EPTGuess why its hardly done ?
[D] MBS Discussion II - Page 7
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Fuu
198 Posts
Guess why its hardly done ? | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
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 Well... I advocate keeping it in until a larger base of players can play, and any sort of "metagame" can form. Depending on blizzard's vision of the game, this could be Now, It could be internal alpha, it could be any time beta. My justification is sheer possibility. You may call that weak. I'm going to call it opportunity. Blizzard's Beta version of Starcraft looks atrocious and blizzard said fuck we fucked up, and they scrambled together what we call Starcraft today. This game isn't even in a full wide company internal alpha... Blizzard's giving it a lot of publicity which means they have a lot of confidence in it. Also besides a few controversial subjects (this being one of them)... Art perhaps being another... The overall feedback has been really good. You're going to look at this and acknowledge that this was Starcraft Beta, and then tell me that theres little to no chance that MBS will be removed if it makes it into the Beta? http://www.geocities.com/area51/comet/2481/beta.html | ||
|
freelander
Hungary4707 Posts
we can play now Project Revolution, which is a War3 mod, which tries to recreate StarCraft in 3D. They just released the terran demo, you can play tvt with it. It has MBS, afaik you have to press tab to change the selection to the next building. Good players could test it and say opinions. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
so unless im wrong on something there, there isnt much of an 'opportunity' at all. certainly not one worth risking anything on. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
At least Blizzard can very easily revert to SBS when they figure out MBS hurts the game. It'd be much worse for them to work the other way around. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
theres no way to make a good, starcraft-esque competitive game with mbs (without adding a macro-based task similar to sbs that negates the purpose of adding mbs) | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On January 01 2008 07:40 IdrA wrote: theres no way to make a good, starcraft-esque competitive game with mbs (without adding a macro-based task similar to sbs that negates the purpose of adding mbs) Why are you even debating this if this is the kind of mindset that you hold. Might as well just state your opinion and leave the thread, or just copy/paste this one-liner in response to everyone else's lengthy arguments, rather than "demanding proof" while failing to provide any. Any evidence provided to the contrary is obviously falling upon deaf ears. | ||
|
talismania
United States2364 Posts
I would like to stay, what we can do now besides arguing and opinion expressing, we can play now Project Revolution, which is a War3 mod, which tries to recreate StarCraft in 3D. They just released the terran demo, you can play tvt with it. It has MBS, afaik you have to press tab to change the selection to the next building. Good players could test it and say opinions. This is a good idea... I dunno if I can find that experiment design I had in the old thread or not, but surely right now some decent players could get together and test out how mbs affects the competitiveness of matchups. If it tends to reduce the skill ceiling, we will be able to tell because worse players will do better in this mod. If it doesn't then we'll know that mbs doesn't have as big an effect as some people think. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On January 01 2008 08:04 teamsolid wrote: Why are you even debating this if this is the kind of mindset that you hold. Might as well just state your opinion and leave the thread, or just copy/paste this one-liner in response to everyone else's lengthy arguments, rather than "demanding proof" while failing to provide any. Any evidence provided to the contrary is obviously falling upon deaf ears. do you have any evidence to provide? | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On January 01 2008 08:04 teamsolid wrote: Why are you even debating this if this is the kind of mindset that you hold. Might as well just state your opinion and leave the thread, or just copy/paste this one-liner in response to everyone else's lengthy arguments, rather than "demanding proof" while failing to provide any. Any evidence provided to the contrary is obviously falling upon deaf ears. except i, and many others, have already gone over the points that demonstrate how mbs would hurt competitive sc2 in detail many times. read the last few pages of the thread. