EPTChess takes more time to master, but it doesn't have ghosts and siege tanks so it loses.
[D] MBS Discussion III - Page 11
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
Chess takes more time to master, but it doesn't have ghosts and siege tanks so it loses. | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
| ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
No one here said that BGH/FMP is good, we merely guessed why so many people play it. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On March 05 2008 03:34 Klockan3 wrote:overwhelming for most players That is the problem. Overwhelming means that players don´t feel challenged but well - overwhelmed. As argued before there is a difference between challenging and frustrating. If you don´t see any progress in your own training you will abort it. Of course Players need a competative spirit but gameside the question is how to encourage that. | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
On March 05 2008 08:05 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Why am I not surprised that we have anti-MBS posters not getting anything? Wow, you win with that one! Seriously though, bit rich no?  | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On March 05 2008 08:50 Unentschieden wrote: That is the problem. Overwhelming means that players don´t feel challenged but well - overwhelmed. As argued before there is a difference between challenging and frustrating. If you don´t see any progress in your own training you will abort it. Of course Players need a competative spirit but gameside the question is how to encourage that. Yeah, both pro and anti mbs can probably agree on that starcraft is probably the hardest rts out there, at all levels of play. Of course its easy vs the comp, but i talk about vanilla 1v1 play, then there is so much shit to think about that your average gamer gets a brain meltdown while others love it since it challenges them. This is probably the main reason Blizzard would go with mbs, it lowers the skill requirement for the game to be played in a comfortable way much more than anything else. Ofcourse it arguably kills a lot of depth at the higher levels of play, but you always have starcraft when you feel really hardcore. But what i really wonder is, how can every anti-mbs person be so sure that putting starcraft 2 a little bit towards wc3 gameplay will destroy the game? And yes its just a little bit, you still have extreme lethality, you still don't have upkeep, you still don't have creeps, you still have dynamic expansionpoints, you still have a deep economy game, you still don't have heroes, you still have terrain importance and you still have 3 extremely unique races. I repeat: But what i really wonder is, how can every anti-mbs person be so sure that putting starcraft 2 a little bit towards wc3 gameplay will destroy the game? | ||
|
Tritanis
Poland344 Posts
I repeat: But what i really wonder is, how can every anti-mbs person be so sure that putting starcraft 2 a little bit towards wc3 gameplay will destroy the game? Because most of them thinks war3 wasn't a good game and mbs throws away lots of macro which they really like = lowers the skill gap. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On March 04 2008 23:39 Unentschieden wrote: Nice, but you kind of dodged the point: why don´t they play the "original" game? Why do they prefer the "easier" gameplay? Is it a problem of the game or the players? If it is the game: improve it. If it is the Players: whyt to do? Unless it is closed beta you don´t have the luxury to choose your players. Blizzard even admited that they are slightly manipulating the playerbase more or less directly. Well look at how many NR 15 mins games there are as well. Should we change starcraft so military units dont unlock until 15 mins into the game? The answer to why people play like this is simple. People have feeling like noobs. Regardless if theyve played the game for 5 hours or 5 years. People hate the notion that they are a lower ranked player. There are 2 routes to take when you come to this realisation. Learn to get better so you can compete with higher players, or artificially close the gap between players so that a good player is forced to play on the same level as a noob. FPM and BGH close the gap between players. No-one can take a macro advantage. With NR, the players will not be attacked before they are ready. The game is pretty much decided by who can micro their carriers better. This is the type of game that the pro-mBS are pushing towards. A game where macro is not a defining characteristic of players. Where everyone will have standardised armies, and the winner will be only the one that can micro the best during the 10% of the game when you are actually in combat. Now if someone wants to make FPM or BGH for Sc2, they can go ahead. All power to them, thats what they enjoy. However the players who dont play BGH and FPM dont want to be forced into playing a simplified version of what the game could be. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
In a multiplayer game the only difference between "easy" and "hard" should be the opponent. First step is to match up players of equall skill. Then their skill needs to translate into difficulty - that looks obvious but it isn´t that easy. SC itself has a good example for what I mean: Lurkers beat M&M. That holds true until the Terran player is good enough to "dance" his infantry, I hope you know what I mean. This reverses the matchup and therefore makes it harder for BOTH players. The mechanics behind SBS (and other stuff that doesn´t belong in this thread) are static on the other hand. No matter how good your opponent is you always get the same "reward" for your effort. Against a "bad" player this doesn´t become easier - you just get more leeway. You can train and translate this against a Computer player exactly fine and playing against the computer is pretty much barrel fishing. Edit: Example: Lets assume we were programming a fighting game. Lets assume we want to give a character a special attack - the fireball. Lets also assume that we already used up all buttons on the pad for "normal" punches and kicks. Obviously there needs to be a special command to execute the attack. Should it be very simple but not accidetnably triggerable like quarter circle forward punch OR very