[D] MBS Discussion II - Page 13

On January 23 2008 08:21 jngngshk321 wrote:


It's not about adapting to the new UI. It only takes an hour or so to completely adapt to the new UI. The problem is that it completley removes macromanagement in midgame and lategame (I'm disregarding rallymining and smarcasting)

This results in the reduction of the overall skill ceiling, which means many more people are able to reach the top of this ceiling.

Instead of players who have something to work on, there is now a UI that they can use as a crutch to get to the top. It's not about pro vs. noob, it's about pro vs. pro and how it affects pro vs. pro battles.

When 2 skilled players play against each other, a tiny advantage is a lot. If one player has worse macro than the other player, MBS fills in the gap for them and allows them to have godlike macromanagement abilities. It's not like BW players want noobs to stay as noobs, the BW players want people who play this game competitively to have something to work towards.

If you don't think BW is a strategic game, then watch a couple vods from the year 2000, 2001, 2002 etc. all the way up to 2008. The game is still evolving. The new maps keep the strategies fresh, so it's not like strategy will be going anywhere, but MBS takes completely removes macro across the board.

I was kind of rushed to write this so if I made any mistake then just correct me I guess

On January 24 2008 07:13 Sentus wrote:
I don't mind, I'm not going to go nitpicking every mistake to make myself seem better than everyone else.

I don't think macro is defined as how fast you can click. In general RTS, I usually see macro be used as a term for managing your economy, expanding, teching etc. I fully understand that with the addition of MBS, later game would discourage the people with god-like clicking. Though macro is not only about clicking faster than the other guy. It's not like with 200 minerals you can create 8 marines instead of 4 if you have MBS. MBS does not make someone have god-like macro, it just makes them have god-like clicking (relatively so to speak) though the decisions you make with your economy would turn the battle much faster than getting the marines out 2 seconds faster in my opinion.

If you guys are concerned about Pro vs. Pro, I don't think anyone can instantly assume that with MBS, everything would be much easier for "noob-pros" in professional gaming. It may discourage the clicking-gods, but from any spectators' point of view, the games are not going to be any less epic. Besides, god-like clicking comes with practice and skill. If the necessity of it isn't in Starcraft 2, the professionals could easily dedicate their time to other skills. It may lower the roof for clicking but it raises the bar for everything else in my opinion.

On January 24 2008 14:07 GeneralStan wrote:
Here's one argument that I disagree with completely: MBS lowers the skill ceiling. Especially absurd is the argument that MBS will lower the skill ceiling to attainability.

Case in point: Warcraft III. Earlier arguments had tried to point out the lax practice habits of Tod and Grubby to prove that Warcraft III had a lowered skill ceiling. This argument is blown out of the water by the success of Chinese players Moon and Sky, who approach the game with a fanaticism rivalling Korean Starcraft pros.

Warcraft III has not only MBS, but a single base fixed economy. There are factor's that offset this of course, increased micro focus and creeping to boot.

Sure you can sit back, do two button maco and twiddle your thumbs, but your opponent will have expanded, built up defense and dropped your ass by then.

There is more to this game than the trivial action of clicking gateways. There are a thousand things in starcraft that require tactical consideration. When to build how many of what, where to place those units, when to put what building where, when and where to expand and how to defend your expansion. Scouting, unit positioning, unit ability use. Harassment, harassment defense, map control.

I think the frantic pace of Starcraft is excellent, but even more excellent in that nearly every decision made has tactical ramifications. There are only two actions that don't: Sending peons to mine and clicking each gateway individually.

With so many tactical decisions to make ever second, to claim that the removal of one aspect of gross physical speed is tantamount to making the game trivial is absurd.

I don't pretend to counter all anti-MBS arguments, and there are in fact several I still harbor. The good argument are that MBS will change that micro/macro balance of starcraft and reduce the importance of full map multi-tasking. The removal of the negative feedback loop associated with large numbers of production facilities is particularly worrisome to me (this argument is basically that once a player takes a lead he will pretty much be able to press home that lead since he can macro more gateways as effeciently as the other player macros fewer will still giving full attention to his army, hindering the possibilty of the exciting comebacks which are part of Starcraft's hallmark.).

There is one anti-MBS argument I'm tired of hearing: It will lower the skill cap.

On January 24 2008 14:40 GeneralStan wrote:
There has been quite a good deal of back and forth on the issue, I'm well aware. Many on anti-MBS side claim the point that it will lower the skill cap, but it's an argument I've never accepted and I'm hear laying out my reasoning why.

I interpret my argument any of several ways:
The skill cap of Starcraft is essentially infinite, lowering infinity doesn't make a skill cap that is anywhere near attainable.
The actions that are removed are the least tactically significant made in a game, meaning that the removal of actions has less impact on the overall skill level as a whole

Note however, that I do agree with the argument that it will reduce multi-tasking and gross APM required. I just find the idea that noobs will start beating pros due to that fact laughable.