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On January 01 2008 07:40 IdrA wrote: except it is not a sc2 specific claim. theres no way to make a good, starcraft-esque competitive game with mbs (without adding a macro-based task similar to sbs that negates the purpose of adding mbs) and mbs like 5mmmmmmccg*tab*tt*tab*v*tab*s isn't starcraft-esque, right? there is no and won't be any evidence from both sides. edit: ah, sorry --;; definitely confused meanings. Thank you, teamsolid | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On January 01 2008 08:37 IdrA wrote: except i, and many others, have already gone over the points that demonstrate how mbs would hurt competitive sc2 in detail many times. read the last few pages of the thread. Yes, and many others have also provided plenty of evidence for both sides (pages upon pages arguing in every MBS thread) but there is no concrete "proof" for either one. InRaged, I think you are confusing the definitions between "evidence" and "proof". | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On January 01 2008 08:50 InRaged wrote: and mbs like 5mmmmmmccg*tab*tt*tab*v*tab*s isn't starcraft-esque, right? do you people even read the fucking thread if you dont have to move away from the battle to macro(forced to prioritize between micro and macro) it eliminates some of the diversity that makes starcraft such a good game, it makes it more like warcraft. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On January 01 2008 08:56 teamsolid wrote: Yes, and many others have also provided plenty of evidence for both sides (pages upon pages arguing in every MBS thread) but there is no concrete "proof" for either one. InRaged, I think you are confusing the definitions between "evidence" and "proof". where are you getting the demand for proof from? all we're asking is that he explain how mbs COULD have a positive benefit. and no there hasnt been valid evidence provided in support of mbs. their main arguments are accessibility for lower level players and removal of a boring repetitive portion of the game, and both of those have been more than adequately refuted. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On January 01 2008 10:28 IdrA wrote: where are you getting the demand for proof from? On January 01 2008 10:28 IdrA wrote: and no there hasnt been valid evidence provided in support of mbs. their main arguments are accessibility for lower level players and removal of a boring repetitive portion of the game, and both of those have been more than adequately refuted. Neither have been "adequately refuted". They are both in fact valid arguments having numerous direct consequences on the competitive scene, but their importance is however under debate as is every other argument for or against MBS, with many different people having equally as many opinions. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
that was just using the phrase he introduced, read the rest of the posts. we're asking him to explain how he expects mbs to do good. Neither have been "adequately refuted". They are both in fact valid arguments having numerous direct consequences on the competitive scene, but their importance is however under debate as is every other argument for or against MBS, with many different people having equally as many opinions. yes they have been. hell read the post at the top of this page. there are many sports that are not easy for beginners to pick up, but they still enjoy playing them vs other players of the same level. you should not lower the overall skill cap to satisfy beginners, because it is unecessary and prevents a competitive upper level from developing. and as for the repetitive boring portion of the game, that is necessary to maintain the balance between macro/micro/strategy that has been discussed multiple times in literally every thread on the topic. seriously read the thread or shut the fuck up. | ||
|
Amnesty
United States2054 Posts
| ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
As for the accessibility of the game affecting it's competitive status. That's just plain silly. There are competitive games out there with relatively simple UI mechanics regardless. MBS really would have a very minor affect on the accessibility of the game, only slightly helping those that are experienced enough to use hotkeys, but can't use them well. The real issue here is now whether or not this mechanics that is already in the game for whatever reason blizzard has actually can do good for the game. With our general knowledge being somewhere around zero if we exclude Starcraft. We really can't tell if the effects generate a better or worse game. I say this because all we have to go by is SC and how it was. There are also all sorts of tiny little facets in MBS alone, and with proper tweaking that "time that needs to be filled" could very well be filled. Does it queue to the most efficient building? Do you have to tab between buildings to make a unit out of them? If you have 5 barracks selected do you just have to press "m" or "mmmmm" ? Can you have multiple types of building selected simultaneously?? Can you set rally points with multiple buildings selected? How does this fit in with the Terran's ability to build multiple marines out of a single barracks simultaneously? How does this affect Zerg, whom have to worry about larva management, and whom also typically don't consolidate their Hatcheries, but rather have them fairly spread out? And that's just what I could think of real quick. -- and really if you can think of more, or have productive comments about any of those things I'd be eager to discuss. That