|
On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote:Your opinon boggles me. Why would you games to be played perfect? Then wheres the room for improvement? STRATEGY may always improve! C'mon look at the star invitational a month ago. Flash used an unique fast armory build with an unique Goliath micro to stop toss players in maps like Katrina that has always been known to heavily favor carriers against terrans. Stork tried to counter that with arbiters and got countered by well pre-placed mass turrets. I wouldn't be impressed if a few months from now we'd be seeing many protoss using disruption web to counter mass turrets that countered the arbiters that countered early armory that countered mass carriers. And that was a month ago! And we're talking about a game that is about 10 years old, and we still see new strategies born TODAY! It would be an absurd hypocrisy to say there could be no more room to improvement with MBS. Strategy will always improve!
Don't compare it to WC3. I knew someone would. It's a whole different story. WC3 is too much centered around microing that one small army with your hero, there is very small room to new builds, macroing styles and positioning like in SC.
You guys need to remember that macro is not all about who clicks on buildings faster. That's the repetetive boring part of macroing in sc1. Macro is also about build strategy, build placement, counter builds, expansion decisions, when/where/how to expand. Those are the creative part of macroing that are on SC1, are STILL on SC2, but are much less present on WC3, which helps making the game boring. Clicking rapidly on multiple buildings is less than 10% of all the time/actions/decisions you take when macroing. That is the repetetive uncreative part of macroing. You remove that, you open room for... EVERYTHING else! You'll have more room to improve both your micro AND your macro strats with MBS. Really guys, stop this "omg MBS will kill macroing!" behavior because it makes no sense, macroing is MUCH more than that.
Also, one thing that I'll never understand about those who are against MBS. Not having it only makes the game harder and adds no strategy to it. It just makes one repetetive task harder to accomplish for no reason but to make the game harder. So why don't we simply take a step further and make it so that if you want to create a unit, you need to manually click on that building 5 times, then you make 5 full circles with your mouse and then click the unit icon 5 times again. Only then would that building produce a unit. That would make the game MUCH harder, the pros with 500 apm who can 2x5 click buildings faster would have a huge advantage over the scrubs who can't. So that would make the game so much better right??? .....no it wouldn't, that would be an absolutely nosense idea just like not adding MBS would....
|
@ geno
Not gonna directly quote you (that was a big ass post), but I think that macro even with MBS is still going to be a very important part of Starcraft 2. I'd like for Blizzard to maintain a strong emphasis on macro and stay away from the micro intensive WC3 gameplay. My point is that even though it may be easier to execute the mechanical aspect of the macro gameplay with MBS, the strategizing/timing/manuavering will still remain... overall macro will be just as important as it was in Starcraft 1. The main reasons is that Starcraft's emphasis has always (generally) been lower HP and lower cost units. This equates to large armies which requires macro skills to utilize mass numbers of units effectively.
@anti-MBSers
I think one of the diverging points that people make from this aspect of the game (macro), is the MBS feature. I don't think it will nuder macro as much as people think. The essense of macro isn't just the difficulty in which it takes to execute mechanical keyboard commands to produce units, thats such a tiny fraction of the overall framework that makes macro gameplay what it is. Macro isn't just about producing units (MBS being a subfactor within unit production of macro.. making it a sub-sub-factor) or expansion management, people seem to have lost focus on that. Theres the constantly evolving strategies, battle tactics, timing, maneuvering and orginizational aspect of managing large armies in macro gameplay-many of these factors overlapping other "pillars" of Starcraft and RTS games in general.
