|
On January 07 2008 09:15 uppTagg wrote:
I dunno if this has been said already or if it's stupid or w/e but I'll say it anyway, what about making it possible to select multiple buildings but you can only hotkey single buildings..?
That way, you can set rally points easily (which is the most annoying thing with SBS in sc imo! :< ), you can't build an army with 5t 6v easy-mode but you can utilize MBS to build an army fast by drag-selecting facts with shops->t, selecting the rest->v but it requires you to leave the battle and go back to base and it also requires you to build the producing buildings in a way that makes it easy to select them (and sometimes even the map may limit this) otherwise it's back to 1-clicking buildings or a combination..
Imo that's the best out of two worlds but that's just my opinion and maybe it doesn't bring anything new.. ^^;
If MBS is implemented, this is how I would want it to be. If not then SBS4Life.
|
I just could not imagine how a new gameplay mechanic like the Protoss Warp in could work properly without MBS, if MBS goes so should Protoss warping and whatever mechanic the Zerg might get.
Also SBS is very beneficial to players that invested in "gamer" hardware like keyboards and mouses supporting macros - It would be sad to loose that advantage.
|
I think a major fallacy that is being made is mapping the skill ceiling of Starcraft onto Starcraft 2 in an attempt to analyze the benefit or detriment MBS has on SC2. Obviously most of us haven't even touched SC2 yet, and those that did have not gone head to head against a highly developed and competitive community (it exists only in the future after SC2 is released) - they instead fought newbs/casual players and used that as a bases for their argument that SC2 is too easy.. amidst the fact the game also isn't even balanced in that stage of development.
Another fallacy that builds on top of that is, as of what we know now, the fact that SC2 appears to be utilizing much more individual unit skills/spells/features. Zealots with charge, reapers hopping over cliffs, zerglings turning into suicide bombers, warping protoss, triple nuking drop shipping ghosts, etc. All this requires obviously more attention and skill. There are just so many new factors and different elements at play in SC2 (and many that have yet to be revealed to us) that it is not sound logic to pretend that all other factors are constant with Starcraft classic and to just isolate the variable of MBS.
If Starcraft 2 was EXACTLY like Starcraft 1 in respect to gameplay, units, tech, features, skills, etc... then yes all the arguments against MBS, especially in respect to "skill ceiling" would make sense and would have an understandable point. But however, the fact is that there are so many more variables now at play that influence the game, not just MBS, that its impossible to talk about skill ceiling or "the game being too easy" or being "newbified." I think that, just as what has been said many times before, we'll have to wait and play the game via beta testing to really grasp an inkling of understanding of what SC2 is really going to be like/feel like.
Anyways, the point is that talk about skill ceiling and the game being too easy is just pointless and is something that will have to be actually tested to illustrate a point.
|
I heard that warpgates didn't work with MBS in the Blizzcon build.
Not suer if it's actually true.
|
I heard the exact opposite. A german magazine reported that pressing "w" immeadiately selects all warpgates, you don´t even need to spend a control group if that function makes it into the Gold Master.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On January 08 2008 09:18 yangstuh wrote:
I think a major fallacy that is being made is mapping the skill ceiling of Starcraft onto Starcraft 2 in an attempt to analyze the benefit or detriment MBS has on SC2. Obviously most of us haven't even touched SC2 yet, and those that did have not gone head to head against a highly developed and competitive community (it exists only in the future after SC2 is released) - they instead fought newbs/casual players and used that as a bases for their argument that SC2 is too easy.. amidst the fact the game also isn't even balanced in that stage of development.
Another fallacy that builds on top of that is, as of what we know now, the fact that SC2 appears to be utilizing much more individual unit skills/spells/features. Zealots with charge, reapers hopping over cliffs, zerglings turning into suicide bombers, warping protoss, triple nuking drop shipping ghosts, etc. All this requires obviously more attention and skill. There are just so many new factors and different elements at play in SC2 (and many that have yet to be revealed to us) that it is not sound logic to pretend that all other factors are constant with Starcraft classic and to just isolate the variable of MBS.
If Starcraft 2 was EXACTLY like Starcraft 1 in respect to gameplay, units, tech, features, skills, etc... then yes all the arguments against MBS, especially in respect to "skill ceiling" would make sense and would have an understandable point. But however, the fact is that there are so many more variables now at play that influence the game, not just MBS, that its impossible to talk about skill ceiling or "the game being too easy" or being "newbified." I think that, just as what has been said many times before, we'll have to wait and play the game via beta testing to really grasp an inkling of understanding of what SC2 is really going to be like/feel like.
