[D] MBS Discussion II - Page 5

On December 28 2007 15:32 Markus wrote:


Age of Empires 2 had a MBS. And trust me 80% of your time was attacking on multiple fronts, selecting 6-8 groups of skirms/other units and clicking on an enemy skirm/other unit to 1 hit it/kill it as fast as possible. The better you were the more groups you could micro and the more kills you'd get each volley. Whoever could micro their units better, kept units away from their counter better, would win. The other 20% of the time was macro'ing your eco/keeping steady military production, but you still needed to macro your ass off. Age2 without a MBS would have been much worse in my opinion as you would have to spend much much more time macro'ing and less time on your military, basically attack-moving and not micro'ing as much in most battles, and definately not fighting on multiple fronts you'd be forced into 1 big army vs 1 big army battles.

I'm sick of reading comments by people who probably have not played any other RTS game competitively, make comments on a game they have never played yet. They talk like they know RTS's inside and out, when they've probably never played anything else, and generally think they are superior to everyone else because theres a competitive scene in a country they probably do not live in and a scene they probably do not participate in other than as a spectator.

Btw, unlimited unit selection would have done _nothing_ to the competitive scene of Age. In age your units die so fast, and you have units all over the map so much, being able to group them all into 1 group would have been meaningless. If they make SC2 like WC3 though thats a different story. But you cannot tell how it will affect gameplay until you see it. So stop commenting on MBS, unlimited unit selection, and anything else until the game comes out.

On December 28 2007 20:23 Motiva wrote:


Well... First off this isn't about automining or any of the other features, and using them to support your MBS argument is irrelevant, and please stay on topic if your going to be derogatory in your argumentation.

Not only is stating that "dumbly asserting that we can focus on other things is stupid" redundant it's also largely unfounded. You can't prove that, How do you know that the new nomad won't require 124 more clicks than the science vessal in an average minute? You can't. I don't think it will, nor do i believe anything thinks such. You simply can't prove it. So please don't spam anymore. It's also not very polite to redundantly call peoples speculations on a debatable topic stupid or dumb especially when you don't state any facts to support your claim. You simply state this is how it is and if you disagree you don't know anything. You yourself don't know anything about Competitive starcraft 2. It doesn't even exist yet (however I got money saying you'll reply to this saying you know something about a different game called Starcraft 1. A game of which you are extremely familiar with). Does that mean that to create a corrolation is folly? Certainly not. But does it provide factual evidence? Certainly not..

as for

I've never seen a Starcraft 2 tourny? I didn't know there were pros already. But since we're attempting to create a bullshit corrolation to Starcraft. I'll merit this. Can you tell me how high the bar is? Not the bar of any particular player, but the closest to perfection that can be achieved in a 30 minute game perhaps? Not definitively. So how can you gauge the bar to be lower? Because you have a preconception of where the bar is and the effects of something you have no experience with in a game you haven't played. Make sense?

Also, I feel that there is a hole in your logic. Let me explain. I'll use a number scale to help conceptualize this abstraction. Lets say the perfect game of Starcraft as played by a God-Machine of the utmost perfection is rated as a 100. Lets say (accuracy for this number isn't too relevant and is not to be debated as it'd be vain) the best starcraft human in the world plays about an 85 on this scale. With MBS the machine still maintains a 100 as perfection cannot be perfected. By your logic the human would then have a rating of 100(perfect is perfect after all). But i don't think you meant true perfection, So lets say with MBS the pro gamer jump to 95.

I could articulate it differently to where the numbers go down since the 100 represents the bar. I'd rather keep the round numbers and have the average of skill raise. There is not really a difference in my view, the point values simply change.

