|
On January 02 2008 01:56 Motiva wrote:Alright... I don't even know why I'm here to post this. Everything that follows has already been stated, and you're rebuttals have already been stated. But read on? 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. Show nested quote + 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
it doesnt matter if MBS is already in or not, because theyve said theyre willing to remove it if it negatively affects the game. we've made the case for how it will negatively affect the game. if you dont have something better(or anythign at all) supporting its potential positive impacts then it should be removed
and, oddly enough, you still havent even given POTENTIAL positives, you raised a bunch of questions, thats it. the only real point you had was that it might be ok to vary from the micro/macro/strategy balance of sc because of some of the new micro/harass possibilities. once again warcraft is the micro based game line, if they want to go in that direction they can make warcraft4(and they have said they want to keep the 2 game lines seperate).
|
the only real point you had was that it might be ok to vary from the micro/macro/strategy balance of sc because of some of the new micro/harass possibilities. once again warcraft is the micro based game line, if they want to go in that direction they can make warcraft4(and they have said they want to keep the 2 game lines seperate).
although i am anti-MBS, i want to point out that this argument does not hold. SBS is not starcraft-specific and MBS is not warcraft-specific. it was only war3 that took the turn for a more micro-based game. the prequels were generally pretty macro-based (depending on what speed you played on) and had SBS.
so i think in this argument we should be looking more towards the time-line rather than game-line. blizzards number one reason for wanting to include MBS, i bet, is because otherwise it would look like the interface has gone back in time. you can make any pro-MBS argument you want (wait, are there any?), but in the end that is what it boils down to. but why the company seems to think it needs to allow us to be able to select more shit with each new game is beyond me.
if we take a look at blizzard's four RTS games over time, we see that as the interface has supposedly gotten friendlier and friendlier, the shift in the macro/micro balance has swayed more and more towards micro*. the way i see it, they truly hit the jackpot with starcraft - it had the perfect balance of each. i so hope blizzard realizes this too and doesn't go over the edge like it did with war3, providing us with a game that has too much focus on micro and nothing for us to be worried about in the back of our minds.
also, i personally think trying to come up with ways to recreate the balance is completely redundant. i say just stick with what has worked so well in the past.
edit: *actually, i think war1 might have been more micro based than war2, but you get the point.
|
theyve specifically said in interviews that they are trying to keep the game lines on those two seperate paths.
they were asked if they were adding more spellcasters and abilities to sc2, and they said no because they wanted to keep the micro/spell intensive aspect of gameplay in the warcraft world while staying with the more macro focused starcraft.
reality may not coincide with that but theoretically thats what theyre aiming for.
|
On December 31 2007 19:07 Fuu wrote:
1esu, a lot of competitive sports are not 'easily' accessible, and it has never been a reason to simplify them. People still can enjoy a lot playing at their level against same level opponents, even if they dont master the mechanics perfectly. Changing the rules to avoid one component of these mechanics would make them indeed more accessible, but less competitive in the end. It doesnt only modify the 'learning curve'.
Guess why its hardly done ?
Well, I'm approaching SC2 as a competitive video game. A competitive sport usually has an extensive support network that teaches players the sport from a young age, and most sports' popularity in a given area extends from the size/effectiveness of their support networks. It also helps that the execution of most actions taken by players in sports is intuitive, as they directly involve the body. The most popular competitive board games, such as Go and Chess, follow the same model: extensive support networks and intuitive actions. Competitive video games, on the other hand, have minimal support networks for teaching new players, and the player's actions must be executed through a non-intuitive medium. Therefore, the best competitive games must have a mix of accessibility and competitiveness. SC was accessible when it came out primarily because of the point-and-click interface (the hotkey system being reserved for experts). However, given that there will be a significant section of SC2's incoming players who are already extremely proficient with the advanced controls, and that the rest of the industry has moved away from complex controls towards simpler ones in the past decade, it's easy to see how SC2 could benefit as a competitive game from making the game more accessible by simplifying the controls. It's also true that you could go the other direction and make SC2 more accessible by creating a larger support network, but that's a much riskier direction as such networks are initiated by the players, not the developers (for example, it would break immersion in the singleplayer if the player was directly taught macro).
