| Forum Index > Closed |
LosingID8
CA10828 Posts
On January 27 2008 20:07 Unentschieden wrote: How would you feel if they removed HOTKEYS? That would raise APM to numbers previously unknown but woul it be good? taking away hotkeys would reduce current apm levels by about 1/3 to 1/2. if you analyze any good player's replay they generally have a ton of hotkey usage. cycling through hotkeys is much faster than mouse clicking. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On January 28 2008 02:06 LosingID8 wrote: taking away hotkeys would reduce current apm levels by about 1/3 to 1/2. if you analyze any good player's replay they generally have a ton of hotkey usage. cycling through hotkeys is much faster than mouse clicking. And MBS is faster than SBS. I don´t see how no Hotkeys would remove Actions. APM would be lower since you wouldn´t get as much done but you´d have to play faster to compensate. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On January 28 2008 01:55 Unentschieden wrote: Wait wasn´t that the point behind "macro" oriented playstiles, the one that MBS (supposedly) would remove? What exactly do you want to say? Please elaborate. That the execution element of macro in RTS games is just as essential as the aiming execution in FPS games. That's the analogy that works the best. Autoaim and MBS both reduce the execution skill required. And about both those execution based skills one can claim that they are unintelligent mechanical skills that ideally shouldn't be in a fun game. And MBS is faster than SBS. I don´t see how no Hotkeys would remove Actions. APM would be lower since you wouldn´t get as much done but you´d have to play faster to compensate. You don't understand how two hands are faster than one? Or what about 5 fingers vs 2 fingers? It's pretty obvious. Why don't you play a game with your mouse only and see how much your APM increases. (assuming you don't cheat by spamming) | ||
|
Klouvious
23 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
But since you can´t do as much as you could WITH hotkeys you have to think what you can do with the "Available APM". Hotkeys make the game easier. You get more done. But no one complains about that "noobification". Where are the Mouse-pros that are annoyed about the keyboard kiddies that can duplicate time intensive (parts of a second) actions with the press of a button? Nowhere. In fact SC(and others) are only theoretically competativly playable without a keyboard. Hotkeys take away mouse actions but they speedthe game up immensly. The game is balanced/timed around that. For pro MBSers MBS falls into the same category. MBS doesn´t do anything the player couldn´t do himself. It is just faster, and consequently the game itself would also be faster. And most importantly a lot more comfortable to play. Just like how playing without hotkeys may be more challenging but not fun. TL:DR Would you give up hotkeys if it made the game more competative? | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
People who are against MBS are saying that: Starcraft is at the optimum level of skill You try to make it any harder, it is ridiculous (removing hotkeys) You try to make it easy, it is homogenized...actually it's just homo (adding MBS etc) This is the only game left nowadays from the excellent style of TA and aok. People who like this level of skill want it to stay that way because it is PERFECT for them. It is, in fact, perfect RTS from a 3rd person PoV, imo; and from a competative angle. Clearly the difference between a pro and a noob is much bigger in SC than in AoE3. I could prove that easily...SO easily. It takes like a year to get top 100 in AoE if you play it constantly and have all the tactics. It takes like, what, 10 years to do that in SC with a small chance of success anyway? By freak chance this is the best RTS ever made, and that is why changing it in such a massively crushing way will never make it better. Right, that is all of the arguments like 'it lets you focus on strategy', 'it's just like having hotkeys', and 'it keeps as much skill in the game just redistributes it'. ---------------------------------now for the other, and clearly WORST argument------------------------------- Arguing that 'people won't move to this game' or 'Blizzard needs to appeal to the majority' is NOT PROPERLY ARGUING. The former is inconsequential, because everyone knows that skill players are attracted to skill games, not to MBS...FFS! The latter is NOT AN OPINION, it is a FACT. And this factual statement has nothing to do with whether blizzard SHOULD put mbs in. ------------------------------------------For my final point---------------------------------------------------------- Hell, maybe all true RTS players should just sit back and say 'well at least we have SC'. but you know fuck that...Blizzard has SO much money from WoW, why CAN'T they just give something back to the huge hardcore gaming commuity that has owned every singe game Blizzard has ever released (well except WoW I refuse) Imo Starcraft and Starcraft 2 are gona be the RTS equivalent of CS 1.6 and CS source. If it ain't broke, don't be a tard and fix it. But you can make it look pretty and put ribbons on it capiche?! Actually to repeat this so that everyone gets it: Starcraft is at the optimum level of skill Starcraft is at the optimum level of skill Starcraft is at the optimum level of skill Starcraft is at the optimum level of skill Starcraft is at the optimum level of skill | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
