds volatile buildings which means you have to click on each building every minute or they start to rapidly lose health and then explode we would have an just as deep game as before, right? We can even include things so that different buildings have to be clicked at different intervals to raise the bar even further! If you are against this, then you can also see that not having mbs in is flawed in some aspects.
These are great examples of things that would be inappropriate and will not be implemented due to it.
The thing about Brood War, is there are no barriers to entry; the game is intuitive. The skill ceiling is also remarkably high. This is the ideal game - minutes to learn, a lifetime to master.
MBS does make the game more accessible to new players. But it also lowers the skill ceiling.
The argument that it encourages more harassment and micromanagement is fine, but in Starcraft you can still play like that WHILE macroing. The point is, between micro, macro and "tactics" (ie. harassment, or even strategy or whatever you want to call overarching game plan) you often often have to sacrifice one even at the highest levels.
So what is going to replace that? I think the game is fine being reduced to simply micro and "tactics", but you must see that the skill ceiling is much lower.
Klockan As i said, those analogies only holds if you already believe in mbs and are thus useless.
In your opinion if we include mbs and instead adds volatile buildings which means you have to click on each building every minute or they start to rapidly lose health and then explode we would have an just as deep game as before, right? We can even include things so that different buildings have to be clicked at different intervals to raise the bar even further! If you are against this, then you can also see that not having mbs in is flawed in some aspects.
These are great examples of things that would be inappropriate and will not be implemented due to it.
But it would hace exactly the same effect on the game as sbs, so in effect you understand why mbs is important for the game. For those that want mbs in, sbs is just as stupid as that feature is to you.
With this i have to add that this in no way prooves that mbs>sbs, just that there is no way you can know wich is best as of now since we dont have any proof.
On November 09 2007 23:42 Fen wrote: The element that I am referring to is multitasking. If you read my post you will see this. You cannot argue that with MBS there will be more multitasking so that post is worthless Klockan.
The argument is that multitasking wont be lost, not that there will be more than before. That fits very well into the weight analogy since the soccer players no longer needs to think so much about how they move since they can move along the field very easily without heavy weights, but thinking on how you move is still very important eventhough its not as important with the heavily restricted movement the weights give them.
With this i dont say that the weight analogy is better, that would make me no better than you, instead i say that they don't matter since neighter analogy fits the perspective of both sides.
I think that both analogies fit fine. Both display a situation where a competative medium would impose a restriction for the sake of making something harder. Yes a player would have to think a little bit more about his movements if he had weights, however it would be great for seperating people based on their fittness. The reason why we do not implement it in soccer however is because its dangerous for health and would be innappropriate.
Its not dangerous for your health to have 20 kg of weights on you, instead its very good for your health and builds up your body. 20kg is a basic military outfit complete with an assault rifle and body armor.
No, the reason they dont put weights on people in soccer is beacuse it would slow down the game and the positives for the game of not requiring 20kg of weights on every player far outweights the negatives. In the same way a pro mbs person can say that reducing the amounths of apm required to macro by introducing mbs is equal to remove 20kg of weights on all football players, making it a lot more apealing for new players and can thus create a much larger fanbase than the old game. Ofcourse it would reduce some skill from high level play, but the success of a game comes from how big the active fanbase is and not the intricate high level play.
Also saying that mbs is like allowing soccer players to take the ball with their hands is quite off. Thats a total rule change, wich is more equal to the difference of normal maps and zero clutter maps. With mbs you still do exactly the same things, the same bos and the same strats, but a little easier, if you use hands in soccer it is a completely different game called team handball instead wich already is a succesfull game in the world.
Klockan As i said, those analogies only holds if you already believe in mbs and are thus useless.
In your opinion if we include mbs and instead adds volatile buildings which means you have to click on each building every minute or they start to rapidly lose health and then explode we would have an just as deep game as before, right? We can even include things so that different buildings have to be clicked at different intervals to raise the bar even further! If you are against this, then you can also see that not having mbs in is flawed in some aspects.
These are great examples of things that would be inappropriate and will not be implemented due to it.
But it would hace exactly the same effect on the game as sbs, so in effect you understand why mbs is important for the game. For those that want mbs in, sbs is just as stupid as that feature is to you.
With this i have to add that this in no way prooves that mbs>sbs, just that there is no way you can know wich is best as of now since we dont have any proof.
On November 09 2007 23:42 Fen wrote: The element that I am referring to is multitasking. If you read my post you will see this. You cannot argue that with MBS there will be more multitasking so that post is worthless Klockan.
The argument is that multitasking wont be lost, not that there will be more than before. That fits very well into the weight analogy since the soccer players no longer needs to think so much about how they move since they can move along the field very easily without heavy weights, but thinking on how you move is still very important eventhough its not as important with the heavily restricted movement the weights give them.
With this i dont say that the weight analogy is better, that would make me no better than you, instead i say that they don't matter since neighter analogy fits the perspective of both sides.
I think that both analogies fit fine. Both display a situation where a competative medium would impose a restriction for the sake of making something harder. Yes a player would have to think a little bit more about his movements if he had weights, however it would be great for seperating people based on their fittness. The reason why we do not implement it in soccer however is because its dangerous for health and would be innappropriate.
Its not dangerous for your health to have 20 kg of weights on you, instead its very good for your health and builds up your body. 20kg is a basic military outfit complete with an assault rifle and body armor.
No, the reason they dont put weights on people in soccer is beacuse it would slow down the game and the positives for the game of not requiring 20kg of weights on every player far outweights the negatives. In the same way a pro mbs person can say that reducing the amounths of apm required to macro by introducing mbs is equal to remove 20kg of weights on all football players, making it a lot more apealing for new players and can thus create a much larger fanbase than the old game. Ofcourse it would reduce some skill from high level play, but the success of a game comes from how big the active fanbase is and not the intricate high level play.
Also saying that mbs is like allowing soccer players to take the ball with their hands is quite off. Thats a total rule change, wich is more equal to the difference of normal maps and zero clutter maps. With mbs you still do exactly the same things, the same bos and the same strats, but a little easier, if you use hands in soccer it is a completely different game called team handball instead wich already is a succesfull game in the world.
Your analogy is wrong because you don't spend the entire game macroing. Macro isn't like having weights on you, it's like having weights on you for 1 miunte, every 5 minutes of a soccer game. This adds a strategic element, when do you wear these weights? "Oh shit, I haven't been wearing my weights for the past 4 minutes and here they come on an offensive rush, I can't stop it wearing weights but I'll be disqualified if I don't".
You can see this adds strategy to the game, and taking this out you still have a great game, but with less decision-making and less sacrifice of your time towards one action or the other.
Klockan As i said, those analogies only holds if you already believe in mbs and are thus useless.
In your opinion if we include mbs and instead adds volatile buildings which means you have to click on each building every minute or they start to rapidly lose health and then explode we would have an just as deep game as before, right? We can even include things so that different buildings have to be clicked at different intervals to raise the bar even further! If you are against this, then you can also see that not having mbs in is flawed in some aspects.
These are great examples of things that would be inappropriate and will not be implemented due to it.
But it would hace exactly the same effect on the game as sbs, so in effect you understand why mbs is important for the game. For those that want mbs in, sbs is just as stupid as that feature is to you.
With this i have to add that this in no way prooves that mbs>sbs, just that there is no way you can know wich is best as of now since we dont have any proof.
On November 10 2007 00:44 Fen wrote:
On November 10 2007 00:10 Klockan3 wrote:
On November 09 2007 23:42 Fen wrote: The element that I am referring to is multitasking. If you read my post you will see this. You cannot argue that with MBS there will be more multitasking so that post is worthless Klockan.
The argument is that multitasking wont be lost, not that there will be more than before. That fits very well into the weight analogy since the soccer players no longer needs to think so much about how they move since they can move along the field very easily without heavy weights, but thinking on how you move is still very important eventhough its not as important with the heavily restricted movement the weights give them.
With this i dont say that the weight analogy is better, that would make me no better than you, instead i say that they don't matter since neighter analogy fits the perspective of both sides.
I think that both analogies fit fine. Both display a situation where a competative medium would impose a restriction for the sake of making something harder. Yes a player would have to think a little bit more about his movements if he had weights, however it would be great for seperating people based on their fittness. The reason why we do not implement it in soccer however is because its dangerous for health and would be innappropriate.
Its not dangerous for your health to have 20 kg of weights on you, instead its very good for your health and builds up your body. 20kg is a basic military outfit complete with an assault rifle and body armor.
No, the reason they dont put weights on people in soccer is beacuse it would slow down the game and the positives for the game of not requiring 20kg of weights on every player far outweights the negatives. In the same way a pro mbs person can say that reducing the amounths of apm required to macro by introducing mbs is equal to remove 20kg of weights on all football players, making it a lot more apealing for new players and can thus create a much larger fanbase than the old game. Ofcourse it would reduce some skill from high level play, but the success of a game comes from how big the active fanbase is and not the intricate high level play.
Also saying that mbs is like allowing soccer players to take the ball with their hands is quite off. Thats a total rule change, wich is more equal to the difference of normal maps and zero clutter maps. With mbs you still do exactly the same things, the same bos and the same strats, but a little easier, if you use hands in soccer it is a completely different game called team handball instead wich already is a succesfull game in the world.
Your analogy is wrong because you don't spend the entire game macroing. Macro isn't like having weights on you, it's like having weights on you for 1 miunte, every 5 minutes of a soccer game. This adds a strategic element, when do you wear these weights? "Oh shit, I haven't been wearing my weights for the past 4 minutes and here they come on an offensive rush, I can't stop it wearing weights but I'll be disqualified if I don't".
You can see this adds strategy to the game, and taking this out you still have a great game, but with less decision-making and less sacrifice of your time towards one action or the other.
Yeah, no analogy is 100% correct, and i never said that mbs is just better than not mbs, i just explained that the persons who are pro mbs have a reason to it.
A lot of anti mbs just thinks that whoever is pro mbs is a selfcentered noob who only want the game to be easier for him to enjoy, wich isnt the case since there are logical reasons to why the game could be better off with mbs in it, just as well as there are logical reasons to why the game could be better off without mbs.
Anyone thinking that mbs or not is an easy question and that anyone not thinking like them are idiots havent understood anything. You can still support a side ofcourse, but denying that the opposite have any credibiliy is just dumb.
Klockan As i said, those analogies only holds if you already believe in mbs and are thus useless.
In your opinion if we include mbs and instead adds volatile buildings which means you have to click on each building every minute or they start to rapidly lose health and then explode we would have an just as deep game as before, right? We can even include things so that different buildings have to be clicked at different intervals to raise the bar even further! If you are against this, then you can also see that not having mbs in is flawed in some aspects.
These are great examples of things that would be inappropriate and will not be implemented due to it.
But it would hace exactly the same effect on the game as sbs, so in effect you understand why mbs is important for the game. For those that want mbs in, sbs is just as stupid as that feature is to you.
With this i have to add that this in no way prooves that mbs>sbs, just that there is no way you can know wich is best as of now since we dont have any proof.
On November 10 2007 00:44 Fen wrote:
On November 10 2007 00:10 Klockan3 wrote:
On November 09 2007 23:42 Fen wrote: The element that I am referring to is multitasking. If you read my post you will see this. You cannot argue that with MBS there will be more multitasking so that post is worthless Klockan.
The argument is that multitasking wont be lost, not that there will be more than before. That fits very well into the weight analogy since the soccer players no longer needs to think so much about how they move since they can move along the field very easily without heavy weights, but thinking on how you move is still very important eventhough its not as important with the heavily restricted movement the weights give them.
With this i dont say that the weight analogy is better, that would make me no better than you, instead i say that they don't matter since neighter analogy fits the perspective of both sides.
I think that both analogies fit fine. Both display a situation where a competative medium would impose a restriction for the sake of making something harder. Yes a player would have to think a little bit more about his movements if he had weights, however it would be great for seperating people based on their fittness. The reason why we do not implement it in soccer however is because its dangerous for health and would be innappropriate.
Its not dangerous for your health to have 20 kg of weights on you, instead its very good for your health and builds up your body. 20kg is a basic military outfit complete with an assault rifle and body armor.
No, the reason they dont put weights on people in soccer is beacuse it would slow down the game and the positives for the game of not requiring 20kg of weights on every player far outweights the negatives. In the same way a pro mbs person can say that reducing the amounths of apm required to macro by introducing mbs is equal to remove 20kg of weights on all football players, making it a lot more apealing for new players and can thus create a much larger fanbase than the old game. Ofcourse it would reduce some skill from high level play, but the success of a game comes from how big the active fanbase is and not the intricate high level play.
Also saying that mbs is like allowing soccer players to take the ball with their hands is quite off. Thats a total rule change, wich is more equal to the difference of normal maps and zero clutter maps. With mbs you still do exactly the same things, the same bos and the same strats, but a little easier, if you use hands in soccer it is a completely different game called team handball instead wich already is a succesfull game in the world.
Your analogy is wrong because you don't spend the entire game macroing. Macro isn't like having weights on you, it's like having weights on you for 1 miunte, every 5 minutes of a soccer game. This adds a strategic element, when do you wear these weights? "Oh shit, I haven't been wearing my weights for the past 4 minutes and here they come on an offensive rush, I can't stop it wearing weights but I'll be disqualified if I don't".
You can see this adds strategy to the game, and taking this out you still have a great game, but with less decision-making and less sacrifice of your time towards one action or the other.
Yeah, no analogy is 100% correct, and i never said that mbs is just better than not mbs, i just explained that the persons who are pro mbs have a reason to it.
A lot of anti mbs just thinks that whoever is pro mbs is a selfcentered noob who only want the game to be easier for him to enjoy, wich isnt the case since there are logical reasons to why the game could be better off with mbs in it, just as well as there are logical reasons to why the game could be better off without mbs.
Anyone thinking that mbs or not is an easy question and that anyone not thinking like them are idiots havent understood anything. You can still support a side ofcourse, but denying that the opposite have any credibiliy is just dumb.
I don't know how this applies to anything I said. I took your analogy (which was Pro-MBS) and reworked it so it was Anti-MBS. I'm not saying you have no credibility. In fact I don't even know where your comment is coming from. You derailed the analogy discussion and are now just attacking the Anti-MBS group as a whole. WTF?
Klockan As i said, those analogies only holds if you already believe in mbs and are thus useless.
In your opinion if we include mbs and instead adds volatile buildings which means you have to click on each building every minute or they start to rapidly lose health and then explode we would have an just as deep game as before, right? We can even include things so that different buildings have to be clicked at different intervals to raise the bar even further! If you are against this, then you can also see that not having mbs in is flawed in some aspects.
These are great examples of things that would be inappropriate and will not be implemented due to it.
But it would hace exactly the same effect on the game as sbs, so in effect you understand why mbs is important for the game. For those that want mbs in, sbs is just as stupid as that feature is to you.
With this i have to add that this in no way prooves that mbs>sbs, just that there is no way you can know wich is best as of now since we dont have any proof.
On November 10 2007 00:44 Fen wrote:
On November 10 2007 00:10 Klockan3 wrote:
On November 09 2007 23:42 Fen wrote: The element that I am referring to is multitasking. If you read my post you will see this. You cannot argue that with MBS there will be more multitasking so that post is worthless Klockan.
The argument is that multitasking wont be lost, not that there will be more than before. That fits very well into the weight analogy since the soccer players no longer needs to think so much about how they move since they can move along the field very easily without heavy weights, but thinking on how you move is still very important eventhough its not as important with the heavily restricted movement the weights give them.
With this i dont say that the weight analogy is better, that would make me no better than you, instead i say that they don't matter since neighter analogy fits the perspective of both sides.
I think that both analogies fit fine. Both display a situation where a competative medium would impose a restriction for the sake of making something harder. Yes a player would have to think a little bit more about his movements if he had weights, however it would be great for seperating people based on their fittness. The reason why we do not implement it in soccer however is because its dangerous for health and would be innappropriate.
Its not dangerous for your health to have 20 kg of weights on you, instead its very good for your health and builds up your body. 20kg is a basic military outfit complete with an assault rifle and body armor.
No, the reason they dont put weights on people in soccer is beacuse it would slow down the game and the positives for the game of not requiring 20kg of weights on every player far outweights the negatives. In the same way a pro mbs person can say that reducing the amounths of apm required to macro by introducing mbs is equal to remove 20kg of weights on all football players, making it a lot more apealing for new players and can thus create a much larger fanbase than the old game. Ofcourse it would reduce some skill from high level play, but the success of a game comes from how big the active fanbase is and not the intricate high level play.
Also saying that mbs is like allowing soccer players to take the ball with their hands is quite off. Thats a total rule change, wich is more equal to the difference of normal maps and zero clutter maps. With mbs you still do exactly the same things, the same bos and the same strats, but a little easier, if you use hands in soccer it is a completely different game called team handball instead wich already is a succesfull game in the world.
Your analogy is wrong because you don't spend the entire game macroing. Macro isn't like having weights on you, it's like having weights on you for 1 miunte, every 5 minutes of a soccer game. This adds a strategic element, when do you wear these weights? "Oh shit, I haven't been wearing my weights for the past 4 minutes and here they come on an offensive rush, I can't stop it wearing weights but I'll be disqualified if I don't".
You can see this adds strategy to the game, and taking this out you still have a great game, but with less decision-making and less sacrifice of your time towards one action or the other.
Yeah, no analogy is 100% correct, and i never said that mbs is just better than not mbs, i just explained that the persons who are pro mbs have a reason to it.
A lot of anti mbs just thinks that whoever is pro mbs is a selfcentered noob who only want the game to be easier for him to enjoy, wich isnt the case since there are logical reasons to why the game could be better off with mbs in it, just as well as there are logical reasons to why the game could be better off without mbs.
Anyone thinking that mbs or not is an easy question and that anyone not thinking like them are idiots havent understood anything. You can still support a side ofcourse, but denying that the opposite have any credibiliy is just dumb.
I don't know how this applies to anything I said. I took your analogy (which was Pro-MBS) and reworked it so it was Anti-MBS. I'm not saying you have no credibility. In fact I don't even know where your comment is coming from. You derailed the analogy discussion and are now just attacking the Anti-MBS group as a whole. WTF?
Read my posts, the fundamental parts of them were that no analogy is fitting in these discussions, you basically said what i have said the whole time again and i in this post you just quoted explained why i did it in the way i did.
And i never attacked anti as a whole, i said many, not all.
Klockan As i said, those analogies only holds if you already believe in mbs and are thus useless.
In your opinion if we include mbs and instead adds volatile buildings which means you have to click on each building every minute or they start to rapidly lose health and then explode we would have an just as deep game as before, right? We can even include things so that different buildings have to be clicked at different intervals to raise the bar even further! If you are against this, then you can also see that not having mbs in is flawed in some aspects.
These are great examples of things that would be inappropriate and will not be implemented due to it.
But it would hace exactly the same effect on the game as sbs, so in effect you understand why mbs is important for the game. For those that want mbs in, sbs is just as stupid as that feature is to you.
With this i have to add that this in no way prooves that mbs>sbs, just that there is no way you can know wich is best as of now since we dont have any proof.
I dont think you understood my point. I stated that some additions, even though they would increase the skill ceiling are inappropriate. There are many reasons why a certain element is inappropriate and its basic common sense so im not going to go into that any further. SBS is not inappropriate and therefore cannot be argued against by using metaphors that are inappropriate.
To argue a metaphor against SBS, your going to have to find a worthless rule that increases difficulty for the sake of increasing difficulty in a competative medium that would benefit the game if it didnt exist.
This is said not as an argument for or against MBS/SBS, just a simple argument to debunk all the stupid metaphors people are using such as soccer players running around with 50kg packs being equivilant to SBS.
[Offtopic] Running with weights adds extra strain to your joints (particularly your ankles) and is generally considered a bad thing to do by many doctors [/Offtopic]
On November 09 2007 22:46 Tiptup wrote: If we had MBS in BW, the kind of macro I would prefer (like army configurations, army paths, multiple battles, large-scale flanking, proxies, smart tech-paths, and the like)
I think you are aware of this, but this is simply not how BW players define macro. When we say macro, we mean solely economy, expansion, and unit production. All the stuff you said counts under the category of "management". Please stick to the terms we use - otherwise you will just further confuse an already hard to follow debate.
First post I do here, and what a thread it is. I will start by introducing myself.
I am a MPMGEP, which means Multiple Platform Multiple Genres Extreme Player. In short, I play an immense amount of game styles and always attempt to hit the top level with each. Whether it be RTSes, MMORPGs FPSes or even console sport games.
On RTS, lately I spent a good amount of time playing DoW, quit because of many broken matchups (Tau v Chaos was funny, Tau v Necron was NOT), and upon hearing the news of SC2 popping up, came back to Starcraft, a game i hadn't seriously played ever since the release of WC3, although I kept following the pro scene. I visited TL.net often but just now decided to register. I'm about an ELL 40 WC3 player, and haven't played SC long enough on ICCup to see where I'll rank, but I estimate somewhere inside B ranks. My APM hovers around 120-150 when I'm in shape (in WC3 and DoW). I will talk a bit about my experience upon returning to StarCraft after playing what some of you will consider "lesser" games (which I do not agree with).
I played quite a few games with a good player to dust the rust off, only to notice with horror that my APM dropped in the 50s to start, then bumped back up to the 90s, and now hovers around 110 in StarCraft. The reason why is simple, SC is so counter-intuitive compared to recent games that my brain froze on many occasions, and even now I find my skill raising as I learn to fight the UI more than ever. However, as I desire to gain skill in SC to prepare for SC2 (I also plan a heavy Ladder run upon the next WC3 patch), I keep playing.
Now, if SC was a new game, I don't think many would do like me and keep drudging at the game to fight the UI. Most would turn around and say "Meh, this game kinda sucks". A good example is AoExigo, released in 2004. Now, what I believe is if SC2's UI is the same as SC's UI, an immense amount of players will be lost, thus leading to the game being stale, and nobody leaving SC1 in the first place, because it'll have no balance problems inherent to the release of a new RTS.
Now, why do I believe MBS will not break the game. I take upon my experience over a large amount of RTSes (starting with WC2 on Kali on my gosu P266).
The first example here is the difference between WC2 and StarCraft. StarCraft is seriously easier to play than WC2, and upon SC's release a lot of top Kali players dubbed SC "Warcraft in Space" and a newbie's game, because of such additions as a unit queue, 12 units in an hotkey and a limited economic system (Minerals are more limited than Gold Mines were in WC2) as well as easier to cast spells. Okay, we know how it turned out. SC took over and WC2 was lost, due to stale gameplay and a worse interface. SC's skill ceiling was indeed lower than WC2, but otherwise unattainable.
SC goes well, and then we see WC3 is released. WC2 diehards launch an immense cry of agony that still chills me to this day when WC3 is shown to have a smaller amount of units, a fixed economy and heroes, autocast spells all around and creeps. Well, again, we see how that turned out. Outside of Korea WC3 is the dominant RTS and has a Pro scene that is vibrant and very much alive to this day, with China leading the charge with a big love for this game.
Now, Warcraft 3 is as "n00bified" as a Blizzard RTS can get, compared to Starcraft. Less units, focus on micro, almost inexistant macro (in the SC sense of the term, however WC3 macro is a very subtle art of army position, map control and decision making which is very important in a fixed economy game), autocast all around, and most of all, Heroes, which seems to be a severe point of hate around these boards. I will talk about the history if WC3's evolution later as another point why MBS can do no harm. Anyway, it was theoried that the game woud be mastered in a montha nd nothing would come of it. 5 years later, the gameplay isn't stale, new styles still pop up (WE.TeD is blowing my mind) and top players still improve (have you see Sky lately? O_o).
So, on the fact Starcraft 2 with MBS, and other UI improvements will be a newbie game, or a game where the distance between Pro and n00b isn't as sharp as it should be, is fundamentally false. WC3 proved that despite being the most easy to pick up RTS ever, the difference is still humongous. Why? Because unit building took a back seat, different skills popped up as being dominant, and those skills cannot be called "skilless". WC3 is not a skilless game, but a game requiring different skills from SC.
What I see now, is an enormous amount of players who desire to have SC2 use the EXACT SAME SKILLSET as SC1 required. To which I issue this question: why? I wouldn't want that. Especially since one of the main skills of SC1 domination is to be able to overcome the interface. How boring a skill is that? Learning funnier skills like "Crazy stalker Blink harass" sounds seriously more fun, and don't say it's because I don't like challenges. I love 'em.
As well, I believe strongly that the majority of the gamer base (not the SC1 hardcore player base) would not desire, nor accept being weakened by an artificially limited interface.
Now, what is going to happen is that SC1 pros will have to compete with WC3 pros for the top of SC2 because everybody is going to have to relearn a new game! Isn't that wonderful? Also, people with good gaming senses will have the opportunity to break down and get a better understanding of the fundamentals of SC2 and make a name for themselves by acquiring better skill faster, that is wonderful as well! This is why SC2 should be a new game! Because, if the game is the same as the old one, why bother making it? A good example of gameplay evolution over the same basics is Team Forteress 2. Different from the original yet similar, with gameplay avances and extreme personality. That's a winning formula that is an immense amount of fun! And that's exactly where SC2 is going.
Now, I am also of the opinion that bashing a game mechanic without experiencing it first is quite surprising, as we do not know except by hearsay what it's like to play with it, and what changes it brings. I doubt SC2's advanced control scheme breaks the game, as the game will obviously be balanced around it.
Now, on those afraid that the game will be broken by the new mechanics, I talked about the evolution of WC3 earlier. Wc3:RoC was a broken game. It was thoroughly tested, and even with AoW/DotT abuse patched, it lacked possibilities. Well, that kind of things can be fixed! What did Blizzard do? Seeing the game became stale very fast, Blizzard did the following.
- Added a new attack and a new armor type - Balanced heroes differently - Changed the way heroes acquire experience (algorithms, requirements on where you gotta be on the map) which opened a lot of different stuff on multitasking an separating armies. - Reduced the amount of gold required for EVERYTHING in the game, upped the supply limit to augment the flow of the game, and augmented wood requirements to reduce the mass teching. - Reduced availability of Town Portals to favorise interraction between players. Only the 1st hero gets one instead of all heroes upon construction. - Added neutral heroes and buildable shops for all races, and removed items which broke gameplay so much you HAD to buy them every game (Gem of true seeing, Dispel rod).
All of this created a gameplay experience that is still changing 4 years after these changes took place. So, if SC2 is at it's base fundamentally flawed, don't worry, Blizzard can and WILL fix it. However, I do not believe it will be just because of a better UI. WC3 wasn't, it's just that they n00bified the game waaay too much, which we will not see with SC2.
I would like to also add that so far, all SC2 units seem to have more skills than SC1 units, making it desirable to have better control over base mechanisms so to be able to fully exploit the different powers and possibilities of all units. This will also make for a significantly better spectator experience, as gosu stuff will happen all over the place more than in current SC games.
In conclusion, since a better control scheme will add more players, make the game more intuitive, bring changes to the gameplay and a new chance for everybody to shine, since it's a new game and since there is no chance the gameplay becomes too dumbed down from it, I believe SC2 should keep it's current UI advances.
Note that I used the term MBS a bit less because I believe it's a small concern compared to the ability to Hotkey an infinite amount of units at once, for example, since MBS will do nothing to help you build a balanced army, or keep a good economy if you can't handle everything.
Now, that post was a handful, I hope you enjoyed. Have fun breaking my points if you like, but always in a respecful manner please =).
By way of introduction, I lean towards pro-MBS because it lowers the learning curve, and I believe a high skill ceiling can still be achieved with MBS at its core. I also prefer skill with the gameplay over skill with the interface. However, if after thorough testing, it's discovered that MBS significantly hurts the depth of the gameplay no matter what Blizzard does, I'd be one of the first to advocate a return to SBS.
On November 09 2007 16:35 HonestTea wrote: The no-hands rule is totally, completely arbitrary: there's no logic behind it. It is also incredibly restricting. However, it creates the right level of difficulty and challenge. Because of that no-hands rule, players must develop a certain level of skill. And that's where all the fun and beauty lies.
The same goes for any other good sport or game. Take basketball. Why is the goal 10 feet in the air? No reason. But it because of it, players develop silky smooth jumpshots, jaw-dropping fingerroll layups, and majestic dunks. Why do you have to dribble once every two steps? Again, no real reason. But because of it, fans get to enjoy killer crossovers and complicated pivot post moves.
Actually, there's a very good logic behind the "no hands" rule in soccer and the dribbling rule in basketball. By design, soccer and basketball are non-contact sports. It is almost impossible to take possession of a ball from someone else who is holding it without contact. Therefore, there has to be a rule that forces a player to temporarily give up control over the ball every now and then so that opponents can attempt to steal it: in soccer, this is done by not letting you hold the ball with your hands, the only way you can completely control it; in basketball (and handball, which is basically soccer with hands) this is done by requiring the player to dribble, continually losing their hold over the ball for short periods of time. It would be impossible to play soccer with hands, or play basketball without dribbling, and not lose the non-contactness that is essential to the sport, so there is no arbitrariness or lack of logic behind those rules.
On the other hand, I don't think that anyone could argue that SBS is essential to a real time strategy game; there are many cases of successful RTSs that use MBS.
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?
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.
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.
On November 10 2007 01:08 Chill wrote: I'm MBS indifferent.
The thing about Brood War, is there are no barriers to entry; the game is intuitive. The skill ceiling is also remarkably high. This is the ideal game - minutes to learn, a lifetime to master.
MBS does make the game more accessible to new players. But it also lowers the skill ceiling.
The argument that it encourages more harassment and micromanagement is fine, but in Starcraft you can still play like that WHILE macroing. The point is, between micro, macro and "tactics" (ie. harassment, or even strategy or whatever you want to call overarching game plan) you often often have to sacrifice one even at the highest levels.
So what is going to replace that? I think the game is fine being reduced to simply micro and "tactics", but you must see that the skill ceiling is much lower.
First off, for new players today BW has a very high barrier to entry. Part of this is due to the fact that most BWers have at least a year of experience on the noob, but it's mostly due to the interface. As you well know BW has two interfaces: the point-and-click interface, and the hotkey-based interface. The former is very intuitive, and is designed for newbies to pick up and be able to play quickly; the latter is designed for experts, and is deliberately difficult to master. However, due to the improved efficiency of the hotkey system virtually no one who plays low-money BW using point-and-click nowadays, thus forcing the new player to learn the unintuitive hotkey-based system right off the bat if they wish to ever win a game. I consider this a pretty significant barrier to entry.
Secondly, I agree that MBS, even with new gameplay elements designed around it, will likely lower the physical skill ceiling. However, this lost skill will not drift off into the virtual void, but rather willl transfer to the mental skills, like decision-making speed, game sense and timing. With macro specifically, this would be a shift in importance from unit-producing mechanics to expansion timing, supply timing, etc. I personally believe that mental skills have a much higher skill ceiling than physical skills, so I think this shift from physically-dominant to mentally-dominant will be good for SC2.
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.
There is a lot about this MBS debate you simply cannot understand if you don't at least play BW decently. Even the same words will mean different things to you, and sometimes the concept will be lost entirely. Your credibility as a gamer counts in this regard, much more in SC than other games.
that, and if the person wants to use their ability at the game to add credibility to their statement then their ability at the game is open to attack too. if he didnt want that to be part of the discussion he shouldntve have said he was B rank.
Everytime an MBS thread pops up, the fundamental argument always seems to get warped.
SBSers don't want MBS it's not as challenging and fun. MBSers want MBS because they feel SBS is a limitation.
As HonestTea already stated, limitation is a basis for competition. SBS keeps the frantic pace and balance of BW intact. The addition of MBS will shift the entire focus of the game to army management, there is no arguing this. Many so-called new macro techniques will not fill the gap or are not necessarily macro at all.
You also have to keep in mind that Blizzard is creating this as a "hardcore" competitive game, and in competition limitation is necessary.
We were all new once and understand how SBS can be frustrating (it still is to me, I'm a lazy player), but never once did I think of it as a limitation. It was simply part of the game.
Sorry for the choppy writing, I wanted to keep this as concise as possible.
MBS is like Multiple Unit Selection (MUS) which is ALREADY IN THE GAME.
A building is just a stationary unit that takes up more room. Its ability is to make more units. The management of buildings is IDENTICAL to the management of units, hot-keys or control buttons. MBS is an issue concerning the MICROMANAGEMENT of static units (buildings). Please stop referring to MBS as a macro issue.
Blizzard are just expanding the same luxury you have of mobile units to static units.
If you defend multiple selection for mobile units (and I may as well add hot-key-able control groups here) you should defend it for static units as well.
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.
On November 10 2007 06:24 teapot wrote: MBS = Micro MBS ≠ Macro
MBS is like Multiple Unit Selection (MUS) which is ALREADY IN THE GAME.
A building is just a stationary unit that takes up more room. Its ability is to make more units. The management of buildings is IDENTICAL to the management of units, hot-keys or control buttons. MBS is an issue concerning the MICROMANAGEMENT of static units (buildings). Please stop referring to MBS as a macro issue.
Blizzard are just expanding the same luxury you have of mobile units to static units.
If you defend multiple selection for mobile units (and I may as well add hot-key-able control groups here) you should defend it for static units as well.
Case closed.
I hate arguing definitions but you are very, very wrong. This, I doubt, anyone will argue. Producing units and controlling them are two separate things. There is a reason why you hear about timing so often in BW, it's not timing of when to have your marines dodge lurker spines, it's timing of when to produce or not produce units. One contributes to the flow of the game and one essentially is the flow of the game.
On November 10 2007 06:24 teapot wrote: MBS = Micro MBS ≠ Macro
MBS is like Multiple Unit Selection (MUS) which is ALREADY IN THE GAME.
A building is just a stationary unit that takes up more room. Its ability is to make more units. The management of buildings is IDENTICAL to the management of units, hot-keys or control buttons. MBS is an issue concerning the MICROMANAGEMENT of static units (buildings). Please stop referring to MBS as a macro issue.
Blizzard are just expanding the same luxury you have of mobile units to static units.
If you defend multiple selection for mobile units (and I may as well add hot-key-able control groups here) you should defend it for static units as well.
Case closed.
On November 09 2007 10:08 thedeadhaji wrote: # Educate yourself. If you don't know something, find out. Search, read our articles, or find out otherwise. Read the official Blizzard website and announcements. Questions that could have been answered through your own research and time input will be met with a cold shoulder, at best. Many of our members are knowledgeable, and if they make a point you don't understand, admit your lack of said knowledge and fix it.
# Be smart. Think about your own post: does it add to the discussion, has it has been said before. Redundant content is worse than old fashioned spam, in that it demands more from the moderation staff.
On November 09 2007 20:20 ForAdun wrote: So you're saying that you didn't say that macro is a 50kg weight. Ok. You can sure tell me which limitation is your analogy for macro: soccer or weight?
Once more, more condensed:
1) MBS is not the only aspect involved in what is commonly called "macro-management". This should be noted above all.
Ok. What are the other aspects of macro, and why can't I do them like a progamer?
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.
On November 10 2007 01:08 Chill wrote: I'm MBS indifferent.
The thing about Brood War, is there are no barriers to entry; the game is intuitive. The skill ceiling is also remarkably high. This is the ideal game - minutes to learn, a lifetime to master.
MBS does make the game more accessible to new players. But it also lowers the skill ceiling.
The argument that it encourages more harassment and micromanagement is fine, but in Starcraft you can still play like that WHILE macroing. The point is, between micro, macro and "tactics" (ie. harassment, or even strategy or whatever you want to call overarching game plan) you often often have to sacrifice one even at the highest levels.
So what is going to replace that? I think the game is fine being reduced to simply micro and "tactics", but you must see that the skill ceiling is much lower.
Secondly, I agree that MBS, even with new gameplay elements designed around it, will likely lower the physical skill ceiling. However, this lost skill will not drift off into the virtual void, but rather willl transfer to the mental skills, like decision-making speed, game sense and timing. With macro specifically, this would be a shift in importance from unit-producing mechanics to expansion timing, supply timing, etc. I personally believe that mental skills have a much higher skill ceiling than physical skills, so I think this shift from physically-dominant to mentally-dominant will be good for SC2.
I can learn decision making, timing, expansion timing, supply timing from watching replays.
Its not really an effective barrier between me and a progamer
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.
Hey Blacksphinx, awesome post, very happy you decided to start posting if this is the kind of quality we can expect from you Your ID seems a little familiar too, which given how old school you are, isn't that surprising.
I don't want to respond to all of your post right now so I'll just pick a couple of things, and perhaps get back to it later:
What I see now, is an enormous amount of players who desire to have SC2 use the EXACT SAME SKILLSET as SC1 required. To which I issue this question: why? I wouldn't want that. Especially since one of the main skills of SC1 domination is to be able to overcome the interface. How boring a skill is that? Learning funnier skills like "Crazy stalker Blink harass" sounds seriously more fun, and don't say it's because I don't like challenges. I love 'em.
The thing is awesome stalker blink harass (having stalker vs stalker battles in which I can blink away the unit being focused upon is a dream I've been nursing ever since the SC2 announcment) is still possible without MBS..
SC2 doesn't have to have an identical skillset, but I'd like it to keep the balance between micro and macro, since I love having to zip back and forth between my army and my main.
Note that I used the term MBS a bit less because I believe it's a small concern compared to the ability to Hotkey an infinite amount of units at once, for example, since MBS will do nothing to help you build a balanced army, or keep a good economy if you can't handle everything.
I think you will find that the resistance towards smartcasting and unlimited unit selection is significantly less widespread around here, than it is for MBS. I'm pretty much of the opinion that neither of the above UI improvements are going to hurt the micro/macro balance, and therefore I don't mind them.
Now, I am also of the opinion that bashing a game mechanic without experiencing it first is quite surprising, as we do not know except by hearsay what it's like to play with it, and what changes it brings. I doubt SC2's advanced control scheme breaks the game, as the game will obviously be balanced around it.
As you might be aware, quite a few members from these forums played the game at Blizzcon, and while I think they unanimously (as far as I know) agreed that it's a very fun game to play, pretty much all of them felt the macro had been simplified too much.
On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote: Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no?
On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote: As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense.
On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well. His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not.
I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive.
If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it.
As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous.
As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence.
Isn't that a little absurd though?
This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second?
Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive?
I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle.
But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast.
SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking.
Just some thougths.
Edit: Ban bumatlarge please.
I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication.
I don't think this is true of most MBSers, except a few who are wannabe pros. I think most of them instead believe spending time on micro, tactics, multi-front battles, harassment, etc is more fun than clicking the same building repeatedly. It's not that they want to be more highly skilled than they legitimately should be, it's just that they prefer a game that emphasizes and rewards that style of play. I think this is key to understanding their point of view.
The best analogy that's been given to illustrate this so far is the organ vs. piano (although still not perfect). The organ takes far greater technical skill to play than the piano, but both instruments are capable of producing beautiful music. However, the simplicity and ease of learning the piano has led to its massive popularity over the organ (even at the professional level).
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.
Because it's a strategy game and not a clicking simulator?
I'd have no problem at all if APM was a deciding factor. In high level play. As if you wanted to be in the top 20 % or so you should need top skills in everything.
I also have no problem with fast playing being a skill that can make up for other things at lower play. Obviously an insanely fast player can multitask the hell out of me even though his play is sloppy.
I just don't think it should be *the* deciding factor for casual gamers.
The less there is to do in a game, the less fun it is. Should MBS be implemented, I hope dearly that it is a toggled feature that will not be allowed in tournament play.
On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote: Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no?
On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote: As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense.
On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well. His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not.
I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive.
If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it.
As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous.
As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence.
Isn't that a little absurd though?
This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second?
Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive?
I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle.
But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast.
SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking.
Just some thougths.
Edit: Ban bumatlarge please.
I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication.
I don't think this is true of most MBSers, except a few who are wannabe pros. I think most of them instead believe spending time on micro, tactics, multi-front battles, harassment, etc is more fun than clicking the same building repeatedly. It's not that they want to be more highly skilled than they legitimately should be, it's just that they prefer a game that emphasizes and rewards that style of play. I think this is key to understanding their point of view.
This is a good point, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions. Though you must admit, one of the key arguments is that SBS limits the player, which is somewhat synonymous with being too lazy to practice.
However, asking SC2 to be micro oriented is like asking WC4 to be macro oriented. Balance between macro and micro has always been a key characteristic of the SC franchise. It might lean a little towards macro 40/60 but still the point stands.
Go to a WC forum and ask that their sequel be more economy and macro oriented and they'll tell you to play SC, come here and ask for a micro oriented game, we'll tell you to play WC. Not out of spitefulness or anger, but because these are the defining styles of both games.
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.
Because it's a strategy game and not a clicking simulator?
I'd have no problem at all if APM was a deciding factor. In high level play. As if you wanted to be in the top 20 % or so you should need top skills in everything.
I also have no problem with fast playing being a skill that can make up for other things at lower play. Obviously an insanely fast player can multitask the hell out of me even though his play is sloppy.
I just don't think it should be *the* deciding factor for casual gamers.
It's also a real-time strategy game, speed is meant to be a factor.
To be honest, it really isn't as big of an issue as you are making it out to be. Being fast can makeup for some skill, and at an equal strategic level, speed is probably going to be the deciding factor. However, there are plenty of players who can also rely almost solely on their experience and strategy to overcome other players. You just don't get to see it very often because usually speed grows with experience. It all depends on your mentality and style of play.
On November 10 2007 05:46 Aphelion wrote: There is a lot about this MBS debate you simply cannot understand if you don't at least play BW decently. Even the same words will mean different things to you, and sometimes the concept will be lost entirely. Your credibility as a gamer counts in this regard, much more in SC than other games.
I think it's fairly obvious this guy is qualified tho, B rank or not.
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.
Because it's a strategy game and not a clicking simulator?
I'd have no problem at all if APM was a deciding factor. In high level play. As if you wanted to be in the top 20 % or so you should need top skills in everything.
I also have no problem with fast playing being a skill that can make up for other things at lower play. Obviously an insanely fast player can multitask the hell out of me even though his play is sloppy.
I just don't think it should be *the* deciding factor for casual gamers.
It's also a real-time strategy game, speed is meant to be a factor.
To be honest, it really isn't as big of an issue as you are making it out to be. Being fast can makeup for some skill, and at an equal strategic level, speed is probably going to be the deciding factor. However, there are plenty of players who can also rely almost solely on their experience and strategy to overcome other players. You just don't get to see it very often because usually speed grows with experience. It all depends on your mentality and style of play.
True. It's not that I don't like speed, it's just that I like intresting stuff to happen when I click and I want to think when I click. Which is why I mainly play z in 2on2s. 3 hatches on hotkeys is usually enough to keep your minerals and gas down and there's plenty of intresting muta and zergling clicking to do (not to mention scouting and keeping an eye on everything).
Back on topic please - if a post is obviously not credible just skip over it. FA and I can spot posts that are blatantly incorrect and we will handle them.
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.
As for the question of APM, people tend to APM spike when they have to micro, not macro! If Starcraft 2 requires you to heavily micro every single battle for every single second of combat in order to gain an advantage, then I could only forsee the game taking more APM to play at a high level, not less.
On November 10 2007 05:46 Aphelion wrote: There is a lot about this MBS debate you simply cannot understand if you don't at least play BW decently. Even the same words will mean different things to you, and sometimes the concept will be lost entirely. Your credibility as a gamer counts in this regard, much more in SC than other games.
I think it's fairly obvious this guy is qualified tho, B rank or not.
I stand corrected then. But my point still stands - this argument must also take into consideration your BW credentials. This isn't like normal debate where logic is all that applies, there are so many specifics which require your understanding of the game.
On November 10 2007 05:46 Aphelion wrote: There is a lot about this MBS debate you simply cannot understand if you don't at least play BW decently. Even the same words will mean different things to you, and sometimes the concept will be lost entirely. Your credibility as a gamer counts in this regard, much more in SC than other games.
I think it's fairly obvious this guy is qualified tho, B rank or not.
I stand corrected then. But my point still stands - this argument must also take into consideration your BW credentials. This isn't like normal debate where logic is all that applies, there are so many specifics which require your understanding of the game.
If a poster has insufficient understanding of the game to post on this topic, it will easily show through the content of his post (e.g. the guy who claimed MBS = micro). If it does, then this is violating one of the rules of this board "to know what you're talking about". In that case, point out the inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings that are present in his post and criticize his credibility there. Otherwise, it's up to the mods' discretion whether a post should be taken seriously or not. Furthermore, a person can have a decent understanding of the game without being a top-tier player by watching many VODs, replays, and so on.
On November 10 2007 05:46 Aphelion wrote: There is a lot about this MBS debate you simply cannot understand if you don't at least play BW decently. Even the same words will mean different things to you, and sometimes the concept will be lost entirely. Your credibility as a gamer counts in this regard, much more in SC than other games.
I think it's fairly obvious this guy is qualified tho, B rank or not.
I stand corrected then. But my point still stands - this argument must also take into consideration your BW credentials. This isn't like normal debate where logic is all that applies, there are so many specifics which require your understanding of the game.
If a poster has insufficient understanding of the game to post on this topic, it will easily show through the content of his post (e.g. the guy who claimed MBS = micro). If it does, then this is violating one of the rules of this board "to know what you're talking about". In that case, point out the inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings that are present in his post and criticize his credibility there. Otherwise, it's up to the mods' discretion whether a post should be taken seriously or not. Furthermore, a person can have a decent understanding of the game without being a top-tier player by watching many VODs, replays, and so on.
This is entirely true, thank you.
FA and I will be sending out warnings to people who make blatantly wrong or ignorant posts, and will keep an eye on those people in the future.
On that note, please don't derail threads talking about whether someone is qualified to speak on a subject.
Further posts on this subject may be punishable. Back on topic, please!
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.
I wonder if a clear terminology would help in this debate. [if not ignore / delete / pie]. I gather that the "Anti-MBS" faction (not assuming there is a unified one) has two main arguments:
1) preserving the skill-gap between casual and expert players 2) preserving some of the original BW game feeling and skillset which relies on "macro"
So, in order to understand the second point (which I certainly want to), we have to be more clear about what "macro" means. In this thread ...
Tiptup suggested: Micro, in terms of babysitting our individual units is very powerful in SC, and those powerful kinds of actions sit in a sort of balance with the three, primary, macro actions of building peons/units, setting rally points, and telling our peons to collect a resource all game long. I myself would definitely want that kind of balance to remain.
Coming from the etymology, "macro"-management should refer to managing the big picture, opposed to singular units. I would at least include setting up expansions and managing them into it.
So macro:
Building units
Rallying units
Constructing buildings
Sending workers to resources
Setting up expansions
Now, of this (hopefully to be complemented) list, 1,2 and 4 will likely be changed in sc2. MBS will affect 1 and 2, Automining will affect 4. Yet, this is only a part of macro. Even building units is not as straightforward as it looks. There is at least *some* decision involved in what unit to build at what time. You have to know when to click marine or medic, tank or goliath, depending on what game situation you are in. Same applies for setting up expansions and constructing buildings. While the mechanical procedure might be fairly straightforward, the decision making again is interesting - when to add production facilities, where to place them (proxies, hiding tech buildings ...) and so on. So there are at least two aspects of macro: decision-making on a macro scale and mechanical execution on the macro scale. The first requires something like game-sense, the second executional skills. BW moving more towards the macro scale is also due to the players knowing how much risk they can accept in early game to be rewarded in later game stages. (decision making)
If I understand it correctly, the argument of anti-MBS is voiced like this:
Taking care of the macro aspect of the game should take time. There should be a decision involved whether to micro or to macro at any given time or players should be forced to find ways to macro even in the most dire micro situations - thus increasing the challenge and the skill gaps. In order to take some time, macro needs a mechanical element such as singly selecting every production building.
So maybe the argument of anti-MBS can be put more clearly now: It is not about preserving macro in general, but about preserving an element involved in macro management which creates a mechanical challenge, which takes time, and which forces setting priorities on macro or micro in any given situation. So the debate does not concern "macro in general" but rather a specific subset of skills involved in macro-ing.
On November 10 2007 02:17 Aphelion wrote: I think you are aware of this, but this is simply not how BW players define macro. When we say macro, we mean solely economy, expansion, and unit production. All the stuff you said counts under the category of "management". Please stick to the terms we use - otherwise you will just further confuse an already hard to follow debate.
I understand how most SC players define macro, but I find that definition too specific. The real definition of macro is this:
"very large in scale, scope, or capability."
If I believe that term can apply to other gameplay concepts, ones that can be used to provide an equal level of multitasking (in contrast with combat micro), who are we to say that such a thing isn't macro?
It seems to me that this whole debate is based on tunnel-vision on each side. The pro-MBS side keeps making very stupid arguments in my opinion. A game where you can multi-task fifty different units for endless micro possibilities, but no macro elements, would suck. At the same time, I don't see how "economy, expansion, and unit production" are logically equivalent with the term "macro" in every possible case and in every possible way. I know that's what macro is in StarCraft, but that's all it can mean for every type of game in existence?
On November 10 2007 02:17 Aphelion wrote: I think you are aware of this, but this is simply not how BW players define macro. When we say macro, we mean solely economy, expansion, and unit production. All the stuff you said counts under the category of "management". Please stick to the terms we use - otherwise you will just further confuse an already hard to follow debate.
I understand how most SC players define macro, but I find that definition too specific. The real definition of macro is this:
"very large in scale, scope, or capability."
If I believe that term can apply to other gameplay concepts, ones that can be used to provide an equal level of multitasking (in contrast with combat micro), who are you to say that it isn't macro?
It seems to me that this whole debate is based on tunnel-vision on each side. The pro-MBS side keeps making very stupid arguments in my opinion. A game where you can multi-task fifty different units for endless micro possibilities, but no macro elements, would suck. At the same time, I don't see how "economy, expansion, and unit production" are logically equivalent with the term "macro" in every possible case and in every possible way. I know that's what macro is in StarCraft, but that's all it can mean for every type of game in existence?
Stop.
We use specific definitions in StarCraft, and "Macro" means "economy and production management". I don't give a shit what the dictionary says, this is the definition we have used for years. There is no reason to bring up what it means for other games either.
Further posts about the definition of "macro" may be punishable! EDUCATE YOURSELVES.
Nice post there Aesop, I think this basic list should be pasted in the OP to prevent further confusion about definitions. You can't use the excuse "I didn't know" if it's right there in the OP.
On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote: Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no?
On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote: As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense.
On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well. His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not.
I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive.
If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it.
As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous.
As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence.
Isn't that a little absurd though?
This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second?
Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive?
I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle.
But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast.
SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking.
Just some thougths.
Edit: Ban bumatlarge please.
I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication.
I don't think this is true of most MBSers, except a few who are wannabe pros. I think most of them instead believe spending time on micro, tactics, multi-front battles, harassment, etc is more fun than clicking the same building repeatedly. It's not that they want to be more highly skilled than they legitimately should be, it's just that they prefer a game that emphasizes and rewards that style of play. I think this is key to understanding their point of view.
This is a good point, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions. Though you must admit, one of the key arguments is that SBS limits the player, which is somewhat synonymous with being too lazy to practice.
A definition needs to be cleared up here, on what pro-MBS arguers mean by "limitation", specifically "artificial limitation". To quote myself:
A theoretically perfect UI would allow you to execute any decision in the minimum number of keystrokes possible. The standard FPS interface is a good example of this: I want to crouch, I hit C; I want to jump, I hit the spacebar; I want to fire at that guy, I point and click. In SC, on the other hand, if I want to build 7 zealots, I must hit 14 keys placed at awkward (for a normal typist) positions on the keyboard, or alternate between clicking a gateway and hitting the z 'key' 14 times. This is what I call an "artificial UI limitation": making certain decisions much more difficult to execute using the UI to increase the difficulty of a game. This, also, is the pro-MBS's side's answer to "where do you stop making the game easier?": We stop at the point where the player makes a decision.
EDIT: For Aesop's definition,
So macro:
Building units
Rallying units
Constructing buildings
Sending workers to resources
Setting up expansions
While that's a great list of the mechanical aspects of macro, I think the theoretical aspects should also be included, like:
- Adapting your BO to your opponent's BO/strategy - Utilizing your resources to build the most efficient number and type of units to battle your opponent's army - Macro-related timing (expansions, supply)
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.
On November 10 2007 09:26 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: EDCUATE YOURSELVES.
[/b]
Yes, good advice. I'm glad someone as educated as you is moderating this debate. Otherwise things could easily get out hand. For instance, macro means what it means in StarCraft. We wouldn't want people to erroneously think that StarCraft 2 is a different game from the original StarCraft. We need to remain educated.
Now that I'm back on track, I'd just like to say that I've played StarCraft continually since the first day it came out. It's my favorite game of all time. And, I know what kinds of things I find most fun in the game. If those aspects, very large in scale, scope, and capability, can be an alternative to the "macro" lost through MBS, then I would prefer that. If it can't, then I believe SBS should remain in StarCraft's sequel.
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.
On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote: Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no?
On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote: As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense.
On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well. His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not.
I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive.
If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it.
As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous.
As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence.
Isn't that a little absurd though?
This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second?
Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive?
I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle.
But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast.
SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking.
Just some thougths.
Edit: Ban bumatlarge please.
I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication.
I don't think this is true of most MBSers, except a few who are wannabe pros. I think most of them instead believe spending time on micro, tactics, multi-front battles, harassment, etc is more fun than clicking the same building repeatedly. It's not that they want to be more highly skilled than they legitimately should be, it's just that they prefer a game that emphasizes and rewards that style of play. I think this is key to understanding their point of view.
This is a good point, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions. Though you must admit, one of the key arguments is that SBS limits the player, which is somewhat synonymous with being too lazy to practice.
A definition needs to be cleared up here, on what pro-MBS arguers mean by "limitation", specifically "artificial limitation". To quote myself:
A theoretically perfect UI would allow you to execute any decision in the minimum number of keystrokes possible. The standard FPS interface is a good example of this: I want to crouch, I hit C; I want to jump, I hit the spacebar; I want to fire at that guy, I point and click. In SC, on the other hand, if I want to build 7 zealots, I must hit 14 keys placed at awkward (for a normal typist) positions on the keyboard, or alternate between clicking a gateway and hitting the z 'key' 14 times. This is what I call an "artificial UI limitation": making certain decisions much more difficult to execute using the UI to increase the difficulty of a game. This, also, is the pro-MBS's side's answer to "where do you stop making the game easier?": We stop at the point where the player makes a decision.
While that's a great list of the mechanical aspects of macro, I think the theoretical aspects should also be included, like:
- Adapting your BO to your opponent's BO/strategy - Utilizing your resources to build the most efficient number and type of units to battle your opponent's army - Macro-related timing (expansions, supply)
Can we lay off the definition stuff? My point still stands either way, achieving good SBS macro is not impossible, it just requires practice that pro MBSers do not want to put in. Should this really be the way to shape a competitive game?
On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote: Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no?
I've been massing games lately. I think that when I'll be at my top in a few weeks I'll be able to attain B level. It is also my immediate goal. I am NOT CURRENTLY B level (C- would be closer, mainly because of mass WC3 induced problems of lack of production buildings). I'm sorry if it was phrased wrong, english is not my 1st language.
I also beleive my post was voiced more towards the opinion of a gamer of vaster horizons than only Brood War, than the voice of an high end Brood War player.
I wished to clear that for all people who wish to dismiss my argument over that sentence. My knowledge of the game is, however, sufficient to voice an intelligent argument, in my opinion at least.
Now, if I find I cannot attain that level I'll issue an official apology of sucktitude.
Edit: Adding, I will start officially laddering ICCup monday morninat 9AM EST (I hope to play at least 20 games). Under the name BlackSphinx. You will be welcome to check my advance and praise me if I manage, and bash me if I fail.
On November 10 2007 09:26 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: EDCUATE YOURSELVES.
Yes, good advice. I'm glad someone as educated as you is moderating this debate. Otherwise things could easily get out hand. For instance, macro means what it means in StarCraft. We wouldn't want people to erroneously think that StarCraft 2 is a different game from the original StarCraft. We need to remain educated.
[/b]
its the definition of a word, not a suggestion on the mechanics of starcraft 2. Obviously starcraft 2 will be a different game, but that doesn't change what we use the word "macro" for in this discussion. We are simplifying the word 'macro', for the purpose of discussion in this thread, to what it has come to mean in StarCraft. This is to avoid arguments based on semantics.
If you'd like to continue being an ignorant jackass, please do it on some other forum. Otherwise, feel free to resume posting, but know that being ignorant towards a moderator in a thread as closely watched as this one is probably not a good idea.
Nice post there Aesop, I think this basic list should be pasted in the OP to prevent further confusion about definitions. You can't use the excuse "I didn't know" if it's right there in the OP.
Honestly you can't use "I didn't know" even if it's not in the OP, because it's stated in the entire SC2 forum guidelines that you must "do your homework" before posting.
On November 10 2007 09:51 mahnini wrote: That post
I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition.
On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote: Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no?
On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote: As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense.
On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well. His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not.
I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive.
If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it.
As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous.
As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence.
Isn't that a little absurd though?
This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second?
Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive?
I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle.
But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast.
SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking.
Just some thougths.
Edit: Ban bumatlarge please.
I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication.
I don't think this is true of most MBSers, except a few who are wannabe pros. I think most of them instead believe spending time on micro, tactics, multi-front battles, harassment, etc is more fun than clicking the same building repeatedly. It's not that they want to be more highly skilled than they legitimately should be, it's just that they prefer a game that emphasizes and rewards that style of play. I think this is key to understanding their point of view.
This is a good point, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions. Though you must admit, one of the key arguments is that SBS limits the player, which is somewhat synonymous with being too lazy to practice.
A definition needs to be cleared up here, on what pro-MBS arguers mean by "limitation", specifically "artificial limitation". To quote myself:
A theoretically perfect UI would allow you to execute any decision in the minimum number of keystrokes possible. The standard FPS interface is a good example of this: I want to crouch, I hit C; I want to jump, I hit the spacebar; I want to fire at that guy, I point and click. In SC, on the other hand, if I want to build 7 zealots, I must hit 14 keys placed at awkward (for a normal typist) positions on the keyboard, or alternate between clicking a gateway and hitting the z 'key' 14 times. This is what I call an "artificial UI limitation": making certain decisions much more difficult to execute using the UI to increase the difficulty of a game. This, also, is the pro-MBS's side's answer to "where do you stop making the game easier?": We stop at the point where the player makes a decision.
EDIT: For Aesop's definition,
So macro:
Building units
Rallying units
Constructing buildings
Sending workers to resources
Setting up expansions
While that's a great list of the mechanical aspects of macro, I think the theoretical aspects should also be included, like:
- Adapting your BO to your opponent's BO/strategy - Utilizing your resources to build the most efficient number and type of units to battle your opponent's army - Macro-related timing (expansions, supply)
Can we lay off the definition stuff? My point still stands either way, achieving good SBS macro is not impossible, it just requires practice that pro MBSers do not want to put in. Should this really be the way to shape a competitive game?
I may be wrong here, but I think what 1esu is trying to imply is that there are many pro-MBSers who indeed wish to become highly-skilled SC2 players (e.g. players migrating from other RTS's), and they are willing to put in as much time and practice as necessary to achieve that. However, they would rather prefer to spend time training in a game that doesn't make them feel artificially limited by the interface. I doubt they are afraid of the time-commitment or skill level. They would just rather play a game that makes them spend those clicks on more interesting actions that vary every game instead than repeated clicks on buildings. You would never become a professional athlete if you didn't love every aspect of the sport you were playing. Same holds true for pro-gamers.
On November 10 2007 09:39 1esu wrote: A theoretically perfect UI would allow you to execute any decision in the minimum number of keystrokes possible. The standard FPS interface is a good example of this: I want to crouch, I hit C; I want to jump, I hit the spacebar; I want to fire at that guy, I point and click. In SC, on the other hand, if I want to build 7 zealots, I must hit 14 keys placed at awkward (for a normal typist) positions on the keyboard, or alternate between clicking a gateway and hitting the z 'key' 14 times. This is what I call an "artificial UI limitation": making certain decisions much more difficult to execute using the UI to increase the difficulty of a game. This, also, is the pro-MBS's side's answer to "where do you stop making the game easier?": We stop at the point where the player makes a decision.
I think this definition of "artificial limitations" is pretty important to understanding the other side of the debate, and was never as clearly defined as something like macro. I'm not going to say either side is correct, but it always helps to think about why some people believe what they do.
This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result.
I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition.
That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game.
I tend to disagree on MBSers being people desiring less of a challenge, I believe this is false. The game isn't going to be easier with MBS, because fast and focused people will find other areas of domination than macro. This is seen in WC3, and even in Dawn of War. God, you can automatically build units in Dawn of War by right clicking the icon. They just keep coming. It's not like SC2 is going to be that extreme. If it was, then I'd say it's a bad idea, be cause at that point it would detract from overall experience.
I beleive the main argument of gamers desiring MBS is that catering to weaker players will be beneficial in the long run for the game, and that being limited by the UI when there is no requirement to do so is not fun.
SC, being balanced over not having MBS, is an exception, since the UI is that way for a reason: that kind of control was unheard of in the 90s. But if SC2 is balanced over MBS and then it get cut, making a large amount of players enjoy the game less, it can be no good for the game.
Competitiveness doesn't really matter in there. The game will be competitive from the get go, barring any crazy imbalance.
On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote: Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no?
On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote: As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense.
On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well. His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not.
I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive.
If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it.
As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous.
As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence.
Isn't that a little absurd though?
This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second?
Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive?
I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle.
But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast.
SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking.
Just some thougths.
Edit: Ban bumatlarge please.
I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication.
I don't think this is true of most MBSers, except a few who are wannabe pros. I think most of them instead believe spending time on micro, tactics, multi-front battles, harassment, etc is more fun than clicking the same building repeatedly. It's not that they want to be more highly skilled than they legitimately should be, it's just that they prefer a game that emphasizes and rewards that style of play. I think this is key to understanding their point of view.
This is a good point, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions. Though you must admit, one of the key arguments is that SBS limits the player, which is somewhat synonymous with being too lazy to practice.
A definition needs to be cleared up here, on what pro-MBS arguers mean by "limitation", specifically "artificial limitation". To quote myself:
A theoretically perfect UI would allow you to execute any decision in the minimum number of keystrokes possible. The standard FPS interface is a good example of this: I want to crouch, I hit C; I want to jump, I hit the spacebar; I want to fire at that guy, I point and click. In SC, on the other hand, if I want to build 7 zealots, I must hit 14 keys placed at awkward (for a normal typist) positions on the keyboard, or alternate between clicking a gateway and hitting the z 'key' 14 times. This is what I call an "artificial UI limitation": making certain decisions much more difficult to execute using the UI to increase the difficulty of a game. This, also, is the pro-MBS's side's answer to "where do you stop making the game easier?": We stop at the point where the player makes a decision.
EDIT: For Aesop's definition,
So macro:
Building units
Rallying units
Constructing buildings
Sending workers to resources
Setting up expansions
While that's a great list of the mechanical aspects of macro, I think the theoretical aspects should also be included, like:
- Adapting your BO to your opponent's BO/strategy - Utilizing your resources to build the most efficient number and type of units to battle your opponent's army - Macro-related timing (expansions, supply)
Can we lay off the definition stuff? My point still stands either way, achieving good SBS macro is not impossible, it just requires practice that pro MBSers do not want to put in. Should this really be the way to shape a competitive game?
The definitions are necessary because otherwise, as in your case, people misunderstand the arguments without them. It's not that those supporting the pro-MBS side are too lazy to achieve good SBS macro mechanics, and therefore they want to make the game easier. It's that pro-MBSers tend to agree that the interface should be easy to use, and the rest of the game should be where the real skill and difficulty lies.
Aaaaaaaaand anti-MBSers tend to agree that presence of mind and handspeed are in fact real skills that need to be developed in order for the game to be more competitive
A toggle feature could be interesting; it would give an easy welcome to new gamers and maintain the challenges for progamers. For some people in the middle it would be worse though, those who became good with mbs and then have to "relearn" the game later when\if they want to change to tournament playing.
Keep in mind that blizzard is aiming very high with this game. Well made RTS games aren't seen often, and I know of a lot of people who don't really play much anymore but are still longing to test sc2; gamers who once played sc with friends, gamers who only play wow but have heard so many promising rumours about this new game called sc2, gamers who just got their first pc a month ago... There's a huge amount of people who's going to test the game and know nothing about rts gaming or anything like it. For all these I think MBS would help to give a more pleasant feeling, especially in their first months. To me it seems these gamers want to see how their units fight and not come to the point where "there's so much building to do I almost don't have time to watch the fights". Even with MBS implemented they will end up having a lot of money stacked up.
On a professional level there's hardly any doubt that you want the game to be as intense as possible, and then it's better not to have MBS. However for new gamers I really think MBS would improve the gameplay. I tried to show my little brother how geniously sc is, but for some very strange reason the fingerdancing and intense multitasking didn't appeal much to him.
I hope blizzard can find a good solution to it. Otherwise being able to toggle MBS on and off could at least please all the new gamers and the elite, even if the gamers starting with MBS and then having to change to play in teamleagues would hate it. Cutting your losses?
On November 10 2007 10:32 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: Aaaaaaaaand anti-MBSers tend to agree that presence of mind and handspeed are in fact real skills that need to be developed in order for the game to be more competitive
and we go round in circles again
Anyone have something new to add?
I know it's an argument that we've covered before, but it's important to nip it in the bud before it takes seed again.
I think we should try and collect a summary of all the major arguments posed by both sides on the OP of this discussion, because there's always been different people repeating the same arguments over and over in every MBS discussion so far because they don't have the time to go through ~80 pages of reading before posting.
I don't think SBS is an artificial limitation at all. In fact I'd argue that most games have fun elements that require a lot of skill in similar ways. My whole issue is that I believe that the skill needed to work with SBS in StarCraft could potentially be aimed at other elements of the game (assuming Blizzard is smart enough to do this), and that MBS could be a good thing in that event. I'm not sure why that would be impossible to agree with.
On November 10 2007 09:45 Tiptup wrote: Yes, good advice. I'm glad someone as educated as you is moderating this debate. Otherwise things could easily get out hand. For instance, macro means what it means in StarCraft. We wouldn't want people to erroneously think that StarCraft 2 is a different game from the original StarCraft. We need to remain educated.
its the definition of a word, not a suggestion on the mechanics of starcraft 2. Obviously starcraft 2 will be a different game, but that doesn't change what we use the word "macro" for in this discussion. We are simplifying the word 'macro', for the purpose of discussion in this thread, to what it has come to mean in StarCraft. This is to avoid arguments based on semantics.
If you'd like to continue being an ignorant jackass, please do it on some other forum.
Avoiding semantics is very good in many situations. I don't see why you believe I would disagree with that. In fact I agree that using term "macro" in the way that you wish is actually a good idea. Did I somewhere say that I would do otherwise? I'm not sure why you're repeating your argument.
My admittedly sarcastic point about StarCraft 2 was actually to point out the fact that this is a StarCraft 2 forum and that, as a result, I believe that talking about my "macro" definition was understandable mistake in this thread. (Even then, my posts weren't "arguing" semantics. I can work with any sort of definition if need be and I stated that much. I was very clear about what I was meaning in my posts and how that specific context affected my opinions on this issue.) Basically, there was no list of definitions that I was supposed to stick to while in this thread and I mistakenly tried to broaden the common definition for "macro" (while remaining true to it). If you think I'm uneducated, and an ignorant jackass for that mistake, then I'll simply assume you know what you're talking about.
Oh and I see you edited your post with the following:
On November 10 2007 10:02 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: Otherwise, feel free to resume posting, but know that being ignorant towards a moderator in a thread as closely watched as this one is probably not a good idea.
Well, tecnically I was already following your directive in the previous post. But that's good advice in general, so, thanks.
Also, even when considering people who follow the SC2 forum guidelines and "do their homework" as a result (as well as follow Mensrea's well-written, ten commandments), I still didn't know that, by addressing the definition of "macro," I was in fact making a horrible, "uneducated" mistake. Essentially I didn't know I deserved to flamed by a moderator. I'll remember this in the future, however.
BlackSphinx: One idea is to decide what you prioritize and balance it mainly out from that, meaning balance it out from pro level where the balance issues matters the most. The difference between terran and toss if you add mbs could change balance a bit, but not radically imo. In the beta there's an icon which you can click and you'd get all your gateways (for example). Maybe they could have an icon with that for larvas instead of hatchs to make things easier for the zerg as well. Would still have to do some work if you aren't just going to mass 1 or 2 types of units though. Basically try to have it so that the MBS helps each race equally much.
An analogy to balance with toggle mode would be balancing a game where you have 1on1\2on2\3on3\4on4\ffa. You balance out from 1on1 but still have teamplay balance in the back of your head. I don't think toggle mode which was suggested by some others here is the ideal solution, but it could be a decent compromise.
On November 10 2007 10:39 Mergesort wrote: A toggle feature could be interesting; it would give an easy welcome to new gamers and maintain the challenges for progamers. For some people in the middle it would be worse though, those who became good with mbs and then have to "relearn" the game later when\if they want to change to tournament playing.
Keep in mind that blizzard is aiming very high with this game. Well made RTS games aren't seen often, and I know of a lot of people who don't really play much anymore but are still longing to test sc2; gamers who once played sc with friends, gamers who only play wow but have heard so many promising rumours about this new game called sc2, gamers who just got their first pc a month ago... There's a huge amount of people who's going to test the game and know nothing about rts gaming or anything like it. For all these I think MBS would help to give a more pleasant feeling, especially in their first months. To me it seems these gamers want to see how their units fight and not come to the point where "there's so much building to do I almost don't have time to watch the fights". Even with MBS implemented they will end up having a lot of money stacked up.
On a professional level there's hardly any doubt that you want the game to be as intense as possible, and then it's better not to have MBS. However for new gamers I really think MBS would improve the gameplay. I tried to show my little brother how geniously sc is, but for some very strange reason the fingerdancing and intense multitasking didn't appeal much to him.
I hope blizzard can find a good solution to it. Otherwise being able to toggle MBS on and off could at least please all the new gamers and the elite, even if the gamers starting with MBS and then having to change to play in teamleagues would hate it. Cutting your losses?
A toggle has been explained many times b4, but I don't think blizzard wants to split the community, imagine being on b.net on SC2 and going to the tab and seeing "MBS ONLY", or "NO MBS NOOBS". And than you have different teams and clans devoted to only mbs or non mbs, similar to like 'fastest players' vs 'non-money' players.. but imagine this MUCH MUCH worse
On November 10 2007 10:39 Mergesort wrote: A toggle feature could be interesting; it would give an easy welcome to new gamers and maintain the challenges for progamers. For some people in the middle it would be worse though, those who became good with mbs and then have to "relearn" the game later when\if they want to change to tournament playing.
Keep in mind that blizzard is aiming very high with this game. Well made RTS games aren't seen often, and I know of a lot of people who don't really play much anymore but are still longing to test sc2; gamers who once played sc with friends, gamers who only play wow but have heard so many promising rumours about this new game called sc2, gamers who just got their first pc a month ago... There's a huge amount of people who's going to test the game and know nothing about rts gaming or anything like it. For all these I think MBS would help to give a more pleasant feeling, especially in their first months. To me it seems these gamers want to see how their units fight and not come to the point where "there's so much building to do I almost don't have time to watch the fights". Even with MBS implemented they will end up having a lot of money stacked up.
On a professional level there's hardly any doubt that you want the game to be as intense as possible, and then it's better not to have MBS. However for new gamers I really think MBS would improve the gameplay. I tried to show my little brother how geniously sc is, but for some very strange reason the fingerdancing and intense multitasking didn't appeal much to him.
