|
Well I´m strictly against making the game needlesly unintuitive and clunky.
It isn´t as easy as complex= competative. What you want is strategic/tactical depht, a complex unit interaction design.
(Even that alone doesn´t make the game good, they seriously went overboard with the WC3 attack/armor types imho. I remember when they started with light/medium/heavy and normal/piercing/magic...)
Intuitivness has nothing to do with being simple. More than SBS i´m against the seemingly idea that simply making life harder for the player raises the skill ceiling and makes the game better.
I mean Queues made life A LOT easier for the players - and didn´t hurt competative play at all.
|
HamerD:
The amount of noobs in a game tells nothing about its competitive value.
By far the most noobs and idiots and lamers in all computer games are in Counter Strike. Guess why? Because it's the most popular multiplayer game ever. (Well, I'm not counting World of Warcraft here, which might be even more popular right now, I'm not sure).
More players = more noobs. WC3 has much more players than SC (except in Korea, probably). Problem solved.
SC also has a TON of noobs, because it's still popular.
If you want less noobs, go play WC2, it also has a harder UI than SC and is faster. It's a truly 31337 game compared to SC, please go play that.
|
Whoah whoah hold on!
1. I never argued that more players doesn't = more noobs. I said that more noobs /=/ MORE PROS.
2. I don't want less noobs than SC. SC is perfect. It is god, the fine wine. Just add more units to it and update the graphics and it is perfect! Do a bit of fiddling but don't change the general pace of the game and the general feeling of starcraft. But whatever...I'm not sure any of what I want is actually going to happen 
3. wc2<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< sc wtf are you talking about ¬¬
Unitshielden, (im editing and can't remember your exact sn ><)
I prefer that reason to support MBS than the previous reason you gave about it bringing more people into the game.
Though I still do not support MBS because I think the magic of seeing someone pull off macroing 10 barracks in different locations around a map whilst rushing 3 expos at the same time or something like that would be lessened.
But I do support Blizzard, so I guess it's down to us trusting them. It's obvious that they beat the living shit out of Ensemble Studios (aoe series)
|
On February 05 2008 09:41 HamerD wrote:
But I do support Blizzard, so I guess it's down to us trusting them. It's obvious that they beat the living shit out of Ensemble Studios (aoe series)
Amen!
|
Well, everyone starts out as a noob, so more initial players ("noobs") means that more pros will eventually arise from them. Don't underestimate the importance of a big player base. This is what makes or breaks a game. SC1 was not an "elite game" when it came out, it was simply a hugely popular RTS game, that's all, just like WC3.
I agree that we should trust Blizzard. They've stated that they want SC2 to have mostly SC's feel, and not WC3's, but still do some improvements. For casual and average players, MBS is an improvement that will make the game more fun. If MBS doesn't matter for pros (i.e. if they either don't use it at all because it gives them less control than they'd need), or if the time gained from having less to macro directly translates to better and more micro (meaning that there will be no noobification), then they should definately implement it.
But I'm quite sure that in the eyes of Blizzard, everything we discuss here (and in other forums) is worthless speculation, from both sides. If they even care to read it...
|
DEADBEEF,
Although I kind of agree with you, my point is that SC has all other games as its 'noobbase' from which it draws pros and skill players. So technically the base from which SC draws pros is like several games combined, because once they are serious and realise the 1337ness of SC they usually quit their game
Imo it's redundant, from a gamer's perspective, to try to appeal to noobs and non-serious gamers (who are the only people who WON'T be excited by all the hype around sc2), for any other reason than financial reasons, and we should not concern ourselves with finance, and in fact neither should Blizzard imo! Actually, if they want to charge for battle.net, then surely good players who aren't just impressed by flashy shit and that will stay for several years or more are the ones to appeal to.