Now from the perspective of those that feel that MBS will not greatly lower the bar because of numerous reason (SBS isn't really that hard, more time to do even more difficult things on multiple fronts, micro ect ect ect) The example might look something like this

Pre MBS:
Machine 100
Top Pro 85

Now with the implementation of MBS
Machine 100
Top Pro 87

(Edit: If you're arguing that a very very miniscule difference in the overall playstyle of the game makes it less competitive. I would like to see a nice concise formulation of the argument that is valid.)(I say playstyle because it's not like MBS generates an advantage for either player)
Why? Because if you're a top pro SBS does not take up very much of your time, nor is it very difficult. Also if your a top pro you should be talented enough to use the few seconds of very little of your time that was absorbed by SBS to find a way to generate any other sort of advantage over your opponent.

I would be surprised if anyone would argue that any human ever in the future or past could beat this computer, how can perfection be beaten?

Some of your argumentation seems like you believe that the current starcraft pros are already like the Theoretical machine i'm talking about. If that's true then your saying that no time in the future could someone play better than they are playing now, you're also saying that we should see no more variation in the game. I've never heard of true perfection varying. (I'm interested in being enlightened on that part though) On those grounds too these "perfect humans" should have no problem adapting to A non MBS environment.

You're not arguing that they're only so "near perfect" right now because of SBS are you? I would think it would be any and all of the other countless facets of the game. Let's try not to become bias in our oversimplifications please.

Essentially: Are Anti-MBS players arguing that a machine that played starcraft to perfection would have no change in his play because of the few seconds per game made available? That doesn't sound very perfect to me.



First. Prove it. Second. PM me and I'll make a generous offer for a copy of your copy of Starcraft 2 since you seem to have a copy. How else would you have such information? OH! Speculation. My bad.

as for


Well... I'll talk out of my ass a little just to humor you.

New unit abilities (Ever think that perhaps abilities could be time intensive? Nomad comes to mind. Just a bullshit idea i'm spewing)

New Terrain mechanics allow for new tactics and strategies which could or not could be more time intensive (as this requires you to split up your army it could allow for multiple fronts to occur a lot more frequenty which for sufficient micro would indeed require more time)

Now to call on me to prove these things is like me calling on you to explain the more techincal details of the effects and needs of balancing psi storm with smartcasting in conjunction with the balance of the rest of the protoss force. It can't be done with our information so lets try not to lie. I'm simply making an attempt at humoring you and this entire section of my reply isn't part of the point.



You heard it here first people! There is no more room for strategic improvement within Starcraft. Or wait... What?


And now just because this is what I think should be written:


If you want a competitive game that's a true sequel to starcraft, yet not identical. In your ignorance you should prolly maintain an Anti-Automining and Anti-Smartcasting stance. It's not so simple.

On December 28 2007 21:54 Showtime! wrote:
HEWP!

I'm surrounded by a crowd of blundering idiots.

You people go around in more circles than NASCAR. It is kind of sad and the amount of speculation and theorycrafting is ridiculous for things you know nothing about: "'PRO' DEBATERS!" ROFL.

We aren't laughing with you; we're laughing at you. Keep it going though I find you highly entertaining.

BONG!

On December 29 2007 04:07 MyLostTemple wrote:


....

i already played sc2 at blizzcon. i was given a private showing of it with testie and some other people who were invited to be there by blizzard. i played for hours the first day and continued to play as the event progressed. if your so ill informed about the progression of SC2 you don't even know people have played it yet i'm surprised you'd even bother to post in this thread. anyways, the game is very VERY similar to SC1. basically SC2 is a face lift from SC. They've improved the graphics and added new units while removing less used ones. The game looks great and it will obviously be very successful. The only element that needs fixing is the interface.

You can do many of the same builds you could do in the original SC. For instance i opened up with a 10/12 gate one game, then teched to to my cyber core (it has another name in sc2) and upgraded blink since that has replaced the dragoon range upgrade. I then went 3 gate stalker rush w/ blink. Unfortunately the computer was playing most of the macro game for me with auto mining, MBS and other stuff.

This brings me to my next point: MBS is only one factor in a big chunk of newbifications that will greatly damage the competitive element of SC2. Do not box up my argument since my emphasis still adheres to the thread guidelines. All of these must be dealt with: MBS, Automing, smartcasting.

