|
On March 20 2008 07:44 BlackStar wrote:
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.
Because repetative and mudane tasks are only half competative. Compare a racing game against 11 enemys either:
against the clock one after each other or
all at the same time.
Both take skill and you can compare but the latter version adds so much. You enemys force you to adapt, each race is a unique challenge.
Whereas you could train the "lone round" to the point you could drive it blind.
Races are also a good example for exclusion of "baggage", so called skills that would only hurt the sport. Races could take place on randomly selected tracks, such that no driver would have experience on, empathising adaptability. Would that improve motor sports?
On exotic tracks you usually get a side driver that reads you the map!
Is there any SC tournament where they time you while you beat a computer enemy?
|
On March 20 2008 07:26 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +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  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.
Haha, that was pretty slick. I'm somewhat in the middle more center pro-MBS, but that was an eloquent way of showing a logical argumental fallacy both sides of the fence make.
On March 20 2008 08:02 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
@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).
Thumbs up there
|
I understand the delicate balance of macro/micro that SC:BW has. In that, each is about 50/50. But, should we assume that is the best possible way of playing SC2? Let us leave Blizzard to decide for themselves if it works in alpha (which is seems to be working, or they would've cut it already), and then in beta we can decided for ourselves if it works for the community.
|
On March 20 2008 07:44 BlackStar wrote: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? Because 'repetitive and mundane' actions can be replaced by creative and intelligent actions. It doesn't need to be part of the game. More strategy could be part of the game instead.
Like I said before. I'm sure we all have seen many 300+ APM korean pros lose precious units who were just wandering around because he was just too busy clicking buildings. If we can reduce the amount those things happen then it's a good thing.
I'd rather have 300+ apm pros lose their units because he either:
a) didn't micro good enough that army. or
b) didn't macro well enough his build order/strat or
c) made a bad decision of when to attack/retreat or
d) didn't multitask multiple armies fast enough. But NOT:
e) was too busy clicking buildings.
Those are just some examples that are so many things a pro skilled player could have been doing. If MBS can reduce the amount of e) but increase the amount of a~d then it's a good thing!
|
VIB you're bringing up really old arguments, and you should at least consider the possibility that pros who play 8+ hours a day might reach the skill ceiling if there's MBS and nothing else changed.
I'm pro-MBS but I will accept it if Blizzard comes to the conclusion that it hurts macro too much. If it does, they should first try to add different macro features to the game. And if they can't or don't do that, they should include SBS again, as a last resort. A crutch to help macro stay competitive, so to say. I wouldn't be happy about this but you have to at least consider the possibility that it might be the only way to ensure that pros never hit the skill ceiling.
But we won't be 100% sure of anything until the game is in beta stage and progamers (no TL wannabes) have tested the game a lot.
But then, the real skill ceiling might be higher than the perceived one. Years ago, pros like Yellow and Boxer already thought they reached it in SC1, but then came new generations of players who were even better.
Which is part of why this discussion is difficult and endless. We know nothing about SC2's metagame yet, and even pros might not see the potential in SC2 at first. Anti-MBS trolls from here (like Showtime!) will see even less because they're far less skilled, yet they act like they've figured it all out already. Like they know exactly how high (or low) the skill ceiling will be.
|
I am sorry I didn't really read all the 20 pages of all the 10 threads about this topic. I have no time for that. I am just trying to be as helpful and constructive to the topic as I can within my small knowledge on the subject.
On March 20 2008 10:27 0xDEADBEEF wrote:[...]but you have to at least consider the possibility that it might be the only way to ensure that pros never hit the skill ceiling.
But we won't be 100% sure of anything until the game is in beta stage and progamers (no TL wannabes) have tested the game a lot. But this one I have to disagree. I'm not any gosu who think is less than many light years away from the skill ceiling. But even at my limited knowledge about the sc metagame, I'm pretty sure I know enough to affirm that the skill ceiling in sc is so far high that any human being will ever get there. I could write a book explaining why I think this. But, making a very long story short, the skill ceiling in sc is "exponentially infinite" (if that makes any sense). Think about it this way: if you managed to perfectly micro 1 army, then you could have been moving forward to multitasking 2 groups. Once you managed to perfectly micro 2 armies at one time, you could have been microing 3 at the same time.