However, I doubt you or any of the other anti-MBSers are approaching SC and SC2 as competitive games; rather, you're considering them as two parts of the same sport, and are therefore solely concerned with how the changes will affect the competitiveness of the game.
Unfortunately, sequels are developed with a different mindset than expansion packs; developers usually use sequels as opportunities to innovate in different directions from the gameplay of its predecessor. For example, despite relatively few changes on the surface, Halo 2's pace changed so greatly that the best Halo player at the time was forced to retire. Another example would be CS 1.6 and CS:Source, which are slowly evolving into separate sports, like Rugby Union and Rugby League. If you want to view SC as a sport, I think the best course would be to allow SC and SC2 to evolve in different directions much like 1.6 and Source are; after all, did rugby players give up when American football evolved out of their sport? I mean, it's likely that this dichotomy is going to exist regardless of what the foreign SC community does; why would you expect the Korean proscene to give up all they've worked towards to back SC2, even if it ends up being a carbon copy of BW with new units, until it's proven its worth over time? I'd easily bet money that the SC proscene will exist in Korea at least 2 years after SC2 is released. If anyone's worried about the marketability of SC in the international e-sports market, keep in mind that Blizzard has conveniently put all the old SC units in the editor, so it'd be easy to make SC:BW in the new engine; heck, Blizzard might even make a new version themselves. Or perhaps they could make a Starcraft HD, much like Capcom's release of Street Fighter and Super Puzzle Fighter in HD. The point is that both Blizzard and the e-sports scene would benefit from a coexistence of the two games in the market, but this can only happen if SC2 is different enough from SC to keep the former from replacing the latter. Personally, I think this would be the best possible case, as SC is a unique gem of emergent gameplay, and it shouldn't be thrown away simply because its sequel is being produced.
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?
As of its last known implementation, MBS works as follows: When the player has a building selected, they can shift-click other buildings of the same type, and then can issue commands to all selected buildings with a single click or group them to a hotkey.
What this means in terms of gameplay is that while all buildings of one type (e.g. gateways) can be controlled by a single group hotkey, gameplay that requires a mix of several units built by gateways will lead to players using multiple hotkeys for their gateways. When one factors in the buildings of other types, the hotkey usage could easily approach that required by SC macro. Also, features like reactors and the merc haven, which produce units differently from the norm, will likely require buildings with those features to be set on their own hotkeys, or be handled directly using SBS, for maximum efficiency.
However, the real issue is that the player is no longer required to go back to their base to directly produce units even in the lategame, as the player will not run out of hotkeys as inevitably as in SBS. But keep in mind that the player will have to go back to their base to individually regroup buildings to hotkey groups every time they want to change their unit distribution. The more focus on gameplay elements that encourage frequent changes in unit distribution, e.g. harder yet properly-balanced unit counters, the more players will have to go back to their base. Also, players will still have to go back to their bases for ordering upgrades, as it's an inefficient use of hotkeys to group upgrade buildings.
As for the Zerg, as long as they maintain their hatchery-based production system, my best suggestion would be to not allow MBS for hatcheries, but allow the players to select the hatchery and its larvae simultaneously, thus negating the need for the s key. Zerg players would not have to go back to their base to change unit distribution, but if they want more than one type of unit produced out of a single hatchery, they will have to individually select them anyways, so the two systems should balance out.
|
On January 02 2008 06:36 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2008 01:56 Motiva wrote:Alright... I don't even know why I'm here to post this. Everything that follows has already been stated, and you're rebuttals have already been stated. But read on? 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 it doesnt matter if MBS is already in or not, because theyve said theyre willing to remove it if it negatively affects the game. we've made the case for how it will negatively affect the game. if you dont have something better(or anythign at all) supporting its potential positive impacts then it should be removed and, oddly enough, you still havent even given POTENTIAL positives, you raised a bunch of questions, thats it. the only real point you had was that it might be ok to vary from the micro/macro/strategy balance of sc because of some of the new micro/harass possibilities. once again warcraft is the micro based game line, if they want to go in that direction they can make warcraft4(and they have said they want to keep the 2 game lines seperate).