I hope blizzard can find a good solution to it. Otherwise being able to toggle MBS on and off could at least please all the new gamers and the elite, even if the gamers starting with MBS and then having to change to play in teamleagues would hate it. Cutting your losses?
A toggle has been explained many times b4, but I don't think blizzard wants to split the community, imagine being on b.net on SC2 and going to the tab and seeing "MBS ONLY", or "NO MBS NOOBS". And than you have different teams and clans devoted to only mbs or non mbs, similar to like 'fastest players' vs 'non-money' players.. but imagine this MUCH MUCH worse
Well there could be a solution. What about the notion that the single-player has a MBS and SBS toggle. That way the new people and the young would be able to play the campaign like most of them probably would off the bat. Then there could be an entire tutorial in the custom games section about SBS. or even it could be when you get to the last campaign or something and it switches over to SBS. People will find it challenging and blizzard can edit the first couple missions with increasing difficulty for the ones still getting used to it so it isn't completely shoved in their face. That would be a way for people to slowly get accustomed to the new style without having to lose 80 times to people with TL_ in their name for some reason.
Then in Online play it would all be SBS and it can be toggleable for ums games. That way if they TRULY want to play the game MBS style they can make ums maps for it. I for one remember the first time i played online a long time back and i had to go back and relearn the game anyways, simply because online gameplay is extremely more fast paced and it brings it to the core gameplay, I don't see what the problem would be if people saw it as a new experience.
P.S. I would find it hilarious if blizzard just changed it online to SBS and then used the ESRB notice "game experience might change during online play" thing as their excuse and was just like "i toldya so" that would be priceless
On November 10 2007 10:17 teamsolid wrote: ...They would just rather play a game that makes them spend those clicks on more interesting actions that vary every game instead than repeated clicks on buildings. You would never become a professional athlete if you didn't love every aspect of the sport you were playing. Same holds true for pro-gamers. .
Actually it's just the opposite. You would never become a professional athlete if you expect to love every aspect of the sport you are playing. The same holds true for proffesional musicians, professional actors and progamers. In every field to get to the highest levels you have to do things you don't always love.
A different question. I have seen the repeated argument that MBS will make people focus more on micro. But coming to think of it MBS will allow people to produce a lot more units in the same time period compared to no MBS. So the difference in unit count between a player that constantly produce and a player who focus on micro and doesn't produce constantly will be huge thus rendering the micro useless and actually making the game even more macro oriented.
SC is already rife with training wheels. One more won't make a difference.
A list of things that are done to make things easier for you. - Build queues - Multiple unit selection - Rally points - Unit AI - hot-key-able groups - way-points
All these things have been implemented to stop you fighting the interface. You are so used to them now that the idea of playing without them sounds like hell. In two years time after SC2 has an established user base. New players will ask themselves how people managed to play with SBS, old-timers will chuckle and ask themselves the same question. In the same way people look back on Dune 2 style single unit selection as archaic.
the discussion here is about the effects of an MBS system on the competitiveness of StarCraft 2. This is a pretty large issue and none of that other garbage you mentioned is in any way related. MBS will make a huge difference in StarCraft 2 (and I'm choosing not to mention whether I think its for the better or for the worse) and listing a bunch of things that 'starcraft already has' doesn't contribute to this thread in any way. You are completely wrong when you say it "won't make a difference".
On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote: Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no?
On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote: As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense.
On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well. His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not.
I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive.
If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it.
As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous.
As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence.
Isn't that a little absurd though?
This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second?
Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive?
I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle.
But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast.
SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking.
Just some thougths.
Edit: Ban bumatlarge please.
This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result.
I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition.
That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game.
You could also reverse this argument and claim that anti-MBS players are also wannabe pros with horrible micro and little to no "game sense", who don't want to lose their advantage from memorizing a series of cookie-cutter builds and learning to type 1sz2sz3sz4sz or what have you really fast. Obviously neither this nor your statement is true.
thats not equivalent to what he said because having manual macro does not eliminate the importance of game sense and the other aspects of the game. anti mbs players want the game to be more complex and harder because that makes it a better game for competitive play. on the other hand putting mbs in does nearly eliminate the importance of one element of the game.
The equivalence is in the absurdity of the two statements. Both cases suggest that suddenly a stronger player will suddenly have problems defeating a weaker player, but MBS will not make it so that a casual newbie player is suddenly even or has the slightest of chances against a hardcore mass gamer. Likewise, you could say that pro-mbs players want the game to be more complex and harder on the micromangement level.
I'm just saying that ad hominem attacks against the skill level of pro-MBS players while simulataneously saying "oh, what we want is more skilled" is not the way to approach the argument. This will not persaude Blizzard to remove it. MBS will have a profound impact on low-mid level play, yes, but what needs to be shown is that MBS will stagnate the game at the highest levels of play.
That post was not ad hominem at all. CCK was suggesting that speed should not play such a large role in BW and presented MBS as a solution. I was merely stating speed does not pose a large an obstacle as he implied and that through practice you can achieve the necessary speeds.
That was it. I have a feeling you are just trolling now.
Edit: Let me rephrase that. You aren't practicing against the UI, you are practicing against the people who can more easily and quickly manipulate the UI than you can.
First I'm going to start off addressing a general trend that I see in this thread. To quote FakeSteve (not literally) "and the pro-MBS people admit that speed is an important factor and we go around in circles again".
One of the first thing you learn in many educations (like diagnostics, which is an apt comparison to this thread) is that many questions is not simple yes or no answers. Many people here seem to treat the MBS discussion as yes or no. Either they are rigth and SBS is clearly better or they are wrong and MBS is clearly better.
I don't think this is the situation we have here. Instead we have some kind of arbitrary macro scale which and somewhere along this point lies MBS. Both sides have very valid argument and the point isn't really if either side is rigth it's about what is rigth for the game. Somewhere we have a cut-off point where we say "this much mechanical action is required for macro". Changing this will change the skill requirment but also the entry level and enjoyment of new games (and naturally a host of other things. Let me represent this with a typical graph. Note that this is an example so I'd prefer if the next following 20 posts is not OMG as much blue as possible, please.
Of course the graphs probably doesn't look at all like this in reality.
Naturally life is not this simple but the question is still, where do we place our cut-off point? The easy choice is to say "where the graphs intercept" because that is a minimum loss and a maxium gain for both sides. But it's not that easy because we need to think about which kind of game and what kind of tradeoffs we want.
Both sides are rigth, the question is what is best for the game?
Also, even though it has been brougth up before.
Rigth now we are using SC as our "gold standard" in that we compare everything to it. This is dangerous as SCII will not be the same game and thus a direct comparison is not possible. True, it's not like we can use any other gold standard but it does mean we allways have to keep this in mind.
Now to actually respond to the quoted post.
Isn't that more or less the same thing though? Since your opponent is a human you are competing against him in every aspect of the game. Perhaps it's just me but I prefer to lose because of something else than the fact that I can't click as quickly as my opponent. And I do, frequently. As a casual player you don't get that many games a week and I don't watch that many replays or VODs. Better players consistently beat me down with BO's, new strategies or just better game sense on the new maps. But other players also consistently beat me because they are faster than me.
At the highest, hell even a long way below the highest level, I can see speed being a very important skill. But no other RTS game today has such an insane requirment for even moderatly skilled gamers. I've played BW for almost half my life and it's still one of my favourite past times and I don't think macro in SC is fun. And I doubt new players will think macro is fun either.
The question is, how much would a drop in the speed requirment change the game, and would it be enough to make it significiantly worse in comparison to the gain for new and lower tier players?
I personally don't think so and I don't there has been any compelling arguments for this being the case either.
BlackSphinx , let me ask you something mate. You seem to support MBS , and say that with MBS good players will have different things to pay attention to. I want to know what that is , more micro?
What about the macro oriented players? they are forced to do more micro just because there's not much macro to do.
so instead of this , please suggest a way to compensate macro while MBS is implemented, because balance between micro and macro is a fundamental part of the game.
On November 10 2007 20:06 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Isn't that more or less the same thing though? Since your opponent is a human you are competing against him in every aspect of the game. Perhaps it's just me but I prefer to lose because of something else than the fact that I can't click as quickly as my opponent. And I do, frequently. As a casual player you don't get that many games a week and I don't watch that many replays or VODs. Better players consistently beat me down with BO's, new strategies or just better game sense on the new maps. But other players also consistently beat me because they are faster than me.
Ok, I just want to analyse this quickly. You say that you are only beaten because someone is faster than you? I think you are just not able to admit that they are a better player. APM means ACTIONS per minute. Simply being a faster clicker does nothing for you. You must back every click up with a logical thought process. Someone who has a high APM is not just clicking faster, they are thinking faster. Unless your a complete nubbins using a mouse, your limitation is how well you can think through your actions. This is why many peoples games fall apart as the game gets later. There is more to do, but they cant think fast enough to have complete control. It has almost nothing to do with how fast you can click.
MBS removes the stresses on the brain by lowering the amount of thought processes required. Making it easier to play. More thought processes equals more stress on the brain, meaning the player who is faster at working everything out ends up at an advantage, which they should be.
If you dont think this holds true. Think about typing. The average person here on TL should be able to do 60 WPM. assuming 4 letters per word and 1 for space bar. You have a 300 APM when typing. Why doesnt it seem so fast? Because your brain has learned typing down to an instinctual action and therefore the thought processes are lightning fast.
A common criticism against SBS (and in a similar vein, auto-mining) as a skill differentiator is that the only "skill" it differentiates is the mechanical finger dance. I believe this is a narrow-minded view. By happy accident or ingenious construction, the existence of SBS in SC forces players to pay a substantial additional price of focus (or apm, if you prefer) for economy and production. It is this cost that allows:
- attacks to be made on a players econ and production by engaging their attention - effective strategic punishment of both over-harassment and over-expansion - low and high econ strategies to be both viable
and a host of other gameplay interactions that give SC the depth of strategic choices required for both a diverse and competitive playing field.
Now, it is generally accepted that you can't micro everywhere and, that effective micro, in the form of efficient and effective unit control, is a form of skill. However, micro is not the only action that requires focus! Macro, in the form of econ and production, requires focus as well.
Every expansion you take not only expends a cost in resources, units and map control, but also one on your concentration. The time consuming nature of assigning workers to an expansion means that a heavy harass from your opponent can dissuade you from expanding even if you are able to beat back their advances. If expansion maintenance did not require constant breaks in your focus from your army, then the harass will naturally become less effective in slowing down your expansion efforts.
On the opposite side, harassment requires focus, and the heavier the harassment, the less focus you have to expand, produce, and respond to the opponent's own harassment. In this way, since both expansion and harassment requires focus, over-expansion and over-harassment are kept in check by the game mechanics -- i.e. strategic play is encouraged by forcing players to make hard decisions on where to invest their focus. When you strengthen macro by requiring less focus, you are in effect weakening the value of harassment and encouraging a more uniform expansion and harassment policy for both players.
Furthermore, the uniqueness in SC in that both high econ and low econ strategies are viable (i.e. PvZ) comes in part due to the fact that high econ means low micro. To outproduce someone, you require a substantial investment of focus on things that don't relate to controlling your army -- leading to the choice of 200/200 and half as much time to control it, or half that army but you can micro the hell out of what you have. If there's no longer a requirement of time for macro, then you either end up with harass strong enough to keep macro down (WC3) or macro strong enough that micro becomes irrelevant (SupCom). More importantly, the middle ground between macro and micro is destroyed.
Now, in no way am I saying that a lighter emphasis on using your focus for macro makes for weaker gameplay, but part of what makes SC unique lies in the fact that both macro and micro require focus to be spent -- it is this tension on finding where to spend it that provides a huge amount of strategic depth in a ten year old game. Macro is not just a finger-dance, it is the end result of deliberate decisions in how and when to spend limited focus. It encourages and rewards players to efficiently spend their time in a balanced fashion. It allows for a diversity of contrasting playing styles that match up well against each other.
I think MBS is a good feature, but if the same tension of SC is to be kept, then its use must be tempered by an investment in focus -- i.e.: time. I don't recall who first suggested it, but the idea of forcing all MBS commands to execute at 180apm is one that I would support. Seeing your army get slaughtered while the computer is busy clicking buttons is a pretty good way of reinforcing the idea that focus matters.
It's the other way around. I know perfectly well what I should do but I'm not fast enough to do it. I probably have better dexterity that many people here on TL in certain areas but not in Starcraft because manual dexterity is unique for every task and it's something that takes a lot of practice to get. If you don't belive me just try doing something that takes a lot of dexterity with your hands that you are not practiced in and try to do it well and you will see that you fail.
If I actually liked playing a game where I macro out of 12 factories constantly I would probably be very good at it. I don't because when I decide to build 12 vultures I want 12 vultures to be built just like when I want 12 units to move I click once for them to move. Which is the main reason I play 2on2s because there's not as much mechanical macro in it and I can focus on other things that I find more intresting.
And I can safely say that I'm beaten because I have low APM because there's plenty of games where I know exactly what to do I just cant macro of 4-5 bases because I don't play enough to have the kind of mechanical speed to compete. One prime example is a terran taking his nat then his min only and then not moving untill he has 200 supply. It's not very hard to anticipate what he's going to do, it's not very hard to plan what you are going to do but it's extremly frustrating when you see your cash building up and once he rolls out your flank can be insanely good but it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what HE had in APM. It matters that I didn't have the mechanical speed to keep up. I lost that game more than he won it but it was still a question about mechanical speed.
Which is exactly my point. No other RTS game has this kind of mechanical skill requirment for casual gamers. Casual gamers do not want this kind of skill requirment. They'd be perfectly happy with any other kind of speed requirment but they don't want to do things that they feel are pointless when they know they don't have to.
If there is not a conscious thougth behind an action it shouldn't be in the game.
Edit: The focus argument is good but surely there must be better ways to divert focus than forcing the player to click 20 times on 10 buildings? It's like waiting at a stop sign, you have to do it and it takes your time but it's not particularly funny.
I'd rather take away other UI improvments like automine because those actually have a thougth behind them like "I have to go back and reassign SCV's" or add things like deconstructing buildings, switching addons or timing your merc hiring. All of these requiries you to have an increased ammount of focus on your macro but none of them artifically requires you to spend a significant ammount of time doing them once you made your decision.
I'd rather take away other UI improvments like automine because those actually have a thougth behind them like "I have to go back and reassign SCV's" or add things like deconstructing buildings, switching addons or timing your merc hiring.
I'd agree that decisions like add-ons and merc hiring increase choice and flexibility in strategic ways, but I don't think that's the same as saying that they are macro decisions. A macro decision involves a choice in how to spend your time, not a choice on tech or unit choice -- that's just micro with buildings.
I can understand your plight in the extreme amount of dexterity required to play at even a nominal level. I support MBS and auto-mining as interface enhancements, but I think their use has to involve trade-offs with time. When you produce from six factories using two keystrokes, you should have to sit there for a couple of seconds without being able to give your units orders. That wouldn't be an interface limitation, it should be accepted as part of the gameplay.
Here's another viewpoint that I'm sure will be popular.
In a low level game Starcraft is too centered on macro.
From reading the Penny Arcade boards the number one complaint by new players in Starcraft is that it's only about producing units and using attack move to kill the enemy.
For a totally new player this makes sense. It's efficent to select all your units (you don't have that many, probably only two controll groups or so) and send them to the enemy. They will do reasonably well with their own AI given the time investment (that is two clicks). On the other hand their base will do absolutly nothing if they don't spend a significant ammount of their apm (which is probably ~30-40) on it building units, buildings and workers.
When it actually comes to doing battle the 40 APM player who tries to pull a boxer with his 6 units or so is naturally going to get crusched by the 40 APM player who doesn't really care about what his units are doing as long as he's building more of them. Add the fact that most new players like to actually watch the action as much as possible (something that more proficent BW players quickly learn not to do, if your units are doing well macro instead) you have an even greater problem.
"I'd rather play DoW because it means I don't have to spend 90 % of my time starring at my base" is in my oppinion a valid complaint and I think MBS would change this situation drastically.
On November 11 2007 00:36 Fen wrote: [...] MBS removes the stresses on the brain by lowering the amount of thought processes required. Making it easier to play. More thought processes equals more stress on the brain, meaning the player who is faster at working everything out ends up at an advantage, which they should be.
Sorry, but what twist of mind makes that true. I don't see how thinking " I want to build 5 zealots" and then selecting 5 gateways and pressing z, requires significantly less thought then thinking " I want to build 5 zealots" and then individually selecting a gateway and pressing z five times. If you really need to think that much about clicking and pressing buttons, sc is probably not a game for you.
If you dont think this holds true. Think about typing. The average person here on TL should be able to do 60 WPM. assuming 4 letters per word and 1 for space bar. You have a 300 APM when typing. Why doesn't it seem so fast? Because your brain has learned typing down to an instinctual action and therefore the thought processes are lightning fast.
You seem to forget most people use two hands two type. (And keyboards have been specifically designed around this use.) Not many people here would be able to type 60 WPM with one hand on their mouse.
But this was not my primary reason for posting.
Something I have noticed about the MBS debate is that it seems to focus on using MBS to construct units. Obviously, there are more situations were you may want to select more than one building at a time, and for some of these MBS will actually improve gameplay by making certain tactics more viable. These situations mainly involve situations where buildings act very much like other units. i.e. lifting off and moving Terran buildings, raising and submerging supply depots, focus firing static defenses.
To start with the last. I have seen people claim in previous MBS discussions that MBS would overpower static defense, because it would allow you to focus fire them more easily. Clearly, this is partly true, focus firing static defenses is a powerful tactic (just as focus firing any other unit), but not necessarily overpowered since there are enough other variables in power of static defense buildings to balance things out. So allowing MBS for static defenses will (after balancing) just mean that to be truly effective they will have to be focus fired. Compared to not focus firing this adds to gameplay.
Being able to use MBS to simultaneously raise and lower multiple supply depots, allows for all sorts of innovative strats. I see no reason not to allow this.
I'm not sure how being able to lift off all your buildings at once will effect the game, but the effect will be minimal. It just seems logical that you could select a group buildings and order them to move to a certain location.
It is because of these situations that I'm pretty sure that some form of MBS will make it into the game. The question remains if it should allow you to build units while selecting more than one building. (For those of you thinking allowing MBS, but not building in MBS is silly; This already so for worker units, you can't build buildings while selecting more than one worker.) On this point I'm sort of on the fence. I agree with those arguing that choosing between macroing and microing during a large encounter is an important part of the SC gameplay. MBS will clearly effect this balance. To what extent depends on the MBS implementation chosen.
Ideally, the game machenics should be such that not using MBS to build units is much more effective then building units using MBS. Much like micromanaging your troops is much more effective then just attack moving them into the opposing army. In such a situation MBS (at high level competetive play) )will only see use as a fall back mechanism when there is no time to macro properly.
This already true to some extent for the current implementation of MBS, ordering to build a unit will build one unit in all selected buildings if possible. This implementation is kinda in flexible and will give undesirable results unless precisely the right number of buildings are hotkeyed, since pressing one button will typically build more units then you might want to, draining all your resources and allowing to build some different stuff as well. The gain of doing it "by hand" is very marginal though, with the main problem being that it still allows you to macro relatively effictively without taking your eyes of the battlefield.
So, in order to make building via MBS viable, the mechanics of the game have to be tweaked in such a way that "micro" macroing is much more effective than MBS macroing. I, however, don't really see how this could be done without resorting to extremely artificial measures like slowing down production when using MBS, which seem very undesirable.
So ultimately I don't see building via MBS making it in the game. (Although a random thought has popped up in my head, that you cou could add MBS while removing rallying points from the game entirely. This way you have to spent a lot more time sending your troops to the front manually even though building them is earier. As an add bonus you get rid of rally-mining.)
On November 10 2007 23:03 Dariush wrote: BlackSphinx , let me ask you something mate. You seem to support MBS , and say that with MBS good players will have different things to pay attention to. I want to know what that is , more micro?
What about the macro oriented players? they are forced to do more micro just because there's not much macro to do.
so instead of this , please suggest a way to compensate macro while MBS is implemented, because balance between micro and macro is a fundamental part of the game.
Macro oriented players, in the StarCraft sense of the word, well, it's almost a certainty they will almost be inexistant in SC2. Basically, players like Oov will have to find a new style, playing a new game. This is quite normal. My WC3 style is quite different from my WC2 style =p.
Now, let's dredge again WC3. In that case, an immense amount of control is used to micro the army and Hero micro (both actions can be seen as totally separate from the other) to have the best possible amount of advantage given by the heroes.
So, yes, you can expect time taken away from macro will be given to micro. when using SC's sense of the term.
However, in WC3's lingo, Macro is not only base building and unit building/selection, but also army position, creeping pattern selection / creepjacking and map control / area denial.
Area denial is a bit special. An example is Turtle Rock where, if even with a small army you are in the middle of the map and your opponent is stuck on the periphery, you can force them to keep going around only through better army position, giving you more time which is the most important ressource in an fixed economy setting. That's the kind of things that happen when you don't seperate your armies often, except for some creeping or harassing cases. I don't think that'll be part of SC2, but it's a way to illustrate what players do and what stems out of a radically different environment.
So, yeah, different games, different lingo. As of such, time will be given more to micro in SC2, however I believe we can expect the signification itself of the word "macro" to change from pure base control to a more broader sense, WC3 like. Especially since a heavy amount of WC3 players will move from WC3 to SC2 and bring their definitions with them. Expect heated arguments over t3h intarnets.
Anyway, macro players then will be players in SC2 that end up controlling the game via good map position and area control / denial, and maybe less micromanagement than other players. People that followed the early times of WC3 will remember Apex-X and SK.Insomnia, and more recently SK.Miou that fit into that style.
As I do not hold a preference between SC and WC3, I do not see this as a bad thing, as SC2 will join both games in a way, and will make for a very intense spectator sport. However I can understand that for a large amount of people in the infamously hardcore TL crowd, this is a case for a Darth Vader level "NOOOOooo!".
Again, it is my belief that forcing some kind of "menial macro tasks" on the players will only detract from the gameplay. I think also that SC2's gameplay will be, because that's the direction I curently see from videos / People having played / Blizzard feedback, drastically different from the one in Brood War. The difference is that me, compared to many in these parts, do not think that it is a bad thing, but a good one. I am thrilled to see the direction this game is taking, because it is in my opinion the right one for both a cometitive game and a spectacular spectator's game. Keep in mind Blizzard has a goal, and that is to supplant FPSes as a spectator E-sport. No easy task, especailly if you are in the US/Canada area.
SC1 is all fun, and fantastic, but that doesn't cut it.
On ways to make macro harder despite MBS being a part of it, I just cannot find one that would be fun. And fun is very important here. If some of you have some, that let's hear them. I for one would just prefer to let the game be balanced and take it's own course after release.
On November 11 2007 02:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Here's another viewpoint that I'm sure will be popular.
In a low level game Starcraft is too centered on macro.
From reading the Penny Arcade boards the number one complaint by new players in Starcraft is that it's only about producing units and using attack move to kill the enemy.
For a totally new player this makes sense. It's efficent to select all your units (you don't have that many, probably only two controll groups or so) and send them to the enemy. They will do reasonably well with their own AI given the time investment (that is two clicks). On the other hand their base will do absolutly nothing if they don't spend a significant ammount of their apm (which is probably ~30-40) on it building units, buildings and workers.
When it actually comes to doing battle the 40 APM player who tries to pull a boxer with his 6 units or so is naturally going to get crusched by the 40 APM player who doesn't really care about what his units are doing as long as he's building more of them. Add the fact that most new players like to actually watch the action as much as possible (something that more proficent BW players quickly learn not to do, if your units are doing well macro instead) you have an even greater problem.
"I'd rather play DoW because it means I don't have to spend 90 % of my time starring at my base" is in my oppinion a valid complaint and I think MBS would change this situation drastically.
Let me present a more realistic example:
It's typical in a TvZ to have to pump MnM from 8-10 raxes + 2 fact tanks + 1 port vessels + 3 CC SCVs, send SCVs to minerals and hotkey your new units. To do this you need at least 120 APM and this is with perfect timing and no useless actions, which isn't possible, so in an actual game with 30% useless actions(usually there's a lot more in pro matches) and human errors(like overqueueing, so you have to go back and cancel), you'll need upwards of 170 APM and this is WITHOUT attacking the enemy or defending or microing ANYTHING, which you obviously need to do, so in the end you have even higher APM requirement just to macro properly in a real game.
Not only low level starcraft is too centered on macro, every level of starcraft play is too centered on macro, that's why you can see Hwasin, probably the best Terran ATM, having 2500+ minerals in the bank, forgetting to macro in the middle of a battle, queuing 5 SCVs in a CC, e.t.c. and this is in a serious match against Savior, which I gave as an example in an earlier topic + Show Spoiler [VOD] +
So even if Hwasin could heavily benefit a lot from MBS, who wouldn't? It will make everyone "better", so it actually won't make a real change between different player skill levels, because there is no reachable skill ceiling and there will still be what to improve for everyone, while at the same time this will benefit the spectator part of the game and make the game A LOT more accesible and entertaining for newer players, which is an enourmous benefit.
Also, macro in pro games is NOT about clicking the production buildings faster, every pro does this in a VERY short time period with differences, so small they barely make a difference(if at all).
Thinking that iloveoov has scary macro, just because he SUPPOSEDLY spends a few miliseconds less in queueing units is ridiculous at the least.
Macro in pro games IS about proper timing in queueing new units right before the previous ones finish and not forgetting to macro in the mid of a battle, choosing when exactly in that battle to press these 8 hotkeys for production buildings, when to stop production of workers/army units and build new production buildings, how much of them to build, when to expand and lots of intricate details.
You know that Savior's macro is(or was) scary, but he has shit APM for a pro. He obviously isn't faster than other pros, but his macro is better, because macro is not about who is faster in clicking those damn buildings.
Maybe I am opening another pandora box here, but I would like to ask another question about MBS. So far we have mostly been arguing about whether MBS should be in the game or not. However, I think that with some certainty it will be part of the game (if toggleable or not, who knows), as seen on the Blizzcon and as Blizzard (imo) won't take a step back from the comfort the wc3 UI offered. So, to put a bold figure: with 99% it will be part of the game.
That being said, I am not sure what the immediate consequences for the gameplay would be (maybe those who have tested the game can enlighten us a bit). This is of course a highly speculative issue, yet (if allowed) I would be interested in what everyone else thinks.
Things I can come up with:
More diverse unit mixes: There is enough time bring the strenghts to bear of different unit types in your army.
More usage of situational precision abilities. Consider the abilities almost forgotten in Broodwar for the one of the other reason: Maelstrom, Ensnare, Optical Flare, Cleanse, Lockdown (Ghosts in genereal) ... ; I know some of these might be autocast in sc2, but still there are some useful, yet quite underused abilities, most likely because the time invested into using them is too high compared to other management tasks.
Macro-management switching from "doing" to "making good decisions", that is with more and more relevant decisions. You will have to decide for every terran production building whether to have a reactor or a science lab addon, with Protoss you have to choose where exactly to warp in your units (I do not fully understand the concept of a warpgate, but it sounds like your units can appear anywhere where you have pylon range; is that about correct?), no idea how zerg will be specified. To take warcraft III as an example: The game can can cope with less focus on unit production as you can spend your resources in more ways - you can invest them into items instead of units, for example, and you are working with an additional resource, namely experience which translates into hero levels. So my expectation would be that you will have more diverse ways of spending money and reaching 200 / 200 supply, thus shifting the weight towards strategic decisions.
no one is saying going around and clicking the buildings is a difficult task.
its the fact that you have to spend time doing it that makes the real difference. it becomes part of strategy/time management, in that you have to choose when to go back to your base and spend a second producing units. if you dont choose the proper time to do that then you either leave your units in the middle of a battle or dont have reinforcements.
also the fact that producing units requires time adds depth to the game. because it is impossible to do everything perfectly at once you have to sacrifice some parts of the game to accomplish others. thats obvious in progamer's play style, oov has insane macro but his micro slips occasionally (and used to be just plain bad by pro standards), boxer with great micro and harass along with 3k mins in the bank, etc. it adds variety to the pro scene, because players have to choose what to focus on, which makes everyone's playstyle unique. if everyone can macro perfectly without any investment of time then all their time will be spent on microing, so everyone will end up playing the same, or at least much more similarly than they do in bw.
My take on this is sort of a cop-out, but I really think we should wait and see how it works in the beta, with all (most) of the functionality in the game done, ideally including the "extra tasks" Blizzard has said will be happening.
Yes, I am fully aware that many players here played the pre-alpha version at Blizzcon, and to reiterate the argument again against that is that you were limited to 20 minute games, you were playing, usually, vastly inferior opponents, the games units, buildings, functionality was incomplete, could only play 2v2 games etc.
I know that you can still get a general sense of the game from the above, and I appreciate everyone's reports from Blizzcon about the conditions of MBS, but I really hope that Blizzard doesn't make a concrete decision on the matter before the beta. IE: saying "There will (not) be MBS in SC2", without trying it on a more balanced, massive scale than was seen at Blizzcon. (like a beta)
I used to be pro-MBS but I am now anti-MBS, especially if Blizzard doesn't make "interesting" things for the players to do besides microing (or however you want to phrase that). I also don't believe for a second that reviews or sales of the game will suffer due to MBS being in or not.
However I am absolutely open-minded to new ideas, and am 100% willing to try the game with and without MBS to see how it plays.
I've seen people (not in this topic) say that Blizzard designing SC so well was an "accident", as proof of their other games. I think this is a really ignorant thing to say; all of their games have been wildly successful on all levels (casual, semi-casual, hardcore, pro etc., maybe not D2 for pro). My point here is that I have faith that Blizzard can do some pretty crazy things that will make us go "...nice!" which could easily solve the macro issue, while maintaining MBS.
We simply don't have enough info to really say for sure either way.
And I still like seeing this discussion so I don't think that we should stop
More diverse unit mixes: There is enough time bring the strenghts to bear of different unit types in your army.
More usage of situational precision abilities. Consider the abilities almost forgotten in Broodwar for the one of the other reason: Maelstrom, Ensnare, Optical Flare, Cleanse, Lockdown (Ghosts in genereal) ... ; I know some of these might be autocast in sc2, but still there are some useful, yet quite underused abilities, most likely because the time invested into using them is too high compared to other management tasks.
Macro-management switching from "doing" to "making good decisions", that is with more and more relevant decisions. You will have to decide for every terran production building whether to have a reactor or a science lab addon, with Protoss you have to choose where exactly to warp in your units (I do not fully understand the concept of a warpgate, but it sounds like your units can appear anywhere where you have pylon range; is that about correct?), no idea how zerg will be specified. To take warcraft III as an example: The game can can cope with less focus on unit production as you can spend your resources in more ways - you can invest them into items instead of units, for example, and you are working with an additional resource, namely experience which translates into hero levels. So my expectation would be that you will have more diverse ways of spending money and reaching 200 / 200 supply, thus shifting the weight towards strategic decisions.
Yes, exactly (@ all points, also @ warpgate question).
MBS will change the gameplay, and macro-heavy players will have to adapt, but I doubt that the game would become easier.
The problem with SBS in a game as fast-paced as SC is that some units, abilities and strategies which are sometimes strong but always hard to micro will be used rarely, if at all. This just shows how important macro is, and that there is no true balance between micro and macro. SC1 was designed to have a big variety of units/abilities and strategies, to allow for very diverse games in theory, but in practice several of them are so hard to micro that they are almost never used. So, as a result, most games consist of 1 general strategy against 1 general strategy (e.g. vulture/tank vs zeal/goon) with armies consisting of only a few units, mostly standard units, because they are the easiest to micro.
Think of an analogy: imagine that in chess, you'd have to make your move within 0.5 seconds, or you lose the game (or w/e). There would be people arguing that this is a great thing because it forces the players to think and react insanely fast. But the main problem with it (in analogy to SC1) is that one unit probably won't be used at all: the Knight, because it has such a special movement requiring you to take a deeper look at it, which would cost too much time with the new rule) You can compare this to SC1 units like ghosts or dark archons which are almost never used simply because no one has the time to use them, although they can be good in some situations.
So we see that the game offers a lot more potential, but players can't use it. Whether you're the best pro in the world or the worst noob, you'll always fall back to units which you can handle easily because anything that takes too much time or APM is your enemy. Some units/abilities are hard to micro but "essential", like the high templar or defiler, so you will use them regularly no matter what, but all those units/abilities which are hard to micro but only useful in some situations or under special circumstances (like ghosts) are probably completely ignored by all players because the high speed and constant macroing simply does not grant you enough time to use them well.
This means that SBS (not MBS) essentially dumbs the game down a bit. If you reward high speed so much, then advanced tactics/strategies won't ever be used because they require too much time.
Now, MBS will make macro less important (but it will only remove the "tedious" physical aspect of macro. The mental aspect is still there, so there will still be players who have better management than others). In effect, players will have more time available to do all the stuff they wish to do, to use all units/abilities, even if they're only useful in very few situations. The game will potentially be more diverse, which can only be a good thing.
And about that "dexterity = good" argument, I mean come on... if I want to do something that requires dexterity then I play something else, but not a real time strategy game. Why force a dexterity element into a game like SC? Really, why? Is that good design?
Besides, MBS will only affect the later stages of the game. Early on, you need a more diverse unit combination anyway so you have to select each gateway/unit manually. In late game however, when you want to produce 15 zealots at once, then MBS will help you and make a difference. Before that, it's very unlikely.
If MBS was fundamentally bad then no game would ever include it, but all newer games do include it, even Blizzard thinks it's a good idea. Are they doing this because they think that taking a huge risk is a good thing, or because they want the game to suck? I don't think so... Just because SC1 is still the best RTS doesn't mean that it's only because of SBS. Think of the nearly perfect balance of the game, and the uniqueness of each race... these are the two main aspects SC1 always was praised for (and rightfully so).
Simple things should be simple, and hard things should be hard. In SC1, everything is hard, even the most trivial things. This is bad design, if you ask me. For example, if I decide to build 1 zealot, this is a simple decision, and in SBS or MBS it's just a matter of clicking on 1 gateway and pressing 'z'. But if I decide to build 20 zealots, then we have a problem with SBS: the decision is just as simple again, but I suddenly have to invest a lot more time/clicks.
(Of course, you can't really blame SC1 for being like that, because in 1998 the only thing that mattered was that the UI is better than the WC2 UI. Blizzard did that, and everyone was happy. Now, they have to improve SC1's UI again, because the market respectively the players' demands have changed.)
The UI should be as simple as possible, in any game, in any program. In a lot of other genres, for example FPS games, you already have that situation. There's not much you can do to make the UI any easier. It's perfect! And no one complains that the gameplay is too easy! But in SC1 there's a LOT of clutter and artificial limitations, and some players even like it that way. Is it really necessary? I don't think so. Time for a change.
Bleh. I wanted to make a short post but now this has happened. Anyway, I guess it's my last post on this subject.
More diverse unit mixes: There is enough time bring the strenghts to bear of different unit types in your army.
More usage of situational precision abilities. Consider the abilities almost forgotten in Broodwar for the one of the other reason: Maelstrom, Ensnare, Optical Flare, Cleanse, Lockdown (Ghosts in genereal) ... ; I know some of these might be autocast in sc2, but still there are some useful, yet quite underused abilities, most likely because the time invested into using them is too high compared to other management tasks.
Macro-management switching from "doing" to "making good decisions", that is with more and more relevant decisions. You will have to decide for every terran production building whether to have a reactor or a science lab addon, with Protoss you have to choose where exactly to warp in your units (I do not fully understand the concept of a warpgate, but it sounds like your units can appear anywhere where you have pylon range; is that about correct?), no idea how zerg will be specified. To take warcraft III as an example: The game can can cope with less focus on unit production as you can spend your resources in more ways - you can invest them into items instead of units, for example, and you are working with an additional resource, namely experience which translates into hero levels. So my expectation would be that you will have more diverse ways of spending money and reaching 200 / 200 supply, thus shifting the weight towards strategic decisions.
Yes, exactly (@ all points, also @ warpgate question).
MBS will change the gameplay, and macro-heavy players will have to adapt, but I doubt that the game would become easier.
thats what the warcraft line is for, the game designers have said they want to keep the two worlds seperate. a big part of starcraft is that it places emphasis on both macro and micro.
The problem with SBS in a game as fast-paced as SC is that some units, abilities and strategies which are sometimes strong but always hard to micro will be used rarely, if at all. This just shows how important macro is, and that there is no true balance between micro and macro. SC1 was designed to have a big variety of units/abilities and strategies, to allow for very diverse games in theory, but in practice several of them are so hard to micro that they are almost never used. So, as a result, most games consist of 1 general strategy against 1 general strategy (e.g. vulture/tank vs zeal/goon) with armies consisting of only a few units, mostly standard units, because they are the easiest to micro.
odd units like ghosts, da's, queens are used in certain situations, when theyre useful, but on the whole they arent cost efficient. they arent used because they arent worth it, not because players dont have the time to use them. ghosts are only worth the gas, tech time, mana time when they can inflict really big damage, like locking down carriers/bcs. and you see ghosts used in those situations, when it seems like other solutions wont work. same with da's, mostly arent used because mael costs quite a bit of mana and dts are more useful. but once your opponent has a bunch of ultras maelstrom becomes very efficient and players start using them.
Think of an analogy: imagine that in chess, you'd have to make your move within 0.5 seconds, or you lose the game (or w/e). There would be people arguing that this is a great thing because it forces the players to think and react insanely fast. But the main problem with it (in analogy to SC1) is that one unit probably won't be used at all: the Knight, because it has such a special movement requiring you to take a deeper look at it, which would cost too much time with the new rule) You can compare this to SC1 units like ghosts or dark archons which are almost never used simply because no one has the time to use them, although they can be good in some situations.
So we see that the game offers a lot more potential, but players can't use it. Whether you're the best pro in the world or the worst noob, you'll always fall back to units which you can handle easily because anything that takes too much time or APM is your enemy. Some units/abilities are hard to micro but "essential", like the high templar or defiler, so you will use them regularly no matter what, but all those units/abilities which are hard to micro but only useful in some situations or under special circumstances (like ghosts) are probably completely ignored by all players because the high speed and constant macroing simply does not grant you enough time to use them well.
This means that SBS (not MBS) essentially dumbs the game down a bit. If you reward high speed so much, then advanced tactics/strategies won't ever be used because they require too much time.
anti-mbs people say that alot.. but what would you prefer players do? what tactical elements of the game are being left out because players have to go back to their base every once in a while? as for the lesser used spellcasters, like i said they arent used because theyre inefficient, not because players cant make time for them.
Now, MBS will make macro less important (but it will only remove the "tedious" physical aspect of macro. The mental aspect is still there, so there will still be players who have better management than others). In effect, players will have more time available to do all the stuff they wish to do, to use all units/abilities, even if they're only useful in very few situations. The game will potentially be more diverse, which can only be a good thing.
nope, less diverse. like in a previous post it might be tedious, but the real important point is that you have to go back to your base and spend time producing units. im not gonna repeat myself, read the last post i made for the implications.
And about that "dexterity = good" argument, I mean come on... if I want to do something that requires dexterity then I play something else, but not a real time strategy game. Why force a dexterity element into a game like SC? Really, why? Is that good design?
because it is a _real time_ strategy game. if you want purely mental you can play turn based games like chess. part of real time is that execution is part of the gameplay too.
Besides, MBS will only affect the later stages of the game. Early on, you need a more diverse unit combination anyway so you have to select each gateway/unit manually. In late game however, when you want to produce 15 zealots at once, then MBS will help you and make a difference. Before that, it's very unlikely.
so.. it doesnt matter since it only applies late game?(it does apply early game though, just not as much)
If MBS was fundamentally bad then no game would ever include it, but all newer games do include it, even Blizzard thinks it's a good idea. Are they doing this because they think that taking a huge risk is a good thing, or because they want the game to suck? I don't think so... Just because SC1 is still the best RTS doesn't mean that it's only because of SBS. Think of the nearly perfect balance of the game, and the uniqueness of each race... these are the two main aspects SC1 always was praised for (and rightfully so).
its included, and theyre thinking about including it, for the mass audience. however theyve also said they want sc2 to support esports. the argument is that mbs with starcraft gameplay will be worse, particularly for competetive gaming.
Simple things should be simple, and hard things should be hard. In SC1, everything is hard, even the most trivial things. This is bad design, if you ask me. For example, if I decide to build 1 zealot, this is a simple decision, and in SBS or MBS it's just a matter of clicking on 1 gateway and pressing 'z'. But if I decide to build 20 zealots, then we have a problem with SBS: the decision is just as simple again, but I suddenly have to invest a lot more time/clicks.
its still simple, just time consuming. and while that may be labeled an artificial limitation it improves the game (for reasons already discussed)
(Of course, you can't really blame SC1 for being like that, because in 1998 the only thing that mattered was that the UI is better than the WC2 UI. Blizzard did that, and everyone was happy. Now, they have to improve SC1's UI again, because the market respectively the players' demands have changed.)
The UI should be as simple as possible, in any game, in any program. In a lot of other genres, for example FPS games, you already have that situation. There's not much you can do to make the UI any easier. It's perfect! And no one complains that the gameplay is too easy! But in SC1 there's a LOT of clutter and artificial limitations, and some players even like it that way. Is it really necessary? I don't think so.
blanket statements like "The UI should be as simple as possible" are shortsighted. what matters is the end product. if 'artificial limitations' produce the best game, why avoid them simply because theyre artificial?
On November 11 2007 00:36 Fen wrote: [...] MBS removes the stresses on the brain by lowering the amount of thought processes required. Making it easier to play. More thought processes equals more stress on the brain, meaning the player who is faster at working everything out ends up at an advantage, which they should be.
Sorry, but what twist of mind makes that true. I don't see how thinking " I want to build 5 zealots" and then selecting 5 gateways and pressing z, requires significantly less thought then thinking " I want to build 5 zealots" and then individually selecting a gateway and pressing z five times.
Every concious action requires thinking. Even if the action is to move your mouse, it still requires thought. Dont try argue this point because youll just end up looking stupid. Every action requires thought. Due to the immense amount of actions required in starcraft, people are limited by their ability to think through their actions, not because the muscles in their fingers are too weak to move at the correct speed.
You seem to forget most people use two hands two type. (And keyboards have been specifically designed around this use.) Not many people here would be able to type 60 WPM with one hand on their mouse.
You obviously missed the point here. Lets half this number for 1 hand on the keyboard and then add say 50apm for the mouse, you still have a higher APM than what most people have. Happy? The numbers are not important, its the argument behind it. And that argument is that mechanical skill is not the limiting factor in APM.
I used typing just as an example of something that you do with your fingers MUCH faster than playing starcraft. And the reason its possible is because your able to think faster when typing, not because your fingers get stronger when you go to type.
The WPM arguement is completely out of place, just like the other comparisons to something unrelated, that are quite popular is this topic.
The mouse is the limiting factor(if you are faster with the keyboard that is, some people may have this reversed), if you have 50 apm with the mouse you won't be able to select more than 50 buildings a minute and even if you can type a million words per minute, that would mean shit, because you could queue 50 units and that's it, you won't have a 500 050 APM, you'll have 100 and this has nothing to do with thinking about building new units(lol), it's purely mechanical speed and accuracy, because you can never think as slow as you move, that's why pros spam actions - to keep their hands warm and fast, so they are as fast as possible when needed, not because it makes them think faster, lol.
Have you seen the wcg documentary about xellos? At one point in the movie the experts decide to test xellos to find out why he is so much more efficient than a amateur gamer. Well the biggest factor is that almost every move he makes in the game, wether it is keyboard or mouse, is instinctive. So he doesnt have to think his actions through. The amateur on the other hand must check the keyboard to find the correct keys and has to put alot more effort in thinking the next task at hand, be it mechanical or not. So this means xellos is faster because he has to concentrate less on what he is about to do.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
i dont see why its a bad thing to have to go faster, both you and your opponent 'fight' the ui, so its not unfair. its just another aspect of the game. like i said its not purely mental.
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.
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.
except that we have support for our 'blanket statement', if you would read the posts you're responding to. there is no support for 'the ui should be simple' there is support for mbs+sc=bad for competetive gaming.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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?
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 16:33 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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, Pillars tested and liked AoX which had MBS and it was a very fast paced and macro heavy game, if Blizzard managed to get SC2 to the same point AoX was regarding this features then I suppose he would be all for MBS.
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?
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.
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 10:17 teamsolid wrote: ...They would just rather play a game that makes them spend those clicks on more interesting actions that vary every game instead than repeated clicks on buildings. You would never become a professional athlete if you didn't love every aspect of the sport you were playing. Same holds true for pro-gamers. .
Actually it's just the opposite. You would never become a professional athlete if you expect to love every aspect of the sport you are playing. The same holds true for proffesional musicians, professional actors and progamers. In every field to get to the highest levels you have to do things you don't always love.
A different question. I have seen the repeated argument that MBS will make people focus more on micro. But coming to think of it MBS will allow people to produce a lot more units in the same time period compared to no MBS. So the difference in unit count between a player that constantly produce and a player who focus on micro and doesn't produce constantly will be huge thus rendering the micro useless and actually making the game even more macro oriented.
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 16:33 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.
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 !
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
MBS should be in the game, but a scale factor should apply.
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.
Yeah Manit0u, I played AoX, very very very good game. Only played the beta and could only play like 4-5 games, but it was a lot of fun. I of course didn't play enough to comment on MBS effect on macro tho but most SC players who played it seemed positive, like you said.
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?
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.
On November 13 2007 10:44 lololol wrote: Wasn't TA a very macro oriented game, although it had better interface then SC?
In my opinion, TA's interface is REALLY horrible. Sure, you have unlimited unit selection but the hotkey system is WORTHLESS, you can't even center on the units
Building is also done like exclusively with the mouse.. I think it was mostly macro but I heard air fights were very micro intensive early game. There's a really cool clan site for TA (actually there's tonnes of nice TA sites, lots of people love that game since it's pretty damn good) which had like literally hundreds of tips and tricks.. Forgot what it was called tho, they had a nice interview with one of their members (which mentioned Korea and SC progaming, and poker).
Btw, in case any TA players are reading this, I've played TA at a very casual level so I don't really have any experience of what competitive TA is like. Me saying it's macro based is just the impression I got.
I don't have much more to say, just that: Could we please leave out the argument that "macro is not fun"? It is speculative, it is subjective, and it is wrong.
On November 14 2007 00:46 ForAdun wrote: I don't have much more to say, just that: Could we please leave out the argument that "macro is not fun"? It is speculative, it is subjective, and it is wrong.
Sadly, this is a thread about opinions, and it is the opinion of many that SC1's macro is not fun. If we had to remove all arguments I do not agree with, we wouldn't have much of a thread left ^^.
On November 14 2007 05:09 Brutalisk wrote: The 2 posts by vaphell on that page: http://sc.gosugamers.net/thread/158989/180 nicely sum up some of the points made by the pro-MBS people.
He's making the same mistake that pro-MBS people made months ago by thinking that all the mental demands of SC are maintained despite a reduction of physical demands. The overarching mental demand of every game is how to spend the resource of time.
Let's say at 10 minutes into a game, I'm thinking of 5 tasks (A,B,C,D,E) I need to do that would take 20 seconds to complete, but I only have 12 seconds to do them because of physical/UI limitations. I have to think about how much time I can cut off from each task by doing a less than perfect job. Task 'A' is the most important, but I can save 5 seconds by doing it in a less-than-perfect way that'll only reduce it to 90% effectiveness. I decide this is a worthwhile cut, because 10% off of my most important task is worth the 5 seconds. I have to shave 3 more seconds off between the remaining 4 tasks. So I do a similar process of ranking them in order of importance, thinking of what less effective methods there are for completing them, how much time those alternative methods will save and how much less effective they are. I then have a plan for the next 12 seconds of the game. And please note that these things are incredibly variable so it's humanly impossible to optimize in every situation. Real time decision-making is necessary and there will always be room for improvement.
Vaphell seems to argue for a game that'll never give you more tasks than you have time to complete. So the mental challenge is simply thinking of the tasks and then the player can proceed to do them all in the most effective ways known. Build orders, micromanagement, macromanagement, etc, all need to be optimized, but once they're optimized, a player can always do them optimally. This greatly diminishes mental demand and creativity. It makes copying much easier and more effective. If my alternative method of doing task 'A' was some genius micro maneuver that, once started, let's me look elsewhere, but still maintains near perfect effectiveness, then that genius would have no place in a game where I have nowhere else to look but on my units.
I know that Blizzard isn't making a game like the one I said vaphell is arguing for. And perhaps vaphell doesn't want that game either. But MBS, automining, autocasting, etc, would bring SC2 closer to that game than SC1. For many people, namely the anti-MBS crowd, it seems that these features bring SC2 too close to that game. The fact is that exceedingly impossible physical demands brought on by a limited UI are absolutely essential to the most difficult mental challenge of SC1. MBS will certainly reduce the physical demand of the game and if it is enough to ruin the mental challenge I've described, then it should be removed.
nony: I think you forget one simple thing here - Blizzard did not want to put so much physical skill into SC when they were releasing it. It was the Koreans, and their will to practice longer and harder than anyone else, who have created such demand. I am no Korean, I don't want to live off of gaming and play 1 game 12hrs/day just to keep up with the rest, and I think that most "foreigners", as you call them, don't want it either. I want to see people from all over the world competing against each other, not just 1 country because it's much more boring.
On November 14 2007 06:44 Manit0u wrote: nony: I think you forget one simple thing here - Blizzard did not want to put so much physical skill into SC when they were releasing it. It was the Koreans, and their will to practice longer and harder than anyone else, who have created such demand. I am no Korean, I don't want to live off of gaming and play 1 game 12hrs/day just to keep up with the rest, and I think that most "foreigners", as you call them, don't want it either. I want to see people from all over the world competing against each other, not just 1 country because it's much more boring.
doesnt matter what blizzard intended, without the physical requirements the pro scene would be nowhere near as a competetive, and less competetive is bad as no one is gonna pay you to go up on tv and do something anyone can do.
as for you not practicing 12 hours a day, thats fine. you're never gonna be a progamer, im pretty sure you're ok with that fact. you dont have to play 12 hours a day to enjoy the game, you just have to play that much to be insanely good at it. not only koreans are capable of practicing 12 hours a day, its just no one else does it (on a large scale) because only korea has developed a progaming scene that supports it. in korea you might become a progamer playing 12 hours/day, elsewhere its just a waste of time.
So you want a game that has no skill gap between the progamers and the ones who dont want to take it too seriously? Are we going through this again? if you want to succeed in something you have to dedicate to it. SC2 is supposed to be the next big thing in progaming, a job for progamers. I can't mention even one sports where a casual amateur should be at the same level as a professional athlete. The difference between SC and SC2 is that SC's huge success in korea was an accident, with SC2 they are trying to replicate it. SC was meant to be just another game until the Koreans found it, now if they want to repeat the same success Blizzard can't just flip a coin and let luck decide. This time they have SC from which they can look at the best parts, that are most essential and representative of progaming itself.
On November 14 2007 00:46 ForAdun wrote: I don't have much more to say, just that: Could we please leave out the argument that "macro is not fun"? It is speculative, it is subjective, and it is wrong.
Sadly, this is a thread about opinions, and it is the opinion of many that SC1's macro is not fun. If we had to remove all arguments I do not agree with, we wouldn't have much of a thread left ^^.
It's a really useless argument tho, seeing as how I can just say "Oh but I find it fun!" and we go around in circles.. I mean it's kinda pointless :/
On November 14 2007 06:44 Manit0u wrote: nony: I think you forget one simple thing here - Blizzard did not want to put so much physical skill into SC when they were releasing it. It was the Koreans, and their will to practice longer and harder than anyone else, who have created such demand. I am no Korean, I don't want to live off of gaming and play 1 game 12hrs/day just to keep up with the rest, and I think that most "foreigners", as you call them, don't want it either. I want to see people from all over the world competing against each other, not just 1 country because it's much more boring.
Not everybody needs to compete with the best players in the world. If you can play 5 hours a week, then compete with other players who compete 5 hours a week.
Koreans made SC a successful competitive game. It doesn't make sense to look at how the Koreans handled SC and then purposefully avoid it and still expect healthy competition. Making the game easy enough so that a casual player can keep up with a hardcore player will not make competition more universal. It'll get rid of competition all together.
I don't understand the argument where people feel entitled to being top tier at the game with minimal effort put in. These kinds of games never become competitive because the skill ceiling is low - anyone can pick up the game in a short time and be top tier. It's fine if you're not able to be the best at the game with little effort. Think of every other competitive game and sport that has existed for more than five years (soccer, chess, street fighter, basketball, hockey, golf, badminton, table tennis, mma, distance running, poker, counter strike, etc.) and I think you'll find they're pretty similar - In order to be top tier at them you need to essentially dedicate your life to them, unless you are born with an exceedingly large amount of talent. You can still play them casually and have fun by competiting against people of your own skill level.
Now you also don't want the skill floor to be too high that it causes barriers to entry. You want the game to be extremely easy to learn, and nearly impossible to master. MBS is an interesting problem because it lowers the skill floor AND lowers the skill ceiling. I think it's hard to say which is more important to be honest. As long as there is something to raise the skill ceiling back up that doesn't feel artificial (simply for the sake of making the game hard) I think MBS is fine. But for now we have to assume this magical thing doesn't exist because there's no word of it. So for the sake of longevity and competitive gaming, MBS does more harm than good in my opinion.
There's a reason the saying is "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master", and not "A minute to learn, a couple weeks to master."
I'm all for MBS. It makes the game simpler for my casual playing pleasure.
I think mostly everyone who says that it will ruin SC2 or make it less skillfull is wrong. At the highest skill level the players surely cannot: 1) Keep producing a static unit ratio army. 2) Keep a constant number of production buildings.
In my opinion a pro would still need 4 or 5 building groups to make sure his production goes as he wants it. And then he'd probably still resort to building "by hand".
The early game might get more micro intense, but from mid game on a serious player would not just produce with MBS.
I think MBS at the very least deserves a chance. In the worst case cenario it can be implemented as an option if it turns out to be gamebreaking, which is highly unlikely.
You completely misunderstood me. I have never mentioned that a casual player doesn't need to do so much to become pro. I just want SC2 to be casual-player friendly while retaining it's competetiveness. For example in WC3 you all hate so much because it's game for "noobs" the gap between casual player and pro is really enormous and it is after all a very competetive game. And it's not because of the interface you know, it's because of timing/experience/thinking the progamer has and casual player does not, there are pros with 150apm who beat those with 300apm because they use it wiser. THAT is strategy, not mechanical 1z2z3z4z5z6z repeating.
But I feel I'm just wasting my time by putting arguments that will just bounce off the stone wall of SC eliteness.
On November 14 2007 08:10 Chill wrote: As long as there is something to raise the skill ceiling back up that doesn't feel artificial (simply for the sake of making the game hard) I think MBS is fine. But for now we have to assume this magical thing doesn't exist because there's no word of it. So for the sake of longevity and competitive gaming, MBS does more harm than good in my opinion.
There's a reason the saying is "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master", and not "A minute to learn, a couple weeks to master."
This is exactly the point the pro-MBS faction is trying to make with the "artifical limitations" argument - that gameplay might stay at the same level of intensity, yet allowing for more interesting actions to take than clicking single buildings and pressing one or two keys. Part of the argument is an appeal to the anti-MBS faction to start thinking outside of the box and not making SBS the holy grail of skill-preservation.
Yet, what I want to have a go at is another matter. While reading the latest Q&A batch, the matter of the limit of selectable units came up, with the answer:
Q&A Nr. 21 A. Currently, players are able to select more than 150 units in a single control group. The final actual number will be determined by hardware performance tests on the game, but should still be close to that number.
Now my question would be, if this is a similar case to the introduction of MBS or if it is not. Let me explain:
In Broodwar there is a limit on managing your units: You can only select 12 of them at a time and group that many into a hotgroup. Already sending a large army into battle requires some skill and timing, so all the groups would reach the combat zone in time, as you have to go through sending all the single groups. In terms of the anti-MBS arguments: Arranging your army takes time and some mechanical skills, and thus serves to preserve the gaps between different skill levels. You have to take the concious decision to pursue an attack and you have to invest your management time (lets call it like this) into the setup of your army and execution of the attack.
This matter is partly mediated now through the - nearly infinite - ability to select units. Keep in mind that there will be very few occasions where you have to control more than 150 units (with 200 supply to spend, this might only occur when controlling a BUNCH of zerglings). So some basic mechanical management, which was necessary to the control limit of 9 units and the same group limit, are abolished now. Therefore, as one could argue, combat management is dumbed down to some extent. Yes, it will be necessary to manually control many aspects, but some management work which was previously necessary has now become obsolete.
Now, what does this have to do with MBS? I would like to ask how these arguments compare to each other. For someone could argue that through introduction of unlimited unit-selection: - the skill ceiling is lowered - one essential aspect of the game feeling (how to control your units) is majorily changed, battle management becomes easier and thus this part (we can add it to "micro") plays a less important role, threatening the macro / micro balance.
To me, this resembles quite accurately some arguments brought up against MBS. This is not to imply that these arguments have the same validity. I for one do not believe they do, but rather I want to ask, why these cases are different, why MBS is a huge problem for many people but unlimited-unit-selection is not. [help me finding a better acronym than "uus" please]
Unlimited unit selection is a big problem for me. Your quote really, really shocked me. I had to double check again and again if thats true.
If thats the case, yes, there is no question MBS is included. And it is just as safe to say that Blizzard doesn't really intend to cater to competitive gamers when it gets down to it.
On November 14 2007 09:17 Dariush wrote: I stopped reading your post when i saw "You can only select 9 of them at a time and group that many into a hotgroup" , Aesop.
I have no idea how that number slipped in, but the rest of the post stays valid nontheless. And I find it a bit weird that you openly admit not reading the post and getting to the point I was trying to suggest.
edit : Aphelion , unlimited unit selection isn't as game changing as MBS , this was argued back in may if i remember correctly.
Maybe, but if Blizzard is going with this, there is NO WAY they will not go for MBS. They shows their mentality very clearly: cater to the noobs first.
edit : Aphelion , unlimited unit selection isn't as game changing as MBS , this was argued back in may if i remember correctly.
Maybe, but if Blizzard is going with this, there is NO WAY they will not go for MBS. They shows their mentality very clearly: cater to the noobs first.
They actually said MBS is not final , it may be removed.
it was in one of their Q&As.
oh and Aesop , by quoting the unlimited unit selection , i knew you're gonna compare it to MBS somehow.
edit : Aphelion , unlimited unit selection isn't as game changing as MBS , this was argued back in may if i remember correctly.
Maybe, but if Blizzard is going with this, there is NO WAY they will not go for MBS. They shows their mentality very clearly: cater to the noobs first.
I understand how catering to the "noobs" first is bad for you (and, possibly, the current competitive scene), but haven't you and others here stated (numerous times) that regardless of how SCII turns out, you will eventually go back to BW? I just don't see why Blizzard should cater to pros as opposed to noobs in this context...
Don't put words into my mouth. I was hoping for SC2 to revitalize the community and provide the same amount of fun and skill as BW did. I envisioned, at best, a much larger community, more exposure, and a continuation of the professional scene. I wished that Blizzard would keep true to their word to cater to the professional scene and the competitive community. In that case I would have been foolish to go back to a 10 year old game that will certainly be drained of its community by a sequel.
But steps like Blizzard are taking are not encouraging. I will not be playing a shittier game simply because it is newer and stealing more hype.
Come on now don't try to bash Blizzard , they did good so far , (almost) unlimited budget and dev time for starcraft 2 , that's pretty good in my book.
Also blizzard actually is somewhat listening to the community this time around.they earned my trust again.
Anyway what I was trying to say was I've seen people saying that you shouldn't be able to be good at SC2 unless you put in 12 hours a day practice. IMO this is not the direction SC2 should be heading. In fact if you asked most people on this board "do you like WOW and why?" most of them would respond "I hate WOW because there's no skill in it, all that matters is how much time you sink into it". And yet now a lot of people are saying SC2 should be like this? That the only way you should be at the top of the game is to sink a massive amount of time into it?
IMO the game should reward players who "get" the game more and think analytically about it, rather than those that just mass games. Poker is a perfect example of how it should work (although I hate the game itself ). There are countless people that sink massive amount of time into grinding mid stake poker, and they probably put in more hours than anyone else who plays. But they are not highly skilled and they never will be highly skilled because they don't "get" the game and they don't think about it. The truly top players almost always rose to the highest limits in a very short period of time because they thought about and analysed the game. It isn't a function of how much time they sunk into it. Although most of them obviously do play a massive amount, this isn't the reason they are good at poker, it's just that they are making an extremely good hourly rate. (And there are some cases of top players who maintain very high skill on very little play such as Ozzy).
WC3 is also similar. Tod for example has stated that he hardly practices at all, instead he thinks deeply about the game for an hour or two a day. And there have been several instances of people coming back from retirement and being right at the top of the game.
The anti-MBS side agree that no MBS will result in people needing more practice time to rise to the top and maintain that level. I say that this is not a desirable outcome. I want a game where the main reason I win is because I understand the game better and think better than my opponent.
I guess the main problem really is that MBS is always being imagined on top of SC1, but this simply couldn't work because ANY change to SC1 would break the balance of the game. And balance is something very valuable, but also very fragile. If you make a tiny change it can have a huge impact, if you make a huge change, well... the impact is even bigger.
Some speculation:
SC2 will probably demand a lot more attention, careful planning and micro than SC1, because there are so many different units and strategies available. Many units can move over terrain or teleport or "magically appear" somewhere (warp gates, warp cannons, nydus canal). This means you have far more things to worry about. The skill to adapt to your opponent, something which all SC1 players like, will be much more important (think of Savior in his prime - he was really good at scouting, adapting, countering and killing his opponent even long before lategame, simply because he was the smarter player and always made the right decisions and always had the right units at the right time). In SC1, you can win a game simply because you had more routine and better mechanical macro than your opponent. In SC2, it seems like this won't help you so much, which I believe is a good thing. APM, keyboard dexterity and so on might not be so important anymore, even for pros. The faster one will still have an advantage (that's the nature of RTS, after all) but not a big one. Players who understand the game better will be more successful. It also would mean that players outside Korea can finally win a WCG or two.
I don't think that copying will become more effective then. Each game and each situation is different, and requires a new plan. In SC1 there's already a lot of copying going on. PvZ players copied the "Bisu build" (I know that it's not really his invention, but he showed that it can be very effective, that's why the FE->corsair opening is getting more popular), ZvT players copied Savior's 3 hatch muta into fast defiler builds, and so on. Every pro copies it, and the noobs copy it too. The pros are all at almost the same level of mechanical skill, so the only thing that's really a challenge for them is to correctly adapt the strategy to the current game situation. And this is exactly what many players will fail to do well. Shark's ZvT isn't Savior's just because he uses the same general build, and a random newbie's PvZ isn't Bisu's just because he copies the general idea of the Bisu build. This is the case in SC1 and this will still be the case in SC2).
Game understanding is the most valuable skill there is, so this is what SC2 should focus on. The game should be so diverse in terms of strategies and unit choices (ideally, every unit/ability should be viable and useable) that there is no need for a lot of "physical skill" anymore. Instead, the players' skill should be defined by their choices in each game (smart or stupid choice), and win or lose accordingly. A gameplay based purely on mechanics should not be rewarded so much.
Speed will still play a role, simply because it's an RTS. Even in WC3 where you command far fewer units you can make use of 200+ APM so I don't see why newbies with 100 APM should suddenly become "gods" in SC2. Speed is always a factor. But the game shouldn't put too much emphasis on speed. If you do, you'll just prevent all players from really playing the game in a smart way. If the players are so overwhelmed because the game is so fast-paced, then they will all use mostly basic strategies. Because they are the simplest. The less time you give the players to control their units and think about their actions, the more you reward a macro-style gameplay, and the less Boxers, Garimtos and YellOws you will see after a few years.
On November 14 2007 11:49 Brutalisk wrote: Game understanding is the most valuable skill there is, so this is what SC2 should focus on. The game should be so diverse in terms of strategies and unit choices (ideally, every unit/ability should be viable and useable) that there is no need for a lot of "physical skill" anymore. Instead, the players' skill should be defined by their choices in each game (smart or stupid choice), and win or lose accordingly. A gameplay based purely on mechanics should not be rewarded so much.
Speed will still play a role, simply because it's an RTS. Even in WC3 where you command far fewer units you can make use of 200+ APM so I don't see why newbies with 100 APM should suddenly become "gods" in SC2.
I agree wholeheartedly with most of this post and I have one thing to add. Speed also plays a very crucial role in games which are more focused on game understanding. In these, reactive speed becomes more important, as you have to adapt rapidly to what your opponent is throwing at you. The need for continual speed might be reduced a little bit, but you are still required to make counter-decisions in splitseconds and execute moves with utmost efficiency. So MBS does not equal "no speed needed", rather it shifts the speed from "continual" to "situational".
On November 14 2007 10:42 Gobol wrote: Sigh just lost a big post.
Anyway what I was trying to say was I've seen people saying that you shouldn't be able to be good at SC2 unless you put in 12 hours a day practice. IMO this is not the direction SC2 should be heading. In fact if you asked most people on this board "do you like WOW and why?" most of them would respond "I hate WOW because there's no skill in it, all that matters is how much time you sink into it". And yet now a lot of people are saying SC2 should be like this? That the only way you should be at the top of the game is to sink a massive amount of time into it?
Ok this argument is painful. The best starcraft players play 12 hours a day because they need to be in top shape for their games. This is true of any competative sport and is how it should be. Wow is TOTALLY different, because your not trying to get better when you play, your trying to find new items which give you a statistical advantage over your opponent.
WC3 is also similar. Tod for example has stated that he hardly practices at all, instead he thinks deeply about the game for an hour or two a day. And there have been several instances of people coming back from retirement and being right at the top of the game.
I find this to be a very bad point. Has anyone else noticed that the best Warcraft 3 players have been at the top forever while in starcraft we see a new champ every few months?
In starcraft, the best know their game just like Tod knows warcraft 3, but they also have to keep in shape to stay at the best. This effects the pro-scene a lot, making it diverse and cutthroat (something which is representative of all great competative sports), but doesnt effect the rest of starcraft anywhere near as much as everyone makes out. Rather than learning to be really fast, the best way to get better at starcraft is learning the game better. This will continue on to starcraft 2 regardless of which style they implement.
The anti-MBS side agree that no MBS will result in people needing more practice time to rise to the top and maintain that level. I say that this is not a desirable outcome. I want a game where the main reason I win is because I understand the game better and think better than my opponent.
This of course is opinion based, But I think a game that constantly challenges you to be faster and better is much more fun than a game where you can learn it and then be confident in your abilities forever more.
Actually in WC3 you have the same people on the top but it's not that only 1 or 2 of them are champs all the time, they change every now and then, also quite a bit of fresh blood has made it into the pro-teams. Don't blame someone else for making bad arguments about SC pro scene when you do the same with WC3 scene.
Another thing to think of regarding MBS:
If they include MBS in SC2 nothing will prevent you from selecting just one building at the time if that works better for you (more control), but if they won't you would be satisfied but all the people who want MBS would not. So by including MBS Blizzard actually wants to cater to everyone, as everyone will be able to play how he likes to, after all, you don't have to use all the new features, do you? The same goes for UUS so I stopped hating the idea, let my opponent crump his one hotkey with all units and second with all buildings while I'll make use of more of them which will give me more control over smaller groups so I can just outmaneuver/outmacro him and proceed to win the game.
On November 14 2007 22:09 Manit0u wrote:Another thing to think of regarding MBS:
If they include MBS in SC2 nothing will prevent you from selecting just one building at the time if that works better for you (more control), but if they won't you would be satisfied but all the people who want MBS would not. So by including MBS Blizzard actually wants to cater to everyone, as everyone will be able to play how he likes to, after all, you don't have to use all the new features, do you? The same goes for UUS so I stopped hating the idea, let my opponent crump his one hotkey with all units and second with all buildings while I'll make use of more of them which will give me more control over smaller groups so I can just outmaneuver/outmacro him and proceed to win the game.
You can't be serious. This is like suggesting snooker players not to use rests. Of course everybody will use every tool in their arsenal, the idea is not to have such tools in the first place. While I personally support the UI improvements, this is not what my opinion is based on.
I just stated how I see it and what I think of it and to sum everything up: I want SC2 to be a Real Time Strategy game, not Real Time Manual Dexterity one.
Manual dexterity is part of the "real-time" and the strategy is fine. If you don't want manual dexterity to play a big role, then find a turn-based strategy game.
Wikipedia sums it nicely. Turn-based:
A player of a turn-based game is allowed a period of analysis (sometimes bounded, sometimes unbounded) before committing to a game action, ensuring a separation between the game flow and the thinking process, which in turn presumably leads to more optimal choices.
A real-time game is designed to prevent people from always making the optimal choice. There simply isn't enough time to think. If actions are made easier to perform, then players get little pockets of time in every game when they can analyze and optimize.
I honestly don't understand how you can be a fan of SC1 and feel that making SC2 require the same manual dexterity will diminish the emphasis on strategy.
On November 15 2007 01:00 Manit0u wrote: I just stated how I see it and what I think of it and to sum everything up: I want SC2 to be a Real Time Strategy game, not Real Time Manual Dexterity one.
But that's just my opinion.
Strategical depth of chess, with the added element of multitasking, macro, and micro that will still be existent in any RTS, MBS or not.
Just because you don't have time to do all the stuff you could potentially do does not mean the strategical depth is not there. RTS has the theretical possbility for just as deep strategy as a turn based game it's just that most people don't play it that way because most people don't have the time to do it.
Example: Boxer moving his base in the game against yellow is pretty deep on the strategical level as he first designed a strategy and then anticipated yellows response and shifted his base ahead of it. He did loose but it was pretty cool.
I don't think the problem is that people can't think about deep plays, anticipate their opponents reactions and plan ahead either, I think it's usually the ammount of work you have to put in to make such a plan work that makes it a bad idea.
To optimally fake a drop as zerg you have to scout a drop avenue where the enemy has a unit, get overlords and your own army in position, fake the drop so that he sees it, belives it (that is not to obvious) and has enough time to get out of position and then attack. And since it's entirely possible that he's to busy to notice or is just playing a cookie cutter build either way it migth still fail.
But the thougth can still be there, most people have brains that work a lot faster than you can even play SC either way.
On November 15 2007 01:44 Chill wrote: You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want strategical depth, real-time games are not for you.
this post really invalidates your opinion
Why does it invalidate my opinion. Maybe we have different definitions of "depth". I think you can see the difference between having 3 seconds to make a decision versus 20 minutes.
An example is me losing my third base, and I have an opportunity to counter. If I had infinite time to think, I would check what units he had where, our tech paths, and what I expect will happen in the future. But in RTS, the longer I wait, the less chance of success my counter has. So you send a scout, give it half a second of thought and then make a decision. This isn't strategically deep.
Give me an example of strategical depth in any real time game to validate your opinion.
It is reminiscent of a certain song by a 90's canadian pop artist that you are the moderator of the strategy forum and yet have no idea what the word strategy means.
On November 15 2007 03:11 Ghin wrote: It is reminiscent of a certain song by a 90's canadian pop artist that you are the moderator of the strategy forum and yet have no idea what the word strategy means.
Wow, thanks for that. We try to have a discussion and you end up being a jerkoff.
There's strategy in the game, but I wouldn't call it stratgically deep.
please dont insult me, if i sound bitter it is because you are insulting the best RTS of all time, which all of us know and love deeply, by saying it HAS NO STRATEGIC DEPTH.