Because of the multi-tasking nature of sc, I think no human being will ever reach a "ceiling". That is actually a kind of limited point of view if you ask me, that of believing such a "ceiling" exists and can be reach by a human. There will always be something more to learn and perfetly execute.
Then of course we have sc2. Which we don't know everything about. I didn't even played it yet. But I do think my incredibly limited knowledge of it is it enough to affirm the skill ceiling will never be reach. Only because of the multi-tasking macroing nature it necessarily derived from sc1, which we do know that, we can conclude that the skill ceiling will still be 'exponentially infinite'.
|
It's not about replacing them. My point was against removing them. I don't understand.
If you want to replace something with something better, please propose that something better. But that hasn't happened yet. At least not a lot.
We are now removing certain macro because it needs to be replaced. But we have nothing to replace it with. I say, don't remove it.
SC2 will be a game of execution and a game that needs to be tweaked for professional play. That means execution will be a factor in the professional area. That means you can't consciously level the playing field.
I don't understand the comparison with FPS at all. I don't understand the thing about 'limiting interface'. Is a lack of autoaim a 'limiting interface'? I mean, aiming is pretty mundane and repetitive in FPS games. It also lacks creativity and intelligence.
Of course the interface is limiting. That's the point of sports. Of course we want to see progamers that are at great risk to blunder. That's the point.
|
There is no way in hell anyone is ever going to reach a point of perfection in Starcraft 1, or Starcraft 2. A professional will not run out of things to do in Starcraft, MBS or not. If they have an army of 200, they could be microing every single unit of that 200. They could be managing 2 armies, or 3, or 5. They are going to be limited by human and technological imperfection long before that point ever comes.
Any arguments for and against MBS really shouldn't be about an easier game, but rather, a different game. The biggest influence MBS could have would be a shift in the amount of attention spent on macro compared to micro. I remember reading they were shooting for a 60micro/40macro ratio though, and if they can accomplish that than I think I'll be satisfied, regardless of how they do it (as long as it is not too gimicky/redundant/exceedingly tedious)
|
On March 20 2008 11:17 BlackStar wrote:
It's not about replacing them. My point was against removing them. I don't understand.
If you want to replace something with something better, please propose that something better. But that hasn't happened yet. At least not a lot.
We are now removing certain macro because it needs to be replaced. But we have nothing to replace it with. I say, don't remove it.
SC2 will be a game of execution and a game that needs to be tweaked for professional play. That means execution will be a factor in the professional area. That means you can't consciously level the playing field.
I don't understand the comparison with FPS at all. I don't understand the thing about 'limiting interface'. Is a lack of autoaim a 'limiting interface'? I mean, aiming is pretty mundane and repetitive in FPS games. It also lacks creativity and intelligence.
Of course the interface is limiting. That's the point of sports. Of course we want to see progamers that are at great risk to blunder. That's the point.
There will be more strategic macro opportunities due to the fact that you have more variations in units, more abilities, features, and whatnot. This creates a potentially wider range in the strategic macro spectrum, which gives progamers plunty to do. You'll just have more tactics/strategies to concoct and pull off. Of course this is a purely hypothetical and theoritical assumption, just like assuming MBS will hurt the skill ceiling, but ultimately we'll just have to find out when beta starts won't we? So I guess arguing will remain in the realm of, again, hypotheticals and theoriticals.
