|
On February 07 2008 21:03 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2008 18:29 InterWill wrote:On February 07 2008 18:08 HamerD wrote:On February 07 2008 17:07 Fen wrote:On February 06 2008 13:30 GeneralStan wrote:
To Maybenexttime: I still believe that making people unable to hotkey multiple buildings is the best solution.
You and I are in complete agreement. Anybody else here agree?
Yes I agree with this as well. I guess I agree with this too. Ugh... I don't think this will end up as the final solution. It's not intuitive for new players: you can hotkey units - why shouldn't you be able to hotkey buildings? It's not intuitive for returning players: you could hotkey buildings in StarCraft - why shouldn't you be able to hotkey buildings in StarCraft II? You know whats also not intuitive,the fact that there is a surrender button that makes you lose, but no button that makes the enemy surrender.
Wow.
On February 07 2008 21:03 Fen wrote:
Buildings are different from units.
Well they are. But that doesn't mean they must act totally different.
This thread, for example, is about MBS. A move which would make building selection work more like unit selection, in turn making the interface more intuitive.
If you were to implement MBS while not allowing hotkeys to work as for units, you're actually making the interface less intuitive. You are acknowledging that buildings should behave more like units, in that you can select more than one at the same time, but at the same time saying that hotkeying shouldn't behave the same.
On February 07 2008 21:03 Fen wrote:
Players will just look at it and say, ok, we can work with that.
Sure, they will. But they might also ask themselves:
1) How hard could it be to implement building hotkeying?
2) Why is it that I can hotkey units but not buildings?
3) Why is it that I could hotkey buildings in Warcraft III, SC:BW, but not in StarCraft II?
On February 07 2008 21:03 Fen wrote:
If someone chose not to play sc2 because of this, then they are just an idiot who was never going to enjoy the game anyway.
Indeed. This might hold true for most issues and players. Most players would be foolish to let any one feature, or lack thereof, stop them from enjoying Starcraft II.
But of course, the argument goes both ways. And it would indeed be foolish of you to exclude yourself from playing the game were MBS and building hotkeying kept in the game.
On February 07 2008 21:03 Fen wrote:
As for the second point. You can hotkey buildings, but only 1. So you can still hotkey 5 of your barracks or whatever, but just not all of them. It means u still have to jump back to ure base to macro properely, but you can do some limited macro in the field if your good.
Well, then what's the point of implementing MBS in the first place?
|
I think I need to ask my question again: what is the actual reason behind implementing MBS? Is it to make the game easier to control by being able to macro in battle or just to be able to double-click-select/drag-select multiple buildings? Or maybe making the UI more intuitive for the sake of being intuitive? In this case, the UIs in other RTS games often are not intuitive either. E.g. in C&C Generals there's no MBS. I'm not sure whether you can select multiple uprooted ancients in WC3 (I think you can't).
|
On February 08 2008 01:51 maybenexttime wrote:
I'm not sure whether you can select multiple uprooted ancients in WC3 (I think you can't).
You have to shift-select multiple buildings in Warcraft III, unless they're uprooted Ancients, in which case you select them as you would units (aka, drag-select works), afaik.
|
On February 07 2008 22:03 InterWill wrote:Well they are. But that doesn't mean they must act totally different.
Why not? Blizzard is in charge of this game, and they can make it play out however they want. If they decide you cant select multiple buildings, then thats just how it works.
If blizzard tells us that you cant attack a dark templar without an observer unit nearby, no-one bitches about being able to see the cloak effect and not being able to target it. People accept it as a game mechanic because blizzard has made it obvious thats how they want to do it and the benefits that it brings. They just have to do the same with SBS. They could make up some lore behind it (there was a networking error in the terran base), or they could just straight out make a statement saying this is what we have decided and this is why. As long as they make themselves clear as to why they are doing a certain thing (and their reasoning isnt retarded), people will accept it as a game mechanic.
