|
On December 24 2007 07:56 ForAdun wrote:
The few who tried arguing had to accept loads of counter-arguments without a word of protest, the others where more intelligent and argued that MBS & Co. is important for other things than competition. But we've seen well-founded reasons why MBS has no effect on entertainment and selling numbers.
This is not true. It ended with kind of a standstill/flame war, with each side believing that they had won. Also, those "other things" directly tie into the success of competition in more ways than one, but it's not worth discussing again.
On December 24 2007 07:56 ForAdun wrote:
All in all, we're still waiting for an argument pro-MBS that nobody can refute.
But we do already have several arguments anti-MBS that are still undisputed.
Not true. There are a couple of good unrefutable arguments from each side, but its the magnitude of benefit/disadvantages that are really in dispute. It's just that these same tired arguments have been repeated so many times that it's not worth bringing up anymore. Only way to be certain of the end result is through extensive beta testing.
|
On December 24 2007 10:04 Motiva wrote:
MBS simply reduces the stress on the keyboard oriented skill set. Does this make the game easier? Maybe for the person who had 4 fingers and has spent an equal amount of time practicing as a 5 fingered person.
Thank you very much. MBS makes the game easier.
|
On December 24 2007 17:48 ForAdun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2007 10:04 Motiva wrote:
MBS simply reduces the stress on the keyboard oriented skill set. Does this make the game easier? Maybe for the person who had 4 fingers and has spent an equal amount of time practicing as a 5 fingered person. Thank you very much. MBS makes the game easier.
LOL  You can't prove that!
|
Do I really need to underline the parts where you say that MBS makes the game easier?
|
no one important reads this thread -_-a
|
On December 24 2007 17:48 ForAdun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2007 10:04 Motiva wrote:
MBS simply reduces the stress on the keyboard oriented skill set. Does this make the game easier? Maybe for the person who had 4 fingers and has spent an equal amount of time practicing as a 5 fingered person. Thank you very much. MBS makes the game easier.
I think you two are arguing past each other; certainly, by making macro mechanics simpler, MBS reduces the learning curve, which makes the game 'easier'. However, an easier SC2 does not necessarily equal a less competitive SC2; that, I believe, is Motiva's point.
|
[Story]
A week ago, I went over to a friends house. While we were chilling out, I noticed my friend had 2 guitar hero controllers. It turns out his brother bought them and he played quite often. I thought, great, my neighbour has guitar hero and I decided to challenge his brother to a game.
Now the rules of engagement were that we were playing for 10 dollars. Neither of us had seen the other play. He chose first song, I chose second song, and then we were going to flip a coin for the 3rd song if it came to that.
First off, he chose a song on medium mode. This surprised me, as I am quite decent on hard mode, but its his choice so we played. I won by a couple thousand points (A small margin for ppl who dont know guitar hero). I hit about 97% of the notes, he hit about 95%. My friend at this point noted "wow you guys are really close".
Now it was my turn to choose a song. I chose a song on hard mode. About 3 minutes later I was standing there victorious, with double my opponents score. I hit about 90% of the notes, he only hit about 75%. I made my ten dollars and secured my rightful place, as guitar hero master at my friends house
[/Story]
Ok, so this doesnt seem to relate to Starcraft at all. However what it does show, is the effects of lowering the skill ceiling in a game. On medium mode, neither of us were perfect. If we were the best two guitar hero players in the world, some people here would be arguing that we should make guitar hero even easier because the best in the world can't perfect it. Obviously something you dont want to do.
The reason why medium mode was so close, was that the game was being dictated by our mistakes. For most of the song, we were both on a 4x multiplier. Any mistake we made, just missing a single note meant that you broke the multiplier and was devestating. The winner in that game wasnt nessecceraly the best, just the person who made the least mistakes. This is not what we want in a game. Due to the fact that we were so near perfection, a simple little slipup could have cost us the entire game. And lets face facts, mistakes happen for everyone. In starcraft, when a mistake is made, it sucks, but its not the end of the game, unless its something really collossal. Little mistakes happen all the time thoughout the game, but due to the fact that even the best are still soo far from perfection, those mistakes can easily be recitfied. The closer we get to perfection/the easier the game is, the more a mistake will mess up your game.
Now I am rightfully a better player than my friend's brother. But had I of sneezed, missed a note due to lack of concentration etc. I could have lost the game. And how frustrated would I have been losing a competition like that due to a simple little mistake.
