|
Golf is slow and leisurely. However, you'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument to legions of semi-pros that Golf is any less competative than Basketball. I hate the weak analogies, but that's the way it is.
I guess you made this bad analogy because you missed the point.
Golf is probably more competitive because it's not a team sport and because difference in skill has a bigger influence on the outcome of the match.
If golf was like bingo no one would care.
Since when do people watch bingo? They don't. It doesn't entertain anyone.
|
I see the error in my analogy there.
How about Tennis compared to Golf. Two invidual sports. 1 is slow. 1 is fast. Both are very competitive. My point is that MBS will slow down the game, but that doesn't equal making it less competitive
|
It's not about slow and fast. It's about skill ceiling and the existence or non-existence of testing multitasking as one of the main skill.
Golf is probably harder to play perfectly than tennis. No one hol in one's every time. But in tennis I assume most strikes are pretty near perfect. They can place the ball so it is barely in. Ok, play would be better if all tennis balls had a near speed of light movement. In that sense tennis has no skill ceiling.
|
On January 26 2008 04:36 BlackStar wrote:Show nested quote +Golf is slow and leisurely. However, you'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument to legions of semi-pros that Golf is any less competative than Basketball. I hate the weak analogies, but that's the way it is. I guess you made this bad analogy because you missed the point. Golf is probably more competitive because it's not a team sport and because difference in skill has a bigger influence on the outcome of the match. If golf was like bingo no one would care. Since when do people watch bingo? They don't. It doesn't entertain anyone.
To be clear, because I want to nip this in the bud before it turns into "one of those stupid things Wraithlin said", I am not suggesting that SC is like bingo, or even that people like to watch bingo.
My point was that there are a nuber of blanket statements propping up the anti-mb arguments, chief amoungst these:
- A game must be competative or people will not want to play it (not true, and I used bingo as an example).
- A game with MBS is not competative (not true, WC3 being the prime example of a game that is competative and has MBS).
- Skilled players need to easily beat less skilled players to make a good game (Not true, and particularly not true for spectators. Most people would rather see a close and exciting game where the result is in the balance, than watch one player demolish another effortlessly).
For an example closer to home.
TvT is commonly considered the least interesting matchup to watch; while all three XvX matchups can be disappointing because they are often decided by tiny diffrences or even some luck, TvT is the least popular.
Why ?
Because TvT games have many of the problems that plague other RTS's.
The start is often slow, unless one player goes all in early both will tech at least to factory before much happens. If the game is not won early it can drag on for a long period while both players macro. A good example would be Nadas Group H match, there several periods where almost nothing happened other than both players macroing and it was dull. It was, over all, a great game and come from behind by Nada, but while both players were amassing their BC fleet almost nothing happened.
[fe]
Online bingo stats
Some 50,000 of the estimated 3 million land-based bingo players now play bingo online. 90% of these are below the age of 50, dispelling the myth that bingo is for the older generation.
From
http://www.onlinebingo.net/2007/12/online-bingo.html
Its probably not unfair to say at least as many people, if not more, play bingo online as there are people playing StarCraft.
|
No one disputed that people play bingo.
|
On January 26 2008 08:18 Wraithlin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2008 04:36 BlackStar wrote:Golf is slow and leisurely. However, you'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument to legions of semi-pros that Golf is any less competative than Basketball. I hate the weak analogies, but that's the way it is. I guess you made this bad analogy because you missed the point. Golf is probably more competitive because it's not a team sport and because difference in skill has a bigger influence on the outcome of the match. If golf was like bingo no one would care. Since when do people watch bingo? They don't. It doesn't entertain anyone. To be clear, because I want to nip this in the bud before it turns into "one of those stupid things Wraithlin said", I am not suggesting that SC is like bingo, or even that people like to watch bingo. My point was that there are a nuber of blanket statements propping up the anti-mb arguments, chief amoungst these: - A game must be competative or people will not want to play it (not true, and I used bingo as an example). - A game with MBS is not competative (not true, WC3 being the prime example of a game that is competative and has MBS). - Skilled players need to easily beat less skilled players to make a good game (Not true, and particularly not true for spectators. Most people would rather see a close and exciting game where the result is in the balance, than watch one player demolish another effortlessly). For an example closer to home. TvT is commonly considered the least interesting matchup to watch; while all three XvX matchups can be disappointing because they are often decided by tiny diffrences or even some luck, TvT is the least popular. Why ? Because TvT games have many of the problems that plague other RTS's. The start is often slow, unless one player goes all in early both will tech at least to factory before much happens. If the game is not won early it can drag on for a long period while both players macro. A good example would be Nadas Group H match, there several periods where almost nothing happened other than both players macroing and it was dull. It was, over all, a great game and come from behind by Nada, but while both players were amassing their BC fleet almost nothing happened. [fe] Online bingo stats Some 50,000 of the estimated 3 million land-based bingo players now play bingo online. 90% of these are below the age of 50, dispelling the myth that bingo is for the older generation. From http://www.onlinebingo.net/2007/12/online-bingo.htmlIts probably not unfair to say at least as many people, if not more, play bingo online as there are people playing StarCraft.