If they ninja certain aspects into the game, then people will turn around and start bitching, as we can see now. While most people predicted that blizzard was going to put MBS and Automine and Smartcast in. Blizzard is still yet to come out with a statement clearly listing the reasons they did this. (personally I believe this is due to the fact that the only strong argument going for MBS is that it might be more profitable, which is not always the best statement to make)
Well, then what's the point of implementing MBS in the first place?
This is in response to why shouldnt we allow people to hotkey multiple buildings, but allow selection of multiple buildings
Basically, the one of the strongest arguments that the anti-MBS'ers have brought to the table is the fact that with MBS, most macro can be completed out in the field, so a player is allowed to focus on one area of the map.
The strongest argument that pro-MBS'ers have brought out is that they dont like clicking the buildings seperately because its boring/repetative/unintuitive etc.
By allowing MBS but only allowing 1 building to be hotkeyed per number, this will satisfy both side's biggest concerns. Its a comprimise. You still are forced to move around the map, satistfying most of the anti-MBS comments. And you dont have to click more than once when your at your base, which satisfies the pro-MBS. Now this solution is not ideal for either side. There are other arguments that each side has that this does not help, but its the best blizzard has for satisfying both crowds, and 99% of people will say its better than having the other sides ideas implemented.
|
Question for anti-MBS people: Will a scaled implementation of MBS affect games at the pro level? Will pros even use it?
Question for pro-MBS people: Why should Player A with 10 gateways have the additional advantage of having the same time/attention cost as Player B with 1 gateway? (Yes, Player A already has a +9 unit advantage, but this is logically the reward for the inherent higher mineral cost).
Solution: Scaled MBS
With no scale factor, the result is illogical:
time.to.build.1.zealot = time.to.build.12.zealots
With a scale factor of 4 units per second, the result is more sensible:
time.to.build.1.zealot < time.to.build.12.zealots
.25 seconds < 3 seconds
As an example, let's say we have eight gateways hotkeyed to 5, you have three options:
5,z,z,z,z,d,d,t,t ..... to build 4 zealots, 2 dragoons, 2 high templars
5,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z ..... to build 8 zealots
hold5,z ..... to build 8 zealots
Option 1 allows diversity of units
Option 2 fast way to massproduce one unit
Option 3 easy and fast way to massproduce unit, but holding the hotkey forces your attention away from the battlefield: it centers your screen onto your hotkeyed buildings (a function of pressing a hotkey twice). You are also forced to watch animation as each building gets highlighted for .25 seconds. So, with 8 buildings, that is .25s x 8 = 2.0 seconds of animation time. In a newbie game, 2.0 seconds is nothing, but in a pro-game, it's an eternity!
Pros will not use option 3, but it's there for newbs. Will newbs beat pros using option 3? NO. Think about it.
|
Try this one:
A hotkey click will just que one unit in one of the facilities forcing you to click 5zzzdddtt to get it going, BUT a mouseclick on an icon will que units in all of them at once. That way you can choose to get a mixed army with more clicks but also easier clicks since they are hotkeys, or you can use your mouse like a noob (Who dont even care about mixed armies anyway) and que all with one mouseclick forcing you to leave the battlefield with the only ordering tool you got.
|
I did have another idea on how to manage MBS, for Terran at least. A player has three barracks (or factories/stargates etc), which from early game had been built and worked the way the are now, iow MBS and hotkeyable but filling up their respective queues one by one. These barracks through some mechanic of resources and involvement could become one "linked" barrack, docked to each other through some addon perhaps, with the production capabilities of the well known "hotkey, zzzddddtt" spread out equally over the queues. This would mean that early game had the same mechanics of SC1, but good players would, as the game progressed, choose to either merge or leave the barracks alone, the merging costing resources, construction time and a little extra involvement etc but buying time otherwise spent SBSing later. A perfect noob/pro choice, as I no doubt would go with the merge addon, whereas a pro probably could keep a higher unit production going with SBS and still be ontop in the field. Also, these linked buildings might share an extra addon or two.