First point: This is not about noobs vs pros. We established that a couple pages back. If it's so easy to prove, then do it. War 3 has no macro but plenty of skill differentiation. Ergo, MBS isn't an instant killer of skill differentiation. Micro alone will cut the pros from the noobs. Starcraft is at an optimum level of UI is a good argument to make. You've taken a crappy argument about skill differentiation and a lot of capitol letters and bolding instead of actually thinking about the game you love and why it's great (and how the UI affects it). I'm not completely adverse to your point of view, but there is more depth than the level of competition. Think multi-tasking and the effectiveness of APM Your argument is shallow, though not necessarily wrong | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
All they want is a remake, not a sequel. After 10 years isn´t it time to take a risk and try something new? I´m not even saying that SC2 would be better with MBS. Just that no one should be afraid of change. A SC2 with MBS could be fun too. Many here fight the idea purely because it is different from SC. Blizzard should try to expand on the optimum. "Thouse that stop trying to become better stop being good." | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
It's about mental APM. Not about how quick your mouse is. But how quick your brain is. If you cut off the physical cap before you reach the mental cap then you will never be challenged to push forward your mental cap. And that's what is so fun about SC. So the more you can remove the physical APM limitation the better. That's why hotkeys are good. MBS does something entirely different. All they want is a remake, not a sequel. No. They want to Blizzard to fix what is broken and improve what can be improved. That's pretty obvious for a sequel. They don't want Blizzard to reinvent the wheel or innovate for the sake of innovating. Now, arguably this is what the UI automations are. But maybe Blizzard's intention really is to compromise by taking a step towards the casual players by making the game easier. | ||
|
Wraithlin
United Kingdom50 Posts
You could counter many arguments of the anti-MBS arguers by limiting the number of hotkeys How many hotkeys to you use ? I have heard more than once that many people will not use more than 5/6 hotkeys because they prefer not to have to use both sides of the keyboard if possible. How many hotkeys are needed to make MBS a problem? Lets try with PvT: 1) Gates 2) Robotics Facilities 3) Nexus 4) Stargate 4) Goons 5) Reavers 6) Dropships 7) Hightemplars 8) Carriers 9) Probes That setup would mean you can only produce 1 type of unit from gates or robos, if you wanted to produce a balanced army you would have to sbs or use more hotkeys. What happens if you were limited to 6 hotkeys (about as many as a large number of players would use anyway)? Well the MBS'er would be at a disadvantage to the SBS'er as, not only would he not be able to hotkey all the units in his army, he wouldnt be able to produce a balanced army. And if you were PvZ, we havent tried to hotkey corsairs, zealots, darktemplars. [e] HammerD posted everything that is wrong with most (not all) of the anti-mbs posters, they simply dont want any change and therefore are incapable of contributing constructively to a debate on UI improvements. [ee] Please do not waste time saying "If you hotkey like that you are a noob", it is suffiecnt to say that, if there are less hotkeys than you would require for optimal hotkeying (which is already true as Testie has gone in print saying he would like MORE hot keys) the MBS'er will have to lose Hotkeys for his army to keep buildings hotkeyed. Immediately using MBS has a disadvantage to help balance out the obvious advantages. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
1) Easier controls. It's clear that the vast majority of low-money SC players today heavily use the keyboard, and so it makes sense for Blizzard to want to simplify the keyboard controls so that it's easier to pick up and play with it. MBS, smartcasting, and customizable hotkeys serve the purpose of simplifying the keyboard controls. 2) Reduction of repetitive tasks. It would be difficult to argue that clicking on buildings or ordering each new worker to start mining is inherently fun, as these are tasks that are repetitive and relatively unchanging, thus leading to physical boredom on the part of the player. It's the mental challenges that emerge out of the multitasking demand of having to perform these tasks while dealing with everything else that make macro fun. However, that means that if it's possible to make macromechanical tasks that are dynamic and engaging, there's no reduction in multitasking by reducing the difficulty of completing these repetitive tasks. MBS (in the lategame), automining, and MUS, reduce their respective repetitive tasks. Now, this of course means that Blizzard will have to create new gameplay elements to fill the gap, as shown by warpgates, reactors/tech shops, merc havens, etc. I also gave three other macro-related tasks (mass mining, assisting, and adjacency bonuses) in response to BlackStar's request, to further give an idea of how macro-mechanics can be made more physically and mentally interesting. Those are the main two reasons, IMO, to implement MBS and the other UI changes. The effects of implementing these changes on the multitasking demand and feedback systems are simply emergent consequences that will have to be designed around. Multitasking is easier to deal with, since either increasing the game speed (either all around or by adding an additional level) or adding new features that require the player's attention to use effectively, or both, will bring the multitasking demand back up to par. MBS's effect on feedback systems is what I'm more worried