On March 15 2008 20:12 GTR-2-Go wrote: Just wondering, what is so bad with the tab-variation of MBS (if all Barracks are hotkey'd to one, m tab m tab m tab etc)?
I don't see anything really wrong with it at all.
Because you are still able to do all your macro from the the battlefield. The only reason to go back to base is to build new buildings.
On March 15 2008 20:00 HamerD wrote: MBS arguments are exactly the same as anti-MBS arguments.
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.
Starcraft is just a major pro gaming game in Korea, in other countries its not really that big. For it to get bigger in the non Asian world it needs an easier interface and being easier to get into, the western market just doesn't like games that challenge them a ton from the get go or they will just stop playing. Guess why so many plays FPS or why all games have been made easier the past 20 years?
Thats why, if we want to make it big in ALL of the world we need mbs like features. And MBS destroying the game is not a fact, its an opinion. None can really say exactly why starcraft is so big since its the only game of that kind Blizzard have made, and only Blizzard make such polished games while other companies are too up tied with realism and graphics.
Imagine what can happen if they have mbs in it for example: 1. It doesn't spark in Korea due to this, but the rest of the world loves it since its not as frustrating for them to play as starcraft, have better graphics and still keep the flawless polish of its preceder making all other games incomparable. 2. It sparks even in Korea since physical macro doesn't really mean that much to them as people think. 3. Hmm, nope, thats really all that can happen, its not like starcraft 2 have any serious competition in the western market anyway, its not possible that it will not be a hit as long as it keeps the updated UI. Ofcourse you can argue that the UI wont even dent this, but at the same time i can argue that the UI wont even dent the korean market, both assumptions are just as viable.
Sigh, why havent you been banned yet Klockan? Your post contains absolutely no argumentative points whatsoever. I tried to rebut it, but realised there is nothing written that can be rebutted, its just crap. You make statements, and then give absolutely nothing to back them up.
On March 15 2008 20:50 Fen wrote: Sigh, why havent you been banned yet Klockan? Your post contains absolutely no argumentative points whatsoever. I tried to rebut it, but realised there is nothing written that can be rebutted, its just crap. You make statements, and then give absolutely nothing to back them up.
I'm sorry, your post got squeezed in between, wasn't against you at all, or did you really think that i wrote all that in 3 minutes? I edited my post with a quote to make it clear. I am not stupid you know, I have been in the mbs discussion from the beginning and if I were I would have gotten banned a long time ago.
But ofcourse lately I just post a few stick-ins since i realised that this war is pointless.
Did you guys look at the fpvod from savior playing sc2 ? Do you really imagine that MBS will give average players the same kind of macro as him ? He moves the mouse so INCREDIBLY FAAAAAAST. If you think that mbs will take away any kind of credit from his macro play, then I think you re retarded.
I think the major problem is that there are fundamentally different views about how gameplay should be if the game is "perfect".
Anti-MBS likes physical challenge, measuring skill mostly with multitasking abilities, and is happy that you basically can't do many things really well because you have to do so many things at once. Artificial limitations are welcome as long as they work toward that goal.
Pro-MBS likes to remove artificial limitations because they feel stupid (on principle, i.e. regardless of the result at first. The game has to be designed from scratch with that feature or else there will be balance/competitiveness issues), and likes the game to be more tactical with increased micro challenges. MBS will also likely make the game more interesting for spectators, because SBS macro mechanics and multitasking ability is not something you see on the screen. It's just something the players do all the time. 80% of the time the screen shows battle scenes, because that's of course what the most interesting part of the game is. So add in MBS and you'll automatically have even more impressive plays by the pros there.
Pages upon pages of discussion here have shown (though I didn't nearly read everything) that from a neutral viewpoint, there's nothing really wrong with either. Both can work, but you can't make everyone happy. There are many different skill sets in a RTS game like Starcraft, and the question is simply which ones you want to put the focus on, which ones should be the most important. Speed, multitasking? Then add SBS and maybe even more obstacles making the game harder and harder to play for each player, independent of his opponent's skill (so basically, playing alone would already be a challenge, lol). Tactics/Strategy? Then add MBS, nerf current macro mechanics a bit and watch as players do totally insane battles and moves (instead of A-click).
So in the end, the only thing that matters is how many people want MBS or SBS. And I think that there's lots more MBS supporters out there.