Hmmm I don't know how else to convey this but:
I don't think it matters if MBS is already in or not because they're in the middle of testing it and will continue to test it until it's finalized or removed. You've made a case for how you feel it negatively affecst the game. I don't have any substantial evidence I can personally provides at this exact moment that states it will have a direct positive effect. Just because I don't have such evidence does not mean that someone else (blizzard) should stop testing it.
Not so oddly enough I still haven't even given potential positives because I haven't played the game yet. I did however posit a bunch of questions of which the aim was to simply show that MBS can be tweaked and manipulated into something in which the "negative effects" you provide can be negated.
I did state that it might be acceptable to vary from the current micro/macro/strategy balance of starcraft for some new possibilities (not even specificly micro/harass looking at Warp Gate, and Barracks Add-Ons ect ect We havent even seen zerg yet).
Once again Warcraft 3 is much more micro based but it's also almost completely deviod of any macro not just the tiny little aspect that is how you select your buildings. There is no economy, theres upkeep, a much smaller unit cap AND a greater focus on micro. If they were to go into that direction the game would be a different name so stop being silly.
lol.
This thread should be retitled to MBS Argumentation unless the Anti-MBS people are willing dicuss more about MBS than just taking it out. We already know why to take it out. Some of us though see a new feature that is currently not ideal for the competitive scene, but that doesn't mean we also feel it needs to be removed pre-alpha. Test it. Tweak it. Play it. Tweak. it. Discuss it. Remove it or Keep it.
EDIT: IdrA what exactly is it about MBS that you dislike the most? The reduced number of keystrokes or that they're not required to go back to manage their base as much? or something else?
|
On January 02 2008 09:01 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2007 19:07 Fuu wrote:
1esu, a lot of competitive sports are not 'easily' accessible, and it has never been a reason to simplify them. People still can enjoy a lot playing at their level against same level opponents, even if they dont master the mechanics perfectly. Changing the rules to avoid one component of these mechanics would make them indeed more accessible, but less competitive in the end. It doesnt only modify the 'learning curve'.
Guess why its hardly done ? Well, I'm approaching SC2 as a competitive video game. A competitive sport usually has an extensive support network that teaches players the sport from a young age, and most sports' popularity in a given area extends from the size/effectiveness of their support networks. It also helps that the execution of most actions taken by players in sports is intuitive, as they directly involve the body. The most popular competitive board games, such as Go and Chess, follow the same model: extensive support networks and intuitive actions. Competitive video games, on the other hand, have minimal support networks for teaching new players, and the player's actions must be executed through a non-intuitive medium. Therefore, the best competitive games must have a mix of accessibility and competitiveness. SC was accessible when it came out primarily because of the point-and-click interface (the hotkey system being reserved for experts). However, given that there will be a significant section of SC2's incoming players who are already extremely proficient with the advanced controls, and that the rest of the industry has moved away from complex controls towards simpler ones in the past decade, it's easy to see how SC2 could benefit as a competitive game from making the game more accessible by simplifying the controls. It's also true that you could go the other direction and make SC2 more accessible by creating a larger support network, but that's a much riskier direction as such networks are initiated by the players, not the developers (for example, it would break immersion in the singleplayer if the player was directly taught macro). However, I doubt you or any of the other anti-MBSers are approaching SC and SC2 as competitive games; rather, you're considering them as two parts of the same sport, and are therefore solely concerned with how the changes will affect the competitiveness of the game. Unfortunately, sequels are developed with a different mindset than expansion packs; developers usually use sequels as opportunities to innovate in different directions from the gameplay of its predecessor. For example, despite relatively few changes on the surface, Halo 2's pace changed so greatly that the best Halo player at the time was forced to retire. Another example would be CS 1.6 and CS:Source, which are slowly evolving into separate sports, like Rugby Union and Rugby League. If you want to view SC as a sport, I think the best course would be to allow SC and SC2 to evolve in different directions much like 1.6 and Source are; after all, did rugby players give up when American football evolved out of their sport? I