about, since that's not as easy to work around. P.S. Incidentally, I saw many anti-MBSers saying that they loved playing Armies of Exigo in its S&G thread; for those who have played it, what did you like or not like about their implementation of MBS? | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On January 28 2008 05:37 BlackStar wrote: So the more you can remove the physical APM limitation the better. That's why hotkeys are good. MBS does something entirely different. I agree with you on every point expect that one. What exactly makes Macroing no longer take attention about MBS? Wrathling just made a great post explaining how MBS doesn´t automate production/make it a nonfacor etc... The art of Macroing is making economic/strategic desicions in the heat of the battle. That is the Multitasking aspect. You do need to change your attention from unit control over to resource management. It just takes less time/keystrokes. Maybe I missed something. Please explain how MBS removes/eases the mental pressue on the Player(that wants to be effective). Also please not the the Hotkey issue was just a example to show how a mechanic that makes a game easier to play can also make it more competative. Removing Hotkeys wouldn´t improve the game in any way. | ||
|
almostfamous
United States10 Posts
I actually just played against the computer in WC3 becuase I wanted to figure something about with MBS. I tried to play the game in entirety using my hotkeys with buildings to produce all units. So I could focus on micro more, and not have to leave my army. Well, I realized that it isn't feasable to not leave the army once in a while. Either to upgrade, move around my peasants, or check timers on items. Though I could produce units quickly, they still had to walk to my army. On this trip, a myriad of things could happen, between getting attacked by random enemies or creeps. When they made it to my army, they would often be ignored for a while (maybe because I'm not a pro) because they would blend in with the army. Of course they would, they are my units, and they are following my heroes around. It was extreemly difficult to set up new hotkeys while in battle because I had to focus more on the battle at the time than worry about my mistakes in the orginization of my army. Basically, what I'm trying to say is simple. If MBS is put in the game, even if you can keep up with unit building during the heat of battle while microing the actual battle, there will be a point when those units get to your army, and you must remember to hotkey them into the fold. The same problem I encountered in WC3 would undoubtably be amplified in SC because there are many many more units on the field in SC. So I'm sorry, but the 'you won't have to ever leave your screen' argument is totally moot, it is not feasable. There are not enough hotkeyes to collect all of your unit producing buildings, and it is most certainly not feasable to never leave your army. Though you could refute this by saying that there are enough lulls in the game that you could remedy your hotkey issues, but that is what seperates the wheat from the chaf in SC, people who can not only multi-task, but multi-task to the point where the computer in a mere extension of their will. A good player will only stop attacking long enough to reset their hotkeys, and I think with MBS, this aspect of the game will actually be closer to perfect than the original is. Also, to make things clear, I think auto mine is silly, it doesn't take long to do that at all. | ||
|
Klouvious
23 Posts
Starcraft is at the optimum level of skill or just : PERFECT then you probably don't really want Starcraft II and Starcraft is the perfect game for you. After all any change to something perfect will only make it imperfect. Maybe you want just a graphical upgrade of Starcraft but even that is debatable. Anyway, my point is that, althought any opinion is appreciated, very close-minded attitude can only harm the development of a new project such as Starcraft II. Personally I believe that most of the argumentation against Starcraft II's innovations, when compared to Starcraft, are rooted on either nostalgia or personal benefit. The nostalgic factor is pretty self-explainable. Most of the current players of Starcraft first played the game at an early age of 10-16, and since thats the age when childhood ignorance and lack of adulthood problems, cynicism, experience and outlook made everything seem more impressing, purer and better. After all everyone agrees that "back in the old days" : The grass was greener. The sunlight was warmer. People were better. Men were true men. Women were true women. RTS players were true RTS players. And spiky six-limbed creatures were true furry six-limbed creatures. Thus Starcraft being one of the first or the RTS game played by most of its current players has been engraved in their memories with the brightest colours. Of course the fact that it was a great game contributed a lot. Childhood memories are some of the fondest humans have and people go in great lengths in order not to dessecrate them. Since Starcraft was connected to them, many people have come to blindly believe that Starcraft is the "perfect" game and actively oppose anything that threatens to alter their vision of it, sometimes even overridding reason and common sence. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
