Old thread has been vaulted. Second MBS Thread has now been vaulted.
We've noticed things started to become a bit rowdy in the past thread. The SC2 forum mods may be making the rules a bit more well defined in the near future, so keep an eye out for that. For now the stated guidelines in the op will remain identical to the previous thread.
In the words of our beloved longtime moderator, ToKoreaWithLove
The MBS discussion thread
This is the last MBS thread you will ever see. We are remaking it as an official thread because quite honestly the previous ones became quite large and quite damaged by spam, stupidity, and useless arguing.
This will be heavily moderated. We will accept no rulebreaking, we will delete posts that don't follow the rules, and we will swing the mean 'ol ban hammer. We will tell you to back off if your clearly don't know what you are talking about. Too harsh? Go somewhere else.
When all is said and done we want this to be a meaningfull thread about something we are all concerned or enthusistic about. We want YOUR opinion, your arguments, your enthusiasm, your fears and your concerns about how this will change the gameplay we all love.
Rules:
1. Educate yourself. If you don't know something, find out. Search, read our articles or find out otherwise. Many of our members are knowledgeable, and if they make a point you don't understand, admit your lack of said knowledge and fix it.
2. Stay ON TOPIC. (!!! !! !! 111 !!!). This thread is meant for MBS discussions, nothing else. Nobody gives a rat's ass about misspelling or your gamei score 200 years ago. If you have something good to say, say it. One-liners or funny remarks does not belong in this thread. A good idea is to state your stance on the matter in your post.
3. Be civil. Insult other members in any way and you are gone.
4. Be smart. Think about your own post, check if it has been said before. When replying to someone else's post - make sure you know what his/hers post is about, that you understand it, and that your disagreement, agreement or addition is properly worded and shows your opinion clearly.
5. Constructive criticism. You are allowed to tell other posters that they are wrong. Criticism should be allowed in any discussion, but it should be done nicely, and you are expected to back up your claims.
6. No polls. I've already read two posts today where forum users (not this forum) admits to making multiple votes on our last poll on this matter. Polls can not be trusted, and should be avoided
7. For the purpose of discussion in this thread, the term "Macro" takes the meaning given to it by StarCraft players. It means "Economy and Production Management", not whatever you think it should mean.
What is actually the goal of MBS? Is it to make the game easier and more convenient? Is it because macro is a mundane task and a primitive gameplay element for a newer modern more creativity-based RTS? Because those are two different things?
On February 21 2008 10:29 Fen wrote: I really hope that second picture is not legit. If it is, my respect for blizzard has hit the floor.
uh, it's kinda true. obviously not everyone feels the same way about every change, but you have to admit there are innumerable occurrences where people, on these forums and others, have complained about "changes" between units in SC and SC2, or changes within SC2, etc.
Before we get further along, lets all agree to not make this another repetition of the previous two threads. I advocate new arguments, not the ones we've been throwing back and forth thus far, because they were not convincing enough. If the opposers didn't agree to the argument in the previous two threads, they probably won't agree in this thread, so please bring new discussion, not 30 pages of the same shit.
On February 21 2008 10:29 Fen wrote: I really hope that second picture is not legit. If it is, my respect for blizzard has hit the floor.
I think you may have misunderstood the slide. It is saying that players (generally) react negatively to changes, even when the changes are good. The rest system in WoW was a good example. People always find something to complain about. There were a lot of great points in that presentation that illustrate that blizzard is definitely learning from past mistakes.
On February 21 2008 15:34 evanthebouncy! wrote: It is probably useless for us to argue here because MBS will almost certainly be implimented with out a doubt. Let's just embrace the change.
i don't believe this is true. it is certianally reasonable to say that blizzard may put some changes to mbs and automing due to the fact every pro/competitive player seems to be speaking out against it. Blizzard is known for listening to it's fans, and the players who played it for the last 10 years without stopping are easily the biggest starcraft fans around.
I don't see why we should 'give up' and not voice our opinions. Blizzard needs to be warned about the negative ramifications of MBS and automine so they don't damage the competitive elements within the game.
I hope Blizzard doesn't think that people think MBS is bad because it's change. But they probably do...