Also, you can figure out how close to prefection a gamer has reached in a game by following his macro, basic strategic decisions and margin of errors in micro. For instance when i watched OOv play he macroed almost perfectly, never missing an scv or a depot. At the same time he managed to have nearly perfect micro and his builds were very good. With features like MBS the skill ceiling will be lowered and since blizzard has done nothing to replace the macro aspect of the game i can easily argue that SC2 will be a watered down easier version of SC.

I'm not going to engage your bogus imaginary number diagram which claims to prove how MBS won't damage the competitive scene. please don't make stuff up, it makes you look bad.

As someone who plays "near perfect" obviously is also using the most optimal build or at least one that's very close.

On December 29 2007 06:09 IdrA wrote:

no, due to limitations in scouting and the fact that you're playing a human opponent who is trying to outsmart you people will never always use the optimal build.

when people talk about pros playing the game perfectly they mean executing perfectly and responding to what information they DO have perfectly.

On December 30 2007 06:36 IdrA wrote:
thats the entire problem with this whole debate. you, and other pro-mbs people, only view the game as a whole, without considering how all the different parts work together, and view the strategy and mindgames as the only important part.

it is a real time strategy game(that is why the chess analogies are meaningless, chess is turn-based). that means how well you execute the game matters, as does the strategical portion of the game. you're right, theres never gonna be perfection in the strategy part of the game. but in the mechanical, execution portion of the game perfection is definitely attainable, or at least approachable. there is a skill cap there, and adding mbs will certainly lower it which is a bad thing for all the reasons that have already been discussed.

you're right, theres never gonna be perfection in the strategy part of the game. but in the mechanical, execution portion of the game perfection is definitely attainable, or at least approachable. there is a skill cap there, and adding mbs will certainly lower it which is a bad thing for all the reasons that have already been discussed.

On December 30 2007 09:57 IdrA wrote:
doesnt matter if sbs isnt all that relevant for the top pros (and it is relevant btw, no matter how fast you are sbs still takes time and focus away from everything else) it is very relevant below pro level. take it away and all the sudden all those semi pros and amateurs who just couldnt execute quite fast enough can now compete with the pros. thats a bad thing, makes the game less competitive if more people can play at the top level without any extra investment of practice/time.

actually you're wrong. there are plenty of people arguing against MBS who are not very good players at all. however you will not find ANYONE who is good at all or who understands the nuances of the game supporting MBS, because yes it does have the potential to break the game.
and yes, maintaning sbs will favor the starcraft players, because starcraft players have been practicing with it for years. but in the same light removing it will favor the warcraft players who have become used to the micro intensive game style it would create because they have been playing that kind of game for years. no matter what you do its going to favor experienced rts players over beginners (for obvious reasons). given that it is starcraft2, not warcraft4, i see nothing wrong with starcraft players getting that (unavoidable) benefit.

but you're wrong about me and other known players arguing against MBS for selfish reasons. in all honesty i should be for MBS. the mechanical portion of the game is what koreans really excel at, because they practice so much more than us. give me mbs and all the sudden i can macro as well as a progamer, so i can be much more competitive. MBS helps good players who arent quite pro level much more than it helps people like you who are just bad at the game in general, because you have way more pressing issues than how quickly you can make a round of units.

take it away and all the sudden all those semi pros and amateurs who just couldnt execute quite fast enough can now compete with the pros.

however you will not find ANYONE who is good at all or who understands the nuances of the game supporting MBS

On December 30 2007 10:06 MyLostTemple wrote:
i am appalled by the idea that anti MBS people are self interested gosu's who have a bias. I lived with many newbie SC players in college who never played competitively; even a zero clutter player. When i told them about MBS even they were disgusted. The point is that anti-mbs people want the game to have the same congruency as before because it helps keep the game challenging and fun. The interface is a large reason as to why SC was so successful as an esport. Granted it's not everything, it's definitely part of it. Being ignorant as to what makes a game competitive is not a mater of 'opinions.'

