|
We are talking about Blizzard here though, this game will break records before it's even released. Sure a few reviewers might have a minor impact but that's just minor overall. The effect of MBS is more relative to the lasting appeal of the game for novice players. Blizzard's game will sell, it's just a question of whether or not people will keep playing it. Hence WC3s player base is prolly smaller than starcraft's (speculation, i don't know the facts). That said, Blizzard also most likely has a vision of the game they're trying to make for the competitive scene, as they have shown a lot of interest in providing a healthy competitive scene ofr this game. This vision apparently contains MBS.
While I don't have much to argue with in the 2nd paragraph. We're still waiting on information on 1/3 of the races and the game is nearing alpha stages. I don't even need to mention the difference in any game to cite that the game will be extremely different in ways we can't even predict at this moment.
A risk? Sure. Everything is a risk. I don't think Blizzard, the billion dollar game company with a perfect track record plans on foolishly blundering into this project that they've said is going to be geared more towards the competitive than any of their previous works.
I simply meant we disagree on the degree of the risk. As for the if it makes it to beta it's going to say. Sure the longer is stays, this means the longer it's gone without a reason for removing it. That in itself could say that it can't be that bad. Only time will tell though.
But regardless, we're done here aren't we?
|
not really because all youve done is try to marginalize the dangers of introducing/testing mbs (and most of that is based on questionable assumptions)
you still havent given a reason that mbs should be added. only reasons that it might not be horrible.
if there is any risk at all, and no one can deny that there is to some extent, then there has to be something to gain from taking that risk. as far as i can see there really isnt. (especially if you contend that people will buy the game regardless of mbs, as appealing to the masses is one of the general positives for mbs)
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
i agree with idra. you only make assertions and bring little evidence to the table. Further more if MBS is ultimately put into SC2, i can already for see a massive backlash from the people in the previous SC competitive scene. I have yet to find a player who's actually good at this game that admittedly wants MBS, smartcasting or automining. I HOPE blizzard cares about the people who played the previous game enough to keep it alive. However, after seeing it at Blizzcon I'm rather confused.
I actually interviewed a ton of SC players who were competing in the world cyber games grand finals for ggl asking them what they thought of MBS and these other features. Every person i asked firmly said 'no' with the exception of one WCG ref i interviewed who didn't mind MBS but absolutely opposed autominig. Unfortunately GGL never produced it =[
Regardless; no, we are not done. If your going to boil down your Pro MBS argumentation to an 'opinion' that you can't back with anything but claims; well then i think you need to do a little more work. And backing that 'opinion' up by saying anti-mbs people are merely self interested is ridiculous.
|
On December 30 2007 16:16 IdrA wrote:
not really because all youve done is try to marginalize the dangers of introducing/testing mbs (and most of that is based on questionable assumptions)
you still havent given a reason that mbs should be added. only reasons that it might not be horrible.
if there is any risk at all, and no one can deny that there is to some extent, then there has to be something to gain from taking that risk. as far as i can see there really isnt. (especially if you contend that people will buy the game regardless of mbs, as appealing to the masses is one of the general positives for mbs)
Well I think you misunderstood my purpose. I don't think the burden of proof is on me to provide evidence for why it should be in the game. It already is. If it wasn't I certainly wouldn't be for putting it into the game. I however am open to change.
I've attempted to explain why I don't think it's such a great risk. It's certainly much more of a risk than if they maintained SBS... However, making Starcraft 2 is a greater risk than just making more money off of WoW... It's not a matter of risk at this point (pre-alpha) it's simply a matter of exploring possibilities. Some of which are obviously not what the competitive community wants (smartcast, automine, MBS) but without risk there is no such thing as innovation.
I also don't think the burden of proof is on me to provide evidence for it's purpose because I don't even care if it makes it into the game. I'm simply trying to explain what you've admitted, and my purpose is over here. Though it could have gone a lot smoother. lol. I mean I've even argued fairly well as to why it should most definitely not be in the game on a previous thread. I don't know if you've realized that.
|
one concern i have about MBS is one from the old micro vs macro argument that you don't really see much of these days.
whenever someone playing the game gets involved in a battle, they are constantly deciding where they need to divert their attention to between their micro and their macro. should i be back at my base, making sure that my production is up to par and that my expansions are in working order? or maybe i should be at the front line getting more value out of my units?
while it may not sound like much, its my belief that this battle between what you're doing and when you should be doing it creates variance in styles that make up the differences between players. With starcraft's current state of SBS, no automining, etc. its impossible to do both tasks simultaneously (although progamers do a good job of trying). This is one of the primary differences between "micro" players and "macro" players. Those with stronger micro focus more on unit control, while those with stronger macro focus on reinforcing their army. its not the choices of build orders that make people different players, after all, anyone can execute 'X build', its how they decide to play the game in these subtle manners that one doesn't really think about.