I agree with your point about worthless speculation
|
On February 05 2008 12:09 HamerD wrote:DEADBEEF, Although I kind of agree with you, my point is that SC has all other games as its 'noobbase' from which it draws pros and skill players. So technically the base from which SC draws pros is like several games combined, because once they are serious and realise the 1337ness of SC they usually quit their game Imo it's redundant, from a gamer's perspective, to try to appeal to noobs and non-serious gamers (who are the only people who WON'T be excited by all the hype around sc2), for any other reason than financial reasons, and we should not concern ourselves with finance, and in fact neither should Blizzard imo! Actually, if they want to charge for battle.net, then surely good players who aren't just impressed by flashy shit and that will stay for several years or more are the ones to appeal to. I agree with your point about worthless speculation
Now try thinking about it from a game designers perspective.
How much support do you think SC2 would get if it sold 5000 copies outside of Korea ?
Saying that Blizzard should not worry about finance isnt naive, its down right fucking "la-la" land you are living in. Blizzard are in this for the money, no doubt they have already spent millions of dollars on SC2 and they want to recover that cost with interest on top.
|
There are some "points" that are really stopping this discussion imho (at least from a anti-MBS POV):
1. SC is perfect and any change is a degresson
2. Fighting the SC UI is a magic on it´s own (ok that´s partly #1)
3. Players won´t start playing SC2 competativly because they like the game but because it is competative
4. MBS completely removes the Macro aspect from the game
5. Blizzard doesn´t need money
6. SC2 doesn´t need to attract new players
I disagree with all of the above.
These points DO come up and I hope that at least some will understand how they hurt a discussion.
Oh and HamerD: Some have problems with my nick but up to now no one had mangled it like you did (honestly where did the l come from?) No hard feelings on that though.
My point on making the game attractive to more people and make it less clunky/unintuitive are basically the same.
|
On February 05 2008 20:10 Unentschieden wrote:There are some "points" that are really stopping this discussion imho (at least from a anti-MBS POV): 1. SC is perfect and any change is a degresson 2. Fighting the SC UI is a magic on it´s own (ok that´s partly #1) 3. Players won´t start playing SC2 competativly because they like the game but because it is competative 4. MBS completely removes the Macro aspect from the game 5. Blizzard doesn´t need money 6. SC2 doesn´t need to attract new players I disagree with all of the above. These points DO come up and I hope that at least some will understand how they hurt a discussion. Oh and HamerD: Some have problems with my nick but up to now no one had mangled it like you did (honestly where did the l come from?) No hard feelings on that though. My point on making the game attractive to more people and make it less clunky/unintuitive are basically the same.
Sigh, Dont know why im even bothering to do this.
1. SC is not perfect but its damn near close. Most changes to something that is close to perfect are going to be bad, but there are some good changes that can be made. MBS is not one of these.
2. "Fighting the SC UI" as you call it is what 90% of computer games are all about. Micro in starcraft is also fighting the UI, trying to aim a gun in an FPS is fighting the UI.
3. Players will not bother playing a game competatively if it is not considered competative by the community. This is why we dont see tic tac toe championships. Blizzard will get millions playing this game, good competition will only occur if the game is seen by the players as competative.
4. It removes a very large portion of macro. Along with Automine and I would estimate a number around 80% of macro removed. This could be proved if someone was willing to put in the work.
5. Lets say blizzard sells 10 million copies of Starcraft 2. In 4 months WoW will have brought in more money. Starcraft 2 has been in production for years. Making money at this point for blizzard is a side-effect from making a great game. NOT the driving force behind starcraft 2.
6. Ive never seen anyone post this before. Starcraft 2 will attract new players regardless of MBS or SBS. If your argument is that Starcraft 2 will flop because it doesnt have MBS, then you are truely not worth the time spent typing to rebut.
To sum it up. Youve gone and exaggeratted comments from anti-MBS'ers and then claimed that that is their arguments. This is a form of strawman arguing.
|
This thread is stupid....
|
On February 05 2008 21:10 Fen wrote:
To sum it up. Youve gone and exaggeratted comments from anti-MBS'ers and then claimed that that is their arguments. This is a form of strawman arguing.
Please read my post again. Closely. I stated that the given "arguments" ARE extragated discussion blockers. All of them DID come up at one point or another, derailing the discussion. None of your rebuttals simply agree and they have actuall REASONS (we want this) attached to them. That is how a discussion should be.
Now we can actually speak about the points.
For example MBS removes 80% of the macro:
First we need to actually figure out what Macro is compromised of.