I think that MBS might make it harder for progamers to distinguish themselves from one another on skill level, however thats while keeping other factors constant. Obviously Starcraft 2, while feeling like a Starcraft game, is utlimately a different game. There are so many new variables with units, abilities, techs, timings, balance statistics, and so on. My point is that there is potentially going to be more depth for strategy, variation, and gameplay for progamers to "flex" their muscles. So while I acknowledge that this is not for certain, only a potential, so to must anti-MBS critics accept the "potential" that MBS might not actually by as bad as you think and to please relax a little, beta testing has yet begun.
|
Wow, nice game. I played WC3 only for about two years so I was able to understand all the nuances and battleshifts through that game despite the low quality vid. WC3 has some amazing players and has produced some amazing games. Of course as we all know; same is true of SC, let's hope SC2 produces top quality games.
|
VIB, Ive already argued against your point. Im not going to bother again. Its a constant cycle, where a new person enters the fray, the verteran arguers argue them down, then someone else comes in and makes the same point.
|
@ VIB
Our points are exactly the same, however, I want to turn my attention to this:
On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote:
VIB, Ive already argued against your point. Im not going to bother again. Its a constant cycle, where a new person enters the fray, the verteran arguers argue them down, then someone else comes in and makes the same point.
Lets take a look at your "argument" shall we, Mr. Veteran?
On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote:
Your opinon boggles me. Why would you games to be played perfect? Then wheres the room for improvement?
Back in the day, players like boxer were thought to have almost perfected the game. People thought that he had hit the limit where he couldnt improve his game any further. Of course we've made leaps and bounds and players these days could crush boxer's play back in his time.
Good argument. Now try arguing towards the point of this thread instead of stating the obvious.
Take grubby for example. What could grubby do to improve his game? Not a whole lot. Pretty much, work on not making mistakes. There is no higher level to warcraft, its just what it is. The limits have been reached and players are playing as good as they are probably ever going to get at the moment.
Stop, stop using Warcraft III as a comparison. I have said it before, but I'll explain it again to you, Mr. "Veteran".
Warcraft III is fundamentally different from Starcraft because of a much lower unit cap, units with a much higher food cost, Upkeep, Creeps, Heroes, and Items. Where does MBS come in? It doesn't. Go watch pro Warcraft III replays. You will never see pro players make more than 4 unit producing buildings max in most games, if even that. The game design favors micro. MBS has nothing to do with that, so you cannot use that as a basis for SC2, or even SC1.
Within a few months. Macro is going to become very standardised if MBS and Automine are implemented without some sort of compensation implementation. The best ways to control your base and economy will be mapped out. The only thing one player will have over another will be micro. It wont make for a very interesting pro-league at all.
Macro is not about producing 7 vultures from 7 factories when you know you want them. Macro is about proper building timing, proper building placement, proper build orders, building the perfect balance between workers and units at every possible time with accordance to your build, expanding at the proper times, allocating your resources properly between a tech advantage, etc etc I could go on forever.
You MBS critics equivalate macro to being 100% selecting production facilities and producing units. In high level play, that is only a fraction of macro at best. I like the example VIB uses with Flash. Go read it, Mr. "Veteran".
Here is a lesson: post count does not = veteran arguer. We MBS supporters bring up the same points because you fail to contradict them. We bring up the same points because they contradict you, especially when you try to use Warcraft III in your argument.
And, with respect to what MBS will rectify in SC2, macro is already standardized. Or at least your very limited scope of macro is, by which I mean the ability to produce units from production facilities. Who isn't able to do that after a certain threshold of skill is past?
Once again, Mr. "Veteran", macro entails something much, much larger than being able to select multiple buildings. The player who manages his economy better will be able to produce better in both MBS and SBS.
|
Now we have to answer the counterargument, being that Real Time Strategy does not (and should not?) contain strategy. I still don´t get that.
If SC is weak on the Strategic/Tactical side (aka shallow) shouldn´t SC2 try to improve there?