On January 24 2008 14:40 GeneralStan wrote:
There has been quite a good deal of back and forth on the issue, I'm well aware. Many on anti-MBS side claim the point that it will lower the skill cap, but it's an argument I've never accepted and I'm hear laying out my reasoning why.

I interpret my argument any of several ways:
The skill cap of Starcraft is essentially infinite, lowering infinity doesn't make a skill cap that is anywhere near attainable.
The actions that are removed are the least tactically significant made in a game, meaning that the removal of actions has less impact on the overall skill level as a whole

Note however, that I do agree with the argument that it will reduce multi-tasking and gross APM required. I just find the idea that noobs will start beating pros due to that fact laughable.

On January 24 2008 15:42 GeneralStan wrote:
There enough significant actions within the game that pros against pros will still leave no doubt to who is better. Eliminating single building macro doesn't eliminate high APM or manual dexterity as requirements for competition at the highest level of play.

There a thousand shades of complexity in every encounter of micro. How far apart are the units, how are they spaced, how quickly do you engage, when do you pull back wounded units. Micro is still micro, and with more time to dedicate to micro, the quality of micro competition within each game goes way up. This is only micro we're talking about here.

There is map control and game sense which are way bigger to Starcraft success than speed in individual gateway selection.

Frankly, I think arguing that SBS macro production is a "main part" of Starcraft is ignorant, missing what is beautiful and stirring about the game. In understand it's part of the fundamental execution requirement that makes speed (speed which I do acknowledge makes the game exciting), but to conflate it with all the skill required is absurd.

So clearly noobs won't be beating pros. I didn't mean to attack a straw man.

With MBS, macro is still an important skill, as is economy, as is micro, map control and overall game sense. Removing one part of one aspect of the game is far from a deal-breaker, even at the highest level of play.

Yes I've read all the arguments, no I'm not convinced. If you want to make the argument that it will unequivocally lower the skill gap between pros to make it less competitive, then feel free to bring everything you've got. Don't point to the past arguments as though they've won the argument already, because I've read them and I'm not convinced.

I started out saying I wasn't convinced by earlier arguement and your response was "read the arguments, you should be convinced". I don't think the point is proved at all, and hearing it repeated as a truth is what I'm here to contradict.

You may argue that the top player would still win, i would say 'probably', but with a lesser margin. THATS THE FUCKING ISSUE HERE

On January 24 2008 21:30 Wraithlin wrote:

No the issue here is that some people dont want anything to change because SC is so good they believe there is no way to change it without making things worse; they make a whole bunch of unfounded claims and then call anyone who disagrees with them a noob or worse.

Face a few facts, more people play WC3 than SC and WC3 is more competative (there are more competitions and more people competing; that is the definition of competativeness, not the skill ceiling or any other made up idea) than SC. The ONLY thing that is even keeping SC alive is the pro-scene; without the Korean Pro-Leagues SC would have died years ago.

Now the lie of anti-mbs people is to say that the pro-scene exists because of SBS, it doesnt. The Pro-scene exists because SC, unlike just about every other RTS, is a good spectator sport. This has allowed SC to get on TV where it is now a self fulfiling destiny, companies want to keep SC on TV because its good advertising for their sponsors, and the playerbase is growing because young people want to achieve the dream of getting rich and famous playing computor games.

What makes it a good spectator sport compared to WC3, which is more competative?
...
...
Blah blah, a bunch of crap about the differences in warcraft 3 to starcraft
..
..
None of these issues are related to MBS or SBS but the fundamentals which are transcendant of the UI

SC is a good e-sport because it is spectator friendly: fast, bloody and action packed. Not because of a 10 year old fucking UI.

In my opinion, which I have absolutely nothing to back it up, MBS will not make SC any less exciting to watch, it might make it more exciting to watch, but it will make the game more competative by increasing the number of players and thus the competition to be the best.

Secondly MBS does not remove all macro, explain to me how it removes all macro if macro is more than just hitting buttons really fast. Saying "Oh well you can hotkey all your buildings and never leave your army" is bollocks, because its a lie to say that you only ever leave your army to build units. You leave your army to scout, scan, direct peons, build new structures, direct new units from the rally point, build upgrades and many other things.

Given that 99% of the time, when units complete you are going to leave your army to direct them from the rally point to the battle, its only a fraction of a second to queue new units (because hey you do that at the same time as the units you are directing build), so you are changing a 1 second job (direct the new units from the rally point) into a 2 second job (direct the new units from their rally point and queue another set of units).

MBS changes a 2 second job back into a 1 second job; noone cares except anti-mbs crybabies.

MBS increases the potential player base of SC2 by a factor of ten or more making the game more competative; major improvement to the community and the pro-scene.