that is less interesting than Shoot...run....build depot...run....spell...9g8v7v6t5t....run...shoot!!!! General Stan I'm not going to respond in kind to your attack but just look at my post on page 16...I already told about how awesome the multitasking and apm effectiveness is. @ Klouvious I am not a hardcore SC player from age 10, I have just got into it...but I am a big fan of RTS and I could tell just by finding this game that it is THE authority on skill and challenge. It is not a game for noobs to think they are good at. And WTF. How can that guy possibly state that that the argument has been won about noobs vs pros? The whole point is that YES there will still be a BIG difference betwixt noobs and pros, BUT the difference will be considerably LESS...just like all the dumbass games now. Become a top 200 in most games, 1-3 years. Become top 200 in Starcraft, lifetime. The argument for me is basically leave the game how it is and change things that really suck (very few) and just update the graphics. I personally don't have much of a problem with idle worker and points of players (like aoe3)...but much of the other stuff would just completely ruin what makes starcraft. The unique thing ABOUT starcraft is the non-MBS. Even if it was by fluke, that is the case. The optimum level of difficulty...so why the fuck should it be changed? Just make it look nicer, a few more units just like Broodwar, more maps and a better B.net interface. Then fix the pathing issues, DONT fix glitches like vultures squeezing through pylons, and sort it out eh. I swear next thing people are going to be justifying changing the fucking name to warcraft4...! | ||
|
Wraithlin
United Kingdom50 Posts
If you dont think SC can change for the better then, honestly, GTFO of a discussion about SC2 and just keep playing SCBW. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
Lack of MBS is obviously not unique...when the fuck did I say that? Starcraft is unique because it is a UNIQUE combination of GOOD innovations and LUCKY LIMITATIONS. Non-mbs was a limitation and it was lucky that it combined with everything else to make starcraft perfect. And for you I would suggest GTFO of this discussion if you just want another WC3 but with starcraft GFX. Clearly starcraft can change for the better...JUST THE WAY BW made it change for the better ie by adding units, smartening things up and giving it a fresh new vibe. Like better graphics and more strats. Not by raping macro potential. Why do you have to change the way the game works? Examples: GTA series, Soul Calibur series, Tekken series, Smash bros, Mario. You keep the core mechanics of the game (ie supreme macro and micro challenge) and then change the things like the units, the maps, the graphics, the pathing, the group sizes (maybe) and the music (although I expect the music will suck if it's anything like all other RTS games atm...stupid orchestral crap as opposed to genre-defining uber synth funk!) 1euso I like your points  | ||
|
Wraithlin
United Kingdom50 Posts
On January 28 2008 09:45 HamerD wrote: Lack of MBS is obviously not unique...when the fuck did I say that? You said it here: On January 28 2008 09:16 HamerD wrote: The unique thing ABOUT starcraft is the non-MBS. Even if it was by fluke, that is the case. Now how is MBS "rapeing macro potential". MBS does not eliminate a single player controlled event, it only reduces the APM requires to carry causes these events. It is not in any way reducing the amount of macro (defined here, by anti-mbs people, as multitasking), only the amount of keystrokes required to achieve that macro. Show me a single event that is automated by MBS (unlike automine which I am against). | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
On January 28 2008 09:16 HamerD wrote: Become a top 200 in most games, 1-3 years. Become top 200 in Starcraft, lifetime. I think this is primarily the case because of the Korean pro scene, and only because of this scene. Most games, even WC3, don't really have a reachable skill ceiling. There's always room for improvement. The important factor is how dedicated gamers are to reach this ceiling, how much they do train, and how hard the competition is. Look at Starcraft progaming 5 years ago. From today's standpoint, all these players would be considered noobs. Many players back then already started leaving and playing other games because they thought SC was boring, overplayed, and that there's nothing more to learn. But they were wrong. New maps appeared. APM became important (just name one of today's pros with less than 200 APM - you can't). Players became even better. Some players reach 500-600 APM. Games where both pros play safe and give their best turn into a 30-40 minute macro war. The Korean pro scene basically showed the whole world what was possible in SC and what still is possible. No other gamers are as dedicated, hardcore and crazy as them. If this scene wasn't there, SC would probably have died when WC3 was released. But that isn't the case. People can see what is possible, people can see what they have to train for. People want to become as good as them. So, independent of MBS or the game itself: if there's such an active and hardcore crowd in one country, then this game is being kept alive and skill will continue to evolve. If the Korean scene doesn't switch over to SC2, it may die within a few years. No one will know how good a player can become. The best players will think they have already reached the skill ceiling. The game will become boring. But MBS was not the problem. Other games simply don't have such a big player base and don't have such elite gamers who are constantly striving to become better because it's their job and their money depends on it. Because they are true pro gamers. No one else has the time or dedication necessary to become that good. That's why the skill gap is so high. Not because only SBS can allow such a thing, but because these players are so dedicated. In other games, there are