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 19 2008 14:31 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote:Your opinon boggles me. Why would you games to be played perfect? Then wheres the room for improvement? STRATEGY may always improve! C'mon look at the star invitational a month ago. Flash used an unique fast armory build with an unique Goliath micro to stop toss players in maps like Katrina that has always been known to heavily favor carriers against terrans. Stork tried to counter that with arbiters and got countered by well pre-placed mass turrets. I wouldn't be impressed if a few months from now we'd be seeing many protoss using disruption web to counter mass turrets that countered the arbiters that countered early armory that countered mass carriers. And that was a month ago! And we're talking about a game that is about 10 years old, and we still see new strategies born TODAY! It would be an absurd hypocrisy to say there could be no more room to improvement with MBS. Strategy will always improve! Don't compare it to WC3. I knew someone would. It's a whole different story. WC3 is too much centered around microing that one small army with your hero, there is very small room to new builds, macroing styles and positioning like in SC. You guys need to remember that macro is not all about who clicks on buildings faster. That's the repetetive boring part of macroing in sc1. Macro is also about build strategy, build placement, counter builds, expansion decisions, when/where/how to expand. Those are the creative part of macroing that are on SC1, are STILL on SC2, but are much less present on WC3, which helps making the game boring. Clicking rapidly on multiple buildings is less than 10% of all the time/actions/decisions you take when macroing. That is the repetetive uncreative part of macroing. You remove that, you open room for... EVERYTHING else! You'll have more room to improve both your micro AND your macro strats with MBS. Really guys, stop this "omg MBS will kill macroing!" behavior because it makes no sense, macroing is MUCH more than that. Also, one thing that I'll never understand about those who are against MBS. Not having it only makes the game harder and adds no strategy to it. It just makes one repetetive task harder to accomplish for no reason but to make the game harder. So why don't we simply take a step further and make it so that if you want to create a unit, you need to manually click on that building 5 times, then you make 5 full circles with your mouse and then click the unit icon 5 times again. Only then would that building produce a unit. That would make the game MUCH harder, the pros with 500 apm who can 2x5 click buildings faster would have a huge advantage over the scrubs who can't. So that would make the game so much better right??? .....no it wouldn't, that would be an absolutely nosense idea just like not adding MBS would....
no
and it's highly unlikely that we'll see corsairs unless the maps are even more carrier friendly than katrina. corsairs come from the same building as carriers do and if you start waisting that much gas and making that many less carriers terran will just walk over you.
obviously macro is more than building clicking, however the other factions you're talking are the easier half of macroing. the participatory (SBS and non automing) factor is something that forces places to chose macro over micro at specific moments rather than have supreme control. This allows for more styles and more back and fourth game play.
|
On March 19 2008 17:58 FeArTeHsCoUrGe wrote:@ VIBOur points are exactly the same, however, I want to turn my attention to this: Show nested quote +On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote:
VIB, Ive already argued against your point. Im not going to bother again. Its a constant cycle, where a new person enters the fray, the verteran arguers argue them down, then someone else comes in and makes the same point. Lets take a look at your "argument" shall we, Mr. Veteran? Show nested quote +On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote:
Your opinon boggles me. Why would you games to be played perfect? Then wheres the room for improvement?
Back in the day, players like boxer were thought to have almost perfected the game. People thought that he had hit the limit where he couldnt improve his game any further. Of course we've made leaps and bounds and players these days could crush boxer's play back in his time. Good argument. Now try arguing towards the point of this thread instead of stating the obvious. Show nested quote +Take grubby for example. What could grubby do to improve his game? Not a whole lot. Pretty much, work on not making mistakes. There is no higher level to warcraft, its just what it is. The limits have been reached and players are playing as good as they are probably ever going to get at the moment. Stop, stop using Warcraft III as a comparison. I have said it before, but I'll explain it again to you, Mr. "Veteran". Warcraft III is fundamentally different from Starcraft because of a much lower unit cap, units with a much higher food cost, Upkeep, Creeps, Heroes, and Items. Where does MBS come in? It doesn't. Go watch pro Warcraft III replays. You will never see pro players make more than 4 unit producing buildings max in most games, if even that. The game design favors micro. MBS has nothing to do with that, so you cannot use that as a basis for SC2, or even SC1. Show nested quote +Within a few months. Macro is going to become very standardised if MBS and Automine are implemented without some sort of compensation implementation. The best ways to control your base and economy will be mapped out. The only thing one player will have over another will be micro. It wont make for a very interesting pro-league at all. Macro is not about producing 7 vultures from 7 factories when you know you want them. Macro is about proper building timing, proper building placement, proper build orders, building the perfect balance between workers and units at every possible time with accordance to your build, expanding at the proper times, allocating your resources properly between a tech advantage, etc etc I could go on forever. You MBS critics equivalate macro to being 100% selecting production facilities and producing units. In high level play, that is only a fraction of macro at best. I like the example VIB uses with Flash. Go read it, Mr. "Veteran". Here is a lesson: post count does not = veteran arguer. We MBS supporters bring up the same points because you fail to contradict them. We bring up the same points because they contradict you, especially when you try to use Warcraft III in your argument. And, with respect to what MBS will rectify in SC2, macro is already standardized. Or at least your very limited scope of macro is, by which I mean the ability to produce units from production facilities. Who isn't able to do that after a certain threshold of skill is past? Once again, Mr. "Veteran", macro entails something much, much larger than being able to select multiple buildings. The player who manages his economy better will be able to produce better in both MBS and SBS.