Anyways, the point is that talk about skill ceiling and the game being too easy is just pointless and is something that will have to be actually tested to illustrate a point.
the games are remarkably similar in style. SC2 simply plays the macro game for you. the arguments are valid and stay. also, i was not playing random newbies all day, i was playing vs Blizzards best and top progamers like testie, grubby and others.
however i'm not too worried, when the game is beta tested it should be more than clear (as it was at blizzcon) that SC2 is only half a game and the interface needs to be kept as a setting at the very least which won't allow players to utilize MBS automining and smartcast in competitive games. Otherwise expect riots in the streets of Korea when this game is released.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On January 02 2008 10:06 Motiva wrote:
While I hate to create consecutive posts as opposed to taking on additional notes w/ edits. I feel this should just be a little side post.
Tasteless, and Testie, and a few others I think did play the game at blizzcon as they've said. I just have a question and that is.
When you were given the private showing and allowed to play for that hour or whatever it was. Afterwards did any blizzard official ask for guys for feedback? If so, What did you tell them?
I'm just wondering how aware blizzard already is of the dislike of MBS. I just read IdrA's interview and i'm just curious how much of this message the pro's and ect have conveyed this and more importantly why they don't like it.
it was more than an hour, it was almost an entire day. testie and i did sit down with dustin browder briefly and attempt to explain the lack of macro in SC2 although i'm really not sure if he understood what we were saying. Other Blizzard employees seemed confused when i explained that MBS and automine were a bad thing, they seemed to back up the feature with the logical fallacy most pro-MBS players make when they claim players can now focus on strategy. When speaking with Pillars he understood what i was talking about and said there is still debate at Blizzard on whether or not to keep the feature. Pillars, however, does not work at Blizzard any more.
They seemed somewhat a wear that players would like the old interface. They didn't seem to understand why though, even when i explained it to some of them. Who knows though. What was clear is that after speaking to many hardcore competitive SC players there, it seemed unanimous that those features were not only unappealing but would damage the competitive elements in the game.
|
On January 11 2008 12:14 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2008 10:06 Motiva wrote:
While I hate to create consecutive posts as opposed to taking on additional notes w/ edits. I feel this should just be a little side post.
Tasteless, and Testie, and a few others I think did play the game at blizzcon as they've said. I just have a question and that is.
When you were given the private showing and allowed to play for that hour or whatever it was. Afterwards did any blizzard official ask for guys for feedback? If so, What did you tell them?
I'm just wondering how aware blizzard already is of the dislike of MBS. I just read IdrA's interview and i'm just curious how much of this message the pro's and ect have conveyed this and more importantly why they don't like it. it was more than an hour, it was almost an entire day. testie and i did sit down with dustin browder briefly and attempt to explain the lack of macro in SC2 although i'm really not sure if he understood what we were saying. Other Blizzard employees seemed confused when i explained that MBS and automine were a bad thing, they seemed to back up the feature with the logical fallacy most pro-MBS players make when they claim players can now focus on strategy. When speaking with Pillars he understood what i was talking about and said there is still debate at Blizzard on whether or not to keep the feature. Pillars, however, does not work at Blizzard any more. They seemed somewhat a wear that players would like the old interface. They didn't seem to understand why though, even when i explained it to some of them. Who knows though. What was clear is that after speaking to many hardcore competitive SC players there, it seemed unanimous that those features were not only unappealing but would damage the competitive elements in the game.
Cool, Thanks for the reply. Good Luck in Korea.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
|
When are u leaving/starting to work there?
|
On January 11 2008 12:14 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2008 10:06 Motiva wrote:
While I hate to create consecutive posts as opposed to taking on additional notes w/ edits. I feel this should just be a little side post.
Tasteless, and Testie, and a few others I think did play the game at blizzcon as they've said. I just have a question and that is.
When you were given the private showing and allowed to play for that hour or whatever it was. Afterwards did any blizzard official ask for guys for feedback? If so, What did you tell them?
I'm just wondering how aware blizzard already is of the dislike of MBS. I just read IdrA's interview and i'm just curious how much of this message the pro's and ect have conveyed this and more importantly why they don't like it. it was more than an hour, it was almost an entire day. testie and i did sit down with dustin browder briefly and attempt to explain the lack of macro in SC2 although i'm really not sure if he understood what we were saying. Other Blizzard employees seemed confused when i explained that MBS and automine were a bad thing, they seemed to back up the feature with the logical fallacy most pro-MBS players make when they claim players can now focus on strategy. When speaking with Pillars he understood what i was talking about and said there is still debate at Blizzard on whether or not to keep the feature. Pillars, however, does not work at Blizzard any more. They seemed somewhat a wear that players would like the old interface. They didn't seem to understand why though, even when i explained it to some of them. Who knows though. What was clear is that after speaking to many hardcore competitive SC players there, it seemed unanimous that those features were not only unappealing but would damage the competitive elements in the game.