only a few or no gamers at all who are so crazy. That's why these games seem to be "solved". I think that MBS will be a relative non-issue in pro vs pro play, as it will merely allow players to micro better and use more diverse strategies which might not be viable otherwise. But it will make the game much more enjoyable for casual and average gamers, who represent the majority of all players. These players will then be able to use more strategies, and use a more varied unit mix instead of constantly having to worry about how hard it is to move their 36 M&M. Maybe Protoss will not be the "noob race" anymore. In SC1, Protoss is the easiest race to play. On pro level it becomes hard though because you need very good timing, the right unit mix and you have to take care not to waste too many of your units. But on low levels, they are the easiest race because you don't need as much APM respectively your mechanics can be worse. One benefit MBS might bring is that Terran and Zerg might become just as easy to play. Protoss might not dominate the lower skill regions anymore. A good thing. Aren't most top foreigners Protoss, too? And almost no one is Terran? If that's true, things like MBS could change that. The short-term success of SC2 will only depend on how big the player base is (MBS should be in, or many casual players will think the game sucks), and the long-term success will depend on whether the Korean pro scene switches to SC2 or not. I hope they do. One other aspect one has to take into consideration is the generation of players. The majority of all SC1 players won't play SC2, or at least won't play it as competitively anymore. Because they are "old", have jobs or are studying, family, and not so much time anymore. SC2 is for the newer generation. Those who are 10-20 years old right now. This generation grew up with different games than us. They expect certain features in the game (like MBS), because all other games have them too, whether the games suck or not. Blizzard will have to go with the flow or risk producing a huge flop. And if there's almost no new players, the game will die, even if it's the most competitive game ever. It will just die. In any case. We need a new SC, and we need changes that come with it. Fundamental changes, like MBS. We need a new game, and we should be open-minded for things like MBS. I want a significantly different gameplay, or else I could just continue playing SC1. But I won't do that. I'm bored of it. I'm bored of the repetitive macro tasks. Give me something new. Blizzard has a lot of money, they can easily have a long development time, they can easily try out fundamental changes and balance them. They can hire progamers for testing. If MBS should turn out to suck, they could just add some gameplay aspects. Or they could just simply make the game slightly faster. This would totally solve all problems (if there are any). For example, they could introduce a third resource, or more terrain features which affect your units. Things like that could make the game more complex, so that a possible negative impact of MBS would be balanced out or made irrelevant. Make controls easier, but in return make the game more complex. That's all they would have to do if MBS turns out to be a problem. That would be the most intelligent solution, if you ask me. Everyone would win, the noobs and the pros. Everyone would have a fundamental new game, not just "yet another expansion pack". ---------------------------- Whew, huge post. I'm sorry if it's not well structured or anything. I just wrote what came to my mind while writing it. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On January 28 2008 10:14 Wraithlin wrote: You said it here: Now how is MBS "rapeing macro potential". MBS does not eliminate a single player controlled event, it only reduces the APM requires to carry causes these events. It is not in any way reducing the amount of macro (defined here, by anti-mbs people, as multitasking), only the amount of keystrokes required to achieve that macro. Show me a single event that is automated by MBS (unlike automine which I am against). Ok you pwnt me there buddy! Sorry for that little cock-up. I'm a tard for that  . My opinion is that various things were flukey or skillful that led to SC being mostly perfect from a gameplay aspect. There are parts of SC which are better than its contemporaries and parts which are better than current games. Not having MBS is a part of its unique character, it is not the reason for it having a unique character imo.Clearly MBS removes some macro and multitasking. The whole point of having 10 factories littered around 3 expos is made SO much harder without MBS that it almost boggles the mind to think that the multitasking involved isn't harder?! The clicking issue is something I already talked about, there is much more clicking involved in micro than in macro ANYWAY. It's the fact that you have to shift+F2 etc to get a really good macro going, you have to get up your multitasking by remembering where to go and what to click on, not actually by clicking because clicking is everywhere in the game and it's obvious. You don't click any less if you remove macro, you just get less diverse opportunities to click, because you have to clicky clicky JUST military micro. Like I said before shoot....move....shoot....press 4v5t...spell...retreat...shoot imo is lamer than shoot...move...look at base...click 4 buildings and press v...find other factory....make tank...shoot...move....retreat...find rax and starports...spell | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Sziky
Online Event
SC Evo League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