I'll end this post by mentioning once more that none of the Korean pros trying out SC2 in the past days have mentioned anything negative about MBS (and automining? Is that in the game too?). If MBS was the desaster that many think it would be, they would have screamed "rofl noob game, fuck it" etc. But the only ones doing that are far less experienced members from the foreign community.
@Famehunter: uh no, he was really slow there, but that's understandable because it's a completely new game and it was for fun anyway. But seriously, he wasn't fast at all. That was like 100-120 APM at most. He has 300-400 in SC1. Watch an SC1 FPVOD of him or, even better, Jaedong with 400-600 APM.
There is currently no substitute for mechanical skill, which is btw almost purely mental, gained trough practice, or what Blizzard calls 'twitching skills'
I personally don't like those skills that much. I think they should be secondary. But RTS competitive gaming is very primitive. We only have one game that does well and some games that come somewhat close to it.
MBS is a step in the wrong direction. It is a step away from competitiveness and towards arcade/simplification/McDonalds culture/easy fix, etc.
It's that mentality that is the issue of this debate. The pro-MBS people realize there is no substitute but want an easier game nonetheless. The anti-MBS side realises RTS games are primitive and based on realism and its either mechanical skill or no skill.
Sure, there are also decision making skills in RTS games, and SC has a lot more of them than other RTS games. And I think there is more decision making in SC than many pro-MBS people realize. And it's also harder to master.
But you can't make a purely decision making skill based compettive RTS game. If you remove all execution skill from an RTS, both mechanical and otherwise, then you get a turn based game.
Rather than reducing execution, which made SC progaming viable, add more decision making for SC2. Mature the decision making as much as the execution. Not the other way around. It's a step back.
We need to move away from casual games. SC2 needs to be an abstract game build around the idea of having a game in which players compete. A game all players approach like how a club chess player would approach chess; specific practice and training, long term dedication.
Not saying SC2 shouldn't be a casual game as well. But at the core it should be an esports game. Donut theory. Blizzard needs to do that. It would be the first game ever optimized for esports and made with esports in mind all the way through.
Each thing they want to add to SC2, the first question they should ask themselves should be: "Is this good for competitive gaming?" "Does this make SC2 a better esport?"
On March 15 2008 22:26 0xDEADBEEF wrote: @Famehunter: uh no, he was really slow there, but that's understandable because it's a completely new game and it was for fun anyway. But seriously, he wasn't fast at all. That was like 100-120 APM at most. He has 300-400 in SC1. Watch an SC1 FPVOD of him or, even better, Jaedong with 400-600 APM.
that was not my point. Good players will remain good macroers and its not mbs that will take this away from them. imo you could really see from that fpvod that the experience and practice savior has with SC is not something that anyone can achieve with merely a couple hours of play. And just wait til he starts playing the game for real
The fact that TL team raped everyone at the blizz offices also serves as good proof that people who already have experience with BW will not be complete strangers in the SC2 gameplay domain.
@BlackStar: What makes you think that there is no substitute? Why is WC3 such a success then? (man, I really hate these WC3 comparisons, but sometimes they just fit) And also, what makes you think that micro alone (along with reduced macro) can't be challenging too? It is also a form of multitasking (although you won't have to switch to your base so often): the faster (read: more skilled) player will be able to control more of his units better and coordinate attacks or attack+harassment much better than the lesser skilled player. And the best thing about this is that spectators will see it directly on the screen. Another problem with SBS is that if you include it again, the game will automatically develop into a macro-dominated game (happened with SC1 too). Sure micro and decision making is also important, but always less so than macro in normal length matches. In SC1, micro is very important in the very early stages and in the VERY late stages of the game (when the map is completely mined out), but not in-between (where almost all games are decided), which is a shame.
On March 15 2008 23:36 0xDEADBEEF wrote: @BlackStar: What makes you think that there is no substitute? Why is WC3 such a success then? (man, I really hate these WC3 comparisons, but sometimes they just fit) And also, what makes you think that micro alone (along with reduced macro) can't be challenging too? It is also a form of multitasking (although you won't have to switch to your base so often): the faster (read: more skilled) player will be able to control more of his units better and coordinate attacks or attack+harassment much better than the lesser skilled player. And the best thing about this is that spectators will see it directly on the screen. Another problem with SBS is that if you include it again, the game will automatically develop into a macro-dominated game (happened with SC1 too). Sure micro and decision making is also important, but always less so than macro in normal length matches. In SC1, micro is very important in the very early stages and in the VERY late stages of the game (when the map is completely mined out), but not in-between (where almost all games are decided), which is a shame.