First, I´d say is harvesting resources. The skill in that would be to figure out how many peons you need at a given time and send them actually doing something. How much of macro is that? Lets say... 20%, expansions are part of this.
Next would be buildings. This has a major effect on the game (proxy, expanding, strategy etc.), so I´d give it 40%.
Then there is teching, all these expensive upgrades etc. ~20% since most of the units are useless without upgrades (later on)
The final (imho) part would be the actuall units, the deciding on them and actually building them. that would be the last 40%.
To make it simple lets pretend both of these parts are equally important, so building units gets 20%
To build optimally you shoudn´t queue up and build as soon as you have the needed resources. Depending on your strategy you might want to build the same unit at the same time in several buildings. Lets be really generous and say we build like that 1/3rd of the time. That would be 1/3 of the 20% of Macro concerned with building units.
That is the part actually effected by MBS.
Feel free to post you opinion or ideally a counterreasoning. It isn´t much work, you must have had a base for your 80% number right?
|
On February 05 2008 21:10 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2008 20:10 Unentschieden wrote:There are some "points" that are really stopping this discussion imho (at least from a anti-MBS POV): 1. SC is perfect and any change is a degresson 2. Fighting the SC UI is a magic on it´s own (ok that´s partly #1) 3. Players won´t start playing SC2 competativly because they like the game but because it is competative 4. MBS completely removes the Macro aspect from the game 5. Blizzard doesn´t need money 6. SC2 doesn´t need to attract new players I disagree with all of the above. These points DO come up and I hope that at least some will understand how they hurt a discussion. Oh and HamerD: Some have problems with my nick but up to now no one had mangled it like you did (honestly where did the l come from?) No hard feelings on that though. My point on making the game attractive to more people and make it less clunky/unintuitive are basically the same. Sigh, Dont know why im even bothering to do this. 1. SC is not perfect but its damn near close. Most changes to something that is close to perfect are going to be bad, but there are some good changes that can be made. MBS is not one of these. 2. "Fighting the SC UI" as you call it is what 90% of computer games are all about. Micro in starcraft is also fighting the UI, trying to aim a gun in an FPS is fighting the UI. 3. Players will not bother playing a game competatively if it is not considered competative by the community. This is why we dont see tic tac toe championships. Blizzard will get millions playing this game, good competition will only occur if the game is seen by the players as competative. 4. It removes a very large portion of macro. Along with Automine and I would estimate a number around 80% of macro removed. This could be proved if someone was willing to put in the work. 5. Lets say blizzard sells 10 million copies of Starcraft 2. In 4 months WoW will have brought in more money. Starcraft 2 has been in production for years. Making money at this point for blizzard is a side-effect from making a great game. NOT the driving force behind starcraft 2. 6. Ive never seen anyone post this before. Starcraft 2 will attract new players regardless of MBS or SBS. If your argument is that Starcraft 2 will flop because it doesnt have MBS, then you are truely not worth the time spent typing to rebut. To sum it up. Youve gone and exaggeratted comments from anti-MBS'ers and then claimed that that is their arguments. This is a form of strawman arguing.
Where does this 80% number come from ?
Its completely made up and honestly not even close, MBS affects probably closer to 5-10% of macro.
Example: Nada vs Upmagic where the switched to FPV, both players were able to produce rfom all their buildings un under 2 seconds even in the late game, thats 2seconds out of every 30 or so, less than 10% of their macro was unit building.
Macro tasks, Astrix indicates they are reduced by MBS.
Building workers*
Directing workers to mine
Directing workers to build structures
Buiding upgrades
Building units*
Scouting (micro and macro, but here I refer to things like scanner sweeps etc where you look about the map rather than the micro part of directing your scout)
So, thats a fair bit less than 80%
|
Lol Wraithlin.