So lets put this into an example. Player X knows that there is a chance he will be dropped from a certain angle. To couteract this, he sends an observer to a spot where the enemies dropship will have to go, giving him early detection of the drop. Unfortuantly, he misses the spot where he was supposed to click his observer by a small margin, and the dropship passes just outside of range of the observer's sight. Player X thinking he is safe, moves his army out, the drop happens and player X gets his expo destroyed. 5 mins later, the game is over and player X GG's
We go back and anylise this game. We see that the crucial turning point was the drop. And that Player X made an assumption based on a misplaced observer. A small mistake, but ultimately it costs him the game. How would this player feel, knowing that a small mistake cost him the entire game. Frustrated I bet, espeically if he is a better player than his opponent.
Now people are going to debate this example and not the argument itself, so im going to try and head you off now.
Losing an expo in starcraft doesnt mean the end of the game, players often come back from this situation. This is due to the dynamics of the macro system. The more stuff you have to macro, the less efficient you are macroing. This means that a player who has a smaller base, is using it more effectively.
This principle will also carry over into many other examples, such as accidently moving your troops into a tank line. Sure you might lose a few units, but as long as there is a system like macro that allows you to recoup those losses, this little mistake will not cost you the game.
In the hard mode game (we're back at the guitar hero game). The game ceased being decided by mistakes. When we got multipliers, they didnt last long. We were missing notes left right and center, but every mistake was not punished like it was the end of the world. In the end, I was able to hit more notes, keep more combos. Instead of my win coming from less mistakes, it came from better play, the things I did right, instead of the things I did wrong. These are slightly different things, but change the empahsis of a game a lot.
Also in the hard mode battle. It was obvious who was the better player in the hard mode game. For an onlooker, for the players, everyone in the room could tell, yes I was the better player. This is important. I see a lot of arguments saying, we dont want the noobs to get crushed because it hurts their feelings. Its important that if you are a lot better then your opponent, that you can crush him like a bug. Thats the payoff for the person who plays starcraft competatively. Not the playing of really intense games, that happens at all skill levels. Its the prestige and glory that comes from knowing yourself, and everyone else knowing that if you took on a random noob, it would be a sheer walkover. It wouldnt be a win where he just made more mistakes. It would be a win, where you were doing everything right, and he just had no counter for it.
Anyways if you read this far, Im surprised. Thats a pretty bloody long post. These are my thoughts on the effect of lowering the skill ceiling. As you can see, there is more to lowering a skill ceiling than just "can someone get a perfect game, if not then its ok". It effects every game, in my opinion, for the worst.
Merry Christmas everyone
|
MBS is like underwater basket weaving above the water and from my personal experience I can say that underwater basket weaving above the water is totally not cool!
|
@Fen
Well you make some decent points but I don't think they're anything we should be concerned about within Starcraft 2.
Medium mode on guitar hero brings up the issue that when a game is dumbed down and at the same time very linear then two players of vaguely similar skill level might appear to be closer in skill level then they are.
You argue this is bad because it comes down to the mistakes ect ect. Sneezeing could cost you a game ect.
Well I'd argue that the better player wouldn't make less mistakes regardless, and 1 match shouldn't be used to determine skill levels by anyone hence sneezing makes much less of a difference.
I would also point out that Starcraft only has 1 difficulty mode and similar things to your medium mode experience already happen within starcraft. Playing on iccup yesterday i was able to stay alive for 20 minutes against a player far greater than me. Our scores were fairly close but he was certainly substantially better than me. Due to luck and sufficient micro skills I was able to stay in the game for 20 minutes, but due to map control and superior strategy he was able to clearly win it just took a longer time than it might of on say... a different map or with different races or even a fricken rematch... He was prolly a whole letter grade better than me on iccup.
I think the skill difference will be obvious within SC2 as it is within SC, this is accomplished by an unachievable skill ceiling which MBS does not prevent. That doesn't mean a subpar player can't put up a good fight against a par player... 1 Game is not a measure of definite skill like it is in Guitar Hero (although the obvious is still obvious within SC)
The other difference I would like to point out is that Guitar Heros skill ceiling is very well defined and easy to understand... Within the world of Starcraft there is far too much going on to even define the skill ceiling beyond a certain metagame.