TvT is the least luck-based mirror matchup. It requires the most thought, and mistakes are heavily punished. This is why many players don't like to play TvT.
ProMBS players argue that the skill required for macromanagement would be moved to micromanagement.
-Macromanagement is a style of play. Why should everything that determines skill come out of micromanagement? It's not hard at all to learn how to micro properly. Anyone who has played a micro map can perform things like mass lockdowns and mass irradiates without any problem. Macro requires more thought, and it requires rhythm that takes a while for the player to learn.
-MBS fits for WC3 because there isn't a situation when you would build 10 barracks. Macro plays a very, VERY small role in WC3.
-A game may not have to be competitive to be fun, but it does have to be competitive to be considered as a sport. Blizzard has already said that this was what they are aiming for so whether or not a competitive game is required for fun doesn't matter, since fun comes after game mechanics.
-Starcraft is a game that is easy to learn and extremely hard to master, and this is how it should be. Trick micro moves can be learned not even by watching a replay, all you have to do is see someone perform it, and it will be found out minutes after the vod has been watched. Again, macro is very important because it's something you have to keep up throughout the whole game.
-Skilled players should easily be able to beat lesser skilled players. So you want skill to have no purpose in a game? are you retarded? I fully expect a top rate progamer to beat a second rate progamer. Why shouldn't training be rewarded? The way you talk, you sound like you want to be able to play like a progamer without putting in the effort.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On January 25 2008 03:09 BlackStar wrote:
Nick, I want to know more about the opinions of progamers once you get them.
But about moderation, deleting posts that show ignorance about MBS and/or the game doesn't make it go away. We just have to face that there are still people ignorant or on purpose making fallacious arguments.
We could delete their posts because it adds nothing to the quality of the debate. But they will still remain people that still have to be convinced.
And I know from experience that quite a few people already have been convinced and went from pro-MBS to anti-MBS.
[edit]
Ok, I just saw that the topic on the official SC2 forum about the chat Tasteless and Testie had with Dustin about MBS has been deleted. Not sure if Blizzard deleted it on purpose. It was spammed so it became broken and then cleaned up by Karune. But now it's gone.
I didn't want the post to be deleted, i just wanted moderation on the fourm itself. Chill already posted saying he pmed the person so it's fine.
so people were spamming that on blizzard fourms? fuck... everyone i've met at blizzrard has been extremely kind and also passionate about the games they make. i hope they don't think i'm a dick now.
Nal ra is the pro i've spoken to the most about this. We went out to the bar a few nights ago and he said that after playing the game at Blizzcon he thinks the new units and graphics are great. His only complaint was about the interface. He said that progamers will have less to train for with the computer playing the game for them. Becuase of that he thinks the gamer overall won't be anywhere near as competitve. But like most of the koreans i've spoken with, he still dosn't actually believe that blizzard will keep such features in the game because the negative outcome seems so obviuos.
Last time i talked to rekrul about it he said the featuers would "fuck up the game"
I know Jeff Dickinson, the guy i casted WCG USA finals and the Seoul Estars Festival with, talked to a Korean guy named 'Paul' (I don't know his korean name). Paul is one of the main people responsible for getting SC on TV. I also know he's was Boxers mentor when he started becoming famous. When Jeff told him about the new features he asked "Why would they do that? Does blizzard know how much Starcraft means to korea?" That's a direct quote. he was basically horrified to hear about automine MBS and the unit cap.
