|
See, this is why I relectantly post in such topics.
You obviously cannot think outside of the box or look at this subject from a different point of view (Kohlberg's idea of conventional morality) which would mean you are still in your early adolescence -- never fear, many people intellectually never get outside of this notion of thought.
I do not wish to argue this any further. I might have generalized in the posts above but I got right to the point and I kept it simple so the masses could understand.
SBS puts the player in the driver's seat. It comes down to what they can and cannot do at the same time.
I hate EA Games. You sir have to put things in the right context. This isn't about Madden, NBA Live or any of that other crap in which all they do is add a new cover and put the words '08 or '09 beside it. Jesus, this is just sad.
I am well aware EA Arts has made the most out of any other video game developer. It is ridiculous.
I was simply stating why WCIII has sold more copies than SC:BW.
|
On February 28 2008 01:16 Showtime! wrote:
See, this is why I relectantly post in such topics.
You obviously cannot think outside of the box or look at this subject from a different point of view (Kohlberg's idea of conventional morality) which would mean you are still in your early adolescence -- never fear, many people intellectually never get outside of this notion of thought.
And why do you think I don´t understand your POV? Because I don´t agree?
On February 28 2008 01:16 Showtime! wrote:
I do not wish to argue this any further. I might have generalized in the posts above but I got right to the point and I kept it simple so the masses could understand.
SBS puts the player in the driver's seat. It comes down to what they can and cannot do at the same time.
You are always in the drivers seat as player. The issue is the extend of control over the car. It is always argued that MBS would remove control while it is actually the opposite. You can´t any longer choose to ignore a aspect of the game, you need to compete on every level.
On February 28 2008 01:16 Showtime! wrote:
I hate EA Games. You sir have to put things in the right context. This isn't about Madden, NBA Live or any of that other crap in which all they do is add a new cover and put the words '08 or '09 beside it. Jesus, this is just sad.
I am well aware EA Arts has made the most out of any other video game developer. It is ridiculous.
I was simply stating why WCIII has sold more copies than SC:BW.
Why not bring something that has worked before and show it to the world when you have the masses at your feet with all the WoW marketing you've done? Ask anyone at Blizzcon and they'll say the SC:BW games were the most entertaining ones.
That is the context: Relying on a strong franchise and simply remake it.
|
Doesn't really matter if a game was around for a longer time or came out at a "worse" time (less people with good internet access). A competitive game that's really good will live on anyway, and SC did. You can't evade the comparison of SC's success with that of WC3.
Klouvious is definately right by showing that WC3 is a very successful game, also a very successful competitive game, and this fact alone means that a very easy UI has almost nothing to do with the competitiveness of a game, because gameplay can always be made complex enough so that the UI doesn't matter.
WC3 even has almost no macro yet still turned out as a very competitive game that rivals the success of SC on all levels.
Now for the sweet part: if you imagine SC2 as some kind of hybrid between SC1 and WC3, with the strengths of each game included, but all weaknesses left out (weaknesses would be WC3 features like heroes, upkeep, "almost no macro" etc., and SC1 weaknesses would be the crude UI), you will most likely have a truly brilliant game that will be a real hit both in the non-competitive scene and in the competitive scene, and rightfully so.
|
A+ on the royally superior tone of the above post (courtesy of Showtime). Referencing Kohlberg and using the phrase "I do not wish" was a stroke of genius. Give this man a gold star!
However, if you're serious I will have to track you down and burn you. In a fire.
On topic, are we done here? I seems to me the MBS issue has been thoroughly exhausted. How about some in depth discussion about automining or the significance of frills on the medic uniforms?
|
Meh, do you have a Romanian background by any chance?
Why don't you give me your address and we can arrange an appointment if you are so inclined to light a fire. It is only one PM away.
E-dicks are such grand toys. Certainly they have surpassed the vibrator in terms of online sales.
***
No, DB that is terrible assumption considering video games are very different from other leisure activities and sports. What you said is false and I only used it as one example of why more people are playing WCIII than SC. I won't waste any more time on that because it is stupid and childish.
