| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On March 21 2008 21:40 eugen1225 wrote: That is responding like a 4 year old. If you see something you don't like ignore it, or just post some arguments, don't flame and insult people, its counterproductive. Did you read his comment? | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On March 21 2008 17:25 MyLostTemple wrote: i don't think you get it. EVERY competitive SC gamer who has been asked about MBS has said it will have negative impacts on the game. This spans from koreans to top foreigners. everyone who is for MBS does not seem to be a competitive gamer, i do not mean this as an insult. to put it simply pro MBSers do not appear in tournaments or rank well on iccup. Ofcourse we find SC fun, we just want to make sure SC2 still preserves the competitive aspects the first game had. I think this is a very important point, and I don't doubt that most serious pro SC players are worried about it- especially since it's their livelihood. They are probably worried about a lot of other things, too. But there could be something more to the situation. I wonder about why didn't they say it publicly in interviews, or did they or did Blizzard tell them not to?. How was the question asked? What exactly did they say? Maybe more importantly, did the guys who would benefit the most from MBS simply get pushed way down in the rankings (Nal_ra and Boxer maybe?) and so they weren't asked. Maybe even a small portion of them went with the crowd and answered the same way. I don't doubt that MBS will allow players with better micro and worse late game macro to do better... that's the whole point. What I expect to happen is a portion of SC pros are going to gain ranking in SC2, another portion would drop and/or stick with BW, and then some War3 pros will do the same. And a whole new generation who learn to play it from scratch will put new best players in the mix. To me, this is fine. I think the game can still be very competitive and good with MBS. It's just that the people at the highest level of SC play may not be the exact same people that are at the highest level of SC2 play. They are going to be really close, but maybe not in the top 0.1%. That's fine, it's a different game. It just won't be fine if the game is too easy- I agree with that 100%. I'm still worried about MBS, maybe in a different way and not as much as some people, but it's still something to watch. | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
I keep telling you guys that you are wasting your time trying to convince people they are wrong, but yet this thread still continues to grow. Rekrul should take you out for a night on the town to keep you entertained for a while! You cannot teach a fish how to walk. I better say something else to put this thread back on topic. In every sport you have rules the players MUST follow to show off their abilities. The UI in the game of Starcraft, for example, is the template for the rules in SC. Other than that, the player can do whatever the hell they want, Boxer bunker rush, 4 pool, Bisu Build, SK Terran, etc. Glitches are apart of this UI template as well, i.e.: fly drone, fly templar, disable turret, etc. and they find their way into the rules of the game. Other than that is everything goes! :. MBS is counter-productive to this rule. See, this is how a sound argument is made. Maybe some of you should try it sometime. If anything Blizzard should be adding to their UI template. By no means am I saying it shouldn't be user friendly. I would play around with the old to make it new and refreshing. | ||
|
Vasoline73
United States7801 Posts
As Tasteless said, is anyone really not going to buy the game if they don't include MBS? And let's be honest, most people who wouldnt would be the ones playing fastest map ever for a couple months and then leaving the game for the next "new thing." I don't think MBS would kill SC2, but why include it either? I think Blizzard just needs to have some balls and not include it. I for one know that with MBS I would be a much better player, but I still don't want it in the game because it makes it easier and more boring. Part of SC is that adrenaline rush and I think MBS would take that away. | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
| ||
|
FeArTeHsCoUrGe
United States58 Posts