to generalize, boxer is the guy controlling that doomed group of marine medics until they kill a dozen times their worth, letting his minerals soar, while iloveoov is the guy who lets them die and comes back a minute later with an army twice the size
i worry that with the inclusion of MBS, automine, etc, the choices players must make between being at the front line and being at home are effectively decided for them. Why ever move your screen away from the battle if you can control everything without ever looking back at your base past early game? all of a sudden, boxer controlling that last doomed group of units isn't boxer anymore, because the game made the choice for us to do the same, and coming back a minute later with an army twice the size isn't iloveoov either, because everyone was doing that as well
|
On December 30 2007 18:11 MyLostTemple wrote:
i agree with idra. you only make assertions and bring little evidence to the table. Further more if MBS is ultimately put into SC2, i can already for see a massive backlash from the people in the previous SC competitive scene. I have yet to find a player who's actually good at this game that admittedly wants MBS, smartcasting or automining. I HOPE blizzard cares about the people who played the previous game enough to keep it alive. However, after seeing it at Blizzcon I'm rather confused.
I actually interviewed a ton of SC players who were competing in the world cyber games grand finals for ggl asking them what they thought of MBS and these other features. Every person i asked firmly said 'no' with the exception of one WCG ref i interviewed who didn't mind MBS but absolutely opposed autominig. Unfortunately GGL never produced it =[
Regardless; no, we are not done. If your going to boil down your Pro MBS argumentation to an 'opinion' that you can't back with anything but claims; well then i think you need to do a little more work. And backing that 'opinion' up by saying anti-mbs people are merely self interested is ridiculous.
Well first. That's a decision by blizzard -- how much do they wish to compliment the previous competitive community? Or do they aim to keep SC1 alive, and expect the current scene to continue what it's currently doing?
As for why you're confused...Perhaps cause you played it quite some time ago, and even now the game isn't even in alpha? Do I need to show you screen shots of SC 1 BETA?
I would have liked to have seen that... I enjoy you're work.
I'm surprised your still giving me this ultimatum. First off how is it not an opinion? IdrA can admit that it is POSSIBLE to create a competitive game with MBS. Very Hard and risking a lot definitely. I don't think it's an opinion that innovation requires risk, but I do think it is an opinion as to how you want to mold a game of the future.
It is your opinion that Starcraft 2 should maintain the same mechanics and balance of micro and macro and everything else from Starcraft 1.
It is a different opinion to say, nah we want change lets try X Y Z and play around with it.
When the game comes out, and the general consensus is that MBS ruined the game, and we're all still playing SC 1 well then that might be able to be boiled down past opinion. But right now that's hogwash. You have no evidence that MBS has produced a negative effect on the current game. You might have personal experience that you didn't like it when you played a slightly different game 6 months ago. You may have asked every single top player in teh world and got their opinion on it. Congrats man, how is that not opinion?
Deciding what kind of game you want as an end result from blizzard is called forming an opinion. Some opinions are better than others but this does not negate the fact that they are opinions.
I haven't met a single person that isn't self interested..... It's not ridiculous it's fairly valid. That doesn't make it a negative thing. It would be quite foolish of top players to not be self interested. I don't see a professional gamer playing the game, admitting it could be competitive, and then stating that the game needs to be more different than Starcraft 1 so there is a more level playing field on release day.
To say that anyone is not at least mildly self interested is to revel in your bias.
If you can't admit that it's possible yet risky for blizzard to make a game with MBS that can be competitive for a long time well then I'm done here.
If can admit that -- Well then I'm done here.
How am I not done here?
I agree with just about everything IdrA has to say, and enjoyed talking with him quite thoroughly. You however just revel in your bias and tell me i'm a gd noob idiot for thinking about creating actual innovation within the game and the possibilities of risk. Fuck man I'm not even for MBS i'm just telling the majority of you STFU and WAIT, It might not all be bad (automine, mbs, smartcast) In my personal OPINION though, MBS is the only one worth thoroughly testing because I have a bias against how I want the game to be formed. -- Go read my post in a previous thread as to why MBS should definitely not be in the game....
EDIT:
And when you say 'merely self interested' I think your taking my argument a step further than I intended. The way you say it sounds like top pros are solely self interested. I don't think that, that's absurd. It's just as absurd to say that they want a completely different game.
|
On December 31 2007 01:52 SoMuchBetter wrote:
one concern i have about MBS is one from the old micro vs macro argument that you don't really see much of these days.
whenever someone playing the game gets involved in a battle, they are constantly deciding where they need to divert their attention to between their micro and their macro. should i be back at my base, making sure that my production is up to par and that my expansions are in working order? or maybe i should be at the front line getting more value out of my units?