Yeah,,,, they probably do
I'm convinced at this point that blizzard will ship with mbs regardless of what anyone says, even progamers.
its really easy to get caught in the box as a developer that 'they just dont like it because they havent played it enough'
I really wont have faith in this game, until they take current progamers, have them sign NDAs and playtest....as long as its just random developers playing it, especially ex-wc3 types, its really vulnerable to missing the point of starcraft.
And MBS/Unlimited selection/automine/autoclone is one of those vulnerabilites.
On February 21 2008 17:54 fusionsdf wrote: its really easy to get caught in the box as a developer that 'they just dont like it because they havent played it enough'
This is the worry. They might be chuffed about their creation. And if they turn around and just dismiss our arguments as "they just hate change", then im really not impressed. There has been a LOT of people speaking out about the UI implementations and how they will damage what starcraft is. I dont really care if they made the ghost look gay or replaced a unit, but changing the core of starcraft is a lot different.
I still believe they might consider making one unable to hotkey more than one building under one group. This is not that dramatic a change, and could definitely be made in beta phase, when more (competent as players) people have played the game.
On February 21 2008 09:55 BlackStar wrote: What is actually the goal of MBS? Is it to make the game easier and more convenient? Is it because macro is a mundane task and a primitive gameplay element for a newer modern more creativity-based RTS? Because those are two different things?
What is actually the real reason for adding MBS?
I think we should discuss this point more. The most obvious answer would be: because everyone expects it. Also I don´t think Blizzard considers the gameplayvalue of the effort SBS requires very high. It may make the game easier but it shurely would make it more convinient.
I don´t think we should argue (again) if MBS would hurt competative play or not since that point can´t be proven without a BETA. We had lots of good points in the previous threads about that(pro and contra).
The main reason that I see it is to make new players more comfortable in the game AND because everyone expects it.
It's the new standard of RTS games wich is the main reason but it became the new standard for RTS games because it made the game easier for new players. It's not like it doesn't have any positive sides and will just ruin a game because then it wouldn't have been raised to "industry standard". For most players it geniuinly makes the game more fun by allowing them to do what they feel RTS is all about and making some mundane tasks easier.
Blizzard wants SCII to be a huge global hit and because of that they want two things very badly: 1) a game that is very easily acceseble for new gamers so that they do not choose another RTS wich they feel is easier to get into and thereby better. Most people will not "train" to get into a game, they want to "play" it out of the box. 2) get good reviews. Reviews are written for the new gamers (often by new gamers) and will focus on points they think their audience will find important. If the game is going to reach it's maxium selling potential the reviews cannot say that it's great for professional competition but the UI is outdated and takes some time to get used to. Bob who's never played an RTS and is just looking for some fun on the weekends will not choose a game which he thinks he'll get his ass handed to him in. And even if he does decides to try it and has some doubts about it he won't stick around if he feels he can blame it on the UI because Bob would rather attack move his units and watch the cool deathanimations.
Blizzard should really make a clear statement as to whether the reason behind implementing MBS is removing the tediousness OR making macro during the battle easy. Because the former can be achieved without being able to hotkey multiple buildings under one group. This way macro would remain mainly unchanged.
On February 21 2008 19:09 maybenexttime wrote: I still believe they might consider making one unable to hotkey more than one building under one group. This is not that dramatic a change, and could definitely be made in beta phase, when more (competent as players) people have played the game.
Problem with that is that it's unintuitive. The core of the problem is simple: in SC1 you can select multiple units at once (up to 12, but still...), and issue 1 command and all of the units will follow this command. But you can't do that with buildings. This is what seems to be inconsistent and an artificial limitation to many players (mostly casual, but also for some of the more hardcore ones). But good UI design means making the UI easy, intuitive and consistent. If the competitiveness of the game suffers when you do that (it would probably happen if you would add MBS to SC1), it means that the game must be made more complex. Which is my hope for SC2: a more friendly and smooth UI combined with a more complex gameplay.
I hope Blizzard doesn't think that people think MBS is bad because it's change. But they probably do...
Yeah,,,, they probably do
I'm convinced at this point that blizzard will ship with mbs regardless of what anyone says, even progamers.
its really easy to get caught in the box as a developer that 'they just dont like it because they havent played it enough'
I really wont have faith in this game, until they take current progamers, have them sign NDAs and playtest....as long as its just random developers playing it, especially ex-wc3 types, its really vulnerable to missing the point of starcraft.