These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in.
With a dominant set of strategies (with their variations of course), a large proportion of skill determination is the mechanical requirements of the game. So are you pro MBS people prepared to let everyone play with maphack?
On November 15 2007 03:22 Ghin wrote: please dont insult me, if i sound bitter it is because you are insulting the best RTS of all time, which all of us know and love deeply, by saying it HAS NO STRATEGIC DEPTH.
I wouldn't exactly call thinking up good build orders strategic depth, and that's really the only strategic part of sc besides making decisions on where and how to attack in split seconds. There isn't really any rts out there that really has strategic depth afaik, don't think you have to be some kind of strategic visionary to be good at sc.
On November 15 2007 03:34 Aphelion wrote: These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in.
With a dominant set of strategies (with their variations of course), a large proportion of skill determination is the mechanical requirements of the game. So are you pro MBS people prepared to let everyone play with maphack?
It seems like a valid concern at first, but if you look at it more closely you'll see why this is NOT an argument against MBS at all:
1. It's no different in SC1 already. Maphack gives you a huge advantage if you are at least of decent skill level to execute whatever you're doing reasonably well. Also, maphack makes cheesing or a fast tech rush (think DT) pretty much impossible and at the same time it becomes easier for the maphacker to use these strategies because he knows where you are and what your exact build order is.
2. Since SC2 will also at least require 200 APM, probably more, to play well (WC3 also does, and in SC2 there's more bases and more units to control so it can't be less APM needed), you can be sure that newbies maphacking will still face the same challenges as in SC1: that they can't execute strategies fast/good enough, so the opponent still has a chance.
3. (probably the most important point) A maphack is not part of the game, and is illegal (your CD key can be banned for using it), that's why the game design absolutely should NOT pay attention to any potential hacks. We don't even know what's going to be possible in SC2. Maybe there's a mineral hack possible early on which also totally screws the game regardless of skill level. Maybe there's new kinds of hacks possible with features unimagined so far. It comes down to this: hacks are not a factor you can rely on and prepare for. It would be extremely stupid to design the game around speculation about hacks. The ONLY thing that can work is Blizzard paying more attention to hackers, releasing patches more often and really, really keeping up the support for the game. Maybe they even should have dedicated personnel who can analyze replays and ban CD keys if there was no doubt that they use a hack (like game masters in a MMORPG). They have the money and manpower needed to do that. Even if the hacker used a CD key generator or something like that it'll be still be extremely inconvenient for him, thus discouraging him from doing it again. In SC1, they don't care at all about the situation and support for the game is already growing extremely weak. If there will be no new patch fixing the Z mineral exploit I fear that soon it'll be close to impossible to play on BattleNet. And it's only a question of time until iccup or other things are affected.
I think we swerved a bit from the original subject
Now, Starcraft has less strategic depth than Civ/Heroes games, because turnbased games allow much deeper thought, I agree with that statement. Is it a bad or a good thing that action is preffered to thinking in an RTS is open to debate. I personally think that a good balance between both is required. WC3 is very heavy in thinking compared to SC, because SC is more "I better be sure that I have a metric fuckton of stuff on the board than be sure they are at the right place", especially in lower level games. WC3 doesn't require you to put a heavy amount of brainpower into production. This creates gameplay that is enjoyable to some, but as seen on this forum, very boring for others, that prefer more action.
What I see so far is Blizzard's desire to strike a balance on a game that will be thoughtful, strategical and action packed at the same time, rewarding both speed and brain in equal amounts, and through testing they don't see that happening with SBS. I wouldn't see that happening either with SBS, unless the economic part of the game is much reduced and 3-4 buildings is the max you ever need.
Note that I believe that a 200 IQ 40 APM guy should NEVER be able to beat a solid 200APM guy just on brainpower alone, as EXECUTION should and always will be the main important point of RTS games, and 40 APM execution in Blizzard games is "l0lz0r".
As much as some will claim it will benefit newbies and make the game easier overall, I will have to point out that pro players of SC2 are very likely to not hold the same skillset as SC1 pro players, and I think that's a good thing if pulled right.
I think we should wait a bit before coming to conclusions. Like, waiting for the Beta. Because having MBS on SC2 shouldn't be like strapping MBS over SC1 which would be, I think everybody agree, severely idiotic.
On November 15 2007 03:34 Aphelion wrote: These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in.
With a dominant set of strategies (with their variations of course), a large proportion of skill determination is the mechanical requirements of the game. So are you pro MBS people prepared to let everyone play with maphack?
It seems like a valid concern at first, but if you look at it more closely you'll see why this is NOT an argument against MBS at all:
1. It's no different in SC1 already. Maphack gives you a huge advantage if you are at least of decent skill level to execute whatever you're doing reasonably well. Also, maphack makes cheesing or a fast tech rush (think DT) pretty much impossible and at the same time it becomes easier for the maphacker to use these strategies because he knows where you are and what your exact build order is.
2. Since SC2 will also at least require 200 APM, probably more, to play well (WC3 also does, and in SC2 there's more bases and more units to control so it can't be less APM needed), you can be sure that newbies maphacking will still face the same challenges as in SC1: that they can't execute strategies fast/good enough, so the opponent still has a chance.
3. (probably the most important point) A maphack is not part of the game, and is illegal (your CD key can be banned for using it), that's why the game design absolutely should NOT pay attention to any potential hacks. We don't even know what's going to be possible in SC2. Maybe there's a mineral hack possible early on which also totally screws the game regardless of skill level. Maybe there's new kinds of hacks possible with features unimagined so far. It comes down to this: hacks are not a factor you can rely on and prepare for. It would be extremely stupid to design the game around speculation about hacks. The ONLY thing that can work is Blizzard paying more attention to hackers, releasing patches more often and really, really keeping up the support for the game. Maybe they even should have dedicated personnel who can analyze replays and ban CD keys if there was no doubt that they use a hack (like game masters in a MMORPG). They have the money and manpower needed to do that. Even if the hacker used a CD key generator or something like that it'll be still be extremely inconvenient for him, thus discouraging him from doing it again. In SC1, they don't care at all about the situation and support for the game is already growing extremely weak. If there will be no new patch fixing the Z mineral exploit I fear that soon it'll be close to impossible to play on BattleNet. And it's only a question of time until iccup or other things are affected.
You lost the point of my post. I'm pointing out that unless mechanics is a major component of skill, the fog of war will make a lot of games a luck fest. This is especially directed to pro-MBSers who think that there aren't enough viable unit mixes or builds in current BW.
Strategic depth is not equal to choosing one strategy based on what your opponent is doing and then mindlessly sticking to that.
I don't see how mechanics make the game more or less of a luckfeast in regards to fog of war. Civ 4 has fog of war as well and that doesn't hurt it's strategic depth.
Making decisions without full information is part of the game but it's hardly luck. Most top SC gamers have very good intution and very good scouting. You gather your information, make your assumptions and exectute your decisions. If anything more avalible time means you can scout more, giving your more information, making your guesses on what the enemy is doing more accurate which means you can predict his play even better.
There is no difficulty making the correct decision if you are given an eternity to ponder over it. The true mark of a good SC player is his ability to make correct, incremental decisions on the spur of a moment. Mechanics is the constraint which puts a time limit on such decision making.
Good SC players can make good decisions while having maintaining good mechanics because they can think fast and on their feet. Bad players are overwhelmed by the constant amount of tasks and their decision making suffers.
Also. mechanics is instrumental for better players to pull out wins even when cheesed or having the BO countered. Enough in SC is already determined by BO luck. Just look at ZvZ. If you take the mechanical element out, a lot of games will be solely determined by that.
ZvZ is more about ling/muta/scourge micro than mechanics (unless you count micro to mechanics, but then we can say that SC2 is going to require a lot of mechanics ). ZvZ games are usually less than 10 minutes long and players only have 1-3 hatcheries, which means that there is almost no room for mechanics to make a difference. It's all about ling/muta/scourge micro and timing.
About the luck aspect, well that's something I don't know an answer to. Luck always is a part of RTS games with fog of war, also in SC1. I don't know if luck is going to be a bigger factor in SC2. I think no one can really say that at this point. Luck is also a subjective thing. Many people who lost a game are already claiming that their opponent just had luck, when in reality he simply made the better decisions respectively played smarter. Situations like that might occur more frequently in SC2, but does that really mean anything? Unless you watch the replay it's going to be hard to tell if there really was luck involved. The problem is that "strategical skill" can be confused with luck, although it has nothing in common. Mechanical skill can't be confused with luck, but is that really an "advantage"? Personally I wouldn't care if someone said that I had luck when I know that I simply played better and adapted to whatever he was going to threw at me and countered him nicely.
On November 15 2007 05:54 Aphelion wrote: Mechanics is the constraint which puts a time limit on such decision making.
Personally, I think game speed puts much more of a time limit than mechanics on decision-making. In fact, that's one of the cruder methods of "compensating" for MBS: introduce higher game speeds than fastest. That way you have just as much mental challenge with less physical requirements.
Enough in SC is already determined by BO luck. Just look at ZvZ. If you take the mechanical element out, a lot of games will be solely determined by that.
Smart progamers at least base their initial BOs on what they expect their opponent to do, kind of like a more complex version of RPS. Add to that the ability of the player to scout their opponent's BO and adapt to it, and there's not more "luck" involved than naturally exists in any game of imperfect information.
Also, I'd be very surprised if Blizzard let a single unit combo dominate a MU in SC2 like mutaling does in BW ZvZ; they're cognizant of the competitive potential this time around, and lower physical requirements mean that dominant strategies will be uncovered (and thus fixable) considerably sooner than in BW.
On November 15 2007 05:54 Aphelion wrote: There is no difficulty making the correct decision if you are given an eternity to ponder over it. The true mark of a good SC player is his ability to make correct, incremental decisions on the spur of a moment. Mechanics is the constraint which puts a time limit on such decision making.
Good SC players can make good decisions while having maintaining good mechanics because they can think fast and on their feet. Bad players are overwhelmed by the constant amount of tasks and their decision making suffers.
Also. mechanics is instrumental for better players to pull out wins even when cheesed or having the BO countered. Enough in SC is already determined by BO luck. Just look at ZvZ. If you take the mechanical element out, a lot of games will be solely determined by that.
If you don't have all the facts you can never be certain of making the rigth decision. As stated before (in response to my earlier posts I belive) APM has nothing to do with decision making. I belive Fisheye was used as an example of a player who plays smart in order to win, not fast. Also pure mechanical skill is automated. I don't have to think when translating my decision into commands just like I don't have to think about writing specific letters when I type this out. I just decide I want to do it and I can focus on something else.
Which means that mechanics has nothing to do with the ammounts of decisions you have to make, just with how many you can execute. I can tie one of Boxers hands behind his back and his decision making is not going to suffer from it but he'll most likely loose the game.
On November 15 2007 03:34 Aphelion wrote: These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in.
Are you trying to say there AREN'T dominant build orders in Starcraft?
TvP, TvZ, ZvZ are ridiculously static strategically, it's very rare to see anything outside of the box
The only MUs that you see any variance of build orders are PvZ and the occasional zealot rush in PvP
Yes, PvZ is the "best" (most versatile, flexible) matchup in SC1. Followed by TvZ I think... it's true that there's mostly 1 strategy but there's still enough room for different build orders, especially for the Z player, but T can also go metal or fast wraith or something like that. TvT and ZvZ are really bad, PvP only slightly better. PvT is OK though, if you don't mind that it's a macro war.
In SC2 I wish that more matchups will be as flexible as PvZ in SC1.
On November 15 2007 03:34 Aphelion wrote: These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in.
Are you trying to say there AREN'T dominant build orders in Starcraft?
TvP, TvZ, ZvZ are ridiculously static strategically, it's very rare to see anything outside of the box
The only MUs that you see any variance of build orders are PvZ and the occasional zealot rush in PvP
i dont really understand this....in any game ever there are going to be more standard styles of play because of the fact that it works ez/better than others....dont confuse this with lack of strategy in the game...even for chess and GO there are things used in most games because it is just a better choice then the other options you have...If all TvP/TvZ/ZvZ games were really strategically "static" we would just see stalemate games always always....but this is not the case so therefore there must be some person with better strategy(and yes i will admit micro and game experience are included in this) will win...i have a serious problem with people saying there is no strategical depth just because there are alot of similiar strategies being used atm
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 watch pro sc cuz they think they are good looking, i know a couple myself rofl. they dont watch it for the game value, but they think like hong jin ho is good lookin
On November 15 2007 03:34 Aphelion wrote: These pro MBS arguments about "strategic depth" only apply if there were no fog of war. With fog of war, unless there is a dominant strategy or expected strategy, games will turn out to be a complete luck fest. Already there are "build order wins" in SC. Hence games must be determined largely by execution and subtle adjustments after scouting kicks in.
Are you trying to say there AREN'T dominant build orders in Starcraft?
TvP, TvZ, ZvZ are ridiculously static strategically, it's very rare to see anything outside of the box
The only MUs that you see any variance of build orders are PvZ and the occasional zealot rush in PvP
I am claiming that any good RTS game will evolve to have dominant strategies. Without dominant strategies and with the lack of information early game, the game will turn to a rock-scissors-paper luck fest. What you claim to be "static strategy" is the only alternative to no strategy at all.
You will not have many different yet equally viable builds in a good RTS. There will always be a dominant and optimal play in general. This is not to say there will not be strategy - but those will be subtle tweaks, in game adjustments and decision making. Its nothing like, haha, I just thought of this amazing unit combo that will pwn against what my enemy is doing!
This talk of a "strategically deep" game, with many viable openings and unit combos is a fool's dream. Strategical innovation will be done in the beginning phases of a game as players strive to figure out what is best. But once enough is known about the game, strategy will change much much more slowly, and people will naturally adopt what is optimal. You saw this in SC, where the first few years you could see much more variation in styles, and innovators like Ra and Boxer dominated. But as the game goes on, there should be a few optimal strategies which will be discovered. That is only natural. In an RTS, the starting conditions are known exactly, and with the multitude of games being played, the ideal will be approached by sheer iteration. In the end, builds are extremely refined and tweaks are not at all obvious to the casual observer.
Mechanics will hence become ever more important as a determinant of skill. Mechanics will determine what strategy you can and cannot execute. Mechanics will ensure that you don't win simply by BO luck, and that inferior players will not easily luck out against superior ones through an unscoutable cheese. Mechanics will add another dimension to your strategy, as you have to recognize the key points and strength of your strategy and allocate your attention to what is important. If you are doing an all-in hang bang attack, you will micro your army to its most minute detail and forget scv production, whereas you would be better off adding gates and macroing as opposed to microing your probe vs an scvif you have a solid economic advantage. Strategy is your plan, but mechanics is your resource, your ability to direct and animate your subjects to achieving your overall goal.
If strategy is the soul of SC, mechanics is the grit, the blood, the muscle and the sinew which actualizes all things.
Your comment is absolutely invalid because all the "BO luck" occurs in the early game, where the effects of MBS will be absolutely minimal. Build order luck is more of a map dependent issue - length between the other 1-3 potential mains, scouting in the right direction, whether or not there are substantial blind spots in the worker's scouting path, and furthermore, the vulnerablity of the build order picked - than it is one of mechanics. Furthermore, most lucky build orders require, as you said, the execution of an intense micro victory. MBS will only have an effect on early game scenarios if both players are extremely bad, in which case they are not worth discussing - anyone decent can handle macroing off 3 gates in SBS without much difficulty. It's not like they're implementing some sort of autobuild.
Now if, you want to talk about late game, yes, MBS will have an effect on late game strategies because, in a theoretical version of Starcraft 1 with MBS and Smartcasting, it's pretty reasonable to believe mass ghosts and other micro intensive strategies would become viable. There's no luck in late game strategy, you either scout it or you get caught with your pants down. Its your own fault if you're unprepared for a tech switch.
On November 15 2007 09:42 Zanno wrote: Your comment is absolutely invalid because all the "BO luck" occurs in the early game, where the effects of MBS will be absolutely minimal. Build order luck is more of a map dependent issue - length between the other 1-3 potential mains, scouting in the right direction, whether or not there are substantial blind spots in the worker's scouting path, and furthermore, the vulnerablity of the build order picked - than it is one of mechanics. Furthermore, most lucky build orders require, as you said, the execution of an intense micro victory. MBS will only have an effect on early game scenarios if both players are extremely bad, in which case they are not worth discussing - anyone decent can handle macroing off 3 gates in SBS without much difficulty. It's not like they're implementing some sort of autobuild.
Now if, you want to talk about late game, yes, MBS will have an effect on late game strategies because, in a theoretical version of Starcraft 1 with MBS and Smartcasting, it's pretty reasonable to believe mass ghosts and other micro intensive strategies would become viable. There's no luck in late game strategy, you either scout it or you get caught with your pants down. Its your own fault if you're unprepared for a tech switch.
right now all we have is BO luck because, after risky cheese builds, there is only a small range of strategies that are viable. the point was that if MBS allows more strategic diversity, as mbs proponents claim it will, it will increase that element of luck beyond just risky build orders. a limited range of strategies increases the skill necessary to play because you can learn to read situations and have a good idea what your opponent intends to do and then counter it accordingly. however if there are a whole bunch of different possibilities it becomes much more reliant on luck, which is a bad thing. so really you could even make the argument that mbs decreases the skill-based strategical aspect, as in choosing the best possible strategy depending on what you know from the game, and makes it mostly a strategy guessing game.
On November 15 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote: But once enough is known about the game, strategy will change much much more slowly, and people will naturally adopt what is optimal.
True, but I think some of BW's units and abilities could have been more worth their costs in terms minerals, gas, time and micro. (The Scout is a perfect example of this. Also ZvZ sucks in terms of versatile unit strategies.) While basic strategies are inevitable, particularly at the pro level, it never hurts to have the option to mix up those strategies from time to time. (Say if a Protoss player wanted to use Disruption Web to protect Dragoons from Siege Tanks, that would be more viable with a slightly lower energy cost.)
Also, I hate the idea of a completely rock/paper/scissors StarCraft (it's good to have units that can at least become versatile when micro'ed well) but I doubt that would make the game luck based. Scouting would become more important and the optimal strategies that Aphelion described would simply build armies that incorporate every type of unit by default (rather boring if you ask me).
Though I should clarify that last paragraph by saying that a rock/paper/scissors style balance is good if it can enhance strategic map control. In other words, when all the specialized and easy-to-counter units move around the map slowly (in comparison to faster, more-versatile units), and are more offensively oriented in their use, rock/paper/scissors can be very fun. (Unfortunately, I doubt Blizzard is keeping this in mind.)
Anyways, for those of you who enjoy SBS oriented gameplay to a high degree, I have a question: would that be because of its repetitive/predictable nature?
My favorite aspect of SBS is how it offers interesting choices in terms of what a player has time to focus on (either his army or the underlying choices that support his army). After that, I like how SBS introduces a high difficulty depth to the gameplay (by multiplying the number of simultaneously important actions). I also like how SBS helps keep the game more map specific in terms of unit production. All of these bonuses are definitely worth having a temporarily confused newbie. But, other than all of that, I think the depth provided by SBS could be replaced by something less repetitive and more strategic (StarCraft is a strategy game after all). Call me crazy.
It's sad to read that a good player like Idra thinks like that about the game. As if a RTS would only require players using standard strategy vs. standard strategy. As if skill was all about the execution, nothing else.
And "strategy guessing game"? wtf? Ever heard of scouting? Having more viable strategies is a good thing, I don't see why it should be any different. Compare PvZ to ZvZ in SC1 and you know that most, if not all, players enjoy matchups in which you have many different options the most. And having MBS will, at least theoretically, bring us a step forward to that goal. Units that are relatively weak and specialized are more likely to be used when the players don't have to dedicate so much time and effort to their standard army.
It's mostly speculation, yes, because we don't yet have a good MBS RTS to compare SC2 to (WC3 in some aspects, but on the whole it's way too different from SC, and other RTS are either imbalanced or too unpopular to know them inside-out). On the other hand, SC1 is also the only good SBS RTS there is. If there is one game that can improve what we like about SC1, it's SC2, and nothing else.
did i say there could only be one strategy? i said it was best if there was a very limited number of viable strategies. when your opponent could be doing almost anything it becomes very difficult to read the game and react accordingly, because certain situations could indicate multiple different strategies. for instance, before bisu toss players bitched that pvz was imbalanced because most of the time it was hard to figure out what tech z was going since standard 3 hat opening could branch into 3-4 solid builds, and your scout probe would die to lings before you could see what. introducing too much strategic diversity would be like this except on a much larger scale. whats best is if there are a reasonably limited number(>1) of viable strategies, that way you still have the strategic component to the game, but it is indeed a skill. intuition + knowledge + scouting ability allow you to figure out whats going on and you dont need to guess or get lucky because there are so many options its impractical to narrow it down in time.
and bisu changed that by making fe->sair commonplace, however to have that same solution for all of sc2 every race would have to have some way of constant, hard to prevent reconnaissance so they would have adequate scouting information. and that would be going too far the other way, there would be no skill left in it because everything would be right in front of you. the best way to maintain a balance is to have what sc has.
Ugh, I was gonna send him a warning but then I realized 2 things: 1) He's a new user so he can't make new threads. 2) What would I do if I found a SC2 video with a release date in it (even if this one is probably a fake)? I'd try to post it somewhere for others to see!
On November 15 2007 15:02 mensrea wrote: (Is it just me or is FA like really, really reasonable. I mean, really, really. God bless him. I may have found a template for my redemption.)
Hahaha... we have ourselves a new Eri. Maybe it's a Scandinavian thing?
I'm not really sure about this but by watching FPvods of pros it's pretty clear that even with SBS they rarely look back at their base for more than 1-2 seconds during the fight and even then they know perfectly well what their units will do during this time, what is going to happen to them etc. so basically MBS will have almost no impact on them while it's going to have huge impact on moderate gamer level. Main difference will be that pros will require ~200-250 apm instead of 300-400 to play at the same level they do now. What's wrong with that?
On November 16 2007 05:09 Manit0u wrote: Main difference will be that pros will require ~200-250 apm instead of 300-400 to play at the same level they do now. What's wrong with that?
If someone with 400 APM does not have any advantage over someone with 250 APM, to me that's a problem. That kind of sounds like what your saying, unless I'm misunderstanding in which case I apologize.
I said that they could do the same things they do now with less apm but since they have much much more they'll be able to do much much more, no? Like fighting a big battle, making new units, building 2 expansions and sending 3 drops on enemy expansions at the same time. Wicked sick
On November 16 2007 09:36 Manit0u wrote: I said that they could do the same things they do now with less apm but since they have much much more they'll be able to do much much more, no? Like fighting a big battle, making new units, building 2 expansions and sending 3 drops on enemy expansions at the same time. Wicked sick
please stop arguing until you realize that progamers are already quite capable of doing all of that very quickly right now, without mbs.
I think a really interesting question concerning MBS is how it will effekt the diversity of playing styles on a high level. I think it will create a proscene where every pro can manage to macro equally good and where the micro and some strategical gamethinking will determen the best player. This is ONE dimension less than before and therefore less diversity. Some say that blizzard will make up for the loss of macro in the base production area with something else, if so with what?
Forcing players in one direction ie taking away a macro element and forcing fokus on micro does not help the game become more fun and diverged.
On November 15 2007 11:46 IdrA wrote: did i say there could only be one strategy? i said it was best if there was a very limited number of viable strategies. when your opponent could be doing almost anything it becomes very difficult to read the game and react accordingly, because certain situations could indicate multiple different strategies.
for instance, before bisu toss players bitched that pvz was imbalanced because most of the time it was hard to figure out what tech z was going since standard 3 hat opening could branch into 3-4 solid builds, and your scout probe would die to lings before you could see what.
introducing too much strategic diversity would be like this except on a much larger scale. whats best is if there are a reasonably limited number(>1) of viable strategies, that way you still have the strategic component to the game, but it is indeed a skill. intuition + knowledge + scouting ability allow you to figure out whats going on and you dont need to guess or get lucky because there are so many options its impractical to narrow it down in time.
and bisu changed that by making fe->sair commonplace, however to have that same solution for all of sc2 every race would have to have some way of constant, hard to prevent reconnaissance so they would have adequate scouting information. and that would be going too far the other way, there would be no skill left in it because everything would be right in front of you. the best way to maintain a balance is to have what sc has.
That simply would make proper scouting more important. Like you mentioned, in SC1 there are sometimes situations when you simply can't scout what your opponent is doing, but instead you have to rely on intuition and probability ("when is he going to attack? what might he possibly do? how many units does he have at his choke right now and how many gates/rax does that translate to?" are the typical questions you ask yourself in these situations). This means we have a slight element of strategy guessing already in SC1. But that's nothing you can't deal with if the game is balanced. Intuition and a sense of timing also plays a big role here, something which you can only learn after time.
While it is true that PvZ was considered imbalanced not long ago, P players have always had the option to build 1 (just 1) corsair simply for scouting purposes (and a little bit of overlord harassing of course). But this wasn't so popular. 2 gate zealot pressure builds were more popular, but then P had the problem of not being able to really find out what Z was going to do (lurk, muta, mass ling, hydra... ?). It was a problem of the common play style of the players, not a general problem of the matchup. If your opponent can do several strategies you simply must find out what it (likely) is going to be.
If 1 cheap worker isn't able to scout everything you need to know, then you must use a flying unit or scan or whatever to find out what he's up to, otherwise you might be at a disadvantage. (Or you try to force your opponent into one strategy (e.g. the "Bisu build" guarantees that the Z starts with either mass hydra or muta/scourge)). Scouting sometimes involves making a little sacrifice to gather information (e.g. sacrifice an overlord to scout the main - already a common thing). Your opponent might need to do the same, so it's balanced. There's no need to make scouting "really easy" (would be like a maphack, no?) as long as it is possible to gather enough information early on. Want early information with "no" sacrifice? -> use 1 worker. Want later information with "no" sacrifice? -> may not be possible, but make a small sacrifice and you'll know. IMHO, it's simply a matter of game balance, and how risky you want to play, and not a general problem with having multiple strategical choices.
On November 16 2007 10:07 SayTT wrote: I think a really interesting question concerning MBS is how it will effekt the diversity of playing styles on a high level. I think it will create a proscene where every pro can manage to macro equally good and where the micro and some strategical gamethinking will determen the best player. This is ONE dimension less than before and therefore less diversity. Some say that blizzard will make up for the loss of macro in the base production area with something else, if so with what?
Forcing players in one direction ie taking away a macro element and forcing fokus on micro does not help the game become more fun and diverged.
Now how I see it is that some pros macro better isn't because they're faster or something, it's because they have better timings/resource management. Unless you want to tell me that there are pros who struggle a lot with "go back to base to build more units" because I find it hard to believe. MBS doesn't really change much for them because they have MBS built-in, it's like a habit or natural reaction, nothing special. To put it simple: In my opinion MBS is going to affect the average players only. It's influence on pros will be insignificant and noobs won't be able to handle it anyway. And I believe that when players will get better and better they will shift more towards selecting fewer buildings/units at a time. It all depends on how all the races are going to build their units, while it's not really needed for T the thing looks a lot different for P (imagine those upgraded warpgates with SBS: go back to base, select building, build unit, go back to where you wanted it, click on the ground, repeat).
And seriously, RTS games shouldn't really be very physically demanding, mentally - yes, more than any other perhaps, but not physically, you ought to be a leader, not cannon fodder in this type of games after all. Physical demands are good for games like Dance Dance Revolution etc.
On November 16 2007 11:33 Manit0u wrote: Now how I see it is that some pros macro better isn't because they're faster or something, it's because they have better timings/resource management. Unless you want to tell me that there are pros who struggle a lot with "go back to base to build more units" because I find it hard to believe.
Pros also use their numbers to bind buildings, giving them ability to macro when not looking at their base. This gives a huge advantage, but is hard to do efficiently. With MBS, this skill becomes something that everyone has, reducing the gap between a Brilliant player and just a good player.
To put it simple: In my opinion MBS is going to affect the average players only. It's influence on pros will be insignificant and noobs won't be able to handle it anyway.
The problem is that everyone is not designated into specific groups. Everyone is on a continuous scale. MBS shortens this scale. When you get good at a game, it takes more and more effort to get better, if there is a short skill scale, someone who plays 12 hours a day might not be very much better than someone who plays 2 hours a day. Players must be rewarded for putting more time into getting better for competition to work well.
And seriously, RTS games shouldn't really be very physically demanding, mentally - yes, more than any other perhaps, but not physically, you ought to be a leader, not cannon fodder in this type of games after all. Physical demands are good for games like Dance Dance Revolution etc.
This depends on how good you wish to be. Before I knew of APM, or the proscene I used to play non-money maps with my cousin. We had about 50APM, but we still had really intense games that were really exciting. I never considered starcraft to be physically demanding at all. Starcraft is only physically demanding if your trying to be really good.
Now RTS games are defined by their strategy and their need for quick actions (compared to turnbased games). As you get more and more competative, all aspects of the game should be harder to keep up with, which is why starcraft 2 should be physically demanding at the pro level. If you dont want to push yourself to those physical limits, no probs, your not going to be a pro. You can still enjoy the game however.
Manit0u what I was trying to say is if you take away the macro in question and doesen't replace it with something equally time/effort consuming you are limiting the game to less elements of focus and that will result in less diverity in playingstyles.
But like someone else mentioned here - going back to base to manually select your buildings to produce units is just one part of macro. The other parts (when, where, which, how many units to build) remain completely unaffected by MBS, so that's where my answer to Fen comes in: by taking away just this one element of macro you give players 1-2 more seconds to micro their units for example, it's not that the players won't know what to do with this spare time. Sure it might feel a bit slower but it's just a feeling, everyone can get used to it after a while.
No, its not just a feeling. 1-2 seconds off your units is crucial even in pro-level play. SC micro is incredibly fast and split-second oriented. At stake is the ABILITY to take the attention of your units as well as the sheer mechanical elements of having to macro either using hotkeys or clicking production buildings. Its not an easy thing to do, don't cheapen it.
I'm not saying it's easy. I'm just saying that it doesn't pose too much problems for pros and that changing this wouldn't affect them all that much, it's the average players who would be impacted by it the most.
It would affect them, as the 1-2 seconds are crucial even then. And it would also decrease the skill difference between them and the rest, which is a bad thing.
On November 17 2007 02:53 Aphelion wrote: It would affect them, as the 1-2 seconds are crucial even then. And it would also decrease the skill difference between them and the rest, which is a bad thing.
Ok, I now feel like we are back on day 1 after the SC2 announcement -_-
Exactly... we will never get anywhere concrete here without the game being played by a large amount of people without too-specific conditions like at Blizzcon.
On November 17 2007 04:34 SoleSteeler wrote: Exactly... we will never get anywhere concrete here without the game being played by a large amount of people without too-specific conditions like at Blizzcon.
what was wrong with blizzcon? the universal(i think) response from those who went there and played was that macro required nothing at all, 2 keystrokes and your money dropped to 0 and your supply shot up 20.
Nothing was wrong with Blizzcon, but from everything I've read, you could only play 2v2, games were limited to 20 minutes etc. Plus most of your opponents were WoW noobs, right? I just really feel that Blizzard should not make a concrete decision right now; committing to or against MBS.
I am still indifferent on the MBS issue, but I've been wanting to make a post here for a few days now about how we really define "competition" and "lowering skill-ceilings" and the like. Buuut I would mostly get negative reactions
Waiting for beta sounds is a nice, comforting, sit-on-the-fence position, but it doesn't work in reality unless you are prepared to redo a large part of the development cycle if MBS doesn't work out. MBS and other UI changes have to be decided to even begin balancing other aspects of the game. I don't think even Blizzard is prepared to do that, and frankly I doubt they even care enough about our concerns to do so.
I've read through alot of stuff in the forum about MBS. Before I'm against MBS, but now I turned pro MBS. I think people against MBS are mainly afraid. (Most likely due to war3) Just think, war3 is like SC, with a supply cap of 40food, and units have original SC dmg, but 10x the original SC hp. Spells are 75% less effective etc. Personally i think SC >> war3.
The main reason I started posting is because I had a question which I couldnt understand: if MBS were implemented, then what would happen to Zerg? All your hatcheries are rallied to the mineral field, u go mass build drone, OK fine. Next moment you mass lings, and all lings runs into the mineral field? WTF???
On November 17 2007 04:53 SoleSteeler wrote: Nothing was wrong with Blizzcon, but from everything I've read, you could only play 2v2, games were limited to 20 minutes etc. Plus most of your opponents were WoW noobs, right? I just really feel that Blizzard should not make a concrete decision right now; committing to or against MBS.
i dont really see how any of that is relevant. the fact is everyone who went said it took no effort/time/attention to macro efficiently.
On November 17 2007 05:48 sidz wrote: The main reason I started posting is because I had a question which I couldnt understand: if MBS were implemented, then what would happen to Zerg? All your hatcheries are rallied to the mineral field, u go mass build drone, OK fine. Next moment you mass lings, and all lings runs into the mineral field? WTF???
i dont think thats ever been addressed, it seems like they would have to totally revamp zerg production to have MBS affect all of the races evenly.
A lot of good discussion here. Originally i was pro MBS after considering some of the points made by the discussion sparked on earlier SC2 topics. I knew eventually i would have to play the game myself and see what this new Starcraft was really like with these interface changes. After attending Blizzcon i can absolutely say i am against features such as MBS. Do not be confused however, i am not against interface upgrades entirely, i am only against what will damage Starcraft 2 as a sport. MBS makes this game unbearably easy to play and i have yet to see any evidence of new features that the player will not have to juggle thus making up for this easy. Easy games don't make for impressive esports. I want to break up my argument into several points.
The beauty of Starcraft:
I believe from the bottom of my heart that Starcraft is the greatest game ever made, parts of this game were intentional and others most definitely were not. The incredible unit combination and unit abilities mixed with the rate of production was clearly intentional, i wont spend time talking about this though; clearly Blizzard is spending a lot of time and effort into unit creativity and balance. What was unintentional was the outcome of the interface. Starcraft was made almost ten years ago, this makes the interface rather old by most standards. What was unforeseen within this interface was the sport like quality which it generates. The starcraft player is much more than a strategist, anyone who thinks that the master starcraft player can only grasp strategy is sorely mistaken, for this is one of many factors that makes for a good Starcraft player. This is not a withdrawn game by any means, it is the most demanding and taxing competitive game ever created, this isn't just my opinion either, I've been told this from counterstrike to warcraft 3 players as well. Starcraft essentially requires the player to become every aspect of the race he is playing. The game starts with just workers, the SC player must consciously produce each unit and also consciously micromanage that unit it's desired minerals. This is only the starting point however, eventually the game picks up and more tasks must be juggled. The master starcraft player is conscious of his workers, his army that he attacks with, his minimap, his supply, his upgrades, his unit production, EVERYTHING. This must all be balanced in his mind while he executes it with cool precision. He is not just a strategist, he is a calculator (timing out his pylons), a piano player (macroing on his keyboard), a sword fighter (microing with his mouse), a poker player (choosing what openings to play, when to bluff etc), an economist (choosing how to utilize expos), a psychologist (analyzing the other players decisions) and many more things. Aspects such as these are what make this game appealing as a sport. There is a fascination with a player who can seamlessly preform these tasks with precision, it keeps the competitive level high since there are so many factors to utilize. This is the beautiful esport that we all love and know: Starcraft
Sadly it wasn't blizzard that picked up on this, it was the Koreans. The koreans saw into the matrix and realized what beauty there was inside it. Thus the sport of Starcraft grew, we have found so many unique things that a starcraft player can utilize that it seems no one person can stay on top forever. This game is constantly evolving. I believe we need to build off what has worked. Unfortunately most people who have experienced Starcraft won't learn all these features beause the game comes with no information that informs the player of all these different methods. Instead you get a strategy guide full of bullshit and no information on where to attend tournaments and ladders. If you want to master this game and your not korean, you'll have to go underground. However if Blizzard released information on these topics with it's game, obviously more people would learn. I propose they keep SBS and other features in SC2 but release a guide teaching players how old Starcraft pros mastered them.
Also, before i go any further, those who think comparing MBS to SC1 is some type of fallacy because SC2 is a different game are grossly mistaken. The same rules apply, i played the game, trust me, it's VERY similar to starcraft, just new units and a disgustingly easy interface.
Possible Imbalances with MBS
Starcraft players originally had to preform one action for every one unit they built, the result is a player who has fast macro abilities is rewarded by receiving units slightly faster thus giving him or her an advantage. MBS messes up this advantage. Technically a fast player could macro individually as minerals came in, producing individually out of each gateway and staying slightly ahead. A less attentive player, however, is rewarded for not paying attention and can macro with less actions and catch up more quickly than he could if this feature was not in the game. Weaker players must be punished for lack of action, this is simply what will keep the game competitive. The top of the skill celling has been lowered and the bottom has been raised, the gap is smaller now.
MBS could also lead to matchup imbalances. Imagine PVZ, as we all know P require a very balanced unit combination early on, they must mass up a zealots, dragoons, templars observers etc. At times zerg can get away with only making one unit combination, lets say zerg is massing up hydars for a few minutes--the zerg player will have to preform less macro actions:
Protoss: 4t5z6d7o (i wont bother putting a DT in here)
Zerg: 4sh5so
The APM argument:
Starcraft is a game that requires a high amount of APM, i want SC2 to also require high APM. There seems to be arguments that come from the MBS side where war3 is pointed out as a high apm game and therefor sc2 will have high apm. This is irrelevant because the origins of this high apm will be from unit micro, just like war3. Most of the actions in war3 are centered around unit manipulation, in Starcraft less than half of those actions are unit microing. I believe it is necessary to have APM that comes in a similar fashion to the original SC.
If one matchup requires a player to mass many different types of units while the other requires less diversity it means one player is forced to juggle more tasks, this seems unfair to me. The beauty of SBS is that it acts as an equalizer for unit production, every unit requires one action, this keeps macro on somewhat of a similar scale and keeps starcraft very competitive.
This game is already too easy:
With auto mining making sure my probes mine by themselves and auto split making sure they don't all get stuck on one patch i have less to deal with. Now apparently i can macro like reach with one action?... What exactly am i supposed to be doing? More micro intensive stuff? This doesn't seem to be very starcraftish to me, it seems more like someone else's idea of what starcraft should be. I've heard some talk about how they can harass workers more easily now... absolutely not. You can select 150 units in one group, that will make moving my probes away from storm drops or lurker drops MUCH MUCH easier. The bottom line is that blizzard has yet to explain what these new tasks are that SC2 players will have to deal with. I don't believe there are any, i certainty didn't see them at blizzcon. Every competitive player i spoke with is very much so against MBS, even some of the top war3 players i've spoken to seem confused as to why blizzard claims this game will be a big esport and then remove competitive aspects of the game. There is already a huge SC community who will automatically jump on the esport bandwagon if sc2 has a similar interface, it would make sense to appeal to these people. The last thing i want to see is SC2 as a successful game that will always be remembered as easier and newbier than the original SC.
We must keep MBS as a setting that is kept out of the esports scene.
Beautiful post Tasteless, thanks for writing it. Although, I don't agree with some of the logic. What about CS or any other FPS? All of them are incredibly easy to get into and play. You just point and shoot. What about Kart Rider, the 2nd most popular televised game in Korea? You just drive. I think it's mainly the competitive human nature that drives the skill level of those games to such heights.
On November 17 2007 08:34 MyLostTemple wrote: He is not just a strategist, he is a calculator (timing out his pylons), a piano player (macroing on his keyboard), a sword fighter (microing with his mouse), a poker player (choosing what openings to play, when to bluff etc), an economist (choosing how to utilize expos), a psychologist (analyzing the other players decisions) and many more things. Aspects such as these are what make this game appealing as a sport.
He's still a calculator, a piano player (by microing w/keyboard), a sword fighter, a poker player, an economist and a psychologist even with MBS, assuming that Blizzard does a good job with the game.
There were a few relatively fresh arguments in this thread but now we're pretty much back at the beginning again: anti-MBS insists that the game will inevitably be easier and less competitive, while pro-MBS is more open-minded and thinks about how the gameplay might change for the better.
Since this isn't going to change, I think it's time to stop caring about this discussion, and time to wait until beta or release.
If SC2 turns out to truly suck as a competitive game and Blizzard isn't going to do something about it, then SC1 still has a future. But because I don't think so, I keep my opinion that we have the same situation as with WC2->SC1: many players complaining about the easier UI but then it turns out to be a refreshing new game experience which is just as competitive, and no one will ever want to look back again...
Blizzard could at least give us the multiplayer demo with just 2 races that are pretty much finished now so we could test everything thoroughly and give more feedback, for now I can just quote one guy from gamer's hell: Until SC2 comes out I'll be playing AoX. Manit0u signing out, thanks for listening.
On November 17 2007 20:17 Brutalisk wrote: There were a few relatively fresh arguments in this thread but now we're pretty much back at the beginning again: anti-MBS insists that the game will inevitably be easier and less competitive, while pro-MBS is more open-minded and thinks about how the gameplay might change for the better.
oh shut up. that argument is meaningless unless you put something concrete behind it, which you cant. i think they should remove one of the races for sc2. sure it might make the game more one dimensional and boring for both the players and the fans, but they might add cool new units and abilities to the remaining races. players wouldnt have to spend time learning how to play vs a third race, so they could focus more on the two remaining races and perfect the matchups much more. overall that would make for more exciting, higher quality play. dont you agree? there are any number of idiotic things that theoretically 'could' make the gameplay change for the better. unless you have solid reasoning behind HOW its gonna improve, its not worth talking about.
On November 17 2007 10:49 teamsolid wrote: Beautiful post Tasteless, thanks for writing it. Although, I don't agree with some of the logic. What about CS or any other FPS? All of them are incredibly easy to get into and play. You just point and shoot. What about Kart Rider, the 2nd most popular televised game in Korea? You just drive. I think it's mainly the competitive human nature that drives the skill level of those games to such heights.
On November 17 2007 08:34 MyLostTemple wrote: He is not just a strategist, he is a calculator (timing out his pylons), a piano player (macroing on his keyboard), a sword fighter (microing with his mouse), a poker player (choosing what openings to play, when to bluff etc), an economist (choosing how to utilize expos), a psychologist (analyzing the other players decisions) and many more things. Aspects such as these are what make this game appealing as a sport.
He's still a calculator, a piano player (by microing w/keyboard), a sword fighter, a poker player, an economist and a psychologist even with MBS, assuming that Blizzard does a good job with the game.
Whoever "he" is, he's only a piano player as long as he has to move his hand like one ("Hand" Singular because it's the keyboard-hand only). With the unit-selection-cap at 100-150 plus MBS he is definitely not a piano-player anymore. Most (~60-70%) actions for the keyboard-hand come from the 12-unit-selection-cap and from SBS. The rest comes from other macro actions and spell-casting and such. The worst thing possible for a game like SC/SC2: an inactive keyboard-hand. Why is that bad? Because of the competition. There's only one hand left to be really active, and our mind. What else?
All this makes me really sad. Blizzard is about to implement 4 features that all hurt the competition: extremely high unit-selection-cap (to keep the multitasking on a competitive level it must be somewhere below 20, maximum 20), MBS, automining, smartcasting. Only automining can be tolerated because it actually can be outbalanced, the rest cannot. May god bless them if they remove the other new features and make SC2 more qualitative. And no, it's not enough to remove just 1 or 2 of them. All or nothing, you can't fool the competition.
PS: CS is a bad example imo, lets take Quake 3/4 instead. That game actually takes skill for the keyboard-hand. And features like strafe-jumping make it an even more competitive game.
CS is a muhc more succesfull game which would make it a much better example than Quake 3/4. Regardless I get a feeling that there is to much exageration in this thread because regardless of what Blizzard decides to do it won't kill the game. I just hope people will give the beta a fair chance. I 'm almost positive that we'll see one side screaming their balls of regardless of how the game actually plays but one can hope.
On November 20 2007 03:33 Manit0u wrote: Handspeed =/= skill
If being able to teach your hand to move extemely quickly over a keyboard and being able to consistentley hit the proper keys time after time isn't a skill... then what is it?
So the guy in the guiness book of world records for being able to type 180 words a minute doesn't have a skill?
You guys are forgetting that SC2 is supposedly emphasizing mass units, which is the reason for the smoother controls to be able to handle the higher number of units you're going to be playing with.
On November 20 2007 04:34 yangstuh wrote: You guys are forgetting that SC2 is supposedly emphasizing mass units, which is the reason for the smoother controls to be able to handle the higher number of units you're going to be playing with.
SC also deals with mass units... from all accounts the games will have the same supply limit (200 food worth of units)
Can you link a source? In the original Protoss demo, they said that SC2 "is still a game where massive armies fight massive armies" or something, but that is more directed at criticisms of War3 which focused on small armies. Can you link a different source than that?
edit: and the point is that it should be hard to control these masses of units, to create a bigger skill difference between players. It's much more impressive to be able to move 120 Zerglings without being able to select all of them...
On November 20 2007 04:42 yangstuh wrote: No, I mean in a few interviews and previews they were mentioning a higher emphasis on mass units (look at the early zergling attack screenshot).
watch a mass of zerglings in sc. the animations are just more active in sc2 so it looks like more of them swarming around. theyve said in interviews that theyre still holding the 200/200 supply cap.
On November 20 2007 05:15 SoleSteeler wrote: Can you link a source? In the original Protoss demo, they said that SC2 "is still a game where massive armies fight massive armies" or something, but that is more directed at criticisms of War3 which focused on small armies. Can you link a different source than that?
edit: and the point is that it should be hard to control these masses of units, to create a bigger skill difference between players. It's much more impressive to be able to move 120 Zerglings without being able to select all of them...
The devs mentioned it in some of their old video interviews.. its been a while so I don't remember where sorry.
The difference in skill is that the rookie player will "select all units and attack move," the good player will have many sub groups to perform flank maneuvers, guerrilla tactics, and terrain utilization. Its all relative.. in WC3 because of the emphasis on smaller armies (less units) and heroes.. most armies you handle can be completely selected. But naturally, the good players break their army up into sub groups so that you can execute more micro, maneuver, and tactical controls. Furthermore, there seems to be more abilities given to Starcraft2 units than before (passive or active).. which further emphasizes the importance of subgrouping units to more properly utilize their individual skills. In WC3 you had more fluid controls than SC, but this did not make WC3 more newb friendly, people failed to account for all the increase in skill needed for item management/heros/creeping/spells/leveling experience/etc..so it was a successful compromise.
yangstuh i don't see what this has to do with mbs, although i'm not to fond of the selection cap simply because it will make worker harassment much less effective. There wont be more units in the game than the original SC... the unit psi limit will remain the same, units in general won't be costing more or less psi so nothing will be different on that front. I also don't think there will be more special abilities in SC2, it seemed to have the same amount, just a few that were more interesting and could lead to more unique styles.
most of the Anti MBS crowd embrace the macro skills in SC and worry that SC2 will turn into War3 (way too much emphasis on micro) with no heros. There has also been no indication from blizzard as to what these 'new' features the gamer will be occupied with actually are. When i played it at blizzcon it was just a very easy version of Starcraft with new fancy units. That's not good. I'm worried Blizzard is making the same ignorant assumption Manit0u has made stating that hand speed is not a skill, or at least not one that should be incorporated with an esport. Every SC pro out there agrees that hand speed plays a large and important role in SC and they want it in the new game. There is something incredible about seeing a player who's entire brain is bound to his hands and can execute so many commands at once, and if we can keep that factor we'll have an awesome esport.
My comment was in response to SoleSteeler's comment about skill. Thats all.
I'm pretty sure there are more abilities in Starcraft2.. zealot charge, ghost, high templar (maybe), and the battlecruiser just to name a few. And a lot of these new abilities were added in later.. as we have all seen through their weekly updates.
Anyways I'm not arguing againt hand speed =/= skill and whatnot.. I'm just saying there will be plunty of other new features/options/variables that will be available for pro/skilled players to utilize. Don't forget too.. people weren't playing in a competitive arena.. just against casual players.. of course its gonna be easy man.
On November 20 2007 06:47 yangstuh wrote: My comment was in response to SoleSteeler's comment about skill. Thats all.
I'm pretty sure there are more abilities in Starcraft2.. zealot charge, ghost, high templar (maybe), and the battlecruiser just to name a few. And a lot of these new abilities were added in later.. as we have all seen through their weekly updates.
Anyways I'm not arguing against hand speed =/= skill and whatnot.. I'm just saying there will be plunty of other new features/options/variables that will be available for pro/skilled players to utilize. Don't forget too.. people weren't playing in a competitive arena.. just again casual players.. of course its gonna be easy man.
there may be a few more, but not so many that it will adequately replace the massive macro skills required in SC1. I also think, like many of the other proMBS people, your just asserting with no evidence whatsoever that there will be enough features for pro/skilled players to utilize. I definitely did not see enough.
I am well aware that there will be new players and non starcraft RTSers who want to pick this game up, that's why i've proposed keeping MBS and other setting that lower the skill celling as a setting rather than a feature that can not be toggled. This way we keep the competitive scene competitive and keep newbies happy.
On November 20 2007 06:47 yangstuh wrote: My comment was in response to SoleSteeler's comment about skill. Thats all.
I'm pretty sure there are more abilities in Starcraft2.. zealot charge, ghost, high templar (maybe), and the battlecruiser just to name a few. And a lot of these new abilities were added in later.. as we have all seen through their weekly updates.
Anyways I'm not arguing against hand speed =/= skill and whatnot.. I'm just saying there will be plunty of other new features/options/variables that will be available for pro/skilled players to utilize. Don't forget too.. people weren't playing in a competitive arena.. just again casual players.. of course its gonna be easy man.
there may be a few more, but not so many that it will adequately replace the massive macro skills required in SC1. I also think, like many of the other proMBS people, your just asserting with no evidence whatsoever that there will be enough features for pro/skilled players to utilize. I definitely did not see enough.
I am well aware that there will be new players and non starcraft RTSers who want to pick this game up, that's why i've proposed keeping MBS and other setting that lower the skill celling as a setting rather than a feature that can not be toggled. This way we keep the competitive scene competitive and keep newbies happy.
Of course we can't use any tangible evidence when the game hasn't been released or fully beta tested yet, we can only use assumptions based on past experiences, past games, and current tidbits of info we get. That goes for people who are anti this or pro that. I don't see the point in arguing over that fact.
WC3 made similar advancements and is a great game. The skill difference is huge..if you ever played WC3 ladder consistently. Its why people like 4kgrubby has 85%+ with 1000+ games in ladder while the vast majority of players are only 50% or less with that many games played. Its the full manifestation of blizzard's rule of game development: "easy to get into, hard to master." And I am pretty confident that SC2 is taking this even further.. making it easier to get into, but harder to master, this is based on how I perceive the progression of the game development through their updates. I mean just recently, they added creeps to expansion sites making it harder to expand.. they just keep adding in more variables.. I think that much is evident.
On November 20 2007 06:47 yangstuh wrote: My comment was in response to SoleSteeler's comment about skill. Thats all.
I know, but sometimes it's not necessary to do a ton of maneuvers with say, a large group of Zerglings, yes you will likely flank, you might separate your force in half (if it's just Zerglings) but overall, you want your force to "attack move". It'd be trivial if it only took a few clicks, instead of being able to only select 12 (or whatever) at once.
I really want Blizzard to show us all where the extra clicks are going to come in. That's why I'm reserving judgment until beta on the issue of MBS and other aspects they're simplifying....
Why was SC1 at least as competitive, if not even more, than WC2, although the UI is easier? Because gameplay was optimized/balanced for the new UI, and the gameplay got much more diverse. Why shouldn't the same be true for SC2?
The UI is just a tool to control the game. The game respectively your opponent dictates the difficulty and the skill level needed to beat him.
About the zergling discussion: as has been said, if you want to flank properly, you must use several groups anyway. But if you want to move all of them then you should be able to select them all. Just like Protoss can usually select his whole army with 1 or 2 clicks (because Protoss usually has the fewest units). Anything else is not skill-based or great or whatever, it's just fucking tedious and results in many dead lings because no one, not even pros, can micro them well enough. The SC1 UI restricts the players. It's not appropriate anymore for the high skill level nowadays. It was OK back in 1998 but we need a better UI now so that players can execute what they want properly.
On November 20 2007 03:33 Manit0u wrote: Handspeed =/= skill
If being able to teach your hand to move extemely quickly over a keyboard and being able to consistentley hit the proper keys time after time isn't a skill... then what is it?
So the guy in the guiness book of world records for being able to type 180 words a minute doesn't have a skill?
What I wanted to say is that handspeed is purely mechanical thing that most people can achieve with time, hell I bet most people here can get 500apm by just clicking randomly etc. Skill comes in where you know what you're doing with those clicks, where it has some desirable effect - it's fast thinking and overall mental abilities that derriviate pros from noobs most of the time, not their handspeed which is really a small factor in RTSs'. 200 of which 150 are well made actions are worth a lot more than 400 of which 200-250 are just spam.
Edit: And I wouldn't quote Guiness records since they're irrevelant to the skill discussion - is the tallest/shortest person in the world "skilled" in that? Guiness records are just trivia, sometimes funny but most of the time just pure bullshit that most people don't give a shit about.
On November 20 2007 03:33 Manit0u wrote: Handspeed =/= skill
If being able to teach your hand to move extemely quickly over a keyboard and being able to consistentley hit the proper keys time after time isn't a skill... then what is it?
So the guy in the guiness book of world records for being able to type 180 words a minute doesn't have a skill?
What I wanted to say is that handspeed is purely mechanical thing that most people can achieve with time, hell I bet most people here can get 500apm by just clicking randomly etc. Skill comes in where you know what you're doing with those clicks, where it has some desirable effect - it's fast thinking and overall mental abilities that derriviate pros from noobs most of the time, not their handspeed which is really a small factor in RTSs'. 200 of which 150 are well made actions are worth a lot more than 400 of which 200-250 are just spam.
Edit: And I wouldn't quote Guiness records since they're irrevelant to the skill discussion - is the tallest/shortest person in the world "skilled" in that? Guiness records are just trivia, sometimes funny but most of the time just pure bullshit that most people don't give a shit about.
Pro's with an APM of 300-400 don't spam, their actions are all useful. They are really so much more active then amateurs. Hard to believe? It is reality. Watch progaming FPVods, after the first 5 minutes you won't find them spamming anymore but they still keep their 300-400 APM. They almost never idle, only when they have to think about something really hard. Some pro's have only 200-250 APM but - and now listen well - this is above average and proves a lot of handspeed/activity. These days the average APM for a progamer is 250-350. I'd also like to talk about EAPM but most people don't understand how much more the EAPM can tell about someone's handspeed/activity.
You say handspeed can be achieved over time by anyone. This counts for strategical knowledge, too. We may have an endless talk about what takes more skill but the truth is - guess what - handspeed and strategy are equally neccessary in SC. Do you really believe that SC2 will attract the same amount of people if blizzard cuts the handspeed needed in two? I don't.
PS: Guiness records are probably the best thing about the human race. You're ignorant.
On November 20 2007 03:33 Manit0u wrote: Handspeed =/= skill
If being able to teach your hand to move extemely quickly over a keyboard and being able to consistentley hit the proper keys time after time isn't a skill... then what is it?
So the guy in the guiness book of world records for being able to type 180 words a minute doesn't have a skill?
What I wanted to say is that handspeed is purely mechanical thing that most people can achieve with time, hell I bet most people here can get 500apm by just clicking randomly etc. Skill comes in where you know what you're doing with those clicks, where it has some desirable effect - it's fast thinking and overall mental abilities that derriviate pros from noobs most of the time, not their handspeed which is really a small factor in RTSs'. 200 of which 150 are well made actions are worth a lot more than 400 of which 200-250 are just spam.
Edit: And I wouldn't quote Guiness records since they're irrevelant to the skill discussion - is the tallest/shortest person in the world "skilled" in that? Guiness records are just trivia, sometimes funny but most of the time just pure bullshit that most people don't give a shit about.
Pro's with an APM of 300-400 don't spam, their actions are all useful. They are really so much more active then amateurs. Hard to believe? It is reality. Watch progaming FPVods, after the first 5 minutes you won't find them spamming anymore but they still keep their 300-400 APM. They almost never idle, only when they have to think about something really hard. Some pro's have only 200-250 APM but - and now listen well - this is above average and proves a lot of handspeed/activity. These days the average APM for a progamer is 250-350. I'd also like to talk about EAPM but most people don't understand how much more the EAPM can tell about someone's handspeed/activity.
You say handspeed can be achieved over time by anyone. This counts for strategical knowledge, too. We may have an endless talk about what takes more skill but the truth is - guess what - handspeed and strategy are equally neccessary in SC. Do you really believe that SC2 will attract the same amount of people if blizzard cuts the handspeed needed in two? I don't.
PS: Guiness records are probably the best thing about the human race. You're ignorant.
Thanks.. pretty much covered my response. Manit0u, the point stands that we are discussing BW... and when discussing hand speed in that context, it is obviously not referring to spam. We all know anyone can just spam 500 APM, that's not the point.
And no, the tallest guy in the guiness book does not have a skill, that is something he can't control. The guy who types really fast had to teach himself to do that. There's a difference, it's a bad comparison.
On November 17 2007 10:49 teamsolid wrote: Beautiful post Tasteless, thanks for writing it. Although, I don\'t agree with some of the logic. What about CS or any other FPS? All of them are incredibly easy to get into and play. You just point and shoot. What about Kart Rider, the 2nd most popular televised game in Korea? You just drive. I think it\'s mainly the competitive human nature that drives the skill level of those games to such heights.
In all games, CS, Kart Rider and SC, you get absolutely destroyed when you first step into a competitive environment. It may be easier to do well on a pub in CS if you have naturally good aim, but you still have no place in competition without lots of experience. Coming from a CAL-i CS background, the high skill ceiling Tasteless talks about is really what has drawn me in to becoming a SC fan, even though I hadn't touched the game in over 6 years until this past summer. Human nature alone isn't enough to make a game a great esport nor is a high skill ceiling (as we can see from the success of CS vs. dueling FPS games.) It's a combination of many things and I don't think any has done it better than SC.
It's difficult to explain why the heavy influence on macro is so appealing to me. I suspect part of it is that it challenges us to think differently and plan ahead for the future instead of focusing solely on the "now" and probably also because it allows for complete dominance if one side isn't properly trained. I don't think we'd see a Sauron Zerg type destruction happen between a WC3 pro and semi-pro, yet we saw it between two SC pros.
In terms of sport, I think a balance needs to be struck between overly intensive and too laid back. Golf is an excellent example of where poor course conditions can make it too difficult and can bog down the fan's experience, but we also don't want to see multiple players -20 on the final day of a tournament. Competitively, SC struck that balance without auto-mining and MBS and Blizzard shouldn't consider changing what worked just for the sake of "updating the UI" unless they can make a legitimate case that the balance will be restored. So far, there's practically zero indication of that happening.
It really comes down to whether Blizzard wants to appeal to hardcore competitors or not. I've probably spent over half an hour restarting games over and over again just practicing the initial mineral cloning and first drone production/OL scout so that for at least the first 30-45 seconds of a match I can be as perfect as a pro, and I'm not yet. To a lot of people that seems like insanity, but to me practicing and improving is awesome, and I want to dominate the player who just clumps all 4 workers on 1 stack. Given that units die so quickly in SC compared to WC3, my added skill in micro generally isn't enough to make that happen.
Do you really believe that SC2 will attract the same amount of people if blizzard cuts the handspeed needed in two? I don't.
I do. But including MBS is not going to cut the handspeed needed in two in any way. Average APM of a WC3 progamer is 200-300 too and they don't macro so much, in SC2 you will land somewhere in between SC and WC3 with your APM distribution (micro/macro) so I don't believe that handspeed requirement will change all that much.
if you dont think the handspeed requirement will change, where are the actions gonna come from? the reason wc3 apm stays up is because its much more micro intensive. one of the defining features of the starcraft line is the balance between micro and macro, making sc2 micro intensive like wc3 to make up for the lost speed would kinda destroy that.
even if mbs really wouldnt dumb the game down, its almost guaranteed to make it more one dimensional unless you can come up with another time consuming, macro related task. and if you do that it defeats the purpose of removing manual macro.
Do you really believe that SC2 will attract the same amount of people if blizzard cuts the handspeed needed in two? I don't.
I do. But including MBS is not going to cut the handspeed needed in two in any way. Average APM of a WC3 progamer is 200-300 too and they don't macro so much, in SC2 you will land somewhere in between SC and WC3 with your APM distribution (micro/macro) so I don't believe that handspeed requirement will change all that much.
the more i read your posts the more i question how much you understand this game. It's not the fact the APM numbers are the same, it's the origins of the APM that matter. War3 APM is almost entirely devoted to unit micro where Starcrafts apm is split between micro and macro with a bit more emphasis on macro. So if you have a war3 player with 300 apm and an SC player with 300 apm it dosn't mean the problem is solved by any means. The Starcraft players attention is split between more tasks via the keyboard and the mouse thus making it more challenging.
I've spoken with SO many war3 pro gamers who admit they only need to practice an hour or two a day to stay in shape, others admit they practice even less than that. Have you ever seen the hands of a war3 progamer? It hugs the left side of the keyboard with the thumb curled under the hand to tap the alt key repeatedly in a battle. they need to bind fewer hotkeys on the keyboard and their hand generally remains stationary in this position. It's the mouse spamming move and as they micro units around in combination with the attack button and ocassionally using items that buys up all of their APM time. I've stood behind SC progamers when they play and it is an incredible feat to see the speed as they glide across the keyboard macoring AND microing which they play.... doing much more than microing units. With MBS automining and other features all i can see is a much slower less impressive version of SC.
I, of course, am all for beta testing this before final conclusions are made, but after playing it at blizzcon i can say, in my own experience, that these features have a high chance of hurting the sport factor of SC2 and pissing off the competitive SC scene greatly.
I, of course, am all for beta testing this before final conclusions are made, but after playing it at blizzcon i can say, in my own experience, that these features have a high chance of hurting the sport factor of SC2 and pissing off the competitive SC scene greatly.
I agree with tasteless. It's pretty obvious that the competitive scene for SC 2 is going to be severly damaged with the implementation of MBS, AS IT STANDS NOW. WC3 has already proven this for the most part I feel. (again, refer to tasteless' above comments about talking to progamers).
However, I am still hopeful that the game can be saved during beta testing (maybe before?). What blizzard needs to do is beta test SC2 with as many people as possible, with a concentration in korea. (maybe hire some progamers?) Still... it will take a long time..
I am not saying they are going to discover some miracle solution to this problem during beta, i'm just saying that it's possible developments will be made and the SC2 pro scene can be salvaged. I'm very, very hopeful SC2 is going to be a great game, and I feel Blizzard WANTS it to succeed. I'm just very nervous about this whole thing....
The way I see it... if the SC2 pro scene is a bust (god forbid), at least lessons will be learned and we can always go back to SC1. I have a feeling no game will ever be able to replace SC.. but I'm definately willing to give SC 2 a HUGE chance.
I haven't read much of this thread, but thought I'd just throw in my thoughts:
MBS is good or bad depending on the way you look at it. Most non-koreans who just like to play a game for fun will often complain that starcraft is way too fast pace and requires a twitch to keep up. The New era of gamers like to lean back and play with a cigarette or coke in one hand. (Really) Think of all the people that played Starcraft when it first came out. The age majortiy of these people is probably 23++ by now. There for the twitch is slowly fading.
Blizzard knows that every Korean will play their game until they die of old age and thats a fact. But Blizzard is really smart that way. They are catering to the North American/Europeon Market where the majority of players would rather have MBS over not having it so that they can play a more relaxed game and not get frusterated as easy. Also they can maybe compete with the Koreans and top foreign players. So in a marketing sense I think its awesome for Blizzard.
If Blizzard really appreciates their hard core community one idea they could use is to have a game filter system that can turn MBS off for tournament/ladder type game settings thus making both the hard core and casual crowds happy. Thoughts? Has anyone posted something like this yet? sorry long thread im lazy : )
the problem, korn, is that they've said they're building an esport. they've stated that as their goal with sc2 and MBS is detrimental to that development
On November 21 2007 01:09 ForAdun wrote: You say handspeed can be achieved over time by anyone. This counts for strategical knowledge, too. We may have an endless talk about what takes more skill but the truth is - guess what - handspeed and strategy are equally neccessary in SC. Do you really believe that SC2 will attract the same amount of people if blizzard cuts the handspeed needed in two? I don't..
well i agree, but by putting mbs into starcraft 2, it is only suspicious/paranoid or stupid people that would think that would make such a result. think about some of the stuff we've seen so far...do you realize how slow warcraft3 is compared to starcraft? but starcraft 2 will likely be fast. if a bunch of starcraft 2 units have skills that you need to use properly, there is going to be a lot of micro to handle... multiple building selection is just a small piece of the puzzle, and we even yet only see a fragment of starcraft 2. ok, here's what i really mean. in starcraft 2. it looks like every race will have a much better swarming potential, that is, to be able to attack from here, there, almost anywhere. we got troops that jump over cliffs, we got protoss units teleporting wherever you send your flying prism...zerg units that are capable of who knows what to get to where they want to go to...and if you are able to build units very fast with MBS, you will have such a huge army and so many possibilities for battle that a slow player will be utterly overwhelmed. but watch a pro player, he's going to send several large attack groups and be able to micro them very effectively all while macroing...and his pro counterpart the same. with MBS, you won't be as likely to feel let down seeing a pro slacking off here or there because he couldn't keep up with the game. true, MBS will free up a lot of useless actions. and that is the point. to focus on what's more important. honestly, i don't believe blizzard realized that players would be able to macro as well as these pros have. and that surprised them. and blizzard wants them to be able to macro awesomely AND to still have plenty of time for micro. i don't see one thing wrong with that. it's not as if 1 player will get to have MBS and the other player won't get to have it...i just think that people that don't like the idea of MBS are still living in starcraft. of couse blizzard isn't going to release a patch for starcraft to allow MBS. that's just absurd. but Starcraft 2 will be a new game, and it will fit. think about it. new mineral patches yielded greater mineral harvesting? MBS and very high unit selection? sounds like you will have way more units to handle, and honestly...
look at all the super high apm pros. what are most of their actions? move. they're moving their units all over the map. when they can build those units even faster, with less actions, don't you think move is going to dwarf their actions even more? makes perfect sense. and if that's where they're spending all their apm on...isn't that going to make them even BETTER players than the slower players? yes, obviously the slower players will have some of their apm freed up so that they can move more too...but they're both going to have so many units that the faster player will still have that fast handmovement advantage. he won't lose that. blizzard won't be taking away the advantage of the higher skilled players, but it will be helping out both levels of players. that is my perspective. and i'm certain that's what blizzard is aiming for, so if you don't trust them, that's fine. pff, i wouldn't blame any of you for being paranoid about it. but i mean, i just hope you guys got real lives in case the game does flop for you, know what i mean? i just don't understand how this topic could have gone 16 pages... i mean it's like the starcraft community is in an uproar over circumcission, or however that's spelled.
Have you ever seen the hands of a war3 progamer? It hugs the left side of the keyboard with the thumb curled under the hand to tap the alt key repeatedly in a battle. they need to bind fewer hotkeys on the keyboard and their hand generally remains stationary in this position. It's the mouse spamming move and as they micro units around in combination with the attack button and ocassionally using items that buys up all of their APM time.
Yes, I have seen them. And it's not because they don't have to do so much with the keyboard, they still need it to use skills/spells etc. The factor here is custom hotkeys. In SC progamers don't change the hotkeys which are spread all over the keyboard (especially for protoss) while in WC3 most pros just set all the hotkeys to qwerasdfzxcv so they don't need to move their hand so much.
Keyboard usage in SC (simple example): 1a2a3a4a5z6z7z8z9z0z
Keyboard usage in WC3: 1ztabztabz2ccc3w4(or tab)w - put in some random alt keys there too...
And what I was trying to tell earlier is: Micro: WC3>SC2>SC Macro: WC3<SC2<SC
But it's all just theorycrafting before we can all play the game, isn't it?
On November 27 2007 14:35 BC.KoRn wrote: Most non-koreans who just like to play a game for fun will often complain that starcraft is way too fast pace and requires a twitch to keep up. The New era of gamers like to lean back and play with a cigarette or coke in one hand. (Really) Think of all the people that played Starcraft when it first came out. The age majortiy of these people is probably 23++ by now. There for the twitch is slowly fading.
That's not necessarily true though. Yes, if you take a BGH player against an iCCup player the game will seem too fast, but if you're playing someone with the same skill level it's not so difficult. The only time macro becomes an issue is when one player has it and the other player doesn't, and the majority of people who buy SC2 won't have it, so it's hardly an issue if they're ranked properly. If a bad CS player joins a decent pub and gets reamed over and over, of course they're going to get frustrated and probably give up, but it doesn't mean the skill ceiling needs to be lowered to give that player a good time. It just means they need to find a new server where they can be more competitive.
CS does not require as much skill as Quake(for example), it's much slower paced, it is like an MBS RTS and it still has much better competitive enviroment with high differentiation in skill levels, so how can a much less skill requiring game than Quake have it better? It's because there is still an unachievable perfect play and higher accessability makes it much more popular and entertaining. The latter is actually the most important factor, because if a game is very boring, no matter how infinitely high the skill cap is, people won't play it and won't watch it.
To play SC perfectly you'll need much much higher than achievable by human speed, even if you make it easier, it will still be unachievable, but it will definitely help accessability and make it more entertaining.
What's going to replace macro... lets see, after you train hard and your apm rises by 50, do you ask what's going to replace macro for you and want it rebalanced for you, because you now devote 0.3 seconds less every minute to macro?! The time fast players spend queueing units is quite small actually and MBS is not gonna cut off more than 1-2 seconds per minute game time, not to mention Savior use 8 hotkeys for hatcheries, so he can macro extremely fast and the most effect it will have for him is freeing up hotkeys, and not the time devoted to macro or the need to shift concentration on macroing during combat. Combined with the fact that you'll have to queue units more often(the build times of units have been reduced by 15% to 25% in SC2), the players will need to shift their attention to macroing more often(which is actually the hard part in macro, timing it properly and remembering to queue units in battle, so you could even say that macro will be harder) and the micro/macro time balance for very high level players will barely shift.
The macro won't be replaced, it's still there, it's just different -> less hotkeys needed, but more often and being scared of change and that you'll lose your "skill" is not a reason to screw up SC2 in accessability and entertainment value, while not helping competitiveness at all(and actually hurting it, because the other two are the reason a competitive scene forms in the first place), because with or without MBS, near perfect play is still unachieveable.
So if YOU just want the same game, guess what -> you already have it and they are not going to re-release it, so this is not an arguement at all and has nothing to do with SC2 or with the future competitive scene. Games should not be a repeat of what worked best before, because we'd be still playing Pong(or Dune 2 if you want to start with the first RTS) in it's 10000th re-release, which would be again in 2D with the very same gameplay... Games should be evolving!
One idea I've been toying with in my head would be some sort of an efficiency modifier for buildings. Something akin to a button that would cause units to be built in half the time for double the resource cost. That could potentially give macro a boost if it were balanced for usefulness and fun strategy. Though it is a very rough idea and might not be practical at all.
The primary macro idea I endorse involves a huge addition to StarCraft's interface (combined with a lack of smartcasting) as a way to reward macro players, but I don't know if anyone here would be interested in reading my idea. Also, I doubt Blizzard would implement it since it's complicated and they seem to like the idea of smartcasting too much. (I hate the idea of smartcasting myself. It's fucking boring.)
Either way, even if StarCraft 2 fails as an E-sport, it might be worth it if Blizzard can actually progress the RTS genre in new ways. Not to say that I see them doing that anywhere, yet, but I would like to see them try. If they can't give us anything good, however, then by all means they should keep SBS. I suppose the community will know more when beta testing begins.