On March 21 2008 23:08 Vasoline73 wrote: I don't think MBS would kill SC2, but why include it either? I think Blizzard just needs to have some balls and not include it. I for one know that with MBS I would be a much better player, but I still don't want it in the game because it makes it easier and more boring. Part of SC is that adrenaline rush and I think MBS would take that away. At the same time, going from MBS in their latest RTS game, to the older interface of SBS, would be a very illogical move, would be to the dismay of players of strategy games which include MBS, and would only be catering to a 10 year old crowd who follow a game only truly played competitively in Korea. And, for everyone out there, ask yourself, "Would I play Warcraft III if it was SBS?" For most of the people in this thread, the answer is no. The reason is, not because its SBS, but because Warcraft III is a different game, played differently, with a different form of balance. Starcraft II will also ultimately be a different game. Blizzard somehow got very lucky with SC, such that each race is not only balanced, but balanced to the point. Meaning timing works out very well - the tank comes out just in time to defend those 6 marines from the dragoon harass, defilers come out just in time to stop the terran ball, etc. Who is to say SC2 will be the same, despite Blizzard's hardest efforts? Suppose, after 20 patches, the game is finally somewhat balanced. Who is to say that the variety of strategies are employable? That build orders, timing attacks, and the different stages of play in each game will even match that of the level of Starcraft? Even without MBS, SC2 could potentially fail to satisfy the pro gamer scene by lacking the depth of the original Starcraft in many other ways. Essentially, if you are going to argue that they remove MBS, why not argue that they remove the improvements they have made to the UI of SC2 as well, since that would make it so pros require less micro to use units as efficiently? Why even complain about MBS without having truly analyzed the possible depth that SC2 may possess at all? Theorycrafting after a few vets played the game without having truly analyzed a completed game like Starcraft will only lead to circular debates like this. We cannot decide how much "easier" SC2 will be than SC1, with or without MBS, and cannot ascertain for certain whether MBS is the deciding factor in that. What games do we even have to base our theories of MBS on? None, until SC2 comes out. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
The pros who are against MBS might not be right for several reasons: 1. (the main point) they fear that they have to change their gameplay, adapt to the new situation, use more micro instead of mechanical macro which is "easy" to learn by tons of practice. If you have 8h/day to train mechanics, you WILL fear it if a new game comes out that reduces emphasis on mechanics. It's basically like feeling that everything they learned in SC1 will be in vain. Their job might be at stake, too. 2. They probably base all their assumptions on SC1. If we would be talking about SC1, I'd too probably say "forget MBS, that would be a bad idea". Because SBS is a big part of the competitiveness of SC1. Without it, there wouldn't be enough to micro etc. to offset the disadvantage. But I believe it is perfectly possible to balance a game on the basis of MBS ("balance" as in: "making it as competitive as with SBS"). Just a matter of designing it right. So you see, it's also easy to attack the credibility of some core anti-MBS claims. Because bias is bad. Plus, Blizzard are all no pros, yet they can bring out highly competitive games. If Tasteless' argument was 100% true, this would not be possible at all. Being a pro at a game is NOT a necessity to understand competitiveness. And I mean pro, not some Iccup A/B player or something even worse. Who cares about that? Which is why we shouldn't be attacking each other's credibility, but just concentrate on (hopefully good) arguments. Regardless of this whole discussion, the ONLY thing that really matters for an e-sport is that the skill ceiling is so high that no one will ever reach it. This is the case with SC1, and it's probably also the case with WC3. So make a "hybrid" of both games and you'll have the same. That's why I think there's almost nothing to worry. Lowering of the skill ceiling doesn't matter as long as it's still unreachable. Which is what Blizzard and the beta testers can hopefully prove. Everything else will be irrelevant, respectively only a matter of taste. Namely whether you like micro or (mechanical) macro more. | ||
|
Seelys
France104 Posts
The cycling nature of the whole debate is natural, because only beta and practice may ultimately decide of the relevance of the debaters'opinions. I just want to react on the "noobification arguments". By no way SC was a hardcore game at release, it was one of the most reactive, confortable RTS to play with. The only superior UI was featured in TA, the only serious alternative, ihmo (pity that no third party tryed to pursue this gameplay branch until SupCom). Anyway, we shouldn't fall to the temptation of contempt toward the young generations, which want to stick with "easier" games. Each generation has a better time with things that bothered the former, and it's own issues. Of course we can't exclude that videogame originally focused on the very little bunch of people who could have passion in them : most oldies are terribly hard, but not so complex in themselves, just fitted with primitive UI and controls. As for the argument of "Idle players" winning in WC3 after retraining, it's not uncommon in real sport. Each on of you must know at least of one athlete wounded of considering retirement then getting back above the pack. Maybe, that's just talent. (backed by work of course) PS : I don't believe SBS may hurt SC2 at release. It's more a matter of new born online community switching for another RTS more quickly. And postponing essential gamedesign questions to the next RTS generation : by the time the Starcraft model maybe be totally outdated. | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