And MBS/Unlimited selection/automine/autoclone is one of those vulnerabilites.
SC2 is in excellent hands.
On January 15 2008 06:23 Mora wrote: A little more information about David Kim for you folks:
David Kim is korean, born in korea, and moved here to go to school. He was a competitive SC player back in the day, playing with CuteBoy[gm] as well as ZeuS. His favourite sport to watch on TV is Starcraft. He switched to Warcraft3 when war3 came out, but SC was still his favourite RTS (and is to this day).
I worked with Dayvie for over a year. Out of everyone i've had the pleasure of working with in the Game Industry, i feel he is the most qualified to handle SC2 balance. (other than me of course. lol)
I'm confident he'll do a great job.
edit - oh right, i think he also placed in the top 8 for Korea WCG qualifications in 2000. i think.
No crap, Pillars left? I have no idea why, but I bet a lot of times people leave these jobs for a handful of reasons (and by no means is this meant to say this is why Pillars left if he did):
1. They are really good at design, but they aren't high enough on the company ladder to implement things their way. 2. Related to above, they let their personal preferences get in the way of the overall design goals of the game/company. 3. The long hours and type of monotony of game making doesn't match up to their gaming personality, which for some people is about less monotony (depends I know) or at least a different kind of monotony. 4. Their favorite units/playtype got cut, and they get disgusted.
I hope Blizzard doesn't think that people think MBS is bad because it's change. But they probably do...
Yeah,,,, they probably do
I'm convinced at this point that blizzard will ship with mbs regardless of what anyone says, even progamers.
its really easy to get caught in the box as a developer that 'they just dont like it because they havent played it enough'
I really wont have faith in this game, until they take current progamers, have them sign NDAs and playtest....as long as its just random developers playing it, especially ex-wc3 types, its really vulnerable to missing the point of starcraft.
And MBS/Unlimited selection/automine/autoclone is one of those vulnerabilites.
On January 15 2008 06:23 Mora wrote: A little more information about David Kim for you folks:
David Kim is korean, born in korea, and moved here to go to school. He was a competitive SC player back in the day, playing with CuteBoy[gm] as well as ZeuS. His favourite sport to watch on TV is Starcraft. He switched to Warcraft3 when war3 came out, but SC was still his favourite RTS (and is to this day).
I worked with Dayvie for over a year. Out of everyone i've had the pleasure of working with in the Game Industry, i feel he is the most qualified to handle SC2 balance. (other than me of course. lol)
I'm confident he'll do a great job.
edit - oh right, i think he also placed in the top 8 for Korea WCG qualifications in 2000. i think.
Like someone else already mentioned, he was lead balancer for dawn of war.... Plus, I'm sure anyone who has ever designed something knows that the designers are generally the most blind to the flaws of their product.
Until blizzard gathers a group of current progamers or top amateurs, has them play for an extended time and give feedback...
I mean we will still have an open beta probably, but since I anticipate most of those invites going out at conventions, where wc3 and wow players show up a hell of a lot more than starcraft players, I'm worried.
Pretty sure blizzard has already discussed testing the game with professionals, and even more sure that they'll get into the beta. Pro-teams getting beta invites seems like a possibility.
I hope that when they bring their demo stations to Korea, be it the 10th or not, they invite all the proteams and give them the attention they deserve. They should at least do that, regardless of if they end up listening to it or not.
And they should continue to do so. When the game goes into beta they should even hire one or two people from the Korean scene with good English and make them part time advisers/consultants or something.
I'm new here and while I understand what you guys are saying about MBS (after reading a lot of posts!) I should like to give another point of view.
I've been playing SC/BW since it came out and I love it, it is still by far my favourate game. However I'm far from pro. I'm not even a good amature. The reason being not my understanding of the game but my ability to macro/micro/multitask. For that reason I can't wait for MBS and smartcast and automine, why? Because I might stand a chance of winning again I have an 8-5 job a misses and a house. I, like an ever growing percentage of the game playing population of the world, just don't have time to practice to reach that sort of level.
I understand that MBS, as thats what the thread is about, may ruin the competative side of the game and as someone has previously suggested there should deffinatly be an option to dissable it. But guys you can't expect them to cut it, there are too many old codgers (27 lol) like me who can't wait to get the chance of play a match and not just getting totally out produced in 5 mins!