You are only in the driver seat when you are able to control all of the action. Let me put it this way: do you drive standard (SC:BW -- no MBS) or do you drive automatic (WCIII - MBS)? Now ask both drivers why? If you were to ask the standard driver I'm almost certain they would say they drive that way because they love the feeling of being in more control compared to automatic.
These are preferences yes, but the fact of the matter is MBS is MORE LIMITED than no MBS understand? When I spoke about limitations before I was talking about it in a totally different context, i.e. structure of movement and techniques based on rules provided by the programmer.
Enough theorycrafting.
You have to be able to look at something from different perspectives rather than your own. This is what kids do.
Look at the facts.
|
With MBS, you can choose whether you want to be in full control or sacrifice control/flexibility for better attention to the street (so to say).
|
DB yes you can choose, but to everyone else spectating it is automatic and those skillful players will go underappreciated and it creates a lower ceiling for complexity, creativity and skill and the game will get mundane.
By setting rules you have guidelines everyone can follow when spectating.
If you want to build upon E-Sports you need strenous rules.
|
On February 28 2008 03:44 Showtime! wrote:
Meh, do you have a Romanian background by any chance?
Why don't you give me your address and we can arrange an appointment if you are so inclined to light a fire. It is only one PM away.
E-dicks are such grand toys. Certainly they have surpassed the vibrator in terms of online sales.
***
No, DB that is terrible assumption considering video games are very different from other leisure activities and sports. What you said is false and I only used it as one example of why more people are playing WCIII than SC. I won't waste any more time on that because it is stupid and childish.
You are only in the driver seat when you are able to control all of the action. Let me put it this way: do you drive standard (SC:BW -- no MBS) or do you drive automatic (WCIII - MBS)? Now ask both drivers why? If you were to ask the standard driver I'm almost certain they would say they drive that way because they love the feeling of being in more control compared to automatic.
These are preferences yes, but the fact of the matter is MBS is MORE LIMITED than no MBS understand? When I spoke about limitations before I was talking about it in a totally different context, i.e. structure of movement and techniques based on rules provided by the programmer.
Enough theorycrafting and be able to look at things from different perspectives. It is a lost cause if you are unable to put yourself in the shoes of others. This is what kids do. They can only think for themselves or their point of view.
Look at the facts.
Oh wow, you were actually being serious. An online elitist caricature in the flesh... But OK, rather than picking on the ridiculous weight you seem to put on sounding like a British nobleman talking to a homeless person in the 1800s, I'll refute your ridiculous arguments. I do realize this may be a complete waste of time, as odds are good you're just an attention whore, aka a troll.
It's good practice to state opinions like opinions and try to make them sound credible by basing them on facts. You're stating "truths". Nothing you say is "possibly because" but only "because, now shut up". Try a cup of humility.
You are only in the driver seat when you are able to control all of the action.
Oh, really? But wait, when you select a unit, the UI gives you it's commands, and when you tell it to go somewhere you don't have to move it every step of the way, the pathing does that for you. Doesn't that by your criteria mean you're not in the driver seat? When the enemy gets close to your units and your attention is elsewhere, they open fire and let you know they are under attack. Damnit, there goes the UI again, babysitting you who so fiercely require the driving seat of things.
Enough theorycrafting and be able to look at things from different perspectives. It is a lost cause if you are unable to put yourself in the shoes of others. This is what kids do. They can only think for themselves or their point of view.
Take a look in the mirror, you brilliant man you.
Why the hell did I just waste my time with this post? Even if I completely misunderstood your "arguments", your attitude speaks for itself. Troll/genuinely stupid.
|
On February 28 2008 04:07 Showtime! wrote:
DB yes you can choose, but to everyone else spectating it is automatic and those skillful players will go underappreciated and it creates a lower ceiling for complexity, creativity and skill and the game will get mundane.
By setting rules you have guidelines everyone can follow when spectating.
If you want to build upon E-Sports you need strenous rules.