Every vet I have spoken to about this has never brought up that shit about it being easier to adapt. It would fall into one of these: - we want something challenging - intrinsic rewards and motivation to get good... takes regular practice to be good at, etc. - we want e-sports to evolve and in order for the sport to be taken seriously it has to be as challenging as possible. Sometimes you have to take one step back in order to move forward. Right now, having unlimited MBS is counter-productive to some of Blizzard's goals. SC is the only franchise right now that could take it to the next level with its current fanbase and all. *** Here's another way of looking at it (and this is why many of us will never agree): - Anti-MBSers want a sport not a game - MBSers want a game not a sport Understood? Don't make me define sport from game using a leisure, recreation and play perspective. As much as I want a fun game I want something highly competitive at the same time. There needs to be a balance of the two. Unlimited MBS arguably won't cut it. SC isn't outdated at all, look at our community that still continues to go strong. Sure, if it weren't for the Koreans and surely B.Net it would have probably slipped a long, long time ago. There is something here and I believe it must be re-explored. *** I'll argue my own stance to help you guys out to a productive, interesting discussion to hopefully bring more people into it. Why do most people hate/drop out of PE in junior high school and high school? It's because they find it way too competitive. They are looking for a positive recreational experience. 'Girls just want to have fun' <-- ha, ha, ha. I just had to say it. I feel like I'm at the beach. What's the best way to avoid this? Well, it goes back to many old arguments, no? I think Blizzard fucked up with WC3. As much as I like their competitive ladders on each server. They gave the players too few options. It's either you play melee or UMS. For the most part, everything goes towards your ladder score. They need to give the player options: - Regular Melee Games - for the casual gamers - UMS - for shitz and gigglez - even more casual... - Team Melee - Capture the Flag - Etc. - Ladder - competitive!! Sure, you could just make a 1v1 melee UMS game in WC3 but it should already be an option so there is no hassle on the player. This is how you segregate a market properly. Gamers should know where to go to find their appropriate level. Make channels for this and give them various settings. No, I'm not saying make MBS and Anti-MBS a setting, but what I am saying is make it easier for people to find gamers who fit their preoccupations (style, skill, interests, etc.) It would make their lives a lot easier. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
And I wouldn't be too sure about the "not outdated" thing. Blizzard even had to admit that MBS is "industry standard" nowadays. So for many players it will feel very awkward not to have it. It's probably comparable to WC1/Dune 2 where you could only select a single unit at a time. Obviously it's much harder to play this way, but it's just not fun, not efficient and it's a stupid skill to test to begin with. Just like pro-MBSers think that mechanical SBS macro is stupid (whether it helps the game to be competitive or not). So either replace SBS with a more "meaningful" macro mechanic, or leave it out completely and hope that advanced micro opportunities will arise. Either of these two solutions would be fine IMHO. | ||
|
Seelys
France104 Posts
On March 21 2008 23:54 Showtime! wrote: - Anti-MBSers want a sport not a game - MBSers want a game not a sport Understood? Don't make me define sport from game using a leisure, recreation and play perspective. As much as I want a fun game I want something highly competitive at the same time. There needs to be a balance of the two. Unlimited MBS arguably won't cut it. SC isn't outdated at all, look at our community that still continues to go strong. Sure, if it weren't for the Koreans and surely B.Net it would have probably slipped a long, long time ago. There is something here and I believe it must be re-explored. Isn't this a definition of something outdated ? It's not a value judgement, only a constatation. And I think both want (mostly) a game fitting a sport, some have fear on the sport aspects, other on the game one. By the way, MBS still is a little element in the scheme of things. Macro/micro balance are defined by units lethality, production and gathering rate, expansion cost, and if I may refer to some comments on the recent final, maps can easily be the strongest factor on the playstyle, and arguably quality of competition. EDIT : ^^ There are some proposals about having different UI options/separation for players belonging to different levels. I have the feeling it is eluding questions the developpers should answer to when they release their game. | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