while it may not sound like much, its my belief that this battle between what you're doing and when you should be doing it creates variance in styles that make up the differences between players. With starcraft's current state of SBS, no automining, etc. its impossible to do both tasks simultaneously (although progamers do a good job of trying). This is one of the primary differences between "micro" players and "macro" players. Those with stronger micro focus more on unit control, while those with stronger macro focus on reinforcing their army. its not the choices of build orders that make people different players, after all, anyone can execute 'X build', its how they decide to play the game in these subtle manners that one doesn't really think about.
to generalize, boxer is the guy controlling that doomed group of marine medics until they kill a dozen times their worth, letting his minerals soar, while iloveoov is the guy who lets them die and comes back a minute later with an army twice the size
i worry that with the inclusion of MBS, automine, etc, the choices players must make between being at the front line and being at home are effectively decided for them. Why ever move your screen away from the battle if you can control everything without ever looking back at your base past early game? all of a sudden, boxer controlling that last doomed group of units isn't boxer anymore, because the game made the choice for us to do the same, and coming back a minute later with an army twice the size isn't iloveoov either, because everyone was doing that as well
Yes I agree this is a concern, and a primary reason why i'm against Smartcast and Automine. With those mechanics removed I feel that MBS should be tested thoroughly.
This is fairly hard to really observe in just a few play sessions -- metagame is relative. This is something I'm sure blizzard is aware of and the majority of the people here want a balance similar to the originals.
I've never stated that MBS should -not- be removed after thorough testing.
|
On December 31 2007 01:39 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2007 16:16 IdrA wrote:
not really because all youve done is try to marginalize the dangers of introducing/testing mbs (and most of that is based on questionable assumptions)
you still havent given a reason that mbs should be added. only reasons that it might not be horrible.
if there is any risk at all, and no one can deny that there is to some extent, then there has to be something to gain from taking that risk. as far as i can see there really isnt. (especially if you contend that people will buy the game regardless of mbs, as appealing to the masses is one of the general positives for mbs) Well I think you misunderstood my purpose. I don't think the burden of proof is on me to provide evidence for why it should be in the game. It already is. If it wasn't I certainly wouldn't be for putting it into the game. I however am open to change. I've attempted to explain why I don't think it's such a great risk. It's certainly much more of a risk than if they maintained SBS... However, making Starcraft 2 is a greater risk than just making more money off of WoW... It's not a matter of risk at this point (pre-alpha) it's simply a matter of exploring possibilities. Some of which are obviously not what the competitive community wants (smartcast, automine, MBS) but without risk there is no such thing as innovation. I also don't think the burden of proof is on me to provide evidence for it's purpose because I don't even care if it makes it into the game. I'm simply trying to explain what you've admitted, and my purpose is over here. Though it could have gone a lot smoother. lol. I mean I've even argued fairly well as to why it should most definitely not be in the game on a previous thread. I don't know if you've realized that.
the burden of proof has shifted to you, even if it wasnt there in the first place, because we have demonstrated how MBS could, very likely in most informed opinions, ruin the game. given that i think its perfectly fair to expect a reasonable explanation of why we should try MBS regardless of the potential dangers.
no making sc2 isnt really a risk in itself for them. theyre still making a buttload of money off WoW and its not like theyre actually going to lose money off of sc2, their name and the popularity of sc1 guarantees that. everything we're talking about is just trying to maximize game quality or game popularity, which is more important and who its necessary to cater to.
|
On December 31 2007 01:52 SoMuchBetter wrote:
one concern i have about MBS is one from the old micro vs macro argument that you don't really see much of these days.
whenever someone playing the game gets involved in a battle, they are constantly deciding where they need to divert their attention to between their micro and their macro. should i be back at my base, making sure that my production is up to par and that my expansions are in working order? or maybe i should be at the front line getting more value out of my units?
while it may not sound like much, its my belief that this battle between what you're doing and when you should be doing it creates variance in styles that make up the differences between players. With starcraft's current state of SBS, no automining, etc. its impossible to do both tasks simultaneously (although progamers do a good job of trying). This is one of the primary differences between "micro" players and "macro" players. Those with stronger micro focus more on unit control, while those with stronger macro focus on reinforcing their army. its not the choices of build orders that make people different players, after all, anyone can execute 'X build', its how they decide to play the game in these subtle manners that one doesn't really think about.
to generalize, boxer is the guy controlling that doomed group of marine medics until they kill a dozen times their worth, letting his minerals soar, while iloveoov is the guy who lets them die and comes back a minute later with an army twice the size
i worry that with the inclusion of MBS, automine, etc, the choices players must make between being at the front line and being at home are effectively decided for them. Why ever move your screen away from the battle if you can control everything without ever looking back at your base past early game? all of a sudden, boxer controlling that last doomed group of units isn't boxer anymore, because the game made the choice for us to do the same, and coming back a minute later with an army twice the size isn't iloveoov either, because everyone was doing that as well
ya this is a better way of saying what i was trying to say on the other page.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 31 2007 01:57 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2007 18:11 MyLostTemple wrote:
i agree with idra. you only make assertions and bring little evidence to the table. Further more if MBS is ultimately put into SC2, i can already for see a massive backlash from the people in the previous SC competitive scene. I have yet to find a player who's actually good at this game that admittedly wants MBS, smartcasting or automining. I HOPE blizzard cares about the people who played the previous game enough to keep it alive. However, after seeing it at Blizzcon I'm rather confused.
