EPTThere was LOADS of argumentation over that but obviously nothing convincing enough yet.
[D] MBS Discussion III - Page 9
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
There was LOADS of argumentation over that but obviously nothing convincing enough yet. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
Changing the feel of the game is an entirely different argument, as MBS does seem to move focus from macro to micro and possibly in a big way. | ||
|
Response
United States1936 Posts
On March 01 2008 01:00 GeneralStan wrote: Watch this game: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSyo3kZlZQ And tell me WC3 isn't exciting  k watched the entire game....wc3 isn't exciting | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On March 01 2008 01:00 GeneralStan wrote: Watch this game: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSyo3kZlZQ And tell me WC3 isn't exciting That YouTube quality really hurts WC3 matches... because it makes the flashy battles even harder to follow. That was a pretty exciting game, but it's hard to understand the nuances and how the momentum shifted from one player to the other several times in that game unless you've had some experience with WC3 at a decent level. You lose most of the tension if you don't understand the implications of various plays and stuff that's going on. On the other hand, you can enjoy SC matches without knowing anything at all about the game. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
| ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On March 01 2008 07:12 GeneralStan wrote: I don't watch War3, so I didn't know much of what was going on, but the way the heroes were always red and avoiding death my the narrowest margins again and again is what I found so exciting. Yea, that definitely added a lot to the excitement and it's what got the commentators all shouting. It's kind of like how Boxer or Nada pulls off sick plays with their marines. I haven't watched any WC3 for a long time since I started to follow the SC scene. I'm just saying that I can understand if someone doesn't find it exciting, because it's not easy to tell what's going on, or the skill involved in some of those plays. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
| ||
|
Meh
Sweden458 Posts
When I was really into WC3, I started downloading replays to check buildorders and strats, and that was the beginning of the end. Because every single pro replay was a black hole of boredom. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On March 01 2008 07:38 GeneralStan wrote: I know what you're saying, but Starcraft is really the same way. If you're not acquainted much with RTSes, the action doesn't mean much. So I figured a group of RTS enthusiasts could appreciate that game. I'm well aware that this is the same for SC (I watch/play SC myself), but I'm saying the effect is even more amplified with respect to W3, because it's just so confusing to watch for anyone that's not acquainted with it. That's why I'm glad that SC2 is going to be a much better spectator sport in that regard. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 01 2008 07:38 GeneralStan wrote: I know what you're saying, but Starcraft is really the same way. If you're not acquainted much with RTSes, the action doesn't mean much. So I figured a group of RTS enthusiasts could appreciate that game. I didn't watch the game you linked yet, and I'm not someone who can't find WC3 exciting (there's a game from, I think, blizzcon in particular that I'm thinking of here) but I'd say one advantage SC has over WC3 in the "easy to watch" department is that shit actually dies. A lot. In WC3 everything has like 500 hp  | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
| ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
On March 01 2008 09:15 FrozenArbiter wrote: I didn't watch the game you linked yet, and I'm not someone who can't find WC3 exciting (there's a game from, I think, blizzcon in particular that I'm thinking of here) but I'd say one advantage SC has over WC3 in the "easy to watch" department is that shit actually dies. A lot. In WC3 everything has like 500 hp Rofl qft. So true. Something can have like red or yellow HP and you're still destined to see it alive for the rest of the game. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
my main thing is that i really don't want sc2 to be a micro game. I want it to have the potential to be played with a micro intense style but not the obligation. I think that every step closer to easier macro is a step in the wrong direction. I think the clash here is that all of us want to see the cracks of the UI sorted out in sc2, but some of us think that SBS isn't actually a UI limitation...it's transcended that. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On March 01 2008 10:14 HamerD wrote: but some of us think that SBS isn't actually a UI limitation...it's transcended that. The problem with that is that it exactly fits in the "Fans hate change" cliche. SBS is a valuable component of SC yes but why does it have to stay for SC2? On March 01 2008 10:14 HamerD wrote: my main thing is that i really don't want sc2 to be a micro game. I want it to have the potential to be played with a micro intense style but not the obligation. Is what you REALLY want. Blizzards job is to figure out how to reach that whithout resorting to cheap tricks like a bad UI. That would be like doubling a FPSes playtime by having the Player backtrack every level. Blizzard can and should do better than that. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