Your counter-FPS argument has a few problems that I see. First of all the point of FPS games revolves around pointing and shooting your enemy, so your comparison is wrong there with aiming vs. MBS. Like, RTS games are more complex, but are mainly about commanding armies to attack and defeat your enemy. Removing aiming to FPS is like removing the army commanding aspect of RTS games? Doesn't that sound rediculous? You'd end up playing Sim City, lol.. which isn't an RTS game anyways.
|
I think MBS should be implemented for one simple reason - Because in SC1, the only reason it wasn't implemented was because of technical LIMITATIONS. The engine just was not DESIGNED to have MBS. If the technology is there- why not use it? It would not destroy the game- it would just CHANGE it.
Being against MBS is like saying "don't use a tractor to dig that hole - use 10 men with sticks because it takes more "l33t skillz0rs""
And one more thing; people on TL need to have more faith in Blizzard. Have they ever released a bad game? Do you REALLY think that they are going to start with the most anticipated sequel of all time? Chill, relax, the game will come in time - and it will be perfect. Blizzard knows what they're doing.
|
Blizzard is trying to improve the interface? NO NO NO I WILL NOT ALLOW IT. Everybody knows that the real pro gamers are still playing Warcraft 1, because all the new Blizzard games have the multiple unit select, which makes it so that the normals can play the game WHICH RUINS EVERYTHING. The fact that Blizzard keeps catering to the normals means that they are corrupt money grubbers. It's time for Blizzard to put this "strategy" nonsense behind them and turn Starcraft 2 into the clicking contest that it was always supposed to be.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 20 2008 12:24 Vin{MBL} wrote:
I think MBS should be implemented for one simple reason - Because in SC1, the only reason it wasn't implemented was because of technical LIMITATIONS. The engine just was not DESIGNED to have MBS. If the technology is there- why not use it? It would not destroy the game- it would just CHANGE it.
Being against MBS is like saying "don't use a tractor to dig that hole - use 10 men with sticks because it takes more "l33t skillz0rs""
And one more thing; people on TL need to have more faith in Blizzard. Have they ever released a bad game? Do you REALLY think that they are going to start with the most anticipated sequel of all time? Chill, relax, the game will come in time - and it will be perfect. Blizzard knows what they're doing.
technical limitations? what?... they could have easily put MBS in SC1 by changing a few lines of code. Are you awear that blizzard didn't put MBS in any of the patches for SC1 because the change might be too drastic? this is why they're beta testing MBS and seeing what people think because it's a very very serious issue.
Many people on TL.net don't have faith in blizzard because they saw War3. A game where auto cast and heros were received VERY negatively by the competitive starcraft community. And even many top War3 players say the game isn't a very good spectator sport. That doesn't mean it's a bad game, but we DO have a right to criticize.
please keep your bad logic and stone age arguments out of this thread if you keep posting.
|
On March 20 2008 12:24 Vin{MBL} wrote:
I think MBS should be implemented for one simple reason - Because in SC1, the only reason it wasn't implemented was because of technical LIMITATIONS. The engine just was not DESIGNED to have MBS. If the technology is there- why not use it? It would not destroy the game- it would just CHANGE it.
Being against MBS is like saying "don't use a tractor to dig that hole - use 10 men with sticks because it takes more "l33t skillz0rs""
And one more thing; people on TL need to have more faith in Blizzard. Have they ever released a bad game? Do you REALLY think that they are going to start with the most anticipated sequel of all time? Chill, relax, the game will come in time - and it will be perfect. Blizzard knows what they're doing.
That is a ridiculous argument. SC has ascended to heights that Blizzard never thought it would. For example, the insane muta micro that we have nowadays is actually a glitch - as of now, Blizzard is having a hard time trying to get mutas to shoot and move at the same time as we can do now.
Original intent does not determine what the game will eventually become. Just because things were not originally implemented because of technical limitations doesn't mean we should do them now.