I actually interviewed a ton of SC players who were competing in the world cyber games grand finals for ggl asking them what they thought of MBS and these other features. Every person i asked firmly said 'no' with the exception of one WCG ref i interviewed who didn't mind MBS but absolutely opposed autominig. Unfortunately GGL never produced it =[
Regardless; no, we are not done. If your going to boil down your Pro MBS argumentation to an 'opinion' that you can't back with anything but claims; well then i think you need to do a little more work. And backing that 'opinion' up by saying anti-mbs people are merely self interested is ridiculous. Well first. That's a decision by blizzard -- how much do they wish to compliment the previous competitive community? Or do they aim to keep SC1 alive, and expect the current scene to continue what it's currently doing? As for why you're confused...Perhaps cause you played it quite some time ago, and even now the game isn't even in alpha? Do I need to show you screen shots of SC 1 BETA? I would have liked to have seen that... I enjoy you're work. I'm surprised your still giving me this ultimatum. First off how is it not an opinion? IdrA can admit that it is POSSIBLE to create a competitive game with MBS. Very Hard and risking a lot definitely. I don't think it's an opinion that innovation requires risk, but I do think it is an opinion as to how you want to mold a game of the future. It is your opinion that Starcraft 2 should maintain the same mechanics and balance of micro and macro and everything else from Starcraft 1. It is a different opinion to say, nah we want change lets try X Y Z and play around with it. When the game comes out, and the general consensus is that MBS ruined the game, and we're all still playing SC 1 well then that might be able to be boiled down past opinion. But right now that's hogwash. You have no evidence that MBS has produced a negative effect on the current game. You might have personal experience that you didn't like it when you played a slightly different game 6 months ago. You may have asked every single top player in teh world and got their opinion on it. Congrats man, how is that not opinion? Deciding what kind of game you want as an end result from blizzard is called forming an opinion. Some opinions are better than others but this does not negate the fact that they are opinions. I haven't met a single person that isn't self interested..... It's not ridiculous it's fairly valid. That doesn't make it a negative thing. It would be quite foolish of top players to not be self interested. I don't see a professional gamer playing the game, admitting it could be competitive, and then stating that the game needs to be more different than Starcraft 1 so there is a more level playing field on release day. To say that anyone is not at least mildly self interested is to revel in your bias. If you can't admit that it's possible yet risky for blizzard to make a game with MBS that can be competitive for a long time well then I'm done here. If can admit that -- Well then I'm done here. How am I not done here? I agree with just about everything IdrA has to say, and enjoyed talking with him quite thoroughly. You however just revel in your bias and tell me i'm a gd noob idiot for thinking about creating actual innovation within the game and the possibilities of risk. Fuck man I'm not even for MBS i'm just telling the majority of you STFU and WAIT, It might not all be bad (automine, mbs, smartcast) In my personal OPINION though, MBS is the only one worth thoroughly testing because I have a bias against how I want the game to be formed. -- Go read my post in a previous thread as to why MBS should definitely not be in the game.... EDIT: And when you say 'merely self interested' I think your taking my argument a step further than I intended. The way you say it sounds like top pros are solely self interested. I don't think that, that's absurd. It's just as absurd to say that they want a completely different game.
i'll basically echo what idra says. The burden of prof is on you to explain why MBS should be kept in the game. If your simply stating that your opinion is it should be tested first (which i agree with) i don't see why you keep posting here. There are people who wish to discuss the matter throughly on this fourm.
|
I already said in the first MBS discussion that top players now, who have evolved starcraft for 10 years, and the game keeps evolving, that all their hard work will be negated. Auto mine yes, smartcasting maybe, but not MBS. It messes up too many of the mechanics that makes SC the greatest RTS on earth. It goes beyond SBS, it is SBS + 12 unit cap + everything else. And blizz is wasting time not making a true sequel. Blizzard has already lost the status quo. I dont even consider them human.
|
On December 31 2007 05:13 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2007 01:57 Motiva wrote:On December 30 2007 18:11 MyLostTemple wrote:
i agree with idra. you only make assertions and bring little evidence to the table. Further more if MBS is ultimately put into SC2, i can already for see a massive backlash from the people in the previous SC competitive scene. I have yet to find a player who's actually good at this game that admittedly wants MBS, smartcasting or automining. I HOPE blizzard cares about the people who played the previous game enough to keep it alive. However, after seeing it at Blizzcon I'm rather confused.