A backwards UI is never great, but I think that the SBS is more of a feature than a UI issue now. And talking about why does it have to stay for SC2, clearly we should all want SC2 to have the good features of SC?! Do you want to see SC2 more like wc3 than sc? Or more like any of the other supremely shit westernised instant-gratification noobfest other games? Granted cnc and dow aren't supremely shit lol but they are still a whole rung below sc imho. I think SBS is a feature, like 'large maps' and 'small groups' and 'mineral harrass' that shouldn't be gotten rid of. I did almost hit the screen when i saw a 'town centre' gun on the CC. Bloody ridiculous, painful even. Yet another step towards making it difficult to harrass minerals which makes the game interesting. | ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
On March 01 2008 04:48 GoSuPlAyEr wrote: k watched the entire game....wc3 isn't exciting Yes, I didn't find it too exciting. But I didn't understand it either. All those flashing lights = the gayest thing I've ever seen, and I once saw two men having sex. I would like to learn to play and understand WarIII just to expand my horizons, but thankfully Blizzard has stated a few times this will be nothing like WarIII, they're making a point to make everyone realize that. Variety is good. | ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
First the question: If Blizzard could come up with a replacement task to draw a players attention away from their army so they wouldn't be constantly microing it would you be opposed to MBS? note: the new task is as big as macro is in SC. Now on MBS in defence structures, there is no reason not to have it, if it is included from the begining. There was a previous topic that was linked to in the first post in MBS II (not sure about 3) about how MBS on defence structures would mean that the attacker would be at a big disadvantage (they used the example of MnM vs Sunkens), but what they didn't include that the increased control over the defencive buildings could be balanced by reducing damage the structure does. This would mean that it would increase the skill ceiling keep the game balanced and it would be logical if it was kept away from all unit producing structures and used only for structues that can attack. Note: This argument is limited to only structures that do not produce units, and maybe comsat. That is a debate I want to avoid. ps. I will probably edit this for grammer and stupid stuff tommarow. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On March 01 2008 15:38 wswordsmen wrote: I have a hypothentical (and likely unrealistic) question about MBS, and also an argument for MBS on defence structures (cannons, bunkers, turrets, sunks ext.) First the question: If Blizzard could come up with a replacement task to draw a players attention away from their army so they wouldn't be constantly microing it would you be opposed to MBS? note: the new task is as big as macro is in SC. Now on MBS in defence structures, there is no reason not to have it, if it is included from the begining. There was a previous topic that was linked to in the first post in MBS II (not sure about 3) about how MBS on defence structures would mean that the attacker would be at a big disadvantage (they used the example of MnM vs Sunkens), but what they didn't include that the increased control over the defencive buildings could be balanced by reducing damage the structure does. This would mean that it would increase the skill ceiling keep the game balanced and it would be logical if it was kept away from all unit producing structures and used only for structues that can attack. Note: This argument is limited to only structures that do not produce units, and maybe comsat. That is a debate I want to avoid. ps. I will probably edit this for grammer and stupid stuff tommarow. First Question - Not at all. We are not against MBS by itself, we are against the effect that it will have on the game. Replace the effect with another macro task and i'll be happy. Second - I have no problems about MBS for supply depots and defenses and stuff. Only a a problem with buildings that produce having MBS. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5712 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On March 01 2008 11:24 HamerD wrote: And talking about why does it have to stay for SC2, clearly we should all want SC2 to have the good features of SC?! Do you want to see SC2 more like wc3 than sc? Or more like any of the other supremely shit westernised instant-gratification noobfest other games? Granted cnc and dow aren't supremely shit lol but they are still a whole rung below sc imho. Of course SC2 should either have the good features of SC or replace them with even better ones. I think that (among others) the UI aspect related to Building control could be improved. MBS is not a defining feature of WC3, some here argue that it doesn´t even have a effect on WC3 at all. To make SC2 like WC3 more than SC you´d have to add other features like experience gaining, upkeep, drastically increased unit survivability as well as a basic "1 skill per unit or more" design basic. Gratification is key to have the Players keep playing. Ladders serve that function for example. Changing the game to become like C&C or DOW would be even more radical than turning it into "WC3 in space". They do have merits that are not to be dismissed. C&C3 for example lets you "Battlecast" matches so that everyone can watch it live even after it had begunn. Also you can edit replays. | ||
| ||