@ForAdun
lol. Feel free to underline the points to where i state that MBS makes the game mechanics easier to utilize. Please also underline the points where I argue how this doesn't necessarily make the game easier (If the game is identical to SC it makes it easier but we're talking about a different game right?) Also read 1esu's post.
eh
Good Day.
|
Its 3 am on christmas day, I need to go to bed, so Ill make this quick
On December 25 2007 02:28 Motiva wrote:
Well I'd argue that the better player wouldn't make less mistakes regardless, and 1 match shouldn't be used to determine skill levels by anyone hence sneezing makes much less of a difference.
Mistakes happen. Im confident that I could win a single point against the best tennis player in the world, given a bit of time, just due to the fact that they will inevitably make a mistake. Humans make mistakes. Its important that the game does not punish a person too harshly for minor mistakes. By lowering the skill ceiling, and therefore bringing players closer to perfection, mistakes are much more damaging to a player than they would be in a game with a higher skill ceiling.
As for 1 match shouldn't be used to determine skill. I agree, 1 match is inconclusive. However that doesnt change the fact that tournaments will still run 1 game only until it gets to final levels. So while we can say that, it is important that a better player will always have an advantage.
Our scores were fairly close but he was certainly substantially better than me. Due to luck and sufficient micro skills I was able to stay in the game for 20 minutes, but due to map control and superior strategy he was able to clearly win it just took a longer time than it might of on say... a different map or with different races or even a fricken rematch... He was prolly a whole letter grade better than me on iccup.
Well this makes sense. He is better than you. Now you survived for longer than you should have, but you still state that he clearly won. Score doesnt mean a whole lot in starcraft. Its the game that matters, and he clearly beat you, which is the way it should have gone if he was a substantially better player than you.
Just to sum up my argument, lower skill ceiling leads to harsher penatlies for mistakes. Games should aim to use the players correct actions to determine the better player, not the wrong actions.
To lololol: You're a 12 year old child. If you dont have anything helpful to add to the discussion, please just go away.
|
Well
Point 1:
You can not DEFINITELY state that MBS lowers the skill ceiling, you can state that it lowers the learning curve. With new cliff mechanics, dropship mechanics, unit types, build orders, and any and everything else different within the game, everything we know about the current metagame is hogwash and we also can't really say much about timing, expansion viability timing, the advantage of this or that. It's foolish to say definitely that MBS is bad, hence We should test it and should not form definite views on that which is in development.
Point 2:
Why should games aim to reward the good instead of punish the bad? This logic doesn't make any sense to me. I would think you would want some of both. Both games seem to do both fairly well.
I'm going to assume that this ties into MBS in the sense that because SBS requires more actions thus there is more room for potential mistakes. That's all dandy, but while we do want to punish the bad as well as reward the good there is still the matter of what skill sets should the game test? It's not like MBS removes or lowers the skill ceiling from multitasking and reaction time. Do we want the game to test your ability to perform 125+ Macro actions per minute on the keyboard... Or do we want the game to progress more towards the testing of your strategic mind, multitasking, knowledge, and reaction time?
|
On December 25 2007 03:11 Fen wrote:Its 3 am on christmas day, I need to go to bed, so Ill make this quick Show nested quote +On December 25 2007 02:28 Motiva wrote:
Well I'd argue that the better player wouldn't make less mistakes regardless, and 1 match shouldn't be used to determine skill levels by anyone hence sneezing makes much less of a difference. Mistakes happen. Im confident that I could win a single point against the best tennis player in the world, given a bit of time, just due to the fact that they will inevitably make a mistake. Humans make mistakes. Its important that the game does not punish a person too harshly for minor mistakes. By lowering the skill ceiling, and therefore bringing players closer to perfection, mistakes are much more damaging to a player than they would be in a game with a higher skill ceiling. As for 1 match shouldn't be used to determine skill. I agree, 1 match is inconclusive. However that doesnt change the fact that tournaments will still run 1 game only until it gets to final levels. So while we can say that, it is important that a better player will always have an advantage.
I'll make a point here, do you realize that sbs adds around as much random luck as it adds skill differentiation? I mean, sbs could quite easily be compared to the challange of guitar hero(Wich means that there is very few % difference between the good players) but it also gives you spots were you can miss enemy moves at which means that you can lose just because you got caught right during an sbs sequence.
|
On December 24 2007 10:04 Motiva wrote:
MBS simply reduces the stress on the keyboard oriented skill set. Does this make the game easier? Maybe for the person who had 4 fingers and has spent an equal amount of time practicing as a 5 fingered person.
The last sentence says that "MBS maybe makes the game easier for the person who had 4 fingers".
Why can't we just leave out the 'maybe'? I think this is alright because if that wasn't your opinion you would not have said it, right?