mean, it's likely that this dichotomy is going to exist regardless of what the foreign SC community does; why would you expect the Korean proscene to give up all they've worked towards to back SC2, even if it ends up being a carbon copy of BW with new units, until it's proven its worth over time? I'd easily bet money that the SC proscene will exist in Korea at least 2 years after SC2 is released. If anyone's worried about the marketability of SC in the international e-sports market, keep in mind that Blizzard has conveniently put all the old SC units in the editor, so it'd be easy to make SC:BW in the new engine; heck, Blizzard might even make a new version themselves. Or perhaps they could make a Starcraft HD, much like Capcom's release of Street Fighter and Super Puzzle Fighter in HD. The point is that both Blizzard and the e-sports scene would benefit from a coexistence of the two games in the market, but this can only happen if SC2 is different enough from SC to keep the former from replacing the latter. Personally, I think this would be the best possible case, as SC is a unique gem of emergent gameplay, and it shouldn't be thrown away simply because its sequel is being produced. Show nested quote +
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?
As of its last known implementation, MBS works as follows: When the player has a building selected, they can shift-click other buildings of the same type, and then can issue commands to all selected buildings with a single click or group them to a hotkey. What this means in terms of gameplay is that while all buildings of one type (e.g. gateways) can be controlled by a single group hotkey, gameplay that requires a mix of several units built by gateways will lead to players using multiple hotkeys for their gateways. When one factors in the buildings of other types, the hotkey usage could easily approach that required by SC macro. Also, features like reactors and the merc haven, which produce units differently from the norm, will likely require buildings with those features to be set on their own hotkeys, or be handled directly using SBS, for maximum efficiency. However, the real issue is that the player is no longer required to go back to their base to directly produce units even in the lategame, as the player will not run out of hotkeys as inevitably as in SBS. But keep in mind that the player will have to go back to their base to individually regroup buildings to hotkey groups every time they want to change their unit distribution. The more focus on gameplay elements that encourage frequent changes in unit distribution, e.g. harder yet properly-balanced unit counters, the more players will have to go back to their base. Also, players will still have to go back to their bases for ordering upgrades, as it's an inefficient use of hotkeys to group upgrade buildings. As for the Zerg, as long as they maintain their hatchery-based production system, my best suggestion would be to not allow MBS for hatcheries, but allow the players to select the hatchery and its larvae simultaneously, thus negating the need for the s key. Zerg players would not have to go back to their base to change unit distribution, but if they want more than one type of unit produced out of a single hatchery, they will have to individually select them anyways, so the two systems should balance out.
I know how current MBS works. Those questions were fairly rhetorical, aiming to evoke thought such as "Hey MBS sucks for our current perception of how we want Starcraft 2, perhaps with enough tweaking and thinking we can produce something that is better than what we currently have within Starcraft1"
I'm not a huge fan of what you say about the MBS w/ Zerg. I'd rather have to just tell each larva selected what to be individualy
5sd for 6 drones = 5sdddddd or 5sddd6sddd depending on how you're hatcheries are placed on the map.
|
While I hate to create consecutive posts as opposed to taking on additional notes w/ edits. I feel this should just be a little side post.
Tasteless, and Testie, and a few others I think did play the game at blizzcon as they've said. I just have a question and that is.
When you were given the private showing and allowed to play for that hour or whatever it was. Afterwards did any blizzard official ask for guys for feedback? If so, What did you tell them?
I'm just wondering how aware blizzard already is of the dislike of MBS. I just read IdrA's interview and i'm just curious how much of this message the pro's and ect have conveyed this and more importantly why they don't like it.
|
this is a bit of a sidenote, but I was reminded of it by (one of) motiva's posts. how will automine actually work for zerg? I mean, will hatcheries have two rally points, one for combat, one for workers? I wonder how this will be addressed. seems like zerg get shafted in that respect, if production works the same as it did originally...
|
On January 01 2008 13:19 IdrA wrote:
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.
ok, stop right here. For the beginning let's check again some factual mbs advantages over sbs, that you for some reason happily ignore. Factual, not some vapory advantages.