Too many people missing the big picture, i'll pull some stuff i said in a similar thread.
we must first evaluate what exactly makes warcraft 3 inherently different from starcraft. In war3 there is a specific burden placed upon the player: the creeping factor. A player who creeps faster and more efficiently is rewarded with high level heros and more items at their disposal. This forces the war3 player to enter an endless cycle where he creeps around the map while harassing his opponent who is creeping as well, eventually both players are forced to enter in an all out battle that can't be avoided and the player who creeped better won (unless of course the other player outmicros him.) This is not the how starcraft functions. The starcraft players burden is to acquire expos in specific locations while gather intelligence about his opponent. With that gathered intellegence he builds an army that will allow him to gain more expos while forcing his opponent to have less.
Why does this distinction mater? Because starcraft players aren't microing endlessly, they're spending a large portion of their time micromanaging their base or in other words macroing. There will be a point in time, probably between 6 months to two years after SC2's release, when the basic openings of this game will be figured out. I'm not saying EVERYTHING will be figured out, but there will be a general concept of how to open with each race, what to do, what not to do. With that in mind players will know when they should attack and when they shouldn't.
Think of TvP, most terran players know they can rush early on, but after that they know to sit back and mass up for the inevitable terran push, mean while protoss knows that unless they do some type of harassment they will probably have to sit back and start taking more expos and massing up gates while thinking about arbiters or carriers. Moments like this call for incredible concentration for both players, they must participate in every action that occurs in their base in order to ensure they will be in good standing for the next big battle or fight over an expansion. If MBS, automining and other features are in place here, the game will be unbearably easy. In other words two very good players will end up macroing perfectly. That REALLY matters on the competitive level.
Obviously SC2 will be a new game, but the same logic applies, good players will figure out how to be safe while getting expos early on. Once they get those expos up the whole macro process will be easy as ever. It will only boil down to those few battles that will occur, and smart players will pick those battles wisely as they do in SC. And thus the skill celling lowers and the floor rasies.
Do you realize how easy it will be to copy a replay with features like MBS and automining? Everyone knows how strong a zergling (with upgrades) lurker opening that techs to scourge and eventually to ultras with defilers are. Yet only a very small group of people can execute them perfectly like Mondragon.
It's the execution factor that makes SC fucking awesome, the fact that these progamers can actually DO what they're doing. Macro is a game inside of a game that's called Starcraft. It's a game that i personally find fun, but more importantly it keeps the game competitive. Some people are good at micro but bad at everything else, some are good at strategy and macro but when they get into a battle screw everything up and lose. This is what makes the game incredible, that there are so many features to utilize.
keep in mind there is a 10 year old army of gamers (Korea too) who have played starcraft competitively at one point in time or another, and after playing it myself i wonder if they will be throughly disappointed in what SC2 has become.
I'm starting to sway to the pro MBS side, for the simple reason that Warcraft 3 didn't really have base harassment. The units have so much life and heros can teleport home. I'd imagine if macro is replaced by harassment, you could effectively split your troops three ways and be microing many small, harassing battles at once.
On November 28 2007 05:50 Chill wrote: I'm starting to sway to the pro MBS side, for the simple reason that Warcraft 3 didn't really have base harassment. The units have so much life and heros can teleport home. I'd imagine if macro is replaced by harassment, you could effectively split your troops three ways and be microing many small, harassing battles at once.
dunno how easy it will be to harass workers and such since you can move them all at once with the 150 selection cap. you have to move three or four groups while a storm drop comes in on the original SC. Plus It'll be even easier to prevent harassment since you can be twice as vigilant for them with MBS helping you out.
If you watched some AoX replays you would see how easy it is to harrass workers and how hard to save them sometimes... Also getting 6 expansions while constantly fighting enemy is nice thing. And macro with MBS isn't as simple as it seem, during one replay I was amazed when I couldn't get my eyes off the pop count during the fights which went up and down like crazy (-> = 3 seconds span): 130 -> 80 -> 140 -> 90.
On November 28 2007 04:44 MyLostTemple wrote:we must first evaluate what exactly makes warcraft 3 inherently different from starcraft. In war3 there is a specific burden placed upon the player: the creeping factor. A player who creeps faster and more efficiently is rewarded with high level heros and more items at their disposal. This forces the war3 player to enter an endless cycle where he creeps around the map while harassing his opponent who is creeping as well, eventually both players are forced to enter in an all out battle that can't be avoided and the player who creeped better won (unless of course the other player outmicros him.) This is not the how starcraft functions.
That's akin to saying SC is only a production game and that all you have to do is mass units and send them on the enemy.
Higher hero levels don't always end up in a win, nor does outcreeping does either. In many cases some strategies bank on very little creeping but constant pressure, for example Paladin 1st vs UD, or tower strats in HvO. Many fast tech NE strats as well (like no AoW tech -> T2 Tavern hero strats) will comport very little creeping but an extremely fast tech. Heroes are important but armies are certainly not meaningless, and higher level heroes won't make you win a -20 food battle (unless you have a very nicely prepared position and tactic) and map control as well as area denial techniques are just as important. Many things fall from using the quirks of a fixed economy to your advantage to using upkeep to your advantage, however that always comports a risk (50 food vs quick 70 food), where you see scouting and gathering intelligence is just as important in WC3 than SC. Creeping is but a way to gain an advantage.
WC3 is deeply different from SC1, which I agree with you, but it's not only because of creeping. I only felt like pointing that out.
The pace of the game in general, as well as how it's designed (over small amount of units) are what makes decision making and execution so different in both games, but their importance is not different.
In fact, WC3 is a very good example of how you can make a "n00bified" game work at a very high level, but SC2 should be much much faster paced.
Hmm, replays made and broke the game. They helped the fan-base tremendously, yet gave us the cookie-cutter strats at the same time. One of the interesting things about replays is that you will observe the mediocre players copying a strat without understanding it. They know that is makes them win but they don't know why. You see this usually when they fail to adapt to their opponents counter and eventually lose while following the strat protocol. I wouldn't worry too much about below average players getting much better with MBS if they can't understand what they are doing even now.
Regarding how MBS will affect the pro-scene. I imagine that like professional footballers they will go where the money is. Some might have diehard game loyalty and despise the new game and refuse to play it. Even so if SC2 has a large enough user-base and is deemed competitive, then a pro scene will emerge regardless if it is comprised of the old SC crowd or totally new players.
So what will be the criteria for game competitiveness? On the top of my list is, balance. No one will be interested in a broken game. There are a bunch of other things I would mention before we got to MBS as well, things like the pace and feel of the game, whether I thought my army was responding the way I wanted it to (not following some mad pathing bug, etc), and I think MBS would help in these situations and add to the games enjoyability.
Anyways MBS is accused of making the game "easier", but how will this affect competition?
The "easiness" of the game won't affect the competition as long as it is always possible to do something better than your opponent. That is the key thing really. Even with MBS there will be people who are just going to be that much faster than you. And the people at the top end of the spectrum will be the pros.
Actually I don't think adding MBS will make the game easier, it will certainly make it more enjoyable.
Why won't it be any easier? because the APM that was spent on the base micromanagement fighting the UI will now be spent accomplishing other tasks that directly give you the edge over your opponent. Just for the simple fact that it is always possible for someone to play faster than their opponent. People will not stop and twiddle their thumbs now that the UI has been IMPROVED.
re: worker harass
erm, from my WC3 experience. worker harass is very effective. one of my favourite strats was Warden and mass moonwells. The gist of this strat was to constantly cast AoE spell on your enemies gold line and destroy their economy.
If you ever see some ANGRYKOREAMAN replays you see that he employs also employs other creative worker harassments, notably with invisible Bloodmage and mortars. In fact if you have WC3 installed I suggest you watch some of his games as they are also highly amusing.
Early game harassments are also commonplace.
If SC2 is still going to have very high DPS AoE spells then, I imagine worker harass will still be present. If the game is going to be BIG. i.e battles all over the place, then you can't be watching everywhere at once.
Oh, and my final thought about the first 6 months of the game. I imagine this will probably be my favourite bit of the game. New weird and wonderful strategies everyday. Imbalance unit of the month. Like the Burgess shale and the Cambrian explosion. How marvellous.
After that 6 month period as the matches become the same old stale shit, when every replay looks identical except just a little faster or slower. That is when the game is dead for me and I will keep following only because I'm addicted. That is unless SC2 has inbuilt permanent fun. That is for me, endless possibilities. Guess I just have to wait and see.
On November 28 2007 07:20 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: You missed his point, which is that creeping adds a completely seperate element to gameplay that allows MBS to have little to no effect on gameplay.
If that was the point it was a bad one since creeping is not what allows MBS to have little to no effect in Wc3. The only time you really need MBS is focusing towers I'd say. I don't think further comparisons with Wc3, any other game or sports will add anything to the debate. Even if there was a great game with MBS working, the pro SBS guys wouldn't believe it'd work for Sc2 right? Can we at least agree that it would be a mistake not to try taking MBS in and see how it works out (Alpha/Beta)? (which is almost a given anyway)
After that 6 month period as the matches become the same old stale shit, when every replay looks identical except just a little faster or slower. That is when the game is dead for me and I will keep following only because I'm addicted. That is unless SC2 has inbuilt permanent fun. That is for me, endless possibilities. Guess I just have to wait and see.
On November 13 2007 09:49 Prose wrote: MBS should be in the game, but a scale factor should apply.
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 Option 2 fast way to massproduce one unit Option 3 even faster way to massproduce unit, but holding the hotkey forces your attention away from the battlefield as it centers 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 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's an eternity!
Pros will not use option 3, but it's there for newbs. Will newbs beat pros using option 3? NO. Think about it.
My question for anti-MBS: Will a scaled implementation of MBS affect games at the pro level? Will pros even use it?
My question for pro-MBS: Why should Player A with 10 gateways have the additional advantage of having the same time/attention cost as Player B with 1 gateway? (Yes, Player A already has a +9 unit advantage, but this is logically the reward for the inherent higher mineral cost).
On November 13 2007 09:49 Prose wrote: MBS should be in the game, but a scale factor should apply.
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 Option 2 fast way to massproduce one unit Option 3 even faster way to massproduce unit, but holding the hotkey forces your attention away from the battlefield as it centers 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 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's an eternity!
Pros will not use option 3, but it's there for newbs. Will newbs beat pros using option 3? NO. Think about it.
My question for anti-MBS: Will a scaled implementation of MBS affect games at the pro level? Will pros even use it? .
If it's option 3, probably not. I think that's actually a fairly reasonable solution. I'm still extremely curious how Blizzard can possibly implement MBS and keep unit production fair for Zerg.
For those who still don't see how MBS options 1/2 cheapen gameplay at the pro level (all levels for that matter), simply look at a player like Kwanro. Every single pro has the ability to micro like he does (and even like WC3 players do, I assume) but in SC, it's an inefficient use of your actions. With MBS, he can stand to micro as he currently does and get away with it. Yes, we can say that there will still be a high level of competition within the pros (and a large distinction between pros and amateurs), but it cheapens the abilities of someone like July who is a far more talented player than Kwanro.
On November 13 2007 09:49 Prose wrote: MBS should be in the game, but a scale factor should apply.
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 Option 2 fast way to massproduce one unit Option 3 even faster way to massproduce unit, but holding the hotkey forces your attention away from the battlefield as it centers 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 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's an eternity!
Pros will not use option 3, but it's there for newbs. Will newbs beat pros using option 3? NO. Think about it.
My question for anti-MBS: Will a scaled implementation of MBS affect games at the pro level? Will pros even use it? .
If it's option 3, probably not. I think that's actually a fairly reasonable solution. I'm still extremely curious how Blizzard can possibly implement MBS and keep unit production fair for Zerg.
For those who still don't see how MBS options 1/2 cheapen gameplay at the pro level (all levels for that matter), simply look at a player like Kwanro. Every single pro has the ability to micro like he does (and even like WC3 players do, I assume) but in SC, it's an inefficient use of your actions. With MBS, he can stand to micro as he currently does and get away with it. Yes, we can say that there will still be a high level of competition within the pros (and a large distinction between pros and amateurs), but it cheapens the abilities of someone like July who is a far more talented player than Kwanro.
Yes, Kwanro's a perfect example. His muta micro vs. Bisu was highlight-material, but his macro was suffering during that time; when he finally attended to his base, he built like 4+ hatcheries at once.
From what I hear, Blizzard is slightly tweaking so SC2 is more micro, but I hope this is not at the expense of macro (hence my plea to scale-factor MBS, at the least!). It just means that more micro-intensive units like ghosts and queens and corsairs can be used more, which could make Boxer-like players stand a chance in the macro-oriented BW of today. I mean, there's a balance of course, so that using ghosts is as viable as using goliaths (and even wraiths) v. mass carriers. True, it maybe cheapens the 'novelty' of using ghosts, but having three viable counters that tailor to both micro and macro players is a good trade-off. I mean, when was the last time you've seen ghosts used to lockdown carriers? It's just not viable these days.
On November 28 2007 04:44 MyLostTemple wrote:we must first evaluate what exactly makes warcraft 3 inherently different from starcraft. In war3 there is a specific burden placed upon the player: the creeping factor. A player who creeps faster and more efficiently is rewarded with high level heros and more items at their disposal. This forces the war3 player to enter an endless cycle where he creeps around the map while harassing his opponent who is creeping as well, eventually both players are forced to enter in an all out battle that can't be avoided and the player who creeped better won (unless of course the other player outmicros him.) This is not the how starcraft functions.
That's akin to saying SC is only a production game and that all you have to do is mass units and send them on the enemy.
Higher hero levels don't always end up in a win, nor does outcreeping does either. In many cases some strategies bank on very little creeping but constant pressure, for example Paladin 1st vs UD, or tower strats in HvO. Many fast tech NE strats as well (like no AoW tech -> T2 Tavern hero strats) will comport very little creeping but an extremely fast tech. Heroes are important but armies are certainly not meaningless, and higher level heroes won't make you win a -20 food battle (unless you have a very nicely prepared position and tactic) and map control as well as area denial techniques are just as important. Many things fall from using the quirks of a fixed economy to your advantage to using upkeep to your advantage, however that always comports a risk (50 food vs quick 70 food), where you see scouting and gathering intelligence is just as important in WC3 than SC. Creeping is but a way to gain an advantage.
WC3 is deeply different from SC1, which I agree with you, but it's not only because of creeping. I only felt like pointing that out.
The pace of the game in general, as well as how it's designed (over small amount of units) are what makes decision making and execution so different in both games, but their importance is not different.
In fact, WC3 is a very good example of how you can make a "n00bified" game work at a very high level, but SC2 should be much much faster paced.
You seem to miss the point entirely... you put both my points in black and white, like i said War3 was all micro and SC was all macro. I did not.
When people get good at this game they wont be running all over the map with their units like in war3, or at least not constantly, there will be static times in the game where macro will occur, MBS makes this far too easy, and since SC2 will be a more economic game than War3 (just like SC1 was) i worry it will screw up the game play because the macro phase will be nightmarishly easy.
So.... no... your example at the end is horrible because there wont be anything to maintain that pace. Please prove otherwise, but first reread my previous post.
I also think prose is raising an excellent point here, let us envision the current SC2 at the pro level.
We know blizzard has MBS and automining thus making macro easier. We also know that Blizzard has made the micro aspect of SC2 easier by giving us an unlimited selection cap and smartcasting. In the original starcraft, the farther ahead i am, the more i have to keep up with. If i have 10 gates i have to macro harder than if i had 5, MBS seems to overly reward a player who is ahead early on. It's possible to macro with SO much ease that your opponent may never manage to out mass you. Don't say harassment, it should be much easier to spot and prepare for that with MBS and automining assisting you.
What's nice about SBS and other UI features is that the player who's ahead is occupied with more tasks, this makes it easier for the other player to catch up to him. There will be less ways for the player who's behind to recover. Less room for miss micro with a large army when your have more to control... less room to get behind while you macro in your larger base. I hope i'm wrong. But more so i hope these features are removed from competitive play, so i can play starcraft again.
A better player should have avenues open to him throughout the entire game that allow him to prove that he is better than his oponent. The reason players clone their drones at the start isnt because it looks pretty, its because it gives them an advantage over someone who doesn't. These actions should exist throughout the entire game so better players that can excute these actions will get the deserved advantage. MBS removes a lot of these avenues, because every player will be able to execute large portions of the game just as easily as a pro.
In most RTS games, there are periods of time where there will be no fighting between players. Its inevitable. In warcraft 3, people filled this time with creeping. In starcraft, people filled this time, making sure there macro was perfect. In starcraft 2, we havnt seen anything that will fill this gap. Harrassing is not a counter to this argument because its these stages in the game where players are the best equipped to handle harassment and well setup players will be impossible to effectively harass. In a situation where 2 players are not fighting, what can one do to give himself the edge over another?
On November 28 2007 15:54 Fen wrote: In most RTS games, there are periods of time where there will be no fighting between players. Its inevitable. In warcraft 3, people filled this time with creeping. In starcraft, people filled this time, making sure there macro was perfect. In starcraft 2, we havnt seen anything that will fill this gap. Harrassing is not a counter to this argument because its these stages in the game where players are the best equipped to handle harassment and well setup players will be impossible to effectively harass. In a situation where 2 players are not fighting, what can one do to give himself the edge over another?
Expand? Tech? Scout?
And why harrassement isn't an option? Looking for opportunities throughout the whole game is one of the ways to gain advantage, isn't it?
Manit0u, every time someone comes up with that argument you "counter" it with empty phrases. Don't you see that you have no arguments on your side? Your last post shows confidence but no facts. Fen gave facts, you didn't. Think about it.
On November 28 2007 15:54 Fen wrote: In most RTS games, there are periods of time where there will be no fighting between players. Its inevitable. In warcraft 3, people filled this time with creeping. In starcraft, people filled this time, making sure there macro was perfect. In starcraft 2, we havnt seen anything that will fill this gap. Harrassing is not a counter to this argument because its these stages in the game where players are the best equipped to handle harassment and well setup players will be impossible to effectively harass. In a situation where 2 players are not fighting, what can one do to give himself the edge over another?
Expand? Tech? Scout?
And why harrassement isn't an option? Looking for opportunities throughout the whole game is one of the ways to gain advantage, isn't it?
Possibilities are many for those who see them.
Those three are already done, and expanding/teching take up very little time. Continually scouting is too costly since you generally have to sacrifice to unit to do so.
He's saying harassment doesn't count because if both players have extra free time, then the defender can be even more vigilant to counter the aggressor and that doesn't require actions, just observation. Like Tasteless said, if people had that free time they could easily start moving their workers as soon as they see a blip on the radar and given the 150 unit selection cap, reaver kills would be extremely hard to come by.
It wouldn't really apply if both players were attempting to harass, but then again it would be even worse if both players just defended.
On November 28 2007 10:09 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: it allows MBS to have little to no effect on gameplay because it replaces hectic macromanagement
While this is true to a certain degree, I'd have to agree with silynxer that it isn't the main reason that MBS has almost no effect on the gameplay of a micro-based game like Wc3. This is due to a combination of other reasons:
1. First and foremost, the unit cap on Wc3 is 100 food, half of SC's 200 supply limit. Smaller supply limit = smaller armies. Smaller armies = less macromanagement.
2.Almost as affecting as the supply limit, is Wc3's 'upkeep system'. If you don't know what it is, after a certain supply (50), you start getting taxed on each worker's gold return, and and each trip returns only 7 gold instead of 10. Past 80, this is reduced to 4 gold each trip. This changes macro entirely, as many pros will quickly get 50 supply, then stall/harass the opponent while they build up a surplus of gold. Once they get to their desired surplus, they quickly spend it all, go up to 70 or 80 supply, and quickly attack to take full advantage of their supply gap. This is 'good macromanagement' in Wc3. This is entirely different than good unit macro in SC, which is basically constant production (among other things).
3. In Wc3, troops generally take more supply. The base infantry unit for all races is 2 supply, except Orc, where the grunt takes up 3 supply. There are no 1-supply offensive units, unlike SC. Some basic ranged units take 3 supply, and most of the mid-game & late-game units take up 4+ supply. More supply per unit -> smaller armies -> less macromanagement.
4.Wc3 has heroes which take up 5 supply and die much less often than regular units. Add to this the fact that most pros use 2 or 3 heroes. This is 10-15 supply, or 10-15% of your max supply that rarely dies. Could you imagine how much less attention to macro you'd need if 20-30 supply of your army in SC hardly ever died?
5. 1,2,3, & 4 combine to make army sizes in Wc3 drastically smaller than in SC. In war3, 10-15 units + heroes is a massive late-game army. In SC, this is a group of marines and a few medics, or even worse, 5-7 supply worth of zerglings. Once again, smaller armies means less time spent making units, and less time spent back at your base, away from the battle.
6.Last but not least, the other half of macro, resource management, is also scaled down in Wc3. In War3, five workers per base is the maximum you need to get 100% primary resource (gold) efficiency. In SC, it's something like 20-30 depending on # of patches? War3's secondary resource, lumber, is solved by 5-7 workers for all bases, unlike SC, where you need 3 workers per base to make use of your gas. Adding to this is the upkeep system; if you watch pro games, top players hardly ever have more than 2 active bases mining. And why would you? 3 bases means 20-22 supply, or 1/5 of your max supply, are used solely on resource management. In SC, you are CONSTANTLY producing workers in addition to your army.
In a game where macro is constant production (i.e. SC & SC2), MBS will drastically reduce the overall work/attention required to maintain a large army. In a game where macro ISN'T constant production (i.e. War3), you simply aren't spending a significant % of time selecting buildings and creating units; MBS hardly affects the gameplay at all.
Using Wc3 to predict the effects of MBS is a bad argument. Wc3, due to a myriad of reasons, has a completely different macro game than SC (and surely SC2), and we can't say whether or not MBS would work in SC2 based on its presence in WC3.
On November 28 2007 10:09 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: it allows MBS to have little to no effect on gameplay because it replaces hectic macromanagement
While this is true to a certain degree, I'd have to agree with silynxer that it isn't the main reason that MBS has almost no effect on the gameplay of a micro-based game like Wc3. This is due to a combination of other reasons:
1. First and foremost, the unit cap on Wc3 is 100 food, half of SC's 200 supply limit. Smaller supply limit = smaller armies. Smaller armies = less macromanagement.
2.Almost as affecting as the supply limit, is Wc3's 'upkeep system'. If you don't know what it is, after a certain supply (50), you start getting taxed on each worker's gold return, and and each trip returns only 7 gold instead of 10. Past 80, this is reduced to 4 gold each trip. This changes macro entirely, as many pros will quickly get 50 supply, then stall/harass the opponent while they build up a surplus of gold. Once they get to their desired surplus, they quickly spend it all, go up to 70 or 80 supply, and quickly attack to take full advantage of their supply gap. This is 'good macromanagement' in Wc3. This is entirely different than good unit macro in SC, which is basically constant production (among other things).
3. In Wc3, troops generally take more supply. The base infantry unit for all races is 2 supply, except Orc, where the grunt takes up 3 supply. There are no 1-supply offensive units, unlike SC. Some basic ranged units take 3 supply, and most of the mid-game & late-game units take up 4+ supply. More supply per unit -> smaller armies -> less macromanagement.
4.Wc3 has heroes which take up 5 supply and die much less often than regular units. Add to this the fact that most pros use 2 or 3 heroes. This is 10-15 supply, or 10-15% of your max supply that rarely dies. Could you imagine how much less attention to macro you'd need if 20-30 supply of your army in SC hardly ever died?
5. 1,2,3, & 4 combine to make army sizes in Wc3 drastically smaller than in SC. In war3, 10-15 units + heroes is a massive late-game army. In SC, this is a group of marines and a few medics, or even worse, 5-7 supply worth of zerglings. Once again, smaller armies means less time spent making units, and less time spent back at your base, away from the battle.
6.Last but not least, the other half of macro, resource management, is also scaled down in Wc3. In War3, five workers per base is the maximum you need to get 100% primary resource (gold) efficiency. In SC, it's something like 20-30 depending on # of patches? War3's secondary resource, lumber, is solved by 5-7 workers for all bases, unlike SC, where you need 3 workers per base to make use of your gas. Adding to this is the upkeep system; if you watch pro games, top players hardly ever have more than 2 active bases mining. And why would you? 3 bases means 20-22 supply, or 1/5 of your max supply, are used solely on resource management. In SC, you are CONSTANTLY producing workers in addition to your army.
In a game where macro is constant production (i.e. SC & SC2), MBS will drastically reduce the overall work/attention required to maintain a large army. In a game where macro ISN'T constant production (i.e. War3), you simply aren't spending a significant % of time selecting buildings and creating units; MBS hardly affects the gameplay at all.
Using Wc3 to predict the effects of MBS is a bad argument. Wc3, due to a myriad of reasons, has a completely different macro game than SC (and surely SC2), and we can't say whether or not MBS would work in SC2 based on its presence in WC3.
QFT MBS sucks for starcraft...even the people who were at Blizzcon and played the demo said the macro had been dumbed down so much because you could set all nexus to one ctrl group and constantly build probes with like no effort at all
While it would be great if easier production/economy elements would translate to a greater number of simultaneous battles across the entire map (dividing your multitasking attention between micro and larger strategies), I'm skeptical of Blizzard's ability to achieve this (at least to the degree where it would challenge a pro). I think Blizzard's team for StarCraft 2 is skilled enough to make a game like that, but a number of issues - such as greater army mobility, smartcasting, and even MBS - reduce much of the map to a single entity. In that type of a game, a player that focuses on smaller battles and locations would be nowhere near as powerful as a player that simply regards his entire army/economy as one giant, centralized object.
Anyways, as an example of shifting focus to new kinds of macro, perhaps the pro-SBS people can tell me what they think of this idea:
Units that are following a building's rally path will continue to fill a building's top queue spot until they reach the final location/command in the rally path. This will prevent other, new units from being built so long as a unit is being directed to follow a building's rally path.
I love this idea myself. It would severely punish people who rely heavily on a building's rally points to organize their army. Rallying your peons to resource locations, for instance, will prevent a new peon from being built until it reaches its particular mineral spot. While slow players wouldn't notice much of a difference here, I believe that macro-oriented pros would get a huge boost in peon production by directing their peons manually. This would also dramatically increase the strength of proxies for what (I would hope) are obvious reasons.
As a general concept, this idea simulates the time-cost involved when an economy must transport newly manufactured units to the front lines. In return, making units smarter as they follow a rally path (by allowing them to defend themselves, attack units being attacked by their rally point, or automatically initiate mining) and allowing MBS would be a nice trade.
Assuming the above idea were implemented, here's another:
Each combat-unit-producing building can have a toggle that slightly increases the resource cost of a unit as a way to temporarily increase the speed of that particular, newly-produced unit based upon how much distance that unit would cover in an amount of time. The time would never be able to exceed a straight movement of two screens-worth of distance for every unit.
This would give macro-oriented people a boost to their unit-based defense since new troops would reach positions just outside of a base in shorter time than fresh, enemy units would. A micro-oriented player would be too busy controlling his troops in offensive positions to take advantage of this well. More importantly, this would give a dramatic boost to the strength of proxies. Imagine a macro-oriented player focusing his multitasking skill towards creating unit production right outside of an enemy base (from sneaky locations). All of those freshly built units would pour into the enemy base at high speed and further reduce the above-proposed penalty of rallied production (but only if a player diverts his attention to build proxies and spend additional resources per unit).
Now these are just examples of macro that would increase fun, large-scale strategies as a balance to micro (as apposed to using the somewhat-boring, repetitive, macro that SBS provides). These two ideas also increase the importance of controlling particular areas of the map, directing peons, and closely watching how you build units in specific, individual structures. In other words, macro is rewarded, but in ways are perhaps more enjoyable.
Now, I say "perhaps more enjoyable" because I haven't thought through these two ideas in detail, and a game like StarCraft is complex, but I firmly believe that they both comprise a good example of what Blizzard should be experimenting with. I'm not sure how anyone here could disagree with that. Experimenting with fun, new ideas is never a bad thing when it comes to a game. Games are always for fun before they're ever for competition (since competition can't, ever make a game fun all by itself).
why would mbs provide "simultaneous battles everywhere"? that is possible in bw, but people don't do it because if you over extend yourself and split your units too much, you get steamrolled by the other person when they push out with their massive army.
its the same idea in bw when you keep harrassing the other opponent, and they just keep on defending. if you don't do enough damage with your harrass, when they push out you lose.
@ Tiptup: I'm sorry you wrote that much, you are creative but your ideas won't work. Explain them to the average player who just bought the game, he will wonder who's the bigger retard - you talking funny or him buying the game. Things must be kept logical and comprehensive, as simple as possible.
Others have had ideas like you but they all failed. I highly doubt that the "solution" lies in punishing lazy players. Laziness must punish itself.
Tiptup, I haven't completely thought your proposal through, but the first thing to occur to me is that if there are any unit AI or pathing problems, your production would be entirely fucked.
I agree that bad pathing would really piss people off with the above idea. They'll wonder why no new units are coming out of a building just to find a stupid dragoon walking back and forth in one spot. But, perhaps a blocked path will automatically function as the end of a rally path and the unit will start to react to its surroundings on its own.
And I also agree that the ideas are difficult to explain and sound kooky on the surface. This is particularly true with the second idea I proposed. But, I would argue that at least the first is intuitive enough that players would catch onto it as a rule. They'll look at their buildings and see a special icon telling them that the building is busy directing a unit's path.
On November 29 2007 04:53 LosingID8 wrote: why would mbs provide "simultaneous battles everywhere"?
I don't think it would myself. I actually think MBS would have the opposite effect if anything, but I believe someone was arguing that on previous pages and I wanted to address it. I only agreed with that person to the degree that MBS could potentially free up multitasking for new gameplay mechanics that might subsequently increase simultaneous battles. However, it would take brilliant game design and I certainly don't see Blizzard going in that direction at the moment. Instead I see them focusing on more micromanagement and smartcasting, and if I had to guess, that kind of StarCraft would actually reduce simultaneous battles for the very reasons you specified (I hope I'm wrong).
On November 28 2007 21:52 ForAdun wrote: Manit0u, every time someone comes up with that argument you "counter" it with empty phrases. Don't you see that you have no arguments on your side? Your last post shows confidence but no facts. Fen gave facts, you didn't. Think about it.
Fen also mentioned that we haven't seen anything to fill the gap, there's a shitload of things we haven't seen (including the complete game) so there really aren't any facts to provide on that matter and this whole discussion will be just empty phrases and theorycrafting before we at least get to play the beta or something. We're discussing a completely virtual thing at the moment in a product that we can't check and which we won't probably see in some time and where many decisions aren't final yet. Don't request facts from people please because the only facts anyone can give now can come from other games and not SC2 itself (and my previous post, for which you threw crap on me, was basing on the Armies of Exigo mostly where things like late game harrassement, constant scouting and mass expanding are pretty usual).
While I agree with ForAdun... that TipTup's ideas are not feasible... this is still the kind of thinking i think we may need. Especially his first idea about units following a rally path still filling the unit queue. We need to come up with ways to implement MBS but still punish players who do not choose to manually macro. The key is this punishment cannot seem forced or artificial. The rallying thing somewhat accomplishes this... although it still feels a little like an artifical restriction.
On November 28 2007 21:52 ForAdun wrote: Manit0u, every time someone comes up with that argument you "counter" it with empty phrases. Don't you see that you have no arguments on your side? Your last post shows confidence but no facts. Fen gave facts, you didn't. Think about it.
Fen also mentioned that we haven't seen anything to fill the gap, there's a shitload of things we haven't seen (including the complete game) so there really aren't any facts to provide on that matter and this whole discussion will be just empty phrases and theorycrafting before we at least get to play the beta or something. We're discussing a completely virtual thing at the moment in a product that we can't check and which we won't probably see in some time and where many decisions aren't final yet. Don't request facts from people please because the only facts anyone can give now can come from other games and not SC2 itself (and my previous post, for which you threw crap on me, was basing on the Armies of Exigo mostly where things like late game harrassement, constant scouting and mass expanding are pretty usual).
Right... the only facts we have right now come from other games. Well wouldn't starcraft obviously be that "other game" So your saying it's better to base our SC2 theories on armies of exigo and not the original SC??
On November 29 2007 04:53 LosingID8 wrote: why would mbs provide "simultaneous battles everywhere"? that is possible in bw, but people don't do it because if you over extend yourself and split your units too much, you get steamrolled by the other person when they push out with their massive army.
its the same idea in bw when you keep harrassing the other opponent, and they just keep on defending. if you don't do enough damage with your harrass, when they push out you lose.
Then why is browder and the SC2 team creating units to fill that role.
On November 30 2007 05:04 Manit0u wrote: You don't have mbs, 3d graphics and smartcasting in BW, and you do in AoX.
Your right... let's all start basing our theory and arguments on AoX.
I mean... if your gonna use a game to compare to that has MBS, 3d graphics and smartcasting... I'd rather use WC3.. and even that's not a great game to use. Sure AoX isn't completely irrelevent and may help support some arguments, theory etc..but honestly I don't think there's any game currently out there that's a good example of what SC 2 is going to be like with MBS.
Your right... let's all start basing our theory and arguments on AoX.
why not? the gameplay is as close as I've seen to bw. It's far more similar to sc than to wc3. There are no heros, creeping, or upkeep.
I mean... if your gonna use a game to compare to that has MBS, 3d graphics and smartcasting... I'd rather use WC3.. and even that's not a great game to use.
I suspect you want to use WC3 to make straw-man arguments. MBS is almost irrelevant in WC3 - you almost never have more than 2 production buildings of the same type anyway.
On November 29 2007 04:53 LosingID8 wrote: why would mbs provide "simultaneous battles everywhere"? that is possible in bw, but people don't do it because if you over extend yourself and split your units too much, you get steamrolled by the other person when they push out with their massive army.
its the same idea in bw when you keep harrassing the other opponent, and they just keep on defending. if you don't do enough damage with your harrass, when they push out you lose.
Then why is browder and the SC2 team creating units to fill that role.
how does that relate to what i'm saying?
the fact that units exist don't make it more possible to use them. they still take up resources, time, etc.
On November 28 2007 21:52 ForAdun wrote: Manit0u, every time someone comes up with that argument you "counter" it with empty phrases. Don't you see that you have no arguments on your side? Your last post shows confidence but no facts. Fen gave facts, you didn't. Think about it.
Fen also mentioned that we haven't seen anything to fill the gap, there's a shitload of things we haven't seen (including the complete game) so there really aren't any facts to provide on that matter and this whole discussion will be just empty phrases and theorycrafting before we at least get to play the beta or something. We're discussing a completely virtual thing at the moment in a product that we can't check and which we won't probably see in some time and where many decisions aren't final yet. Don't request facts from people please because the only facts anyone can give now can come from other games and not SC2 itself (and my previous post, for which you threw crap on me, was basing on the Armies of Exigo mostly where things like late game harrassement, constant scouting and mass expanding are pretty usual).
Fact is that people who played SC2 alpha said that they were bored at some points. So don't say we've got no informations about the gameplay. That makes -1 for SC2 gameplay and we've still got no information that makes a +1. Simple.
I have never played AoX although i don't know how useful it is to use that as our golden standard when it didn't become a massively popular esport. I'm not saying it couldn't have been, but honestly it's a large jump to say that game should be our weighing mechanism. Most of AoXs features were in SC2 and when i played it they seemed to do more hurt than help. I wasn't playing with newbies or against a computer, i spent hours playing with testie, grubby and others the day before the game was shown to the public at blizzcon and what i saw concerns me. The rest of the Tl.net members who went down at blizzcon and tried it out with those features shared the same concerns i do. We simply didn't see enough features to make the game competitive. Everything else i liked and thought looked fine.
I guess it's all just a matter of preferrence (I'm used much more to mbs/smartcasting/automine than the BW UI, thus such features don't hurt me at all).
And on the macro part (sorry for referring to AoX again) even SoleSteeler mentioned that with just 1 exp, 8 rax and a bunch of high-tech buildings he had big problems macroing even with mbs and I think I know why that might be and perhaps it could solve the mbs/macro problems for SC2. 2 workers at the same time can mine from 1 resource patch. The thing here is the resource income rate - with just 1 expansion and good amount of workers your mineral patches or whatever provide you with enough income to support a vast army (but they run out fast too so more exps are needed) and trust me, it's not all that easy to spend all this stuff even with mbs, you must be producing units non-stop, building more supply buildings or units, researching, expanding etc. It really can become very hard to get ahold of all this stuff and it definitely does provide you with a lot of things to do all the time, even when not fighting.
To put it simplier: you get resources twice as fast, your minerals run out twice as fast.
Hehe mani, that was because it was my 2nd game playing it in 2-3 years, and I was rusty... I know I could easily get it so I could spend my cash faster (that's what my problem was, not spending my money, couldn't keep making production buildings fast enough, I pretty much maxed out though in our ~10-15 minute game though).
In SC2 it would be even easier to keep spending because you can queue build orders... If I could have queued up 2 workers to build a bunch of farms, and then another worker or two to keep building production buildings it would be quite easy.
But still you have plenty of RTS experience. It's not that anyone could do that easily which leaves plenty of space for improvement and skill difference between people.
My point still is that MBS ain't gonna kill macroing as much as some people belive it to.
On December 01 2007 17:54 Manit0u wrote: But still you have plenty of RTS experience. It's not that anyone could do that easily which leaves plenty of space for improvement and skill difference between people. .
And we want to keep that in, hence we don't want MBS.
On December 01 2007 17:54 Manit0u wrote: But still you have plenty of RTS experience. It's not that anyone could do that easily which leaves plenty of space for improvement and skill difference between people. .
And we want to keep that in, hence we don't want MBS.
His point were that it will be in no matter what, just that it wont be as prominent as in starcraft 1.
And you must all agree that when starcraft rised to its glory it was seen as a micro game and not macro game, then it slowly turned out that the game was imbalanced in favor for macro and now its like the game never were a micro game?
And as I said before, I am not willing to sacrifice anything competitively. There are hundreds of noob RTSes out there. The Starcraft franchise is for the competitive community.
And while BW was seen as a micro game, the good players always had good macro. Even Boxer was considered to have great macro TvP way early on, and players like Blackman were renowned for their macro. Macro simply was as codified or understood back then, but it was an important and powerful role nevertheless.
Even Boxer's micro style - in his own words, it was meant to "steal the time of the opponent". Whats the point of stealing time if all the other player has to do is to micro anyways? Stealing time and diverting attention is only important if the other player has to invest significantly in macro.
On December 02 2007 08:12 Aphelion wrote: Even Boxer's micro style - in his own words, it was meant to "steal the time of the opponent". Whats the point of stealing time if all the other player has to do is to micro anyways? Stealing time and diverting attention is only important if the other player has to invest significantly in macro.
Just pointing out that both in WC3 and DoW where macro is close to inexistant, trying to overwhelm your opponent's concentration and control level are important. For example, in a simple WC3 combat, trying to force your opponent to control a certain parts of the fight to then surprise him out with quick surrounds is a very used tactic, as is using "sore thumb" units (lower hp units put in front, but ready to move back or be healed) to divert focus and prepare traps, even on the pro scene. In DoW, it's attacking on multiple fronts and economy harassment that's mainly used to take players off their game and force them to lose time in some less important areas.
An example, UvN early game, DK + ghouls push vs DH + creeping AoW -> Archers. Undead pushes inside the NE's base, the NE moves back from creeping to defend. So wisps get molested, NE comes back and sticks the DH into the ghouls, keeping archers in the periphery. Now, if the NE loses too many archers, usually the game ends right there, and same for the UD if too many ghouls die.
What good Undeads will often do then is to use skellies and a few ghouls to go after the archers and drag the DH a bit farther from teh moonwells, separating his forces to force archers to run into different directions. Now it comes to controling 3-5 fights at the same time. Upon making separate fights, the UD will try after that to put pressure on the DH to either move out or use moonwell juice. If he stays in, the UD will try to pull a surround on him away from moonwells, which will then force constant control of the DH to not lose the game right there, easing the Ghoul vs Archer fights.
If you look at some FoV replays, he does that very, VERY well. And NEs have to work very hard to defend this, and the key is not the DH, but Archer position and control. If the NE manages to put ghouls out of position and focus on them, the manaburned DK won't be able to do much and the UD will have to retreat.
It's a little example on how a simple fight with units in the very low counts can push two pro players to the limit of their speed (think controling 3-4 Vulture vs Dragoon separate fights at the same time). So, what will cause the game to be competitive or not is not really it's focus on micro or macro, but it's general design. If it's designed well, it'll be competitive.
A competitive RTS doesn't have to be necessarily divided between Micro and Macro, and the meaning of these 2 words do not necessarily have to be the same, as well.
BlackSphinx - thank you for illuminating me. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable of RTSes besides SC.
But I still believe that the essence and greatness of SC is this division between macro and micro, and the equal importance of both. A sequel needs to remain true to that spirit. And there is also no debating that MBS would decreasing multitasking - and I believe such a decrease will be very very significant.
SC is the greatest RTS made. It is not wise to take out a core feature of it with vague promises and uncertain ideas that you will "somehow add more features" to compensate for it.
Micro and macro should not be made artificially hard. Your opponent should dictate how hard it's going to be.
If your opponent sucks, has zero game understanding, doesn't build units that counter yours, has bad timing, and so on, then why should you need 120 APM to beat him? Why not be able to beat him with e.g. 40 APM?
And this is exactly the problem: SC1's UI requires a minimum amount of APM (and the longer the game lasts, the higher this requirement will be), otherwise you can't control the game well in late game. You have to be busy all the time, regardless of your opponent's skill. The UI is your second enemy.
SC2's UI is your friend and will allow you to "adapt" your max. APM to your opponent. If he sucks, then you can play slow and still win, because you make the smarter decisions and have a better game understanding (not because you're faster). This is what makes the game much more appealing to casual gamers and newbies in general. But if your opponent is a pro, then you need 300+ max. APM, simply because of the increased need to micro your units well and to control e.g. harassment + normal attack, or multiple drops, or multiple attacks on different expansions. Then you need a good game understanding AND speed. So if you play against a good player, there's basically no change from SC1. Even in WC3, which is almost purely micro based, you need to be very fast if you want to be a pro. So it can't be any different in SC2 at the higher levels. But it WILL make the game easier for 2 bad players playing.
All players who play SC2 (or SC2 alpha) for the first time are to be considered newbs because it's a completely new game. So I don't expect e.g. Tasteless to say anything different than "ewww... the game is so easy", because he simply didn't have the need to be fast yet. In SC1 you are constantly busy, whether your opponent sucks or not. This will change when there are strong opponents with a good understanding of SC2 (not SC1).
Stop bring up the "artificial UI" crap, it has been debunked over and over again. All UI's are artificial. It is simply a matter of degree. The perfect game isn't some game where everything can be effortlessly directed by thought alone. There has to be a physical, mechanical, component, and as long as that component exists - SBS has a powerful argument.
SC is still a game where the smart can win with less apm. Look at Testie, and how many times he raped with <150apm. But players can also win with insane multitasking and execution. Look at Bisu's game 2 vs Savior today. Are you to say that that was just some mindless clicking and mouse speed?
Too often people separate the strategic and mechanical components too much when discussing this issue. Mechanical competence requires the presence of mind to know, at a split instant, what is most important and to do them. Noobs don't just not macro because they can't click fast enough, they don't macro because they are lost and flustered in the game situation and don't immediately cut through the crap and recognize what must be done right then and there. It takes mental ability to make these small, subtle and incremental decisions.
Similarly, strategy also consists of weighing the mechanical costs of different situations and actions, both on your part and your opponent's. It is smart to continously divert and harass a noob who you know can't keep up. It is smart to sneak a dt into a Zerg's base when he is busy microing a center fight. It is smart to ignore those to stray zealots and focus on the more immediate problem of getting your tech and production going in time.
MBS isn't going to improve strategy at the expense of mechanics. It is going to hurt both and the game as a whole.
My post was covering late game only. If a game doesn't last so long or players only have 2 or 3 bases then there's no big need to click like mad, yes. But once you have 3-5 bases (probably 1 more if Z), a straight-up game of SC1 becomes a burden to manage well.
Remember that you have to mix units, so you can't really build 8-12 units of the same type all the time. Especially in early and mid game, it's important to have the right unit mix to counter your opponent well. In late game, when you mainly mass units (e.g. ultras, goons), MBS will help you the most. And that's a good thing.
Real easy to get around that. While you need a good mix, your only going to have around 2 staple unit types. Divide the production, spam those two keys once in a while, and make the special spellcasters / detectors when you have time to come back and build pylons.
I reckon it will reduce the difficulty of macro after 1 base by at least 2-3 times.
I agree with Aphelion. SC2 should be as difficult as possible to play. Hence they need to make sure you cannot select more than 1 unit at a time. None of this having 3, 4, 8, 9 units all selected and issuing a order. You should have to select each of your units individually and issue the orders to all of them. Being able to order multiple units at a time a command is ruining the game. Also they need to remove the 'attack move' function. You should have to select each unit individually and individually select a target for each unit that you have. If you can't do that your too much of a noob and don't deserve to play SC. SC is for the competitive community and if you can't macro all your units individually your a noob, and don't deserve to play. Aphelion is onto something you really should all listen to him.
That was a refreshing take on the "fight my opponent, not the UI" argument. What you are saying is the opponent dictates how hard the game is, not the game itself. I hadn't thought of it quite like that before. I couldn't agree more.
On December 02 2007 20:36 teapot wrote: Good points there Brutalisk.
That was a refreshing take on the "fight my opponent, not the UI" argument. What you are saying is the opponent dictates how hard the game is, not the game itself. I hadn't thought of it quite like that before. I couldn't agree more.
You cannot just fight an opponent. If you want to do that, you can go outside and take em on in a fist fight.
A RTS game is a medium for a fight. A way to create a fair envrionment which tests and challenges the players in specific skills that are required to win. The specific skills required are set by the game's UI. The winner is the person who is best able to use the UI to manipulate the battlefield in their favour. The debate here is what skills should be required to be a good starcraft 2 player, and what skills should the UI force a player to be good at.
You cannot just fight your opponent. You are always fighting the UI. The UI's design designates what skills a player needs to be good at if he wants to defeat his opponent.
On December 02 2007 18:54 Markus wrote: I agree with Aphelion. SC2 should be as difficult as possible to play. Hence they need to make sure you cannot select more than 1 unit at a time. None of this having 3, 4, 8, 9 units all selected and issuing a order. You should have to select each of your units individually and issue the orders to all of them. Being able to order multiple units at a time a command is ruining the game. Also they need to remove the 'attack move' function. You should have to select each unit individually and individually select a target for each unit that you have. If you can't do that your too much of a noob and don't deserve to play SC. SC is for the competitive community and if you can't macro all your units individually your a noob, and don't deserve to play. Aphelion is onto something you really should all listen to him.
PS. If anyone couldn't tell I was being sarcastic
Please return to the Battlenet forums if you wanna just post garbage. Your post contains absolutely nothing useful and does not contribute to this argument in any way.
Another point that seems to get over looked is just how powerful MBS will be for focus firing you're static defenses, such a sunkens and and cannons. Being able to mass selection those and focus them makes them extreme more dangerous than they were before.
That's not a problem. In fact, it's a good thing (see point 2).
First of all, it's exactly like than focus firing with your units. Do you think that 4+ dragoons killing 1 marine with 1 shot is imbalanced? Probably not. So why should it be imbalanced if a static defense can do that? Static defense has many disadvantages anyway (that's why you always try to only get as much static defense as really necessary, and invest your money in normal units instead), you can't do hit and run, and there are plenty of units capable of dealing efficiently with static defense (tanks, thors, reavers, reapers, ...).
Secondly, in the case of a Protoss phase cannon rush, which will probably become a popular early or mid game cheese strategy, it's actually a great thing, because it makes this rush more powerful. That rush would terribly suck if you couldn't control what the cannons target. The enemy could easily deal with that by sending a few useless units first (e.g. workers, or fly a building...) and then his real forces which kill the cannons quickly. It would mean that this rush eventually becomes useless as the players' skill improves. But if you can focus fire with the cannons, then this rush will suddenly be much more viable and the enemy needs to be careful and scout well. One more viable strategy = always a good thing. More control to the player = also a good thing.
On December 02 2007 22:43 NotSorry wrote: Another point that seems to get over looked is just how powerful MBS will be for focus firing you're static defenses, such a sunkens and and cannons. Being able to mass selection those and focus them makes them extreme more dangerous than they were before.
This really isnt a problem of MBS. Its just something that will have to be balanced.
Im an advocate for anti-MBS, but I dont mind having MBS as long as ure screen is centered on the buildings while they are selected, which would allow you to focus fire defenses. The only reason I want SBS is so a player cant spend the entire game babysitting his army and macroin with a couple of hotkeys. I want them to be forced to move their view around the map, bouncing back and forth between their base and their troops to keep everything running smooth. If you could double click your barracks and select all of them on screen, Id have no problems. But if you could hotkey groups of barrack's so you dont have to return to base to macro, then thats when I draw the line and say no.
I think this is a fair sacrifice. The noob players are not going to hotkey their buildings anyways. They just want the ability to select a bunch of them and expend all their money. The more competative gamers, well they should man up.
On December 02 2007 18:54 Markus wrote: I agree with Aphelion. SC2 should be as difficult as possible to play. Hence they need to make sure you cannot select more than 1 unit at a time. None of this having 3, 4, 8, 9 units all selected and issuing a order. You should have to select each of your units individually and issue the orders to all of them. Being able to order multiple units at a time a command is ruining the game. Also they need to remove the 'attack move' function. You should have to select each unit individually and individually select a target for each unit that you have. If you can't do that your too much of a noob and don't deserve to play SC. SC is for the competitive community and if you can't macro all your units individually your a noob, and don't deserve to play. Aphelion is onto something you really should all listen to him.
PS. If anyone couldn't tell I was being sarcastic
And your sarcasm is failing, since your reductio ad absurdum is one which has been used many times and debunked an equal amount of times.
There is a continuum between competitiveness and ease of use. The UI and the mechanical components it brings to the game are crucial to both its fun and competitiveness. The only question remains where on the continuum SC2 should be, but BW has shown that its current UI works extremely well for that. It remains, 9 years after its release, far and away the premier competitive RTS game.
MBS would remove much from the original game, and all the arguments here for MBS have yet to shown what will replace one of the core elements of macro beyond vague and uncertain suggestions.
MBS should be implemented in the game, however there should be an option in game that allows u to turn it on or off such as i have it on and u have it off and vice versa. ppl have to remember SC2 is made for all kinds of gamers. in order for blizzard to capture many gamers. it is essential to include MBS. its more of a personal taste than fairness or being pro like. if u think u r pro then u can turn the option off, and rest who think MBS is more convenient and easy to use then they can have it on. having MBS turned on or off does not contribute to game wins or losses nor does it make u noob or pro.
All players who play SC2 (or SC2 alpha) for the first time are to be considered newbs because it's a completely new game. So I don't expect e.g. Tasteless to say anything different than "ewww... the game is so easy", because he simply didn't have the need to be fast yet. In SC1 you are constantly busy, whether your opponent sucks or not. This will change when there are strong opponents with a good understanding of SC2 (not SC1).
i was sitting around playing this game with the greatest RTS minds from War3 and SC. While we played everyone was being VERY competitive and attempting to utilize everything that was in the game. Also note that this is not a "completely new game," it's very VERY similar to Starcraft. Most of the openings you'll be doing early on in SC2 will be surprisingly similar to the ones with SC1. Basically they've made the game 3D and recreated the tech tree while replacing some units with others. It's not THAT different.
The first game i played was a PvP where i went 10 12 gate like you can normally do in SC1, then after i had my ramp covered i got my cybernetics core (the name was diffrent but it's the building to get stalkers). I began pumping stalkers while upgrading the stalker blink ability (instead of getting dragoon range). I then added another gateway, used MBS to macro out of all three gates and went around harassing my opponent.
I'm not saying this is a pro build that will be used in SC2 when it's released, i'm saying the game is VERY easy to pick up because i played SC1 so much and these two games are quite similar. With that being said i don't think you can discount the arguments from the people who have actually played the game. I found MBS in combination with automining to be unbearably easy when compared to SC1.
I also said a lot more than "ewww the game is so easy." I loved SC2, the graphics, the new units, the sounds and music, my only complaint was the easiness of the interface and how it could upset the professional SC community while also lowering the skill gap. Do not put words in my mouth. The rest of your arguments have already been addressed pages back.
On December 02 2007 15:01 Aphelion wrote: BlackSphinx - thank you for illuminating me. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable of RTSes besides SC.
But I still believe that the essence and greatness of SC is this division between macro and micro, and the equal importance of both. A sequel needs to remain true to that spirit. And there is also no debating that MBS would decreasing multitasking - and I believe such a decrease will be very very significant.
SC is the greatest RTS made. It is not wise to take out a core feature of it with vague promises and uncertain ideas that you will "somehow add more features" to compensate for it.
That I can agree with, it's a point that is defensible. My dream SC2 is a game with SC1's action and WC3's control. It is not (and you can read that on 20 pages of text, flames, and funny stuff) what most here believe.
Now, I've read a nice sarcastic post on saying everything should be made mega hard, à la Dune 2. Too lazy to quote.
Well, really, I think SBS advocates and those that desire no change to the SC interface has a point and it's that 10 years of pwnz0r means something has been done right, somewhere, and that the game is in the middle as far as difficulty vs ease can be. While I believe the middle is a bit farther down the road of easiness, you can't argue with so long of an history.
Now, on saying that because the game is easier, you don't have to work as hard to defeat weaker opponents, that is not true. I've never seen an RTS (ever DoW) that you could just let up and expect to win, except against somebody so much weaker.
On December 03 2007 03:30 LastPizza wrote: MBS should be implemented in the game, however there should be an option in game that allows u to turn it on or off such as i have it on and u have it off and vice versa. ppl have to remember SC2 is made for all kinds of gamers. in order for blizzard to capture many gamers. it is essential to include MBS. its more of a personal taste than fairness or being pro like. if u think u r pro then u can turn the option off, and rest who think MBS is more convenient and easy to use then they can have it on. having MBS turned on or off does not contribute to game wins or losses nor does it make u noob or pro.
Please don't repeat arguments needlessly, what you suggested has been discussed countless times. Consider this a warning.
On December 02 2007 18:54 Markus wrote: I agree with Aphelion. SC2 should be as difficult as possible to play. Hence they need to make sure you cannot select more than 1 unit at a time. None of this having 3, 4, 8, 9 units all selected and issuing a order. You should have to select each of your units individually and issue the orders to all of them. Being able to order multiple units at a time a command is ruining the game. Also they need to remove the 'attack move' function. You should have to select each unit individually and individually select a target for each unit that you have. If you can't do that your too much of a noob and don't deserve to play SC. SC is for the competitive community and if you can't macro all your units individually your a noob, and don't deserve to play. Aphelion is onto something you really should all listen to him.
PS. If anyone couldn't tell I was being sarcastic
Not even gonna read past the first line - old argument, stop repeating it. Don't do this again plz. EDIT: Didn't mean for it to come out so harsh, just don't repeat this particular argument, it's been done to death.
On December 01 2007 10:16 SoleSteeler wrote: Hehe mani, that was because it was my 2nd game playing it in 2-3 years, and I was rusty... I know I could easily get it so I could spend my cash faster (that's what my problem was, not spending my money, couldn't keep making production buildings fast enough, I pretty much maxed out though in our ~10-15 minute game though).
In SC2 it would be even easier to keep spending because you can queue build orders... If I could have queued up 2 workers to build a bunch of farms, and then another worker or two to keep building production buildings it would be quite easy.
On December 03 2007 05:21 SoleSteeler wrote: God, everyone please read the thread before posting. All this shit has been brought up countless times before.
QFT, not to mention there's an entire thread about this, so it doesn't even require reading this thread.
It's important to point out, however, that MBS by itself can be "turned off" without any change in the code; the two players simply agree to not shift-click any of their buildings. Only problem is that the game wouldn't be balanced around this "fix", but a UMS map which alters the gameplay elements to reflect the self-imposed restriction could easily flourish.
On December 03 2007 05:21 SoleSteeler wrote: God, everyone please read the thread before posting. All this shit has been brought up countless times before.
QFT, not to mention there's an entire thread about this, so it doesn't even require reading this thread.
It's important to point out, however, that MBS by itself can be "turned off" without any change in the code; the two players simply agree to not shift-click any of their buildings. Only problem is that the game wouldn't be balanced around this "fix", but a UMS map which alters the gameplay elements to reflect the self-imposed restriction could easily flourish.
We ain't playing no fringe, gay-ass, UMS. We're the heirs to the best RTS ever. We will just go back to the old game.
On December 03 2007 05:21 SoleSteeler wrote: God, everyone please read the thread before posting. All this shit has been brought up countless times before.
QFT, not to mention there's an entire thread about this, so it doesn't even require reading this thread.
It's important to point out, however, that MBS by itself can be "turned off" without any change in the code; the two players simply agree to not shift-click any of their buildings. Only problem is that the game wouldn't be balanced around this "fix", but a UMS map which alters the gameplay elements to reflect the self-imposed restriction could easily flourish.
We ain't playing no fringe, gay-ass, UMS. We're the heirs to the best RTS ever. We will just go back to the old game.
Then, honestly, go back to BW and stop wasting our time, since BW will always be better at copying BW gameplay as exactly as possible than SC2.
If you disagree that this is what you want, look at your overall position: for every change that makes SC2 more than an expansion pack for SC, including the graphical changes (though those objections are more implied than outright stated), you argue that that change will hurt competitive play, and should thus be scrapped before the majority of the balance work begins. Such a position requires proof that an RTS with any/all of those changes will never be as (or even close to as) competitive as BW no matter what other changes are made, in order to justify scrapping them before playtesting. Such proofs are impossible to formulate. Just because BW is the best competitive RTS of all time does not mean that an RTS that is not a carbon copy of BW cannot match or exceed its competitive success.
Almost every other serious anti-MBSer accepts that change away from BW has the possibility of being good or at least neutral; why can't you?
There are changes that can hurt and changes that can help. MBS, is I believe, one of the former, and the reasons why we believe so are well documented in this thread. I cannot prove anything. But I can stipulate, and I can give well documented arguments for my stipulations.
It is a fact that many RTSes have come since SC and failed to measured up. It is a fact that they have an overemphasize upon ease of use, gimmicky features, and flashy graphics which have prevented them from being as competitive as BW. Is such a stretch, to argue that the same motivations would hurt a sequel of BW? I am not arguing against change for the sake of argument. I gave reasons specifically rooted in gameplay for my opposition. Are these arguments 100% prophetic? No. But they are more than whatever the MBS has come up with, which is basically either
1.) Wait and see what Blizzard comes up with or
2.) Why have artificial limitations! There is no skill involved in clicking, you should be able to win with 50APM!
MBS people keep saying that we can't tell what the game is like before seeing it! Blizzcon players only played it for a day, you are all noobs right now, you can't tell how game play with be like! With you guys basically shoving away all concrete data, isn't it hypocritical to ask us to come up with concrete proof?
Lastly, I will never ever ever settle for a UMS game being the core competitive game. It is insulting, it is fringe, and it has no chance at either expanding its player base or having a competitive proscene. The major benefit of SC2 is that it will make the SC franchise mainstream again, and that it will introduce the competitive pro scene to newer players and give it a broader audience. Having an special UMS map or "option" will take away from all that. If that is the solution offered to anti-MBSers, I will go back to BW. And I'll be staying there indefinitely.
SC has proven the current UI works. It is not up to us to refute your change-for-change sake ideas. We do not have to show that it is definitely impossible for a game with MBS to work - although we have given several arguments which strongly suggest so. No, the arguments we have given are sufficient - the burden of proof is upon you to positively show that MBS improves the gameplay and further retains SC's great and unique characteristics. We have BW and 9 years of RTS history on our side. What have you?
The SC2 map editor will be very powerful. It is said that the WC3 map editor is also powerful (I've never seen/tried it), and the SC2 one will be even more powerful. This means that if one aspect of the game (e.g. MBS) sucks and there is no official patch planned to deal with that problem, then the community itself can balance the game. If the resulting UMS maps turn out to be really great, then there's no problem in using them for competitive play. It's not like every UMS has to be a fun map. By the way, most competitive players already play on UMS maps often. (1v1 maps with observer slots - you can't have that in normal melee mode. The community worked around that problem already).
And about the "We have 9 years and the success BW on our side": I'll repeat an old argument (because yours is old too): when people speak of why BW is so successful as an e-sport, they always mention balance, depth, uniqueness of the races, but never the UI. What proof do you have that the restrictive UI is truly necessary for the game to be competitive? So you see, we have no proofs, but you don't really have some either. I agree that big changes always involve a risk, but the pro MBS side has given enough reasonable speculation already why it's a good idea to at least try to implement MBS, and only remove it if it definately doesn't work at all. But until the game is more complete, we really can't say that yet.
On December 03 2007 18:10 Aphelion wrote: There are changes that can hurt and changes that can help. MBS, is I believe, one of the former, and the reasons why we believe so are well documented in this thread. I cannot prove anything. But I can stipulate, and I can give well documented arguments for my stipulations.
I don't have much time right now, but I will comment on this, as it's a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument - there is no us, my argument was directed solely at your (Aphelion's) position that MBS should be removed before playtesting, as the game needs to be constructed around the UI and Blizzard shouldn't waste their time balancing around an UI which will never be competitive. The fact that Blizzard is one of the few companies that can spend another "half of a development cycle" rebalancing around SBS if MBS didn't work (likely less, since they have BW to work off in that case) aside, this position requires proof that trying to make a highly competitive game with MBS is impossible. Else, there's no reason why Blizzard shouldn't at least playtest the game before making a decision on whether MBS is competitively viable.
If you are willing to allow MBS to be playtested, I fully accept your and others right to voice concerns on how MBS will affect SC2 based on how it affects SC, and those concerns are valuable in pinpointing possible problem areas that the design team will need to work on.
On December 03 2007 19:33 Brutalisk wrote: The SC2 map editor will be very powerful. It is said that the WC3 map editor is also powerful (I've never seen/tried it), and the SC2 one will be even more powerful. This means that if one aspect of the game (e.g. MBS) sucks and there is no official patch planned to deal with that problem, then the community itself can balance the game. If the resulting UMS maps turn out to be really great, then there's no problem in using them for competitive play. It's not like every UMS has to be a fun map. By the way, most competitive players already play on UMS maps often. (1v1 maps with observer slots - you can't have that in normal melee mode. The community worked around that problem already).
And about the "We have 9 years and the success BW on our side": I'll repeat an old argument (because yours is old too): when people speak of why BW is so successful as an e-sport, they always mention balance, depth, uniqueness of the races, but never the UI. What proof do you have that the restrictive UI is truly necessary for the game to be competitive? So you see, we have no proofs, but you don't really have some either. I agree that big changes always involve a risk, but the pro MBS side has given enough reasonable speculation already why it's a good idea to at least try to implement MBS, and only remove it if it definately doesn't work at all. But until the game is more complete, we really can't say that yet.
I hate to post in such silly threads, but I have to call you out on BS on this one. Even though they don't mention the UI in their critiques it is implied when they say it is the best RTS game ever and the most balanced. You have to read in between the lines. You guys keep going back and forth on this subject. I don't know what more to say because almost everyone is blind on the matter unless they actually tested part of the alpha and from the three day experience I think it is safe to say that it will in fact hurt balance but take that with a grain of salt because Blizz still has over a year to fix things.
You might say they will add new features i.e. creeping to make it more complicated but I have yet to see anything that stresses anymore management from the actual player. What if they add more special abilities/spells for units? Not going to happen because Blizzard according to Blizzard right now because they already said they will keep the same number of spells for units and template: move, stop, attack, patrol, spells, etc.
The problem that myself and many others are realising, is that SC2 is being built off the warcraft 3 model rather than the starcraft model. Instead of taking starcraft and building apon that, theyve taken warcraft 3, and worked towards starcrafting it up. Its because of this, that the dev team is using warcraft 3 features such MBS as something that is just logically there.
Now its a long shot asking for this, but I think that when it comes round to beta testing time, there needs to be 2 betas. One which is SBS and one which is MBS. A few weeks of thousands of people playing online with both versions and we'll see very quickly where the public stands. I think that more people would be playing the MBS version, but the SBS version will have a much more alive and exciting scene. It will also give insight to players reactions when comparing the two, allowing blizzard to accurately gauge the effects of either implementation.
On December 04 2007 03:58 Fen wrote: The problem that myself and many others are realising, is that SC2 is being built off the warcraft 3 model rather than the starcraft model.
Whatever gives you that idea? Aside from MBS and automining, which had close to zero impact on War3's gameplay, how is SC2 anywhere even close to War3? Have you even played War3 for any length of time?
On December 04 2007 03:58 Fen wrote: The problem that myself and many others are realising, is that SC2 is being built off the warcraft 3 model rather than the starcraft model.
Whatever gives you that idea? Aside from MBS and automining, which had close to zero impact on War3's gameplay, how is SC2 anywhere even close to War3? Have you even played War3 for any length of time?
This really isnt even an argumentative post. Its just a stupid one.
Yes ive played lots of warcraft 3. Obviously it looks different and plays different, but that is due to changing emphasis on units and buildings and the artwork. The UI of warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 are almost identical, with only the real difference being SC2's higher unit cap.
This is perhaps the main thing that leans me toward being pro-MBS. Basically, as the game goes on, the game becomes more and more macro based and the following occurs, assuming no MBS:
1. If you want/need to neglect micro at the front lines, you can attack move your groups, and at least do OK in most situations. If you attack move to the wrong spot or at the wrong time, it's not necessarily the end of the world (although in some situations it is, so you need to know when to slack) since your troops will either do some damage or wait till you can get back to them.
2. If you want/need to neglect macro (as in building units/workers/base management) for a time while you micro on the front lines, you automatically fall behind in the big picutre unless you are at a critical junction... like a timed push. Why? Because you can't pick when to build units, you have to build them every so many seconds or you get behind. You can pick when you want to attack in most instances... so you can be slack there, but not ever slack on macro.
In a nutshell, that is it. My other argument, which is perhaps beaten to death, is just that there is always room to improve micro on any game that goes beyond the 6 minute mark... pro or no. The only way I see is to slow down the game or put in MBS.
OK, I probably won't post on this for another 4 months, but I felt compelled today to say something as this topic is always at the top of the forum.
On December 04 2007 03:58 Fen wrote: Now its a long shot asking for this, but I think that when it comes round to beta testing time, there needs to be 2 betas. One which is SBS and one which is MBS. A few weeks of thousands of people playing online with both versions and we'll see very quickly where the public stands. I think that more people would be playing the MBS version, but the SBS version will have a much more alive and exciting scene. It will also give insight to players reactions when comparing the two, allowing blizzard to accurately gauge the effects of either implementation.
This isn't actually that difficult, as I've said all you need is for both beta testers to agree to not shift-click their buildings, and boom, you've got SBS. Unfortunately, there's likely to be at least a few imbalances due to the fact that the game is designed assuming both players are using MBS, but I still think it's a good experiment to run.
On December 04 2007 03:58 Fen wrote: The problem that myself and many others are realising, is that SC2 is being built off the warcraft 3 model rather than the starcraft model.
Whatever gives you that idea? Aside from MBS and automining, which had close to zero impact on War3's gameplay, how is SC2 anywhere even close to War3? Have you even played War3 for any length of time?
This really isnt even an argumentative post. Its just a stupid one.
Yes ive played lots of warcraft 3. Obviously it looks different and plays different, but that is due to changing emphasis on units and buildings and the artwork. The UI of warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 are almost identical, with only the real difference being SC2's higher unit cap.
No where in your previous post do you refer specifically to the UI. Express yourself more clearly, because otherwise that kind of argument "SC2 is turning into War3" has been debunked like 1000 times.
On December 02 2007 22:43 NotSorry wrote: Another point that seems to get over looked is just how powerful MBS will be for focus firing you're static defenses, such a sunkens and and cannons. Being able to mass selection those and focus them makes them extreme more dangerous than they were before.
This really isnt a problem of MBS. Its just something that will have to be balanced.
Im an advocate for anti-MBS, but I dont mind having MBS as long as ure screen is centered on the buildings while they are selected, which would allow you to focus fire defenses. The only reason I want SBS is so a player cant spend the entire game babysitting his army and macroin with a couple of hotkeys. I want them to be forced to move their view around the map, bouncing back and forth between their base and their troops to keep everything running smooth. If you could double click your barracks and select all of them on screen, Id have no problems. But if you could hotkey groups of barrack's so you dont have to return to base to macro, then thats when I draw the line and say no.
I think this is a fair sacrifice. The noob players are not going to hotkey their buildings anyways. They just want the ability to select a bunch of them and expend all their money. The more competative gamers, well they should man up.
I like this idea. I still also like the tab idea (you can MBS, but you have to hit tab to go through each building)
Having SBS does two things:
1.) makes players look away from their units to manage their base. players must make decision as to whether they should micro, or macro 2.) takes time to select each building. speed issue, the faster a player is, the better he macro he will have
Fen's idea incorporates 1., and tab (sort of, pressing tab is faster than clicking, for some) incorporates 2.
Would it be pointless to suggest the combination of both? So let's say you can only hot key one building at a time. You hit 5 it selects your barracks, you hit 5 again and it centers on that barracks, just like now. Only now, you can double click that rax (if it's in your vision), and select all the other barracks around it, and you can cycle through each one with tab. So, 5, 5, double click, m tab m tab m tab m tab m tab m tab etc.
Am I just being silly, or is that a fair compromise?
I don't really like it. It's obvious if I double click or click drag a building I want all those buildings to produce a unit otherwise why bother? That's the goal of a UI to be responsive to what you want it to do. It might help because now you can hotkey all your barracks to one control group and tab build... but it's still a weird limitation.
Not really that strange of a limitation, you don't always want to build 12 marines with 12 barracks; sometimes you want to make 6 marines, 3 firebats, 3 medics. etc.
edit: and it's also pretty much how it is in War3, since you rarely have more than 1-2 of the same production building, tab cycles through your different subgroups. So you hit "0", hit f, build 2 footmen, tab, hit s, build 2 sorcs etc.
I think the whole notion of having "two game modes", that is to say, the ability to toggle MBS on or off, is a bit silly. It would serve only to fragment the community by introducing a "newbie mode" that most casual players would use, and their skill would generally be very low which would limit their activity to those games only. Essentially, SC2 would be a lot less active because even in BW, newbies and good players are playing the same game. If you gave no option for MBS, this would basically "force" everyone to raise their skill whether they like it or not, and if you are honest with yourself I'm sure you will find that the more tasks you perform and the more difficult the game is to master, the more rewarding it is when you finally do get better. I won't even go into what MBS could do to the competitive scene, because I think the general consensus is that it would destroy it and I don't want to beat a dead horse.
On December 04 2007 03:58 Fen wrote: Now its a long shot asking for this, but I think that when it comes round to beta testing time, there needs to be 2 betas. One which is SBS and one which is MBS. A few weeks of thousands of people playing online with both versions and we'll see very quickly where the public stands. I think that more people would be playing the MBS version, but the SBS version will have a much more alive and exciting scene. It will also give insight to players reactions when comparing the two, allowing blizzard to accurately gauge the effects of either implementation.
This isn't actually that difficult, as I've said all you need is for both beta testers to agree to not shift-click their buildings, and boom, you've got SBS. Unfortunately, there's likely to be at least a few imbalances due to the fact that the game is designed assuming both players are using MBS, but I still think it's a good experiment to run.