I swear that my and his post was made at the same time, so the ~5-10% number was reached from 2 completely unrelated reasonings at the same time. That somewhat supports our number doesn´t it?
|
On February 05 2008 22:21 Wraithlin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2008 21:10 Fen wrote:On February 05 2008 20:10 Unentschieden wrote:There are some "points" that are really stopping this discussion imho (at least from a anti-MBS POV): 1. SC is perfect and any change is a degresson 2. Fighting the SC UI is a magic on it´s own (ok that´s partly #1) 3. Players won´t start playing SC2 competativly because they like the game but because it is competative 4. MBS completely removes the Macro aspect from the game 5. Blizzard doesn´t need money 6. SC2 doesn´t need to attract new players I disagree with all of the above. These points DO come up and I hope that at least some will understand how they hurt a discussion. Oh and HamerD: Some have problems with my nick but up to now no one had mangled it like you did (honestly where did the l come from?) No hard feelings on that though. My point on making the game attractive to more people and make it less clunky/unintuitive are basically the same. Sigh, Dont know why im even bothering to do this. 1. SC is not perfect but its damn near close. Most changes to something that is close to perfect are going to be bad, but there are some good changes that can be made. MBS is not one of these. 2. "Fighting the SC UI" as you call it is what 90% of computer games are all about. Micro in starcraft is also fighting the UI, trying to aim a gun in an FPS is fighting the UI. 3. Players will not bother playing a game competatively if it is not considered competative by the community. This is why we dont see tic tac toe championships. Blizzard will get millions playing this game, good competition will only occur if the game is seen by the players as competative. 4. It removes a very large portion of macro. Along with Automine and I would estimate a number around 80% of macro removed. This could be proved if someone was willing to put in the work. 5. Lets say blizzard sells 10 million copies of Starcraft 2. In 4 months WoW will have brought in more money. Starcraft 2 has been in production for years. Making money at this point for blizzard is a side-effect from making a great game. NOT the driving force behind starcraft 2. 6. Ive never seen anyone post this before. Starcraft 2 will attract new players regardless of MBS or SBS. If your argument is that Starcraft 2 will flop because it doesnt have MBS, then you are truely not worth the time spent typing to rebut. To sum it up. Youve gone and exaggeratted comments from anti-MBS'ers and then claimed that that is their arguments. This is a form of strawman arguing. Where does this 80% number come from ? Its completely made up and honestly not even close, MBS affects probably closer to 5-10% of macro. Example: Nada vs Upmagic where the switched to FPV, both players were able to produce rfom all their buildings un under 2 seconds even in the late game, thats 2seconds out of every 30 or so, less than 10% of their macro was unit building. Macro tasks, Astrix indicates they are reduced by MBS. Building workers* Directing workers to mine Directing workers to build structures Buiding upgrades Building units* Scouting (micro and macro, but here I refer to things like scanner sweeps etc where you look about the map rather than the micro part of directing your scout) So, thats a fair bit less than 80%
Sigh, did you notice that you didnt actually debate my point?
If you thought you did, lets look again.
I stated that it was my opinion that 80% of macro would be taken away if MBS and Automine were added.
You responded by claiming that my 80% number was made up (which it was, I admitted that in my post), and totally wrong.
You then used an example of which you yourself made a mistake in. Did Nada only spend 2 of every 30seconds he macroed building units??? I never knew building new buildings was just soo time consuming,
You then continued listing things that only MBS would effect where my argument applied to both the effects of automining and MBS.
And finally you finished up with a number of 10%, which you just pulled out of your head as well, but expect everyone to agree with you because your the god of starcraft.
In short, learn to argue a point.
|
On February 05 2008 22:14 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2008 21:10 Fen wrote:
To sum it up. Youve gone and exaggeratted comments from anti-MBS'ers and then claimed that that is their arguments. This is a form of strawman arguing. Please read my post again. Closely. I stated that the given "arguments" ARE extragated discussion blockers. All of them DID come up at one point or another, derailing the discussion. None of your rebuttals simply agree and they have actuall REASONS (we want this) attached to them. That is how a discussion should be. Now we can actually speak about the points. For example MBS removes 80% of the macro: First we need to actually figure out what Macro is compromised of. First, I´d say is harvesting resources. The skill in that would be to figure out how many peons you need at a given time and send them actually doing something. How much of macro is that? Lets say... 20%, expansions are part of this. Next would be buildings. This has a major effect on the game (proxy, expanding, strategy etc.), so I´d give it 40%. Then there is teching, all these expensive upgrades etc. ~20% since most of the units are useless without upgrades (later on) The final (imho) part would be the actuall units, the deciding on them and actually building them. that would be the last 40%. To make it simple lets pretend both of these parts are equally important, so building units gets 20% To build optimally you shoudn´t queue up and build as soon as you have the needed resources. Depending on your strategy you might want to build the same unit at the same time in several buildings. Lets be really generous and say we build like that 1/3rd of the time. That would be 1/3 of the 20% of Macro concerned with building units. That is the part actually effected by MBS. Feel free to post you opinion or ideally a counterreasoning. It isn´t much work, you must have had a base for your 80% number right?