Warcraft 3's micro is on a different level to starcraft's micro however. Units in warcraft 3 were made to have 800 health and survive 50 hits with an axe to increase micro play. Because your units dont die, there are many more micro actions that can be performed in a battle (longer battles equal more time to micro). Starcraft battles are fast and generally over quickly. Less time in the battles means that there is less that you can micro.
This is something that I think is being overlooked a bit. In battle, Warcraft 3 players and Starcraft players most likely have the same APM. In both games, the limit is hit where you have lots to do, and you cannot move fast enough to do it all. However you spend a lot more of your game fighting in warcraft than you do starcraft. Unless something is added to make players constantly fight, starcraft 2 looks like it will have a lot of dead space where the players arent challenged to be moving at their limits.
Isn't WC3 even more twitch skill based? Clearly micro has less strategy and tactics than macro and maneuvering and positioning your armies.
Not to mention the lack of multitasking which makes it easy to master. No huge mechanical advantage for progamers.
WC3 may be a success as a game, it is not as an esports title.
SC is not macro oriented. It has a balance between macro and micro where micro is more about tactics and positioning rather than spamming special abilities.
Very simple solution. Pro-MBS players vs anti-MBS players bo5.
My guess is that DEADBEEF and other anti-MBS players are trash at SC and WC3. Why should someone that has no demonstrable understanding of the game be allowed to comment and troll about it?
Maybe I´m idealistic but isn´t that what the dev team is paid for? To create a game that is both easy to play AND challenging to compete in? To be enjoyable to players of every skilllevel? If there is no "substitute" (i think that will more be balanced out with tuning rather than a whole new mechanic) they should create one. What is wrong with having blizzard develop the "gravity gun" for RTS? If they can´t do it who could?
Not easy to play, easy to learn the absolute basics.
Ooh, and they aren't trying to make a next gen RTS game. So they can't substitute execution skill with decision making skill.
And even if they tried, I am not sure how this would be done. They really would need to take a step as big as the one taken by Dune2.
Probably that game would be totally abstract, no realism whatsoever.
A new dimension needs to be added. Right now we have macro, micro and strategy with mutlitasking uniting them. We need a 4d RTS in terms of gameplay. Of course SC2 won't be able to be that yet. But right now it's more like 2d; micro and strategy.
Ok, this post is aimed at the reoccuring comment "spectators only care about watching the battles". I believe this statement is flawed and would like to point out what spectators really do want to watch.
To start with, watch this video.
Ive used this video before, but I love it because it is soo good at articulating this point.
I watch that video, and it sends a chill down my spine. However why does it do so?
I have no knowledge of this game. I know its streetfighter, but I have no idea what version. Ive never played it or any other 2d fighters for more than a few minutes. I do not know what button combinations are required to pull off what occured in this video. I dont know how hard it is to do what they do.
I am the spectator that doesnt know the game, but still likes to watch. The one that every talks about when they say "The spectators dont know or care whats going on behind the scenes, they are only there to watch the battle". However, does streetfight (or starcraft for that matter) look all that visually appealing? Not really.
What is enjoyable about this video is the crowds reaction. Now hundreds of people in that room obviously know Street fighter. They know what was actually occuring behind the scenes to cause what we saw on screen. They know the button combinations and the timing. And they all know that under pressure it isnt a very easy thing to pull off. So when they DO pull it off. These people cheer. This then moves onto the people who don't know whats going on. They see something on screen, and a bunch of people going beserk. They can put 2 and 2 together and see that what is happening is huge. Its hard and rare and it just happend. They dont need to know exactly why its hard. All they need to know is that it is. And so they cheer. And when the spectator sees a similar thing in the future, he will know that yes, this is hard to do and is special that the players are doing it and will cheer again.
This makes up the understanding of the spectator who doesnt play. He generally isnt aware why its skillful to see a certain event happen. But the knowledge that it is skillful is there. And the game becomes very exciting for this player to watch.