is turn this into a discuss instead of an argument. lol  I'm interested in hearing about Project Revolution or whatever it was called, sounded interesting. The biggest issue most people have with MBS is that it has the potential to destroy the fragile balance of Micro, Macro, and Strategy. There are a few stances you can take on this depending on your bias. Some people may want a "strategy" game to focus soley on strategy. Some people are micro gods and i'm sure they wouldn't be concerned if macro was removed. Anyone bothering to argue here most likely wants some of both, well balanced. Like Starcraft. However change is going to occur, and we're aiming here to discuss how this change affects what we want out of this game. As for evidence as to why MBS should even be put in, in the first place -- Good luck anything there is not only opinion, but also irrelevant because It's already in the game . The real discussion is not to provide evidence as to why it should be in the game, but rather to discuss (notice I didn't use the word prove or evidence) as to why we should remove it, or not remove it, as well as any alternatives or tweaks. Hell -- Proper Tweaking could provide something just as integral to SC and SBS. The remove it side has spoken, I understand their argument and it has very very strong merit. However, merit is merit and doesn't necessarily denote immediate action. It's still early in this phase of development for the game, and just about anything can happen. I'm sure there are 100 different way to tweak MBS. I'm sure atleast a few of those ways could provide a game with a proper balance. Then theres the whole spiel on Could the balance in the original been better? I'm going to not even get into that, if someone wishes to, feel free. From what I've seen from Starcraft2 they are adding a lot of potential for strong micro and strategy tactics that are fairly foreign to what we know and love in Starcraft 1. (Reapers, Blink, Colossus(sp), Viking, Protoss Phase Prisms, Terrain visibility) You could argue any of those specifics if you like, but the point is theres a lot more different. Will it still be standard play to only have 1 entrance to your main? Or Will 2 or more be more standard? I'm just saying that there things worth arguing over just as much. (if theres any worth in any of it) What I'm saying is that Blizzard is going to mess with this balance quite a bit, and we need to acknowledge, discuss, and formulate a concise stance so that when it comes time for us to submit our feedback we can be very precise about what we do like and what we don't like. The majority of the people I don't think would lose too much sleep if Starcraft 2 was just an upgraded Starcraft 1 with the same units, balance, new graphics, same mechanics, but a lot of cute new additions to bnet ect ect. I also don't think it's impossible that blizzard could release a game that's thrown Starcraft and Warcraft's micro/macro balances out the window and does something new and cute. if you dont have to move away from the battle to macro(forced to prioritize between micro and macro) it eliminates some of the diversity that makes starcraft such a good game As IdrA says, this is an important part of the original game and we do want the players to have to go back to their current base and have a lot of multitasking they have to handle. My perspective on this is that this is why it's either MBS or Automine but certainly not both. Personally I'd take MBS over Automine. Why? Automine forces you to go back to your base, You're a zerg player and you're got 5 expansions and you're still using some of your larva for drones. You have to bounce all over the map to assign those drones work, if they're MBSed and Automined that's a bit too simple. With just automine, the zerg player doesn't really have much of a change the only difference is that they run out of hotkeys for their hatcheries at about this point. With just MBS the zerg player still has to hotkey hatches for however many hatches they want. They'd be pretty silly if they didn't still divide hatches up among hotkeys for larva management. Yet they also have to bounce back to each expansion to get that little drone mining | ||
|
gsphdp
Korea (South)10 Posts
| ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On January 01 2008 07:40 IdrA wrote: except it is not a sc2 specific claim. theres no way to make a good, starcraft-esque competitive game with mbs (without adding a macro-based task similar to sbs that negates the purpose of adding mbs) Why don't we discuss this instead? Current generation RTS games depend on skill of execution and juggling of tasks to make it competitive and challenging. Either it has SBS or it just requires less skill. I agree that clicking all your buildings isn't the most meaningful skill to test in an RTS. But removing it is far worse. Why don't you pro-MBS people start to discuss this? Rather than stop testing a skill completely why not look for a 'more intelligent' replacement? Surely, a next generation esports based RTS will be different from SC and SC2. Why not theory craft about new types of ways to test macro skill and other base management skills? | ||
| ||