I'll reduce that to "MBS easens the game for handicapped persons".
I think everyone here agrees to me that a 4-fingered person is weaker than a 5-fingered person if both their fingers are equally skilled, so I consider the 4-fingered person to be weaker.
Should be fine then if I translate that into "MBS easens the game for weaker players".
I've obviously reduced your statement a bit, but your original message is still there, correct? And this is where I found you saying that MBS makes the game easier.
Feel free to claim that my argumentation is that of a child but I already see you having a hard time to refute it.
On December 25 2007 08:59 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2007 03:11 Fen wrote:Its 3 am on christmas day, I need to go to bed, so Ill make this quick On December 25 2007 02:28 Motiva wrote:
Well I'd argue that the better player wouldn't make less mistakes regardless, and 1 match shouldn't be used to determine skill levels by anyone hence sneezing makes much less of a difference. Mistakes happen. Im confident that I could win a single point against the best tennis player in the world, given a bit of time, just due to the fact that they will inevitably make a mistake. Humans make mistakes. Its important that the game does not punish a person too harshly for minor mistakes. By lowering the skill ceiling, and therefore bringing players closer to perfection, mistakes are much more damaging to a player than they would be in a game with a higher skill ceiling. As for 1 match shouldn't be used to determine skill. I agree, 1 match is inconclusive. However that doesnt change the fact that tournaments will still run 1 game only until it gets to final levels. So while we can say that, it is important that a better player will always have an advantage. I'll make a point here, do you realize that sbs adds around as much random luck as it adds skill differentiation? I mean, sbs could quite easily be compared to the challange of guitar hero(Wich means that there is very few % difference between the good players) but it also gives you spots were you can miss enemy moves at which means that you can lose just because you got caught right during an sbs sequence.
A simple answer: watch the minimap.
|
Comparing SC1 and SC2 to Guitar Hero at Medium and Hard isn't a good comparison at all.
It would be a good comparison if you compared SC1 with MBS and SC1 without MBS. Considering there are countless ways Blizzard can make the game challenging and different while leaving MBS in to make sure players don't run away from the game (keep in mind a LOT of WoW players will try it), I don't think it's a good example.
Because, you could have played Six at Medium and Shout at the devil at hard (GH2). Both are the same difficulty, although one has 5 notes and the other has 4.
I think everyone agree that SC1 with MBS would be a big no. But before we see SC2 we can't say it's a bad mechanic. When we'll be able to test throughly we'll see.
|
@Fen:
I have read your analogy and it has nothing to do with MBS's in any way. I have never played Guitar Hero, but I could do a similar analogy going the other way. If I were to play vs a lesser skilled player say SWGB (another RTS), but he chose to play on normal speed (which is slow) and I chose to play on fast speed (which all good players play at), we would have the same results as your analogy. The game on normal speed would probably be close, because he's got tons of time to do stuff and more to the point he's probably quite familiar with playing with that speed and at that level. And I would crush him at fast speed, game would be over in under 5 minutes.
But the main thing I want to point out is that without a MBS on fast speed, I wouldn't be able to do half the things I could if I were to play on fast speed without a MBS. MBS is the glue that lets you do tons of stuff and micro/macro very very fast to play competitively in a fast game. Anyone can have good micro/macro when the game speed is on normal speed. But if you could only play SWBG on normal speed and without a MBS, well the game would be pretty gay... and slow... and cumbersome and bad. If 2 experts were to play on fast speed and there was no MBS, yes there would probably be some differentiation between the skill level of one and the other in some way. But for everyone else... the game would suck.
@ForAdun re: several arguments anti-MBS that are still undisputed post:
Sorry bro but they have been disputed many times. You just don't accept them, just like many pro-MBS'ers do not accept your posts. And theres really no point in arguing it anymore.
|
On December 25 2007 11:39 Markus wrote:
@ForAdun re: several arguments anti-MBS that are still undisputed post:
Sorry bro but they have been disputed many times. You just don't accept them, just like many pro-MBS'ers do not accept your posts. And theres really no point in arguing it anymore.
1.) SC players who've tested the SC2 Alpha said that the new features make the gameplay less demanding + thrilling.
2.) Assuming that MBS wouldn't hurt the competition (it will) it still sorta "discriminates" macro-players (also counts for automining).
3.) As mentioned, MBS (like automining) clearly decreases the attention, the expenditure of time and the skill needed for macro-management. This makes multitasking (the most deceisive skill in SC) a lot easier.