Pretty graphics will NOT make a spectator sport. Units killing each other does NOT make a spectator sport. What does make a spectator sport is feats of difficulty that only the best can perform. Sure a person whos never played the game doesnt know right off the bat what is easy and hard, but thats easily picked up by the crowds reactions to certain events. Why its difficult is not important to the spectator, only the fact that it is. Getting into starcraft is very easy, because you have a commentator going "SCOUUUURGIIIIIEEEE" and then a cheer from the crowd when 2 dropships get taken out. There are a lot of cues for the spectator to watch and go, ah that was somehting special.
So if you turn around and say "spectators only care about watching the battles" then you are wrong.
On March 15 2008 23:48 Fen wrote: Warcraft 3's micro is on a different level to starcraft's micro however. Units in warcraft 3 were made to have 800 health and survive 50 hits with an axe to increase micro play. Because your units dont die, there are many more micro actions that can be performed in a battle (longer battles equal more time to micro). Starcraft battles are fast and generally over quickly. Less time in the battles means that there is less that you can micro.
This is something that I think is being overlooked a bit. In battle, Warcraft 3 players and Starcraft players most likely have the same APM. In both games, the limit is hit where you have lots to do, and you cannot move fast enough to do it all. However you spend a lot more of your game fighting in warcraft than you do starcraft. Unless something is added to make players constantly fight, starcraft 2 looks like it will have a lot of dead space where the players arent challenged to be moving at their limits.
All true, but I fail to see why the last argument is a bad thing. If there's nothing happening currently, why introduce something to make something happen? I know you are under constant pressure in SC1, whether your opponent is doing something or not, but why should this be?
@naventus: The troll is obviously you. I'm not playing anyone because I'm inactive. And besides, you're trash too, because you're not at Jaedong or Flash level, so you clearly have insufficient understanding of the game too. There, refuted your "argument". Next time, come up with something better than trolling.
On March 16 2008 00:44 Fen wrote: Ok, this post is aimed at the reoccuring comment "spectators only care about watching the battles". I believe this statement is flawed and would like to point out what spectators really do want to watch.
To start with, watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtuA5we0RZU Ive used this video before, but I love it because it is soo good at articulating this point.
I watch that video, and it sends a chill down my spine. However why does it do so?
I have no knowledge of this game. I know its streetfighter, but I have no idea what version. Ive never played it or any other 2d fighters for more than a few minutes. I do not know what button combinations are required to pull off what occured in this video. I dont know how hard it is to do what they do.
I am the spectator that doesnt know the game, but still likes to watch. The one that every talks about when they say "The spectators dont know or care whats going on behind the scenes, they are only there to watch the battle". However, does streetfight (or starcraft for that matter) look all that visually appealing? Not really.
What is enjoyable about this video is the crowds reaction. Now hundreds of people in that room obviously know Street fighter. They know what was actually occuring behind the scenes to cause what we saw on screen. They know the button combinations and the timing. And they all know that under pressure it isnt a very easy thing to pull off. So when they DO pull it off. These people cheer. This then moves onto the people who don't know whats going on. They see something on screen, and a bunch of people going beserk. They can put 2 and 2 together and see that what is happening is huge. Its hard and rare and it just happend. They dont need to know exactly why its hard. All they need to know is that it is. And so they cheer. And when the spectator sees a similar thing in the future, he will know that yes, this is hard to do and is special that the players are doing it and will cheer again.
This makes up the understanding of the spectator who doesnt play. He generally isnt aware why its skillful to see a certain event happen. But the knowledge that it is skillful is there. And the game becomes very exciting for this player to watch.
Pretty graphics will NOT make a spectator sport. Units killing each other does NOT make a spectator sport. What does make a spectator sport is feats of difficulty that only the best can perform. Sure a person whos never played the game doesnt know right off the bat what is easy and hard, but thats easily picked up by the crowds reactions to certain events. Why its difficult is not important to the spectator, only the fact that it is. Getting into starcraft is very easy, because you have a commentator going "SCOUUUURGIIIIIEEEE" and then a cheer from the crowd when 2 dropships get taken out. There are a lot of cues for the spectator to watch and go, ah that was somehting special.
So if you turn around and say "spectators only care about watching the battles" then you are wrong.
I completely agree with your point of view but this does not prove that SC2 can not be as competitive as BW with the implementation of MBS...
EPT