If i get the chance i'll see if i can't interview some of these people. At the WCG World Finals we recorded me polling a ton of SC gamers about their thoughts on MBS and autominig. Almost everyone was against it, especially the top players like Mondragon. However GGL was behind and didn't have time to edit it and put it on their website.
I'm very busy right now but if i get the chance i'll see if i can't come up with an interview or something.
Blizzard isn't stupid, they are known for listening to their fan base. To some extent i'm in the same boat as nal ra; i don't honestly believe these features will be put in the game. If the features are put in i expect a pro mod to be made shorly after with MBS auto mine and the selection cap changed. Whether Blizzard does this or the Koreans do it... i don't know, but i can't possibly immagine this not happening.
|
Tasteless if you can just compile a list of comments pros have about the game, get them to sign it and send it to Blizzard I'm certain the impact would be gigantic.
|
I just realised the answers to our problems!
1: Make them optional.Yes yes, i know you have read that before, but read this:
2: Make the ladder on the asian server play wo MBS, automine, smartcast and with a 24 unit selection cap.(Add a special dedicated hotkey to select next Waqrpgate, and other similar fixes to keep balance)
3: Make all other ladders include the UI stuff.
There, now the asian market is happy since they can spam train their macro moves just as before, while the western market is happy since they can focus more on micro.What would happen with international tournaments you guys might ask? Well, they aren't important to Korean e-sport as it is so we would use the western version to try to spark a bigger western following.
These 2 would need to be balanced induvidually ofcourse and since Blizzards strongest point is balance it shouldn't be a problem.
Now, what are the drawbacks aside from a heavier load on the balance team? Well, it splits the community somewhat, but the western and asian markets never integrated that well with each other anyway. And if you live in america/europe and want to play with the Old UI, you can play on the asian server just like the asians play on the US west server now.
|
|
|
My problem with Progamers is that they don´t argue against MBS because it would destroy competativness but their advantage. MBS removes a skill they spend 10 years to develop/train.
Pro gamers are biased against MBS, we have to remember that when listening to their arguments.
I´d like to hear some game reviewers opinion on the debate. They will be a big factor in the commercial succsess with the masses.
Pro gamers have advantages when debating on balance issues, they know about the little advantages/disatvantages, also they have a interest in a balanced game - otherwise tournaments would have to work with handicaps/wait for patches/be unfair.
MBS has little effect on balance: it is available for every player and equally effective for everyone. (I´m shure Zerg economy will be adjusted if MBS makes it in)
MBS only effects how the game is played, the effort and time the player has to spend on unit production/static defense control.
|
On January 26 2008 18:48 Klockan3 wrote:
I just realised the answers to our problems!
1: Make them optional.Yes yes, i know you have read that before, but read this:
2: Make the ladder on the asian server play wo MBS, automine, smartcast and with a 24 unit selection cap.(Add a special dedicated hotkey to select next Waqrpgate, and other similar fixes to keep balance)
3: Make all other ladders include the UI stuff.
There, now the asian market is happy since they can spam train their macro moves just as before, while the western market is happy since they can focus more on micro.What would happen with international tournaments you guys might ask? Well, they aren't important to Korean e-sport as it is so we would use the western version to try to spark a bigger western following.
These 2 would need to be balanced induvidually ofcourse and since Blizzards strongest point is balance it shouldn't be a problem.
Now, what are the drawbacks aside from a heavier load on the balance team? Well, it splits the community somewhat, but the western and asian markets never integrated that well with each other anyway. And if you live in america/europe and want to play with the Old UI, you can play on the asian server just like the asians play on the US west server now.
This wouldnt work for obvious reasons. You cannot split people depending on their country of origin. Realeasing 2 versions of the game flat out would be better. So you load starcraft 2, and you get a choice, just like you get a choice between original and expansion in BW. You load up the old or new UI and all the balances that go with it.
|
Just to pose a question to the forum, why would it be bad that the games are closer? Wouldn't that be a benifit?
There cannot be a split in the community, the game has to either have MBS or not, but a stratification of the communtiy would ultimately destroy the game faster then MBS would (if indeed it would destroy it).