EDIT: Thank you Tasteless for flaming this fool before I could get to it.
|
They should make sure that the pros never reach the skill ceiling by taking away hotkeys and multiple unit select and only accepting input from touchpads.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 20 2008 10:13 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2008 07:44 BlackStar wrote: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? Because 'repetitive and mundane' actions can be replaced by creative and intelligent actions. It doesn't need to be part of the game. More strategy could be part of the game instead. Like I said before. I'm sure we all have seen many 300+ APM korean pros lose precious units who were just wandering around because he was just too busy clicking buildings. If we can reduce the amount those things happen then it's a good thing. I'd rather have 300+ apm pros lose their units because he either: a) didn't micro good enough that army. or b) didn't macro well enough his build order/strat or c) made a bad decision of when to attack/retreat or d) didn't multitask multiple armies fast enough. But NOT: e) was too busy clicking buildings. Those are just some examples that are so many things a pro skilled player could have been doing. If MBS can reduce the amount of e) but increase the amount of a~d then it's a good thing!
progamers rarely lose tons of units because they're clicking on buildings, they know when to space their actions out although YOU apparently don't. your talking like building clicking is some epidemic within the SC interface that is stopping us from seeing the real game.
Every few pages we get some random person like you who posts the same arguments as the person before him while indicating very VERY little knowledge about how the actual game works.
|
On March 20 2008 12:48 UBERGOD wrote:
They should make sure that the pros never reach the skill ceiling by taking away hotkeys and multiple unit select and only accepting input from touchpads.
They should also make sure that all the new players feel super good about themselves by automating micro and macro and just making the computer play the game for you.
Stop making stupid arguments.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 20 2008 12:34 UBERGOD wrote:
Blizzard is trying to improve the interface? NO NO NO I WILL NOT ALLOW IT. Everybody knows that the real pro gamers are still playing Warcraft 1, because all the new Blizzard games have the multiple unit select, which makes it so that the normals can play the game WHICH RUINS EVERYTHING. The fact that Blizzard keeps catering to the normals means that they are corrupt money grubbers. It's time for Blizzard to put this "strategy" nonsense behind them and turn Starcraft 2 into the clicking contest that it was always supposed to be.
go play risk.
|
Yangstuh, I don't understand your first paragraph/point. I don't get beyond the: 'strategy/decision making is harder so execution can be easier'.
On March 20 2008 11:52 yangstuh wrote:
Your counter-FPS argument has a few problems that I see. First of all the point of FPS games revolves around pointing and shooting your enemy,
That's besides the point. You think aiming should be in because you expect the game to test skill in aiming. But RTS games are about managing bases as well. If you expect an RTS to test your skill in base management, then what's the objection to it? It's gone. And base management has to be part of an RTS, otherwise you would call it an RTT games.
Aiming and a part of managing bases in SC can be argued to be mundane and repetitive. They can also both be automated.
Actually, removing aiming from an FPS is actually a very good idea. Except if you are trying to make a competitive FPS game.
Same with RTS.
Now you may say: "This skill isn't supposed to be tested." or "This skill is supposed to be tested." But obviously current generation competitive RTS games will test your skills in base management, call it sim city if you want, and controlling your armies.
There is no alternative and SC2 isn't going to be next gen.
WC3 tried that. They wanted to make an RPG with squad tactics. But in the end they turned it back into an RTS and people try to play it like SC. But it wasn't made with that in mind. That's why DoTa is so popular, I guess.
If Blizzard has a genius idea to make base management more dynamic and intelligent, add it in! I am not against taking risks per se, though it may set back esports for 5 or 10 years. Maybe even automate some of the old stuff, maybe. But just removing it in favour or micro is just plain silly. And one can no longer argue that it's effect isn't very big.
|
As a Warcraft 1 pro-gamer I can safely say that allowing players to select more than one unit at a time and use hotkeys will destroy the spirit of the game. No game could legitimately call itself an RTS without a clunky, inefficient interface. Shame on you Blizzard.
|
On March 20 2008 13:42 UBERGOD wrote:
As a Warcraft 1 pro-gamer I can safely say that allowing players to select more than one unit at a time and use hotkeys will destroy the spirit of the game. No game could legitimately call itself an RTS without a clunky, inefficient interface. Shame on you Blizzard.
Haha,
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
