|
The fact of that matter is that MBS will not only lower the skill ceiling, but also take an element thats at the core of starcraft out of the picture. Starcraft is about a balance between macro and micro, and both play important roles.
I could introduce MBS, then add a million special units so that you actually require more speed to play SC2, but the element of macro will be lost. What blizzard should do is understand what the core properties of SC were that made it so hugely popular, and build on/improve those. Putting in MBS and then adding a lot of micro gimmicks and special units might mean that players will still require speed to play well, but it will massively change the feel of the game. You can enhance the micro or what not as much as you want to, reducing a major part of SC to a couple of clicks every two minutes will be just too detrimental to the overall gameplay.
And the argument that SC shouldnt be used as a rough model to debate about SC2 is incorrect. Blizzard have clearly stated they wish to model SC2 in a fashion that it replicates the success of SC, and hence the original game is all we have to go by.
Will MBS lower the skill ceiling? Obviously it will. You're taking a whole facet out of the game. With an overtly simplified macro style and a complicated micro style the game will depend on the latter - hence better microers will be at a great advantage. SC creates a better balance by letting people play to their strength - macro or micro, and try to force a game that serves them better (of course its not that simple).
With MBS SC2 will never be as exciting as SC.
|
On January 17 2008 02:34 Diggity wrote:
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.
QTF, Amen.
Can someone post this on the starcraft 2 blizzard forum? I constantly get rejected for some reason 
|
Occasionally I've read these posts, only to catch up on the arguments used. Tonight I've read a lot, and thought a lot (I lent out my CD, and now the 1.15.2 patch wont let me play!). First, I was completely anti MBS, to the point that I would hate to play SC2 if it had it. Then the obvious argument, that you will not be making only one unit, popped into my mind. Because you will have to select a few buildings at a time in order to make a variety of units, and SC2 will have so many units to choose from, all with their own special way of countering others. This will create more diverse armies, so MBS will perhaps have a lesser effect on SC2 than it would in SC, as I have been imagining it on. Also, MBS doesn't only apply to building units, ever try to micro cannons to attack specified units when defending? It's damn hard. By being able to select multiple cannons, or other building defences, you could micro them similar to normal units. Lastly, in regards of Protoss, would MBS affect how the unit warp with pylons works?
So my negative position with regards on MBS is lessening, I can always adapt. Besides, I've never tried MBS before, I may like it.
|
On January 17 2008 08:17 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2008 02:34 Diggity wrote:
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. QTF, Amen. Can someone post this on the starcraft 2 blizzard forum? I constantly get rejected for some reason
They won't listen to you or anything that comes from TL.net.
|
They havent listend to us in any of their Q&A's... b.net forums...
|
On January 17 2008 13:33 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2008 08:17 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On January 17 2008 02:34 Diggity wrote:
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. QTF, Amen. Can someone post this on the starcraft 2 blizzard forum? I constantly get rejected for some reason They won't listen to you or anything that comes from TL.net.
Listening to someone and agreeing with someone are two different things.
|
With MBS you won't use only one hotkey for all you gateways, but even if you need to mix units, you will use 2 or 3 hotkeys... With 150 units/group you won't need a lot of hotkey for your units so nobody will need more than 10 hotkeys. Nobody will have to go back to his base to produce units in 10 gateway... this hurt the macro of the game.
|
I've posted in old debates, but was thinking a bit more about it, so here I am again.
I'm a (relatively) casual player of Starcraft, I haven't played recently, but when I used to play I must have played something like 1500 games and all the missions etc. Like my 3 friends who play, I think the interface is extremely frustrating. I think the game balance, available strategies and style of the game is superb, but found it intensely frustrating to lose games to players I had outplayed strategically, because I couldn't keep up endless production over a 30 minute game. I don't want to play starcraft like it's a competitive sport, I want to play it like it's a balanced, fascinating strategy game, that moves quickly, and in real time. I would be more than happy to go slightly further than MBS, and be able to turn on a button on certain buildings so they would continually build a unit. For me to really enjoy starcraft 2, the interface would have to change for the simpler. There would still be so much to focus on, I think the game would be only really affected at pro level.