- dramatically increased usability of rally-pointing concept
- warp-in concept for protoss
these are clear and to out-weight at least these 2 reasons to include mbs you need something more serious than suppositions of how mbs might possibly decrease starcraft2 competitiveness. And with every month of discussion it's only becoming clearer - without beta-test there won't be any proofs.
You think I asked about 5mmmmmmccg*tab*tt*tab*v*tab*s (I will call it shortly 1c1u mbs, what means 1 click - 1 unit mbs) for the sake of asking your opinion? No. I saw that was asked before and was usually answered with same loose and ungrounded "counter-argument" that it removes 'return to base' aspect, which in its turn allegedly helps to differentiate macro and micro style. This is very clever way to answer. You know, completely avoiding some risky points and at the same time keep posting that mbs takes away skills and requires less multitasking.
Well, the "problem" of 1c1u mbs - disappearing of 'return to base' aspect - is it's only problem left from regular mbs. It's in no way reduces macro aspect of the game, as time consuming as sbs, but it's still mbs.
Comparison of 1c1u mbs with 'clicking at buildings' and 6z7z8z9z:
I. Clicking at buildings:
- 1. Game role. After early-mid game is most common way to macro
- 2. Skill-set. The least of all three. No need to spend time hotkeying buildings (not true for other two styles).
- 3. Rally points concept. Only basic functions. Almost unusable.
II. 6z7z8z9z:
- 1. Game role. Very limited. Early game of every match up utilize simple version of this style but very soon players are forced to mix or completely switch to 'clicking at buildings'.
- 2. Skill-set. Hand speed and coordination. Favors multitasking in sense of mini-map control and micro/army control.
Not only you can keep visual contact with your army while doing combo but you can check suspicious points at mini-map without interrupting macro sequence and this is most skillful part of this macro style.
- 3. Rally points concept. Comfortable, but as soon as number of buildings exceeds number of hotkeys it becomes unusable.
III. 1c1u MBS:
- 1. Game role. Takes advantages from 6z7z8z9z and removes its limits. Nothing else but this macro style for whole game completely replacing 'clicking at buildings' style.
- 2. Skill-set. Favors multitasking allowing mixing macro with mini-map control or micro/army control.
Building units alone takes as much effort as in 'clicking at buildings' part but since it requires only one hand, player with good multitasking can extend his attention over mini-map and army. It's slightly easier to do than with 6z7z8z9z, because left hand doing easier task, but with dramatically increased game role, player would do that much more often and gained advantage over player who lacks in this aspect would be more sizable. In mid-late game, when number of production buildings is especially big, player with great multitasking and attention would be able to interrupt macro sequence performing fast micro moves without losing game pace - 5zdzdzdz*saves shuttle from turret*5dddtt6pppp*tab*oo. And again, in contrast with 'clicking at buildings' style, hotkeying buildings is necessary.
- 3. Rally points concept. On its fullest.
|
InRaged makes a few good points in my opinion. I like his "1c1u" concept, but I am against the tabbing. As well as against tabbing if for instance you have 5zealots and 1 high templar you shouldn't be able to tab and select a "high templar subgroup" -- like Warcraft 3... I'm not down with that.
Another alternative would be additional hotkeys. The whole Shift/mouse scroll to add layers of 1 through 0 is alittle clunky and I think there are better solutions.
One idea that comes to mind immediately is the F keys.
1 though 0 and F1-F12 could all be bindable to locations on the map, and or units and buildings.
In other words simply consolidate the functionality of both to allow for twice as much of both.
|
United States22883 Posts
Just a thought, is there a way we could analyze demos and get concrete evidence on the number of clicks players devote to macroing/microing ?