I actually interviewed a ton of SC players who were competing in the world cyber games grand finals for ggl asking them what they thought of MBS and these other features. Every person i asked firmly said 'no' with the exception of one WCG ref i interviewed who didn't mind MBS but absolutely opposed autominig. Unfortunately GGL never produced it =[
Regardless; no, we are not done. If your going to boil down your Pro MBS argumentation to an 'opinion' that you can't back with anything but claims; well then i think you need to do a little more work. And backing that 'opinion' up by saying anti-mbs people are merely self interested is ridiculous. Well first. That's a decision by blizzard -- how much do they wish to compliment the previous competitive community? Or do they aim to keep SC1 alive, and expect the current scene to continue what it's currently doing? As for why you're confused...Perhaps cause you played it quite some time ago, and even now the game isn't even in alpha? Do I need to show you screen shots of SC 1 BETA? I would have liked to have seen that... I enjoy you're work. I'm surprised your still giving me this ultimatum. First off how is it not an opinion? IdrA can admit that it is POSSIBLE to create a competitive game with MBS. Very Hard and risking a lot definitely. I don't think it's an opinion that innovation requires risk, but I do think it is an opinion as to how you want to mold a game of the future. It is your opinion that Starcraft 2 should maintain the same mechanics and balance of micro and macro and everything else from Starcraft 1. It is a different opinion to say, nah we want change lets try X Y Z and play around with it. When the game comes out, and the general consensus is that MBS ruined the game, and we're all still playing SC 1 well then that might be able to be boiled down past opinion. But right now that's hogwash. You have no evidence that MBS has produced a negative effect on the current game. You might have personal experience that you didn't like it when you played a slightly different game 6 months ago. You may have asked every single top player in teh world and got their opinion on it. Congrats man, how is that not opinion? Deciding what kind of game you want as an end result from blizzard is called forming an opinion. Some opinions are better than others but this does not negate the fact that they are opinions. I haven't met a single person that isn't self interested..... It's not ridiculous it's fairly valid. That doesn't make it a negative thing. It would be quite foolish of top players to not be self interested. I don't see a professional gamer playing the game, admitting it could be competitive, and then stating that the game needs to be more different than Starcraft 1 so there is a more level playing field on release day. To say that anyone is not at least mildly self interested is to revel in your bias. If you can't admit that it's possible yet risky for blizzard to make a game with MBS that can be competitive for a long time well then I'm done here. If can admit that -- Well then I'm done here. How am I not done here? I agree with just about everything IdrA has to say, and enjoyed talking with him quite thoroughly. You however just revel in your bias and tell me i'm a gd noob idiot for thinking about creating actual innovation within the game and the possibilities of risk. Fuck man I'm not even for MBS i'm just telling the majority of you STFU and WAIT, It might not all be bad (automine, mbs, smartcast) In my personal OPINION though, MBS is the only one worth thoroughly testing because I have a bias against how I want the game to be formed. -- Go read my post in a previous thread as to why MBS should definitely not be in the game.... EDIT: And when you say 'merely self interested' I think your taking my argument a step further than I intended. The way you say it sounds like top pros are solely self interested. I don't think that, that's absurd. It's just as absurd to say that they want a completely different game. i'll basically echo what idra says. The burden of prof is on you to explain why MBS should be kept in the game. If your simply stating that your opinion is it should be tested first (which i agree with) i don't see why you keep posting here. There are people who wish to discuss the matter throughly on this fourm.
Well basically, I've explained thoroughly why i believe it should be tested further and I've also explained in previous posts as to why I don't think the current state of the game is a good enough example to base anything off of. Automine and Smartcast are part of this argument i've posted previously and I've explained why the combination of the 3 isn't what this game needs. As such I suppose you could say that the only reason i keep posting here is because I think that this perspective is widely undermined in the majority of the MBS arguments. The majority of the posts here simply say to do away with all 3 without stopping to consider the possibilities of compromises and modifications. Things that certainly need to be done if we're going to keep these things.
As for the burden of proof... I don't think that's really even necessary. How is proof even possible at this stage in the game? We're discussing potential aspects of a potential game. I could provide potential proof...
Essentially you're arguing that the competitive community wants a game like X. I'm saying yea, I can see why, but you should also consider that A B and Z all can also provide a very competitive environment equally enthralling. C through F might provide horrible games. ect ect ect.
Essentially, we were done here a few posts ago, but you had to argue the semantics of opinion, and then demand that I need proof to argue something that can't even be proved. Provide evidence sure. Evidence and Proof are very different things. Sure we want a game similar to Starcraft but that shouldn't blind exercising attempts at potential improvements.
You're demanding evidence strong enough to prove that MBS is better than SBS. And this is where it breaks down into opinion. In order to see this perspective I suppose you should have to know what this discussion is really about.
Are you arguing that I need to provide proof that MBS does no ill?
or
Are you arguing that I need to provide proof that MBS does good?
or
Are you arguing that I need to provide proof that MBS is better than SBS?
or
Are you arguing that I need to provide proof that there was a need to take SBS out?