Veteran was said because Ive been arguing this since the first MBS topics began on this forum, go have a look. You seem to think that no-one has ever brought up the points that you make. Every couple of weeks, a new person comes to these forums, and posts something that has already been debated before, and then thinks theyve made a solid post because no-one can be assed replying to the same thing over and over again.
In this case, id already argued this point within the last few days, so I sure as hell wasnt going to do so again.
Warcraft 3 is a perfectly fine example to use as long as you dont say "MBS is why warcraft 3 is a shit game". I was using an example of a game with a standardised macro setup, where there were standard builds that every player executed perfectly without mistake. Something that I believe we will see if we add MBS and Automine. Your dead right that a lot of starcraft 1's macro is standardised atm. This is because players are getting soo good, that the current system has become easy for them to navigate.
You've written the standard response to anyone who uses warcraft 3 as an example. You havnt even considered the reasoning why I used warcraft 3. Basically your rebuttle against it holds as much water as me saying, "Your a noob, therefore your opinion doesnt matter"
This has been debated since day 1. I can safely say I have read 90% of all MBS arguments on this board. Go read them, come back when you have a new argument that hasnt already been debated into the ground.
|
On March 19 2008 18:24 Unentschieden wrote:
Now we have to answer the counterargument, being that Real Time Strategy does not (and should not?) contain strategy. I still don´t get that.
If SC is weak on the Strategic/Tactical side (aka shallow) shouldn´t SC2 try to improve there?
The problem is that it cant without giving up some of its speed. The faster your forced to think, the less in depth you can get. The most advanced tactics in starcraft are things like moving hurt units back, focus firing or flanking. They are really basic manouvers as far as strategy goes. The option is there for really brilliant tactical moves. But people are just unable to make the necessary calculations in the seconds they have to make their move. If you wanted to increase the depth, you need to give people more time to think. Which means making the battles last longer (Something we dont want)
|
It's the same BS over and over and over again. How about this: we close the !@#$% thread already and have them stickied so people can read the 150 pages on this. You can only wrap/package something in so many ways. Some people just don't get it. Fine, let them bask in their own retardedness. We won't have any power until they do the open beta anyway and then we can jam it down Dustin's throat.
Many of the old vets at TL stopped posting a long time ago because it is pointless.
|
I think one of the main points of anti-MBS arguments is that in some BW battles (on fastest speed of course), micro tactics aren't important enough to be used because you will be better off buidling workers and other units, etc. Now my general feeling is that many of the anti-MBS crowd isn't necessarily against micro, but they are against War3 sort of micro which doesn't fit in SC or SC2 (which I agree with fully). So what if more SC/BW type micro is useful/game deciding in big battles in SC2? For instance, like in BW when muta harass is useful... or dark templar harass, or mnm dancing around lurkers, or mnm getting out of dark swarm, etc. What if more of those situations exist in SC2, then is MBS all bad? With the early game supposedly being shortened and more game changing specials coming at tier 2, I think without MBS more sloppy micro is going to be seen. Is a whole lot of sloppy micro play "OK"? I don't think so.