no one likes to admit their own mistakes. B.Net has been huge for them in it's longetivity. I won't argue that, but I have yet to see a really good, well-balanced RTS with MBS. The same competition just isn't there. That is why you have limited selection. It can be efficient if you make it so. "Stupid?", that is a matter of opinion and you are entitled to your own opinion and SBS has helped make SC:BW competitive. You cannot even argue that because it is a fact. ^^ There are clear cut definitions/concepts of game, play and sport in which all academics understand. The only thing we don't agree on is activity and leisure. I have a good question for those RTS freaks out there. Since SC first came out what developer/distributor has produced the most RTS games? It's a good question.  | ||
|
Seelys
France104 Posts
For your question, maybe the developpers of the Total War series (only half rts) ? As a distributor, perhaps THQ (DoW, CoH). The C&C had C&C2, RA2, Generals, another Dune, C&C3 (I am forgetting something ?) | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
You'll find it very ironic! | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
On March 22 2008 00:24 Showtime! wrote: That is why you have limited selection. It can be efficient if you make it so. "Stupid?", that is a matter of opinion and you are entitled to your own opinion and SBS has helped make SC:BW competitive. You cannot even argue that because it is a fact. ^^ Yes, I don't argue that, I even said so on this page. But I'm not a fan of such "workarounds", so to say. Adding a "hard" UI just to make the game more competitive is something like that. So I always vote for fixing gameplay instead of making the UI harder. | ||
|
Seelys
France104 Posts
@Showtime! : We'll see :p | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
| ||
|
eugen1225
Yugoslavia134 Posts
Why do most people hate/drop out of PE in junior high school and high school? It's because they find it way too competitive. Where I'm from, we cannot abandon PE, its a must, even handicapped kids must attend it. Anyway its not a good comparison. PE is not competitive. Its just a bunch of kids playing a game, be it football, basketball, or whatever. Some times we were forced to do gymnastics, but thats about it. No competition here. You just get grades. When you want to be competitive in a sport, you go and join a sport club, and start training, you don't do it in PE. - Anti-MBSers want a sport not a game - MBSers want a game not a sport A sport is a game played competitively. Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Source: Wikipedia (you can't argue this and draw out your own definition of what Sport is). eSport = electronic Sport = a game played competitively on an electronic system (PC,Xbox,PS2, whatever). Stop miss using notions. | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
Maybe where you are from, PE is apart of YOUR COUNTRIES system. Do this for me, go around your class and survey them. Chances are you'll find many of them who don't want to participate fully because they think SOME people are TOO competitive. This is human nature. Now then, every society places different values on different things so in some countries there might be some external forces working upon it. I find it funny you are Slavic. I guess I can understand where you are coming from because well, shit... people from those regions take things so fucking seriously and they are highly competitive people in sports. ha ha ha Got to love stereotypes but you fit the bill nicely. ;/ As for your other argument. No, no and no! Go take a leisure class. You are taking too much of a cultural stance on this. Academics agree on the concept of sport and game. You are talking about the degree of competition and that is something different from what I was saying. Another thing: never use Wikipedia because academics won't take you seriously. No offense. The definition of sport you gave is a little off and you missed an important point about the skill level. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Stormgate  50725Bisu 2255Shuttle 1659Mini 1189Soulkey  782ggaemo 568Zeus 439ZerO 381Soma 363Snow 328[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games singsing1685 B2W.Neo1281 hiko625 KnowMe427 crisheroes383 RotterdaM239 Fuzer  204Hui .204 Happy141 QueenE46 ArmadaUGS39 rGuardiaN39 ZerO(Twitch)13 |
|
|
EPT