Well how about you deconstruct my reasoning next? Automine only affects sending peons to work, so if we are generous that is another 10%, so in a really really worst case scenario both MBS and Automine would affect <20% of the whole Macro.
|
In my opinion the anti-MBS arguments don't hold any numerical weight.
It's the sort of thing that you have to think about for a bit..."will it make a difference?" and then after a bit of thought you realise no it wont.
Just imagine SC1 with MBS.... If I played a pro-gamer would I suddenly stand more of a chance?
Well no, I'd lose before I even got to more than 3 Hatcheries. And even then I wouldn't want to select them all at once. I'd have them on separate hot-keys so I can produce my drones mainly from my main and expo hatch and then attacking units from my middle hatch. The obvious difference in skill level wouldn't be diminished by this addition.
However, when I play my brother at home and we get to end-game battles the addition of MBS would make the game more exciting as we can produce units faster. The person with the highest APM would still win (me!) as I micro better and can attack from different angles etc...
Without MBS you could argue there is less skill. What if my brother attacks me just as I F2 back to my main Hatchery batch to queue up some extra units or flick to a new expansion to make some drones? He couldn't of planned that timing, but by a fluke he caught me off guard and with me unable to micro he could win the battle.
Even pro-gamers can be fractions of a second late on micro because they happened to be looking elsewhere.
SC2 doesn't have to be exactly the same as SC1 to be good. There is a large fear (justified I feel) that the game won't live up to expectations, but if it does flop it won't have anything to do with MBS. Balance and cheesiness will have a far far far far higher effect on whether the game will be competitively played or not.
|
Unentschieden the impression I'm getting is that you deliberately ignore the solid arguments presented by the anti MBS side, then nit pick on something poorly written and extrapolate it to mean something else. If you want to argue, address the real issues, instead of trying to "win" the argument by trying to be clever.
As always, like every other pro MBS person, you completely fail to acknowledge that macro and micro are heavily inter linked and that massively changing one will massively change the other as well. This concept has been explained over and over, yet you fail to acknowledge it, and your posts assume that macro is a completely isolated aspect of SC, changing which will not affect anything else. This is NOT SO. You reduce the time investment required for macro, you increase the time available for all other actions. Macro depends on micro, and micro depends on macro.
Unless you acknowledge the true role macro in its current form plays, you can form no real argument for the inclusion of MBS in SC2.
And if we are simplifying macro so much, why not simplify micro as well? How would you react to MUM or multiple unit micro or something? Imagine being able to micro large armies perfectly with two clicks. Would that be fun to you? The unit mix still has to be decided. You still have to hotkey. You still have to position your army. You still have to decide when to attack. All I'm taking out is the micro during the battle. Thats like, umm, 10%. 90% of the micro still remains.
Micro and macro both require mental and physical skills. The clicking portion is the physical skill, but its nature is such that it stresses the mental portion as well. Read some earlier posts to understand why macro being a time requiring task plays a vital role in decision making.
If SC2 excludes MBS, some dumbass reviews might list this as a "con" at the end of their review. Will they rate SC2 a poor game? Hell no. It will still rate 9+ on every single review. Anyone who has a liking for RTS games, be it SC, warcraft, CnC or whatever, IS GOING TO BUY SC2. There is no question, SC2 will sell like hot cakes. The question is, will it last? Will it have enough depth in it to survive ten years? Will it further the pro scene? Including MBS will kill macro, it will kill a lot of decision making, it will kill a lot of the tense atmosphere of SC games, it will heavily decrease the importance of time, it will make minimap awareness easier, it will make harass harder, it will do a ton of things that you have no clue about.
|
I can't bother to reply in this thread anymore. I just want to point out that Klieve is wrong about Zerg macro, I mean totally wrong. With Zerg you'r supposed to create either Drones only with all Hatcheries or fighting units only, at least most of the time. The reason behind that is quite simple - half an army & half an economy won't do you any good, it's useless - both of them. So as a result of that reasoning, you won't be willing to group your Hatches separately.