And to make my point, look at the following game from the front page news (link way below) and the comments about that map. The Demon's Forest map apparently is a totally crap map due to the archon warping bugs and vultures getting stuck when mining. This match didn't go bad because of warping or units getting stuck. This match went wrong mostly (I think) b/c units required a few more moments of attention than normal, and battles were not decided as easily by attack move, etc. b/c units didn't go where they normally do... requiring more micro. The key point, requiring more micro. While this is my opinion, watch it yourself and see if that makes sense.
http://www.youtube.com/v/NzksXwn-Irw&hl=en
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=65484
These two pro players didn't use spidermines or archons. One did obviously use lurkers and they probably required more attention. I think for that one reason, requiring more attention every time he used his units, he ran out of multi-tasking abilities or APM or whatever like and played really really sloppy. To sum up the sloppy play, a stack of mutas is left in the top left for half the game. Probably 10 low speed overlords sitting in a dangerous place where where attacked. Etc. The terran player also played very sloppy in some spots.
I'm glad we have this ugly example because it's one of the few places where it's obvious that when the pros are forced to pay more attention to units, suddenly even they don't have enough time to do everything that needs to be done even in a "good enough" way by anybody's standards. I think it starts to show that if there are a few more moments of micro needed for each battle in SC2, MBS could be fine. This still obviously doesn't solve the problem for people that want to see less micro in battles as games progress past early game regardless, in other words they want macro to win 90% of all games past early game. But if you think micro and macro are both important, I think SC2's development is still headed in the right direction... albeit, with more micro options than SC/BW past early game. Which sounds good to me.
|
On March 19 2008 22:37 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2008 18:24 Unentschieden wrote:
Now we have to answer the counterargument, being that Real Time Strategy does not (and should not?) contain strategy. I still don´t get that.
If SC is weak on the Strategic/Tactical side (aka shallow) shouldn´t SC2 try to improve there? The problem is that it cant without giving up some of its speed. The faster your forced to think, the less in depth you can get. The most advanced tactics in starcraft are things like moving hurt units back, focus firing or flanking. They are really basic manouvers as far as strategy goes. The option is there for really brilliant tactical moves. But people are just unable to make the necessary calculations in the seconds they have to make their move. If you wanted to increase the depth, you need to give people more time to think. Which means making the battles last longer (Something we dont want)
You described one of the main complaints on Starcraft that many hope will change in SC2. Some percieve SC as "clickfest" that overempatises Handspeed - I think the term APM was coined by Starcraft.
"The problem is that it cant without giving up some of its speed." Is it that you can´t or that no one did it before? I bought this up before but pre-SC you couldn´t have 3 distinctivly different races in a RTS and have them balanced too.
Point being: if anyone could do it it´s Blizzard. So let us encourage them to make a game previously thought to be impossible.
|
No way the intensity and speed of SC lowers the need for strategy and tactics. Obviously not strategy, if you understand the term correctly, because that's your plan to win on the grand scale.
And tactics, that's positioning and maneuvering your army. It includes a lot of pure micro as well.
I don't at all think that late game SC needs more intense specific and focused micro. Wasn't a complain about RTS always that it's too much about very specific unit control? SC is different. It's more about strategy and tactics and less about micro. If you dedicate your army late game in the wrong way and lose your army, you are losing. Even if you were able to build new units earlier than your opponent.
I don't want to see a lot of ability spamming in late game micro battles. Because you aren't going to micro damaged units and you aren't going to focus fire, obviously.
Not being able to execute certain tactics or strategies because the game is too intense for you to mentally come up with them is just silly. You can't harass storm drop because you don't have the multitasking. Not because you aren't intelligent or creative enough to come up with it. Actually, because you can't think out your SC decisions there is more creativity in SC. Compare it with correspondence chess and rapid chess.
And strategy has nothing to do with the pace of the game. How will you suddenly be able to use strategies that weren't viable before just because you have more time to think? I mean, you can think about it before or after the game. And people have done so. So how does it suddenly help to be able to think about it during the game? How can m&m suddenly stand up against a protoss who has reavers and HTs available to him? How can a terran suddenly outexpand the zerg and be safe enough to make it pay off?
And again, APM is totally mental. It has to do with planning, keeping helicopter view, managing the list of tasks to execute in your mind properly. It has nothing to do with how fast your hands and fingers are.
|
Ooh, and whoever said macro and micro should be in a 60-40 ratio, no matter what Blizzard said, what makes the biggest rectangle? 50x50 or 60x40?