Congrats, you've just reached the very beginning of this discussion again. :D
I won't do yet another ride.
|
On February 28 2008 04:00 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
With MBS, you can choose whether you want to be in full control or sacrifice control/flexibility for better attention to the street (so to say).
I disagree. You won't really have to choose since you'll have like 2-4 production buildings per group. Not to mention they'll probably introduce tabs for different structures like in WC3 so that you won't need separate groups for all your Nexi, Forges, and 2-4 Gates. Flexibility won't suffer because of MBS.
However, I also disagree with Showtime's "full control" argument. MBS gives you more control.
|
Unitshieldguy, Deadbeef,
So do you want a game which is basically micro intensive? I personally like starcraft because of the drops, the expos, the strategic clash in the background of a battle of wits, rather than how many minerals worth this unit can recoup for itself.
I think the failing of WC3 is that it is way too obsessed with micro and makes the game feel boring (cos you never do anything except micro micro micro,,,,jeez)
Showtime,
Please, that's not constructive.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On February 28 2008 03:44 Showtime! wrote:
Let me put it this way: do you drive standard (SC:BW -- no MBS) or do you drive automatic (WCIII - MBS)? Now ask both drivers why? If you were to ask the standard driver I'm almost certain they would say they drive that way because they love the feeling of being in more control compared to automatic.
This analogy is flawed due to the fact that there is nothing you can't do with MBS that you can with SBS, while if you drive automatic, you cannot shift gears at will. MBS would rather be Tiptronic transmission - if you need to have full control, you can have it, if you do not need to (which is very likely under normal driving circumstances), you are freed from the robotic task of switching the gears and can pay more attention to the situation on the road/planning your further route/whatever.
Thus, MBS does not remove any degree of control, it only makes it more flexible.
|
Of all the arguments I've heard so far I have so say that SBS is more convincing.
|
You are too stupid to boot Meh, but PM your address and I'll give you a consultation around Blizzcon you big loon.
Case closed.
MBS is automated. Jesus christ. If something is simplified for you case in point you are more likely to use it. There are four types of people here:
a) spinners - they will spin it whatever they want to make their perspective sound credible which is just stupid because they are misinterpreting what you say.
b) trollers - Meh, need I say more?
c) realists - here are the facts now do whatever the hell you want with them.
d) idealists - what if? what if? Many pro MBS people fall into this category.
My job isn't to babysit kids and I have no intension to do so now.
Have fun arguing.
|
Personally I am having trouble making up my mind, but at the very least some kind of compromise will have to be made, simple SBS doesn't cut it anymore. There have been several suggestions on such a solution, I wonder if anyone has thought about or mentioned this one, it just came to me:
If you have several buildings, not necessarily of the same type, you use the same hotkey for all of them, the first one assigned being the one you select when you first press the hotkey, but you can select all the other ones that share the same hotkey by pressing a key, like tab, or by pressing the building hotkey again. So Terrans having grouped a bunch of barracks would go [hotkey]mTabmTabmTabc for three marines and a medic and Zerg would go [hotkey]szTabsz for two hatchery's eggs worth of zerglings.
Not only would this make it easier to reassign rally points but it would not make macro as easy as the (previously best imo) compromise of assigning a hotkey to a group of buildings and pressing a key a bunch of times (like z for zealot) to spread production evenly across the gateways. I think this would also add a neat nuance to how you hotkey, as you could choose to have all your buildings in one base hotkeyed to the same key, [hotkey]zTabzTabzTabpTabr to make three zealots, one probe and one reaver, leaving it up to the player to remember which order he assigned the hotkeys. Or maybe one hotkey for all the upgrade buildings, one for nexuses, one for less used production facilities like robotics bay and one for all the gateways.
This would work the same for all races ofc. Perhaps to ease reassigning, ctrl+hotkey to assign and ctrl+alt+hotkey or something to clear a set?
Has this idea been investigated and dismissed already? If not, how does it sound?
Showtime: you're right, your job is not to babysit us foolish kids, we are unworthy of your wisdom. So would you stay true to your word and gtfo already?
|
On February 28 2008 11:05 l)K-Arkaim wrote:
Of all the arguments I've heard so far I have so say that SBS is more convincing.