Considering the 1. point it is logical to assume that nothing can fill that hole. Since more than half a year Blizzard has not revealed any informations about that case, they seem to be totally clueless.
The first two points are still undisputed as if nobody could refute them.
The 3rd had been discussed a little bit but there was no clear counter-argument. Whenever the pro-MBS side ran out of arguments they kept saying "wait for the beta version" - an evasive answer. Some even tried arguing that for progamers there is no real difference between MBS and SBS - in my life I've never heard a worse argument than that.
Other arguments weren't satisfying either. Too hypothetical, too unlikely.
|
On December 25 2007 12:22 ForAdun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2007 11:39 Markus wrote:
@ForAdun re: several arguments anti-MBS that are still undisputed post:
Sorry bro but they have been disputed many times. You just don't accept them, just like many pro-MBS'ers do not accept your posts. And theres really no point in arguing it anymore. 1.) SC players who've tested the SC2 Alpha said that the new features make the gameplay less demanding + thrilling. they each got to play like what, 5 games of 2v2 vs a bunch of wow noobs
of course the game is not going to be demanding/thrilling when you're playing against a complete newbie in a completely imbalanced game, who more likely than not showed up mostly for the cosplay and never played SC beyond a few games of pubbie BGH
as far as i know aside from the pros in attendance nobody got to play 1v1 at all, let alone a 2v2 with 4 competent players involved
2.) Assuming that MBS wouldn't hurt the competition (it will) it still sorta "discriminates" macro-players (also counts for automining). for the last fucking time, oov doesn't have oov macro because he can click on buildings fast, oov has oov macro because he has impeccable economic sense, he knows when to power scvs, when to expand, when to lay facts down, when to mass, everything basically.
consider the point disputed
|
On December 25 2007 12:43 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2007 12:22 ForAdun wrote:On December 25 2007 11:39 Markus wrote:
@ForAdun re: several arguments anti-MBS that are still undisputed post:
Sorry bro but they have been disputed many times. You just don't accept them, just like many pro-MBS'ers do not accept your posts. And theres really no point in arguing it anymore. 1.) SC players who've tested the SC2 Alpha said that the new features make the gameplay less demanding + thrilling. they each got to play like what, 5 games of 2v2 vs a bunch of wow noobs of course the game is not going to be demanding/thrilling when you're playing against a complete newbie in a completely imbalanced game, who more likely than not showed up mostly for the cosplay and never played SC beyond a few games of pubbie BGH as far as i know aside from the pros in attendance nobody got to play 1v1 at all, let alone a 2v2 with 4 competent players involved Show nested quote +2.) Assuming that MBS wouldn't hurt the competition (it will) it still sorta "discriminates" macro-players (also counts for automining). for the last fucking time, oov doesn't have oov macro because he can click on buildings fast, oov has oov macro because he has impeccable economic sense, he knows when to power scvs, when to expand, when to lay facts down, when to mass, everything basically. consider the point disputed
I don't really know if you are serious or not but ok if you like I'll take your post serious.
First of all: how do you know how many and what sort of games they've played at BlizzCon?
Second: what you say about oov is new to me. Who told you that? Have you been at the SKT T1 training camp? Do you have secret informations? Well, for real. It's hard for me to take you serious, but I said I'll do. I need serious answers.
|
Ok, for anyone debating my example by saying, "guitar hero is nothing like Starcraft", you havent actually debated my point at all. Youve just attacked an example. A problem is that in this discussion we are seeing a LOT of strawman arguing. Refuting an example and then assuming that because you can flaw in the example, the argument behind it must be wrong is strawman arguing. When you make your posts, please debate the point behind the post and dont just sit their poking holes in the examples.
My post never stated that guitar hero and starcraft were related. I used a guitar hero example because it easily articulated my main point. Which I believe no-body has effectively countered. (My main point is that by making the game easier with MBS, then mistakes will be punished harsher, and possibly harsher than what the mistake really calls for.)
To Klockan, who did argue against my point and not my example. Players are very tuned into the minimap. This is where 90% of the time you will spot enemy movements unless you are attacked. MBS or SBS, your going to still rely on the minimap to see when the enemy is doing something. If your not looking at your army, a simple spacebar hit will take you straight to the action (In starcraft I dont even realise its happening anymore) so MBS wont make you miss the enemy movements anymore than SBS. As for making mistakes due to the SBS system, sure there will be more mistakes, but the mistakes themselves wont be anywhere near as damaging to the player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