complex like halfcircle forward, forward down downforward (or even harder)? Both would accomplish the same, shooting a fireball. But when it is easier the fireball is part of the repertiour of this character, the harder option would limit it to "better" players and therefore give them a (bigger) advantage. If we apply the hard option (extraggated) normal players would be limited to normal attacks - fair but boring. A easy control scheme gives the new players the "advantage" of being able to execute all "special" attacks and therefore remove the "skill" of mechanical execution of special attacks (note: combos are barely affected by this). The core question is: What is the core gameplay for the game? Is it about mechanical execution, strategy, feeling and prediction? Easy controls would lessen the gap between noobs and pros by the amount of skill it takes to execute the extended special attacks. I´d say this is worth it to let everyone enjoy executing every attack and focus instead on proper application. @ Fen: No one is arguing to make the game like NR or BGH. The issue is to realize that these games ARE popular and to fugure out WHY. The second step would be to figure out a way to encourage these players to play the "original" game. Up to now the reason for is argued to be a faulty ranking system. Also, the last time I checked you were not forced to join a BGH game - how exactly is anyone FORCED to play it? If your point is that without BGH your stats would "suffer" it is actually a problem with the stats and not the map. Official approval for maps to be counted could be a way. Players could maybe vote for a certain map each month to become part of the "rankingpool". Maps are part of the balance just like unit values. Maps CAN be unbalanced for certain races/matchups - just plain checking for "melee" settings is obviously NOT the optimal method to determine rankingworthy maps. | ||
|
Mowse
South Africa56 Posts
| ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
Not a single bad comment about MBS. I especially liked Jaedong's (current #1 SC gamer) comment: If I play StarCraft 2 (I assume they mean professionally?) I'll keep playing with zerg. In SC1 the zerg was a macro-specific race but in SC2 macro was obvious, but I think it requires more strategic and skillful techniques. Which is pretty much what I was preaching the whole time in this thread.  | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
"A lot of the very hardcore players are concerned about multiple-building selection because they think it reduces skill. Now I can go back and double-click on my barracks, select all five of my barracks, and build a marine. Before you'd have to click marine, marine, marine, marine across the entire base." Either Dustin is a noob that doesn't even use hotkeys because it will only make him worse. Or MBS can only be used without hotkeys. And we have only been discussing it's usage with hotkeys. | ||
|
Masashige
United States152 Posts
On March 12 2008 01:49 BlackStar wrote: [/b]Ok. Either MBS was removed already. Or someone needs to force feed Dustin all the MBS topics we had on tl.net: "A lot of the very hardcore players are concerned about multiple-building selection because they think it reduces skill. Now I can go back and double-click[b] on my barracks, select all five of my barracks, and build a marine. Before you'd have to click marine, marine, marine, marine across the entire base." Either Dustin is a noob that doesn't even use hotkeys because it will only make him worse. Or MBS can only be used without hotkeys. And we have only been discussing it's usage with hotkeys. He has probably seen pros play upclose.. or maybe he hasn't. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
That way noone would care about mbs and everyone would argue about this feature instead. Then after a lot of whining Blizzard could say "Ok, ok, you win, we will remove this feature" and suddenly most guys would be happy with mbs. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
|
Mowse
South Africa56 Posts
did they tell blizz this...... | ||
|
404.Nintu
Canada1723 Posts
Which is worth the voice of a Thousand tl.net'ers, Which is worth the voice of say.. 10 thousand Casual players? I speak in terms of how much weight words will carry. I don't want idiots to chime in saying "A Korean progamer is only 1 copy of SC2, vs thousands of others sold.." If Blizzard was just out for money, they'd release this thing in a couple months, sell millions and millions of copies, and then pull out their support for it. They are interested in making the single greatest RTS of all time. That's not created solely by sales. My point is. Yeah, we need to convince some progamer, or maybe an Ex-progamer to start speaking up publicly about it. A frank discussion on their concerns on the project. I have no doubt in my mind that if NaDa said everything that Tasteless is saying, about how detrimental mbs and auto-mining are, then all the fan boys/girls will stand behind him. No offense to you Tasteless. I agree with you completely. But theorycrafting and MBS threads only go so far. Gogo peer pressure? | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
The problem is only that, after actually playing it, these progamers thought of MBS being so irrelevant that they didn´t even speak of it. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
Both sides CAN be argued for. I'm just wondering why YOU MBS-ers want it? You want to expand the community perhaps? You want more people playing? Well 2 things I thought about that: 1. if you make SC2 basically WC3 with worse heroes and in the future, i bet half the current WC3ers will just stick with WC3! 2. if you are 'dumbing down' a game, how can you not expect to just get more dumb people in it? More instant-gratification kids who refuse to play unless they have a veritable wheelchair of features. It can't possibly increase the community in a good way! But oh! We'll bring pro's from other games, yeah! Bah, fuck that, all good pros who don't have an addiction to their previous game coming RUNNING to SC, because it is the major pro game. I predict that with MBS, automine, autoqueue, soon probably auto-fight and auto-click; Starcraft will just be a battle of 3 or 4 decisions, instead of hundreds. | ||
GTR
51619 Posts
I don't see anything really wrong with it at all. | ||
| ||