How about making some king of presentation about it, including petition from top players around the world, especially Korea? In many VODs, when they switch to FP view, you can clearly see players going back to base, clicking all around to make new units, while in Warcraft3, you can only see then going back to base,to build new structure, and 90% of time wandering around map,doing nothing....maybe "thinking" of the strategy.... If they dont understand what were you trying to explain, maybe somehow then need to be informed more.... And its much better that they dont understand, then to do understand, but dont want to change it...
|
MBS is a feature in Warcraft III and TFT, I just bought and installed those two games aproximately 6 days ago today. Now, BMS does not alter gameplay I don't use it. All it is, is simply an added feature to mass select buildings of the same kind, if not tab through the lot, which takes forever.. (i.e. ten building selected at once, pressing tab goes through them one at a time in ur group box, same with units of different kinds.)
Some will use it some wont. It is impossible to unit mix with MBS, that i tried on wc3 with like 5 barracks(note this was offline RoC). The main different between the two games, is that on WC3 you only need one structure of any kind to produce men from, so why MBS. Well cannons, sunkens, etc.. Those are nice to have mass selected.
So in this i conclude MBS as the way of the future embrace it, and say to yourself "ok fine".
|
On January 11 2008 12:14 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2008 10:06 Motiva wrote:
While I hate to create consecutive posts as opposed to taking on additional notes w/ edits. I feel this should just be a little side post.
Tasteless, and Testie, and a few others I think did play the game at blizzcon as they've said. I just have a question and that is.
When you were given the private showing and allowed to play for that hour or whatever it was. Afterwards did any blizzard official ask for guys for feedback? If so, What did you tell them?
I'm just wondering how aware blizzard already is of the dislike of MBS. I just read IdrA's interview and i'm just curious how much of this message the pro's and ect have conveyed this and more importantly why they don't like it. Pillars, however, does not work at Blizzard any more.
Shit, any idea why he left? That doesn't bode well at all, if he was the only one who understood the problems with MBS and automine
|
Blizzard certainly is aware of the protests but they also remember the protests against the new features when WC3, yes even SC were in developement.
Also they officially stated that they won´t react to fan statements on balance issues at this time of the development process. When they need faninput they will ask for it. It is called beta.
|
On January 12 2008 04:33 Unentschieden wrote:
Blizzard certainly is aware of the protests but they also remember the protests against the new features when WC3, yes even SC were in developement.
Also they officially stated that they won´t react to fan statements on balance issues at this time of the development process. When they need faninput they will ask for it. It is called beta.
This is the best argument for MBS. Forget about the first paragraph, the only important thing is that they will be willing to change if the UI if it is deemed necessary. Till then don't sweat it.
|
Maybe Blizz didn't understand MBS back then, they surely do now to at least some degree. It has been the main subject of discussion on SC2 on basically every forum.
What they should do is hire an English speaking Korean from the progaming community over there. Not sure if there is a good candidate. But there's commentators, coaches, players, former player, etc etc. Be it a part time assistent to the guy replacing Pillars or whatever.
Hell, maybe they should hire Tasteless. Starcraft is far from being released. And when the beta is going Tasteless will be a professional Starcraft expert part of the Korean progaming scene.
|
On January 12 2008 04:33 Unentschieden wrote:
Blizzard certainly is aware of the protests but they also remember the protests against the new features when WC3, yes even SC were in developement.
Also they officially stated that they won´t react to fan statements on balance issues at this time of the development process. When they need faninput they will ask for it. It is called beta.
MBS isn't exactly a "balance" issue. It's a UI issue. that said, blizzard probably won't consider changing it until beta, if and only if enough beta players complain about it. Or else the anti-mbs crowd is going to have to figure out some way to get through to them.
|
On January 11 2008 12:14 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2008 10:06 Motiva wrote:
While I hate to create consecutive posts as opposed to taking on additional notes w/ edits. I feel this should just be a little side post.
Tasteless, and Testie, and a few others I think did play the game at blizzcon as they've said. I just have a question and that is.
When you were given the private showing and allowed to play for that hour or whatever it was. Afterwards did any blizzard official ask for guys for feedback? If so, What did you tell them?