On January 23 2008 01:02 Wraithlin wrote:
Serious question for the anti-mbs, anti atuo-mine crowd.

What aren't you going to whine about ?
No seriously tell me, what are you not going to throw a shitty fit over ?
Simply shouting about everything will only lead to being ignored, because you are failing to be constructive.

Im pro-MBS.
I dont find my ability to spam 1m2m3m4m5m6m7m8m a particularly interesting thing to work on for hours, I have better things to do. I also disagree on this whole "You will never have to leave your army" shit, unless you are rallying every unit straight to the frontlines, you are still going to have to leave your army to direct those units you just built. You are still going to have to leave your army to build whatever buildings you are generating by directing your peons.

MBS does one thing; it lets you build units from many buildings with 2 button pressess instead of 10. Thats it, it doesnt do anything more or less than reduce the number of buttons you hit to achieve a result. And, as long as there is still an advantage to SBS over MBS (better unit mixes, better use of resources, whatever), it will do nothing except lower the barrier to entry for new games.


Simply saying "everyone who likes MBS is a noob and should die" underlines the fact you are behaving irrationally and increases the chances Blizzard ignore you for the frothymouthed carpet chewer you are. It would be nice to debate the actual pros and cons, but it appears that the community at large consists of flamers and shit-slingers; with that in mind I really do hope blizzard ignores most of you.

On January 24 2008 21:30 Wraithlin wrote:

No the issue here is that some people dont want anything to change because SC is so good they believe there is no way to change it without making things worse; they make a whole bunch of unfounded claims and then call anyone who disagrees with them a noob or worse.

Face a few facts, more people play WC3 than SC and WC3 is more competative (there are more competitions and more people competing; that is the definition of competativeness, not the skill ceiling or any other made up idea) than SC. The ONLY thing that is even keeping SC alive is the pro-scene; without the Korean Pro-Leagues SC would have died years ago.

Now the lie of anti-mbs people is to say that the pro-scene exists because of SBS, it doesnt. The Pro-scene exists because SC, unlike just about every other RTS, is a good spectator sport. This has allowed SC to get on TV where it is now a self fulfiling destiny, companies want to keep SC on TV because its good advertising for their sponsors, and the playerbase is growing because young people want to achieve the dream of getting rich and famous playing computor games.

What makes it a good spectator sport compared to WC3, which is more competative?

SC Units have a low health relative to damage; upgraded zealots will kill a ling in 2 hits, compare that to the 30second slug fest between two basic units in WC3. Spectators like to see units die and pop, they want battles to be bloody and viscious, this makes SC good to watch. WC3 is TERRIBLE to watch because most decisive battles end with a TP scroll home and they "lost" not because any units died but because they were low health. this is really important becaus eit is possible for a complete noob to at least have some idea who is winning or losing just from watching the units die, unlike in WC3 where you need alot of experience and explantion to even follow who is winning or losing because nothing ever fucking dies.

Another reason SC is more exciting to watch because the players interact very quickly, again compare this to WC3 where the first 5-10 minutes consists of players creeping (dull). And those first few battles are bloody, units die, rather than units lose some health and run off but you cant really tell what happened unless the commentator selects them, because nothing died.

SC is more exciting that WC3 because players build more than 1 base, forcing them to move their army constantly (and not just because they are looking for creeps to kill). It allow players to make exciting plays like drops, or double/tripple attacks. Expansions just dont happen in WC3 to any extent, certainly not the 3/4 bases which are absolutely common in SC, which makes play more condensed and consist of two armies dancing about each other.

None of these issues are related to MBS or SBS but the fundamentals which are transcendant of the UI

SC is a good e-sport because it is spectator friendly: fast, bloody and action packed. Not because of a 10 year old fucking UI.

MBS will not make SC any less exciting to watch, it might make it more exciting to watch, but it will make the game more competative by increasing the number of players and thus the competition to be the best.

Secondly MBS does not remove all macro, explain to me how it removes all macro if macro is more than just hitting buttons really fast. Saying "Oh well you can hotkey all your buildings and never leave your army" is bollocks, because its a lie to say that you only ever leave your army to build units. You leave your army to scout, scan, direct peons, build new structures, direct new units from the rally point, build upgrades and many other things.

Given that 99% of the time, when units complete you are going to leave your army to direct them from the rally point to the battle, its only a fraction of a second to queue new units (because hey you do that at the same time as the units you are directing build), so you are changing a 1 second job (direct the new units from the rally point) into a 2 second job (direct the new units from their rally point and queue another set of units).

MBS changes a 2 second job back into a 1 second job; noone cares except anti-mbs crybabies.
MBS increases the potential player base of SC2 by a factor of ten or more making the game more competative; major improvement to the community and the pro-scene.