With regard to pro level, I just don't enjoy watching people able to hit keys on a keyboard in a highly disciplined way, nor witnessing the achievement of over coming an archaic interface. I want to see highly intelligent strategies, reactions and mind games - things which I believe are damaged by the interface problems.
Carrying on the selfish lines this whole post has taken, I'd also like to say that I think it is a harsh requirement to ask someone to train themselves to the level the current game requires to play starcraft well. Apart from the fact I would be unable to (RSI from guitar playing is actually what stopped me playing Starcraft in the first place), Ialso don't have the will to do it, and don't think I should need to, to properly enjoy Starcraft.
I think everyone except those who play starcraft intensely would feel the same way as I do. I have read a lot of people's posts on this debate, and I understand the argument that concentration is a resource, and that macro interface problems mean you have to constantly split attention etc. I just don't want to play a computer game which is so challenging physically, and think the concentration resource can be created in many other ways.
|
I completely see where you're coming from Tal, but when it comes down to it I think the pros are the ones blizzard need to cater for, not the casuals.
I can't imagine any casual gamer being like "Oh, no MBS?! I'm SO not buying that now"
MBS is not needed to sell SC2, its name alone will. So all that's left to worry about (now that sales is out of the way), is that it maintains a high status among the most serious of gamers. MBS is required for this, IMO.
|
On January 18 2008 17:25 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
I completely see where you're coming from Tal, but when it comes down to it I think the pros are the ones blizzard need to cater for, not the casuals.
I can't imagine any casual gamer being like "Oh, no MBS?! I'm SO not buying that now"
MBS is not needed to sell SC2, its name alone will. So all that's left to worry about (now that sales is out of the way), is that it maintains a high status among the most serious of gamers. MBS is required for this, IMO.
You pulled that straight out of your ass. Casuals are the guys reading reviews before they buy. Thouse usually make controls a part of the rating. The majority of casuals does not look at the producer and some don´t remember SC (too young) so they will simply juyt buy it when the game has a 90%+ rating (ore equivalent).
Pros and SC fanboys on the other hand propably already preordered the game already. (or would have if they could). The ones buying SC2 because it is SC/from Blizzard are NOT the casuals.
A great game does not make it´s sequel succsessfull - take a look at Master of Orion 2 and 3.
|
Dude the exclusion of MBS might result in a very small percentage of people not purchasing SC2, but its starcraft 2 man, its going to sell a ton no matter what. A lot of the people on these forums are anti MBS, but most of them will end ups buying SC2 even if it does include MBS.
Even if reviewers DONT like the exclusion of MBS, they'll sure as hell like everything else about it. They'll say it wasnt perfect, but it'll still get a 9.5, and it'll still sell like hotcakes.
The real question is how MBS will modify gameplay, and be detrimental to the longevitiy and competitiveness of the game. You want a game that lasts ten years? Keep MBS out.
|
Instead of writing a wall of text, I'm just going to make some general points.
1. MBS is not automation, nor is it adding a "chance on hit effect," or other effect or ability that is performed randomly without user input. Inherently, MBS does not imbalance the game. Why?
2. MBS is not automation; it is just an improvement on an older system. If anything, I think MBS will smooth the learning curve for newer players. Think back to when you had 60 APM. Remember how tough it was to macro, micro, and watch your unit production all at the same time? I do. If I had MBS then, it would have helped, but it wouldn't have made me win games.
3. Strategy wins games. Spamming hotkeys doesn't. People forget that armies are almost always comprised of at least two units, often made from the same production building. In PvP I always had zealots, dragoons, high templar, a few archons, observers, and maybe other units depending on the map or general flow of the game. In SC2, I could not press one hotkey to take my back to my production buildings, press one hotkey once to queue up 32543 of the same unit, and expect to win the game. The point is, you still have to manage the army you create, and you still have to manage what units you make in what quantities.
4. MBS just makes macro a little easier. That doesn't mean it's detracting from the game, or dumbing the game down, or anything like that.
|
On January 18 2008 20:54 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2008 17:25 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
I completely see where you're coming from Tal, but when it comes down to it I think the pros are the ones blizzard need to cater for, not the casuals.