I know it wouldn't be perfect, but just to see a real % on how SC players divide their attention. BWchart seems pretty close to this, if you could just count the actions a player makes moving units around vs. the actions for building things. Then do the same with WC3. Then we could see a nice representation of just how dissimilar the two games are.
|
I started playing SC after watching Blizzcon (last one)... 2 ppl who had most influence were Savior, who fascinated me with his games, and Tasteless, who presented all games he shoutcasted in such a great way that I stopped playing everything else and focused on SC only...
I`m not playing SC as much as I`m watching VODs all the time. I have to say that those crazy Koreans are .... well crazy  I remember Mondragon`s words "Savior is a MONSTER!"
Anyway, I really enjoy watching those games, cuz they show something I`ll prolly never be able to do... I used to play Warcraft3(TFT), but watching Grubby,Tod,Creo etc. just become meaningless after watching some SC games...
The reason I`m against MBS is cuz ppl who are pro gamers wont be able to show their 100%, cuz every moron can put 20 rax to 1 hotkey and mass units. Also if they implement smartcasting... well, lets just say that we wont be seeing boxer`s medics blinding obs then raping helpless carriers in the next pimpest play... EVERYONE will be able to do it, so it wont be "pimp" anymore.... Neither will be storming or swarming...
I dont have anything to say about automining, just dont have an attitude `bout itd atm....
But I agree that we should wait, cuz SC2 is still in Alpha(or pre-Alpha),and when it hits beta, and more ppl try it, I think whining will be more intense, from both "pro" and "con" MBS sides, and then will Blizz decide what to do.... Even if they today give statement that they will not implement MBS,smartcast etc, they can change their minds like 200 times `till game hits shelves...And vice versa.....
|
|
|
My personal thoughts:
MBS should be included, but the only action that you should be able to do for all buildings at once is setting a rally point (i.e. ctrl-click gateways, right click rally point). You cannot select buildings of different types in different groups and produce units (i.e. starports and gateways have to be selected individually to produce units - you can still set their rally points together). You should still have to queue up units one at a time, but they should queue in order of selection and availability (i.e. gateways 1-6 are selected, gateway 1 is making a zealot, you hit z to queue another zealot, gateway 2 queues a zealot for production). If you want to queue more than one unit into a gateway, select the gate individually. If gates 1-6 are queued to produce units, the next unit queued should go into the gate that will be available next (i.e. gates 1-5 have 10 seconds until their unit comes out, gate 6 has 4 seconds; the next unit queued goes into queue at gate 6).
This seems like a decent compromise to me. And of course, drones have separate rally points from units for auto-mining  .
|
On January 05 2008 08:23 5HITCOMBO wrote:My personal thoughts: MBS should be included, but the only action that you should be able to do for all buildings at once is setting a rally point (i.e. ctrl-click gateways, right click rally point). You cannot select buildings of different types in different groups and produce units (i.e. starports and gateways have to be selected individually to produce units - you can still set their rally points together). You should still have to queue up units one at a time, but they should queue in order of selection and availability (i.e. gateways 1-6 are selected, gateway 1 is making a zealot, you hit z to queue another zealot, gateway 2 queues a zealot for production). If you want to queue more than one unit into a gateway, select the gate individually. If gates 1-6 are queued to produce units, the next unit queued should go into the gate that will be available next (i.e. gates 1-5 have 10 seconds until their unit comes out, gate 6 has 4 seconds; the next unit queued goes into queue at gate 6). This seems like a decent compromise to me. And of course, drones have separate rally points from units for auto-mining .
This really isnt a comprimise at all though. Most of the Anti-MBS arguments revolve around players needing to divert their attention to multiple places on the map rather than just watching your army and doing all your macro from hotkeys. The 1click1unit style is no closer to what the Anti-MBS'ers want than what is currently in the game.
