|
On March 20 2008 03:12 BlackStar wrote:
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.
Yes but having the option of playing faster gives anti-MBS people who think the game is to easy a challenge. I do see your point about it hurting micro though.
edit: actually your point about having to dedicate yourself to one speed does kind of refute the part about it being an option... Oh well, I guess I'll just go back to wait and see mode.
|
On March 20 2008 02:29 GeneralStan wrote:@ 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. Show nested quote +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.
dude this is the fucking internet, i aint writing no fucking essays and shit. if its faster and more convenient for me, then ill write it this way. to me this MBS bs doesnt make u win or lose game, even with it does it make u more pro? all these is just making it sound pro. this is has very minimal and absolutely negligible effect on game play and game outcome.
|
On March 20 2008 02:57 Pangolin wrote:
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?
What, thats seems retarded. Anyways, wasn't everyone playing on "FAST" gamespeed as opposed to "FASTEST?" Or was that just during semioldguy/lastromantic playday?
|
On March 20 2008 03:41 yangstuh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2008 02:57 Pangolin wrote:
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? What, thats seems retarded. Anyways, wasn't everyone playing on "FAST" gamespeed as opposed to "FASTEST?" Or was that just during semioldguy/lastromantic playday?
Well this: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31950.html is where I heard it. He mentions the speed thing at about 2:45. He doesn't really say that it is to counter MBS I was just curious whether people thought that it would help. I guess the answer is no.
|
On March 20 2008 03:40 Vaanelo wrote:
dude this is the fucking internet, i aint writing no fucking essays and shit. if its faster and more convenient for me, then ill write it this way. to me this MBS bs doesnt make u win or lose game, even with it does it make u more pro? all these is just making it sound pro. this is has very minimal and absolutely negligible effect on game play and game outcome.
I don't critisize you for being pro-MBS. I'm pro-MBS myself, but high-quality debate is more important to be than any particular side of the issue. Maybe the grammar rub is a little picky, but it really does make your post hard to read.
But on the issue at hand, your argument is ill thought out and shows little grasp of the situation. You've made a number of unqualified statements with no understanding on what the argument centers. I
"is has very minimal and absolutely negligible effect on game play and game outcome".
This point has been refuted again and again, and even in support of MBS, there must be an acknowledgement that MBS has an impact, probably a big one.
"to me this MBS bs doesnt make u win or lose game, even with it does it make u more pro?" What the fuck are you even trying to say?
Basically, you've made a ridiculous argument made over and over again, and you've done it in a nonsensical and hard to read fasion.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to post it willy nilly on TL.net. We have standards, and our commandment is "Thou shalt think before posting". Obviously, you haven't thought about it nor read about the issue, so please refrain from posting until you've read and thought and can meaningfully participate in the debate.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 20 2008 02:57 Pangolin wrote:
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?
they are not thinking about changing the game speed to be faster. they want it to be exactly the same. they have simply mentioned that in some of their demos the game speed was actually at fast not fastest. so in competitive play the game might actually run faster than some people have perceived.
|
Germany1302 Posts
I did read through tons of pages but I have to admid I did not read *everything*. But Imho there is a way to implement MBS without taking away to much of the game that we loved so much in SC1.
So you can select as many buildings and put them on one key. The only real question is, what happens if you select 10 Gates and press the imortal hotkey. Does it produce one Imortal in an idle gate (referd to as OPC as "one per click") or does it produce as many as you have money for (MPC for "many/maximum per click").
OPC:
1. Hotkey for gates
2. # clicks for # of unit A, # clicks for # unit B, etc...
This, imho, takes away a lot from the macro of SC1 since the actuall pressing of the key does not require much and nearly everyone can do that.
MPC:
1. Hotkey for Gates
2. 1 Click for as many of unit A as you have ressources for
This is a double edged sword, it allows to produce units within a splitsecond but therefor does not allow much diversity and it needs knowledge and skill to use this mighty tool just in the right moment. And it brings in another new aspect that is imho the most important aspect of all:
A Pro player would not make just one group for all gates, but maybe two or three groups, and it would be like
1. hotkey for gate-group 1
2. hotkey for type A units, produces as many as you have gates in the group and ressources for
3. hotkey for gate-group 2
2. hotkey for type B units, produces as many as you have gates in the group and ressources for
etc..
A very skilled player would use this to his advantage, by either:
a) having different sized groups like 1: 2 gates, 2: 3 gates 3: 6 gates and using the right gate-group for the kind of unit you need, or even mix it, like using group 1+2 for unit A (5 units) and group 3 for typ B (6 units).
b) resizing the gate-groups frequently to the stage of games and the units required.