I can't imagine any casual gamer being like "Oh, no MBS?! I'm SO not buying that now"
MBS is not needed to sell SC2, its name alone will. So all that's left to worry about (now that sales is out of the way), is that it maintains a high status among the most serious of gamers. MBS is required for this, IMO. You pulled that straight out of your ass. Casuals are the guys reading reviews before they buy. Thouse usually make controls a part of the rating. The majority of casuals does not look at the producer and some don´t remember SC (too young) so they will simply juyt buy it when the game has a 90%+ rating (ore equivalent). Pros and SC fanboys on the other hand propably already preordered the game already. (or would have if they could). The ones buying SC2 because it is SC/from Blizzard are NOT the casuals. A great game does not make it´s sequel succsessfull - take a look at Master of Orion 2 and 3.
Sigh, well thanks for that incredibly mature response. My ass, I promise you, was not the origin of my post.
You see, I realise people do read the reviews before deciding to buy. But do you seriously think no MBS is going to make people review it badly?
"The game is totally awesome. So fast paced, really rightly balanced and hard-hitting action that we're sure gamers will soak up for another ten years. BUT! Don't buy it, there is no MBS "
No.
It will get good reviews either way. Every Blizzard game does.
btw if you're going to reply can you not be rude to me? I'm a sensitive man and I will get upset if you are rude! Please be gentle! (rofl)
|
i voice my support for MBS. sure it lowers the skill req for macro players but i am sure macro is more than just being able to build units while conducting a battle.
i think the time shaved off will allow macro players to use their army to fight multiple fronts. giving a new definition to "strong macro".
|
On January 21 2008 08:40 dybydx wrote:
i voice my support for MBS. sure it lowers the skill req for macro players but i am sure macro is more than just being able to build units while conducting a battle.
i think the time shaved off will allow macro players to use their army to fight multiple fronts. giving a new definition to "strong macro".
You're right, macro is not just making units, it's also managing economy but you remember what automine is doing to that right?
As for 'fighting multiple fronts giving a new definition to strong macro', i don't see how they relate.
|
They want to remove the execution factor of macro and limit it to decision making only.
If they succeed expect to see the same with micro. RTS games already have been criticized for the existence of micro.
|
On January 22 2008 08:00 BlackStar wrote:
They want to remove the execution factor of macro and limit it to decision making only.
If they succeed expect to see the same with micro. RTS games already have been criticized for the existence of micro.
Which is as retarded as ever. Execution itself is a key component of a good RTS and of any good sport. Wanting to remove it is usually a clear sign of noobishness.
|
On January 22 2008 10:01 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2008 08:00 BlackStar wrote:
They want to remove the execution factor of macro and limit it to decision making only.
If they succeed expect to see the same with micro. RTS games already have been criticized for the existence of micro.
Which is as retarded as ever. Execution itself is a key component of a good RTS and of any good sport. Wanting to remove it is usually a clear sign of noobishness.
I'd go as far as to say it's not a sign, but evidence of noobishness.
|
As for 'fighting multiple fronts giving a new definition to strong macro', i don't see how they relate.
well, in SC micro is usually taking 1 squad of units and dance em around.
macro is usually playing with strong econ and continuously pump units into ur enemy's face.
with MBS and automine, having multiple base and pumping units will be easier. but the macro skill is not wasted. you can use that time to do flanks or attack multiple expansions.
basically i relate macro to multi tasking
|
I've used the "free time" argument before in anti-anti-MBS posts, but on further reflection I think it may be misguided; it assumes a certain necessity for aggression in SC2 that simply might not exist. In other words, players might be rewarded for sitting back during certain points of the game (as they do in sc currently) as opposed to pressing in multiple attacks or scouting like crazy or whatever. (on the other hand, it is of course possible that sc2 will necessitate a very aggressive style of play, or even that macro-easifying stuff will make this style popular, who knows).
Bottom line is that MBS will decrease the skill ceiling if nothing else is added to deepen other aspects of the game. These aspects don't necessarily have to be "mechanical" aspects, mind you. But something else has to be ratcheted up. Whether it's the number of viable strategies ( increased strategies leading to increased need for scouting, etc), or things that add new wrinkles to basic gameplay itself (gold mineral patches, terrain-independent ground units like the reaper, neutral observatories), it has to be in there. And currently, you have to admit, it doesn't seem like there's enough. But testing will tell, and lord knows that Blizzard probably isn't done adding basic new gameplay wrinkles. Let's hope not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