A good comprimise in my opinion would be to allow MBS, but not to allow hotkeying of multiple buildings. Therefore you would still need to go back to base to macro, but instead of clicking all your barracks individually and individually giving them a marine build order, you could double click or crtl click a barracks, which would select them all, and then 1 click of the m button could have them all producing marines.
|
|
|
On January 05 2008 09:00 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2008 08:23 5HITCOMBO wrote:My personal thoughts: MBS should be included, but the only action that you should be able to do for all buildings at once is setting a rally point (i.e. ctrl-click gateways, right click rally point). You cannot select buildings of different types in different groups and produce units (i.e. starports and gateways have to be selected individually to produce units - you can still set their rally points together). You should still have to queue up units one at a time, but they should queue in order of selection and availability (i.e. gateways 1-6 are selected, gateway 1 is making a zealot, you hit z to queue another zealot, gateway 2 queues a zealot for production). If you want to queue more than one unit into a gateway, select the gate individually. If gates 1-6 are queued to produce units, the next unit queued should go into the gate that will be available next (i.e. gates 1-5 have 10 seconds until their unit comes out, gate 6 has 4 seconds; the next unit queued goes into queue at gate 6). This seems like a decent compromise to me. And of course, drones have separate rally points from units for auto-mining . This really isnt a comprimise at all though. Most of the Anti-MBS arguments revolve around players needing to divert their attention to multiple places on the map rather than just watching your army and doing all your macro from hotkeys. The 1click1unit style is no closer to what the Anti-MBS'ers want than what is currently in the game. A good comprimise in my opinion would be to allow MBS, but not to allow hotkeying of multiple buildings. Therefore you would still need to go back to base to macro, but instead of clicking all your barracks individually and individually giving them a marine build order, you could double click or crtl click a barracks, which would select them all, and then 1 click of the m button could have them all producing marines.
Three problems with the ctrl-click method that I can think of:
1) MBS becomes absolutely useless aside from massing a single unit, unless you lay out your (for example) barracks so that the barracks producing the marines and the barracks producing the medics would show up on different screens when either is centered. Otherwise, you'd ctrl-click and order all your barracks to produce a marine, then all queue a medic, which is hardly efficient.
2) Assuming the player builds their first barrack in the same place in relation to their starting cc, they'll likely know exactly where to ctrl-click before they make the switch, much like experienced CS snipers know where the crosshair will show up when they scope; therefore, all ctrl-click would be is 5-5-ctrl-click-m-1-1, which aside from the brief visual distortion is not so different from 1c1u. And if we consider the so-often-brought-up 20+ rax example, the above pattern (even with an additional 6-6-ctrl-click-m in the middle to account for the off-screen raxes) takes less actions, and therefore time spent not microing, then hitting the m button 30 times.
3) It gives little to no benefit to the Zerg, who only have two hatcheries on the screen at maximum most of the time, and have a button to select all their larvae at a hatchery anyways.
On January 02 2008 03:29 BlackStar wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Some ideas to start off with (each of which is baked in at least one MBS RTS):
Mass-Mining - allowing more than one worker mine from a single patch or geyser at the same time, which speeds up macro and adds the strategic option to 'strip mine' a resource area with a lot of workers with the cost of having to expand at a faster pace than normal.
Assisting - this already exists in SC; multiple SCVs can simultaneously repair a single unit/building, which increases the rate of repair. However, there are other ways to implement assisting: workers can assist a worker constructing a building in order to complete it faster (Humans can do this in WC3); workers can assist a building to decrease the time to produce a unit or research an upgrade; workers can assist a supply building to increase the psi it provides. The point is that the worker assisting is doing so at the expense of mining, and the benefit should reflect the opportunity cost of the worker not mining. Whether multiple workers can assist simultaneously should mesh with whether multiple workers for that race are allowed to do other actions simultaneously (e.g. repair, or the mass mining idea above).
Adjacency Bonus - albeit somewhat incongruous to SC-style base management, this allows structures to gain bonuses based on other buildings' proximity relative to it, thereby rewarding players who take the time to plan their base layout. This bonus is usually implemented as decreased production/research time, but there are other bonuses worth considering; in the case of the SC2 Reactor it's the ability to produce more than one unit simultaneously (e.g. 2).