The first time I saw you post this idea, I assumed you were being sarcastic. However posting it again makes me believe that you are not. And if you are not being sarcastic you are just being a moron.
Everyone in this topic should agree that both sides of the argument should be tested in public beta. If you do not, your leaving no room for the fact that your theorycrafting could be wrong. And if your unable to be openminded about this, you should get the hell out of this discussion.
On December 04 2007 03:58 Fen wrote: Now its a long shot asking for this, but I think that when it comes round to beta testing time, there needs to be 2 betas. One which is SBS and one which is MBS. A few weeks of thousands of people playing online with both versions and we'll see very quickly where the public stands. I think that more people would be playing the MBS version, but the SBS version will have a much more alive and exciting scene. It will also give insight to players reactions when comparing the two, allowing blizzard to accurately gauge the effects of either implementation.
This isn't actually that difficult, as I've said all you need is for both beta testers to agree to not shift-click their buildings, and boom, you've got SBS. Unfortunately, there's likely to be at least a few imbalances due to the fact that the game is designed assuming both players are using MBS, but I still think it's a good experiment to run.
The first time I saw you post this idea, I assumed you were being sarcastic. However posting it again makes me believe that you are not. And if you are not being sarcastic you are just being a moron.
Everyone in this topic should agree that both sides of the argument should be tested in public beta. If you do not, your leaving no room for the fact that your theorycrafting could be wrong. And if your unable to be openminded about this, you should get the hell out of this discussion.
Huh? I'm agreeing with you that both sides should be tried out, I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't require changes to the codebase to play with SBS: if both players don't shift-click their buildings, they will be playing with SBS, since shift-clicking is (currently) the only way to select multiple buildings. Therefore, it's easier to test SBS in SC2 than you originally surmised; all you have to do is create custom melee games with "SBS" in the title, and let the community know that in such games shift-clicking buildings is not allowed.
Now, if you mean that there should be two seperate beta versions of SC2, with one's gameplay balanced around SBS and the other's gameplay balanced around MBS, that's different, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
On December 04 2007 08:22 SoleSteeler wrote: Not really that strange of a limitation, you don't always want to build 12 marines with 12 barracks; sometimes you want to make 6 marines, 3 firebats, 3 medics. etc.
edit: and it's also pretty much how it is in War3, since you rarely have more than 1-2 of the same production building, tab cycles through your different subgroups. So you hit "0", hit f, build 2 footmen, tab, hit s, build 2 sorcs etc.
The concept is quite intuitive
In war3 you cycle through different buildings. So you can group barrack with arcane sanctum and cycle between them. What he is suggesting is that each individual barrack has to be tab cycle through.
And chances are you want to keep macro up and use all your barracks all the time otherwise you putting them to waste. On the off chance you don't want to build from all 12 barracks you can shift deselect the barracks off.
Shift-deselecting buildings takes time and opens some mistake probabilities, same goes when you want to build various units from several buildings of the same type. That's why I'm all for multi-production without the need for tabbing. I'm against drag-select buildings though.
On December 04 2007 17:43 Brutalisk wrote: That's OK for testing purposes but once the game is released you can't expect that players can trust other players not to use MBS if it is available.
Even in testing you cannot trust people. This is the internet folks, random members of the public are not going to adhere to gentlemen agreements when there is absolutly no reason to. There needs to be a SBS build that limits players. That way, everyone will try it out, and we can see what real rections are. Not just 20 BW players who decided to make an agreement not to use a certain feature.
On December 04 2007 22:59 Manit0u wrote: Shift-deselecting buildings takes time and opens some mistake probabilities, same goes when you want to build various units from several buildings of the same type. That's why I'm all for multi-production without the need for tabbing. I'm against drag-select buildings though.
I always thought that skill requirements and the possibility for mistakes go hand in hand.
First off i would like to say that im not really for or against mbs. I feel that i need to see how MBS works out before making up my mind and also i dont feel like i have enough starcraft experience to participate in a MBS vs. SBS discussion.
But what about making it impossible to hotkey several buildings into one group. This could be made by simply displaying a little error message when trying to do so.
This would force players to still go back to their base to produce their units and they will have to actually go to their expansions to create new workers rather than just staying in the battle pressing "9s" every 20 seconds.
The "noobs" that will probably just play the singleplayer and maybe some games with a friend or whatever probably wont be hotkeying their buildings anyway and will be happy enough just being able to select all their buildings quickly.
This idea has probably already been brought up but as i see it is a good middle way between the two options. If anyone sees a big flaw in this please inform me.
On December 05 2007 00:55 Lazerflip! wrote: I don't see why pro-MBS people are even given the credibility of an open discussion. The idea is just plain insulting.
An answer for your level: You are playing a game that has a n00bified version of Warcraft 2's UI. How's that feel? Then, if you have a higher IQ than a pile of crap, you'll say "yeah but it's necessary because the old UI sucked hard". Then, if you have a higher IQ than a monkey, you'll *know* why this discussion exists at all.
On December 05 2007 00:55 Lazerflip! wrote: I don't see why pro-MBS people are even given the credibility of an open discussion. The idea is just plain insulting.
An answer for your level: You are playing a game that has a n00bified version of Warcraft 2's UI. How's that feel? Then, if you have a higher IQ than a pile of crap, you'll say "yeah but it's necessary because the old UI sucked hard". Then, if you have a higher IQ than a monkey, you'll *know* why this discussion exists at all.
On December 05 2007 00:55 Lazerflip! wrote: I don't see why pro-MBS people are even given the credibility of an open discussion. The idea is just plain insulting.
Don't do this.
BTW, I think if I see people using the 'Dune' argument again (or people responding to it with similarily stupid arguments), I'll just start handing out insta-bans.
What if eveytime you build a unit your screen moves to that building regardless of hotkey using, or some kind of mechanism that makes your come back to your base several times during the game, other than that i dont think MBS will impact the game negatively if sc2 is balanced with that in mind, and i dont see a reason why the game couldnt carry on the awesome sc1 felling of micro and macro.
Having to go back to your base to build a building is hardly a relevant issue. It takes 2 seconds to make a building, and you only make like 20-30 buildings the entire game.
On December 05 2007 15:00 D10 wrote: What if eveytime you build a unit your screen moves to that building regardless of hotkey using, or some kind of mechanism that makes your come back to your base several times during the game, other than that i dont think MBS will impact the game negatively if sc2 is balanced with that in mind, and i dont see a reason why the game couldnt carry on the awesome sc1 felling of micro and macro.
Motion sickness from having your screen jump between 30 gateways would be pretty bad.
On December 06 2007 00:20 stk01001 wrote: Having to go back to your base to build a building is hardly a relevant issue. It takes 2 seconds to make a building, and you only make like 20-30 buildings the entire game.
Thanks for saying that, I can now use it as an anti-MBS argument. I will talk about the ideal case first, TvZ only.
Lets say the game takes 20 minutes. You make ~30 buildings which takes 60 seconds. So placing buildings is 5% of your gameplay.
Lets say it takes 1 second to produce one set of units in the early game, 3 seconds in the middle game and 5 seconds in the late game. We take only early game and middle game into consideration so we simply take 2 seconds for producing one set of units. Marines/firebats finish after 24 seconds. Medics 30 seconds. Tanks 50 seconds. Vessels 80 seconds. Since you build marines most of the time we take only their build time into consideration and forget the rest. In a 20 minute game you produce ~45 sets of marines (the first 2 minutes don't count) which takes 90 seconds. So producing marines is 7,5% of your gameplay.
Conclusion: In case of MBS we end up sparing 12,5% of our gameplay in an ideal case. We all know that there is no ideal case in SC so we must round up to at least 15%.
15% of your gameplay is lost through MBS. This is 30% of our macro-management.
Even more is lost through automining so we may end up "sparing" 40% of our macro-management in SC2.
On December 03 2007 06:52 SoleSteeler wrote: I'm curious, then, Tasteless: what was determining the winner in most cases? Better micro?
better micro.
There just wasn't enough to do to get ahead in other ways. I'm sure there will be tons of cool rushes and stuff like that, but it seems like they want macro to be as easy as possible.
Taking away macro in SCII, which the current proposed automations do, is basically the same as reducing micro for WC4.
Starcraft was great because it was a two sided game. It had both macro and micro while many other RTS games didn't. And while we actually dream about a future with RTS games that are three sided or four sided, improving on SC, it seems that the Blizzcon build was one sided like Tasteless describes.
That's kind of a shame, that they are watering down such an amazingly complex game into a one-dimensional BOfest. If you have ever played C&C3, you know what I'm talking about. Please don't let them turn SC2 into C&C3!
On December 04 2007 11:59 Lazerflip! wrote: I think the whole notion of having "two game modes", that is to say, the ability to toggle MBS on or off, is a bit silly. It would serve only to fragment the community by introducing a "newbie mode" that most casual players would use, and their skill would generally be very low which would limit their activity to those games only. Essentially, SC2 would be a lot less active because even in BW, newbies and good players are playing the same game. If you gave no option for MBS, this would basically "force" everyone to raise their skill whether they like it or not, and if you are honest with yourself I'm sure you will find that the more tasks you perform and the more difficult the game is to master, the more rewarding it is when you finally do get better. I won't even go into what MBS could do to the competitive scene, because I think the general consensus is that it would destroy it and I don't want to beat a dead horse.
Actually casual noob sc:bw players play BGH and FMP or Zero Clutter, then you have the real players playing pro maps and what not. I see no difference.
Eventually they may graduate on to pro maps and join the competition.
On December 04 2007 11:59 Lazerflip! wrote: I think the whole notion of having "two game modes", that is to say, the ability to toggle MBS on or off, is a bit silly. It would serve only to fragment the community by introducing a "newbie mode" that most casual players would use, and their skill would generally be very low which would limit their activity to those games only. Essentially, SC2 would be a lot less active because even in BW, newbies and good players are playing the same game. If you gave no option for MBS, this would basically "force" everyone to raise their skill whether they like it or not, and if you are honest with yourself I'm sure you will find that the more tasks you perform and the more difficult the game is to master, the more rewarding it is when you finally do get better. I won't even go into what MBS could do to the competitive scene, because I think the general consensus is that it would destroy it and I don't want to beat a dead horse.
Actually casual noob sc:bw players play BGH and FMP or Zero Clutter, then you have the real players playing pro maps and what not. I see no difference.
Eventually they may graduate on to pro maps and join the competition.
In contrast, many noob war3 players play regular ladder games; be it 1on1 or RT. Once you start playing BGH/Zero Clutter maps you choose a different path than the "practice hard, go pro" route since not much of your skill will carry over from the money maps to ladder play.
Warcraft III, if anything, has shown that unification of the players is a good thing. The AMM ladder enables people to quickly find fair games against evenly matched opponents (disregarding the smurf-factor), which makes the game very easy to get into (a push of a button), compared to SC where there can be quite a hassle to find a good game, especially for someone just starting out. The War3 AMM ladder ensures that players will start out with the same set of rules regardless of skill level and that what they learn will indeed make them better players.
In StarCraft, new players might be inclined to start playing money maps because they're easier (essentially stripping away a huge part of the core game). However doing so essentially dooms them, as they won't learn the basics of the core game, and thus will have a hard time "graduating on to pro maps".
but the crucial thing i see from MBS and the SBS sides is what will happen to competition. The new thing im bringing to this thread is that the essence of competition means that everybody wont have to skills needed to go pro.
The MBS side pretty much thinks that well if i want to do things as fast as i think them up and the game should help me out to make that how i play.
The SBS side come across as accepting the fact that they have to put the training time in to be able to act out what they think as fast. This i think is the only way to go if it comes competition. Whether or not this sells as an awesome game for 12 year old DoW addicts .... who knows.
Hopefully blizzard will be able to make the choices necessary for both. I dont see it happen however because the money that may be lost by not doing the MBS may be too many. Long live brood war
On December 04 2007 11:59 Lazerflip! wrote: I think the whole notion of having "two game modes", that is to say, the ability to toggle MBS on or off, is a bit silly. It would serve only to fragment the community by introducing a "newbie mode" that most casual players would use, and their skill would generally be very low which would limit their activity to those games only. Essentially, SC2 would be a lot less active because even in BW, newbies and good players are playing the same game. If you gave no option for MBS, this would basically "force" everyone to raise their skill whether they like it or not, and if you are honest with yourself I'm sure you will find that the more tasks you perform and the more difficult the game is to master, the more rewarding it is when you finally do get better. I won't even go into what MBS could do to the competitive scene, because I think the general consensus is that it would destroy it and I don't want to beat a dead horse.
Actually casual noob sc:bw players play BGH and FMP or Zero Clutter, then you have the real players playing pro maps and what not. I see no difference.
Eventually they may graduate on to pro maps and join the competition.
I would imagine it's a much smoother transition from playing BGH into playing legitimate maps than it is to make the transition from MBS to regular play.
I also want to know; what are we DOING to let Blizzard know what a mistake MBS would be? Almost everyone agrees at least in SOME WAY that it would dumb down the gameplay severely and be a disservice to the SC community and the RTS community in general, yet as it stands, Blizzard STILL PLANS TO IMPLEMENT MBS. Something has to be done before this whole silly idea gets too set in stone and Blizzard becomes unwilling to change. You don't want the Alpha/Beta builds to be your last chance to convince them of their blunder, because by that point it may be too far gone.
On December 06 2007 08:53 MyLostTemple wrote: better micro.
There just wasn't enough to do to get ahead in other ways. I'm sure there will be tons of cool rushes and stuff like that, but it seems like they want macro to be as easy as possible.
What does this sound like to you? I know what it sounds like to me...Warcraft 3. And I doubt ANY of you want that.
On December 06 2007 22:41 _PulSe_ wrote: I dont see it happen however because the money that may be lost by not doing the MBS may be too many. Long live brood war
No money will be lost at all. This is irrational fear.
ROFL how would not implementing MBS make Blizzard lose money? The layperson has absolutely no idea what MBS even is and doesn't care either way, and the people that DO care about MBS are going to buy SC2 regardless of whether they implement it or not, so the only deciding factor is the qualify of gameplay, which obviously points in every way to the exclusion of MBS. Think a little bit.
On December 06 2007 23:58 Lazerflip! wrote: Think a little bit.
And you'll understand that you make as much assumptions when stating that mbs will make Blizzard lose money. You will also understand that there are huge differences between starcraft and warcraft 3 even if you don't count the UI. And you will also understand that CnC3 will never and wouldn't ever touch starcraft even if it had the same UI, however it would hurt its sales a ton which would rule it out from wcg instantly.
Generally you are just spamming uneducated shit here and the effect you give is only making the anti-mbs side look bad. If you don't even understand how extremely crucial a good UI is for game sales...
In my eyes MBS and that 150-selection-cap are features that fulfill the same need that potential cheaters feel. They can't compete so they get a helping hand. In SC there was/is a cheat called multi-command which allowed the cheater to produce units from all his barracks at the same time, to give commands to all of his units with just 1 key, etc. With that cheat an average player can handle things as well as a progamer or even better. A skill jump from say 60% to 90%.
I want to give you a clear view of what I see happening in SC2. In SC we have people complaining "omg I just got beaten by a 3-month-newb, I must train more" but in SC2 they will say "omg I've trained for 1 more year but I still don't have a better percentage against these newbies". A horror-scenario.
On December 07 2007 01:06 ForAdun wrote: In my eyes MBS and that 150-selection-cap are features that fulfill the same need that potential cheaters feel. They can't compete so they get a helping hand. In SC there was/is a cheat called multi-command which allowed the cheater to produce units from all his barracks at the same time, to give commands to all of his units with just 1 key, etc. With that cheat an average player can handle things as well as a progamer or even better. A skill jump from say 60% to 90%.
I want to give you a clear view of what I see happening in SC2. In SC we have people complaining "omg I just got beaten by a 3-month-newb, I must train more" but in SC2 they will say "omg I've trained for 1 more year but I still don't have a better percentage against these newbies". A horror-scenario.
Truth: Different people have different skill caps.
Starcraft is one of the few games were everyone can continue and climb since the dumb UI means that even the dumbest person benefits from 10 more effective apm.
Not having mbs in the game is like forcing soccer players to play with boots. It hurts the players a lot more than it adds to the game, and yes lack of mbs hurts players since it forces them to train 24/7 just to learn to click buildings as fast as possible and in the end when everyone train as equally we will have exactly the same people on top as with mbs.
On December 07 2007 01:06 ForAdun wrote: In my eyes MBS and that 150-selection-cap are features that fulfill the same need that potential cheaters feel. They can't compete so they get a helping hand. In SC there was/is a cheat called multi-command which allowed the cheater to produce units from all his barracks at the same time, to give commands to all of his units with just 1 key, etc. With that cheat an average player can handle things as well as a progamer or even better. A skill jump from say 60% to 90%.
I want to give you a clear view of what I see happening in SC2. In SC we have people complaining "omg I just got beaten by a 3-month-newb, I must train more" but in SC2 they will say "omg I've trained for 1 more year but I still don't have a better percentage against these newbies". A horror-scenario.
Truth: Different people have different skill caps.
Starcraft is one of the few games were everyone can continue and climb since the dumb UI means that even the dumbest person benefits from 10 more effective apm.
Not having mbs in the game is like forcing soccer players to play with boots. It hurts the players a lot more than it adds to the game, and yes lack of mbs hurts players since it forces them to train 24/7 just to learn to click buildings as fast as possible and in the end when everyone train as equally we will have exactly the same people on top as with mbs.
Nobody is forced to train at all. That counters your whole argument, sorry.
On December 07 2007 00:18 Klockan3 wrote: Generally you are just spamming uneducated shit here and the effect you give is only making the anti-mbs side look bad. If you don't even understand how extremely crucial a good UI is for game sales...
Yes, Klockan is posting scientifically proved theories and he has the evidence to back it all up.
On December 07 2007 01:19 Klockan3 wrote: Not having mbs in the game is like forcing soccer players to play with boots. It hurts the players a lot more than it adds to the game, and yes lack of mbs hurts players since it forces them to train 24/7 just to learn to click buildings as fast as possible and in the end when everyone train as equally we will have exactly the same people on top as with mbs.
A brilliant example of this.
Players are NOT forced to do anything to play a game but just play.
Competative gamers will approach this game with a drive to learn how to play, because they know that learning the mechanics is how to get better. As long as the game is considered a good competative medium, competative gamers will have the drive to get good at it, regardless of what is required of the player to be the best. They will chose to train to make themselves better.
Casual gamers will approach the game with an attitude of "I want to do something fun". If they think winning is fun, then they will head on the path of the competative gamer. If they think units killing other units is fun (which will be the pulling factor of 90% of casual gamers), then the sucess of the game has to do with how exciting the battles are. MBS will mean little to these people, at most it will be a slight annoyance. MBS will not break the game for casual gamers.
On December 07 2007 01:59 Fen wrote: Casual gamers will approach the game with an attitude of "I want to do something fun". If they think winning is fun, then they will head on the path of the competative gamer. If they think units killing other units is fun (which will be the pulling factor of 90% of casual gamers), then the sucess of the game has to do with how exciting the battles are. MBS will mean little to these people, at most it will be a slight annoyance. MBS will not break the game for casual gamers.
Then the problem comes, most not so hardcore players don't consider it fun to have to micro their buildings making the game frustrating for them instead of fun.
A better anbalogy is, would you play an FPS wich doesn't have any mouselook in it? Edit: Or analog thumbsticks, i mean clear cut keyboard FPS like most of them released before starcraft.
Second edit: And to make myself clear to the mods, im arguing about the casaul draw of including MBS, saying that MBS wont effect how casauls view the game is naive at best.
Your comparisons are ludicrous. A more fair comparison would be "MBS is to RTS, as Auto-aim is to FPS".
I will reiterate my previous point; these players new to SC aren't familiar with the MBS debate, and won't care either way. And to quote the old adage, "why change a winning formula"?
On December 05 2007 15:00 D10 wrote: What if eveytime you build a unit your screen moves to that building regardless of hotkey using, or some kind of mechanism that makes your come back to your base several times during the game, other than that i dont think MBS will impact the game negatively if sc2 is balanced with that in mind, and i dont see a reason why the game couldnt carry on the awesome sc1 felling of micro and macro.
Motion sickness from having your screen jump between 30 gateways would be pretty bad.
Hmm... 30 gateways. With a scale factor of 4 units per second, that would be 7.5 seconds your screen will be on your gateways (.25 seconds per gateway).
FA, I don't think D10 meant to switch back to the battlefield and gateways 30 times. Just once. If 8 gateways, it's a 2-second event. If 30 gateways, 7.5 seconds worth.
On December 07 2007 02:59 Lazerflip! wrote: I will reiterate my previous point; these players new to SC aren't familiar with the MBS debate, and won't care either way. And to quote the old adage, "why change a winning formula"?
I've played starcraft from the very begining unlike you.
Its mostly those who have played a lot the latest years wich dislike mbs, atleast from my experience people who hasn't played a lot of starcraft the latest years but still played a lot of starcraft earlier is for mbs. If im wrong can someone please correct me, but aint most people here at TL fairly new to playing starcraft a lot, lets say you started to play a lot 3 years ago, or atleast after wc3?
I would be interested in seeing what the people who played more hardcore the first years have to say.
On December 07 2007 02:59 Lazerflip! wrote: Your comparisons are ludicrous. A more fair comparison would be "MBS is to RTS, as Auto-aim is to FPS".
Your comparison is also ludicrous. MBS is nothing like Auto aim, and we could spend all day thinking of what MBS is lie, but it wouldn't help the debate so lets not.
On December 07 2007 02:59 Lazerflip! wrote: I will reiterate my previous point; these players new to SC aren't familiar with the MBS debate, and won't care either way. And to quote the old adage, "why change a winning formula"?
I've played starcraft from the very begining unlike you.
Its mostly those who have played a lot the latest years wich dislike mbs, atleast from my experience people who hasn't played a lot of starcraft the latest years but still played a lot of starcraft earlier is for mbs. If im wrong can someone please correct me, but aint most people here at TL fairly new to playing starcraft a lot, lets say you started to play a lot 3 years ago, or atleast after wc3?
I would be interested in seeing what the people who played more hardcore the first years have to say.
People like me? I started playing and training SC:BW nearly 6 years ago. I've been following the progaming scene from the very beginning and I had some "gosu" oldschool friends that are mostly unknown these days. I've also been following more known gamers/clans. Like GG were Elky was member. I loved the feeling at that time and sometimes in the past years I wished these times back. In the end I always accepted that things were changing drastically, I've changed with them. I trained even harder to stay close to "gosu" and besides training myself I'm also trying to help out average players to become much better. I have about 20k replays, 1000 vods, 10k observed games and 10k own games banked in my mind. Don't know how much for real, I only know it's a whole lot. Before all that - the first 2 years of SC - I played single player only because I had no internet. Then I played LoD for a while and I don't know why but after that I got interested in playing SC again, this time multiplayer. Sometimes I went more or less inactive but all in all I kept playing, watching, following. WC3 came out and I knew that it sucks beforehand. I still blame friends who started playing it. Most of them came back after a while and said that I was right. I never gave a damn about graphics. I always knew that this trend was bad, even before I started training I knew it, when I was just another bloody newbie.
I'm against MBS because of all that. Because of that knowledge about the game and the competition and the progaming scene. I've been talking to many of my friends in the internet about their opinions and I blame every single of them who wants to play SC2 just because everyone else will play it and not because they think it will be better than SC. That mentality just stinks. I've been arguing a lot in this forum because I want as many people to think about it as possible. I want them to think twice before they jump off board. I want to let all of them know what they'll be missing if SC2 turns out to be any worse than SC.
SC isn't holy, it's just the best PC game of all time. If SC2 shall follow its footsteps then Blizzard has to goddamn realize what they are actually doing. They have to wake up, listen to us oldschoolers and learn from it.
On December 07 2007 02:59 Lazerflip! wrote: I will reiterate my previous point; these players new to SC aren't familiar with the MBS debate, and won't care either way. And to quote the old adage, "why change a winning formula"?
I've played starcraft from the very begining unlike you.
Its mostly those who have played a lot the latest years wich dislike mbs, atleast from my experience people who hasn't played a lot of starcraft the latest years but still played a lot of starcraft earlier is for mbs. If im wrong can someone please correct me, but aint most people here at TL fairly new to playing starcraft a lot, lets say you started to play a lot 3 years ago, or atleast after wc3?
I would be interested in seeing what the people who played more hardcore the first years have to say.
People like me? I started playing and training SC:BW nearly 6 years ago. I've been following the progaming scene from the very beginning and I had some "gosu" oldschool friends that are mostly unknown these days. I've also been following more known gamers/clans. Like GG were Elky was member. I loved the feeling at that time and sometimes in the past years I wished these times back. In the end I always accepted that things were changing drastically, I've changed with them. I trained even harder to stay close to "gosu" and besides training myself I'm also trying to help out average players to become much better. I have about 20k replays, 1000 vods, 10k observed games and 10k own games banked in my mind. Don't know how much for real, I only know it's a whole lot. Before all that - the first 2 years of SC - I played single player only because I had no internet. Then I played LoD for a while and I don't know why but after that I got interested in playing SC again, this time multiplayer. Sometimes I went more or less inactive but all in all I kept playing, watching, following. WC3 came out and I knew that it sucks beforehand. I still blame friends who started playing it. Most of them came back after a while and said that I was right. I never gave a damn about graphics. I always knew that this trend was bad, even before I started training I knew it, when I was just another bloody newbie.
I'm against MBS because of all that. Because of that knowledge about the game and the competition and the progaming scene. I've been talking to many of my friends in the internet about their opinions and I blame every single of them who wants to play SC2 just because everyone else will play it and not because they think it will be better than SC. That mentality just stinks. I've been arguing a lot in this forum because I want as many people to think about it as possible. I want them to think twice before they jump off board. I want to let all of them know what they'll be missing if SC2 turns out to be any worse than SC.
SC isn't holy, it's just the best PC game of all time. If SC2 wants to follow it's footsteps then Blizzard has to goddamn realize what they are actually doing. They have to wake up, listen to us oldschoolers and learn from it.
Im sorry, but i think i said i wanted people who havent played a lot the last years? Players that werent a part of the macro revolution or maybe players who even left beacuse of the macro revolution? Or players who didn't even notice that starcraft had a bad UI beacuse they played such a long time ago that starcrafts competition didn't have any better?
Someone who have played starcraft a lot the past years have obviously accepted the UI, i want people who played starcraft a lot on a quite high level but stopped at some time atleast 3 years ago, but such people are probably not here for obvious reasons.
And i respect that you have played for 6 years, i know there are some veterans here but there are even more semi new players. I just try to bring up another point to this otherwise stalled topic, not to assault or to be annoying.
On December 07 2007 02:59 Lazerflip! wrote: I will reiterate my previous point; these players new to SC aren't familiar with the MBS debate, and won't care either way. And to quote the old adage, "why change a winning formula"?
I've played starcraft from the very begining unlike you.
Its mostly those who have played a lot the latest years wich dislike mbs, atleast from my experience people who hasn't played a lot of starcraft the latest years but still played a lot of starcraft earlier is for mbs. If im wrong can someone please correct me, but aint most people here at TL fairly new to playing starcraft a lot, lets say you started to play a lot 3 years ago, or atleast after wc3?
I would be interested in seeing what the people who played more hardcore the first years have to say.
People like me? I started playing and training SC:BW nearly 6 years ago. I've been following the progaming scene from the very beginning and I had some "gosu" oldschool friends that are mostly unknown these days. I've also been following more known gamers/clans. Like GG were Elky was member. I loved the feeling at that time and sometimes in the past years I wished these times back. In the end I always accepted that things were changing drastically, I've changed with them. I trained even harder to stay close to "gosu" and besides training myself I'm also trying to help out average players to become much better. I have about 20k replays, 1000 vods, 10k observed games and 10k own games banked in my mind. Don't know how much for real, I only know it's a whole lot. Before all that - the first 2 years of SC - I played single player only because I had no internet. Then I played LoD for a while and I don't know why but after that I got interested in playing SC again, this time multiplayer. Sometimes I went more or less inactive but all in all I kept playing, watching, following. WC3 came out and I knew that it sucks beforehand. I still blame friends who started playing it. Most of them came back after a while and said that I was right. I never gave a damn about graphics. I always knew that this trend was bad, even before I started training I knew it, when I was just another bloody newbie.
I'm against MBS because of all that. Because of that knowledge about the game and the competition and the progaming scene. I've been talking to many of my friends in the internet about their opinions and I blame every single of them who wants to play SC2 just because everyone else will play it and not because they think it will be better than SC. That mentality just stinks. I've been arguing a lot in this forum because I want as many people to think about it as possible. I want them to think twice before they jump off board. I want to let all of them know what they'll be missing if SC2 turns out to be any worse than SC.
SC isn't holy, it's just the best PC game of all time. If SC2 wants to follow it's footsteps then Blizzard has to goddamn realize what they are actually doing. They have to wake up, listen to us oldschoolers and learn from it.
Im sorry, but i think i said i wanted people who havent played a lot the last years? Players that werent a part of the macro revolution or maybe players who even left beacuse of the macro revolution? Or players who didn't even notice that starcraft had a bad UI beacuse they played such a long time ago that starcrafts competition didn't have any better?
Someone who have played starcraft a lot the past years have obviously accepted the UI, i want people who played starcraft a lot on a quite high level but stopped at some time atleast 3 years ago, but such people are probably not here for obvious reasons.
And i respect that you have played for 6 years, i know there are some veterans here but there are even more semi new players. I just try to bring up another point to this otherwise stalled topic, not to assault or to be annoying.
Ok, what is your point then? I only see you looking for a specific type of SC player who had not shown up yet afaik. My guess is: that type of player is very rare (for good reasons). I think I had 1-2 friends who were like that but they left for different reasons.
SC has never become a macro-orientated game. It has always been very macro-orientated as much as it has always been very micro-orientated. You get my point? Reach for example. He was the macro-beast, able to beat even Boxer because of sheer masses 6 years ago already. The battle between micro- and macro-gamers is an everlasting story that began right after competition was born in SC 7 years ago (or even earlier?).
Nada wasn't the first to show macro-play. He was just the leading person, he was able to show strong macro-management and to win with it. The rise of macro-gamers started because of him but macro-play itself was born before him. I just forgot his nickname, a well-known polish zerg player who met Boxer in the WCG finals at that time. He played macro-orientated. Nowadays he struggles a lot because he never really trained micro-play. Damn, what was his nickname... Well, I just want to say that good macro without good micro is meaningless.
Everything becomes standard after some time, so does micro. Macro was standard before micro in my opinion. I also think that Nada took so long to become #1 because he struggled with being accurate so much. I saw old VOD's from him and he obviously had a sloppy control, especially in TvZ.
The best SC progamers these days have trained a good mix of all. They can handle micro, macro, accuracy, multitasking, timing, because it is all neccessary. Things could've been going different. What if Boxer was a macro-orientated player? You see, it doesn't really make sense to ask for people who liked SC only because of some style. There are too many different styles and they are all great.
I think a good comparison to what SC2 is now would be C&C Generals. Both games have the flashiness that would pull in casual gamers, and both games have modern RTS UI's. Generals is actually very similar to SC in many ways. For example, you have 3 races, 1 of which being very micro-oriented like Terran. Overall i had a lot of fun with the game, but it could have been much better without a few things.
1-MBS effect: No, Generals didn't have MBS, but it had the same effect MBS would have on SC2. In Generals, almost every unit builds very fast. I think even some of the highest tech units are faster than a zealot's build time in SC. This means there is no point in having more than 2-3 factories. So this only ties up 2-3 of your hotkeys for the entire game. i have found that virtually every game you play, your opponent will be macroing just as well as you.
2-Automine effect: Generals does have automine, but another problem comes from the fact that you don't need more than 2-7 workers per base. So after a couple minutes of playing, you don't have to look at your command center again unless your under attack. SC2 with automine is just a couple keystrokes every 10 seconds away from this.
3-Mass Unit selection: This is what killed the game for me. I know many people here think of MBS as more of a threat, but I think this is the gamebreaker. Just think of what took more practice to get right in your training. Was it 3t4t5v6v7v8v, or was it 1a2a3a4a5a6a 2t3t4t plus extra mouse micro. Not to mention that this slows down the gameplay intensity significantly.
4-Hard counters: We're seeing a bit of this in SC2 already. It was also what kind of ruined the actual gameplay of Generals, UI aside. For example, there was this Chinese gun turret that could single handedly rip up about 50-60 infantry (literally), yet just a single light tank could beat it 1 on 1. Whenever the game is based on hard counters such as immortal beats tank, marines beat immortal, the players will eventually find only a few powerful units that work in any given situation (think of the tanks in any C&C game).
On December 07 2007 04:42 NatsuTerran wrote: I think a good comparison to what SC2 is now would be C&C Generals. Both games have the flashiness that would pull in casual gamers, and both games have modern RTS UI's. Generals is actually very similar to SC in many ways. For example, you have 3 races, 1 of which being very micro-oriented like Terran. Overall i had a lot of fun with the game, but it could have been much better without a few things.
1-MBS effect: No, Generals didn't have MBS, but it had the same effect MBS would have on SC2. In Generals, almost every unit builds very fast. I think even some of the highest tech units are faster than a zealot's build time in SC. This means there is no point in having more than 2-3 factories. So this only ties up 2-3 of your hotkeys for the entire game. i have found that virtually every game you play, your opponent will be macroing just as well as you.
2-Automine effect: Generals does have automine, but another problem comes from the fact that you don't need more than 2-7 workers per base. So after a couple minutes of playing, you don't have to look at your command center again unless your under attack. SC2 with automine is just a couple keystrokes every 10 seconds away from this.
3-Mass Unit selection: This is what killed the game for me. I know many people here think of MBS as more of a threat, but I think this is the gamebreaker. Just think of what took more practice to get right in your training. Was it 3t4t5v6v7v8v, or was it 1a2a3a4a5a6a 2t3t4t plus extra mouse micro. Not to mention that this slows down the gameplay intensity significantly.
4-Hard counters: We're seeing a bit of this in SC2 already. It was also what kind of ruined the actual gameplay of Generals, UI aside. For example, there was this Chinese gun turret that could single handedly rip up about 50-60 infantry (literally), yet just a single light tank could beat it 1 on 1. Whenever the game is based on hard counters such as immortal beats tank, marines beat immortal, the players will eventually find only a few powerful units that work in any given situation (think of the tanks in any C&C game).
I like your first 3 points. Very well explained, I totally agree. The 4th is too speculative, we don't have enough information about these systems in SC2. And don't forget that hard counters exist in SC or SC:BW, too.
It seems pretty clear that MBS will alter the flow of gameplay (at least at the higher competitive levels) relative to BW. Will it compact the distribution of skill among the population of competitive players? I think this is far from as certain as some here seem to believe.
Take "Joe", who has, say, 100 apm, and "John" who has 150 (arbitrary numbers). Joe and John are of the same approximate intellect, and both know when to make the decision to produce more units. But because John is faster, he wins a majority of the time over Joe by virtue of superior troop levels. Enter MBS. Now there is a negligible difference in time spent executing the decision to produce units between Joe and John. Does that necessarily mean that there is a (significant) decrease in the skill gap between them? After all, John still has the dexterity advantage (otherwise, why would there have been a difference in apm between two players with the same knowledge of the game and decision-making ability?), so what he does in his freed up time (troop positioning, battle micro, force partitioning, additional harassment, more effective use of casters, management of higher diversity armies, whatever) is likely to be more effective than what Joe does, and thus the advantage is maintained. The extent to which it is maintained is obviously indeterminable, but my guess (and it is just a guess of course) is that John would still beat Joe with about the same regularity as he did pre-MBS. This really is the true test though: whether or not the decrease in skill gap created by MBS can be made up for in whatever activities occupy the freed-up time. I'm optimistic that it can.
My feeling is that by and large SC2 will be a highly competitive game with a similar relative distribution of skill as found in BW. But it will, because of MBS, play very differently than BW in the sense that the game flow will have changed, and likely relatively more time will be spent with an army than at the base. Is this in and of itself a bad thing? Not for me, because I don't consider the flow of gameplay to be particularly integral to the starcraft experience, but I can see how so many of you who have so much experience with BW would feel negatively about the changes in flow.
That's what I think too, and I also think that MBS won't effectively lower the skill ceiling, because the skill ceiling in SC1 is so INCREDIBLY HIGH that no one will ever reach it (it's just not possible for a human being to be that fast), so lowering it a bit doesn't cause ANY harm.
Instead, look at the current pro situation: games after 15 or 20 minutes (or maybe it's better to say: after 150 supply) usually are a *mess*, especially the matchups PvP, PvT, TvT and ZvZ (although ZvZ almost never lasts so long). The battles there are just horrible, and no one can really control his units efficiently. Most micro being done is A-click and move/retreat, with a few spells and flanking here and there. The best displays of micro are always seen in early and mid game, in late game macro is much more important and consumes too much of your time, so you have to make sacrifices in micro all the time. The longer the game lasts, the more important mechanics become, and the less important strategy becomes. Balance between macro and micro? Not anymore then.
That's where MBS will change things, and this change is necessary IMHO.
As an added bonus, it will lower the entry barrier for new players, because NO OTHER popular RTS game has such a "hard" UI anymore. If SC1's UI was really the best, then all other games would copy it, but all other games, including Blizzard's newer games, include some form of MBS. Is this really because they have no clue? I don't think so... I bet they know a lot more about the matter than most of us.
On December 07 2007 02:59 Lazerflip! wrote: Your comparisons are ludicrous. A more fair comparison would be "MBS is to RTS, as Auto-aim is to FPS".
Your comparison is also ludicrous. MBS is nothing like Auto aim, and we could spend all day thinking of what MBS is lie, but it wouldn't help the debate so lets not.
On December 07 2007 17:10 Brutalisk wrote: That's what I think too, and I also think that MBS won't effectively lower the skill ceiling, because the skill ceiling in SC1 is so INCREDIBLY HIGH that no one will ever reach it (it's just not possible for a human being to be that fast), so lowering it a bit doesn't cause ANY harm.
Instead, look at the current pro situation: games after 15 or 20 minutes (or maybe it's better to say: after 150 supply) usually are a *mess*, especially the matchups PvP, PvT, TvT and ZvZ (although ZvZ almost never lasts so long). The battles there are just horrible, and no one can really control his units efficiently. Most micro being done is A-click and move/retreat, with a few spells and flanking here and there. The best displays of micro are always seen in early and mid game, in late game macro is much more important and consumes too much of your time, so you have to make sacrifices in micro all the time. The longer the game lasts, the more important mechanics become, and the less important strategy becomes. Balance between macro and micro? Not anymore then.
That's where MBS will change things, and this change is necessary IMHO.
As an added bonus, it will lower the entry barrier for new players, because NO OTHER popular RTS game has such a "hard" UI anymore. If SC1's UI was really the best, then all other games would copy it, but all other games, including Blizzard's newer games, include some form of MBS. Is this really because they have no clue? I don't think so... I bet they know a lot more about the matter than most of us.
By responding to your post I'm also responding to talismania's post, so lets go. You're wrong when you say that in the late game macro is more important than micro. It's simply not true by fact, check BWChart for the statistics - you'll always find macro percentages below micro percentages. Why? Because micro is more important than macro in SC:BW (!!!), I guess about 10-20%, sometimes 30%. I can't be more accurate because it differs a lot.
I thought you were kidding when you said that most micro "is A-click and move/retreat" but then I read "with a few spells and flanking here and there" which made me wonder. Hey, just summarize it: A-click, move, retreat, spell, flank, hmmm sounds like a whole lot, not? But that's not even all! There is grouping, regrouping, catching straying units, dodging spells, now that may be about it (but I think there's even more). In addition you also have to control units without hotkeys sometimes, especially zerg users must do that heavily. Tasks over tasks in, before and after every single battle, repeating each command over and over again. Sounds like easy micro? You're funny. Battles are horrible? Nobody can control his units efficiently? The only way I can forgive you saying that is that you don't know many VOD's/replays from really strong gamers. A few examples of players who are near perfection in SC:BW: Hwasin, Bisu, Savior, Stork, Iris, Jaedong... more to come. At least 5 players who already come close to perfection and you say it is impossible to master SC? 5 years ago you were right, today you're not. Things have changed drastically and I highly doubt Blizzard is well informed about the true situation.
A "neccessary change" through MBS is a joke. Nothing is neccessary, SC:BW is flawless and SC2 doesn't need childish features, either. If in SC2 Blizzard wants to compensate for MBS and mass-unit-selection (maybe call it MUS?) they must find new ways of hardening micro-management! Do you understand? They must add even more actions to the actions done in SC micro! But which? Do you have any ideas? I don't, because there is no room for improvement. I say mission impossible, SC2 will never be competitive enough if they keep ignoring these arguments.
The SC UI isn't "the best", it's just very good. I don't see the UI of other RTS games being an argument because they are all much less popular than SC. You want to know why they didn't copy the SC UI? Because SC is old. They were all afraid of their titles not selling good enough. What they didn't realize is that only the overall quality and marketing make the selling numbers, the improved UI is just a feature for newbies who don't want others to be better than themselves. Childish envy.
On December 07 2007 17:10 Brutalisk wrote: That's what I think too, and I also think that MBS won't effectively lower the skill ceiling, because the skill ceiling in SC1 is so INCREDIBLY HIGH that no one will ever reach it (it's just not possible for a human being to be that fast), so lowering it a bit doesn't cause ANY harm.
Instead, look at the current pro situation: games after 15 or 20 minutes (or maybe it's better to say: after 150 supply) usually are a *mess*, especially the matchups PvP, PvT, TvT and ZvZ (although ZvZ almost never lasts so long). The battles there are just horrible, and no one can really control his units efficiently. Most micro being done is A-click and move/retreat, with a few spells and flanking here and there. The best displays of micro are always seen in early and mid game, in late game macro is much more important and consumes too much of your time, so you have to make sacrifices in micro all the time. The longer the game lasts, the more important mechanics become, and the less important strategy becomes. Balance between macro and micro? Not anymore then.
That's where MBS will change things, and this change is necessary IMHO.
As an added bonus, it will lower the entry barrier for new players, because NO OTHER popular RTS game has such a "hard" UI anymore. If SC1's UI was really the best, then all other games would copy it, but all other games, including Blizzard's newer games, include some form of MBS. Is this really because they have no clue? I don't think so... I bet they know a lot more about the matter than most of us.
Agreed. No pro have perfect play now and no pro will have perfect play with MBS either, skill celing is just to high.
ForAdun: Look at the micro and you will see it. You see perfect play because there is no mistakes and it's the best play you've ever seen but that does not mean it could not be better. There are serious differences between the pro's handling in early/midgame compared to a 200/200 suppy situation and they are quite obvious.
On December 07 2007 17:10 Brutalisk wrote: Instead, look at the current pro situation: games after 15 or 20 minutes (or maybe it's better to say: after 150 supply) usually are a *mess*, especially the matchups PvP, PvT, TvT and ZvZ (although ZvZ almost never lasts so long). The battles there are just horrible, and no one can really control his units efficiently. Most micro being done is A-click and move/retreat, with a few spells and flanking here and there. The best displays of micro are always seen in early and mid game, in late game macro is much more important and consumes too much of your time, so you have to make sacrifices in micro all the time. The longer the game lasts, the more important mechanics become, and the less important strategy becomes. Balance between macro and micro? Not anymore then.
Starcraft is Dynamic.
It starts off very micro orientated. No player has any trouble keeping up with macro at this stage so the only thing that can set 2 people apart is micro.
As the game progresses, it becomes harder to micro and macro effectively at the same time, the game then develops a balance, where macro and micro are both equally important as a loss of a bunch of troops can mean GG, and not keeping up with macro will leave you too far behind to catch up.
As we hit late game, macro becomes slightly more important than micro (about a 40% micro, 60% macro split). Players at this point in the game are trying to overwhelm their opponent with large scale numbers and better 'overall strategies'. At this stage, players are rewarded for there ability to coordinate their entire base and army. Macro is favoured slightly, but brilliant micro moves still have a huge impact on the game.
As we then hit VERY late game, the game takes on a micro style again. Resources are a more scarce and players have to play carefully with their units, because a lost battle at this point will not leave them enough resources to come back.
In starcraft required levels of Macro and Micro vary throughout the game.
If you take a game such as Warcraft 3, youll notice its 100% micro the entire way through. If you add MBS to starcraft 2, it will still retain more macro than warcraft 3, but the game will take on a VERY heavy micro feel. Also, with MBS, controlling a large base is no harder than controlling a small base and therefore there will be very little fluctuation, it will be 90% micro 10% macro The whole way through.
I love the dynamic nature of starcraft, in which there is more than 1 way to beat your opponent. Features like MBS will do serious harm to that dynamic nature, leaving only 1 path to victory.
EDIT: To Cuddlykitten. Players CAN micro their units as effectively in late game as they could in early game, however doing this would require them to neglect the other areas of the game. This is one of the fundamental skills that starcraft tests in a person. The Ability to prioritise their actions. Why would you want anyone to even become close to managing everything perfectly. The second that happens, the game will die completely. Everyone can work to become better at starcraft, from the person who just started playing all the way up to Bisu. You want a skill ceiling that is impossible to reach. It gives players something to strive harder for, to be higher than all their opponents.
Uhm, you're not talking to some random newb here. I know micro very well, most progamers don't have "flawless" micro but some do.
You're misunderstanding my argument. I did not say MBS leads to "perfect" play. I said MBS makes macro-management too easy (which either leaves out punishment for heavy focuse on micro or because of that makes micro-management easier). Then add MUS (massive-unit-selection) to it and micro gets even easier... So we end up having two legal cheats called UI improvement, multitasking becomes a joke and progamers are out of a job. I'm exaggerating? Yes, a bit. But only a bit.
If you understand me this time you may counter my argument.
On December 07 2007 22:34 Lazerflip... wrote: You might as well add a button that allows you to select your entire army while you're at it.
Which is exactly what Blizzard is doing.
edit: One reason why I like the fact that SC offers a lot of room for failure and why I want such thing in SC2, too (this is a VOD from the proleague match Samsung Khan vs ESTRO): + Show Spoiler +
3:45 is the best
edit2: I mean it's from Hanbit vs ESTRO. I was hasty hiding the rest in spoiler tags.
On December 05 2007 15:00 D10 wrote: What if eveytime you build a unit your screen moves to that building regardless of hotkey using, or some kind of mechanism that makes your come back to your base several times during the game, other than that i dont think MBS will impact the game negatively if sc2 is balanced with that in mind, and i dont see a reason why the game couldnt carry on the awesome sc1 felling of micro and macro.
Motion sickness from having your screen jump between 30 gateways would be pretty bad.
Hmm... 30 gateways. With a scale factor of 4 units per second, that would be 7.5 seconds your screen will be on your gateways (.25 seconds per gateway).
FA, I don't think D10 meant to switch back to the battlefield and gateways 30 times. Just once. If 8 gateways, it's a 2-second event. If 30 gateways, 7.5 seconds worth.
Exacly, I meant something like, everytime you select a group of buildings your screen moves to one of the selected buildings, or some similar mechanism, if you build your structures together, then you could just HIT 7 move to your base while selecting a build, clicking each structure to build different units and whatnot, and it would conserve the necessity to macro fast and on the right timing.
It occurred to me this morning that perhaps alot of the concern about MBS stems from how production typically works in BW. In BW, most matchups tend to involve only one, maybe two, types of production facilities. For Terran, it's either factories or barracks (sometimes starport) depending on the matchup. For Protoss, it's largely gateways (with robo and stargate). And for Zerg of course it's just the hatcheries.
But how do we know this will be the same case in SC2? Suppose certain matchups (like PvT) don't boil down to just tanks and vultures vs goons and zealots anymore, but require a broader and more diverse array of units. This would necessitate production from many different structures, which increases the hotkeys that would be taken up by these structures, which in turn decreases the hotkeys available for managing forces (I'm ignoring MUS because presumably it will be advantageous to control smaller groups anyways instead of just tabbing through an enormous army trying to find the unit type you're looking for). So elite players might take to instead individually selecting structures again, as in SC2.
And consider the zerg... will it really be maximally efficient in SC2 to just hotkey all your hatcheries together and just hit 1sz or whatever? It doesn't seem like there will be many times during games that necessitate building lings out of all available hatcheries. More likely than not, a balance of units will be favored, which means, again, that players will resort to individually selecting out each hatchery in order to build a mix of units at the same time.
On December 08 2007 01:30 talismania wrote: It occurred to me this morning that perhaps alot of the concern about MBS stems from how production typically works in BW. In BW, most matchups tend to involve only one, maybe two, types of production facilities. For Terran, it's either factories or barracks (sometimes starport) depending on the matchup. For Protoss, it's largely gateways (with robo and stargate). And for Zerg of course it's just the hatcheries.
But how do we know this will be the same case in SC2? Suppose certain matchups (like PvT) don't boil down to just tanks and vultures vs goons and zealots anymore, but require a broader and more diverse array of units. This would necessitate production from many different structures, which increases the hotkeys that would be taken up by these structures, which in turn decreases the hotkeys available for managing forces (I'm ignoring MUS because presumably it will be advantageous to control smaller groups anyways instead of just tabbing through an enormous army trying to find the unit type you're looking for). So elite players might take to instead individually selecting structures again, as in SC2.
And consider the zerg... will it really be maximally efficient in SC2 to just hotkey all your hatcheries together and just hit 1sz or whatever? It doesn't seem like there will be many times during games that necessitate building lings out of all available hatcheries. More likely than not, a balance of units will be favored, which means, again, that players will resort to individually selecting out each hatchery in order to build a mix of units at the same time.
Well written and a good point but there's one flaw in your argumentation: Blizzard says they want SC2 to be a game of massive armies which means that there's a lot of canon fodder, simply because that is one of the main mechanics in any RTS game; just like in real war. That means you have to produce many units of the same type in a short period of time. Having this in mind what do you think is more likely? Will progamers mainly produce 1 unit-type out of all their hatcheries or not? In my eyes the first set of units will be 1 type only, the next set will be 2 types and lets say the third set will be 3 types just as an example. The first set will take "no time at all", the second set will not take more than 1 second, the third set will take 1-2 seconds at best. Yes that is realistic if you consider how fast progamers are.
The impact MBS will have is crazy.
Oh and trust me, MUS will have it's own big impact on micro-management. It is hard to control 5-6 groups of units in SC because of the UI. With MUS it would be so easy that it would also take "no time at all". And there's no more room for error. Lazy players won't forget 1 group of units anymore. But this is one of the main reasons why gosus are gosus and the rest is not.
But how hard is it to just bind half your hatches on 1 key, and the other half on the other? No one said you have to bind everything to a single hotkey. That would be just dumb. The same could be said if you will require different types of production: 5 rax on 1 key, 5 facs on another, a port or 2 on another. But I highly doubt it's gonna be better to buy an assortment of units rather than specializing in one type as in bw. RTS just doesn't work that way. It will cost mounds of resources to buy the extra production buildings, not to mention all the extra upgrades and research abilities.
Natsu, presumably the more hotkeys that are used up by hatcheries the less you have to use to control your units, but you're right of course (I was hyperbolizing with the zerg example).
The way I see MUS playing out is that most players will have one control group of their entire army, with individual control groups within that army of different unit types that require individual micro (tanks, ghosts, templar, what have you). [Another factor to consider here is that SC2 will feature an entirely new wrinkle: ground units that have a certain degree of terrain independence. Certainly reapers, at the least, will require their own hotkey for base raiding purposes.]
ForAdun, I think you're right in that my argument does rely on the pie-in-the-sky notion that these matchups will require more diverse units or that Blizzard is even planning it that way (although it does seem to be a big priority for them to increase the use of all units with what they're doing with the ghost). I'm hopeful, at least, that this will be the case though.
And of course mass production will be necessary in SC2, and MBS will make it easier to do that. The question still comes down, though, to whether or not this makes the game itself easier. There's no way to test this, it seems, but I'm hopeful that new mechanics for harassment and scouting (semi-terrain independent ground units) and more micro-heavy casters and such will provide ample difficulty to make up for the relative ease of production.
Actually I dont think its going to be dumb at all. Players arent going to wait until they have 1500 mins and 500 gas to build a M&M army from their barracks. They are going to build it progressively. They would usually jump back to their base, spend 250 mins, then jump back to the combat. If you only have 250 mins to spend, then 5 marines isnt a rare thing to do. You just click your barracks hotkey and then m. Goodbye money. In a few seconds time you might want to add some medics, hit your barracks hotkey, hit medic hotkey.
Also, with MBS, the game will allocate your barracks to build. So if 5 of your 7 barracks's are building units, and you hit ure barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines will be allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. You dont have to jump back to your base and select the barracks you want to build from.
Consider this senario. A player wants to keep a strong medic marine force throughout the game. He hotkeys all his barrack's to 1, and maps his hotkeys so q = marine and w = medic. He then practices, so that every couple of seconds he clicks 1q, or 1w. This really isnt a hard thing to do, its an extremely fast movement of the fingers that can be repeated between micro actions while his mouse moves between his units on the battlefield. He sets his rally points up and he constantly produces, at the fastest rate possible, and has total control over the ratio of units. Assuming he does the same thing for his command centers with 2q when he wants more scvs. This player only has to go back to his base to build buildings and has perfect macro. I personally would hate to see this senario, but it would be soo viable.
Ok, not I know that this post is getting long, and your eyes are beggining to water but Ive got one more point to bring up. DAWN OF WAR DOESNT HAVE MBS. I cannot believe that this hasnt been brought up before. Im not a DoW player so I never knew until I played it tonight. This game did quite well among the public, its fatal flaw being in its pathing AI, and not its UI. This game actually had a decent competative scene as well. It came out after warcraft 3, so its not an oldschool game. The designers had the opportunity to add it in, and they chose not to. Is this not proof that it MBS will not harm sales?
Dawn of War doesn't have MBS because you never, ever, EVER build more than one of any unit producing building. I played it competitively for two years, I should know. To be fair, though, DoW did have an easy-mode "macro killer" called "overwatch" where you right click any unit icon and it is automatically produced each time you have the money, so your rax will send a constant stream of Marines to the battle every time you have 200 requisition, for example. So to be fair, Dawn of War did have a bit of an easy-mode interface which is arguably more nooby than MBS.
There wont be a "harder" UI without MBS, since ppl cant know what doesnt exist. There can be a "easier" UI with MBS, the arguments are NOT symmetrical.
Blizzard cant maintain the skill ceiling and make the game more accessible to new players at the same time. I think those two excludes each other. On top of that, I think starcraft is very accessible to new players, the arguments in the thread saying "more accessible to new players" are more than likely to mean "accessible for middle-class player"
Simplest macro(?): Personally, when I started playing starcraft, I won games simply by: going to war with an equal sized army, we go forth and back, WHILE I rally my new built units to the battle and opponent not. I lose more units, but I won the battle and the game.
PS. I take no side, I just state the facts. while (facts==my_opinions)
On December 08 2007 03:00 Lazerflip... wrote: Dawn of War doesn't have MBS because you never, ever, EVER build more than one of any unit producing building.
Tonight I was producing constantly from 4 tau barrack's, which were all sending troops into the massive clusterfuck in the middle of a 3v3 matchup. I'm new to the game so I figured it was a valid point.
On December 08 2007 03:15 sidz wrote: There wont be a "harder" UI without MBS, since ppl cant know what doesnt exist. There can be a "easier" UI with MBS, the arguments are NOT symmetrical.
Blizzard cant maintain the skill ceiling and make the game more accessible to new players at the same time. I think those two excludes each other. On top of that, I think starcraft is very accessible to new players, the arguments in the thread saying "more accessible to new players" are more than likely to mean "accessible for middle-class player"
Simplest macro(?): Personally, when I started playing starcraft, I won games simply by: going to war with an equal sized army, we go forth and back, WHILE I rally my new built units to the battle and opponent not. I lose more units, but I won the battle and the game.
PS. I take no side, I just state the facts. while (facts==my_opinions)
Uh? Facts can be proven by evidence. What evidence do you have? The above is a mix of opinions, not facts. Some of it may be right, some may not. You can't join the debate and say "Hello, I own the power of truth, what I say is universally right." but it sounds like you just said that. Especially what you said about "harder" and "easier" UI. Facts? Come on...
On December 07 2007 17:10 Brutalisk wrote: That's what I think too, and I also think that MBS won't effectively lower the skill ceiling, because the skill ceiling in SC1 is so INCREDIBLY HIGH that no one will ever reach it (it's just not possible for a human being to be that fast), so lowering it a bit doesn't cause ANY harm.
Instead, look at the current pro situation: games after 15 or 20 minutes (or maybe it's better to say: after 150 supply) usually are a *mess*, especially the matchups PvP, PvT, TvT and ZvZ (although ZvZ almost never lasts so long). The battles there are just horrible, and no one can really control his units efficiently. Most micro being done is A-click and move/retreat, with a few spells and flanking here and there. The best displays of micro are always seen in early and mid game, in late game macro is much more important and consumes too much of your time, so you have to make sacrifices in micro all the time. The longer the game lasts, the more important mechanics become, and the less important strategy becomes. Balance between macro and micro? Not anymore then.
That's where MBS will change things, and this change is necessary IMHO.
As an added bonus, it will lower the entry barrier for new players, because NO OTHER popular RTS game has such a "hard" UI anymore. If SC1's UI was really the best, then all other games would copy it, but all other games, including Blizzard's newer games, include some form of MBS. Is this really because they have no clue? I don't think so... I bet they know a lot more about the matter than most of us.
By responding to your post I'm also responding to talismania's post, so lets go. You're wrong when you say that in the late game macro is more important than micro. It's simply not true by fact, check BWChart for the statistics - you'll always find macro percentages below micro percentages. Why? Because micro is more important than macro in SC:BW (!!!), I guess about 10-20%, sometimes 30%. I can't be more accurate because it differs a lot.
I thought you were kidding when you said that most micro "is A-click and move/retreat" but then I read "with a few spells and flanking here and there" which made me wonder. Hey, just summarize it: A-click, move, retreat, spell, flank, hmmm sounds like a whole lot, not? But that's not even all! There is grouping, regrouping, catching straying units, dodging spells, now that may be about it (but I think there's even more). In addition you also have to control units without hotkeys sometimes, especially zerg users must do that heavily. Tasks over tasks in, before and after every single battle, repeating each command over and over again. Sounds like easy micro? You're funny. Battles are horrible? Nobody can control his units efficiently? The only way I can forgive you saying that is that you don't know many VOD's/replays from really strong gamers.
Watch the major battles in late game. Yes, Anytime is facing a crappy player, but he's still playing at his usual 300+ APM. His late game control consists of a-attacking all his groups repeatedly, sometimes by minimap, then going back to macro his gateways. Basically it's like 90% attention on macro, 10% on micro, even while a major battle is going on (and 100% macro during rest of game).
What this means is that if you are spending more effort on micro than macro, then you are being inefficient with your apm. You could be playing much better by having sloppier unit control than your opponent, but outproduce him than vice versa.
No, this is what we call an exception to the rule of thumb: Anytime is known for his macro not his micro. When your economy starts to falter it turns into a micro heavy game.
I cannot believe we're still having this discussion. It is absolutely stupid. Blizzard will make the final decision and their testers will address this.
They have more than enough resources and IT on the subject already. Let them do their jobs.
Anytime isn't "known" for his macro, he's just another well-rounded Toss player. Pusan is known for his macro. Oov is known for his macro. Anyways, the fact that Anytime can dominate without paying any attention to micro means that his style works.
On December 07 2007 17:10 Brutalisk wrote: That's what I think too, and I also think that MBS won't effectively lower the skill ceiling, because the skill ceiling in SC1 is so INCREDIBLY HIGH that no one will ever reach it (it's just not possible for a human being to be that fast), so lowering it a bit doesn't cause ANY harm.
Instead, look at the current pro situation: games after 15 or 20 minutes (or maybe it's better to say: after 150 supply) usually are a *mess*, especially the matchups PvP, PvT, TvT and ZvZ (although ZvZ almost never lasts so long). The battles there are just horrible, and no one can really control his units efficiently. Most micro being done is A-click and move/retreat, with a few spells and flanking here and there. The best displays of micro are always seen in early and mid game, in late game macro is much more important and consumes too much of your time, so you have to make sacrifices in micro all the time. The longer the game lasts, the more important mechanics become, and the less important strategy becomes. Balance between macro and micro? Not anymore then.
That's where MBS will change things, and this change is necessary IMHO.
As an added bonus, it will lower the entry barrier for new players, because NO OTHER popular RTS game has such a "hard" UI anymore. If SC1's UI was really the best, then all other games would copy it, but all other games, including Blizzard's newer games, include some form of MBS. Is this really because they have no clue? I don't think so... I bet they know a lot more about the matter than most of us.
By responding to your post I'm also responding to talismania's post, so lets go. You're wrong when you say that in the late game macro is more important than micro. It's simply not true by fact, check BWChart for the statistics - you'll always find macro percentages below micro percentages. Why? Because micro is more important than macro in SC:BW (!!!), I guess about 10-20%, sometimes 30%. I can't be more accurate because it differs a lot.
I thought you were kidding when you said that most micro "is A-click and move/retreat" but then I read "with a few spells and flanking here and there" which made me wonder. Hey, just summarize it: A-click, move, retreat, spell, flank, hmmm sounds like a whole lot, not? But that's not even all! There is grouping, regrouping, catching straying units, dodging spells, now that may be about it (but I think there's even more). In addition you also have to control units without hotkeys sometimes, especially zerg users must do that heavily. Tasks over tasks in, before and after every single battle, repeating each command over and over again. Sounds like easy micro? You're funny. Battles are horrible? Nobody can control his units efficiently? The only way I can forgive you saying that is that you don't know many VOD's/replays from really strong gamers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er0hSB7qkIo Watch the major battles in late game. Yes, Anytime is facing a crappy player, but he's still playing at his usual 300+ APM. His late game control consists of a-attacking all his groups repeatedly, sometimes by minimap, then going back to macro his gateways. Basically it's like 90% attention on macro, 10% on micro, even while a major battle is going on (and 100% macro during rest of game).
What this means is that if you are spending more effort on micro than macro, then you are being inefficient with your apm. You could be playing much better by having sloppier unit control than your opponent, but outproduce him than vice versa.
Right after you said "Anytime is facing a crappy player, but" I only read a lot of "bla bla bla" (of course not, I kept reading but in my opinion the story ended at that point). This is not meant to be disrespectful, I just say that this game proves exactly nothing. It's a walkover, a bash, a confidence-booster. Anytime completely owned his opponent from start to finish, he was even talking to commentators while battling, producing, owning... he didn't play for money or a title. I saw some other progamers do the same in that show. It's just a show-off for progamers, no more. In our debate these games have no place. That would be unproductive and unprofessional. You can use SL/ML/PL games as examples, but not (sorry) that crap. It was a walkover, not a game, I'm sorry.
Spending more/equal/a bit less time on micro than macro is how real games are going. It's never 10/90 or 20/80, in a rare case it can be 30/70. In a competitive game it's almost always 40/60 (60/40) or 50/50. Of course I'm not talking about dead-end TvT games where a draw would be the most fair result. You know, I like your enthusiasm but you must understand that some things are written in stone. One of these things is that macro and micro are about equally neccessary in SC (in my opinion micro is more important because macro can be mastered much easier but bleh). It's a given.
PS: my style works, too. Give me a random newbie and chances are that I beat him to the heavens without looking at the screen. I feel so good now
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Also, with MBS, the game will allocate your barracks to build. So if 5 of your 7 barracks's are building units, and you hit ure barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines will be allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. You dont have to jump back to your base and select the barracks you want to build from.
Actually in most games that do have MBS's, all that I've played, if 5 of your 7 barracks are building units and you hit your barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines do _not_ get allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. In fact the first 2 marines are queue'd in the first 2 barracks which are already creating marines, leading to terrible terrible inefficiency. The only way the spare barracks start creating marines if your hitting your barracks hotkey and then m, is if you have enough minerals for all 7 to make 1 marine each, in which your first 5 barracks now have queued 1 more marine and then those 2 spare ones start creating those 2 marines. This might not sound like much but in a really high level game this really decides who has 8 marines and who has 5... who has 20 to someone elses 13... who wins and who loses.
I can't say if SC2's MBS will be smarter and be able to do what you think it will. But most MBS's do not do what you think they do, and it is no cakewalk to keep all your barrack's producing as much as possible with no inefficiency.
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Consider this senario. A player wants to keep a strong medic marine force throughout the game. He hotkeys all his barrack's to 1, and maps his hotkeys so q = marine and w = medic. He then practices, so that every couple of seconds he clicks 1q, or 1w. This really isnt a hard thing to do, its an extremely fast movement of the fingers that can be repeated between micro actions while his mouse moves between his units on the battlefield. He sets his rally points up and he constantly produces, at the fastest rate possible, and has total control over the ratio of units. Assuming he does the same thing for his command centers with 2q when he wants more scvs. This player only has to go back to his base to build buildings and has perfect macro. I personally would hate to see this senario, but it would be soo viable.
Other games that I've played with MBS are like this, and its great. The battles are quicker, theres more of them, and it takes more skill to play than you think. And what I mean is from that is from what I read you don't think it takes much skill to play a game designed like this. But it actually takes a tremendous amount of skill to play a game designed like this.
At lower levels, if you have a lot of extra minerals sitting doing nothing, your right, it isn't hard to hit 1q or 1w and have all the barrack's producing. Your right, thats easy.
At the highest level it takes a tremendous amount of skill to make sure as soon as you get that 50 minerals it is spent creating a marine. And not sitting queued up in a barracks so, even though that 1 marine will pop out eventually, your current forces are outnumbered by your opponent who does have good macro.
And this is where all your anti-mbs arguements fall to shambles. You take examples of low level play of games that do have MBS, or have an inaccurate representation of what a MBS really does. Your arguments are just 'Starcraft is the greatest game ever, nothing should be changed at all' and 'were pro because we play Starcraft'. You guys should try to get good at some other games and your opinions might change a little.
I feel it's also worth clarifying that MBS does not decrease the "amount" of macro. The number of macro decisions stays the same, but less time is needed to execute them. So time spent macroing (or at least the production aspect of macro) is decreased, but not the amount of macro decisions. It basically just subtracts X% of time from clicking buildings and adds that X% to clicking units.
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Also, with MBS, the game will allocate your barracks to build. So if 5 of your 7 barracks's are building units, and you hit ure barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines will be allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. You dont have to jump back to your base and select the barracks you want to build from.
Actually in most games that do have MBS's, all that I've played, if 5 of your 7 barracks are building units and you hit your barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines do _not_ get allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. In fact the first 2 marines are queue'd in the first 2 barracks which are already creating marines, leading to terrible terrible inefficiency.
And in what games did you see that? I think that in all RTSs I played that had MBS it was always the spare buildings picking up production. It's the only reasonably way to do it.
On December 08 2007 03:00 Lazerflip... wrote: Dawn of War doesn't have MBS because you never, ever, EVER build more than one of any unit producing building.
Tonight I was producing constantly from 4 tau barrack's, which were all sending troops into the massive clusterfuck in the middle of a 3v3 matchup. I'm new to the game so I figured it was a valid point.
Having played Dawn of War competitively on the highest level for 2 years following it's release (World Cyber Games, etc.) I can tell you with certainty that this is not a viable strat. Making more than one barracks means you are automatically a newbie and you just don't do it on a high level of play. BW players often try to do this when they come to DoW, but they soon learn otherwise. The only reason to play with more than one barracks is if you are playing on quickstart (unlimited money games for newbies) and then you are a noob anyhow. Since you are new to the game, though, I forgive you =].
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Also, with MBS, the game will allocate your barracks to build. So if 5 of your 7 barracks's are building units, and you hit ure barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines will be allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. You dont have to jump back to your base and select the barracks you want to build from.
Actually in most games that do have MBS's, all that I've played, if 5 of your 7 barracks are building units and you hit your barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines do _not_ get allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. In fact the first 2 marines are queue'd in the first 2 barracks which are already creating marines, leading to terrible terrible inefficiency. The only way the spare barracks start creating marines if your hitting your barracks hotkey and then m, is if you have enough minerals for all 7 to make 1 marine each, in which your first 5 barracks now have queued 1 more marine and then those 2 spare ones start creating those 2 marines. This might not sound like much but in a really high level game this really decides who has 8 marines and who has 5... who has 20 to someone elses 13... who wins and who loses.
I can't say if SC2's MBS will be smarter and be able to do what you think it will. But most MBS's do not do what you think they do, and it is no cakewalk to keep all your barrack's producing as much as possible with no inefficiency.
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Consider this senario. A player wants to keep a strong medic marine force throughout the game. He hotkeys all his barrack's to 1, and maps his hotkeys so q = marine and w = medic. He then practices, so that every couple of seconds he clicks 1q, or 1w. This really isnt a hard thing to do, its an extremely fast movement of the fingers that can be repeated between micro actions while his mouse moves between his units on the battlefield. He sets his rally points up and he constantly produces, at the fastest rate possible, and has total control over the ratio of units. Assuming he does the same thing for his command centers with 2q when he wants more scvs. This player only has to go back to his base to build buildings and has perfect macro. I personally would hate to see this senario, but it would be soo viable.
Other games that I've played with MBS are like this, and its great. The battles are quicker, theres more of them, and it takes more skill to play than you think. And what I mean is from that is from what I read you don't think it takes much skill to play a game designed like this. But it actually takes a tremendous amount of skill to play a game designed like this.
At lower levels, if you have a lot of extra minerals sitting doing nothing, your right, it isn't hard to hit 1q or 1w and have all the barrack's producing. Your right, thats easy.
At the highest level it takes a tremendous amount of skill to make sure as soon as you get that 50 minerals it is spent creating a marine. And not sitting queued up in a barracks so, even though that 1 marine will pop out eventually, your current forces are outnumbered by your opponent who does have good macro.
And this is where all your anti-mbs arguements fall to shambles. You take examples of low level play of games that do have MBS, or have an inaccurate representation of what a MBS really does. Your arguments are just 'Starcraft is the greatest game ever, nothing should be changed at all' and 'were pro because we play Starcraft'. You guys should try to get good at some other games and your opinions might change a little.
447 words, and I can counter it all with 3.
Go play Warcraft
Ill elaborate. In warcraft, if you group a bunch of buildings, when you build units, they will be automatically built in a way so that production time is at its lowest. If there is a spare barracks, the first units will be built there. If there are no spare barrack's the building which is going to be finished building first will get the qued up units. This will work exactly the same in Starcraft 2 if MBS is implemented, making all my points valid (apart from the dawn of war one ).
EDIT: Teamsolid (sorry talisman), that was a god awful example using Anytime versing someone who wasnt in the same league as him. You ask why in a noob-stomp there is no empahsis on micro? Because there was no need for any. What was he going to do? Dodge tank shots? All he needed to do was steamroll his opponent with his superior army. Whats funny is that he did do a decent amount of micro in the end with his big pushes into the enemy's expo and base, yet you slag the game as 90% macro because up until that point there was almost no fighting at all?
On December 08 2007 02:55 Fen wrote: Also, with MBS, the game will allocate your barracks to build. So if 5 of your 7 barracks's are building units, and you hit ure barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines will be allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. You dont have to jump back to your base and select the barracks you want to build from.
Actually in most games that do have MBS's, all that I've played, if 5 of your 7 barracks are building units and you hit your barracks hotkey and click m, the first 2 marines do _not_ get allocated to the 2 spare barrack's. In fact the first 2 marines are queue'd in the first 2 barracks which are already creating marines, leading to terrible terrible inefficiency.
And in what games did you see that? I think that in all RTSs I played that had MBS it was always the spare buildings picking up production. It's the only reasonably way to do it.
WC3 doesn't.