In order to prove my point I don't need to provide proof for any of those things because I am not arguing any of those things.
Do I need to provide sufficient evidence and explanation as to why I feel that MBS can be included in a game that can still maintain a highly competitive atmosphere that is different, fresh, long lasting, and yet still what can be described as "Starcraft"?
Yes, and I did.
The part that is opinion is what we all would "describe as starcraft". Some people can't view "Starcraft" without SBS, and I can understand that perspective very well. SBS is a central part of Starcraft. Theres a lot more to the game as well.
Provide sufficient argumentation as to why MBS could never be put into a game that could ever possibly be highly competitive, and long lived as a esport and spectator sport. You can't, why? Because the possibilities are relatively endless. The best you can do is argue why you don't want change, how the past was, and why you feel the past is important. That's fine and I agree with you there, however I'm not writing MBS off yet... Smartcast, Automine... Man I hope they get rid of them for the sake of the competitive scene.
This is redundant... I've said just about everything here in previous posts, and more.
|
On December 31 2007 05:45 HunterGatherer wrote:
I already said in the first MBS discussion that top players now, who have evolved starcraft for 10 years, and the game keeps evolving, that all their hard work will be negated. Auto mine yes, smartcasting maybe, but not MBS. It messes up too many of the mechanics that makes SC the greatest RTS on earth. It goes beyond SBS, it is SBS + 12 unit cap + everything else. And blizz is wasting time not making a true sequel. Blizzard has already lost the status quo. I dont even consider them human.
hmmm I do agree with you that it's either Automine or MBS but certainly not both,.
|
possible compromise: keep sbs but double the available hotkeys. Say 0-9 are still there as normal, but now add a second ten hotkeys with shift + X, where X is 0-9. so you could have a group that you select just by hitting 1 and a group you select by hitting shift + 1 (ctrl + shift + X to set a group in the first place, naturally).
This way production still takes as long to execute as in old sbs, but visual attention isn't shifted from the battlefield (if you happen to be in the middle of a battle) like MBS.
thoughts?
|
it would be too inconvenient keeping track of 20 hotkeys and going through using shift+#, people would still just go back to their bases because it would be so much faster.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
i like the idea of more bindable hotkeys =] but i don't like the tabbing ability, should be same as the original
|
On December 31 2007 06:03 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2007 05:13 MyLostTemple wrote:On December 31 2007 01:57 Motiva wrote:On December 30 2007 18:11 MyLostTemple wrote:
i agree with idra. you only make assertions and bring little evidence to the table. Further more if MBS is ultimately put into SC2, i can already for see a massive backlash from the people in the previous SC competitive scene. I have yet to find a player who's actually good at this game that admittedly wants MBS, smartcasting or automining. I HOPE blizzard cares about the people who played the previous game enough to keep it alive. However, after seeing it at Blizzcon I'm rather confused.
I actually interviewed a ton of SC players who were competing in the world cyber games grand finals for ggl asking them what they thought of MBS and these other features. Every person i asked firmly said 'no' with the exception of one WCG ref i interviewed who didn't mind MBS but absolutely opposed autominig. Unfortunately GGL never produced it =[
Regardless; no, we are not done. If your going to boil down your Pro MBS argumentation to an 'opinion' that you can't back with anything but claims; well then i think you need to do a little more work. And backing that 'opinion' up by saying anti-mbs people are merely self interested is ridiculous. Well first. That's a decision by blizzard -- how much do they wish to compliment the previous competitive community? Or do they aim to keep SC1 alive, and expect the current scene to continue what it's currently doing? As for why you're confused...Perhaps cause you played it quite some time ago, and even now the game isn't even in alpha? Do I need to show you screen shots of SC 1 BETA? I would have liked to have seen that... I enjoy you're work. I'm surprised your still giving me this ultimatum. First off how is it not an opinion? IdrA can admit that it is POSSIBLE to create a competitive game with MBS. Very Hard and risking a lot definitely. I don't think it's an opinion that innovation requires risk, but I do think it is an opinion as to how you want to mold a game of the future. It is your opinion that Starcraft 2 should maintain the same mechanics and balance of micro and macro and everything else from Starcraft 1. It is a different opinion to say, nah we want change lets try X Y Z and play around with it. When the game comes out, and the general consensus is that MBS ruined the game, and we're all still playing SC 1 well then that might be able to be boiled down past opinion. But right now that's hogwash. You have no evidence that MBS has produced a negative effect on the current game. You might have personal experience that you didn't like it when you played a slightly different game 6 months ago. You may have asked every single top player in teh world and got their opinion on it. Congrats man, how is that not opinion? Deciding what kind of game you want as an end result from blizzard is called forming an opinion. Some opinions are better than others but this does not negate the fact that they are opinions. I haven't met a single person that isn't self interested..... It's not ridiculous it's fairly valid. That doesn't make it a negative thing. It would be quite foolish of top players to not be self interested. I don't see a professional gamer playing the game, admitting it could be competitive, and then stating that the game needs to be more different than