To clarify, yes, I did join this site to participate in the MBS discussion, I do see the merits of both sides of the issue, but have yet to make up my mind. No, I'm not actually almost famous, but thats my nick here and on other sites as well.
|
Why are we forced to play on the Asian server. It's not like only Korea wants an intense game. It's not their genes that makes them want an demanding game.
|
On January 27 2008 03:11 BlackStar wrote:
Why are we forced to play on the Asian server. It's not like only Korea wants an intense game. It's not their genes that makes them want an demanding game.
No, but most guys who don't want the UI stuff are in korea, and most who wants them are in europe/us. Its called tradition, its not like the guys here on TL have special genes compared to those at blizzard forums either. Its just to cause a minimal split in the community.
|
On January 27 2008 02:46 almostfamous wrote:
Just to pose a question to the forum, why would it be bad that the games are closer? Wouldn't that be a benifit?
Games are supposed to be close between people of equal skill, not people with significant differences in skill. Its a simple system where the better player is rewarded for being better, as he should be. It also makes the game more interesting. There is nothing fun about a game which looks close but really isnt.
|
Not only that. The game tests the skill of players. It's a bit like an IQ test. You need a special IQ test to test the IQ of people over 150. If you try to test their IQ with a normal test then you know their IQ is in the 140-220 range but nothing more because that IQ test is optimized for IQs around 100.
SC2 needs to be able to differentiate between the skill of a Class A progamer and a class D progamer.
The skill ceiling will asymptote at some point.
If all progamers are basically all class A+ players, with no significant difference inbetween them, then competition is pretty pointless.
One could say that SC asymptotes at the 1500 APM level, if we shallow things down to just APM for the sake of clarity. Around the 1500 APM level the graph of skill becomes horizontal. That means there is still a big difference between players with 300 APM or 400 APM. It's worth it to practice to get better. And your skill advantage will allow you to dominate. But practicing to get 2000 APM doesn't do much for you. You can play basically just as well with 'only' 1500. Luck will have a bigger effect on the outcome of the game then the skill difference.
With MBS the skill ceiling will be earlier. It will asymptote earlier. At the very top you just can't get much better and it's pointless to set up a professional team to improve play. It won't have much effect. The skill ceiling should clearly be superhuman. Just as it is humanly impossible to play a perfect chess game. Humans just can't play the strongest move in the most complex positions.
Right now players are still becoming better and better. Same is true in chess. Chess actually has a bit problem here. In a few years, maybe 25 or maybe 500, chess will be 'solved'. Computers will have found a forced draw for black in every opening worth playing. Players will just memorize these moves and play them out to see if their opponent fails at memorizing them. If not, it's a draw.
Look at how many old chess lines/openings have been refuted. Sure, still a long way to go. But someday chess will be solved. Just like tic-tac-toe where following 14 rules give you a forced draw no matter what.
What's the point of competition if you can't improve?
The analogy may not be perfect. But unlike SC, SC2 will be developed with esports in mind. So it makes no sense consciously take a step in the wrong direction, assuming casual players really want what they claim they want.
When the game is out I am sure that most of the pro-MBS people will pretty quickly either give up on the game or switch to the non MBS version. No way people will play the MBS version of the game for a decade.
|
On January 26 2008 16:34 MyLostTemple wrote:
Nal ra is the pro i've spoken to the most about this. We went out to the bar a few nights ago and he said that after playing the game at Blizzcon he thinks the new units and graphics are great. His only complaint was about the interface. He said that progamers will have less to train for with the computer playing the game for them. Becuase of that he thinks the gamer overall won't be anywhere near as competitve. But like most of the koreans i've spoken with, he still dosn't actually believe that blizzard will keep such features in the game because the negative outcome seems so obviuos.
This is exactly the kind of thing you should do if you want to truly convince Blizzard to change the interface. I'm also interested in what other Korean pro-gamers have to say. Please interview them (and post them) since you're probably one of the few people that are in the position to do so.
|
For anti-MBSers, do you have a problem with selecting multiple defensive structures, or just unit producing structures? I can understand (and could probably deal with) only unit producing structures being SBS, but it really isn't fun to select the defensive structures and tell them who to target one by one.
|
I doubt many people have a problem with selecting several phase cannons and focus firing with them.
And even if they do, it's a totally different issue that producton/macro.
It's that you don't need to go back to your base to produce units. You will only go back to your base to build new buildings. Or to your rally point. But if you manage your rally point properly you won't need to go back to your base for that either.
This damages multitasking and that's what makes Starcraft difficult, intense, demanding and fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