Many years of 2 crypt garg harassing n00belves tells me that. If you start a garg, and then select both crypts and have enough money only for 1, it'll usually (sometimes it doesn't, seems to be building order based) strap it over the other garg, making for quite inefficient macro. I always macro manually in these situations, because it's unreliable and I don't have time to remmeber what crypt I built 1st.
On DoW not having MBS, well, you can put multiple buildings in one hotkey and control them separately without looking at base. Though, only in extremely rare occasions did I build 2 Tau barracks.
Edit: Just read your post claiming it does. This is extremely weird, and I wonder if it got patched lately, because I know for a fact that it (wasn't?) that way.
Well after a bit of testing, I cannot get the warcraft 3 engine to faulter.
Also, I have no idea how you put multiple buildings in one hotkey when playing DoW, to do this you are required to have 2 buildings selected which requires MBS (unless theres some secret way I don't know about)
Correct me if i get any facts wrong. I don't debate this daily like some of you may or may not. But I do feel that it is something vital to the game play and feel of Starcraft 2.
The primary argument against multiple building selection is that it detracts from the "skill" or more directly the "APM" required to amass a sizable force while multitasking -- as it condenses the number of tasks required for the same operation.
The primary arguement for MBS is that the lack of it is just old fashioned, detracts from the User Interface, and that the game shouldn't revolve around APM = Skill -- as manually selecting each building and ordering it to build requires more actions.
I found both of these to be reasonable arguments, albeit a bit oversimplified in the manner just stated.
Now this leads me to raise the question:
In what way would MBS truly hurt the game? Which leads me to the question does the necessity of high APM really increase the skill "ceiling" and does it truly make the game more competitive? II am going to assume we all lean a bit closer to the competitive rather than the casual.
Well I feel that the necessity of high APM does increase the skill ceiling if such a thing exists in the first place. I do not feel that gosu skill is a direct result of high APM, but rather that there is a loose correlation to APM and skill. The obvious truth is if your Actions are actually doing something, and you do more actions then you do more. (Although there is the entire argument of Action Quality, in which case MBS just equates to My 2 Actions > Your 15 Actions[to the non MBS user])
This brings me to:
Do the additional actions required by a macro system lacking MBS provide more of an unnecessary time sink or a necessary time sink?
Does effective management of these time sinks equate to skill? (Is the player who hot keys all of his buildings better than the player that hot keys one in the same area and then 'mouse macros'?)
Essentially More APM required for the same macromanagement equates to more time or more speed and Skill has something to do with less time more speed
It seems i've raised more questions than I've answered, but reading a large portion of this 24 Page thread has lead me to believe that there is a lot of bias in the perceptions of necessity(or lack of) people have about MBS.
Multiple Building Selection is necessary *IF* the fastest player in the world still cant keep up with the game at it's more intense moment. (You'll see the best starcraft players in the world have drones sit for upwards of many seconds. You'll see imperfect micro on some level almost every game. You'll even see buildings sit unused for a few seconds here and there)
Is it more important to require a high count of actions to produce a high count of units, or is it more important that these players capitalize on timing and prefection?
The beauty of starcraft is that on the highest levels it requires as close to perfection as you can get, but nobody is perfect. Not even Savior, Bisu, Stork, GGPlay.....(I could continue my way down the KeSPA) They all make countless mistakes in any seriously intense game. MBS won't make or break Starcraft 2. What will make or break SC2 is whether or not there is more to do than is actually possible.
This leads me to the conclusion that MBS is neither good or bad, and it really depends on all of the other mechanics.
Although I hate to do it, I must bring up another game.
With little to no economy management, MBS, and completely removing the focus off of Macro Top Warcraft 3 pros still have ridiculously "skilled" APM compared to a novice.
Most people when presented with this argue that WC3 is all soft counters, hero matchups, and 100% micro over macro. Whatever you want to argue what WC3 is, that's fine This thread is about Starcraft 2. My point is that Warcraft 3 Still requires a very high level of skill with MBS and less Timesinks involved in effectively macroing. How did WC3 do this? It changed the focus into a bunch of timesinks involving micro (heros, higher unit hp which yields more time to react ect ect). Or in short, it focuses on different game mechanics.
This leads me to speculate on the possibilities of other Game Mechanics within Starcraft 2 if MBS is to be considered a viable game mechanic (because the majority of us have played Wc3 and we prefer Starcraft)
With MBS this adds a lot of focus onto Micro (while obviously not to the level of WC3 this can also be seen with the new viable abuses of terrain and abilities like blink) unless additional mechanics are added to macromanagement (The new warp unit for protoss for example)
The other factor which I think needs to be brought up in this, is that this is not WC3 and a major factor in macromanement is the scaling of your economy to the production of the buildings themselves. This does not require higher APM than anything else, yet any player that can do this perfectly over his opponent generates a massive advantage. I don't care how many buildings you can select if you can't scale them properly to your economy or your economy to them, then your production will be worse than mine.
In that early to early-mid game where the players don't have enough buildings to really make MBS stand out as a big difference in mechanics this same "economy scaling" is still just as important. At this point in the game Build Orders make a huge difference, if your playing ZvZ and you 9 pool to your opponents 12hatch FE then you have the advantage for a short period of time. MBS doesn't have anything to do with this directly but it is still relative. If only that it shows that there are far more dynamics to the game than many of these simplified posts would have you believe and that MBS only has limited effects. It also shows that APM is only a correlation to skill and is not absolute.
eh This has turned out to be far too long of a post. This is far more of a complicated matter than I can articulate in a few paragraphs.
I guess to sum up, since I just realized how much I've ranted and typed:
MBS is neither a mechanic that will make or break Starcraft 2. MBS has it's pros and cons and I personally feel that if they were to keep the game exactly how it were, but only to add MBS, new units, and prettier graphics then the focus of the game would change a lot. Then MBS would simply reduce the accuracy of the correlation between skill and APM. There is far too many dynamics to the game to simply state that because it reduces the required APM it lowers the skill ceiling. As in SC there is far too much to possibly do that really if you imagine MBS within starcraft, it just changes the focus and opens up entirely new windows of opportunity. The only players I can see this hurting are those players that have spent the past 5 years + of mastering this 1 game, and will have trouble adapting away from their robotic hot key spamming routines. But I can see those that have spent the past 5 years+ mastering this 1 game and are excellent at adapting to not lose a step, because if you can cognitively maintain 300 APM while triple+ tasking and reading your opponent as well as effectively managing all of the other dynamics i mention within this post and all those that I forget -- Well then odds are you'll be the more skilled player regardless of MBS.
If blizzard complicates all of the timing, micro, economy management, match ups, and needed unit distribution well then the changes provided by MBS really wane in comparison.
If you read the whole thing, I commend you. I don't think I would have. But I didn't set out to write this much -- and please dont castrate me because my paragraph formation is sub par, or I misspelled the same word 3 times. Well... feel free to, but your missing the point
Thank you for your time.
EDIT: Also-- while i'm still thinking about it... Can keys be remapped in SC2? Has anything been released on this? Because if so, this completely changes a lot of the dynamics of hotkeying. If not well then we know what to expect. but this still leads me back to -- it's still far too early for us to tell. I could say a lot more, but instead I'm gonna go play. -- and please pick this apart, I'm sure my logic is not perfect as this was all off the moment, and each comment i could formulate lead to many more. In fact I need to stop editing this before this leads to an entire book on my obvservations and speculations on the subject.
Warcraft 3 did always queue from the first to the last building in the group no matter if they are idle or not, but a few versions ago it was changed, you can probably find it in the changelogs.
MBS is also definitely not as easy as some people make it out to be... overqueueing will force high level players to macro the old fashioned way, when they can. By overqueueing I mean that if you have money for 3 units, but you have only 2 buildings idle in the selected group, then one unit is gonna be queued in an already producing bulding and your macro will suffer or you'll have to go trough every building to find out where it is and cancel it, and in both cases you're being quite inssuficient. You can also wait for the full amount of money in the bank for all buildings to queue an aditional unit, but that's also not the most efficient way and takes constant attention.
And a question to the Blizzcon attendees: at what speed did you play SC2, cause I heard it was locked to Normal and all the videos I saw were on Normal and these "arguements" that macro is too easy, because you've played it and you know it, are retarded and rediculous, since macro is too easy on Normal game speed in SC:BW, too.
On December 08 2007 09:24 talismania wrote: I feel it's also worth clarifying that MBS does not decrease the "amount" of macro. ...
... time spent macroing (or at least the production aspect of macro) is decreased, ...
After reading that I was wondering if your logic is different from mine, and...
... but not the amount of macro decisions. It basically just subtracts X% of time from clicking buildings and adds that X% to clicking units.
... after that I was wondering where you get that conclusion from.
I really need some explanation, I don't understand your argumentation at all.
@ Motiva
First of all I want to show respect for your work. Your post isn't just long, it's also qualitative and very accurate. Well done. Now comes the feedback. I'll only quote parts of it since it's really long so don't worry if my response is a bit one-sided - for the most of the other parts I agree with you.
On December 08 2007 19:48 Motiva wrote: In what way would MBS truly hurt the game? Which leads me to the question does the necessity of high APM really increase the skill "ceiling" and does it truly make the game more competitive? I am going to assume we all lean a bit closer to the competitive rather than the casual.
Yes, necessity of high APM (or say speed) increases the skill ceiling and therefore makes the game more competitive because speed must be combined with accuracy, thought, reaction, timing and detailed knowledge. Correct me if there's more.
Do the additional actions required by a macro system lacking MBS provide more of an unnecessary time sink or a necessary time sink?
A good question. My opinion is based on experience with competitive SC and I think the additional actions provide a necessary time sink. They are necessary for the competition/skill ceiling and it provides extra-fun for many players because they must be more active not only with their hands but also with their mind. The additional actions are definitely not necessary for the game or the sales, only for the competition.
Does effective management of these time sinks equate to skill? (Is the player who hot keys all of his buildings better than the player that hot keys one in the same area and then 'mouse macros'?)
There is no difference. I prefer the latter but from testings I know that the former takes equal skills. It is more or less a thing of personal taste.
Is it more important to require a high count of actions to produce a high count of units, or is it more important that these players capitalize on timing and prefection?
Again, good question. I don't think it can be answered directly. Producing a high count of units is on top at times but not all the time. Timing and perfection have become more and more important through the evolution of competitive SC and from what I see in FPVOD'S (and from my own experience) it can be so important that timing and perfection can beat the importance of producing units in some situations. Can be, If, if and if. For instance in TvZ there is a timing push after FE to counter hive tech. Before terran pushes out it is very important to produce high counts of units but at the same time it is very important that some siege tanks are ready before zerg gets a defiler mound. In PvT battles can be very micro-heavy and timing and perfection can decide the whole game. One of the basics for PvT is to produce units seconds before battling if possible. If that isn't possible things can go very wrong. And this is where multitasking comes into play: if there is just 1 or 2 free seconds in a battle the player should use it and get as many of his gateways running as possible. If there is no free second he must choose to keep control or to risk something. The latter is the main argument for competitive players to stand against MBS. We (if I can add myself in) know the aspect "multitasking" in SC very well and we want to have it in a similar way in SC2, too. It is impressive and it is training (motor, mental).
The beauty of starcraft is that on the highest levels it requires as close to perfection as you can get, but nobody is perfect. Not even Savior, Bisu, Stork, GGPlay.....(I could continue my way down the KeSPA) They all make countless mistakes in any seriously intense game. MBS won't make or break Starcraft 2. What will make or break SC2 is whether or not there is more to do than is actually possible.
This leads me to the conclusion that MBS is neither good or bad, and it really depends on all of the other mechanics.
This argument has been brought up several times and again I'll try to explain why it isn't valid. It's not valid because of the statement you make. "MBS won't make or break Starcraft 2" - true. The thing is that we (pro-MBS) didn't argue that way. In simple words we said: "MBS makes SC2 too easy". The difference is huge and must be realized.
With MBS this adds a lot of focus onto Micro (while obviously not to the level of WC3 this can also be seen with the new viable abuses of terrain and abilities like blink) unless additional mechanics are added to macromanagement (The new warp unit for protoss for example).
The problem is that even the micro-management in SC2 has been scaled down. I'm talking about MUS aka massive-unit-selection. The trouble from MBS can't be solved because of MUS, both together makes things even worse. And then there's automining, too... and smartcasting... these things have been discussed in other topics already but they are so important... I've changed my view (not opinion) of it several times but in the end it won't taste any better. I just want to say that even if MBS - against my believe and my experience - doesn't harm competitive SC2 there are too many other negative influences that make it obvious to me that SC2 can't be as competitive as SC. Not the current way.
The other factor which I think needs to be brought up in this, is that this is not WC3 and a major factor in macromanement is the scaling of your economy to the production of the buildings themselves. This does not require higher APM than anything else, yet any player that can do this perfectly over his opponent generates a massive advantage. I don't care how many buildings you can select if you can't scale them properly to your economy or your economy to them, then your production will be worse than mine.
True, but only in a few cases. Less jobs to do = more free time to spend (or not to spend because of MUS etc.). The overall situation will stay the same, the skill ceiling decreases. All in all your opponents will have easier times against you (and all others) because of MBS and automining.
In that early to early-mid game where the players don't have enough buildings to really make MBS stand out as a big difference in mechanics this same "economy scaling" is still just as important. At this point in the game Build Orders make a huge difference, if your playing ZvZ and you 9 pool to your opponents 12hatch FE then you have the advantage for a short period of time. MBS doesn't have anything to do with this directly but it is still relative. If only that it shows that there are far more dynamics to the game than many of these simplified posts would have you believe and that MBS only has limited effects. It also shows that APM is only a correlation to skill and is not absolute.
Yes, very true, I share your opinion. But it's irrelevant for MBS as you say yourself.
MBS is neither a mechanic that will make or break Starcraft 2. MBS has it's pros and cons and I personally feel that if they were to keep the game exactly how it were, but only to add MBS, new units, and prettier graphics then the focus of the game would change a lot. Then MBS would simply reduce the accuracy of the correlation between skill and APM. There is far too many dynamics to the game to simply state that because it reduces the required APM it lowers the skill ceiling. As in SC there is far too much to possibly do that really if you imagine MBS within starcraft, it just changes the focus and opens up entirely new windows of opportunity. The only players I can see this hurting are those players that have spent the past 5 years + of mastering this 1 game, and will have trouble adapting away from their robotic hot key spamming routines. But I can see those that have spent the past 5 years+ mastering this 1 game and are excellent at adapting to not lose a step, because if you can cognitively maintain 300 APM while triple+ tasking and reading your opponent as well as effectively managing all of the other dynamics i mention within this post and all those that I forget -- Well then odds are you'll be the more skilled player regardless of MBS.
I think when it comes to the "break" of SC2 I think I have cleared all obscurities. I must strongly disagree with you that MBS in SC would only hurt strong "oldies". The feeling of the game is different for all players depending on what level they play. Strong players must be very fast with their hands and their mind. If that factor gets decreased by just say 10% then there will be 10% more rising players which will probably result in SKorea having 10% more potential progamers. I don't know the numbers but it would be huge. This would cause a bigger luck-factor in who becomes a progamer and who does not, because they are all about equal in skill. That luck-factor can't be good for the progaming scene, I'm very sure you'd agree.
If blizzard complicates all of the timing, micro, economy management, match ups, and needed unit distribution well then the changes provided by MBS really wane in comparison.
Agreed. The thing is: we haven't heard about anything like that from Blizzard... if they are working on it they should start releasing info's better now than never. I tend to say SC2 will be too easy just taking known facts and interviews and that since half a year already.
SCII should be, like SC, a game that rewards skill disproportionately. Just like chess or go does.
Right now RTS games are a lot about multitasking, micro, macro, APM, etc. Basically controlling and managing stuff in real time. This works great.
Then, there are also strategy, mind games, timings, build orders, counter strategies, scouting, predictiong and things like that. They also require quite some skill.
Now a game that tests 'lame' skill is not a good game. If in chess you do have to do some kind of agility test while playing the game normally then many people will consider that stupid.
There are people that think that micro, macro, APM, multitasking and all these kinds of things that are so characteristic of RTS games are wrong skills to test. Hell, there's even people that say FPS games shouldn't be about aiming. These people want more mental skills to be tested by these games. While that may seem fine there is always the issue of a skill ceiling and the spectrum of skill. At this moment it is clearly impossible to have a competitive RTS game that is not about controlling and managing in real time. We can't do away with it yet. And even if we could, we will still have RTS games that test micro and macro.
One can't make an RTS game solely based on general decision making.
I also don't understand why so many people attack macro exclusively. It has often been the micro that was attacked as well. Many people seem to think that RTS games should be about grand strategies, not about controlling specific units.
So really, you can't make a competitive game that rewards skill disproportionately without macro AND micro like SC has. Instead of reducing macro and acting like they can be replaced why not add in more difficult overall mental decision making stuff first. And then in the future maybe Blizzard can create a new innovative RTS game where it does pay off to practice 10 hours a day in a professional team but which totally lacks macro and micro. Can't be done right now. No one knows how to do it.
Instead of reducing the difficulty of macro to the difficulty level of general decision making they should rather raise up the difficulty of decision making to match that of macro, micro and multitasking.
And then for their next new really innovative RTS game they can think about focusing primarily on decision making.
@above: I don't know if chess vs sc is the best comparison... maybe if sc were turn-based and you automatically played with black sheep wall on.
@foradun:
MBS only affects the army production aspect of macromanagement. The way I see it, this production is comprised of two steps. One is the decision to produce something, the other is the execution of that decision. In both SBS and MBS, the decision to produce 10 marines or something is the same, but the execution is faster in MBS. So when I say that the "amount" of macro isn't decreased, I mean that the number of production decisions isn't decreased; only the time executing those decisions is.
The second part of my argument is that the player will use the free time generated by the decrease in execution of macro production decisions in other ways, presumably by micro'ing their forces. I doubt they'll just sit there, but I can't prove that people won't, of course.
Now, since the execution of the production decision in SBS involves clicking buildings, and microing forces involves clicking units (or clicking where to tell those units to move), the freed-up time that used to be spent clicking buildings will be spent clicking units.
didn't mean to give that impression, sorry. I just saw that chess comparison and thought it didn't work right... I wasn't trying to say anything about the rest of your post. For what it's worth, I agree with you in the sense that I hope Blizzard deepens the complexity of gameplay to allow for maximum diversity in potential strategies, and that decision-making in the overall strategic sense should be a critically important part of the game.
Only thing I said was that in SCII a progamer should crush a competitive amateur player like a grandmaster crushes a club player while it takes just as much practice to become a progamer as it takes to become a grandmaster.
And, I said that some skills that are tested in a game can be lame. I had an example that contained chess.
I never compared them. I never said anything that doesn't work because of in chess you can see all the moves your opponent makes and in SC not or that doesn't work because chess is turn based and Starcraft is real time.
On December 09 2007 02:18 talismania wrote: @foradun:
MBS only affects the army production aspect of macromanagement. The way I see it, this production is comprised of two steps. One is the decision to produce something, the other is the execution of that decision. In both SBS and MBS, the decision to produce 10 marines or something is the same, but the execution is faster in MBS. So when I say that the "amount" of macro isn't decreased, I mean that the number of production decisions isn't decreased; only the time executing those decisions is.
The second part of my argument is that the player will use the free time generated by the decrease in execution of macro production decisions in other ways, presumably by micro'ing their forces. I doubt they'll just sit there, but I can't prove that people won't, of course.
Now, since the execution of the production decision in SBS involves clicking buildings, and microing forces involves clicking units (or clicking where to tell those units to move), the freed-up time that used to be spent clicking buildings will be spent clicking units.
I understood your previous post before that already but thanks.
The question if people will be more idle because of the UI in SC2 is exactly what we're discussing all the time. Saying "I doubt" without reasoning is rather unproductive because others - like me - have added arguments to their opinions. That's all I ask from you.
Having no MBS in scbw is why its big as it is today so why put it in? what they should be doing is trying to make sc2 appeal more to the koreans because its the koreans who boosted scbw in the first place. its obvious that they wont like it. and its simple 1# more automated less skill simple as that you can look at it all you want but the outcome is the same. so ask yourself why do koreans like sc? because of the proscene. And what makes a player pro? is the amount of skill he has. but i will say this having no MBS will pretty much kill sc2 for the fact taht previous scbw players will destory new comers to teh starcraft scene because im guessing most players in scbw shud be around 150-200apm it wont be that hard to bring that micro/macro into sc2. so all i can think is have 2 types of sc2 maybe 1 for general battle.net with MBS and maybe after you go certain amount of wins it unlocks like a ladder type system. which has a set game speed takes away the MBS making it pretty much like scbw
I enjoyed your post. It's obvious we differ in opinion on a few things, but overall I think we both understand the issues at hand.
I think we really only disagree on 2 major points which I will attempt to discuss. I should note before I begin that I am currently neither for or against MBS -- I see it as a double edged sword for me... I am far better at SBS than most Sc2 players will be when they begin, but I have by no means mastered it, and am only a truly effective macro based player as my primary race. As such i try to refrain from a bias where it is possible (I am only human ). But instead I try to express an openness for the idea, the possibility of change, and the necessity of thorough testing.
The only real issue I had with your post in fact would be the part discussing the "breaking" of SC2. I suppose my perspective on breaking game wasn't that the game would fail, or not recieve critical acclaim, but by break I suppose i meant the expectations of the competitive scene.
And in order to meet the standards of any said competitive scene that is truely competitive it cannot be "too easy"
In other words by saying "MBS won't make or break SC2" It was a poor way of saying "MBS won't make sc2 too easy"
The support I would provide for this argument would be:
1) In order for MBS to truely be capitalized upon it has to be late enough in the game for you to survive long enough to scale your economy up to support that number of buildings -- Hence plenty of other factors(everything that happens the first 5+ minutes of the game) play into the viability of MBS. All of the other factors also require skill and practice just as much as anything else Human v Human.
2) It's not like taking the focus off additional actions required to queue units leaves the player without anything to do. To the least I would argue to maintain MBS until it can be thoroughly tested (which is what it seems like they're doing) I say this because, with an extra 3 seconds every 12 seconds you have more time to formulate your strategy and read your opponents, as well as spending more time, microing, setting rallys, expanding, scouting, harassing ect ect I could go on, We all know the many dynamics of the game I don't feel it's necessary to list all the possibilities. I am simply trying to state that with free time in unexpected places unexpected changes in the evolution of the metagame very well could take place.
As well as everything i said in my previous post.
Also your comments on how Strong players must be very fast with their hands and their mind. While I obviously agree with that. Any player that wants to even pretend to compete has to be a certain speed and have attained a certain understanding.
But the rest of that paragraph, you state something along the lines of if the factor requiring a certain speed (APM, Practiced Hotkey Routine ect) was less then there will be more players arising to compete since the bar has been lowered, which results in tougher competition for more progamers in Skorea. But this is bad because half of that competition excels in aspects that aren't in the game anymore. (correct me if i mis-paraphrased)
Well... There are a few problems I have with this numbers aside.
The biggest one would be that I do not feel that lowering the required attention investment required for one specific set of tasks necessarily "lowers the bar" but rather transforms the bar. Because obviously the quick minded and more dexterous players will change focus and spend those "attention" resources elsewhere -- not losing a step, but rather streamlining many. A paradigm shift within the game.
I suppose the central theme of that argument, and what holds it up goes back to something I said in my initial post:
"Multiple Building Selection is necessary *IF* the fastest player in the world still cant keep up with the game at it's more intense moment. (You'll see the best starcraft players in the world have drones sit for upwards of many seconds. You'll see imperfect micro on some level almost every game. You'll even see buildings sit unused for a few seconds here and there)"
And I suppose while I am at it this above argument should be altered to: Multiple building selection is worth thoroughly testing and analyzing because the fastest player in the world ect ect ect
The point is that MBS changes the focus of time/attention investments in a game where there is more than can possibly be done in order to achieve perfection.
wow... this has already turned into a long post. hmmm I do not feel i provided a sufficiently clear articulation with sufficient support. But perhaps... I should end by attempting to sum it all up.
In essence I am saying that MBS will not make the game necessarily easier because within Starcraft there is far more present to do mid-late game (when MBS makes the most difference because if you only have 1 hatchery MBS doesn't exist ect ect) than any human thus far can do perfectly every time -- and thus the addition of MBS simply streamlines 1 aspect out of a large mass of aspects that make up competitive starcraft.
You could argue that not all matches in starcraft are so intense and full of nonstop multitasking and action on multiple fronts with a macro based late game. But you could also argue that the effect would MBS would be most present during those scenarios. -- but back to the point
Therefore I would argue that the skill ceiling of starcraft doesn't exist or that if it does we have certainly not achieved it after the most intense, rigorous, and dedicated attempts spanning over 9 years. The metagame is still improving and evolving. And to cut myself short, and hopefully not extend this another 5 pages, I would like to end with: You cannot lower a ceiling that doesn't exist OR if the highest possible height in skill a player can achieve is 20 what difference does it make if the height of the ceiling is 60, 50, 103, or 20.1. It doesn't matter if it's not achievable. Thus I argue for more testing and some feed back from players who's judgment I find credible by whatever means. And then maybe some more testing. But until then I won't write it off as "Will make the game too easy" but instead "Opens the possibility for a paradigm shift within the metagame and playstyles" -- Which would be a whole different subject and quite an interesting thread.
OK DONE!
Thank you for your time, sorry for the long winded nature and length.
Does anyone think that there is an imbalance between the races because the zerg obviously require fewer actions for efficient APM to unit production ratio -- normally having fewer hatcheries than a terran player has Barracks, Factories, Starports? ect. ect.
Or does the speculation that the average distance between hatcheries is usually greater than that between gateways balance it for the "mouse macro" player, but not the keyboard macro player?
Or do the mechanics of larva management balance the mechanics of apm to production mechanics? (Protoss and Terran get 4 Primary unit production buildings -- Zerg get 3 -anything- larva)
What sort of implications does MBS have for larva management for zerg? Any?
The question if people will be more idle because of the UI in SC2 is exactly what we're discussing all the time. Saying "I doubt" without reasoning is rather unproductive because others - like me - have added arguments to their opinions. That's all I ask from you.
Well there's no way to say whether or not people will be idle without an experiment... and Blizzard is the only entity in a position to do that experiment. My hypothesis (just a hypothesis), and I don't think it's unreasonable, is that players, good ones anyway, won't be idle. Why would they be? Wouldn't they spend the time doing additional scouting, splitting their forces, doing more harassment, etc?
The real question is not whether players will spend their extra time idly -- the real question is if what they do during that time makes up for the decrease in the skill gap caused by MBS. If it does, then MBS does not affect the overall distribution of skill among players (although of course it will impact how the game is played) and sc2 will have the same pro-gaming potential as bw. If it doesn't, then presumably the distribution of skill among players will become compacted around the mean, and sc2 will have less of a pro-gaming potential (or at least there will be more pro-gamers at the top than there are now).
On December 09 2007 07:08 Motiva wrote: I would just like to ask.
Does anyone think that there is an imbalance between the races because the zerg obviously require fewer actions for efficient APM to unit production ratio -- normally having fewer hatcheries than a terran player has Barracks, Factories, Starports? ect. ect.
Or does the speculation that the average distance between hatcheries is usually greater than that between gateways balance it for the "mouse macro" player, but not the keyboard macro player?
Or do the mechanics of larva management balance the mechanics of apm to production mechanics? (Protoss and Terran get 4 Primary unit production buildings -- Zerg get 3 -anything- larva)
What sort of implications does MBS have for larva management for zerg? Any?
lol.
/spam
Well there's a simple answer for that: zerg got larvae which makes up for the "lack" of production buildings. It's an extra step every single round of production. Zerg players also have to focuse more on worker-control than terran and protoss players. I think this equalizes the amount of macro needed.
To your previous post I can gladly say that your argumentation is really strong, the level of the discussion has been raised a lot. I also can't find any real new counter-arguments to 99% of what I disagree to. lol jk You do a good job.
The 1% left are the postings of gamers who've played the SC2 alpha and said that they got bored at times (or something like that). I'm not sure if we can trust all of them that they don't lie about themselves having played the alpha version but ye, I'm optimistic most of them are alright
That's about it. Of course I won't change my opinion now but if I ever start arguing about SC2 again Blizzard must first officially release more facts. Otherwise I'm done thanks to you. Keep up the good work.
On December 09 2007 07:08 Motiva wrote: I would just like to ask.
Does anyone think that there is an imbalance between the races because the zerg obviously require fewer actions for efficient APM to unit production ratio -- normally having fewer hatcheries than a terran player has Barracks, Factories, Starports? ect. ect.
Or does the speculation that the average distance between hatcheries is usually greater than that between gateways balance it for the "mouse macro" player, but not the keyboard macro player?
Or do the mechanics of larva management balance the mechanics of apm to production mechanics? (Protoss and Terran get 4 Primary unit production buildings -- Zerg get 3 -anything- larva)
What sort of implications does MBS have for larva management for zerg? Any?
lol.
/spam
zerg produce at a faster rate because larva spawn faster. This means they don't actually need less apm like your suggesting.
I do think MBS would favor races that produce out of different types of buildings giving them much more control of their macro than a race that can only produce out of one type building.
I enjoyed your post. It's obvious we differ in opinion on a few things, but overall I think we both understand the issues at hand.
I think we really only disagree on 2 major points which I will attempt to discuss. I should note before I begin that I am currently neither for or against MBS -- I see it as a double edged sword for me... I am far better at SBS than most Sc2 players will be when they begin, but I have by no means mastered it, and am only a truly effective macro based player as my primary race. As such i try to refrain from a bias where it is possible (I am only human ). But instead I try to express an openness for the idea, the possibility of change, and the necessity of thorough testing.
The only real issue I had with your post in fact would be the part discussing the "breaking" of SC2. I suppose my perspective on breaking game wasn't that the game would fail, or not recieve critical acclaim, but by break I suppose i meant the expectations of the competitive scene.
And in order to meet the standards of any said competitive scene that is truely competitive it cannot be "too easy"
In other words by saying "MBS won't make or break SC2" It was a poor way of saying "MBS won't make sc2 too easy"
The support I would provide for this argument would be:
1) In order for MBS to truely be capitalized upon it has to be late enough in the game for you to survive long enough to scale your economy up to support that number of buildings -- Hence plenty of other factors(everything that happens the first 5+ minutes of the game) play into the viability of MBS. All of the other factors also require skill and practice just as much as anything else Human v Human.
2) It's not like taking the focus off additional actions required to queue units leaves the player without anything to do. To the least I would argue to maintain MBS until it can be thoroughly tested (which is what it seems like they're doing) I say this because, with an extra 3 seconds every 12 seconds you have more time to formulate your strategy and read your opponents, as well as spending more time, microing, setting rallys, expanding, scouting, harassing ect ect I could go on, We all know the many dynamics of the game I don't feel it's necessary to list all the possibilities. I am simply trying to state that with free time in unexpected places unexpected changes in the evolution of the metagame very well could take place.
As well as everything i said in my previous post.
Also your comments on how Strong players must be very fast with their hands and their mind. While I obviously agree with that. Any player that wants to even pretend to compete has to be a certain speed and have attained a certain understanding.
But the rest of that paragraph, you state something along the lines of if the factor requiring a certain speed (APM, Practiced Hotkey Routine ect) was less then there will be more players arising to compete since the bar has been lowered, which results in tougher competition for more progamers in Skorea. But this is bad because half of that competition excels in aspects that aren't in the game anymore. (correct me if i mis-paraphrased)
Well... There are a few problems I have with this numbers aside.
The biggest one would be that I do not feel that lowering the required attention investment required for one specific set of tasks necessarily "lowers the bar" but rather transforms the bar. Because obviously the quick minded and more dexterous players will change focus and spend those "attention" resources elsewhere -- not losing a step, but rather streamlining many. A paradigm shift within the game.
I suppose the central theme of that argument, and what holds it up goes back to something I said in my initial post:
"Multiple Building Selection is necessary *IF* the fastest player in the world still cant keep up with the game at it's more intense moment. (You'll see the best starcraft players in the world have drones sit for upwards of many seconds. You'll see imperfect micro on some level almost every game. You'll even see buildings sit unused for a few seconds here and there)"
And I suppose while I am at it this above argument should be altered to: Multiple building selection is worth thoroughly testing and analyzing because the fastest player in the world ect ect ect
The point is that MBS changes the focus of time/attention investments in a game where there is more than can possibly be done in order to achieve perfection.
wow... this has already turned into a long post. hmmm I do not feel i provided a sufficiently clear articulation with sufficient support. But perhaps... I should end by attempting to sum it all up.
In essence I am saying that MBS will not make the game necessarily easier because within Starcraft there is far more present to do mid-late game (when MBS makes the most difference because if you only have 1 hatchery MBS doesn't exist ect ect) than any human thus far can do perfectly every time -- and thus the addition of MBS simply streamlines 1 aspect out of a large mass of aspects that make up competitive starcraft.
You could argue that not all matches in starcraft are so intense and full of nonstop multitasking and action on multiple fronts with a macro based late game. But you could also argue that the effect would MBS would be most present during those scenarios. -- but back to the point
Therefore I would argue that the skill ceiling of starcraft doesn't exist or that if it does we have certainly not achieved it after the most intense, rigorous, and dedicated attempts spanning over 9 years. The metagame is still improving and evolving. And to cut myself short, and hopefully not extend this another 5 pages, I would like to end with: You cannot lower a ceiling that doesn't exist OR if the highest possible height in skill a player can achieve is 20 what difference does it make if the height of the ceiling is 60, 50, 103, or 20.1. It doesn't matter if it's not achievable. Thus I argue for more testing and some feed back from players who's judgment I find credible by whatever means. And then maybe some more testing. But until then I won't write it off as "Will make the game too easy" but instead "Opens the possibility for a paradigm shift within the metagame and playstyles" -- Which would be a whole different subject and quite an interesting thread.
OK DONE!
Thank you for your time, sorry for the long winded nature and length.
I don't see the logic in lowering the bar because we've seen a few progamers with idle workers. That's like saying we need to lower the basket ball hoop because we see professional basket ball players miss when they shoot or making a golf course simpler because we don't see constant holes in one. You're ambiguously asserting that there will be new things to focus on with MBS. What new things? Do you really think Savior can't have perfect timing, excellent strategy, awesome micro and still macro like a god? If you think this is the case and progamers are spamming keys while their brains are numb you're grossly mistaken. Even top foreigners will tell you it's not hard to macro while making difficult strategic decisions in game.
Bare in mind that there is a 10 year old army of die hard SC fans that will fill the role of the esports scene when this game comes out, it would make sense to complement what they learned in the first game, not punish it.
There is a fascination with Starcraft in the sense that it is so incredibly hard to master, it is the most respected and profitable Esport in the industry. The skill difference between one player and another can be so huge it's unbelievable. There is so much room for improvement that you can play it for 10 years and find new things out. That says something.
Meanwhile warcraft 3 has been harshly criticized as being too shallow and at times given up to randomness. APM is important in starcraft because training the brain to compute as many tasks as possible while making critical strategic decisions is an incredible feat. If anything Blizzard should be making SC2 harder, not easier. They should be recognizing the features that helped keep the game competitive and then build off them, not rearrange them so that we have Starcraft wearing Warcraft 3's pants: A game that's mostly micro with some macro that's made easy.
why the wc3 hate ? the game is good and has skill, its just lost in the misdt of lights and item generated randomness.
also the hero factor witch makes the game less strategical and more micro sometimes takes some of the fun of using all strategical resources avaible to you, because its just more efficient to walk around with your army killing stuff that drop items, theres very little wc3 players that can surpass the barrier imposed by hero based play to general strategy like drops etc.. like grubby
Alright, some more points here, some are old but reformulated. I'm sorry, it's much longer than I intended it to be, but it's worth the read I think. I've tried to remain very objective.
- MBS will have effectively zero effect on the early and mid game. The correct unit mix is important, and MBS doesn't help at all with mixing units. You'll have to do it manually by clicking on each production building and then selecting each unit. Also, at that stage of the game you don't have the resources yet to build a ton of units of the same type. And you only have few production buildings anyway. No one, except newbies, will have serious problems managing a few production buildings. The problems only arise when there are 6 or more and you also have to make use of a high income of money (if you accumulate too much money (> 1000), you are considered to be inefficient at macroing). The latter is probably the main reason why macroing is "hard": quickly using up all your money. This all means that, compared to SC1, if the game only lasts approximately 10 minutes, there will not be a real advantage in having MBS. Pros will still be able to horribly beat newbies in under 10 minutes.
- The SC2 alpha at Blizzcon was set to a LOW speed. Blizzard stated that there will be higher speeds for the players to choose, so everyone is going to play on the highest speed then. You played the alpha version and were bored? Well, if you play SC1 on normal or fast speed you'll be bored too. You most likely weren't bored because of MBS, but because of the speed.
- MBS won't remove the "management" aspect of the game (I'll regard this as something different than macro, you'll shortly see why). You know players like GoRush (in his prime), Savior, Bisu or <insert good Terran manager here>. These players have the same amount of APM than their other race colleagues, which means they are usually just as fast. Savior, however, has a relatively "low APM" count (250-350 on average), and there are some other Zergs with upwards of 350 APM, so they should in *theory* be able to multitask and macro better. But do they really? Savior is a genius at macroing because he can read his opponent extremely well, adapt to any given game situation, time his expansions and worker/unit production extremely well and spend his resources wisely. All these things are NOT part of mechanical skill. Others in this thread have called it a "mental skill". This is something that the anti-MBS side seems to forget about. Maybe because it's a hard thing to measure, or maybe because it could be seen as "luck", when you lose against some random guy who simply had a better management than you and overpowered you. Then you watch the rep and just think "huh, I had 100 APM more, how the fuck did he always have more than me, that damn lucker/hacker". Fact is, these mental skills require a TON of game experience and also a certain intelligence (while purely mechanical skills require NO intelligence at all - it's purely a matter of a lot of training and keyboard/mouse dexterity, so every progamer will eventually become very good at the mechanics). The "real" skill lies in mental skills like that, and mechanical skill is only an obstacle for lower-skilled players AND for micro-heavy players. MBS will NOT remove these mental skills, instead, it will probably put more emphasis on them, meaning that you will need to be at least decent in them in order to become successful. If you're merely an APM robot, and playing like a machine, and simply copying replays, you won't make it far, although you WILL make it far in SC1. MBS can solve the "imbalance" between mechanical skill and mental skill. If you can play a real-time strategy game like a robot and be very successful, then there's something wrong, because that's the wrong thing RTS games should put emphasis on. It should be a factor, of course, but it should not be the DECIDING factor of how skilled you are. In SC1, it can be... The harder you make the UI, the more you reward uninspired, robot-like players, and the harder you make it for the really smart players who bring fresh strategies to the table.
- About the balance between macro and micro: consider a late-game SC1 scenario, PvT. Both players are at upwards of 130 supply. Standard goon/zeal/HT vs. tank/vulture. P decides to attack the Terran, who is occupying the center of the map (say, Python). He splits his big army in 2 and flanks from 2 directions. He does A-click, send his zeals in first, goons next, HTs last who then storm a few times. That's basically all the micro there is. If P has superior numbers, he wins the battle, if not, he loses and has to retreat his units. More micro than this is simply not worth it. For example, spreading the goons to avoid tank splash? No one does that. It's MUCH more efficient to macro all the time and to ignore micro as much as possible. The longer the game lasts, the more time every player has to spend on macro. Once you've hit 200/200, or the map is completely mined out, then you can micro a lot of course, but before that it's MUCH more rewarding to reproduce units fast than it is to truly display great micro with his existing units. The balance between macro and micro, always mentioned as a strength of SC1, gradually shifts in favor of macro the longer the game lasts. This is a real problem, and MBS seems to be a perfect solution for this. You want a player like Boxer to lose? Just take some random newschool Protoss, let him scout well, then *play it safe* until late game / 130+ supply. Then, he will simply be able to overpower Boxer, because better micro doesn't help you anymore at that stage of the game. Boxer will slowly fall to the pressure of a shitload of units every 2 minutes. Micro? Who cares?
- WC3 is no comparison. There's a lot of game features that absolutely destroy macro and management, and turn the game into a "micro only" game: -- upkeep -- hero-centric play -- the high unit hitpoint count allows you to have a slow reaction time and use that time for other things (like constructing buildings or "macroing") -- much less workers needed than in SC1/SC2 -- much less expansions needed, too None of this will be true for SC2.
In conclusion: If you fear that macro will become less important, I say: fear not, and remember the point about "management". SC2 will give you a lot of opportunity to display superior management. There's even some new map features, like the yellow mineral patches which give you more resources but are supposed to be located in a dangerous position. All this rewards management. (Mechanical) macro is made easier, yes, but: - it only affects late game - good management affects ALL stages of the game - micro will become more important. Not dominant, mind you, but you probably will be able to win large-scale late-game battles because of better micro and not because you had a few more units than your opponent. This is NOT possible in current newschool BW, I'm afraid. Well, maybe in TvZ, but that's the ONLY non-mirror matchup where micro is very rewarding at all stages of the game. In current BW, if you are a micro-heavy player, you have to win the game early on or in mid game, otherwise you WILL lose if your macro/mechanics sucks. SC2 can change that and truly balance things out again. SC1 *had* a balance between macro and micro, but high skill levels and current maps have destroyed that balance. MBS will restore it.
I don't see the logic in lowering the bar because we've seen a few progamers with idle workers. That's like saying we need to lower the basket ball hoop because we see professional basket ball players miss when they shoot or making a golf course simpler because we don't see constant holes in one. You're ambiguously asserting that there will be new things to focus on with MBS. What new things? Do you really think Savior can't have perfect timing, excellent strategy, awesome micro and still macro like a god? If you think this is the case and progamers are spamming keys while their brains are numb you're grossly mistaken. Even top foreigners will tell you it's not hard to macro while making difficult strategic decisions in game.
Bare in mind that there is a 10 year old army of die hard SC fans that will fill the role of the esports scene when this game comes out, it would make sense to complement what they learned in the first game, not punish it.
There is a fascination with Starcraft in the sense that it is so incredibly hard to master, it is the most respected and profitable Esport in the industry. The skill difference between one player and another can be so huge it's unbelievable. There is so much room for improvement that you can play it for 10 years and find new things out. That says something.
Meanwhile warcraft 3 has been harshly criticized as being too shallow and at times given up to randomness. APM is important in starcraft because training the brain to compute as many tasks as possible while making critical strategic decisions is an incredible feat. If anything Blizzard should be making SC2 harder, not easier. They should be recognizing the features that helped keep the game competitive and then build off them, not rearrange them so that we have Starcraft wearing Warcraft 3's pants: A game that's mostly micro with some macro that's made easy.
Hmmm... Well I guess I should go in order.....
First. I am not argueing that the bar is being lowered in anyway. In fact a primary theme in my arguments is that what we are percieving as a "lowering" in the bar is naught but a shift in the way we perceive the bar.
Second I am ambiguously asserting that either there will be new things for the players to focus on, AS WELL as perhaps a shift in the original focus on what to spend the resources known as time and attention on.
I did not mean to be interpretted to mean that because we've seen imperfect play we should make it easier to achieve perfect play, but rather I set out to prove that it is too early to say that with MBS perfect play is achievable (or from a different perspective, to say that the game is easier)
And then you lead me to:
"If you think this is the case and progamers are spamming keys while their brains are numb you're grossly mistaken. Even top foreigners will tell you it's not hard to macro while making difficult strategic decisions in game."
If you read my 2 overly long winded posts on this page and the previous and you came to the conclusion that this was my opinion on the stance of the unit production aspects of macromanagment well then I must say that I feel you are grossly mistaken.
In fact from my perspective this works into my argument. I am arguing that Single Building Selection is in essence a time sink. A time sink to which this thread is discussing the necessity. I can't see how you could disagree with this.
Fortunately, since we both agree that "even top foreigners will tell you it's not hard to macro while making difficult strategic decisions in the game" We should be able to agree that since macroing to the trained average player that it maybe really isn't such a deciding factor of skill, but rather simply a routine any experianced play executes. I don't see how this makes the menial takes of unit production a necessary task that cannot be streamlined unless you have formed a bias in your opinion as to what you expect out of the game. If you are unwilling to comprimise your already formed conditioned routines within the strategic framework of the game, then yes I can see why you might want to continue having SBS. I am still interested in testing and cannot truly side with either decision without a basis of personal experience. However the more i read and debate this with fellow players, the more I see this bias having formed. which leads me to your next point
Experienced Players -> Should we reward the 10 year vets of starcraft by only making them relearn build orders, counteres, and new other new mechanics they decide to include, or should we change or streamline an already present mechanic within the game so that the time absorbed by the previous timesink can be absorbed into any of the other counter mechanics within the game.
I would argue that it could be in the interest of the game, game developers, and in the long run the competitive scene to have a semi-fresh start. Obviously the 10 year starcraft vet should have enough of an advantage simply by playing the most competitive RTS out there, having 150+ APM, and full knowledge of countless tactics used by similar units. Perhaps adding MBS not only changes the focus of the game, allowing time for different timesinks, but it also helps level the Day 1 playing field.
As you argued SBS macro really isn't that hard of a thing to do, and I wasn't argueing that macro can't do all of those things, but rather it was an argument that HE CAN do all of those things. A simple speculation on the possibility of what happens when you streamline a mechanic and open up a good 2-3 minutes of time resources to be spent on another mechanic. This is not lowering the bar, this is not making the game easier, this is changing the focus and perhaps a paradigm shift in the priorities of the strategic framework of the game.
This fascination with Starcraft that you speak of (of the inability to master the game) is something I am very familiar with and have brought up within my 2 previous longer posts. not the one marked /spam.
In fact it is this not only fascination with the game, but as close to we can get to a fact about the game -> After 10 years the game is still evolving, players on all levels are improving and finding out new things. That certainly does say something.
I suppose this leads me to believe that your primary argument is that this particular aspect of macro(MBS/SBS) while being nothing a top pro couldn't do without thought in addition to everything else, is also so very important because it helps sort out the bad players from the worse.
I can see the merit in this however, my entire 10 page arguments argue that while SBS does involve skill that doesn't immediately merit it's inclusion into a game that tests a wide array of skills and abilities in real time. Rather I find the more intelligent solution would be to test new possibilities without bias... Though perhaps you have played the game extensively several times, and can explain to me how you were so bored because since you couldn't find anything to do because you didn't have to select each building individually.
Were you arguing that if savior had MBS he wouldn't be able to improve other aspects of his game, and still strive for that unachievable perfection?
The main topics we disagree upon:
You feel that Starcraft2 needs to play nearly identical to the original, and reward 10 year vets by allowing the continuation of their formed routines. I argue that I feel that Starcraft 2 should play very similarly to the original, but I welcome any subtle paradigm shifts in the focus of the gameplay, micro, macro ect.... I primarily argue this because if we do not sample all of these possibilities how would we know that the game could not be better than it is? I also argue this because a 10 year vet will already be rewarded with his superior strategic mind, efficiency, speed, and instinct. I do not feel that a subtle paradigm shift is "punishing" what a player learned originally. I feel I must stress again that I am not arguing for a "lowering" of the bar (although I did speculate that it doesn't matter if the bar is lowered if it is still above the finite limitations of human play -- that is irrelevant though) I am arguing that we should not hold on so tightly to our expectations of the bar, or our wishes for the game.
No matter how good something is, if it is not what you expected and/or is lower than the hype you believed -- you are disappointed.
Which leads me to Warcraft III.
Hmm... This is something I could say quite a bit on, but my posts always seem to run on endlessly until I can bring myself to conscientiously say "that's enough I'll wait for your reply before elaborating further"
I should say that I do agree with the majority of what you said about Wc3. In fact I, myself, have felt many of the things you brought up about wc3. I did find warcraft 3 to be a bit too shallow and on some levels given up to randomness. Though my opinions on the random nature of Warcraft come and go with patches I shall not discuss those here as they are not relative.
The shallow aspect of warcraft 3 comes from a paradigm shift in the focus of the game. Not all paradigm shifts were created equally. That however does not mean that we shouldn't be open to new mechanics, changes in old mechanics, and thoroughly tested and approved paradigm shifts.
Plenty of people love WC3, and it's competitive community is better than a large majority of games in existence.
I would argue though. That warcraft 3 is no easier than starcraft -- It simply focuses on an entirely difference set of time sinks as I discussed briefly in my initial post on page 24.
APM is important in Starcraft, but it is still relative to Warcraft 3, and APM in warcraft 3 is still "training the brain to compute as many tasks as possible while making critical strategic decisions" though in Warcraft 3 the shift of focus on what are the better critical strategic decision is different (to kill gatherers or heros ect ect ect)
I do not really understand why you brought WC3 up. You can argue that it may require a slightly higher APM, but you could also argue that APM is simply a correlation and is not a direct truth -- as I did in my initial post on page 24.
I will present my argumentation as to why I feel MBS has nothing to do with the shallow randomness of WC3 and why it is very unlikely that even with MBS and some of the other automation features of wc3, SC2 will not simply be SC in WC3's pants.
I suppose the most brief yet thorough way to do this would be a list.
1) Warcraft 3 took the focus off of the economy of the game all together which opens up a huge amount of time, and attention (supposedly countered by heros and creeps) 2) Warcraft 3 is a game consisting of soft counters. There is no Firebat to Zergling counters in WC3 (maybe a few, but even then pretty nerfed in comparision) 3) The pace of wc3 is intentionally slower, focusing on efficient management of units rather than macro... There is no macro whatsoever in WC3 because there is no focus on economy as well as less focus on unit counters (which affect macro indirectly) 4) The addition of heros provides an additional paradigm shift within the focus of the game that cannot be ignored.
You then somehow lead this into Blizzard should be making SC2 harder not easier, and build off of the aspect that made the game competitive in the first place.
Well, as you stated earlier SBS isn't that hard of a task even to the busiest top tier pro, so is that really what made Starcraft competitive or was the multifaceted micro and macro frameworks of the game, -- not the mechanics of execution but the actual framework -- of Scaling your economy to your unit production while worry about very hard counters(scouting ect) holding positions on the map to secure sufficient expansion (map control)....and all that is micro.
In short. MBS won't make or break the competitive aspects of Starcraft because the effects provided by MBS wane in comparision to the legistics of the multifaceted framework of the game.
Map Control, Sufficient Worker production, proper production building scaling to economy, worker to fighter ratios, counters, scouting, micro.... I could go on forever I think you get the point.
I would like to end on the note that since we can agree that MBS isn't such a big deal for top tier pros and really serves more to differentiate the bad player from the worse (relative terms)... Well on those skill levels... They're having problems with their multitasking, making 1 task out of that set of "Multitasks" easier does not necessarily make the game easier, instead it opens up the opportunity for the more skilled player to capatilize on this free few seconds where he is consciencly composed and waiting for the right timing, and the less skilled player with or without MBS is still scrambling going oh shit.
wow... far too long again I look forward to your reply, I do feel that i was less articulate in this post than the last 2, so if you do have an issue with something I discussed here, please read my initial two posts, so I don't have to write another essay (For those that haven't already)
Why is this fear so strong that players will be idle at times? Players already idle a lot in starcraft the first 10 minutes, and then the difference comes that the macro wont get extremely craving but the micro instead.
And no, there are no players that have perfect micro in any game ever, if it isn't extremely short with only very very small amounts of units. Its impossible for any human to micro 10 units perfectly, not to talk about ~80-120 which is quite common in starcraft lategames. And microing 100 units takes a completely different skill set than microing 5.
This isn't the end of starcraft, its a lategame paradigm shift to keep the apm at the micro side instead of the macro side were players have a harder time to differentiate themselves. Macro matches are predictable and therefore boring, micro adds the flavor were you never know who will come out on top on the encounters. High level micro is the reason to watch games, high level macro is just a necessity to stay competitive.
But ofcourse if you somehow find it that exiting to imagine how fast they click buildings when you watch games, but cant you just imagine that people don't use mbs in sc2? Because really, the kind of macro removed by mbs is no more complex than playing "wack a mole" with moles coming up in a timed pattern you decide.
If we take this out of the starcraft context, imagine a really deep and fun game, but you had to play wack a mole to gain necessary resources for the primary game, wouldn't that seem kinda dumb? Most would think "Why ruin this great game with this useless chore?", this is the same reason why all educational games fail, people play games because they think its fun, they don't play games since they have to little chores to do in real life.
This is also why mbs will make Starcraft 2 to a huge success, they take the awesome gameplay of starcraft and removes the chores that can easily be emulated by poor flash games.
And of course some starcraft players are skeptic to this, that doesn't mean that its a bad change though since all changes are met with skepticisms.
Imo this whole thing is blown out of proportions, and just for your info DOW got an autoqueing feature wich means that you don't even have to click a button to build units. Be happy that Blizzard didn't add such a feature, today not having such a feature almost seen as outdated and what starcraft 2 is using is seen as a minimum for any rts created.
all those anti MBS guys seem very short-sighted to me
when jaedong did a double muta harrass on main and expansion at the same time a few days ago, everyone was going "wow, that's nice". how about having muta harrass on 4 bases at the same time? well sadly that's not possible because of the ridicously outdated SC UI, and exactly that is what i hope for in SC2 with MBS. macro and mechanics are an important factor for a RTS, no doubt, but i'd like to see macro that has to do with strategy/micro. what i am trying to say is that you could actually macro your micro, for example with triple harrass or 2 large scale attacks on 2 fronts, while still having the time to efficiently micro these attacks. that's not possible in SC because you have to click your 10 facs every 20sec.
well, i could say more, but you get my point i hope.
On December 09 2007 20:12 snowbird wrote: ok so i'll add my 2cents to this topic
all those anti MBS guys seem very short-sighted to me
when jaedong did a double muta harrass on main and expansion at the same time a few days ago, everyone was going "wow, that's nice". how about having muta harrass on 4 bases at the same time? well sadly that's not possible because of the ridicously outdated SC UI, and exactly that is what i hope for in SC2 with MBS. macro and mechanics are an important factor for a RTS, no doubt, but i'd like to see macro that has to do with strategy/micro. what i am trying to say is that you could actually macro your micro, for example with triple harrass or 2 large scale attacks on 2 fronts, while still having the time to efficiently micro these attacks. that's not possible in SC because you have to click your 10 facs every 20sec.
well, i could say more, but you get my point i hope.
Yea that was a great game and set. Quite impressive. I agree with your logic, and it is exactly what I'm talking about, when I talk about how MBS can't lower the Skill Ceiling, because the Skill Ceiling is nonexistent. Or if it does exist it is far beyond our reach.
Well, the anti MBS people think that this kind of micro is a) already possible in SC1 and b) only impressive when you have to macro all the time as well.
Problem: It *is* possible, but the crazier your micro stuff is the more you get behind in production. Which means that SC1's heavy focus on macro *restricts* you. Imagine macro had a voice and personality, then it would effectively say "hey hold on there, what crazy stuff are you trying to do there? Fuck you, come back here and click buildings all the time! Or I will see to it that you lose the game!" SC1's UI forces you to macro all the time and this makes a lot of micro things not viable, unless you play against a newbie. Then you can use ghosts, nukes, whatever... and ignore macro. But that's not going to happen when 2 skilled players play. Late game means heavy macro, and this needs to be changed. Make heavy micro viable again (and heavy macro should ideally still be viable, but not exclusively).
On December 09 2007 20:12 snowbird wrote: ok so i'll add my 2cents to this topic
all those anti MBS guys seem very short-sighted to me
when jaedong did a double muta harrass on main and expansion at the same time a few days ago, everyone was going "wow, that's nice". how about having muta harrass on 4 bases at the same time? well sadly that's not possible because of the ridicously outdated SC UI [...]
Ok, I said I won't discuss SC2 anymore etc. but this drives me mad.
Why do pro MBS people keep acting like they don't understand why some don't want MBS. It's for exactly the same reason they want it in the first place.
It makes the game easier and more convenient. It makes players require less practice to be decent. That's why.
In SC right now you actually need to play quite near perfect to get some wins on ICCup. Yet progamers just walk over those people that walk over almost everyone on ICCup. That's why.
@ForAdun You make a very good point Theres a reason why he's one of the best of all time. (But i must state that I don't think it's because he's better at SBS than other players. Yet Multitasking in general perhaps)
@BlackStar
I understand exactly why some don't want MBS. I would argue however that those people have formed a bias against change and possibility. I would argue further that this bias while certainly necessary in small doses (We do want a true sequal) it is also largely unfounded and just overly apprehensive.
If we wanted to break it down to semantics at this point we could simply argue opinion. That is what seems the most reasonable in most discussions so controversial within a community.
I however have been making an attempt to show the non-mbs users that there is the possibility for positive change while simultaneously streamlining mechanics.
I don't see how taking the focus off the APM aspect and rather focusing on the responsive strategy aspects in handling counters, managing resources and map control ect.
I've seen people use a comparision of Boxer and oov in this argument previously, while there are some obvious issues with this. I would like to state the purposes of it's use here. The previous analogy some number of pages back states something along the lines of Boxer being the more micro based player, and iloveoov being the more macro based player. The argument was that because of MBS Boxer would have equal macro as iloveoov. Please don't nitpick the details of this analogy but rather try to see the point. I say that because I do not think the analogy is perfect, and perhaps someone who understands what i'm saying can be a bit more creative than me at the moment.
Anyway... The reason I bring this up, is because I do not feel that because of MBS the macro will be equal. and While this might be detaching from the analogy, this is why i believe this:
It is not that the macro player has more apm than the micro player, but rather that he focuses on something rather than micro. The macro player focuses on ECONOMY not APM... He builds more drones, goes for the mid-late game approach where he out econ's his opponent and just overwhelms them. He doesn't gain his advantage out of being faster at queue units, but rather having more unit producing buildings and having a larger economy.
The micro based player will fight a macro based opponent, and attempt to execute a timing push and maintain map control by trying to keep on in expos and prevent expos (in much the same way a macro based player will still micro) But the micro based player tries to take the advantage and run with it while he has the unit advantage from not focusing on economy.
Hmmm I talk too much, and I may have digressed, but perhaps you'll see where i'm coming from.
I am not totally against abolishing MBS, as SBS does not directly make the game worse, it's just a change in focus. I haven't played SC2 so i'm not going to get my panties in a bunch, but rather I look forward to an opportunity to test both within the new framework of counters, timings, and all new aspects as they present themselves.
This articulates where the difficulty is in SBS macro down very well.
The problems themselves are quite easy. Im sure no-one lost because they didnt know what 15 + 6 is. You lost because the problems started happening faster, and your brain got flooded with lots of simple questions which require relatively no thought on their own, but together, stress out the brain and cause it to faulter.
This is where the difficulty of macro in starcraft is. The tasks themselves are easy, but when you are flooded with them, they put stress on your brain. SBS macro adds stress to your brain while playing. Multitasking macro with something else such as micro actions adds even more pressure. The best players are the ones that can handle the most amount of pressure. The ones that can macro and micro the best when the game is really intense. Prioritising what actions are important is also a very important skill, it ensures that the actions which the brain can process are the ones that are most beneficial to the game.
MBS relieves the pressure on the brain by reducing the amount of problems it has to deal with leaving it less stressful than its predecessor, which is what I personally dont want. I want a game where I come out of feeling like my brain was pushed to the limits coordinating all the actions that were required of me.
Now for people that are arguing that the game is too macro heavy and therefore we should add MBS. Your argument is basically that you wish to remove the need for prioritising actions. Prioritising actions is a very important strategical element. No-one can do everything, but players can choose where they focus the bulk of their actions. Choosing the correct actions to focus on is a good strategical move, and choosing the wrong actions is bad. It sets players apart and is good for competition.
If you want the need for prioritising actions to stay, then your arguing the wrong argument by arguing pro-MBS. MBS will reduce the stress on the brain by all the little actions. If players still have to prioritise, players will prioritise where they can gain the most. If macro is a more important factor, then the game will still end up being a macro war at the end. The only thing that can change the game from a macro game to more of a micro game is a shift in balance. Maybe AOE spells could be made better, so that microing properely is much more rewarding than macroing properely or production buildings could be made more expensive, limiting the effective amounts that you would want to build and increasing the time it takes to mass large armys etc.
Someday I'll get to answering the real meat of the discussion, but for right now a quick response to Fen will have to do...
I think there's a critical difference in how each of us view your analogy as relating to MBS.
First, with macro the 'problems' are often relatively the same, making the intellectual difficulty much less than your analogy would imply. If SC2 is designed such that the optimal unit distribution for a given situation changes more frequently, then MBS macro will become more difficult due to the shift-clicking necessary to switch buildings in and out of hotkey groups. To use your marine-medic example from earlier, 5m5c (with five barracks set to 5) will give you 5 marines and 5 queued medics - hardly an optimal distribution or production rate. If you wanted 4 marines and 1 medic per command, then you'd have to shift-click a barrack and hotkey it into another group, thus making it 5m6c. The shift-clicking/hotkey process may seem trivial, but the time investment adds up the more you have to do it. Also, if more diverse unit distributions are rewarded by the design, the macro mechanics become harder in turn - '5m6g7c', for example.
Secondly, I view MBS not as reducing the number of problems, but rather as making those problems easier to answer. With MBS, you still have to command (for example) gates to produce goons as soon as you have the resources to do so, leading to macro commands being issued just as frequently as with SBS - the difference is the command is '4d' instead of '4d5d6d7d8d9d0d' or 'click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d'. IMHO, it's more like using your keypad to answer the questions in the above mental exercise instead of clicking the numbers and enter using the mouse.
As for the latter half of your post, I understand your concern but I don't have time to respond to it right now.
On December 10 2007 01:39 1esu wrote: To use your marine-medic example from earlier, 5m5c (with five barracks set to 5) will give you 5 marines and 5 queued medics - hardly an optimal distribution or production rate. If you wanted 4 marines and 1 medic per command, then you'd have to shift-click a barrack and hotkey it into another group, thus making it 5m6c. The shift-clicking/hotkey process may seem trivial, but the time investment adds up the more you have to do it. Also, if more diverse unit distributions are rewarded by the design, the macro mechanics become harder in turn - '5m6g7c', for example.
If your using my example from above, then the person playing does not have the 500 minerals and 125 gas to just que all that stuff up. In my example, the player was constantly clicking 5m every time he had 50 minerals spare, and changing it to a 5c when he wanted a medic. The game would then produce these units in the fastest way possible, meaning his 5 barracks are macroing perfectly. This would be perfect excecution of macro without even having to go near his base.
As for
On December 10 2007 01:39 1esu wrote: Secondly, I view MBS not as reducing the number of problems, but rather as making those problems easier to answer. With MBS, you still have to command (for example) gates to produce goons as soon as you have the resources to do so, leading to macro commands being issued just as frequently as with SBS - the difference is the command is '4d' instead of '4d5d6d7d8d9d0d' or 'click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d'. IMHO, it's more like using your keypad to answer the questions in the above mental exercise instead of clicking the numbers and enter using the mouse.
I agree with you here. You do make the problems easier to answer. The difficulty in SBS is coordinating 5d6d7d8d9d0d not the thought processes of what do I want to build. But coordinating this does tie up your brain, and while you are doing this action, your cognitive abilities are weakend. The better player's brain is better at multitasking this coordination with the other thought processes he needs to be thinking of.
I'd also like to add one more thing, that is not aimed at you 1esu.
To everyone that is saying MBS leaves room for more micro ect. This only occurs if you are in battle. If you are not in battle, there is very little micromanagement that is required of you. People WILL be sitting there doing idling. If they are not in battle, they are aware of what the situation on the map is and it is not an appropriate time to attack. They will have nothing to do but wait for their numbers to build up.
In starcraft currently, when 2 large armys go into battle. Micro becomes much more important. Poor micro in large battles could mean a loss of 80-100 food. Something which having good macro throughout the battle is not going to make up for. When large battles occur in the starcraft proscene, the pros DO switch their emphasis to the battle at hand. They then macro during the battle only when they can spare a few seconds where their micro actions will not be as effective as macro actions. Late game is very macro based, most of the time players are building stuff, but thats because there are no micro actions that are worth doing in comparison to building more units. They are either not in a big battle, or there are no micro actions that the player can perform that will greatly influence the battle. It has very little to do with the fact that it requires lots of actions to macro.
EDIT: Actually I just had a great idea. For anyone who wants to know the required micro in starcraft, go out and play a team melee game. Designate one person as the macroer and one person as the microer. The microer may only perform micro actions and the same for the macroer. Make a rule, no spamming APM, and then go see the Bwchart on the replay.
And the ones that do will lose to the ones that don't... that spend the extra time doing additional scouting, doing additional harassment, rearranging forces, probing the enemy's territory, etc. Of course I have to admit that this is speculative, but you have to admit that the "they will idle" sentiment is also just speculative.
To really tell one way or the other, we need some kind of an experiment. I came up with this last night... I hope Blizzard at least considers doing something like it since they're the only ones in a position to do so.
(In spoiler tags so as not to break anyone's scroll wheel that doesn't want to read...) + Show Spoiler +
Goals:
Broadly, to determine what impact MBS has on competitive gameplay in sc2. Specifically, to see if MBS decreases the skill gaps between strong players and weaker players.
Materials and Methods:
Participants:
30 or so advanced (but not elite) starcraft: brood war players. Take them from ICCUP rankings if possible... making sure to get a range of players from B- to D+. Players would be compensated for their time (although you could probably get them to volunteer).
Procedures:
-Training phase:
Have the players play against each other on sc2 for two weeks, allowing them to develop a familiarity with the game. For the sake of getting the maximum depth out of this training period, all the players should be limited to one race and to playing the mirror matchup only. Both MBS and SBS would be used during this training period (SBS would be performed voluntarily, and by both players in the matchup).
-Experimental phase:
For the first week of the experimental phase, half the players solely play MBS against each other, the other half plays solely SBS against each other. Each player plays every other player at least 10 - 15 times. For the second week, the two groups switch (so if you played SBS matches, you now play with MBS and vice versa. This designed done to account for any order effect). All games are MIRROR MATCHUPS. This is necessary to ensure that any balance issues won't affect the results, and that any balance issues that might changes by changing the UI also don't affect the results.
-Analysis: Each player will have an average win/loss record against every other player for both MBS and SBS. Simply do a 2-tailed t-test on all this data (there will be tons with 30 players) and see whether or not these win/loss records change significantly (p=.05, natch). Or if you want to be more sophisticated, add in the factor of game time and map selection and do it with an ANOVA. You could also record APM if you were curious as to how that would change.
Results:
-If there's no change in the average of the average win/loss records between players, then MBS has not affected the competitiveness of the game. Keep MBS in the game.
-If it increases the skill gap, then someone MBS has somehow created more opportunities for the better players to distinguish themselves. Keep MBS in the game.
-If it decreases the skill gap, then MBS has decreased the available opportunities for better players to distinguish themselves. Remove MBS or add more factors to the game until the skill gaps are back to normal.
Bonus:
You can actually do this in BW right now if you can hack BW to allow for MBS... if those hacks exist (they probably do) this experiment could theoretically be done right now.
And the ones that do will lose to the ones that don't... that spend the extra time doing additional scouting, doing additional harassment, rearranging forces, probing the enemy's territory, etc. Of course I have to admit that this is speculative, but you have to admit that the "they will idle" sentiment is also just speculative.
To really tell one way or the other, we need some kind of an experiment. I came up with this last night... I hope Blizzard at least considers doing something like it since they're the only ones in a position to do so.
(In spoiler tags so as not to break anyone's scroll wheel that doesn't want to read...) + Show Spoiler +
Goals:
Broadly, to determine what impact MBS has on competitive gameplay in sc2. Specifically, to see if MBS decreases the skill gaps between strong players and weaker players.
Materials and Methods:
Participants:
30 or so advanced (but not elite) starcraft: brood war players. Take them from ICCUP rankings if possible... making sure to get a range of players from B- to D+. Players would be compensated for their time (although you could probably get them to volunteer).
Procedures:
-Training phase:
Have the players play against each other on sc2 for two weeks, allowing them to develop a familiarity with the game. For the sake of getting the maximum depth out of this training period, all the players should be limited to one race and to playing the mirror matchup only. Both MBS and SBS would be used during this training period (SBS would be performed voluntarily, and by both players in the matchup).
-Experimental phase:
For the first week of the experimental phase, half the players solely play MBS against each other, the other half plays solely SBS against each other. Each player plays every other player at least 10 - 15 times. For the second week, the two groups switch (so if you played SBS matches, you now play with MBS and vice versa. This designed done to account for any order effect). All games are MIRROR MATCHUPS. This is necessary to ensure that any balance issues won't affect the results, and that any balance issues that might changes by changing the UI also don't affect the results.
-Analysis: Each player will have an average win/loss record against every other player for both MBS and SBS. Simply do a 2-tailed t-test on all this data (there will be tons with 30 players) and see whether or not these win/loss records change significantly (p=.05, natch). Or if you want to be more sophisticated, add in the factor of game time and map selection and do it with an ANOVA. You could also record APM if you were curious as to how that would change.
Results:
-If there's no change in the average of the average win/loss records between players, then MBS has not affected the competitiveness of the game. Keep MBS in the game.
-If it increases the skill gap, then someone MBS has somehow created more opportunities for the better players to distinguish themselves. Keep MBS in the game.
-If it decreases the skill gap, then MBS has decreased the available opportunities for better players to distinguish themselves. Remove MBS or add more factors to the game until the skill gaps are back to normal.
Bonus:
You can actually do this in BW right now if you can hack BW to allow for MBS... if those hacks exist (they probably do) this experiment could theoretically be done right now.
Sigh, someone didnt read my post.
I specifically stated that it is not an appropriate time to attack, this counts for harrassing as well. I specifically stated that the player has adequete knowledge of whats going on in the map, scouting would just result in dead units. As for rearranging forces (the only suggestion you have that I didnt already take into account), thats a rediculously small task to make up for all the time that MBS and Automine will take away.
Please think your posts through, because its really frustrating having to rebut the same poorly thought out arguments over and over again.
As for your perfect way of testing, how bout you suggest something that is viable.
The only way I can think of, would be to play a team melee game in starcraft, but have one person just performing the macro actions that would not exist if MBS and Automine existed.
It's probably correct that players will have less to do when there is no battle, but that doesn't have to mean anything, positive or negative. In SC1, you are constantly busy. In SC2 with MBS, it will be more dynamic. If there's a big battle going on, you will be just as busy as with SC1. If nothing happens, you won't have to do so much. But I doubt that this is a problem. Look at the first 5-7 minutes or so (depending on map and build orders) of SC1, they are often all the same, there's almost nothing to do and many players spam to get their fingers warmed up or to keep a certain APM level all the time. SC2 will provide a faster start due to starting with 6 workers, and then less things to do when the game is running but there is currently no battle situation (and no plan to engage in one, either). As a result, the "spammers" might continue to spam during that time, or you might want to rearrange your troops. This is something that almost never happens in SC1 due to the time you have to spend on macroing all the while. You know, like arranging your zerglings or goons in a row or something like that. People do things like that in SC1 early game when there's not much to do yet, too. Things like that also count as micro, that would be one example of why MBS allows you to spend more time on micro.
On December 10 2007 05:03 Brutalisk wrote: It's probably correct that players will have less to do when there is no battle, but that doesn't have to mean anything, positive or negative. In SC1, you are constantly busy. In SC2 with MBS, it will be more dynamic. If there's a big battle going on, you will be just as busy as with SC1. If nothing happens, you won't have to do so much. But I doubt that this is a problem. Look at the first 5-7 minutes or so (depending on map and build orders) of SC1, they are often all the same, there's almost nothing to do and many players spam to get their fingers warmed up or to keep a certain APM level all the time. SC2 will provide a faster start due to starting with 6 workers, and then less things to do when the game is running but there is currently no battle situation (and no plan to engage in one, either). As a result, the "spammers" might continue to spam during that time, or you might want to rearrange your troops. This is something that almost never happens in SC1 due to the time you have to spend on macroing all the while. You know, like arranging your zerglings or goons in a row or something like that. People do things like that in SC1 early game when there's not much to do yet, too. Things like that also count as micro, that would be one example of why MBS allows you to spend more time on micro.