I think that's mainly due to the fact that it's easier to argue from the SBS position: you can just always relate to SC1's success (especially in Korea) and say "if it isn't like this, it's risky and might not work at all".
Pro-MBS has to do a lot of educated guessing how the game might turn out to be, and do comparisons with other MBS games, although this is difficult because the only successful MBS game is the one most SC players don't like: WC3.
|
On February 28 2008 10:02 Random() wrote:This analogy is flawed due to the fact that there is nothing you can't do with MBS that you can with SBS, while if you drive automatic, you cannot shift gears at will. MBS would rather be Tiptronic transmission - if you need to have full control, you can have it, if you do not need to (which is very likely under normal driving circumstances), you are freed from the robotic task of switching the gears and can pay more attention to the situation on the road/planning your further route/whatever. Thus, MBS does not remove any degree of control, it only makes it more flexible.
Kinda off-topic but:
Tiptronic still is a very bad analogy. Since a tiptronic cannot do all the things a manual shift can. (It is slow, uses a torque converter, doesn't allow direct down shifts, etc.) A DCT is already much more in the right direction, but even that suffers from not having a manual clutch. (And yes there are things that you can do with a manual clutch that are impossible with a semi-automatic.)
MBS can do everything SBS can do, and more. So definitely it gives you more control. (Arguing otherwise, is just plain retarded.) It allows you to do more than SBS controls, and you can argue against MBS because of this, but it does not lower the amount of control you have over the game.
In fact, the extra control MBS gives you also allows for bigger macro errors. (hitting a wrong button can mean building a whole wrong unit set. (i.e. building 8 ht and 2 zealots instead of 8 zealots and 2 ht, although this begs to ask why the hell you had 1200+ gas in the bank) This may not way against the advantage of having to take less time off, away from an intense battle, but it shows the shortsightedness of some arguments used in the last page or so.
Also on the topic of automation. I would not really consider it an automation, in the sense that (depending on the exact implementation) it hardly relies on the AI. (Although if it automatically picks the shortest queue this is only partly true.) Things like attack move, unit queuing, rally points, rally-mine, these are automations. Things like MBS and UUS are not, they are control schemes, which may happen to be more efficient than other control schemes. (and therefore maybe undesirable from a competional point of view.)
|
Also on the topic of automation. I would not really consider it an automation, in the sense that (depending on the exact implementation) it hardly relies on the AI. (Although if it automatically picks the shortest queue this is only partly true.) Things like attack move, unit queuing, rally points, rally-mine, these are automations. Things like MBS and UUS are not, they are control schemes, which may happen to be more efficient than other control schemes. (and therefore maybe undesirable from a competional point of view.)
I heavily agree with this statement. When it comes to control, you can do anything in MBS that you can do in SBS. Nothing is stopping you from hotkeying one building to one hotkey in an MBS game. What you're arguing Showtime! is something different, perhaps its just semantics.
@Meh. It was argued already that the point of SBS was the repetitive macro actions forcing the players' attention elsewhere other than their army
I think the failing of WC3 is that it is way too obsessed with micro and makes the game feel boring (cos you never do anything except micro micro micro,,,,jeez)
Another factor in WC3's boring micro is that the units move slowly, attack slowly, and die slowly. THAT makes the game feel boring.
|
On February 28 2008 19:53 caution.slip wrote:
Another factor in WC3's boring micro is that the units move slowly, attack slowly, and die slowly. THAT makes the game feel boring.
Yeah, among other things. This obviously won't be the case in SC2. But try to tell that to the anti-MBS crowd... it's much easier to just say "MBS is what ruins all these games". 
|
On February 28 2008 19:53 caution.slip wrote:
@Meh. It was argued already that the point of SBS was the repetitive macro actions forcing the players' attention elsewhere other than their army
Well sure, but my point was that we can probably count on MBS to be in SC2, all we can do is find a type of "MBS" that doesn't make it too easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