Starcraft 1 so there is a more level playing field on release day. To say that anyone is not at least mildly self interested is to revel in your bias. If you can't admit that it's possible yet risky for blizzard to make a game with MBS that can be competitive for a long time well then I'm done here. If can admit that -- Well then I'm done here. How am I not done here? I agree with just about everything IdrA has to say, and enjoyed talking with him quite thoroughly. You however just revel in your bias and tell me i'm a gd noob idiot for thinking about creating actual innovation within the game and the possibilities of risk. Fuck man I'm not even for MBS i'm just telling the majority of you STFU and WAIT, It might not all be bad (automine, mbs, smartcast) In my personal OPINION though, MBS is the only one worth thoroughly testing because I have a bias against how I want the game to be formed. -- Go read my post in a previous thread as to why MBS should definitely not be in the game.... EDIT: And when you say 'merely self interested' I think your taking my argument a step further than I intended. The way you say it sounds like top pros are solely self interested. I don't think that, that's absurd. It's just as absurd to say that they want a completely different game. i'll basically echo what idra says. The burden of prof is on you to explain why MBS should be kept in the game. If your simply stating that your opinion is it should be tested first (which i agree with) i don't see why you keep posting here. There are people who wish to discuss the matter throughly on this fourm. Well basically, I've explained thoroughly why i believe it should be tested further and I've also explained in previous posts as to why I don't think the current state of the game is a good enough example to base anything off of. Automine and Smartcast are part of this argument i've posted previously and I've explained why the combination of the 3 isn't what this game needs. As such I suppose you could say that the only reason i keep posting here is because I think that this perspective is widely undermined in the majority of the MBS arguments. The majority of the posts here simply say to do away with all 3 without stopping to consider the possibilities of compromises and modifications. Things that certainly need to be done if we're going to keep these things. As for the burden of proof... I don't think that's really even necessary. How is proof even possible at this stage in the game? We're discussing potential aspects of a potential game. I could provide potential proof... Essentially you're arguing that the competitive community wants a game like X. I'm saying yea, I can see why, but you should also consider that A B and Z all can also provide a very competitive environment equally enthralling. C through F might provide horrible games. ect ect ect. Essentially, we were done here a few posts ago, but you had to argue the semantics of opinion, and then demand that I need proof to argue something that can't even be proved. Provide evidence sure. Evidence and Proof are very different things. Sure we want a game similar to Starcraft but that shouldn't blind exercising attempts at potential improvements. You're demanding evidence strong enough to prove that MBS is better than SBS. And this is where it breaks down into opinion. In order to see this perspective I suppose you should have to know what this discussion is really about. Are you arguing that I need to provide proof that MBS does no ill? or Are you arguing that I need to provide proof that MBS does good? or Are you arguing that I need to provide proof that MBS is better than SBS? or Are you arguing that I need to provide proof that there was a need to take SBS out? In order to prove my point I don't need to provide proof for any of those things because I am not arguing any of those things. Do I need to provide sufficient evidence and explanation as to why I feel that MBS can be included in a game that can still maintain a highly competitive atmosphere that is different, fresh, long lasting, and yet still what can be described as "Starcraft"? Yes, and I did. The part that is opinion is what we all would "describe as starcraft". Some people can't view "Starcraft" without SBS, and I can understand that perspective very well. SBS is a central part of Starcraft. Theres a lot more to the game as well. Provide sufficient argumentation as to why MBS could never be put into a game that could ever possibly be highly competitive, and long lived as a esport and spectator sport. You can't, why? Because the possibilities are relatively endless. The best you can do is argue why you don't want change, how the past was, and why you feel the past is important. That's fine and I agree with you there, however I'm not writing MBS off yet... Smartcast, Automine... Man I hope they get rid of them for the sake of the competitive scene. This is redundant... I've said just about everything here in previous posts, and more.
stop fucking dancing around it
you have not given one single reason why mbs SHOULD be included, what good it could do. all youve done is try to say the negative affects it will have wont be TOO bad. if there are going to be ANY negative affects at all there has to be something good too. tell us what that something good is going to be or stop fucking arguing.
|
I just waded through a few of motiva's posts on this page and I think his point is that mbs might be bad, or it might be neutral. so I dunno if it's fair to demand of him to explain how it might be good. Then again I haven't been following all of this thread so I probably missed some things that were said.
|
ya, that is his point. however he advocates keeping it in and testing it till beta, and if they do that it probably wont come. to justify that there has to be something good that will come of it.
and if something is bad or neutral why would you keep it in the first place
|
On December 31 2007 09:55 IdrA wrote:
ya, that is his point. however he advocates keeping it in and testing it till beta, and if they do that it probably wont come. to justify that there has to be something good that will come of it.