But that, (in my opinon) goes against what starcraft is all about. Sure in starcraft the first few minutes are pretty boring, but once the game gets going, its an intense experience that never lets up until gg is called.
It sounds like to me the problem with MBS is that it allows you to macro while keeping your focus on the battle. If its simply button smash time that people are complaining about then having tabbed MBS (for early to mid game) is identical to hotkeying buildings, afterall
5m6m7m8m9m0m is the same as 5m-tab-m-tab-m-tab-m-tab-m-tab-m
when it comes to the amount of actions required.
game dominance doesn't depend on the 2-3 seconds to click through your production buildings, it depends on the 10+ seconds you lose when you don't macro to focus on micro. Personally my biggest problem is that i just plain forget to go to my production buildings, and this is something that will happen regardless of MBS or SBS.
I know that MBS easing macro is one of the biggest concerns, but are people concerned about the fact that MBS opens more control groups for units? Or do people generally agree that thats a good thing?
what's your age ? When did you start playing SC (I mean BW, obviously in your case) ? What's your level (please try to stay objective) ?
Maybe you think these questions are irrelevant here ? I would however not risk myself to argue that much if i was not even able to realize why the actual game is still there, and still so great. Indeed, i dont think you can have a clear view on the question if you're a young/beginner.
There's no fucking hope with you guys. If you already want that, i imagine Blizzard would have no remorse to oversimplify it since they'll make more money this way.
Your arguments are still very nice, but answer the damn questions, just for my own curiosity.
This articulates where the difficulty is in SBS macro down very well.
The problems themselves are quite easy. Im sure no-one lost because they didnt know what 15 + 6 is. You lost because the problems started happening faster, and your brain got flooded with lots of simple questions which require relatively no thought on their own, but together, stress out the brain and cause it to faulter.
This is where the difficulty of macro in starcraft is. The tasks themselves are easy, but when you are flooded with them, they put stress on your brain. SBS macro adds stress to your brain while playing. Multitasking macro with something else such as micro actions adds even more pressure. The best players are the ones that can handle the most amount of pressure. The ones that can macro and micro the best when the game is really intense. Prioritising what actions are important is also a very important skill, it ensures that the actions which the brain can process are the ones that are most beneficial to the game.
MBS relieves the pressure on the brain by reducing the amount of problems it has to deal with leaving it less stressful than its predecessor, which is what I personally dont want. I want a game where I come out of feeling like my brain was pushed to the limits coordinating all the actions that were required of me.
Now for people that are arguing that the game is too macro heavy and therefore we should add MBS. Your argument is basically that you wish to remove the need for prioritising actions. Prioritising actions is a very important strategical element. No-one can do everything, but players can choose where they focus the bulk of their actions. Choosing the correct actions to focus on is a good strategical move, and choosing the wrong actions is bad. It sets players apart and is good for competition.
If you want the need for prioritising actions to stay, then your arguing the wrong argument by arguing pro-MBS. MBS will reduce the stress on the brain by all the little actions. If players still have to prioritise, players will prioritise where they can gain the most. If macro is a more important factor, then the game will still end up being a macro war at the end. The only thing that can change the game from a macro game to more of a micro game is a shift in balance. Maybe AOE spells could be made better, so that microing properely is much more rewarding than macroing properely or production buildings could be made more expensive, limiting the effective amounts that you would want to build and increasing the time it takes to mass large armys etc.
Hmmm I'm going to attempt to respond to this in a lot fewer word than i previously would.
First I would say that it is a blind bias to state that since we are pro-MBS we are arguing the WRONG argument. That's just plain bias, you haven't played the game and you've only formed an OPINION on what you want and expect out of a game with endless possibilities of mechanics.
Second the test. While I will not argue that there is no analogy between the faster, more intelligent, skilled player ect ect ect
Instead I would like to point out the differences. You're comparing a routine (for any established player) to an impulsive analysis of data (impulsive may not be a sufficient word, but i'm not going to fret over word choice at this point).
The real thought in this comes from reading your opponent. Lets say it's mid game and you've got 4 Facts. You're on the battlefield fighting your opponent and he shows up with a bunch of wraiths. You've only got tanks and a few vultures at this point, but your armory did finish not long ago.
This is where reading and reacting quick-as-hell matters the most.
with MBS this is a simple 4g with SBS this is a simple 4g5g6g7g Is that really a game deciding factor? The intelligence of this derives from your ability to quickly know how to counter. while sure theres a .5 second difference in queues from 4 to 7. That is not going to break the game, instead you gain .5 seconds to accurately run your tanks and vultures, put up a few turrents, and perhaps use your marines to hold em off until golis pop.
One might argue that the better player knows the order in which to do all of these actions, and the worse player does them in a less efficient order. The differernce has little to do with whether the player pressed 4g5g6g7g or just pressed 44 and mouse macro'd....
and mouse macroing most likely takes about a second longer. We're dealing with <2second operations that take place about every 15 seconds. The real skill is in knowing when to do it.
This does not negate the need to prioritise actions. You obviously want to queue the goliaths as they are the best counter you have at the moment. You obviously want to run your tanks and vultures before they die for no reason. You obviously might want to use a scan to counter his cloak. You obviously might realize those 6 marines 2 screens away are idle. mbs changes the focus not the priorities. It frees up 2 seconds, and the real effects of this freed time aren't even realized unless the game is past a certain point.
Hmmm I could elaborate, and will if asked to. But i think this is obvious.
Thank you for your time.
EDIT: Hmmm I also would ask you, relating back to that link. If a person is quick as hell with those math problems, and can shout out the answers at amazing speeds, but has no idea how to use a keyboard. The slightly slower person who is a master at the numpad rapes him hard. But then this non-keyboard efficient users laughs to himself and goes and gets a mic, and a program to change his voice into text and laughs at the slow archaic keyboard user.... You could relate this to the evolution between SBS and MBS if you like.
what's your age ? When did you start playing SC (I mean BW, obviously in your case) ? What's your level (please try to stay objective) ?
Maybe you think these questions are irrelevant here ? I would however not risk myself to argue that much if i was not even able to realize why the actual game is still there, and still so great. Indeed, i dont think you can have a clear view on the question if you're a young/beginner.
There's no fucking hope with you guys. If you already want that, i imagine Blizzard would have no remorse to oversimplify it since they'll make more money this way.
Your arguments are still very nice, but answer the damn questions, just for my own curiosity.
Though this is off-topic, and I think my arguments speak for themselves without me. I will merit a response.
I am currently 22 years old, I live in Houston Texas, and this is my first step into the TL.net community -- meaning This is the first thread and perhaps the only I've posted in so far. I've been reading the forums inbetween live SC matches (I am fairly nocturnal ) and I am an avid watcher of the MSL, OSL, and Proleagues -- Almost every night... so I must also say WOOT live SC every night in December except the 28th lol.
I STARTED playing Starcraft 2 months after it was released, and BW the day it came out. Unfortunately though, I STOPPED playing starcraft around 2001-2002. I was considered pretty skilled back then, but that's only relative, as that entire skill range is a joke these days. Hmmm I started again perhaps 6-8 weeks ago. I've grown up a lot since then and I am a lot more competitive than I used to be.
The years I played back in the day did gain me a huge understand of the game, and I have not forgotten any of that. But the game has changed a lot. Today I am your average Zerg player. I excel at ZvZ I am decent at ZvP and my ZvT (unless they fuck their timing push up) is terrible. Really though, I have no training partner and this is my biggest problem.
I should note that I was a random player for the 4ish years I did play actively from the point of release. So my understanding of all of the races is fairly extensive.
I like to think my iccup rating would be around a c- if i played enough on there. (speculation)
I hope this is enough to satisfy your curiosity. but I would like to ask -> Don't you think blizzard would make more money from a competitive game that could sweep the western world as it did Korea? Some say it's just a matter of time and the right game, and my arguments only aim to help a lot of the vets realize -> The game is going to change substaintially the counters will all be changing with units, and thus timing, build order, yada yada also changes.... Change isn't bad, and perhaps we should give MBS a chance. WC3 was not a chance @ MBS it was a chance at removing the economy out of an RTS and saying here Take this hero and these items instead.
in regards to your earlier claim that War3 is in fact just as difficult and competitive as starcraft... i think this needs to be rebutted. Every war3 player i have spoken to seems to say Starcraft is more competitive and requires more practice than war3.
Are you aware the winner of the WCG War3 grand finals this year was a player who came back from being inactive only a few weeks before hand? Grubby told me he practices only and hour or two a day and then picks up a bit more a week before a major event. Todd told d4d after an interview that he finds SC much much much more competitive and difficult to master than war3 and he has a great admiration for SC progamers.
I think your making a contradictory argument by saying we need an easy interface in order to have a successful esport game. The game must be hard or the players wont require endless practice and the game itself will be come less impressive.
Hmmm you bring up a good point, that may need clarifying. While, I've made 3 long winded posts each i think contains some reference to warcraft 3 thus I am not sure exactly which comments you are speaking of.
I do however feel that with WC3 containing MBS that a lot of players use an analogy to WC3 a lot where it shouldn't be used. I also feel that you make a good point which I should address. If you feel that what continues within this post contradicts something I said earlier it is possible that I made a mistake, or that I need to articulate more clearly. Either way It makes it easier if /quote is used.
Now if i directly said "Warcraft 3 is in fact just as difficult and competitive as starcraft" I would have been mistaken, and was most likely just trying to say WC3 is a difficult and competitive game.
I was not aware of that Grubby doesn't practice a lot. In all honesty though, this does not surprise me. Why does this not surprise me? Because within Warcraft 3 there is very little that can suprise you. You practice and train in Starcraft not so you can be the fastest 4sd5sd6sd7sd player but rather so you will be prepared for anything. This has to do with hard counters, pace, economy, and macro. Warcraft 3 has less of each of these things, and focuses entirely on micro.
Micro is not something that is easily practiced and is primarily instinctual.
If you talk to a player that has just picked WC3, and they just went 2-40 in WC3... The odds are they have no idea why they lost. Warcraft 3 is prolly just as difficult to the ignorant player as SC is(That same player would prolly go 2-40 in SC too). In Starcraft they can be like wow I just got out produced that's why I lost. In WC3 they're like WTF I have 2x the army he had and he lost 3 units i lost my entire army. That's with some micro too (poor albeit).
I have much more appreciation for Starcraft programer than I do for WC3 progamers, and I also feel that SC is a much better esport and spectator sport.
But those aren't the real points of your post. The real point of your post was:
I think your making a contradictory argument by saying we need an easy interface in order to have a successful esport game. The game must be hard or the players wont require endless practice and the game itself will be come less impressive.
Well first. The primary facet of my argument has nothing to do with the direct simplification of the user interface. This same primary facet of my argument has nothing to do directly with the success or lack of success of the game as a sport.
Obviously the game should be hard so the it requires practice or it will become less impressive.
However, since those aren't my arguments and i have made an attempt to clarify my views of Warcraft 3 you will find that there is no contradiction (and if there is it doesn't negate my point)
I would ask you though. Has Grubby always practiced only 1-2 hours a day or when the game first came out was practicing more? My point is Warcraft 3 is much more predictable than SC and predictability leads to the ability to master. This doesn't have anything to do with the dulling of the user interface, but rather a dulling of the actual mechanics of gameplay. Which I discuss fairly thoroughly in my previous posts.
Sure the metagame in WC3 might evolve. That doesn't mean it's unpredictable. The unpredictability comes from the ability to successfully stray from the metagame. Metagame = The expected set of strategies from a certain set of players and matchups... In WC3 due to the nature of soft counters it's typically more important(than being unpredictable) to get a wider range of units and use each unit to it's maximum potential.
Edit: I wasn't saying that we need an easier interface, but rather I was arguing that an easier interface does not directly yield an easier game with a lower skill ceiling, but rather an easier interface allows more time to focus on the actual game that is present. -- This is the main point in almost every post of mine on this thread -
On December 10 2007 01:39 1esu wrote: To use your marine-medic example from earlier, 5m5c (with five barracks set to 5) will give you 5 marines and 5 queued medics - hardly an optimal distribution or production rate. If you wanted 4 marines and 1 medic per command, then you'd have to shift-click a barrack and hotkey it into another group, thus making it 5m6c. The shift-clicking/hotkey process may seem trivial, but the time investment adds up the more you have to do it. Also, if more diverse unit distributions are rewarded by the design, the macro mechanics become harder in turn - '5m6g7c', for example.
If your using my example from above, then the person playing does not have the 500 minerals and 125 gas to just que all that stuff up. In my example, the player was constantly clicking 5m every time he had 50 minerals spare, and changing it to a 5c when he wanted a medic. The game would then produce these units in the fastest way possible, meaning his 5 barracks are macroing perfectly. This would be perfect excecution of macro without even having to go near his base.
On December 10 2007 01:39 1esu wrote: Secondly, I view MBS not as reducing the number of problems, but rather as making those problems easier to answer. With MBS, you still have to command (for example) gates to produce goons as soon as you have the resources to do so, leading to macro commands being issued just as frequently as with SBS - the difference is the command is '4d' instead of '4d5d6d7d8d9d0d' or 'click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d-click-d'. IMHO, it's more like using your keypad to answer the questions in the above mental exercise instead of clicking the numbers and enter using the mouse.
I agree with you here. You do make the problems easier to answer. The difficulty in SBS is coordinating 5d6d7d8d9d0d not the thought processes of what do I want to build. But coordinating this does tie up your brain, and while you are doing this action, your cognitive abilities are weakend. The better player's brain is better at multitasking this coordination with the other thought processes he needs to be thinking of.
I'd also like to add one more thing, that is not aimed at you 1esu.
To everyone that is saying MBS leaves room for more micro ect. This only occurs if you are in battle. If you are not in battle, there is very little micromanagement that is required of you. People WILL be sitting there doing idling. If they are not in battle, they are aware of what the situation on the map is and it is not an appropriate time to attack. They will have nothing to do but wait for their numbers to build up.
In starcraft currently, when 2 large armys go into battle. Micro becomes much more important. Poor micro in large battles could mean a loss of 80-100 food. Something which having good macro throughout the battle is not going to make up for. When large battles occur in the starcraft proscene, the pros DO switch their emphasis to the battle at hand. They then macro during the battle only when they can spare a few seconds where their micro actions will not be as effective as macro actions. Late game is very macro based, most of the time players are building stuff, but thats because there are no micro actions that are worth doing in comparison to building more units. They are either not in a big battle, or there are no micro actions that the player can perform that will greatly influence the battle. It has very little to do with the fact that it requires lots of actions to macro.
EDIT: Actually I just had a great idea. For anyone who wants to know the required micro in starcraft, go out and play a team melee game. Designate one person as the macroer and one person as the microer. The microer may only perform micro actions and the same for the macroer. Make a rule, no spamming APM, and then go see the Bwchart on the replay.
@Fen Hmmm I replied to your first post with the test/puzzle game, and I had not read this post at that time. So now I will discuss some of the things in this post, and hopefully you will read this before replying to my initial reply....
When you say "The difficulty in SBS is coordinating 5d6d7d8d9d0d not the thought processes of what do I want to build. But coordinating this does tie up your brain, and while you are doing this action, your cognitive abilities are weakend."
I have to disagree with this. I would argue instead that it is not that their cognitive abilities are weakened but rather that their ability to prioritize is challenged(you could argue that this is cognition but it's not the point). A lesser player would not even be using 5d6d7d ect so this doesn't really apply to that bracket of player.
A slightly more experienced player may use 5d6d when in that macro mindset, but it's not that their not good enough at running their fingers over the hotkeys as it is they're so busy scrambling that they forget to macro all together.
The pros don't panic when they're forced to scramble to save their own ass. Instead they play it in a routine and have done this enough to know the best way to priotize in order to get this done in the fastest manner. 5d6d7d8d is second nature to them, and so will 5d.... For the lesser player building units while doing 4 other things at once is not second nature, and it won't be regardless of how easy building units while doing 4 other things can be relative to the past.
In the example with the medics and marines - You have a good point that is good macro, and it's mechanically easier to execute on the keyboard. The problem I have with this is that, it's not MBS that made this macro perfect, but rather the players abiltity to monitor his mineral count, prioritize the spending of his minerals, and scale his economy to the number of his producting buildings accurately that makes this macro so beautiful.
This example and the arguments for and against it have led me to believe that more skilled players will be assigning the same building type to multiple hotkeys during the late game. Even the best players in the world can't keep their mineral count down so low at all times. It's perfectly common to want to build more variety of out of your 5 factories than 5 vultures.
I feel most zerg players will end up putting all their hatcheries on more than 1 hot key just for the sake of larva management... You've got 3 hatcheries with 3 larva each (ya ya ya bad macro already) but you don't want to just press 4sd and make 9 drones... Instead you might want to make 3 drones 6 zerglings and 3 Hydras......... Yada yada yada I think you get my point.
The same reason most of you aren't arguing in a thread similar to this one about 150 selection unit cap is because the better players will still use smaller groups.... I'd argue to ask if anyone has realize that this might also be the more viable strategy for the more adept player as well in the case of MBS?
This articulates where the difficulty is in SBS macro down very well.
The problems themselves are quite easy. Im sure no-one lost because they didnt know what 15 + 6 is. You lost because the problems started happening faster, and your brain got flooded with lots of simple questions which require relatively no thought on their own, but together, stress out the brain and cause it to faulter.
However, just to make it clear, sbs macro in starcraft could be equal if all the baloons got the same question, and you had to do the same answer 10 times just to kill all of them.
And then mbs changes it so you only have to do the answer once if you want the same result. The thought remains exactly the same, the keyboard speed needed is not.
The only thing that could equal the thought process of mathematical problems within sbs is that you have to include that step into your micro so you can prepare for your black out moments. And then people realise that sbs and mbs is really all about the micro and not macro, they make micro a bit easier since you don't have blackspots, they dont make macro easier since macro never overwhelmed anyone, it was micro.
And even if you read the arguments here you realise that those blackspots is what people are after. They don't think that micro can be impressive without a blackspot 2 times a minute. But really, wont the micro just be exactly the same as most of the time, just that the players wont screw up as much as before? And these blackspots added randomness to the game since neither player can know when the opponent is blacked so if someone attacks at exactly the right moment it can be devastating and its all about luck.
Do anyone here really believe that Boxer clicks his buildings slower than Iloveoov? I mean really, how can the master of extreme clickingspeed be slower just beacuse were talking about buildings now?
The trend today seems to be moving towards more Micromanagment in strategy games, but this doesn’t mean it is any better. Some games allow for micromanagement but also have lots of automation ability which can make the game easier. In Warcraft III many of the units have a special attack ability, but the player has the ability to click on the interface and make the unit always perform that function whenever it determines it is necessary.
Blizzard could implement MBS as anupgrade. It should be a very costly one like 400/400. It could only pay of in late game otherwise the money is better spent on a couple of tanks. A noob or low apm player can choose to upgrade it earlier. That way the MBS has less impact on mid and early game. Moremicro in late game. UI-upgrade will be another tactical decision.
Producing units doesn't require any calculation in itself. In the way SC is played we do need timing because we want to reduce the time we spend on macro since it's limited. But if we had an infinite amount of time to spend on macro it would really be pointless to have that clicking to be part of the game.
Starcraft is the best RTS ever thanks to the macro. But if we want to move to a new generation of RTS, a new level of gameplay, then we will have to find an answer to this. I once jokingly said that buildings should ask you to solve a sudoku puzzle.
If we want a new generation of RTS that focus a lot more on strategy and intelligent thinking rather than it does now, and not necessarily taking away from execution speed which is purely a mental skill, then we have to add new levels of gameplay. And to do that we have to abstract the game completely. I don't see how the current way can be deepened out. I can only see it perfected in SCII. In SC there were units that weren't used and units that were always used. Also, ZvZ had very few viable strategies. That can be fixed. But other than that we need to add new levels of gameplay to make the game more complex.
How RTS games work now is solely based on realism. How this hypothetical future RTS is to be played should be based entirely on what kinds of skills a competitive RTS game wants to test. This means future RTS games need to be come abstractions. Just like chess is an abstraction of an ancient battlefield.
So we have to think about what kind of intelligent base management we can add. Currently while building units there is a limited amount of mistakes that can be made. Building units is pretty straightforward. You can't produce an unit the wrong way. You either produce it or you don't. You can fight a battle the wrong way. And you can also do that better than average. You can have a well placed psi storm, an excellent one, a poor one, etc.
Somehow, base management has to be abstracted to become similar to this. I have absolutely no idea yet how to do this. It should also involve long term strategic considerations. Something about base infrastructure being different depending on what strategy you will be using.
Another thing is that games will have to be able to diverge from each other a lot more. I think this will improve the game. Each game will be a lot more unique than currently. Currently the game has very similar build orders for each game. Yes, there are many options. But this is quite static. It's nothing like chess. And not even close to go.
In chess you can still memorize build orders. We don't have to invent them. Openings in both chess and Starcraft are limited. There are tons more openings in chess than there are in Starcraft. But even in chess they think this is a problem. So Fischer invented Fischer random. Can we do the same for RTS games?
In Starcraft the terrain stays the same throughout the game. So my idea was that in future innovative RTS game we can make it part of the game. If a game similar to go is played regarding the dynamics of the terrain while at the same time the RTS is played then the game becomes 3 dimensional. Right now we have macro and micro. Then we have those two and a terrain go-style game. One could say the players are using a map editor to change the map. But in a very limited way and under strict rules so that it is similar to the game of go.
These ideas, 'sudoku puzzles in buildings'/'intelligence requiring base management' and 'go-like map editing' are the only things I could come up with to move RTS gaming unto a new level where it isn't depending as much on APM based skills as it is right now.
On December 11 2007 00:24 KaasZerg wrote: Blizzard could implement MBS as anupgrade. It should be a very costly one like 400/400. It could only pay of in late game otherwise the money is better spent on a couple of tanks. A noob or low apm player can choose to upgrade it earlier. That way the MBS has less impact on mid and early game. Moremicro in late game. UI-upgrade will be another tactical decision.
You know, I've wanted to suggest that for a while now, but it just seems so ridiculous I think most people will dismiss it as silly. Interesting take on the 'two separate games' scenario people like to think about (MBS being on a toggle) though.
edit: but if you think about it, some games have similar things of doing this. Like in AoX, you can get an upgrade that allows your barracks to produce 2 units at once... it's sort of like selecting two buildings with one: MBS.
I believe this is in SC2 as well, there's a barracks add-on that allows you to make 2 at once as well?
Why not make that go further and allow you to keep 'upgrading' your barracks to train even more at once? Make the upgrades increase in price exponentially, so making more barracks' is more cost effective in the end!
On December 10 2007 15:03 Motiva wrote: MyLostTemple
Hmmm you bring up a good point, that may need clarifying. While, I've made 3 long winded posts each i think contains some reference to warcraft 3 thus I am not sure exactly which comments you are speaking of.
I do however feel that with WC3 containing MBS that a lot of players use an analogy to WC3 a lot where it shouldn't be used. I also feel that you make a good point which I should address. If you feel that what continues within this post contradicts something I said earlier it is possible that I made a mistake, or that I need to articulate more clearly. Either way It makes it easier if /quote is used.
Now if i directly said "Warcraft 3 is in fact just as difficult and competitive as starcraft" I would have been mistaken, and was most likely just trying to say WC3 is a difficult and competitive game.
I was not aware of that Grubby doesn't practice a lot. In all honesty though, this does not surprise me. Why does this not surprise me? Because within Warcraft 3 there is very little that can suprise you. You practice and train in Starcraft not so you can be the fastest 4sd5sd6sd7sd player but rather so you will be prepared for anything. This has to do with hard counters, pace, economy, and macro. Warcraft 3 has less of each of these things, and focuses entirely on micro.
Micro is not something that is easily practiced and is primarily instinctual.
If you talk to a player that has just picked WC3, and they just went 2-40 in WC3... The odds are they have no idea why they lost. Warcraft 3 is prolly just as difficult to the ignorant player as SC is(That same player would prolly go 2-40 in SC too). In Starcraft they can be like wow I just got out produced that's why I lost. In WC3 they're like WTF I have 2x the army he had and he lost 3 units i lost my entire army. That's with some micro too (poor albeit).
I have much more appreciation for Starcraft programer than I do for WC3 progamers, and I also feel that SC is a much better esport and spectator sport.
But those aren't the real points of your post. The real point of your post was:
I think your making a contradictory argument by saying we need an easy interface in order to have a successful esport game. The game must be hard or the players wont require endless practice and the game itself will be come less impressive.
Well first. The primary facet of my argument has nothing to do with the direct simplification of the user interface. This same primary facet of my argument has nothing to do directly with the success or lack of success of the game as a sport.
Obviously the game should be hard so the it requires practice or it will become less impressive.
However, since those aren't my arguments and i have made an attempt to clarify my views of Warcraft 3 you will find that there is no contradiction (and if there is it doesn't negate my point)
I would ask you though. Has Grubby always practiced only 1-2 hours a day or when the game first came out was practicing more? My point is Warcraft 3 is much more predictable than SC and predictability leads to the ability to master. This doesn't have anything to do with the dulling of the user interface, but rather a dulling of the actual mechanics of gameplay. Which I discuss fairly thoroughly in my previous posts.
Sure the metagame in WC3 might evolve. That doesn't mean it's unpredictable. The unpredictability comes from the ability to successfully stray from the metagame. Metagame = The expected set of strategies from a certain set of players and matchups... In WC3 due to the nature of soft counters it's typically more important(than being unpredictable) to get a wider range of units and use each unit to it's maximum potential.
Edit: I wasn't saying that we need an easier interface, but rather I was arguing that an easier interface does not directly yield an easier game with a lower skill ceiling, but rather an easier interface allows more time to focus on the actual game that is present. -- This is the main point in almost every post of mine on this thread -
Thank you for your time.
i don't mean to be rude but your posts are so long winded and rambley i can't tell what points your trying to make.
How much Grubby practiced when the game 1st came out is irrelevant, it has already become so simple to him (and other pros) that they argue there is very little need for endless practice since the game is in essence easy to them. If SC2 ends up like this it will drastically hurt it's potential as an esport. War3 is a legit example too because SC2 seems to be leaning towards a more micro than macro style of play. it seems that players don't need to train all day to have incredible micro, yet when you mix micro with macro you are faced with an incredible challenge. With macro made so easy in SC2 i don't see what players will need to be practicing. That doesn't mean it wont have sponsors and other things, but the game itself will just viewed as Starcraft with training wheels.
Esports develop metagames regardless of what features are put in the game, all esports have metagames within them. In CS everyone knows to buy the AK, colt or awp. In War3 there are some heros you always pick over others early game. In SC we know to mech vs protoss rather than go mnm.
A metagame will occur in SC2 no mater what. What's important is that the skill ceiling required to achieve that metagame is as challenging as possible.
Your argument that an easier interface does not necessarily make for an easier game is simply wrong... while you may not be able to focus on the 'actual game' without MBS, many others can. This seems to be the common logical error with most pro MBS people, they end up imposing their own game experience onto the esport level. Make no mistake, there are far too many who can preform the macro task, micro excellently, and focus on the 'actual game' that your talking about. With the macro taken out you've gone one more step to making this game more one dimensional. The result will be a bunch of SC progamers picking up this game and frowning, because it in fact, HAS been made easier. With nothing to replace the macro factor they will have less to train for, less to master and less to show off. That's bad, unless of course you don't want an esport.
Would introducing a scaling delay between the giving and following of orders for larger and large groups help with both MBS and MUS? It would be like the lag you'd receive in an online game where you'd click a group of fighters marines to retreat somewhere and they'd wait a short time before actually moving. The difference is this lag would be highlighted in the game with some kind of animation in the UI and an explanation in the manual/in-game, something about how giving orders to large groups of troops takes time for your sub-commanders and its faster when you micro-manage the troops yourself.
Consider the impact. In a knife edge fight retreating by selecting all 50 units at once would be detrimental as you'd have to deal with relatively significant lag (what, a few seconds lag?) before they'd actually obey. A better player would quickly micro his units in groups of 10-20. Similarly with production if you really need those goons immediately to counter a terran push selecting all 15 gateways at once and dealing with a (10 second?) lag would really encourage players to at most be building them in groups of 2-3 if not one by one.
Managing 150 zerglings with one hotkey could be problematic as you may have a 10 second lag on obeying orders and like-wise so could 50 ultralisks if more powerful units like ultralisks were given modifiers so that controlling 50 of them was the same as 150 zerglings.
The specifics of how long the lag would be would be or what kind of modifiers for more powerful units would up to the game developers to fine tune but perhaps a lot of the anti-MBS crowd's concerns could be dealt with through this. The casual players will have their MBS whilst the competitive players will try to avoid it in order to significantly maximise their building efficiency. For the competitive player the game mechanic will be familiar, like online lag except dependent on unit group size. For the casual player it will be explainable and in fact even add an element of 'realism' which many such players would perhaps even unwittingly mistake for an anti-competitive feature, dependant ofcourse on proper in-game messaging to make sure a player knows its entirely intended and so it doesn't feel like it's actual unintended buggy lag.
@mylosttemple: I don't disagree with everything you've written there, but do you think the micro involved in warcraft 3 can really be directly compared to the micro involved in starcraft (either bw or 2)? Perhaps the reason it is as easy to master as you claim it is is because there are so relatively fewer units in war3 than in sc, which makes microing them much less mentally taxing. I'm not saying your example breaks down entirely, but it doesn't work 100% either. It is still (theoretically?) possible that the micro required to effectively manage an army in sc2 would require the daily practice that current elite pro-gamers use when training for bw, despite the relative ease of the production aspect of macro.
Yes pretty much the reason warcraft 3 micro is easier cause the game is slower than SC, the unit are super buff and take a while to die, and there are much less units overall to control. And really Mondragon rarely practice and manage to beat savior in wcg. Lots of Korean got solid or insane mechanics but it's that metagame, the timing or feel, making the right maneuvers that establish top pros nowadays.
The only way SC2 lower the skill curve too far is if someone has the ability to play the "perfect" game and that's not going to happen. The ceiling curve for SC is so high that it's not even half way to peaking and never will cause of the archaic interface. Lowering it a little can't hurt cause the ceiling will still be far too high. That's if blizzard does the game justice.
On December 11 2007 10:54 talismania wrote: @mylosttemple: I don't disagree with everything you've written there, but do you think the micro involved in warcraft 3 can really be directly compared to the micro involved in starcraft (either bw or 2)? Perhaps the reason it is as easy to master as you claim it is is because there are so relatively fewer units in war3 than in sc, which makes microing them much less mentally taxing. I'm not saying your example breaks down entirely, but it doesn't work 100% either. It is still (theoretically?) possible that the micro required to effectively manage an army in sc2 would require the daily practice that current elite pro-gamers use when training for bw, despite the relative ease of the production aspect of macro.
In War3 the burden of the game itself (creeping, leveling, item getting) forces the players to move their units around the map continuously. In SC and in SC2 players are not directly rewarded for running units around the map. Most good protoss players know there are moments in midgame they simply can't leave their bases vs good zergs, an example would be after P expos and begins getting the robo/upgrading storm/getting goon range/ adding gates. SC battles are fast and short, there are more units to micro and less time to do it in... personally i think this makes SC sexier; microing around with a bunch of 600 hp ultralisks with spells does not fascinate me the same way (i'm referring to war3 there) because that's almost ALL the players are doing. The point is that SC2 shouldn't become war3 with just a little bit more macro involved; instead it should be Starcraft all over again with 3d graphics and more units, or in other words: Micro/Macro/Strategy... with the same balance as before.
So in other words: No. I don't think Blizzard pumping out a watered down, one demensional version of starcraft is smart. Progamers don't have enough to practice, and i can't imagine what's going to be more frustrating than having SC2 boil down to the brief intense battles deciding the winner since macro has become so user friendly anyone who gets ahead (and doesn't suck) stays ahead unless out microed.
In SC battles are fast and short, there are more units to micro and less time to do it in... personally i think this makes SC sexier; microing around with a bunch of 600 hp ultralisks with spells does not fascinate me the same way
right... which was kinda my point that war3 micro and sc micro are different beasts. I was only responding to the practice argument, where you seemed to be saying that because grubby doesn't need to practice anymore, micro (in general) is easy to learn. I was just saying that just because war3 micro might be easy (well to some) to learn doesn't mean that sc2 or bw micro is.
On December 11 2007 11:37 YinYang69 wrote: Yes pretty much the reason warcraft 3 micro is easier cause the game is slower than SC, the unit are super buff and take a while to die, and there are much less units overall to control. And really Mondragon rarely practice and manage to beat savior in wcg. Lots of Korean got solid or insane mechanics but it's that metagame, the timing or feel, making the right maneuvers that establish top pros nowadays.
The only way SC2 lower the skill curve too far is if someone has the ability to play the "perfect" game and that's not going to happen. The ceiling curve for SC is so high that it's not even half way to peaking and never will cause of the archaic interface. Lowering it a little can't hurt cause the ceiling will still be far too high. That's if blizzard does the game justice.
Mondragon beat savior because he had the good spawn on paranoide andriode, the one that mines 15 percent faster. But i do agree this game is more than just micro and macro, it's the metagame as well. The point is that the micro and macro keep the meta game interesting and competitive.
SC progamers are already VERY close to playing perfect games, they make little if any errors, but it's the errors they can make that can turn the game completely. That's the point, we want a thrilling sport to watch.... we want opportunities for competition, room for endless improvement.
Don't say that MBS and automining is only 'lowering the bar a little bit', Every competitive player i've spoken with worries it will have HUGE ramifications, and after playing it, i share their concerns.
In SC battles are fast and short, there are more units to micro and less time to do it in... personally i think this makes SC sexier; microing around with a bunch of 600 hp ultralisks with spells does not fascinate me the same way
right... which was kinda my point that war3 micro and sc micro are different beasts. I was only responding to the practice argument, where you seemed to be saying that because grubby doesn't need to practice anymore, micro (in general) is easy to learn. I was just saying that just because war3 micro might be easy (well to some) to learn doesn't mean that sc2 or bw micro is.
Well war3 micro is, in my opinion, much easier than SC, you have more room to make mistakes, then again you're microing for VERY long periods of time. The problem with SC2 micro is players aren't microing the entire game, players need to sit back and macro at points... we will know those exact points once the metagame develops. My concern is that we will have a large portion of SC2 competitive play made quite easy (the macro part) while the game deciding points will be whittled down into 10 second micro bursts that only make up about 10 to 30 percent of the game.
So, in other words, while the SC2 micro will be harder to learn, it will also take up less of the overall game time and we need MORE than micro and newbie friendly macro to keep this game competitive.
On December 11 2007 00:24 KaasZerg wrote: Blizzard could implement MBS as anupgrade. It should be a very costly one like 400/400. It could only pay of in late game otherwise the money is better spent on a couple of tanks. A noob or low apm player can choose to upgrade it earlier. That way the MBS has less impact on mid and early game. Moremicro in late game. UI-upgrade will be another tactical decision.
i'm not sure about this... but it could be a good idea, keep the UI helpers as upgrades. Except for automining, that one is just too much.
Mondragon beat savior because he had the good spawn on paranoide andriode, the one that mines 15 percent faster. But i do agree this game is more than just micro and macro, it's the metagame as well. The point is that the micro and macro keep the meta game interesting and competitive.
SC progamers are already VERY close to playing perfect games, they make little if any errors, but it's the errors they can make that can turn the game completely. That's the point, we want a thrilling sport to watch.... we want opportunities for competition, room for endless improvement.
Don't say that MBS and automining is only 'lowering the bar a little bit', Every competitive player i've spoken with worries it will have HUGE ramifications, and after playing it, i share their concerns.
No tasteless they are not perfect not even close. They might have nearly perfected the early game timing and early game pushes hell early game anything. But going to late game or mid game things get far too shaky. Minerals will bill up, they can't micro/macro as efficiently cause minerals sky rockets from 3+bases. There will be plenty of times when their production buildings are idle, when they are in such a rush their building placement gets sloppy and leads to base getting cluttered up or stationary defense not being in optimum location, idle workers everywhere, queuing more than 3 units in a building etc.
On the micro side when things get large and you have more than 150 unit count you won't be able to maximize your army. As a protoss you either do as best as you can to flank a mech army and than bail out as fast as you can. You can't as a terran properly or have the time to spread you tanks as well as when you have a small tank count. So you just group them all in a clump hastily even when you are not engaging a army. For muta micro you will never see more than one control group harassing. When one harass the main, another expo its too haphazard to control. Even a pro if given arbiters, dark archons, corsairs and templars for free and full of energy won't be able to web, stasis field, mind control, storm with full efficiency and in a timely manner.
Mondragon beat savior because he had the good spawn on paranoide andriode, the one that mines 15 percent faster. But i do agree this game is more than just micro and macro, it's the metagame as well. The point is that the micro and macro keep the meta game interesting and competitive.
SC progamers are already VERY close to playing perfect games, they make little if any errors, but it's the errors they can make that can turn the game completely. That's the point, we want a thrilling sport to watch.... we want opportunities for competition, room for endless improvement.
Don't say that MBS and automining is only 'lowering the bar a little bit', Every competitive player i've spoken with worries it will have HUGE ramifications, and after playing it, i share their concerns.
No tasteless they are not perfect not even close. They might have nearly perfected the early game timing and early game pushes hell early game anything. But going to late game or mid game things get far too shaky. Minerals will bill up, they can't micro/macro as efficiently cause minerals sky rockets from 3+bases. There will be plenty of times when their production buildings are idle, when they are in such a rush their building placement gets sloppy and leads to base getting cluttered up or stationary defense not being in optimum location, idle workers everywhere, queuing more than 3 units in a building etc.
On the micro side when things get large and you have more than 150 unit count you won't be able to maximize your army. As a protoss you either do as best as you can to flank a mech army and than bail out as fast as you can. You can't as a terran properly or have the time to spread you tanks as well as when you have a small tank count. So you just group them all in a clump hastily even when you are not engaging a army. For muta micro you will never see more than one control group harassing. When one harass the main, another expo its too haphazard to control. Even a pro if given arbiters, dark archons, corsairs and templars for free and full of energy won't be able to web, stasis field, mind control, storm with full efficiency and in a timely manner.
Sigh...
Not every game is perfect but the theory & tech patterns are quite calculated, and yes, it's quite close to perfect. This doesn't mean they don't have shitty games when it really matters or that it isn't possible for progamers to lag behind for moments at a time. However it is a good thing that this can still happen because, as i keep saying, it kt eeps the game competitive, it gives more room for someone else to get ahead or fall behind. That's the whole point.. It's a factor that keeps the game competitive.
This game isn't supposed to be easy, it's supposed to be fucking hard. The moment players are playing 100 precent perfect games... even 98 percent perfect games we're fucked. Don't you get it? This point your making has become so redundant by the MBS side and works against the whole framework for a competitive game. We need to raise the skill ceiling, not lower it.
On December 11 2007 12:16 MyLostTemple wrote: So, in other words, while the SC2 micro will be harder to learn, it will also take up less of the overall game time and we need MORE than micro and newbie friendly macro to keep this game competitive.
But starcraft macro was also newbie friendly. If we removed all micro in starcraft the game would be perfected in less than a day.
However, as i said in my earlier post, the micro gets a lot harder when macro takes quite some time throughout the whole game. So really in the end its all about the micro. All aspects of macro removed are the aspects were people need to train just to do them as fast as possible so that they get more time to micro. Wouldn't it be better instead to make micor harder so that we have to train micro speed endlessly rather than training the simple macro moves like they do now?
So the question is, do any progamer micro their armies perfectly even when they aren't building units with army sizes as big as they are at the stage when mbs begins to make a difference?
And i can easily answer that question, and its a no. They micro very far from perfectly, sure they might micro the best in the world but that doesn't mean that we cant code a script that micros as good with a 150 pop army that a progamer can do with a 10 pop army.
But then you might say "I don't want it any less skill full than original starcraft, thats just dumb" However since i showed that its micro that takes the biggest hit on how hard it is, its easy to show that micro will not necessarily be easier than before. Imagine if every matchup in starcaft required twice the unit diversity at any given time, then micro would get a lot harder just because microing more unit types is always harder than microing a lot of the same unit, and if we look at what we currently have of starcraft 2 thats what they are aiming for. We don't know how this stand in proportions vs the macro burden, but it will certainly mitigate a lot of it and maybe even take it further.
And lastly, you worried that you would have nothing to do at times? Well, when you are not under pressure macro in starcraft is still easy, so the skill difference at those times aren't that big anyway. The pressure always comes when you have to micro, macro is just an extra burden on the micro. So since those micro voids exists in starcraft they are times when there is very little to differentiate the pro's in starcraft too right? So this wont make a difference there either.
Making the UI harder is not the "right" solution because although it does raise the skill ceiling and leads to newbies having even less chances, it is just wrong from a RTS design viewpoint.
What Tasteless (and other anti MBSers) are saying is in essence: "if the UI is too easy, then the game will be too easy, and pros will have nothing left to do after a certain time/experience/skill level."
But this whole train of thought is just so sad. SC2 should make sure that the game itself (NOT counting the UI) is so hard and deep that this alone provides a high skill ceiling and endless opportunities to improve. You know, like chess or Go or whatever. The best games are the ones with an extremely easy UI yet insanely deep gameplay. SC2 must try to become like this.
If it doesn't work, then Blizzard didn't do a good enough job and they maybe should introduce SBS and other "UI obstacles" again. But remember that this is just a workaround, not a proper solution: the game is too shallow, too easy to master, so we have to make the UI hard. But that's just a "bad" thing (although it certainly works, as SC1 has shown us) and I hope that SC2 improves on that... tries a better, different approach.
Mondragon beat savior because he had the good spawn on paranoide andriode, the one that mines 15 percent faster. But i do agree this game is more than just micro and macro, it's the metagame as well. The point is that the micro and macro keep the meta game interesting and competitive.
SC progamers are already VERY close to playing perfect games, they make little if any errors, but it's the errors they can make that can turn the game completely. That's the point, we want a thrilling sport to watch.... we want opportunities for competition, room for endless improvement.
Don't say that MBS and automining is only 'lowering the bar a little bit', Every competitive player i've spoken with worries it will have HUGE ramifications, and after playing it, i share their concerns.
No tasteless they are not perfect not even close. They might have nearly perfected the early game timing and early game pushes hell early game anything. But going to late game or mid game things get far too shaky. Minerals will bill up, they can't micro/macro as efficiently cause minerals sky rockets from 3+bases. There will be plenty of times when their production buildings are idle, when they are in such a rush their building placement gets sloppy and leads to base getting cluttered up or stationary defense not being in optimum location, idle workers everywhere, queuing more than 3 units in a building etc.
I think BW is a game that is not possible for humans to perfect, but that's the beauty of it. There's always so much to do that if you lose your concentration for even a few seconds you can be so far behind that one push ends it. That is the thing that makes SC outrageous to some people, they think they'd win if only they could have the mechanics. They don't like the idea of having both because, they are after all just casual players.
On December 11 2007 16:44 Brutalisk wrote: Making the UI harder is not the "right" solution because although it does raise the skill ceiling and leads to newbies having even less chances, it is just wrong from a RTS design viewpoint.
What Tasteless (and other anti MBSers) are saying is in essence: "if the UI is too easy, then the game will be too easy, and pros will have nothing left to do after a certain time/experience/skill level."
But this whole train of thought is just so sad. SC2 should make sure that the game itself (NOT counting the UI) is so hard and deep that this alone provides a high skill ceiling and endless opportunities to improve. You know, like chess or Go or whatever. The best games are the ones with an extremely easy UI yet insanely deep gameplay. SC2 must try to become like this.
If it doesn't work, then Blizzard didn't do a good enough job and they maybe should introduce SBS and other "UI obstacles" again. But remember that this is just a workaround, not a proper solution: the game is too shallow, too easy to master, so we have to make the UI hard. But that's just a "bad" thing (although it certainly works, as SC1 has shown us) and I hope that SC2 improves on that... tries a better, different approach.
There are two parts to any game, the controls and the in game concepts. We must have both actualized to have a true electronic sport. An argument like yours would just as easily push micro out as another silly UI feature that can be abused to win. Chess and Go already exist, but we have taken mind games to another step and created Starcraft. Let us build upon brilliance and not dumb it down to an older form of what a mind game should be.
On December 11 2007 12:16 MyLostTemple wrote: So, in other words, while the SC2 micro will be harder to learn, it will also take up less of the overall game time and we need MORE than micro and newbie friendly macro to keep this game competitive.
But starcraft macro was also newbie friendly. If we removed all micro in starcraft the game would be perfected in less than a day.
However, as i said in my earlier post, the micro gets a lot harder when macro takes quite some time throughout the whole game. So really in the end its all about the micro. All aspects of macro removed are the aspects were people need to train just to do them as fast as possible so that they get more time to micro. Wouldn't it be better instead to make micor harder so that we have to train micro speed endlessly rather than training the simple macro moves like they do now?
So the question is, do any progamer micro their armies perfectly even when they aren't building units with army sizes as big as they are at the stage when mbs begins to make a difference?
And i can easily answer that question, and its a no. They micro very far from perfectly, sure they might micro the best in the world but that doesn't mean that we cant code a script that micros as good with a 150 pop army that a progamer can do with a 10 pop army.
But then you might say "I don't want it any less skill full than original starcraft, thats just dumb" However since i showed that its micro that takes the biggest hit on how hard it is, its easy to show that micro will not necessarily be easier than before. Imagine if every matchup in starcaft required twice the unit diversity at any given time, then micro would get a lot harder just because microing more unit types is always harder than microing a lot of the same unit, and if we look at what we currently have of starcraft 2 thats what they are aiming for. We don't know how this stand in proportions vs the macro burden, but it will certainly mitigate a lot of it and maybe even take it further.
And lastly, you worried that you would have nothing to do at times? Well, when you are not under pressure macro in starcraft is still easy, so the skill difference at those times aren't that big anyway. The pressure always comes when you have to micro, macro is just an extra burden on the micro. So since those micro voids exists in starcraft they are times when there is very little to differentiate the pro's in starcraft too right? So this wont make a difference there either.
No
I won't respond to an argument as stupid as this. This is almost as bad as your argument in the "[D] Smartcasting" fourm where you dumbly argued that ghosts wern't used competitvely in SC because the UI was too hard to utilize lockdown. learn how this game works before you start debating about how it should function in the future.
Now, Grubby was mentionned, and the fact his practice time go much lower was, too. Well, he got kicked to the losers bracket by a nobody Undead in the last tournament, and won in the end a very weak DreamHack. I mean, losing a BO3 (he won the next series, though) against DowaQ isn't really looking good. He's getting owned left and right lately, by people that are playing 8 hours a day, some of them unknown, most of them known, and many chinese.
He got overconfident after beating Moon 3-1 on nice NE maps and has slowed down ever since. He'll pick up, IMO, but low parctice time really made Grubby and ToD go down on the top WC3 players list.
I don't think anyone is saying SC2 should be like WC3. Low amount of units, and other stuff, have no place in SC2. Basically, SC2 (as I see it) will still have immense fast battles, but simply more often, and they'll be better microed and played out. In short, as far as spectator esports go, it'll be magnificent.
And as far as skill ceiling goes, it's IMPOSSIBLE that it's too low. Because if it is, Korea will Pearl Harbor Blizz headquarters. They won't do that, and will test it very very hard.
Moon and Lucifier made similar comments to Grubby's, the point i'm trying to make is that those micro battles which will be awesome are held up on the pillars of macro, pillars invisible to the average player, and without those pillars we may have a very shallow RTS game.
On December 10 2007 15:03 Motiva wrote: MyLostTemple
Hmmm you bring up a good point, that may need clarifying. While, I've made 3 long winded posts each i think contains some reference to warcraft 3 thus I am not sure exactly which comments you are speaking of.
I do however feel that with WC3 containing MBS that a lot of players use an analogy to WC3 a lot where it shouldn't be used. I also feel that you make a good point which I should address. If you feel that what continues within this post contradicts something I said earlier it is possible that I made a mistake, or that I need to articulate more clearly. Either way It makes it easier if /quote is used.
Now if i directly said "Warcraft 3 is in fact just as difficult and competitive as starcraft" I would have been mistaken, and was most likely just trying to say WC3 is a difficult and competitive game.
I was not aware of that Grubby doesn't practice a lot. In all honesty though, this does not surprise me. Why does this not surprise me? Because within Warcraft 3 there is very little that can suprise you. You practice and train in Starcraft not so you can be the fastest 4sd5sd6sd7sd player but rather so you will be prepared for anything. This has to do with hard counters, pace, economy, and macro. Warcraft 3 has less of each of these things, and focuses entirely on micro.
Micro is not something that is easily practiced and is primarily instinctual.
If you talk to a player that has just picked WC3, and they just went 2-40 in WC3... The odds are they have no idea why they lost. Warcraft 3 is prolly just as difficult to the ignorant player as SC is(That same player would prolly go 2-40 in SC too). In Starcraft they can be like wow I just got out produced that's why I lost. In WC3 they're like WTF I have 2x the army he had and he lost 3 units i lost my entire army. That's with some micro too (poor albeit).
I have much more appreciation for Starcraft programer than I do for WC3 progamers, and I also feel that SC is a much better esport and spectator sport.
But those aren't the real points of your post. The real point of your post was:
I think your making a contradictory argument by saying we need an easy interface in order to have a successful esport game. The game must be hard or the players wont require endless practice and the game itself will be come less impressive.
Well first. The primary facet of my argument has nothing to do with the direct simplification of the user interface. This same primary facet of my argument has nothing to do directly with the success or lack of success of the game as a sport.
Obviously the game should be hard so the it requires practice or it will become less impressive.
However, since those aren't my arguments and i have made an attempt to clarify my views of Warcraft 3 you will find that there is no contradiction (and if there is it doesn't negate my point)
I would ask you though. Has Grubby always practiced only 1-2 hours a day or when the game first came out was practicing more? My point is Warcraft 3 is much more predictable than SC and predictability leads to the ability to master. This doesn't have anything to do with the dulling of the user interface, but rather a dulling of the actual mechanics of gameplay. Which I discuss fairly thoroughly in my previous posts.
Sure the metagame in WC3 might evolve. That doesn't mean it's unpredictable. The unpredictability comes from the ability to successfully stray from the metagame. Metagame = The expected set of strategies from a certain set of players and matchups... In WC3 due to the nature of soft counters it's typically more important(than being unpredictable) to get a wider range of units and use each unit to it's maximum potential.
Edit: I wasn't saying that we need an easier interface, but rather I was arguing that an easier interface does not directly yield an easier game with a lower skill ceiling, but rather an easier interface allows more time to focus on the actual game that is present. -- This is the main point in almost every post of mine on this thread -
Thank you for your time.
i don't mean to be rude but your posts are so long winded and rambley i can't tell what points your trying to make.
How much Grubby practiced when the game 1st came out is irrelevant, it has already become so simple to him (and other pros) that they argue there is very little need for endless practice since the game is in essence easy to them. If SC2 ends up like this it will drastically hurt it's potential as an esport. War3 is a legit example too because SC2 seems to be leaning towards a more micro than macro style of play. it seems that players don't need to train all day to have incredible micro, yet when you mix micro with macro you are faced with an incredible challenge. With macro made so easy in SC2 i don't see what players will need to be practicing. That doesn't mean it wont have sponsors and other things, but the game itself will just viewed as Starcraft with training wheels.
Esports develop metagames regardless of what features are put in the game, all esports have metagames within them. In CS everyone knows to buy the AK, colt or awp. In War3 there are some heros you always pick over others early game. In SC we know to mech vs protoss rather than go mnm.
A metagame will occur in SC2 no mater what. What's important is that the skill ceiling required to achieve that metagame is as challenging as possible.
Your argument that an easier interface does not necessarily make for an easier game is simply wrong... while you may not be able to focus on the 'actual game' without MBS, many others can. This seems to be the common logical error with most pro MBS people, they end up imposing their own game experience onto the esport level. Make no mistake, there are far too many who can preform the macro task, micro excellently, and focus on the 'actual game' that your talking about. With the macro taken out you've gone one more step to making this game more one dimensional. The result will be a bunch of SC progamers picking up this game and frowning, because it in fact, HAS been made easier. With nothing to replace the macro factor they will have less to train for, less to master and less to show off. That's bad, unless of course you don't want an esport.
Maybe this will help clear up my argument for you. It is still ridiculously long. I'm sorry for that but I think you're oversimplifying the matter greatly.
Do you really think Savior can't have perfect timing, excellent strategy, awesome micro and still macro like a god?
You continue...
Even top foreigners will tell you it's not hard to macro while making difficult strategic decisions in game.
We should be able to agree, that since macroing (SBS/MBS aspect only) of the well trained player(any player that is heavily competitive within the game) is not such a deciding factor of skill, but rather simply a routine any experianced play executes. Simple routine does not affect the skill ceiling.
Noone here thinks that iloveoov is considered the better macro player over boxer by many people because he is faster at clicking the buildings or using his hotkeys. Instead if most of these people thought about it they would agree that iloveoov is considered the better macro player over boxer because boxer's player style isn't as macro oriented. Boxer prefers to control a smaller army and handle it perfectly using uber tactics (he's kinda known for that eh?) While iloveoov takes the macro, mass army approach more often and is thus what he gets recognition for.
What I am saying, which your argument supports, is that it isn't the difference between 5m6m7m8m and 5m that differeniates these playstyles and aspects of the game.
Our debate then rattles on about all sorts of irrelevant stuff which I could argue, such as whether it matters or not whether Grubby practiced more than 1-2 hours a day when the game came out, to which I would state that it does matter because learning curves affect metagames, which affect quite a bit. A metagame that never changes because the learning curve has hit a ceiling matters greatly. We both agree this is something we need to be aware of and take into consideration with the development of Starcraft2.
This leads me to argue why Warcraft 3 is not a valid example for comparision on the use of ONLY MBS (not smartcasting, automine, or anything else. Those are all off topic mechanics. If you were to ask me how I felt about some of these things you might be suprised considering the way you've responded to my previous posts)
1) Warcraft 3 took the focus off of the economy of the game all together which opens up a huge amount of time, and attention (supposedly countered by heros and creeps) 2) Warcraft 3 is a game consisting of soft counters. There is no Firebat to Zergling counters in WC3 (maybe a few, but even then pretty nerfed in comparision) 3) The pace of wc3 is intentionally slower, focusing on efficient management of units rather than macro... There is no macro whatsoever in WC3 because there is no focus on economy as well as less focus on unit counters (which affect macro indirectly) 4) The addition of heros provides an additional paradigm shift within the focus of the game that cannot be ignored.
The only thing I would add to this quote from my post on page 25 (if you want the full context) would be that a large reason why the counters are so soft is because of their hitpoints and all of the othernonsense. Then there are also all of those other automation features.
A metagame develops into any game where there are multiple possibilities and a large number of players playing together in competition with eachother.
Many games have very simplistic metagames because the mechanics of the game dwindle down the number of viable possibilities. This leads the matches to become predictable in unbalanced games. In balanced games it leads to long boring games, luck, or unexciting games that have been played identically over and over again. This leads me back up the list in reference to WC3.
A metagame will occur in SC2 no mater what. What's important is that the skill ceiling required to achieve that metagame is as challenging as possible.
What's important is that the metagame allows for endless possibilities and countless "archetypes" of metagames (the korean metagame is different ect ect) so that the game can continue to evolve for until Starcraft 3 (lmao) just like Starcraft 1 has to 2.
I am arguing that MBS is not going to have a big enough effect on the metagame to break Starcraft into a game which progresses and evolves so slowly. The beauty of starcraft isn't that there are so many possibilities that "the metagame" is "as challenging as possible" but rather there are so many possibilities that it's impossible.
To say a player did everything perfect is only relative to his metagame. In a different metagame identicle play could have gotten stomped simply because of unpredictable factors (like when bisu blows savior a sweet tender kiss with his cute build and takes savior 3-0) You could argue that scouting has a lot to do with this, but you could argue that the better play does a better job at denying scouting.
This has to do with a lot more than MBS. It has to do with how each seperate race is put together, which units become more viable in different matchups. Balance is a huge factor. If a unit is overpowered so much that the player only has to mass that unit and do minor microing to win then the metagame is broken.
MBS simply consolidates 6 actions a good player does every 5-15 seconds into 2 actions the good player has to remember to do every 5-15 seconds. This doesn't break the metagame, it has very little to do with balance.
Your argument that an easier interface does not necessarily make for an easier game is simply wrong... while you may not be able to focus on the 'actual game' without MBS, many others can. This seems to be the common logical error with most pro MBS people, they end up imposing their own game experience onto the esport level. Make no mistake, there are far too many who can preform the macro task, micro excellently, and focus on the 'actual game' that your talking about. With the macro taken out you've gone one more step to making this game more one dimensional. The result will be a bunch of SC progamers picking up this game and frowning, because it in fact, HAS been made easier. With nothing to replace the macro factor they will have less to train for, less to master and less to show off. That's bad, unless of course you don't want an esport.
I don't see how any of this makes my argument wrong. We've both agreed that "Make no mistake, there are far too many who can preform the macro task, micro excellently, and focus on the 'actual game' that your talking about. "
Furthermore:
Do you really think Savior can't have perfect timing, excellent strategy, awesome micro and still macro like a god?
You continue...
Even top foreigners will tell you it's not hard to macro while making difficult strategic decisions in game.
In my argument that an easier interface does not necessarily make for an easier game I am arguing that it is not the difference between 5m6m7m8m and 5m that makes the difference between skill levels at the highest level (the level we are concerned with related to esports)
My argument is instead stating that instead of this difference (making the UI easier) the real difficulty in the game is from the complexity and possibility of metagames and then further more a meta-metagame. There is a lot more to my argument than this however.
Another aspect of my argument is that there is no skill ceiling with or without MBS because of the complexity of the game (unlike wc3). I also argue that the hard part about macro isn't SBS but rather remembering to build units at the most intense moments, and then even further, not just remembering but also knowing which instances to do so in the midst of micro intensive moments. This prioritising of multitasking is a huge part of the game, and a huge deciding factor in many games is just sheer superior ability in general multitasking.
As for your latest comment above this one.
those micro battles which will be awesome ARE held up on the pillars of macro.
I'm saying the difference between 5m and 5m6m7m8mect don't break macro, and Economy is left out of this discussion far too much considering how much the term macro gets thrown around....
The realization of the influence of the economy in the late game (and the realization that SBS isn't hard for any truely talented player) coupled with everything I've said above should be concise enough.
PS: If for instance the metagame forces players to have a ridiculous distribution of units, then better players will still use multiple hotkeys for the same building types....
On December 11 2007 12:16 MyLostTemple wrote: So, in other words, while the SC2 micro will be harder to learn, it will also take up less of the overall game time and we need MORE than micro and newbie friendly macro to keep this game competitive.
But starcraft macro was also newbie friendly. If we removed all micro in starcraft the game would be perfected in less than a day.
However, as i said in my earlier post, the micro gets a lot harder when macro takes quite some time throughout the whole game. So really in the end its all about the micro. All aspects of macro removed are the aspects were people need to train just to do them as fast as possible so that they get more time to micro. Wouldn't it be better instead to make micor harder so that we have to train micro speed endlessly rather than training the simple macro moves like they do now?
So the question is, do any progamer micro their armies perfectly even when they aren't building units with army sizes as big as they are at the stage when mbs begins to make a difference?
And i can easily answer that question, and its a no. They micro very far from perfectly, sure they might micro the best in the world but that doesn't mean that we cant code a script that micros as good with a 150 pop army that a progamer can do with a 10 pop army.
But then you might say "I don't want it any less skill full than original starcraft, thats just dumb" However since i showed that its micro that takes the biggest hit on how hard it is, its easy to show that micro will not necessarily be easier than before. Imagine if every matchup in starcaft required twice the unit diversity at any given time, then micro would get a lot harder just because microing more unit types is always harder than microing a lot of the same unit, and if we look at what we currently have of starcraft 2 thats what they are aiming for. We don't know how this stand in proportions vs the macro burden, but it will certainly mitigate a lot of it and maybe even take it further.
And lastly, you worried that you would have nothing to do at times? Well, when you are not under pressure macro in starcraft is still easy, so the skill difference at those times aren't that big anyway. The pressure always comes when you have to micro, macro is just an extra burden on the micro. So since those micro voids exists in starcraft they are times when there is very little to differentiate the pro's in starcraft too right? So this wont make a difference there either.
No
I won't respond to an argument as stupid as this. This is almost as bad as your argument in the "[D] Smartcasting" fourm where you dumbly argued that ghosts wern't used competitvely in SC because the UI was too hard to utilize lockdown. learn how this game works before you start debating about how it should function in the future.
Just a question, were do my logic fail this time? I know perfectly why a lot think my logic failed in the smartcast debate, but this time i cant see it.
Can you agree that: 1. Boxer don't click on buildings slower than iloveoov? 2. Really, all progamers click the buildings roughly as fast. 3. Every average player can macro like a pro as long as he don't have to micro anything at all and got the right BO. 4. No average gamer can micro like a pro even if he doesn't have to macro.
Now if we combine this we can see that its not the act of clicking buildings wich makes a difference between different progamers, its the act of micro or other types of macro that don't have anything to do with mbs. Clicking buildings also have an effect on micro ofcourse, since it creates blackspots in your play that you have to account for and the less you train to streamline your building clicking speed you get less and less time over to micro. But all pros do that roughly as fast, so the point that it creates less differentiation at the top is kinda moot...
However are those blackspots so extremely crucial to competetive play, when they can even hurt the competetiveness of the game by creating luck moments? Am I wrong and starcraft players don't hate luck involmenet in the outcomes of games other than scouting?
On December 12 2007 12:49 MyLostTemple wrote: Hand speed and basic forms of dexterity isn't something you lose with age or we would see old people getting shitty at playing guitar after playing it their whole lives.
I want to raise an objection concerning this quote, taken from Tasteless's post in the question submission thread, since I think it brings up a good, and different, point of discussion regarding the interface changes as a whole.
Guillaume explains that the career of a professional gamer is "very short" and you won't find professionals younger than 17 or older than 23. The reason? According to Guillaume, most people younger than 17 don't have the ability to think strategically on the level required for a professional career. After age 23, the reflexes and reaction times become too slow to respond to a fast-paced, developing game with the required speed.
"The game [StarCraft] is played instinctively at the highest level [of competition]", Guillaume said.
If you don't believe him or think that his opinion is outdated, look at the December KeSPA rankings. Out of the top 30, only two are above the age of 23*: iloveoov (24) and Nal_rA (25). Also, there are only two in the top 30 that are younger than 17: Flash (15) and Mind (16). The rest fall between the above age range of 17-23, skewed towards the bottom of that range.
For further proof, take a look at the team rosters: out of those older than 23, only BoxeR, iloveoov, and Nal_rA are still regularly in Proleague lineups. For ACE in particular, whose entire lineup is 22+, only the younger ones get major Proleague exposure, aside from Him of course.
It may be physical dexterity required by the UI mechanics, or the mental dexterity required by the high level of multitasking that results from the UI mechanics, but age clearly has a significant correlation with a SC pro's competitiveness. If we take 17-23 as a standard competitive range for SC players, that makes for a competitive professional career of only 6 years; even stretching it to 15-25, that is only 10 years, compared to at least 15-20 years for any other highly-physical professional sport.
I think for Starcraft progaming to be a respectable career choice in the long-term, there are two viable choices that don't involve altering SC itself: 1) progamers need to be paid exorbitant salaries to compensate for their short careers; or 2) another game needs to be created that has the same style of gameplay, yet primarily focuses on different, less age-dependent skills so that the two games can coexist in the e-sports scene, allowing older SC progamers to switch over and thus sustain their careers to 15-20 years like in other sports. SC2 could easily fit this role if properly designed; its flames may burn a little less brightly than SC's as a result, but they will last considerably longer.
Those who assert that it is not possible for SC and SC2 to coexist seem (to me) to be assuming that two games in the same franchise cannot coexist as e-sports. CS 1.6 and Source are a counterexample to this assumption, being two games of the same franchise that are different Enough gameplay-wise to exist independently, especially now that Source competitions are picking up on the 18-round format; Much of the tension between the two results in the graphical difference (which is being resolved by CSpromod) and Valve's position of trying to force Source upon the 1.6 players.
Reflexes are different from hand speed and hand dexterity. Relexes are responding to stimulus fast, hand speed and dexterity is how well the brain can control the muscles. So Tastesless's argument is not debunked.
As for making a game easier so that progamers can last for longer? I cannot begin to point out the stupidity of that argument. There are many professions in this world where people will last for only a short time before having to move on. Look at the music industry, people become famous, and in 2 years time they are no popular than the average person on the street. Ex-progamers also have the option of getting advertising deals, just like Ex-Pro-Atheletes do. An entire game cannot be made easier so that a few progamers can play it competatively when they get older.
As for SC and SC2 to co-exist, its possible. But if you have a look at Source and 1.6, youll note most tournies only contain 1, not both. WCG for example will only play SC1 or SC2, they will not play both so the success of SC2 really does impact the SC1 scene. Whats worse, is that if SC2 does not live up to SC1, then we can expect SC1 to retake control of the competative scene. Korea will run their progleagues, WCG will use SC1 again and most tournies that had Starcraft in it will revert back to SC1. This would be extremely bad for the competative scene of SC2.
On December 12 2007 15:16 Fen wrote: Reflexes are different from hand speed and hand dexterity. Relexes are responding to stimulus fast, hand speed and dexterity is how well the brain can control the muscles. So Tastesless's argument is not debunked.
Still, it's not much of a stretch to hypothesize that at the extremely high level of combined speed and dexterity that SC progamers exhibit, small deteriorations in fine motor skills due to aging could lead to significant differences. I doubt that reflexes alone can account for the performance drop due to aging in the SC proscene.
As for making a game easier so that progamers can last for longer? I cannot begin to point out the stupidity of that argument. There are many professions in this world where people will last for only a short time before having to move on. Look at the music industry, people become famous, and in 2 years time they are no popular than the average person on the street. Ex-progamers also have the option of getting advertising deals, just like Ex-Pro-Atheletes do. An entire game cannot be made easier so that a few progamers can play it competatively when they get older.
I never meant the game would necessarily be easier, just that the physical demands would be lighter (which goes hand-in-hand with a simpler interface). There are plenty of popular, extremely competitive e-sports out there with less physically demanding and easier-to-use interfaces: DoA4, PGR3, Kart Rider, the CSs, Fifa, SSMB, Halo, etc. In many of these games, you have players in their mid-20s, and even 30+ competing successfully at the professional levels. Why can't RTSs have simpler interfaces and remain highly competitive?
Regarding the music industry, the musicians that fade within two years are the talentless hacks who succeed at the whim of popularity, which is more indicative of the pop music industry than the field of music. Many talented professional musicians have careers easily extending past 20 years.
Finally, getting advertising deals means you have to get enough exposure to carry brand power, which I expect only the most successful progamers to achieve in such a short timespan.
As for SC and SC2 to co-exist, its possible. But if you have a look at Source and 1.6, youll note most tournies only contain 1, not both. WCG for example will only play SC1 or SC2, they will not play both so the success of SC2 really does impact the SC1 scene. Whats worse, is that if SC2 does not live up to SC1, then we can expect SC1 to retake control of the competative scene. Korea will run their progleagues, WCG will use SC1 again and most tournies that had Starcraft in it will revert back to SC1. This would be extremely bad for the competative scene of SC2.
Tournament-based progaming allows only one game from a franchise, that's true, but there's no reason that a more entrenched progaming organization like OGN couldn't host competitions for both. Also, if WCG has seen it fit to run 4 RTSs like they did this year, I don't see why they wouldn't host both SC and SC2. In fact, even if the two can't coexist I expect both the Korean progaming scene and WCG to hold on to SC as long as possible, since they don't want to give all they've worked for so far up until they are absolutely sure that SC2 is a proper replacement.
EDIT: Anyways, it's not like I'm arguing that Blizzard should design SC2 for this purpose, just pointing out that a positive side-effect of a simpler interface is longer competitive progamer careers and the increased likelihood of SC and SC2 coexisting. I think it's an interesting perspective to consider.
It's not a bad point. I've always wondered why past greats are always losing against newer and younger ones. Now we have 13 and 14 year olds getting famous in the progaming scene. It's quite ridiculous and I can't cheer for babies like that. It seems like the physical aspect of the game really needs to step back a little. Progaming would maybe also have a better reputation in general when it's not just teenagers who can become so good.
I believe that the focus on macro will be more for intelligence than handspeed on sc2 if mbs is implemented.
Naturaly to open space for more micro, it would take long long years for a player to start showing OMGWTF micro on 4 different places of the map in bw, in sc2 i belive they want to see the micro of bw but taken to the next level, since your oponent has so much time in his hand, you need to press him from all sides, whoever sucks the most time of his enemy and manages do create pressure will reign, whoever has the least skill will fall to the massive number of attacks unable to properly defend himself against such massive sequencial coordinated attacks, plays that everyone comments and remembers for years in bw will be taken to a new level of micro, and I all for watching that on pro sc2 games, i dont know if it will destroy the magic behind bw, but i see it as if they were trying to create a new feeling of play, more brain, more multi fighting, inside the starcraft mechanic.
Some people might think its just a bunch of bs, just my 2 cents
1esu, how could you possibly argue that the manual dexterity required for starcraft some how becomes lost with age. There is simply no evidence to support this since most forms of dexterity (like mastering a musical instrument) do not diminish with age. Your simply taking too completely unrelated facts and tieing them together to support a claim. Many progamers stop playing professionally as they age because they become tired of training for 10+ hours a day. The proteams are strict with their players, many can only leave one night a week to go have fun. Some grow tired of being beaten by their coaches, yes you get beaten too much if you lose too often or don't train efficiently enough, and want to try working within the esports rather than competing in it. Further more there are many older progamers on the scene, i know Much is around 30 years old and he was one of the highest ranked protoss players not long ago. I know i've spoken to others who are older than me (i'm 23) but i can't match the age with the name at this moment.
Ask anyone who's older that plays this game competitively, they would tell you they get worse if they stop practicing or lose passion, not because their brains dry up or their hands slow down. As far as i know Grrr was good when this game was SO new that macro had not fully developed into the concept it is today, many of the games back then were short and more simple because build orders had not developed into the precision we see them executed at today. In other words he didn't develop his macro game early on and got swallowed up in the new innovations discovered in Starcraft as the sport progressed.
On December 11 2007 12:16 MyLostTemple wrote: So, in other words, while the SC2 micro will be harder to learn, it will also take up less of the overall game time and we need MORE than micro and newbie friendly macro to keep this game competitive.
But starcraft macro was also newbie friendly. If we removed all micro in starcraft the game would be perfected in less than a day.
However, as i said in my earlier post, the micro gets a lot harder when macro takes quite some time throughout the whole game. So really in the end its all about the micro. All aspects of macro removed are the aspects were people need to train just to do them as fast as possible so that they get more time to micro. Wouldn't it be better instead to make micor harder so that we have to train micro speed endlessly rather than training the simple macro moves like they do now?
So the question is, do any progamer micro their armies perfectly even when they aren't building units with army sizes as big as they are at the stage when mbs begins to make a difference?
And i can easily answer that question, and its a no. They micro very far from perfectly, sure they might micro the best in the world but that doesn't mean that we cant code a script that micros as good with a 150 pop army that a progamer can do with a 10 pop army.