Differently-paced Production - Already implemented in Warpgates and (I assume) Drop Pods, buildings with Reactors attached, and in the recently-removed Merc Haven, this involves unit-producing buildings that follow a different production pace then the usual, which requires the player to follow two or more different production timings simultaneously in order to produce most efficiently.
These ideas could be implemented for all races (the last definitely seems to be), but I think it'd be more interesting, albeit more dangerous balance-wise, if at least the first three were exclusive to one of the three races. For example:
Zerg would be able to mass-mine resources (with a low max to ensure balance, like 2 or 3), which is perfect for their hive mentality and willingness to make sacrifices, like strip-mining or losing many of their units, to achieve their goals.
Terrans would be able to assist at least construction, and perhaps any or all of production, research or supply (depending on inter-race balance, and whether it would be more beneficial competitive-wise to implement assisting in some fashion to all races), by assigning their workers, which emphasizes the Terran's theme of superiority through careful utilization of units.
Protoss would get production-based (and perhaps research-based) adjacency bonuses from being in the power field of multiple pylons, with the bonus depending on how many buildings each pylon is supporting, which fits with the fact that pylons supply psychic energy to power the teleportation/construction of units (and therefore more pylons working in concert should make for stronger warping/building).
|
So I'm a late arriver, what's a good argument for MBS that doesn't involve making the game easier?
|
Most of the pro-MBS or neutral-MBS arguers have challenged the premise of that question: that MBS will make the game significantly easier. In some form or the other. The debate hasn't centered at all on "yeah mbs will make the game easier, but here's how it will help blahblahblah." It's been more "mbs won't have an effect at all" or "mbs will alter the gameplay but not the skill ceiling by shifting what skills are involved".
then the anti-MBS people say "no way that the time saved in production will be made up for by other tasks." and the pro or neutrals say "it will" or "it might and testing will tell for sure" and then the antis say "no it won't... why bother testing" and then it stops for a while until someone starts it back up again by asking "wait what was the original argument for your side in the first place?"
except usually the posts are 3000 word essays...
|
On January 05 2008 07:40 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2008 02:42 YinYang69 wrote:
I think hand speed and multitasking will still play a large role. But instead of using your APM for mindless mechanical things such as building workers and checking on them every 40 seconds you now can focus more on mental things such as building and defense placement, army positioning, proper tank spreading, what have you. People mechanically superior will still have a huge advantage, but their actions won't be spent on robot like mechanics. I love this point. It completely ignores massive amounts of strategical thinking that occured in starcraft and dismisses them as robot mechanics. This is the sign of a bad starcraft player, who does not realise that there is so much more to an aspect of the game than just the clicking that goes along with it. Thinking tasks that Auto-mining will reduce/remove Battlesense: Your ability to read the battlefield and find pockets of time where it is safe to jump back to your base and macro. Or your ability to judge if it is worth the risk to go back. Prioritisation: Ability to be able to recognise all the tasks that need doing and being able to order them in urgency and importance. More tasks requires more prioritisation.
I wanted to comment on this more, but I lost the whole post thanks to a refreshing hotel internet disclaimer, and I don't have time to rewrite it, so I'll just ask your opinion on these points. I know this is from the auto-mine thread, but my comments in this rewrite focus mainly on production, so I'm putting it here.
It seems to me that as players approach a theoretically perfect level of unit-production mechanics (a limit approaching 0 seconds to go back to one's base and produce the next wave of units), these two skills matter less and less. It's easier to find a pocket of time for unit production and less risky if you can't as one takes less time to perform the production, and likewise it's much easier to prioritize unit production as it takes lesser and lesser time to perform than the other tasks at hand.
If this is true, then macro-management (building/expanding/etc.) is the dominant factor in these higher-level macro skills, and as such they aren't harmed by MBS to the extent they've been portrayed. If this is false, then unit-production mechanics are the dominant factor, which seems to say that as progamers get better and better on average at unit-production mechanics, the less viable macro-style play will become, which I find an unlikely prediction.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