So with this solution, we would have MBS and new players could benefit from making many units with one click, but at the risk of having not the right unit mix or wasting ressources. A high skilled player could use different gate-groups, combine them or use them for the correct unit, resize them with the progressing game. And so it would, again, take skill and time to set up the correct gate groups. It would take the game ahead technically and still require time and skill - a win-win solution :-)
I kinda regret posting such a (imho) good idea on the 22. page of a thread that is not frequented very much, but I don't dare creatign a new thread with this :D
|
On March 20 2008 04:42 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2008 02:57 Pangolin wrote:
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? they are not thinking about changing the game speed to be faster. they want it to be exactly the same. they have simply mentioned that in some of their demos the game speed was actually at fast not fastest. so in competitive play the game might actually run faster than some people have perceived.
A direct quote from the video that I linked in my second post is: "We actually are experimenting with levels that are even faster than what we saw in the original Starcraft." Here's the link again: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31950.html 2:45
|
That's Sigaty though - the guy who thought it takes 3 HT to create an Archon, and who probably thinks SC is played on "fast" setting. ;/
As for Chosi's suggestion - it's already been made. The problem is that there's no need for macro cycles (and thus attention demand for macro) when you can hotkey all your production structures (this might become even easier if they include WC3's subgroups for different types of buildings). You basically can spend your resources as you go, i.e. whenever you can afford a unit, you queue it.
|
I've heard/read from more than one source that fastest in SC2 is faster than fastest in BW. Some random people said it "felt faster" and I want to say some other Blizzard guys said it is technically slightly faster. It's subject to change though.
|
Could some of the anti-mbs people please explain this one to me. I'm just curious to see how can this be argued against 
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....
|
VIB, read previous MBS threads, and don't post such crap... People can't be bothered to refute that "argument" every week or so...
|
On March 20 2008 06:44 VIB wrote:Could some of the anti-mbs people please explain this one to me. I'm just curious to see how can this be argued against Show nested quote +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....
This really does clearly demonstrate that you haven't read any of the debate
|
MBS is there to stay, wether you like it or not.
Soon enough, some of you will be able to beta test the game, and perhaps then , are we going to be able to have a constructive debate over something more concrete than the few mins of videos we got to see from an alpha build of the game.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 20 2008 06:44 VIB wrote:Could some of the anti-mbs people please explain this one to me. I'm just curious to see how can this be argued against Show nested quote +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....
"Having MBS only makes it easier and adds no strategy at all. It just makes one repetitive task easier to accomplish for no reason other than to make the game easier. So why don't we simply take a step further and make it so that the computer macros for you" <- see how easy it is to make a dumb argument  ?
It's all about finding a balance. Maybe there is a balance to be found with MBS, maybe there isn't. Reserving final judgement until I've played the beta extensively.
|
I don't necessarily know if MBS is here to stay. That was my initial assumption, but Browder has said he's willing to scrap it if it can't be saved.
|
Blizzard has the ambition to make a progaming viable esports out of SC2. Part of SC2 is the execution skill. And part of this is that the faster you can execute commands the better you are.
Either this skill should be no part at all of SC2.
Or SC2 can't be competitive.
Why have the skill of execution being tested in a competitive game and then make it so easy there is a level playing field in terms of execution skill on the higher level?
I don't understand why people want an real time game but then don't want what they call 'repetitive and mundane' actions being part of the competitive nature of the game.
If it is part of the game, as it is with every real time game, then why shouldn't it be a skill in the competitive arena?
|
@BlackStar: well it's not so easy to say. In FPS games, for example, executing each of your decision is dead simple. You just do it, there's zero "UI obstacles", but how well exactly you do everything (e.g. timing, aiming, movement) and how you "combine your actions" is what makes you a good or bad player.
In SC1, almost everything you can do is easy, too (from a UI viewpoint, of course). There's just 2 (3) exceptions: 1. you're limited to selecting 12 units at a time, 2. you're limited to selecting 1 building at a time, (3. setting rally points for multiple buildings is extremely time-consuming).
Remove these two/three inefficiencies and you have the most efficient UI currently possible. Which is to be seen as a good thing if you ignore competitive issues for a moment. This is the general goal that each game should have. Adding competitiveness should happen on this basis, and NOT by altering this base so that competitiveness is only kept alive because of UI difficulties (this is a possibility of course, but not an elegant one).
|
On March 20 2008 06:57 maybenexttime wrote:
VIB, read previous MBS threads, and don't post such crap... People can't be bothered to refute that "argument" every week or so... I'm sorry I read some of the posts but not all the 10x 20 pages threads =P
I guess you guys are right overall tho, it's all about finding balance you cannot exaggerate to one side of another. I just think that building selection, specifically, is one part of macroing that is boring repetitive and uncreative. If we can, somehow, reduce that repetitive part of macroing in favor of the creative part of macroing (build orders, build positioning, expansion timing/positioning), then it's a good change. That's why I think MBS is specifically a good change, because it reduces the uncreative part of macroing leaving for room for the fun part of macro.
|
I never want to see anyone use another FPS example again. You are talking about two separate things. FA can you shut her down please this is going nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