But then you might say "I don't want it any less skill full than original starcraft, thats just dumb" However since i showed that its micro that takes the biggest hit on how hard it is, its easy to show that micro will not necessarily be easier than before. Imagine if every matchup in starcaft required twice the unit diversity at any given time, then micro would get a lot harder just because microing more unit types is always harder than microing a lot of the same unit, and if we look at what we currently have of starcraft 2 thats what they are aiming for. We don't know how this stand in proportions vs the macro burden, but it will certainly mitigate a lot of it and maybe even take it further.
And lastly, you worried that you would have nothing to do at times? Well, when you are not under pressure macro in starcraft is still easy, so the skill difference at those times aren't that big anyway. The pressure always comes when you have to micro, macro is just an extra burden on the micro. So since those micro voids exists in starcraft they are times when there is very little to differentiate the pro's in starcraft too right? So this wont make a difference there either.
No
I won't respond to an argument as stupid as this. This is almost as bad as your argument in the "[D] Smartcasting" fourm where you dumbly argued that ghosts wern't used competitvely in SC because the UI was too hard to utilize lockdown. learn how this game works before you start debating about how it should function in the future.
Just a question, were do my logic fail this time? I know perfectly why a lot think my logic failed in the smartcast debate, but this time i cant see it.
Can you agree that: 1. Boxer don't click on buildings slower than iloveoov? 2. Really, all progamers click the buildings roughly as fast. 3. Every average player can macro like a pro as long as he don't have to micro anything at all and got the right BO. 4. No average gamer can micro like a pro even if he doesn't have to macro.
Now if we combine this we can see that its not the act of clicking buildings wich makes a difference between different progamers, its the act of micro or other types of macro that don't have anything to do with mbs. Clicking buildings also have an effect on micro ofcourse, since it creates blackspots in your play that you have to account for and the less you train to streamline your building clicking speed you get less and less time over to micro. But all pros do that roughly as fast, so the point that it creates less differentiation at the top is kinda moot...
However are those blackspots so extremely crucial to competetive play, when they can even hurt the competetiveness of the game by creating luck moments? Am I wrong and starcraft players don't hate luck involmenet in the outcomes of games other than scouting?
Macro is not simply 'clicking on buildings fast.' it's juggling tasks; participating in every aspect of your economy. Lets say all korean professional gamers are in the top 98+ percentile of the macro skill area, there are still huge spaces between one professional gamers macro skill when compared to another. Iloveoov macros a hell of a lot better than casy TvZ, yet they both have INCREDIBLE macro. Every average player can NOT macro like a pro, even if they aren't microing. If this was the case every protoss would easily outmacro a turtling terran on python, yet this doesn't necessarily happen, even if there is no harassment on the terrans part. Micro has the same rule as macro, julyzerg and savior micro mutas better than yellow for instance, even though they both have micro that would easily fit within the top 98 percentile of starcraft players. You need both micro and macro to to create this delicate balance. And no, this does not create luck moments in the game because these are people playing, not robots. they have the option to chose when to focus on macro versus micro. sounds hard? good, it is. It's so hard it should take years to master that balance so it can legitimize the game as the most competitive RTS esport alive.
On December 13 2007 04:23 MyLostTemple wrote: i know Much is around 30 years old
Much is actually 23, like you, even though he really does look much older.
The Emperor (at 27~28?) is the oldest progamer right now.
really? oops =[ sorry. i must be thinking of someone else. Regardless i don't think it can be proven that hand dexterity has ANYTHING to do with progamers not playing when they're older.
On December 12 2007 19:56 Brutalisk wrote: It's not a bad point. I've always wondered why past greats are always losing against newer and younger ones. Now we have 13 and 14 year olds getting famous in the progaming scene. It's quite ridiculous and I can't cheer for babies like that. It seems like the physical aspect of the game really needs to step back a little. Progaming would maybe also have a better reputation in general when it's not just teenagers who can become so good.
your saying the physical aspect of the game needs to step back because 13 and 14 year olds can beat pro gamers using it? maybe we should put it back so 8 year olds can master it too.
no, but seriously--do you think this argument even supports your point? Granted geniuses exist, like a 14 year old who can beat a progamer, it's not because of some interface, it's much much more than that. i don't know a lot of children who have faster hand control than those older than them, and i don't know many old people losing this reflex skill unless they have arthritis or carpel tunnel. after reading an argument like this i really wonder if you'll believe anything to make your point.
There are older gamers at other games. The fact SC pro gamers are so young on average is that the training regimen is ridiculous, and when you hit the 20s, you want to do something else. Like, for example, have sex. Maybe a family. Things like that.
Games like CS where pros don't play as much, and in a much healthier environment, do play up to their 30s.
I can't believe how far the thread went into the stupid assumptions to manage to justify that shitty UI 'evolution'.
If you dont realize it will reduce the skill gap along 1 MAJOR component of the game, then you're blind, stupid or too young. Now if you think that the 'benefits' of such fucking change can compensate, or better balance, thats your personal (and ignorant) point of view.
We'll have to wait the result to see the failure, i mean not for you, but for the true Starcraft players, not guys coming back from Warcraft 3 or switching addicts. Hopefully, as some of you mentioned, the progaming scene won't be able to be as stupid and base their durability on such futile arguments. We may thus keep a good game for a little more time.
Next time it will be the same fight, except you'll be allowed to fuck up another franchise, so i won't mind so much.
Again, I didn't mean it to be an argument or justification for MBS, just an interesting possible side-effect on an issue that I feel will affect SC progaming in the long term. I think I've shown that there's a significant negative correlation between age and performance (not retirement) in progaming. Perhaps that correlation can be explained by a unilateral psychological burnout, but given Grrrr's statement it makes more sense that in a game as demanding as Starcraft, subtle physiological changes can affect one's game at the highest levels. I mean, it's obvious that Nal_ra and Iloveoov aren't burned out, but they're clearly losing more games to younger players nowadays than their skill would imply. Grrrr gave reflexes as a reason, and as both handspeed (not dexterity) and reflexes are both governed by the speed of electrical impulses from the brain to the hand, I figured handspeed might be affected also. Guitar and piano players, after all, don't have to compete on who can play the fastest. However, I can't find any evidence supporting this claim, so I could easily be wrong. Also, the younger players have the advantage of playing Starcraft from a younger age, so their brains are better conditioned to the multitasking demands of the game; but whether this is the dominant factor will have to wait about 6 years, since if this is true the younger players should play just as well despite their age.
I've got to go right now, so I have to leave the rest for later.
The only solid argument that the Pro-MBS players have brought up is that MBS will attract more noobs to the game, meaning there will be higher initial sales.
Its a fair argument that has merit. Blizzard however should realise that if they can make a competative game, it might branch out beyond korea, spawning proleagues around the world. If it did that, im sure game sales would skyrocket far higher than they could possibly go without the competative scenes.
So the question for blizzard is, do they play is safe, and cater to the noobs, resulting in strong sales. Or do they cater for the competative scenes in hope that starcraft 2 becomes an even greater phenomenon that Starcraft 1 did and therefore selling record copies?
On December 14 2007 00:44 Fen wrote: Ok, so we're back at square one again.
The only solid argument that the Pro-MBS players have brought up is that MBS will attract more noobs to the game, meaning there will be higher initial sales.
Its a fair argument that has merit. Blizzard however should realise that if they can make a competative game, it might branch out beyond korea, spawning proleagues around the world. If it did that, im sure game sales would skyrocket far higher than they could possibly go without the competative scenes.
So the question for blizzard is, do they play is safe, and cater to the noobs, resulting in strong sales. Or do they cater for the competative scenes in hope that starcraft 2 becomes an even greater phenomenon that Starcraft 1 did and therefore selling record copies?
No need to be that condescending.
Everyone starts out a "noob" by definition. Now, it is in the interest of both Blizzard and the StarCraft community for StarCraft 2 to be a game which caters to newcomers while simultaneously allowing for the deep and engaging gameplay which is a prerequisite for a sprawling pro scene.
The AMM will certainly help a great deal, making sure both new players and experienced veterans can find evenly matched games within seconds of logging on to Battle.net.
I'm not convinced that by "[...] cater[ing] to the noobs [...]" you have to sacrifice the pro scene, nor do I believe that inclusion of MBS would necessarily lower the skill ceiling of the game. One could argue that the Zerg building style in StarCraft is MBS-ish, since you can select multiple larvae at the same time. One could further argue that the Protoss Warp-in technology breaks MBS in some ways. Thus the ramifications of MBS might not be as apparent as some of you claim.
..and so what if it is? Yes, the gameplay might change. Yes, maybe some other skills will be rewarded. So what? Chances are, it'll still be a highly competitive (and much more accessible) game that most of us will play more than is healthy.
On December 13 2007 21:17 Fuu wrote: I can't believe how far the thread went into the stupid assumptions to manage to justify that shitty UI 'evolution'.
If you dont realize it will reduce the skill gap along 1 MAJOR component of the game, then you're blind, stupid or too young. Now if you think that the 'benefits' of such fucking change can compensate, or better balance, thats your personal (and ignorant) point of view.
We'll have to wait the result to see the failure, i mean not for you, but for the true Starcraft players, not guys coming back from Warcraft 3 or switching addicts. Hopefully, as some of you mentioned, the progaming scene won't be able to be as stupid and base their durability on such futile arguments. We may thus keep a good game for a little more time.
Next time it will be the same fight, except you'll be allowed to fuck up another franchise, so i won't mind so much.
On November 09 2007 10:14 FrozenArbiter wrote: In the words of our beloved longtime moderator, ToKoreaWithLove
The MBS discussion thread
This will be heavily moderated. We will accept no rulebreaking, we will delete posts that don't follow the rules, and we will swing the mean 'ol ban hammer. We will tell you to back off if your clearly don't know what you are talking about. Too harsh? Go somewhere else.
Rules:
3. Be civil. Insult other members in any way and you are gone.
4. Be smart. Think about your own post, check if it has been said before. When replying to someone else's post - make sure you know what his/hers post is about, that you understand it, and that your disagreement, agreement or addition is properly worded and shows your opinion clearly.
5. Constructive criticism. You are allowed to tell other posters that they are wrong. Criticism should be allowed in any discussion, but it should be done nicely, and you are expected to back up your claims.
1. Educate yourself. If you don't know something, find out. Search, read our articles or find out otherwise. Many of our members are knowledgeable, and if they make a point you don't understand, admit your lack of said knowledge and fix it.
too bad most of the people he's attacking didn't obey the 1st rule.
I will come, make 1 civil post, backup my arguments the same way it has always been made, but it doesnt matter since you'll never be able to grasp the point.
Then, after my only post, twenty newbs coming from 'i dont know which forums' will make a new account, answer me on how they think it's not AT ALL dangerous without any serious backup (most of the time they don't even play the game well/at all), and full two complete pages of some impressive arguments like : progamers can last longer this way. My post will be forgotten, and they'll think they have a point.
My reaction is just the futile attempt to wake up all the true lovers of this game against a mass noobification of the title, which will occur, and not only on the MBS aspect. If mods prefer to ban me than the crowd of the sc2 new forumers who've nothing to do with BW, free to them. I will at least understand that my time on this site is over. I still seriously doubt that someone like mensrea would ban me for loosing my nerves after these 29 pages of Mature pro-mbs arguments.
On December 14 2007 11:26 Fuu wrote: I will come, make 1 civil post, backup my arguments the same way it has always been made, but it doesnt matter since you'll never be able to grasp the point.
Then, after my only post, twenty newbs coming from 'i dont know which forums' will make a new account, answer me on how they think it's not AT ALL dangerous without any serious backup (most of the time they don't even play the game well/at all), and full two complete pages of some impressive arguments like : progamers can last longer this way. My post will be forgotten, and they'll think they have a point.
My reaction is just the futile attempt to wake up all the true lovers of this game against a mass noobification of the title, which will occur, and not only on the MBS aspect. If mods prefer to ban me than the crowd of the sc2 new forumers who've nothing to do with BW, free to them. I will at least understand that my time on this site is over. I still seriously doubt that someone like mensrea would ban me for loosing my nerves after these 29 pages of Mature pro-mbs arguments.
Your problem is that you label people that do not agree with you as n00b. That is an incorrect assumption.
I've been playing games for 22 years. I believe I have some kind of insight into what will happen with certain game design decisions.
MBS can make the game a better game than SC1 if the game is balanced so the player is unable to do a perfect game. Why? A game that is easyto pick up but impossible to master. This is done via multiple ways:
Higher food count Faster gameplay Higher multitasking requirements (which may or may not include macro). More options and possibilities for better control, often via special abilities.
Considering the game is in pre-alpha, we have no idea on what they'll use and how they'll do it (they scrapped Zerg because they didn't like it, so they ARE dedicated to making the best game ever). So, without ever seeing the game, nor Blizzard's plans, nor what is in store for the future, map designs (VERY IMPORTANT) or other important stuff, claiming that people disagreeing with you on a single issue are n00bs is very closeminded.
So, while I can understand your frustration, do not claim to be the voice of all the BW fans. Being a BW fan doesn't imply that all games should be exactly the same.
On December 14 2007 11:26 Fuu wrote: I will come, make 1 civil post, backup my arguments the same way it has always been made, but it doesnt matter since you'll never be able to grasp the point.
Then, after my only post, twenty newbs coming from 'i dont know which forums' will make a new account, answer me on how they think it's not AT ALL dangerous without any serious backup (most of the time they don't even play the game well/at all), and full two complete pages of some impressive arguments like : progamers can last longer this way. My post will be forgotten, and they'll think they have a point.
My reaction is just the futile attempt to wake up all the true lovers of this game against a mass noobification of the title, which will occur, and not only on the MBS aspect. If mods prefer to ban me than the crowd of the sc2 new forumers who've nothing to do with BW, free to them. I will at least understand that my time on this site is over. I still seriously doubt that someone like mensrea would ban me for loosing my nerves after these 29 pages of Mature pro-mbs arguments.
Since, you keep labelling others noobs, what "credentials" do you have to show? What about your experience in RTS games in general? You ask for others to reveal their ICCUP rank, but what about yourself? I know Tasteless at least has something to back himself up with when he is debating, but how do I know that you're not some noob spouting off your theory as you claim others are doing.
The fact is that this MBS issue isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Yes, people "grasp" your point, but they may not AGREE with it. Plus, even this post of yours is incredibly immature and unsubstantiated. Your "civil" posts are always massive flamebait and rarely ever civil.
It is telling however that most MBS supporters have not been playing the game much for the past 2-3 years and most are also not part of the TL community until around when SC2 was released. It may not be an universally true label, but it contains merit.
Since, you keep labelling others noobs, what "SC credentials" do you have to show? You ask for others to reveal their ICCUP rank, but what about yourself? How do I know that you're not some noob spouting off your theory as you claim others are doing.
hes right in general. every good/known player who has posted an opinion has been pretty firmly anti-mbs, not a single one has supported mbs. and judging by apparent game knowledge and the fact that no ones ever heard of any of you, pro-mbs people probably arent very good players.
On December 14 2007 11:26 Fuu wrote: I will come, make 1 civil post, backup my arguments the same way it has always been made, but it doesnt matter since you'll never be able to grasp the point.
Then, after my only post, twenty newbs coming from 'i dont know which forums' will make a new account, answer me on how they think it's not AT ALL dangerous without any serious backup (most of the time they don't even play the game well/at all), and full two complete pages of some impressive arguments like : progamers can last longer this way. My post will be forgotten, and they'll think they have a point.
My reaction is just the futile attempt to wake up all the true lovers of this game against a mass noobification of the title, which will occur, and not only on the MBS aspect. If mods prefer to ban me than the crowd of the sc2 new forumers who've nothing to do with BW, free to them. I will at least understand that my time on this site is over. I still seriously doubt that someone like mensrea would ban me for loosing my nerves after these 29 pages of Mature pro-mbs arguments.
Your problem is that you label people that do not agree with you as n00b. That is an incorrect assumption.
I've been playing games for 22 years. I believe I have some kind of insight into what will happen with certain game design decisions.
MBS can make the game a better game than SC1 if the game is balanced so the player is unable to do a perfect game. Why? A game that is easyto pick up but impossible to master. This is done via multiple ways:
Higher food count Faster gameplay Higher multitasking requirements (which may or may not include macro). More options and possibilities for better control, often via special abilities.
Considering the game is in pre-alpha, we have no idea on what they'll use and how they'll do it (they scrapped Zerg because they didn't like it, so they ARE dedicated to making the best game ever). So, without ever seeing the game, nor Blizzard's plans, nor what is in store for the future, map designs (VERY IMPORTANT) or other important stuff, claiming that people disagreeing with you on a single issue are n00bs is very closeminded.
So, while I can understand your frustration, do not claim to be the voice of all the BW fans. Being a BW fan doesn't imply that all games should be exactly the same.
his concern is not really closed minded, go find a pro mbs player and i'll play if the point isn't legitimate enough for you. the concern is there are a bunch of people who are somewhere in the D+ (on iccup) range making bad arguments about a game they don't really understand. the 'ideal' game your talking about is half way contradicted by the 'faster game play' and 'higher multitasking requirements' since your not filling that void with anything--especially not good arguments.
I'll delete the progamer longevity post if people wish it, it was more something I found interesting, and the only real reason its in this thread is that I wanted to provide a situation in which SC and SC2 progaming scenes coexist to each other's mutual benefit. Such a situation counters the presumption that since SC2 will wipe out the SC proscene/community, SC2 should be designed as closely as possible to the BW template in order to eliminate the risk of any lost competitiveness. I admit that I didn't really present it as such, but I was just following a train of thought inspired by Tasteless's comment about handspeed and age, and didn't have the time to better organize my post.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand SC as well as someone who's played it for the last several years; but in my efforts to educate myself in game design, I made sure I played and gained at least a decent understanding of many games from many different genres, and there are certain principles that I've come to recognize from such studies that apply across all genres of games.
One of them is that iterative testing of design principle x to see its consequences is always superior to listening to a focus group's opinions (however qualified) of what x's consequences might be. Thus, I've always argued for allowing MBS to be properly tested in a feature-complete version of SC2 before being judged, preferably on a closed/open beta scale. While the opinions of those who played an internal alpha version of the game at Blizzcon are certainly helpful in terms of identifying possible problem areas, I think everyone can agree that the state of the game is insufficient to judge MBS as good, neutral, or bad. Simply stating that "MBS will ruin SC2" because it "makes macro too easy" or posting pictures of someone driving off a golf tee and someone playing putt-putt doesn't help anyone, and hurts the chances of anyone who has a say in SC2's design taking you seriously. Saying something like "the player no longer is required to constantly return to their base, thus reducing the multitasking required in the lategame to considerably lower levels" helps by pinpointing a negative consequence, thus allowing the design team to concentrate on finding solutions to said consequence.
But what I really don't understand is people with the belief that there is no way MBS can be in a game and still have gameplay as competitive as a game with SBS. There seems to be an underlying conviction among many of the anti-MBS arguments that RTS games must have complex controls in order to have highly competitive gameplay. After all, it would be quite difficult to argue that, given relatively equal competitiveness, an SC2 with MBS would not be superior to an SC2 with SBS, unless you believed that a sufficiently-competitive SC2 with MBS was an oxymoron. Yet there are many examples of games in other genres that have simpler controls than their predecessors yet are as competitive, or even more competitive: for FPSs, we have CS and Painkiller, which both feature easier movement than Quake 3; for racing games, we have Kart Rider, which features much easier controls than PGR3 yet is arguably more competitive; and for fighting games, we have Super Smash Bros. Melee, which is based on a simple direction+force+button system for almost every move and yet is as competitive a game as all of its counterparts in e-sports. With all these examples of games with simple controls and extremely competitive gameplay, what proof is there that an RTS such as SC2 can't have simpler controls and yet maintain a very high level of competitiveness?
There are two arguments that are valid even outside the context of SC and SC2; you could replace the SC-specific terms with others referring to different games and the arguments would work equally well. I could elaborate on another argument about simpler controls allowing for a larger newbie flow, particularly from other genres, and thus a larger competitive community (sorry Fen, but I at least have never cared about initial sales) outside of Korea, since after all, just as not all competitive SC players are WC2 veterans, it follows that not all future competitive SC2 players will be SC veterans; but this post has gone long enough for the time being.
As for "filling the void" concerning solutions to the constructive concerns posed by anti-MBSers, I'll give it a go in my next post, to make up for the progamer longevity diversion.
we will lose a lot unfortunately with the introduction of MBS, like that above. If you refuse to admit that this is a skill initself rather than a simple transition from "4d from "1d2d3d4d5d" or whatever, then you don't appreciate the game one bit.
keep the game old school and let new comers appreciate the beauty!
we will lose a lot unfortunately with the introduction of MBS, like that above. If you refuse to admit that this is a skill initself rather than a simple transition from "4d from "1d2d3d4d5d" or whatever, then you don't appreciate the game one bit.
keep the game old school and let new comers appreciate the beauty!
You're being sarcastic or trolling right? lol.
To assume that since we see little problems with changing the focus of the game, and that since we view a true strategy game not focusing so tightly on APM. If we feel that it shouldn't be such a test of the strategic mind of a player we are obviously just ignorant 5 year olds that just started playing yesterday.
I have yet to see 1 sufficient argument against MBS that argues accurately to why we don't need it. I could argue that we don't need it pretty well (and if you really can't come up with a better argument against MBS, I'll do it for you if you ask even if i'm not against MBS.. COME ON). I'd much rather have a real debate on this subject rather than anti-MBS players just saying "Your noob and don't understand" and pro-MBS people just stating why the feel MBS is necessary and ect ect. I don't agree with the majority of the people's reasons on why MBS is necessary. I however haven't seen 1 sufficient argument to disprove the majority of these sub-par arguments.
BUT in my personal opinion I think the focus of the game shouldn't be a test of -how fast he clicks those barracks- but rather -he clicks those barracks while doing everything else he was doing- This does not mean that I do not appreciate the game whatsoever. There are no grounds for that statement and I'd prefer it if you provided grounds for your statements before you just sound foolish. But perhaps that's why no one cares to provide a true rebuttal to my several pages of arguments and instead just tells me that I'm too young, too inexperienced, or I just don't understand the game. Just plain ignorant bias nonsense.
Provide an argument. Not a video showing how impressive high APM can be, followed by a statement that pretty much correlates to: If you don't think the higher APM that is required the better you're stupid and don't understand the game.
In my opinion "Starcraft 50" would be played without PC, Keyboard, or Mouse. Rather just a helmet which communicates with your brain and your opponent(s) helmet. Completely surpassing physical demands and instead relying on intelligence, creativity, and mental reaction time/awareness....
Should the player with only 5-6 fingers be at such a disadvantage?
Since, you keep labelling others noobs, what "SC credentials" do you have to show? You ask for others to reveal their ICCUP rank, but what about yourself? How do I know that you're not some noob spouting off your theory as you claim others are doing.
hes right in general. every good/known player who has posted an opinion has been pretty firmly anti-mbs, not a single one has supported mbs. and judging by apparent game knowledge and the fact that no ones ever heard of any of you, pro-mbs people probably arent very good players.
There may be some merit in this. But another perspective:
The majority of the Anti-MBS players while being more skilled, this higher skill level has assisted in their development of a bias in which they feel the more change the worse. This correlation these players develop is largely unfounded. A very similar thing happened to the top WCII players when SC came out.
If i was a 350+ APM top korean pro and I saw changes like this implemented into the game. I would be thinking FUCK I MIGHT HAVE TO RELEARN A GAME AND THIS MIGHT AFFECT MY STATUS WITHIN THE PRO COMMUNITY... If you've been raping hard and have become accusstomed to these norms that we see within Starcraft 1 it's pretty obvious you'd be against MBS as you've become very good at SBS and that's just another edge you'd have against another player on Day1.
A player that has spent 9 years perfecting his play obviously doesn't want to start at ground 0 on Day 1. This is obvious. However this is an entirely different subject and may be considered off topic here. I think it should be addressed.
However, I don't think that it provides a sufficient argument against MBS. Change is happening whether you think it's necessary or not. This is the core of the MBS argument on both sides.
I think many of the pro MBS people (including myself) have already played the game back when it came out, so they are to be considered "oldschool" and probably very experienced, although not necessarily high skilled right now. I for one am pretty much inactive since several years, but I still stay up to date with current progaming news/games/VODs and so on. I also know how several top foreigners play.
Someone made a guess that pro MBS people have been around longer in the scene, because they know how the game was played back then, which was pretty much totally different than now. There was less focus on macro, there was beauty in finding out new strategies, build orders and so on. Now, the game is streamlined so much, and mechanics have become such a central part of the game. This might be one of the reasons (not the only one) why some pro MBS people want MBS, not SBS again. Because we've seen the changes in Starcraft and maybe don't really like it so much anymore (but still more than other RTS). We wish that the skill ceiling remains unreachable (which would effectively mean that MBS will NOT "noobify" the game at all), but only that the distribution of micro and macro is changed a little bit. We don't want a game which is essentially not so hard but only made hard because of the UI. We want a game that is hard and complex per se, with the UI being reasonably easy, meaning that there should be no "stupid obstacles" like SBS or 12-unit-selection or only 10 hotkeys.
[drunk post] Ok, Im a very bad golfer. Should I have a say in the design of the next pro course? No!!!! What is annoying a lot of the anti-MBS people, is that it is very clear that a person does not understand starcraft and is then turning around and claiming that their starcraft theorycrafting is right. Starcraft 2 is a sequel to starcraft 1. It should follow in the same lines. If blizzard was going to make an entirely new game, then thats fine. They could have decided to make something else. However they chose to do Starcraft 2. A sequel to a game that is VERY well established. They should be listening closely to the people who play starcraft today. The community which has allowed starcraft to become the collosal game that it is today. And im sorry, but this does not include the Dawn of war pros, or the Warcraft 3 pros. This concerns the competative starcraft gamers. If you dont understand starcraft 1, then your opinon should mean less than someone who does understand it. If your bored of warcraft 3 and want a new game, then by all means, campaign for warcraft 4 and have the changes you want placed in it. Im sure most of the competative starcraft crowd will not fight you over it. However if you want a new game and figure, starcraft 2 looks good, lets make it into what I (a non starcraft 1 player) want, then your going to piss off a large community.
When warcraft 3 came out, im not sure how big the reaction was from starcraft players. Did they turn around and start bashing it for having MBS and Automine? I wasnt around back then, but I dont think they did. Thats because it was a sequel for another game. A game that did not concern them. Starcraft 2 DOES concern them. Starcraft 2 is the sequel to a game that has a very established community that loves the current style of the game. To come in and say, well your all wrong, we dont like your game is just a kick in the face to all those who worship starcraft and have been waiting eagerly for its sequel. To think that a community that is very old would be pushed out of the way for a bunch of people who have very little understanding of the game is infuriating. Blizzard made starcraft, but it is the starcraft community's game. We made starcraft what it is today. We are the ones that make starcraft the number one competative RTS game.
This post is a rant, and im a little drunk so im not sure if it makes a whole lot of sense. It doesnt really argue a point, but hopefully will provide people with an insight as to why there is hostility to the pro-MBS argument from the anti-MBS. If you can come up with an argument why starcraft should not be made for people who are currently playing (that doesnt involve blizzard making profit) then i'd be very interested in hearing it.
If this post turns out to be totally crap, i'll delete it in the morning [/drunk post]
Sometimes, a big change makes a game better. WC3 is probably far better than WC2, although it's radically different, but still it's its sequel. WC2 will be the last popular RTS game with such a crude UI, and SC1 is bound to suffer the same fate. Does this mean that all future RTS will suck? Sometime in the future, we'll maybe have fundamentally different input devices than nowadays. Should an extremely competitvive RTS game then suddenly not be possible anymore?
You should start thinking how to make the game itself challenging enough, without looking at ways to make the UI hard in order to introduce a secondary, "independent" skillset (namely how good you are at manipulating the crude UI and multitasking with it despite the obvious obstacles it has). The UI will always change and adapt to the current input devices. Make the game hard and complex, and the UI just an efficient tool to manipulate what's going on into the game. Do not make the UI "part of the game". That would be the ideal situation, and MBS is one of the steps towards that goal. Yes, gameplay will not be like in SC1, but as long as it still turns out to be extremely competitive, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
On December 15 2007 01:30 Fen wrote: [drunk post] Ok, Im a very bad golfer. Should I have a say in the design of the next pro course? No!!!! What is annoying a lot of the anti-MBS people, is that it is very clear that a person does not understand starcraft and is then turning around and claiming that their starcraft theorycrafting is right. Starcraft 2 is a sequel to starcraft 1. It should follow in the same lines. If blizzard was going to make an entirely new game, then thats fine. They could have decided to make something else. However they chose to do Starcraft 2. A sequel to a game that is VERY well established. They should be listening closely to the people who play starcraft today. The community which has allowed starcraft to become the collosal game that it is today. And im sorry, but this does not include the Dawn of war pros, or the Warcraft 3 pros. This concerns the competative starcraft gamers. If you dont understand starcraft 1, then your opinon should mean less than someone who does understand it. If your bored of warcraft 3 and want a new game, then by all means, campaign for warcraft 4 and have the changes you want placed in it. Im sure most of the competative starcraft crowd will not fight you over it. However if you want a new game and figure, starcraft 2 looks good, lets make it into what I (a non starcraft 1 player) want, then your going to piss off a large community.
When warcraft 3 came out, im not sure how big the reaction was from starcraft players. Did they turn around and start bashing it for having MBS and Automine? I wasnt around back then, but I dont think they did. Thats because it was a sequel for another game. A game that did not concern them. Starcraft 2 DOES concern them. Starcraft 2 is the sequel to a game that has a very established community that loves the current style of the game. To come in and say, well your all wrong, we dont like your game is just a kick in the face to all those who worship starcraft and have been waiting eagerly for its sequel. To think that a community that is very old would be pushed out of the way for a bunch of people who have very little understanding of the game is infuriating. Blizzard made starcraft, but it is the starcraft community's game. We made starcraft what it is today. We are the ones that make starcraft the number one competative RTS game.
This post is a rant, and im a little drunk so im not sure if it makes a whole lot of sense. It doesnt really argue a point, but hopefully will provide people with an insight as to why there is hostility to the pro-MBS argument from the anti-MBS. If you can come up with an argument why starcraft should not be made for people who are currently playing (that doesnt involve blizzard making profit) then i'd be very interested in hearing it.
If this post turns out to be totally crap, i'll delete it in the morning [/drunk post]
lol not a bad post, I agree with the majority of what you say.
However, this does not mean that just because someone is pro-MBS that they are ignorant, inexperienced or wrong. Obviously there are going to be more people for change (MBS) that have not played the game to the extent of the majority of this community compared to those whom are against MBS. This is just an obvious fact about the way bias forms and all that jazz.
As for an argument for why Starcraft should not be made for people who are currently playing....
That's just plain silly. Of course any game should take note of the community that forms within any game when planning a sequal. Should BGH and FPM players get an equal say or do they not qualify even though they still play? Should we form some sort of bias between "real players" and "not real players" I know where the majority of us stand on this. Down with FPM and BGH... Amen... But this should atleast provide a perspective.
Also, Obviously Blizzard should not make the game exclusively for those currently playing. They shouldn't make the game for only new players. Obviously a middle ground has to exist in order for the game to be successful as an e-sport.
Professional Starcraft would not be as impressive if it was the same 15 Pros that originated back in the early 00's. The game has to evolve even without a sequel. The big question is how much evolution and in which direction do we want the game to evolve? A sequel provides an opportunity to direct this evolution hence why this thread even exists.
On December 15 2007 01:59 Brutalisk wrote: Sometimes, a big change makes a game better. WC3 is probably far better than WC2, although it's radically different, but still it's its sequel. WC2 will be the last popular RTS game with such a crude UI, and SC1 is bound to suffer the same fate. Does this mean that all future RTS will suck? Sometime in the future, we'll maybe have fundamentally different input devices than nowadays. Should an extremely competitvive RTS game then suddenly not be possible anymore?
You should start thinking how to make the game itself challenging enough, without looking at ways to make the UI hard in order to introduce a secondary, "independent" skillset (namely how good you are at manipulating the crude UI and multitasking with it despite the obvious obstacles it has). The UI will always change and adapt to the current input devices. Make the game hard and complex, and the UI just an efficient tool to manipulate what's going on into the game. Do not make the UI "part of the game". That would be the ideal situation, and MBS is one of the steps towards that goal. Yes, gameplay will not be like in SC1, but as long as it still turns out to be extremely competitive, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Since, you keep labelling others noobs, what "SC credentials" do you have to show? You ask for others to reveal their ICCUP rank, but what about yourself? How do I know that you're not some noob spouting off your theory as you claim others are doing.
hes right in general. every good/known player who has posted an opinion has been pretty firmly anti-mbs, not a single one has supported mbs. and judging by apparent game knowledge and the fact that no ones ever heard of any of you, pro-mbs people probably arent very good players.
There may be some merit in this. But another perspective:
The majority of the Anti-MBS players while being more skilled, this higher skill level has assisted in their development of a bias in which they feel the more change the worse. This correlation these players develop is largely unfounded. A very similar thing happened to the top WCII players when SC came out.
If i was a 350+ APM top korean pro and I saw changes like this implemented into the game. I would be thinking FUCK I MIGHT HAVE TO RELEARN A GAME AND THIS MIGHT AFFECT MY STATUS WITHIN THE PRO COMMUNITY... If you've been raping hard and have become accusstomed to these norms that we see within Starcraft 1 it's pretty obvious you'd be against MBS as you've become very good at SBS and that's just another edge you'd have against another player on Day1.
A player that has spent 9 years perfecting his play obviously doesn't want to start at ground 0 on Day 1. This is obvious. However this is an entirely different subject and may be considered off topic here. I think it should be addressed.
However, I don't think that it provides a sufficient argument against MBS. Change is happening whether you think it's necessary or not. This is the core of the MBS argument on both sides.
actually it would benefit good non koreans far, far more to have MBS. koreans are so dominant because their multitasking is 2x better than ours. add in MBS and you cut way down on that, allowing top foreigners to be competetive even in the pro scene. keeping manual macro in the game preserves the korean's headstart, but we all still want it anyway just because of the impact it would have on the quality of the game.
and in another post you said that there havent been any valid arguments against mbs. are you retarded or have you just not read any of this or the other threads?
Since, you keep labelling others noobs, what "SC credentials" do you have to show? You ask for others to reveal their ICCUP rank, but what about yourself? How do I know that you're not some noob spouting off your theory as you claim others are doing.
hes right in general. every good/known player who has posted an opinion has been pretty firmly anti-mbs, not a single one has supported mbs. and judging by apparent game knowledge and the fact that no ones ever heard of any of you, pro-mbs people probably arent very good players.
There may be some merit in this. But another perspective:
The majority of the Anti-MBS players while being more skilled, this higher skill level has assisted in their development of a bias in which they feel the more change the worse. This correlation these players develop is largely unfounded. A very similar thing happened to the top WCII players when SC came out.
If i was a 350+ APM top korean pro and I saw changes like this implemented into the game. I would be thinking FUCK I MIGHT HAVE TO RELEARN A GAME AND THIS MIGHT AFFECT MY STATUS WITHIN THE PRO COMMUNITY... If you've been raping hard and have become accusstomed to these norms that we see within Starcraft 1 it's pretty obvious you'd be against MBS as you've become very good at SBS and that's just another edge you'd have against another player on Day1.
A player that has spent 9 years perfecting his play obviously doesn't want to start at ground 0 on Day 1. This is obvious. However this is an entirely different subject and may be considered off topic here. I think it should be addressed.
However, I don't think that it provides a sufficient argument against MBS. Change is happening whether you think it's necessary or not. This is the core of the MBS argument on both sides.
actually it would benefit good non koreans far, far more to have MBS. koreans are so dominant because their multitasking is 2x better than ours. add in MBS and you cut way down on that, allowing top foreigners to be competetive even in the pro scene. keeping manual macro in the game preserves the korean's headstart, but we all still want it anyway just because of the impact it would have on the quality of the game.
and in another post you said that there havent been any valid arguments against mbs. are you retarded or have you just not read any of this or the other threads?
ROFL first. Your post is 95% speculation.
actually it would benefit good non koreans far, far more to have MBS.
Evidence to support this argument?
koreans are so dominant because their multitasking is 2x better than ours.
Please provide sufficient evidence that it is multitasking in which they are superior and not simply training regime and culture. (if your arguing that superior training ect leads to better multitasking, That is what you should say, but still yet please provide some evidence for this)
keeping manual macro in the game preserves the korean's headstart
While this is still speculation, I do mildly agree. However I'd like to see you provide any concrete evidence for this.
and in another post you said that there havent been any valid arguments against mbs. are you retarded or have you just not read any of this or the other threads?
LOL Have you read my numerous posts in this thread? Didn't think so.
Please provide 1 (Or even 2) arguments that are against MBS that I can't invalidate on some level. Please. (to make this less redundunt for both of us, I would recommend reading my multi-page arguments that start on page 25 and continue to this page.[My arguments are not infallible and since I'm clearly a retarded n00b and your such a gosu genius it shouldn't be too hard. LOL])
However even if there were 500 arguments that were valid and against MBS that doesn't mean that MBS is unncessary if the contrasting arguments are stronger.
I don't think i should have to spam the forum guidelines. Please follow them. I think they say something about not just talking out of your ass and backing up your arguments. Please do so.
EDIT: If there is anything in any of my posts you would like me to provide even more support for I will try my best. Just ask me.
EDIT2: I'm also curious as to how adding MBS reduces the overall multitasking if you consider 5sd6sd7sd8sd as one conceptual task. You still have to build units.... Automine directly reduces multitasking because it is a task that you no longer have to do. But Automine isn't what we're talking about... Simply trying to provide more support to my perspective on this particular point.
Also the point of my post was simply to state that Vets will naturally have a bias against change since they have worked very hard for a very long time at coming close to perfection as possible. Anyone who's been struggling at becoming the best at something for 10 years will not normally greet change with open arms. At the same time inexperienced players might greet change a little too willingly. Luckily this thread should have little to do with player skill and more to do with the necessity of MBS. Stating that inexperienced players don't know wtf they're talking about is an unfounded argument considering we're talking about a game everyone is going to have to learn and no one has mastered yet. Sure the past is relative, but that's all it is. Change is happening we should discuss it instead of what the majority of these posts have become consisting of "You're wrong" arguments with no foundation.
Now. Just for the sake of argumentation and fair debate which I am in favor of.
I am going to state my arguments for why I think MBS should not go into the game. If you have read the my more lengthy posts you might note that I have typically leaned towards the MBS side while trying to maintain a sort of neutral perspective. I am not the most gosu player and my perspective on some aspects of the game could very well be lacking. I however would challenge anyone to provide a sufficiently well articulated argument stating why a C- player doesn't understand the repercussions of MBS. Not that it's totally relevant I've just seen this tossed around in this thread with no real support. Sure a B+ player understands the game better than the C- player but the effects of MBS don't affect the majority of the game, and at this point in game production we cannot be 100% of the effects of MBS or how well SC1 player skill will correlate (this is irrelevant i know).
Anyway.
SBS is a test of manual dexterity smashed in between reaction time, instinct and routine all of which are maintained by some level of multitasking. The implementation of MBS reduces the strain on the player to maintain a 1 million mile per hour mindset and also reduces the correlation between skill and APM.
One could argue that by removing SBS they are removing some of the strain of multitasking as it is certainly sufficiently easier to perform 3 keystrokes in under a second than it is 10. Many consider this a very important aspect to the game of starcraft. Starcraft is not just a test of the strategic mind of the player, but also of conditioning/training, hand speed, reaction time, and the ability to juggle multiple tasks.
Some players have shown concern that with MBS they are freeing up several seconds here and there where the player may end up being idle. While I do not agree with the majority of these speculations as I feel that the true repercussions of MBS are witnessed in the late game when a player has far too many buildings to hot key properly.
At this point in the game most players hotkey their most important buildings and continue to build out of them while "mouse macroing" out of the other buildings as needed. MBS greatly reduces difficulty of managing over 8 unit production buildings (I haven't seen any players that assign buildings to 1 through 0 100%) The ease of this mass management of buildings in the late game has profound changes on the way macro is handled. It also narrows the (currently fairly wide) gap between the "macro mindset" player and the "micro mindset" player.
Many people argue (well really i'm the first that i've seen lmao ) that by reducing the difficulty of efficiently producing units out of a number of buildings that are currently not all hotkeyable simultaniously we are reducing the skill ceiling and reducing the gap between the gosu and the cho-gosu.
There are also the repercussions of narrowing the gap between micro based and macro based players.
That's the best I can do off the top of my head with no prep. I am simply asking all of you that are for MBS to understand this perspective and how important it may or may not be to e-sports.
I am simply asking all of you that are against MBS to read my posts previously and perhaps even use my arguments here to counter my arguments on page 25,26,27.
All of my posts only exist because the majority of the people within this thread on both sides have done a terrible job at articulating their sides considering we are now on page 30 with absolutely no progress.
This post was an attempt at acting as a catalyst for worthy discussion and progress on this topic, If you are a vet and feel I am misunderstanding a concept please correct me or elaborate upon what i've said. Can we please leave the petty skill level nonsense aside and just articulate ourselves well enough so that what we say means only what we mean it to say and that what we mean it to say conveys what we truely think. \
Down with ignorant posts and down with flaming ignorant posts.
Motiva, I have two arguments I would like you to address:
First, the removal of negative feedback from having many production facilities. Currently a player with more resources, bases, and factories will begin to play sloppier, simply becuase he has more to manage. This gives his opponent a chance to come back, since with fewer production facilities and bases, he has less to manage, allowing him to macro more effeciently and possibly harass. With MBS, it seems that a player who takes the advantage will be able to continue to pour out a perfect stream of reinforcements: always more than his opponent. The only way out is micro, and micro can really only get you so far facing a much superior army. No longer can a player be able to build himself out of a bad situation and I find that sad.
Second (a lesser point), if multiple fronts of battle is to be the replacement for hard macro, how does the game remain as easy to watch (i.e. it's hard to focus on multiple battles)
To Anti-MBS folks, I have a challenge: name me a game that succeeded as an E-sport by listening to the desires of old-schoolers. CS:Source failed miserably due to straying from it's original form, but until Promod succeeds (if indeed it ever comes out), that doesn't really fit my criteria.
Desire to create a succesful E-Sport and obeying the whims of the current hardcore crowd are two different things.
@Motiva: No, Idra has a point there, but this is only because SC1 on the very highest levels of play is mostly, like 75% roughly estimated, about mechanics. The Koreans are exactly dominant because they train much more, train much more mechanics, have far higher APMs (starting from 250 until up to 500 or 600) and so on. Strategy-wise, they are top notch, they know the game inside-out, they know every counter and every viable strategy (well, if there are new maps there are new variations, and there may be some players who are able to adapt to their opponent better and "outsmart" him, but in general it's like that). So the deciding factor is most often multitasking, or in other words: mechanics (macro and micro mechanics). The reason why the Korean pros rape even the top foreigners is because of better multitasking/mechanics.
But the problem with this is not that this means that MBS will destroy the competitiveness of SC2. The problem is that we've already discussed a long time ago that MBS on top of SC1 cannnot work. The game has to be changed slightly, balanced for the use of MBS. In other words: the game must be more complex to play than SC1 is, so that there's a lot of room for improvement and that it's still impossible to master. SC1 with MBS, as it is, would probably be possible to master. But it's Blizzard's job to introduce a better UI and make the gameplay itself better in return.
SC1's high competitiveness is more or less directly tied to its hard UI. The anti MBS people like to show that only with a hard UI can a game be very competitive. But in my opinion, and the opinion of others, that must be broken, so that the game itself becomes at least as competitive. That's the better solution, and it would probably increase the gaming experience for newbs, pros and spectators alike. Because there will be more spectacular actions in the game than is possible or viable in SC1.
But that's an old argument. It just shows how we're going circles again and again.
On December 15 2007 06:45 Brutalisk wrote: @Motiva: No, Idra has a point there, but this is only because SC1 on the very highest levels of play is mostly, like 75% roughly estimated, about mechanics. The Koreans are exactly dominant because they train much more, train much more mechanics, have far higher APMs (starting from 250 until up to 500 or 600) and so on. Strategy-wise, they are top notch, they know the game inside-out, they know every counter and every viable strategy. So the deciding factor is multitasking, or in other words: mechanics (macro and micro mechanics).
But the problem with this is not that this means MBS will destroy the competitiveness. The problem is that we've already discussed a long time ago that MBS on top of SC1 cannnot work. The game has to be changed slightly, balanced for the use of MBS. In other words: the game must be more complex to play than SC1 is, so that there's a lot of room for improvement and that it's still impossible to master. SC1 with MBS, as it is, would probably be possible to master. But it's Blizzard's job to introduce a better UI and make the gameplay itself better in return. But that's an old argument. It just shows how we're going circles again and again.
Hmmm I can agree with the first half of your post with the exception of how you jump from mechanics and training relating to multitasking. I'm not sure I follow you there as you can see different levels of mechanics abuse, strategy efficiency and all of this within the pro gaming scene. I don't understand how this makes the deciding factor suddenly multitasking (I am not disagreeing simply asking for a better articulation on this)
I view multitasking as a mechanic of the brain which all humans possess and can certainly be trained itself, and thus some players will be better at multitasking within a certain set of parameters better than other players (You could argue that this is part of their training, but everything I've seen leaves me to believe that they do not actually directly train multitasking itself, but that some of their training methodologies my help improve multitaking). Also if they knew every viable strategy the metagame would not evolve and their would be little room for evolution within the game. Viable strategies change as the average strategy changes ect.
Also. I would like to see any evidence what so ever as to how SC1 on top of MBS would not work and would make the game in any way masterable (we are talking about maintaining the 12 unit selection cap ect ect ect)
I would say that there will always be room for improvement within SC1 because of the metagame and the innate number of mistakes the occur every game that makes it to the late game. If possible I would ask you to reiterate why MBS would break SC1, or atleast point me in the direction of that discussion. I am interested....
I didn't disagree with everything IdrA said, but even a lot of what he said that I agree with on some level has no real evidence behind it. If the logic behind why SC1 with MBS would ruin SC1 is sufficient. I am willing to retract some of my statements as wrong -- (It would obviously ruin the current metagame and introduce changes into the game... I'm talking about how it would make the game masterable and all that jazz -- and please leave wc3 out of this logic as it is not a good example of the repercussion of MBS within SC1)
And yes, this discussion is going in circles, so I've begun attempting to argue both sides (as I state in my original post on pg25, I am not truly against either method as I am profiecent enough in SBS to have a good start, and I am also willing to try change, as while as skill or apm intensive as you can argue SBS. We haven't seen the effects of it within this brand new game which none of us have played enough to have a formed a real opinion on the matter without some shade of ignorance.)
No motiva i was actually serious, not being sarcastic nor trolling.
I'm not going to try go into some physiological aspects of the brain to try prove wether or not no-MBS uses more or less 'brain power' or whatever. I think that is overkill.
'Aim' in starcraft is a 'skill' in the same sense that aim in a first person shooter (CS or quake world or quake 3 CPMA/ other professional e-sport orientated games are). Clicking on a building and building a unit at insane speeds such as the one i mentioned isn't something a newb can pick up in a few days.
I'm a crap starcraft player and I'm not old school either, many times in game I build 2 units from one gate and the other has 3 queued up with all the rest having 1 queued and one has nothing in queue. Then I switch over to my micro and such and such happens.
Perfecting building selection and building a unit is something which, call it mechanics or whatever you have to, it is a skill that is spectator friendly AND challenging to the actual player. It's not about the concept of building something, its about the mechanical aspect of making sure that each one of your buildings is building something.
And as you have mentioned auto-mine, I may as well give my input on this. I really can't come up with a 'valid argument' as to why there should be no auto-mine other than to say for similar reasons as to why there should be no MBS, there should be no auto-mine, leave that shit for WC3, and have SC have the same physics, same mechanics, same macro/micro balance as it had in SC1. I don't think the game has to be changed 'slighty' to work with mbs. Just remove MBS and keep the game as is.
A change in physics, and mechanics happened to CS to make CS:S (inevitable though) and what happened to the whole cs community? they all jumped back to 1.6 and now they're all waiting for the promod which I personally believe is horrid after all the talk on it.
And as for the whole WC2 to WC3 transition,
WC2 when it was made came into a world where the word e-sport didn't exist, same for starcraft (which improved a lot from WC2), but it introduced that word (or maybe it was quake-world?).
But now that 'e-sport' is already here, and WC3 set its scene, and SC1 has its scene, there is no need to 'modify' SC1 mulityplayer as an 'upgrade' step in the same sense that WC3 went from SC1. Single player I understand but that is not our discussion.
No 'argument' can make me change your mind to become 'anti-mbs', the way I see it, it is a binary process, you like mbs, I don't.
IdrA and Tasteless have more credibility than some of you ever will yet you continue to pick a fight with them.
Major props to Tasteless for taking control of this discussion. Your shoutcasting has definitely helped you articulate yourself better. Good job! I cannot believe he hasn't lost his head yet. Why isn't he a forum mod?
There are a few things I could add, but I'm way to lazy to do so. Ah, fuck it. I better contribute unlike those who have the inherent ability to talk out of their ass. Since I decided to post this I might as well expand. This thread is like watching a cat chase it's own tail. It gets old very fast.
Back on topic:
A team of Korean Pro Gamers will start testing the game before beta. Their input will be essential. So stop the presses; stop the speculation; stop bickering. There WILL be many changes. Be patient, we'll find out in good time. As I said let them do their jobs.
I'm exhausted. This topic is exhausted. It needs some rest. Let it go.
I'll finish off on this note:
There is more than enough empirical evidence to support some of Idra's claims. The guy might fail to explain all the variables in which factor into his diagnosis, but he has strong merit. Anyone who has played this game for over 6+++ years and have followed the pro gaming scene from the beginning would know this. Drop your biases. Many of us have played many other games as well. The reason we come back to BW is no other RTS is like it. I rather not explain that in greater detail though. Again, exhausted.
There is nothing wrong with the current UI; many of the bugs and glitches have been fixed so there really is no need to modify it as it stands.
For a sequel? Sure, but I would only make a few modifications myself. The UI isn't outdated and it isn't old. That is complete nonsense. There are very few games that have lasted as long as SC:BW. It is right up there with Chess. Sure, we want something new and innovative only if it has substance.
This isn't even alpha. Think of it as a funnel effect. You start off with something really broad like MBS where the player is able to group anything and everything and then you scale it down afterwards. This is basic programming. So take everything you hear with a grain of salt. It in itself has no substance yet. Wait 6-8 months and you'll see some major tweaking, but right now they're trying to balance all the units out (truly one of the hardest things to do).
The ability to multi-task and know your keyboard is a skill. If you can recall, neurologists have studied such players like Xellos to see where their brain activity lies while playing the game. Watch the WCG documentary to see what I'm talking about and you'll find out more for yourself:
They play instinctively based on the flow of the game. The best players don't need any more time to think about what to do. It comes naturally to them. Yes, MBS could help those who are slower, but then we would have to question the dynamics of the game.
If you look at the recent results in the OSL/MSL/Pro League you will notice there are many mediocre pro gamers: some have great micro and no macro while the others have great mechanics, but lack the micro. In order to become the best you need both. Obviously we need to change some elements, but their should still be some rules in place to limit the player's control. Study the Pro Gaming scene in chronological order and look at the bonjwas. Look at their eras and how they changed the game/play style. Human beings are limited and the BW UI is so diverse and as a result we get huge variances between every era. The game has come a long way from the old school eras. Now players have to spend 12-18 hours a day just to hold a spot in the top 10-30 of KESPA.
On December 15 2007 07:43 liosama wrote: No motiva i was actually serious, not being sarcastic nor trolling.
I'm not going to try go into some physiological aspects of the brain to try prove wether or not no-MBS uses more or less 'brain power' or whatever. I think that is overkill.
'Aim' in starcraft is a 'skill' in the same sense that aim in a first person shooter (CS or quake world or quake 3 CPMA/ other professional e-sport orientated games are). Clicking on a building and building a unit at insane speeds such as the one i mentioned isn't something a newb can pick up in a few days.
I'm a crap starcraft player and I'm not old school either, many times in game I build 2 units from one gate and the other has 3 queued up with all the rest having 1 queued and one has nothing in queue. Then I switch over to my micro and such and such happens.
Perfecting building selection and building a unit is something which, call it mechanics or whatever you have to, it is a skill that is spectator friendly AND challenging to the actual player. It's not about the concept of building something, its about the mechanical aspect of making sure that each one of your buildings is building something.
And as you have mentioned auto-mine, I may as well give my input on this. I really can't come up with a 'valid argument' as to why there should be no auto-mine other than to say for similar reasons as to why there should be no MBS, there should be no auto-mine, leave that shit for WC3, and have SC have the same physics, same mechanics, same macro/micro balance as it had in SC1. I don't think the game has to be changed 'slighty' to work with mbs. Just remove MBS and keep the game as is.
A change in physics, and mechanics happened to CS to make CS:S (inevitable though) and what happened to the whole cs community? they all jumped back to 1.6 and now they're all waiting for the promod which I personally believe is horrid after all the talk on it.
And as for the whole WC2 to WC3 transition,
WC2 when it was made came into a world where the word e-sport didn't exist, same for starcraft (which improved a lot from WC2), but it introduced that word (or maybe it was quake-world?).
But now that 'e-sport' is already here, and WC3 set its scene, and SC1 has its scene, there is no need to 'modify' SC1 mulityplayer as an 'upgrade' step in the same sense that WC3 went from SC1. Single player I understand but that is not our discussion.
No 'argument' can make me change your mind to become 'anti-mbs', the way I see it, it is a binary process, you like mbs, I don't.
Actually I don't disagree with the majority of your statements and as for MBS i can go either way. I simply think people are writting MBS off as noobafying the game without any real substance.
Yes that macro/apm in that video is very impressive. That doesn't mean it's necessary to Starcraft 2. There are countless aspects of the game that a player could find beautiful ect That doesn't mean they are essential to the game.
The real problem I had with your argument was the statement that you simply showed a video of some impressive macro and not in exact words said If you don't appreciate this you don't appreciate the game. That is an absurd statement. That is all. This thread is getting alittle redundant. but whatever.
As for persuading me towards being anti-mbs... I have reasons why I disagree with the implementation of MBS... My reasons are stated on page 30 above this post.
I also have no problem with the idea and implementation and then further testing of MBS within Starcraft. My previous posts state these arguments.
On December 15 2007 07:57 Showtime! wrote: Oh for God's sake,
IdrA and Tasteless have more credibility than some of you ever will yet you continue to pick a fight with them.
Major props to Tasteless for taking control of this discussion. Your shoutcasting has definitely helped you articulate yourself better. Good job! I cannot believe he hasn't lost his head yet. Why isn't he a forum mod?
There are a few things I could add, but I'm way to lazy to do so. Ah, fuck it. I better contribute unlike those who have the inherent ability to talk out of their ass. Since I decided to post this I might as well expand. This thread is like watching a cat chase it's own tail. It gets old very fast.
Back on topic:
A team of Korean Pro Gamers will start testing the game before beta. Their input will be essential. So stop the presses; stop the speculation; stop bickering. There WILL be many changes. Be patient, we'll find out in good time. As I said let them do their jobs.
I'm exhausted. This topic is exhausted. It needs some rest. Let it go.
I'll finish off on this note:
There is more than enough empirical evidence to support some of Idra's claims. The guy might fail to explain all the variables in which factor into his diagnosis, but he has strong merit. Anyone who has played this game for over 6+++ years and have followed the pro gaming scene from the beginning would know this. Drop your biases. Many of us have played many other games as well. The reason we come back to BW is no other RTS is like it. I rather not explain that in greater detail though. Again, exhausted.
There is nothing wrong with the current UI; many of the bugs and glitches have been fixed so there really is no need to modify it as it stands.
For a sequel? Sure, but I would only make a few modifications myself. The UI isn't outdated and it isn't old. That is complete nonsense. There are very few games that have lasted as long as SC:BW. It is right up there with Chess. Sure, we want something new and innovative only if it has substance.
This isn't even alpha. Think of it as a funnel effect. You start off with something really broad like MBS where the player is able to group anything and everything and then you scale it down afterwards. This is basic programming. So take everything you hear with a grain of salt. It in itself has no substance yet. Wait 6-8 months and you'll see some major tweaking, but right now they're trying to balance all the units out (truly one of the hardest things to do).
The ability to multi-task and know your keyboard is a skill. If you can recall, neurologists have studied such players like Xellos to see where their brain activity lies while playing the game. Watch the WCG documentary to see what I'm talking about and you'll find out more for yourself:
They play instinctively based on the flow of the game. The best players don't need any more time to think about what to do. It comes naturally to them. Yes, MBS could help those who are slower, but then we would have to question the dynamics of the game.
If you look at the recent results in the OSL/MSL/Pro League you will notice there are many mediocre pro gamers: some have great micro and no macro while the others have great mechanics, but lack the micro. In order to become the best you need both. Obviously we need to change some elements, but their should still be some rules in place to limit the player's control. Study the Pro Gaming scene in chronological order and look at the bonjwas. Look at their eras and how they changed the game/play style. Human beings are limited and the BW UI is so diverse and as a result we get huge variances between every era. The game has come a long way from the old school eras. Now players have to spend 12-18 hours a day just to hold a spot in the top 10-30 of KESPA.
/end rant
I wasn't aware that disagreeing on a controversial topic was picking a fight.
I am very aware of the credibility of Tasteless and IdrA. I have a lot of respect for both of their works and admire a lot of what they do. This does not mean that they are infallible and that I am doing wrong by disagreeing with them on a topic. If they think I am not being respectful, then my apologies that was not my intention -- they however have said nothing of the sort...
Now as for the rest of your post.... I must say that I agree with just about everything you say.
If i had to nitpick (of which i do not expect a response as you are indeed exhausted and this thread is indeed worn out)
A team of Korean Pro Gamers will start testing the game before beta. Their input will be essential. So stop the presses; stop the speculation; stop bickering. There WILL be many changes. Be patient, we'll find out in good time. As I said let them do their jobs.
On the same tangent of thought -- I am simply saying that the majority of the players in this thread against MBS should -also- drop their biases and acknowledge the possibility of different dynamics within the game. without naming any specifics within these respective games... Look at the difference between WC1, WC2, WC3... WC2 just improved upon the first and this included some UI enchancments. WC3 ran in a new direction with the game. I think -everyone- here is not looking for an insanely radical change like in WC2 to WC3 but more of a change like WC1 to WC2.
They play instinctively based on the flow of the game. The best players don't need any more time to think about what to do. It comes naturally to them. Yes, MBS could help those who are slower, but then we would have to question the dynamics of the game.
Here i simply feel the need to state two things. First the best players don't need anymore time hence the effects of MBS are less severe and hardly lower the true skill ceiling.
and Second... Isn't the whole point of the sequel to question some of the dynamics of the game in order to attempt to find ways to improve the game? I certainly hope we aren't all going to switch over to SC2 just because of the graphics.
On December 15 2007 07:57 Showtime! wrote: Oh for God's sake,
IdrA and Tasteless have more credibility than some of you ever will yet you continue to pick a fight with them.
[...]
Ok, cool, so they are right, by default. End of discussion. Do not post any more. Why the hell is this thread so long? Do not contribute new ideas. Do not imagine new/alternate gameplay. Do not do anything, just keep on playing SC1. Hope that Blizzard re-releases SC1 just with a 2 written all over it. If not, mimic the WC2 hardcore crowd and call all SC2 players noobs forever after. Witness how your community shrinks all the time and is soon forgotten. The end.
A good plan. After all, SC1 = perfect, and perfect is perfect, so SC2 can't possibly be better.
To Anti-MBS folks, I have a challenge: name me a game that succeeded as an E-sport by listening to the desires of old-schoolers. CS:Source failed miserably due to straying from it's original form, but until Promod succeeds (if indeed it ever comes out), that doesn't really fit my criteria.
heres a better challenge: name another game as successful(esports) and good(game quality) as sc1
LOL Have you read my numerous posts in this thread? Didn't think so.
Please provide 1 (Or even 2) arguments that are against MBS that I can't invalidate on some level. Please. (to make this less redundunt for both of us, I would recommend reading my multi-page arguments that start on page 25 and continue to this page.[My arguments are not infallible and since I'm clearly a retarded n00b and your such a gosu genius it shouldn't be too hard. LOL])
However even if there were 500 arguments that were valid and against MBS that doesn't mean that MBS is unncessary if the contrasting arguments are stronger.
no, like just about everyone else except tasteless and a few others ive stopped arguing and reading every post because its utterly pointless. if you read the first 2 threads linked in the op 2-3 solid anti-mbs arguments, for which there is no real rebuttal, are made multiple times. at the same time pro-mbs players rely solely on the idea that mbs will add strategical depth to the game, completely unfounded, and on the assumption that blizzard will be able to compensate for the lack of macro with other tasks, also unfounded and looking to be entirely untrue from the information released so far. anti-mbs clearly "won", but retards like brutalisk keep spamming the same shitty arguments and irrelevant or flat out wrong points over and over. and then people like you join the argument, are completely unaware of all the points that have already been made, and post shit like
koreans are so dominant because their multitasking is 2x better than ours.
Please provide sufficient evidence that it is multitasking in which they are superior and not simply training regime and culture. (if your arguing that superior training ect leads to better multitasking, That is what you should say, but still yet please provide some evidence for this)
if you dont recognize that koreans are lightyears ahead of us in mechanics, moreso than the strategical portion of the game, i dont see how you can claim to be knowledgeable enough about the game, especially when discussing the esports aspect of the whole thing, to hold an informed discussion about it.
On December 15 2007 10:53 Aphelion wrote: I have ten times more respect for the hardcore WC2 crowd than I have for any of the new RTSes these days, including WC3.
LOL Have you read my numerous posts in this thread? Didn't think so.
Please provide 1 (Or even 2) arguments that are against MBS that I can't invalidate on some level. Please. (to make this less redundunt for both of us, I would recommend reading my multi-page arguments that start on page 25 and continue to this page.[My arguments are not infallible and since I'm clearly a retarded n00b and your such a gosu genius it shouldn't be too hard. LOL])
However even if there were 500 arguments that were valid and against MBS that doesn't mean that MBS is unncessary if the contrasting arguments are stronger.
no, like just about everyone else except tasteless and a few others ive stopped arguing and reading every post because its utterly pointless. if you read the first 2 threads linked in the op 2-3 solid anti-mbs arguments, for which there is no real rebuttal, are made multiple times. at the same time pro-mbs players rely solely on the idea that mbs will add strategical depth to the game, completely unfounded, and on the assumption that blizzard will be able to compensate for the lack of macro with other tasks, also unfounded and looking to be entirely untrue from the information released so far. anti-mbs clearly "won", but retards like brutalisk keep spamming the same shitty arguments and irrelevant or flat out wrong points over and over. and then people like you join the argument, are completely unaware of all the points that have already been made, and post shit like
actually it would benefit good non koreans far, far more to have MBS.
Evidence to support this argument?
koreans are so dominant because their multitasking is 2x better than ours.
Please provide sufficient evidence that it is multitasking in which they are superior and not simply training regime and culture. (if your arguing that superior training ect leads to better multitasking, That is what you should say, but still yet please provide some evidence for this)
if you dont recognize that koreans are lightyears ahead of us in mechanics, moreso than the strategical portion of the game, i dont see how you can claim to be knowledgeable enough about the game, especially when discussing the esports aspect of the whole thing, to hold an informed discussion about it.
Well. I don't see how you can go from "koreans are so dominant because their multitasking is 2x better than ours"
then when I ask for evidence of this you say:
"if you dont recognize that koreans are lightyears ahead of us in mechanics, moreso than the strategical portion of the game, i dont see how you can claim to be knowledgeable enough about the game"
Well... Did you read the post you were replying to? I asked for evidence that the koreans were superior in general multitasking -- not mechanics or the strategic part of the game. Whatever, It's not like I don't blame you for not keeping up with this entire thread as 99.99% of it is way over-redundant.
And I could write out a very long and repetitive rebuttal on why since Koreans are superior in mechanics that changing the mechanics does not provide them an even greater edge. Especially considering the game is on a completely different engine. I won't elaborate on this, because really it's not important or relevant.
Now as for the argument being won by anti-mbs... I don't even see how this is possible. What you really mean is that noone came up with a sufficient rebuttal. I am going to go back and read some of those threads and try to find exactly where this victory took place. I have a feeling that my posts on page 25,26,27 are a sufficient rebuttal against the victory -- not necessarily what is said. The entire theme of my post was simply that the anti-mbs people are being alittle bias in their formation of their opinion....
Very similar to the means i provided for my anti-mbs perspective at the top of this page. In fact I'd be suprised to find any fundamental difference between that "victory" and my post for SBS on this page. No sufficient argument has been provided for my arguments on page 25,26,27.... I've had a few anti-MBS members of this forum concede that my arguments are very well formulated and noone has provided a sufficient rebuttal. I am not going to claim victory though because 90% of the logic behind why or why not this functionality is or is not needed is opinion.
PRO-MBS -- Change is good, it's a sequal lets see what we can do with the mechanics to change the game up slightly and ect ect ect while still not totally breaking the game. An attempt to do the opposite of breaking the game. Support of this perspective requires a bias against the way things are on some level.
Anti-MBS -- Change is eh, unnecessary in relation to the majority of the functionality of the game. We want the game to focus on the same skill sets, provide the same correlation between APM and skill.
To be frank. Both perspective are full of shit for the majority of their arguments. I have yet to see (but i'm going to check the threads you mentioned tomorrow) an argument on either said that didn't have some sort of bias within.
Everyone should agree that MBS/SBS is an integral part of the macro orientation of the game and perhaps the possibility of some sort of compromise should be the topic of discussion -- not your wrong I'm right... oh yea? stfu noob what's your iCCup rank? yea? Point proven!
This circle-jerking of arguments is just redundant and worn and tired for all of us. I've only been posting for ~5 pages and aside from the argument i formed against MBS today, I've done nothing but repeat myself for those 5 pages again and again because bias is getting in the way of logic on both sides. Though my if put into word my initial 3 posts prolly range somewhere around 10 pages long. Theres not much else I could do but repeat myself.
Instead I move to plea that we all drop our biases -- realize that the game will be very similar while at the same time realizing that the game will be very different. I'm sick as shit, and it's late I'm done here until tomorrow I just want to leave on a note that I hope will atleast provide some sort of evidence for atleast something I said here -- if nothing else it's interesting if you haven't seen it before
Yeah well the discussion is pretty much at an end. We *ALL* spam old arguments over and over again, just reformulated. Especially the anti MBS retards always keep on saying "MBS = noob, you have no credibility, you don't know what pros need, SC1 is perfect so why change it", and so on. There's absolutely no need to discuss this anymore because they won't change their mind anyway, and they always repeat that crap. They are too short-sighted and narrow-minded. They rely on the success of SC1, say that their argument is therefor "well-founded" and ours is "speculation". Can we change that? No. SC1 is the *ONLY* game that's so successful, but we already said hundreds of times that this is absolutely not necessarily because of SBS. You just like to think so. Just stay with SC1 and all is well. You are exactly like the WC2 crowd when SC1 came out. Now I'm really out here (except for reading), it's getting way too personal again. Arguments are obviously over, and I'm not in for (further) insults. MBS will be in anyway, so the world already decided what's better.
On December 15 2007 19:04 Brutalisk wrote: Yeah well the discussion is pretty much at an end. We *ALL* spam old arguments over and over again, just reformulated.
This discussion will continue until we get a definitive answer from blizzard. The fact that even though the same arguments are repeated, these threads gets huge replies shows that this means a lot to a lot of people.
Especially the anti MBS retards always keep on saying "MBS = noob, you have no credibility, you don't know what pros need, SC1 is perfect so why change it", and so on.
Very mature of you. I would happily bet money that you are dumber than 90% of the anti-MBS'ers just due to this post alone.
There's absolutely no need to discuss this anymore because they won't change their mind anyway, and they always repeat that crap. They are too short-sighted and narrow-minded.
This could be said straight back to you.
They rely on the success of SC1, say that their argument is therefor "well-founded" and ours is "speculation". Can we change that? No. SC1 is the *ONLY* game that's so successful, but we already said hundreds of times that this is absolutely not necessarily because of SBS. You just like to think so.
The argument IS well founded. Also you are just speculating that SBS has nothing to do with the sucess of SC1
Just stay with SC1 and all is well. You are exactly like the WC2 crowd when SC1 came out.
If you dont like our version of what we want starcraft 2 to be like, then just stay with whatever game your playing at the moment.
Now I'm really out here (except for reading), it's getting way too personal again. Arguments are obviously over, and I'm not in for (further) insults.
You figured of course the best way to do this would be to throw your insults around and then leave a hero before anyone responded?
MBS will be in anyway, so the world already decided what's better.
Because you are a blizzard insider and you know more than the public?
A very immature and poorly thought out post Brutalisk. I'm glad that your not longer going to post in this topic again. Goodbye.
Btw, if anyone here thinks that pro sc players aren't biased towards hating mbs simply by being pro starcraft players learn to science and educate yourselves:
Therefore the point that "All pro sc players hate mbs" is kinda moot since its obvious why they think so. And no, they aren't lying when they say that they think it will ruin THE game and not their game, however their subconscious makes them hate the mechanic in general wich is shown in the link above and makes them side against it.
And im not saying that sc pro's are monkeys, read the whole article. If you read this part you understand why the sides can never unite, and why each of the sides think that the other side is so dumb:
But in general, people deal with cognitive dissonance — the clashing of conflicting thoughts — by eliminating one of the thoughts. The notion that the toaster is desirable conflicts with the knowledge that you just passed it up, so you banish the notion. The cognitive dissonance is gone; you are smug.
Of course, when you see others engaging in this sort of rationalization, it can look silly or pathological, as if they have a desperate need to justify themselves or are cynically telling lies they couldn’t possibly believe themselves.
....
“If little children and primates show pretty much the same pattern you see in adults, it calls into question just how deliberate these rationalization processes are,” he says. “We tend to think people have an explicit agenda to rewrite history to make themselves look right, but that’s an outsider’s perspective. This experiment shows that there isn’t always much conscious thought going on.”
And if anyone here seriously believes that they themselves stands outside this unconcious behavior they are pretty dumb themselves. And yes, that includes me.
I don't really understand how cognitive dissonance comes into it. Are you saying that people that like SBS only do so because they are rationalizing a justification for something they were forced to adapt to? And now that the situation is reversed and they are allowed to pick the option they would have taken in the neutral scenario, that decision is still affected by their cognitive dissonance making them hate MBS. Maybe you are onto something here.
I don't really understand how cognitive dissonance comes into it. Are you saying that people that like SBS only do so because they are rationalizing a justification for something they were forced to adapt to? And now that the situation is reversed and they are allowed to pick the option they would have taken in the neutral scenario, that decision is still affected by their cognitive dissonance making them hate MBS. Maybe you are onto something here.
Well, it goes both ways, mbs lovers don't fall outside of this either of course.
All i mean is that science shows that every person adapts their thinking to suit their choices, even if they aren't logical. A person who decided to play starcraft enough to get competitive, and especially now that they must have decided to not play a ton of other games, their unconscious makes everything starcraft look better than it actually is and everything else looks worse to justify their decision(A big reason why starcraft players hate warcraft 3). Thus their ability to analyse how changes would affect the game gets biased towards preserving as much as possible even if it isn't always logical to do so.
The same thing with those that at one time quit starcraft. I am just trying to make it crystal clear that this discussion cant be won.
Edit: And ofcourse im not saying that this is the sole reason they are against mbs, then i would be 100% wrong, if they had no logical arguments this discussion would be dead long ago.