=== : Link addon.
==> : unit creation
A) basic MBS, new units fill up one queue at a time
Barracks ==> units
Barracks ==> units
Barracks ==> units
B) shared queue
Barracks === Barracks === Barracks ==> units
C) shared queue + addon
Barracks === Barracks === Barracks === Addon
======> units + new units allowed by addon
D) shared queue + 2 addons
Addon === Barracks === Barracks === Barracks === Extra Addon?
======> units + new units allowed by first addon + double speed produce of second addon
I dunno. I think it's a fun idea.
|
Man, why make things complicated. With MBS not scaled, Player A with twenty gateways will spend the same amount of time making 20 goons against Player B with one gateway making one goon. Surely Player A must spend more time making +19 more goons? It's an unfair additional advantage for Player A.
|
These "compromises" get weirder and weirder.
SC is full with advantages. Blizzard doesn´t try to drag out games. Even pros are just human and the amount of effort high class play needs can´t be kept for 1 hour+
Combacks are awesome but that doesn´t mean that they should be traded like a Tennis match each game.
Once a player gains a fundamental advantage he should be able to finish his enemy effortlessly - 1to9 gates is a crushing advantage.
|
On February 10 2008 06:51 Unentschieden wrote:
These "compromises" get weirder and weirder.
SC is full with advantages. Blizzard doesn´t try to drag out games. Even pros are just human and the amount of effort high class play needs can´t be kept for 1 hour+
Combacks are awesome but that doesn´t mean that they should be traded like a Tennis match each game.
Once a player gains a fundamental advantage he should be able to finish his enemy effortlessly - 1to9 gates is a crushing advantage.
19 goons to 1 is advantage enough. It's a logical compromise.
|
Pls just tell which professional player would want to make 20 goons at the same time, damn that's 2.5k minerals and 1k gas... that much unused resources is a GG
|
On February 10 2008 07:34 Tritanis wrote:
Pls just tell which professional player would want to make 20 goons at the same time, damn that's 2.5k minerals and 1k gas... that much unused resources is a GG
This is an exagerration. The point is that MBS should be scaled. The more buildings you have, the more time it should take you to build units. Not timecost.to.build.1.unit equals timecost.to.build.20.units. Understand? Seriously, the best solution is the simplest one.
|
On February 10 2008 07:34 Tritanis wrote:
Pls just tell which professional player would want to make 20 goons at the same time, damn that's 2.5k minerals and 1k gas... that much unused resources is a GG
Right after your 200/200 army dies in a PvT macrofest and you need to pump units out of your 30 gates.
|
So far the discussion have been mostly centered on how to "gimp" MBS in order for the micro/macro balance to be intact. How about some ideas on how to increase macro requirements elsewhere?
|
On February 10 2008 07:34 Tritanis wrote:
Pls just tell which professional player would want to make 20 goons at the same time, damn that's 2.5k minerals and 1k gas... that much unused resources is a GG
Stop answering questions like this. He doesn't know anything about the game, nor do most pro-mbs people. Just wait for sc2 to come out and kill them with or without mbs with little difference, and then have fun with Starcraft 2 like every other game (about 2 weeks of enjoyment) and then go back to sc1 because sc2 will not replace it 
Well, not while it caters to newbs like this.
|
Everyone will be a newb when SC2 comes out. APM only gets you so far. And if MBS is so insignificant in the newb vs pro matchup, what exactly have we been arguing about for the past 30 pages? You obviously know better, make your case.
I'm no pro, but I don't want the game to be made too easy either, since as you say it would ruin it. But rather than skipping into this thread stroking your ego raw and spouting stuff like "newbs are second class citizens, they have no say", how about you grow a little and write something worth reading? And if that is beyond you, do the world a favor and don't "contribute" at all, OK tiger?