When you add features like MBS (and automining) you've put a big hole in a competitive aspect that helps maintain the competitive whole of the game. Saying that since most pros are already good at macroing with SBS and therefore MBS should be added is like saying dribbling in basketball should be removed because most professional basketball players are already masters at dribbling.

The point is that anti-mbs people want the game to have the same congruency as before because it helps keep the game challenging and fun. The interface is a large reason as to why SC was so successful as an esport. Granted it's not everything, it's definitely part of it. Being ignorant as to what makes a game competitive is not a mater of 'opinions.'

On December 30 2007 10:06 IdrA wrote:
why mbs could break the game:
didnt want to include this as it would clutter the post and it has been posted a few hundred times already.

first, the skill cap discussion as already mentioned.
but, more importantly, it removes the diversity of gameplay that makes starcraft so great. you look at warcraft and almost everything is micro, and its a significantly more boring game than starcraft. you may disagree, but the general population doesnt. there is a reason starcraft is a massive spectator sport and warcraft isnt. however in starcraft both macro and micro are important, no matter how good your micro is you cant make up for having half your opponents unit count, and vice versa.
if you add MBS this will still be the case, but it will no longer be important, because everyone will have the same (ideal) number of units, because macro will no longer be a (relatively) difficult, time consuming task. that means everyone will be forced to play a certain way.
right now you have macro players, like oov and pusan, micro players like boxer and casy, creative strategical players like upmagic and nal_ra. that is what makes the game so cool, all of these players play drastically different styles and are still competitive. oov chooses to focus on maximum unit production, and because that means he has to spend more time and attention on unit production and econ management his micro and strategy suffers(remember we're only talking relative to other progamers here). and same with the rest, boxer can do wonders with 12 marines while his barracks sit idle and so forth. but given MBS boxer can hit 6m7c8s and have the same macro and econ management as oov, so oov is no longer special. this means 'macro players' are essentially phased out of progaming, it is no longer viable to focus on that. instead EVERYONE has to play like boxer and ra, and while that might sound better to some people, think how exciting boxer will be when everyone, not just boxer, can kill 7 lurks with a group of marines.

On December 30 2007 11:21 Motiva wrote:


eh I didn't mean it was directly selfish. It's natural to resist change, and whatever that's beside my argument.

I'm suprised to hear you say that the difference between the Semi-Pros, ameteurs, and Pros is just SBS. Regardless -- Aren't we talking on the e-sport level in which only the best of the best reside?

I'm pretty surprised to hear this as well... I blizzard doesn't understand anything about the game they made... They prolly haven't been watching the pro scene at all either. They're just blindly going into this? I only say this because as it stands now MBS is in Starcraft 2. Blizzard may decide to take it out because of what you discuss in your other post that I haven't replied to yet And I do agree that is a serious issue -- We do want a healthy metagame -- But please be realistic.

As for Warcraft 3... it's a terrible example because so many of the other mechanics function differently... The combination of economy scaling and upkeep alone are hinderance enough on the macro aspect of the game that this is irrelevant. Then the added focus on micro does also hinder the viability of some strategies, and this is something that should be addressed with the progression of the game. MBS is only a minor facet in the progression.

But you can just ignore my point and reiterate the same thing over and over again and I'll do the same and then the game will come out and you'll still be competitive because MBS isn't a big deal. Macro based players will just be economy based players. ect ect.

the longer it stays in the more the game is going to be adjusted to it and the harder it is going to be to take out. yes, theoretically, the game could end up just fine with mbs. but it is very, very unlikely (unless blizzard has some new macro-oriented, time consuming task theyre going to introduce). also, there is absolutely no reason to add mbs other than to satisfy a bunch of whiny newbs who will buy the game anyway, whether it has mbs or not. so i dont really see the point in taking such a big risk for little, if any, gain.