Obviously all dimensions of play need to be as close in proportions as possible. If it's 50 micro, 20 macro and 30 strategy the game has a depth of 30000. If the game has the perfect ratios of 33 1/3 then it has a depth of 37000, rounded off.
Of course a bit of silly numbers throwing around. But obviously macro, micro and strategy need to be balanced.
|
Yes, they should step up from the old UI and "invent" something new. New gameplay would be very refreshing.
If the addition of MBS doesn't allow for more or advanced micro, then (and only then) the game will become easier in the end. To compensate for that Blizzard would have to add other aspects to the game emphasizing on macro. Something like the Terran reactor mechanic Famehunter described.
It would especially be cool if they'd add something like this and make it different for each race. Then each race would have their own macro mechanics, making them even more unique and fun.
But adding SBS again is really a step back, because whether you like it or not, or whether it works for the current pro scene or not, it is a very repetitive task at its core, that's why it should be replaced with something else, something that isn't always the same, something dynamic. Which also would require more skill in the end, more thinking. You'll be forced to think about more small things. Really simple repetitive tasks like SBS macroing can be learned with tons of practice, making you play like a "machine".
In SC1, micro is dynamic of course, but SBS macro is not. So let's hope they'll improve it, in whatever way seems best.
I think many anti MBSers could agree with this (except the stupid trolls who can't ever think outside their small box), as I've formulated it in a neutral way, including the possibility that adding MBS without changing anything else could be a bad thing (though I personally still don't believe it unless Blizzard can confirm it during beta testing).
|
things like MBS is not that crucial if u compare it to decision making and timing. if my decisions and timing r better than urs, ull lose no matter how good ur micro is. ppl need to put less emphasis on things like this more on developing good sense of gaming and knowledge. in addition there r more important micro aspects of the game out there... such as unit micro is far more important than MBS, ppl need to stop being narrow minded, games r won by not how u can select multiple buildings in a flash but by how u control ur units, making decisive decisions and time ur attacks.
|
@ VIB
Keep in mind also that we're talking about an Arbiter based strategy, so we have to include 300-200 for the fleet beacon + 200-200 for dweb research. 500-400 is pretty pricey for one piece of tech that isn't guaranteed to work, plus the corsairs are worthless except for Dweb.
But your point isn't about specific strategies, I understand that.
Here's the thingyou're missing. Flash's strategies were prepared before hand. He didn't read the game and make an inspired split second decision to mass turrets - he knew that would be his response to Arbiter tech before the game even started.
So though there is room for advancement of the metagame, it doesn't take place within the frantic confines of a game and possibly never will. It would be fantastic if it could, but I think it's pie in the sky dreaming and we need to think about how MBS affects the game as we know it.
@ Showtime!
Grow up. If you don't think it's a valuable argument then simply don't read it. I personally enjoy the debating itself. Saying how worthless this argument is not only not constructive it is destructive.
On March 20 2008 01:56 Vaanelo wrote:
things like MBS is not that crucial if u compare it to decision making and timing. if my decisions and timing r better than urs, ull lose no matter how good ur micro is. ppl need to put less emphasis on things like this more on developing good sense of gaming and knowledge. in addition there r more important micro aspects of the game out there... such as unit micro is far more important than MBS, ppl need to stop being narrow minded, games r won by not how u can select multiple buildings in a flash but by how u control ur units, making decisive decisions and time ur attacks.
Grammar and spelling are also not crucial, apparently.
This argument is tired, old, and possibly the worst defamation of the anti-MBS side I've ever heard. Read a few posts, see that you've added nothing substantial and that your arguments have been countered before you've even made them.
|
Flash didn't read the game? WTF?
|
I don't really have a strong opinion on MBS but I saw in an interview somewhere that blizzard is toying with the possibility of a game speed faster than fastest. Do you think it would be possible to make the game speed fast enough to offset the loss of necessary macro or is this just a lazy solution?
|
Why add MBS and then make the game even faster?
It just makes the game more shallow and then compensates by making basic actions even more difficult. Basic micro will be more difficult. And you have to dedicate yourself to one speed only. Beginners used to single player default speed already struggle with fastest.
It just does the opposite of what pro-MBS people actually want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