I can be derogatory too. -_-
It's frustrating to see people who possibly have no idea wtf they're talking about raise their voices loudly enough to possibly fuck up a game, I saw it happen in world of warcraft plenty of times while I played it. But nobody listens to the opposition if all they have to say about the whiner's arguments is "they're newbs".
|
Here's a different idea:
What if Blizzard would include a few more hard counters (and not 100% soft counters).
As it is right now, they like soft counters more, which seems reasonable (I thought so all the time, too). But think about this: a 200 APM average player plays against a 300 APM pro. The average player doesn't have much of a strategic understanding but is quite fast, so he can macro very well with MBS. The pro can do this too, of course (maybe slightly better). Now if all there is in the game is soft counters, it could become a close game, although the pro should easily win it.
If there were a few hard counters available for each race (let's say 2-3 collossus (colossi?) totally rape 20-30 marines&medics), it would mean that each player had to scout better and prepare for situations like this, and diversify his army enough.
In current SC, because almost everything is a soft counter only, mass units rule the world: mass hydra/ling in ZvP, mass vult/tank in TvP, mass zeal/goon in PvT, mass M&M in TvZ. With a few spellcasters and support units (lurks, sairs and so on) here and there and of course the addition of ultras for Zergs in late game. But basically, it's about massing 1-3 unit types and using these as good as possible.
If each race had good ways to deal with masses of the same unit, it would mean that one always has to build a smart unit mix that's capable of dealing with the situation well, instead of just massing. And because MBS doesn't help you much if you need a unit mix (you can't hit 5z if you need 1 zealot, 1 immortal, 1 high templar, 1 dark templar), it would be some sort of compromise between MBS and SBS.
This would lead to this:
- Noobs would still like to mass units, because it's easy using MBS, but pros know it would be a disadvantage to do so.
- Average players could sometimes use MBS when they think it's a good idea or when they need more time to micro (i.e. they think "ok let's just build 10 zeals right now although it's not that smart, but at least I can micro this battle now...").
- But pros probably would never use it.
Which is quite an optimal result if you ask me.
|
On February 10 2008 10:56 Element)LoGiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2008 07:34 Tritanis wrote:
Pls just tell which professional player would want to make 20 goons at the same time, damn that's 2.5k minerals and 1k gas... that much unused resources is a GG Stop answering questions like this. He doesn't know anything about the game, nor do most pro-mbs people. Just wait for sc2 to come out and kill them with or without mbs with little difference, and then have fun with Starcraft 2 like every other game (about 2 weeks of enjoyment) and then go back to sc1 because sc2 will not replace it Well, not while it caters to newbs like this.
You really should stop using that argument, because we have such a silly argument too:
SC already catered to noobs and Warcraft 2 or Dune 2 were the really pro games.
I know this argument is not liked here, but yours is basically the same just from the other direction.
Now the only thing you can say is "well but SC was a big success" then we say "well but what makes you think SC2 can't be one, too?".
And the discussion is over, with no result.
You're simply not getting anywhere with this, and you're certainly not necessarily right (you could be, but there's no way to prove it yet, so it's worthless. Also, hardcore players typically dislike fundamental changes, but often change their mind when they play the final version).
|
Hey lets reach a compromise,
You know how theres melee, tvb, team melee at the selection screen etc..
How about we have one that's just says "MBS/Casual" mode for the simpler folks.
And then on "competitive/professional" mode, it would be off.
Sound good? MBS ON mode would not allow wins and would be treated like ums games.
Or.. if you guys want to continue and cursing at each other for no good reason...then carry on.
|
No, this was already discussed before... it's probably not a good solution.
SC1 already has a "noob mode" and a "pro mode": the speed setting. Newbies could play on normal or fast, and good players on fastest. But it turns out that no one uses the slower speeds. If you create a game on normal or fast, you'll just get laughed at and no one will play.
Even though "fast" isn't even that much slower.
The same will happen if you make one pro mode and one noob mode. All players will just use the pro mode and the noobs will still complain.
You have to make the game the same for everyone, and cater to both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