Also queues did not alter the competitive side of the game because, ideally, you shouldn't use them because you lose money you could've spent elsewhere when you queue units up. MBS doesn't have any such drawbacks.
|
On February 05 2008 23:34 Klive5ive wrote:
In my opinion the anti-MBS arguments don't hold any numerical weight.
It's the sort of thing that you have to think about for a bit..."will it make a difference?" and then after a bit of thought you realise no it wont.
Just imagine SC1 with MBS.... If I played a pro-gamer would I suddenly stand more of a chance?
Well no, I'd lose before I even got to more than 3 Hatcheries. And even then I wouldn't want to select them all at once. I'd have them on separate hot-keys so I can produce my drones mainly from my main and expo hatch and then attacking units from my middle hatch. The obvious difference in skill level wouldn't be diminished by this addition.
Another pointless comparison. If I suddenly got dribbling skills as good as Michael Jordans, would I own him at basketball? Hell no. He would beat me silly. The only conclusion we can draw is that there are factors OTHER than dribbling skills that play a role, and I'm vastly inferior to MJ in those. Unless, of course, we are totally stupid, and conclude that dribbling plays no role in basketball. So is dribbling not important then? Ofc it is, but the comparison is completely stupid, and deliberately chosen to prove a point because no real argument exists.
Now suppose my brother is slightly better than me at basketball, and I get MJ's dribbling skills. I would rape him silly. While the first example seemed to prove dribbling skill is useless, this one proves the opposite.
What MBS will do is shallow down the skill range. There will still be better and worse players, nobody is denying that, and that is why comparing myself to Nada is just plain dumb. But you can imagine that everyone on iccup ranks C- to B+ or something will become roughly equal in terms of skill. Will this damage the life of the game? YES. Why? Because when people play, they do want to get better. With MBS, the returns for effort in terms of getting better will be massively diminished, hence heavily discouraging people from continuing to play. This might seem ridiculous to you, but Starcraft proves this. Ten years on, its still being played tons. In the pro scene, this shallowing of skill will be even more massively felt. With macro reduced to a mere two clicks every few minutes, all pros will end up being roughly as good as each other. Its obvious why this would be bad.
|
On February 06 2008 00:05 Gandalf wrote:
Unless you acknowledge the true role macro in its current form plays, you can form no real argument for the inclusion of MBS in SC2.
Well let me say the same to you. We obviously have completely different ideas about the "true" role of macro. Micro and Macro obviously interact with each other, don´t lay words in my mouth.
Also the old rebuttal "if you make that easier why not automate everything" doesn´t bring the discusson forward one bit. Just like it would be to say that we should bring Dune2s UI back as counterexample - extremes are bad arguments.
Arguing that the time pressue for proper macro is needed for a competative game - ok. But MBS does NOT make PROPER Macro any easier. MBS is too restrictive to be optimal for competative play. Thats why I usually compare it to queueing, that has a even worse potentional to "break" Macro - but it didn´t. They are handy but the (arbitary) "Tax" kept it from lessening the Macrostrain on competative games. For beginners with 10k+mins in their treasuries they are nice but useless for perfectionalists.
On February 06 2008 00:24 maybenexttime wrote:
Also queues did not alter the competitive side of the game because, ideally, you shouldn't use them because you lose money you could've spent elsewhere when you queue units up. MBS doesn't have any such drawbacks.
I think that MBS WILL get a more or less reasonable drawback that makes it less usefull for perfectionalists. Otherwise, yes MBS could change gameplay substantionally. But Blizzard officially anounced that they would counterbalance the "ease" of the new UI (including unlimited selection, MBS, Automine, Lazy Peon Button...).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