and if something is bad or neutral why would you keep it in the first place
First off, throwing out a major design concept on the basis that there's a significant chance that it might hurt the game's competitiveness is one of the worst mistakes a game developer can make. It's been shown time and time again that iterative testing always wins out over the opinions of a focus group of experienced players. There are simply too many factors, both designed and emergent, to make judgments even when one has the entire design at hand, much less the slim information we've been provided with. So you played the pre-alpha, and came away with some concerns about the gameplay. Tell me, what game in the pre-alpha phase hasn't sucked? That's the nature of iterative design: you make a quick prototype, play it out, and fix problems that arise. As for worries that beta will be too late to take MBS out should it prove harmful, I would think Blizzard would be one of the few developers with the financial support and the dedication to go back and re-balance the game around SBS, an easier task considering they have BW to work off of in that case. I mean, if Valve can throw out a game at the beta phase and start over from scratch, both in content and design, to later produce Half-Life, it would be much likelier for Blizzard to throw out a single interface change, especially if it's only design work that has to be redone. Keep in mind that it's unlikely that SC2 will suffer a serious backlash if MBS is tested and found to be helpful and kept, or found to be harmful and tossed. Blizzard's only chances of receiving a backlash are: 1) from the SC community, if MBS is tested, found to be harmful, and kept anyway; and 2) from the WC3 community, if MBS is thrown out because of complaints by SC veterans before even being tested.
Secondly, you asked for a reason why MBS would be good, so I'll give you two: accessibility and forward bases.
It's a fact that easier controls and easier learning curves, exemplified here by MBS, will cause more people to actively participate in multiplayer play (note that I don't mention sales here, but active multiplayer play), which leads to more people eventually becoming competitive players. The reasoning behind this is simple: the vast majority of players must advance beyond the beginner level before they begin to have an interest in serious competitive play, and therefore a multiplayer game must avoid inadvertently putting up roadblocks that keep beginning players from leaving the game before they get to that level. One of the biggest of those roadblocks is when the controls allow veterans to romp all over new players before the latter even get their foot through the door, so to speak. This is only exacerbated when there is an impression (true or false) that the control system was designed to allow a "caste" of players to dominate from the very start of public play. It's one thing to be pwned by a player better than you in all aspects; it's another to be pwned by a player whose primary advantage exists in a better understanding of a complex control system (esp. if the primary method of gaining that understanding is mass repetition).
I don't think anti-MBSers realize how important of a point this is. E-sports cannot survive on the competitiveness of their gameplay alone; they must also be accessible, or be doomed to obscurity. Many examples exist to back this assertion: Painkiller revitalized the deathmatch genre by simplifying the movement system, bringing in many players, most notably voO, to the competitive deathmatch scene (only to lose many of them again when the main game became Quake 4 and the emphasis on movement complexity returned, thus leading to the current state of near-death due to lack of new players); as competitive as it was, the combat flight genre was nearly non-existent in e-sports until Ace Combat 6, which eschews many of the complex controls involved in past combat flight simulators; and Kart Rider, which has achieved a following larger than PGR3 (itself an "arcade" racer) could ever hope to achieve by taking simple controls and ramping up the speed to insane levels. The RTS is easily one of the most complex genres in gaming just by its style of indirect-control, multi-tasking gameplay; therefore, if one wants to draw competitively-minded gamers from other genres, simplifying the controls is the best bet. The RTS genre already exists on the fringes of the international e-sports mainstream (with the exception of WC3, as spectator-unfriendly it might be); why waste one of the biggest opportunities in many years to draw in new players and revitalize the genre?
My second point is more specific, and considerably less important than the above, but you want reasons, so I'll give you reasons. Forward bases, defined here as unit-producing buildings built at expansions closer to the enemy's main, make for inefficient macro in SC beyond the early-mid phase, as it's easier to mass-click a bunch of buildings in one location than bounce from base to base clicking a couple buildings at a time. That's why almost all unit-producing buildings built outside of the main in SC pro play are proxies, and are designed to finish the game there and then or be lost in trying. MBS makes forward bases a viable, indeed standard strategy, as it allows players to produce from buildings in different locations efficiently. Forward bases make the game more interesting as they increase both the reward and the risk of taking territory. Expansions become more valuable, serving as forward staging grounds (due to decreased rallying time) as well as economic sources, but they also become more vulnerable, as the loss of an expansion not only hurts a player's economic capacity but their production capacity as well.
P.S. For anyone who was at Blizzcon, what was the speed set on? I'm genuinely curious, since AFAIK no one's answered this question which has been asked many times.
EDIT: Also, a quick question about automine, which I feel has received less serious inspection: what if auto-mine was kept in, but auto-split was removed? For example, if a player set a rally point on a mineral patch, workers would spawn and head to that patch, and only upon arriving would check for the nearest available patch, as opposed to checking on spawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