I'm just wondering how aware blizzard already is of the dislike of MBS. I just read IdrA's interview and i'm just curious how much of this message the pro's and ect have conveyed this and more importantly why they don't like it. it was more than an hour, it was almost an entire day. testie and i did sit down with dustin browder briefly and attempt to explain the lack of macro in SC2 although i'm really not sure if he understood what we were saying. Other Blizzard employees seemed confused when i explained that MBS and automine were a bad thing, they seemed to back up the feature with the logical fallacy most pro-MBS players make when they claim players can now focus on strategy. When speaking with Pillars he understood what i was talking about and said there is still debate at Blizzard on whether or not to keep the feature. Pillars, however, does not work at Blizzard any more. They seemed somewhat a wear that players would like the old interface. They didn't seem to understand why though, even when i explained it to some of them. Who knows though. What was clear is that after speaking to many hardcore competitive SC players there, it seemed unanimous that those features were not only unappealing but would damage the competitive elements in the game.
What I have head is that the game was played at Normal speed, instead of fastest.
If the speeds are kept the same, that's 66% slower than what it should be.
Can you confirm or deny the fact that the game was played on normal?
Because, really, if the game was played on Normal, I see no reason to panic. However, if it was played at fastest, and Browder didn't understand what you were talking about, my guess is that us, the player base, will need to make our voices heard.
I was one of the WC3 players during 1.04-1.05 (known at this time as Shoutcaster MoooveZiiig) that claimed the game was too easy and that something should be done to correct this. They didn't get on it until it was apparant and clear the only possible strategy was DotT+AoW. However, without breaking the way the game was played, they expanded on it. Added attack and armor types, changed experience gain, changed gold costs across the board, made food limit higher, and added possibilities for multitasking and separating army (gaining exp at a distance, for example, and upkeep happening later).
That was fantastic. Late, but fantastic.
So, while SC2 might be a n00bfest currently (still awaiting game speed answer, I remember that it was said before that at Blizzcon the game was at Normal), there should be solid solutions to the game while keeping the basic mechanics. If not, the game is then flawed.
What scares me is the reaction you report of Dustin Browder. I'm pro MBS for multiple reasons, but I can understand where pro SBS players come from. If he's the lead designer and can't...
I mean, for god's sakes, his MAIN GODDAMNED JOB is to bring a game loved by millions and make sure it's new incarnation brings newcomers and old timers alike. It means hardcore gameplay with easier mechanics. If he gets one but misses the other, it's a FAIL. An epic FAIL.
I don't want that.
Millions across the world don't want that.
|
Now I am against automations.
But let's consider making the game easier and let's consider 'decision making skill' vs 'execution skill'.
Isn't it true that at the lower levels strategy, deception, decision making, mind games, etc play a way smaller role? For example 60-70 APM level play, if you can call that a level.
So we have these many casual gamers that want to see decision making play a bigger role. So doesn't just making the execution element of the game easier do exactly what they want to see? They will all be able to execute proper build orders and strategies. And then even on their level build order timings and build order counters start to decide the outcome of the game.
|
I'm sure all of this has been said before but chiming in and repeating myself:
I think of the things that made the original game so successful was the important emphasis on decision making. Beyond APM and strategical thinking, every broodwar player had one common resource... time.
MBS reduces the emphasis on this common resource. Broodwar is essentially a delicate balance between micro and macro. If you invest too much time in micro, you will lose the war, if you invest too much time in macro, you will lose every battle. The game is split 50/50 down these lines.
When you talk about progamers you always talk about the 3 major factors... 1 Micro, 2 Macro, 3 Game sense. If you remove macro you take out 50% of the game.
I understand that individuals who are less skilled in the arena of APM do not want to start the game behind the curve, but honestly I dont think reducing the skill required will really "satisfy" them as gamers. What keeps me coming back to a game is the knowledge that I can constantly improve. I think that is what always brings me back to broodwar. MBS removes a huge arena where individuals can improve and in my opinion will result in stale gameplay fairly rapidly.
MBS is essentially the auto-aim of real time strategy. Can you imagine a competitive first person shooter with auto-aim? From my perspective arguments that MBS is essential sound almost as silly. In a FPS community, players demanding that autoaim be included so the game isn't dominated by prior pros is just asking for ridicule.
I think ultimately that pro-MBS players run into the thought wall. They play the game and their adrenaline picks up and they cant think anymore. I understand the frustration in this, but part of the deep enjoyment of competitive gaming is overcoming this wall. I can see this from the perspective of individuals who have yet to achieve this but at the risk of being paternal, I think its important for every gamer to approach this barrier and overcome it. At the very least I think its important for gamers to approach it.
I think MBS and auto mining is fine for the single player and even some multiplayer, but there needs to be an option to have both disabled for competitive play.
To attempt a simile: Starcraft is like the 100m hurdles of the RTS world. It would be silly for those in track and field to argue that we should remove the hurdles so we can focus on the core of the sport which is running fast. Its the hurdles that make it different from the 100m dash. Remove the hurdles and its just like any other race. Remove macro by adding MBS and remove part of what makes starcraft starcraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