To end I would seriously suggest everyone stops moaning and just concentrates on making sure there is an option to turn these features off which is much more achievable as there is no way they will cut them from the game propper.
EDIT:
Oh and all you guys who think you could do a better job than Blizzard, you love starcraft yeah? Guess what they made it without you last time I'm sure they will do just fine this time. Thanks.
Wolfstar, I can totally appreciate where you are coming from, however, your argument actually lends support to those not wanting MBS.
Let me explain why; one of the biggest arguments of the pro MBS side has been that it WONT reduce the gap between players. Most pro-mbs players, at least on here, wouldn't want that I think. I can sympathise with not having the time to get really good at the game, but this shouldn't be a reason to limit how good others can get at it (ie because I can't handle the ball as well as David Beckham I reckon he shouldn't get to handle it at all).
You say you want it as an option, the problem with this is two-fold (actually maybe 3): 1) As it stands, it would appear to be the default, and it's almost certainly going to be in ladder play. Well, ladder play is what matters, and you can't have a ranking where people are not playing the same game (no mbs, mbs). 2) I've said this before, but the blizzard GDC conference enforced this and shows they seem to think the same way, so I'll use their terminology: Too many buckets are bad.
Basically, splitting the player pool by introducing too many options is bad for the health of the game. You'll already have a split between Melee and Ums (not a huge one since I reckon most people will be a bit of both), some kind of split between 1:1 and 2:2++, and introducing another group isn't desireable, splitting the community almost never is.
Thirdly, balance. It will be hard as hell to balance a game both for MBS and without it. If the option was MBS or MBS/No-MBS as an option, I'd go with MBS probably, just because I see the other problems as being quite big.
Lastly, I think you might overestimate how big of an impact MBS will have (which might sound weird coming from someone who doesn't really want it). If you are a casual player, good players will still bulldoze you, but you know what? It's not because of the lack of MBS that this happens to you in BW!
The game is old, almost everyone who plays has played for years and years upon end. When SC2 is released, and for a few years after, you'll constantly be able to find players who you'll be perfectly even with, mbs or no mbs. After that it's just a matter of finding people your skill level I suppose, I never really disliked losing (well I dislike losing, but I like the period of learning where you get your ass kicked every game, the most) but it might be because I always had the time to practice and get better.
I'd laugh if someone modded SC2 to be a proper, skill-orientated game like SC, and then everyone started to play that competitively instead of SC2 vanilla. Kind of like DotA except I hate dota ¬¬.
On February 22 2008 18:49 WolfStar wrote: There are too many old codgers (27 lol) like me who can't wait to get the chance of play a match and not just getting totally out produced in 5 mins!
If there are so many why don't you just vs them instead of good people? I think automatic match making system should actually make this easy for you to do. There's a reason you get out produced in 5 minutes and it's because other players have put in the effort to gain such a skill. They deserve to out produce you in 5 mins. You do not deserve to have an unfair (yes, it IS unfair) added chance to win vs someone who has put in so much more effort. I'm trying not to be harsh but quit with the fucking tears. If you want to win you have to put in the same amount as (if not more than) the player you're playing against.
Just to add 2 cents since there's a talk about Dawn of War balance.
This game was dominated by Eldar from it's start to the release of two expansion. Right now, with ridiculous 7 races (and 2 more to come with the THIRD expansion pack) balance isn't really an issue anymore, but back then when it was only four of them, it was Eldar > SM ~ CSM > Ork and an alternate balance pattern of CSM Defiler tech > SM & Eldar & Ork. I've kinda played DoW ladder and I must say the balance issues with it were SO evident that I had no idea why nobody was doing anything. Eldar had close to 60% global winrate on ladder, Orks had < 45%. Basically, there was a thread about Warp Spider unit spawned every single day on the strat forums and another one about Defilers with some minor rants on Word of the Emperor/plasmarines since people at least had ideas of how to counter it. Seriously, balance in DoW was abysmal.
So, funnily enough, I can't say that "Dawn of War balance team leader" is a good resume point, their balance team had quite a bad reputation. Nevertheless, it might have to do something with the game's core mechanics, being close to impossible to balance "the right way", so that guy might do better at Blizzard. Otherwise, dunno, I can't probably be considered a StarCraft expert, but I'm one of those few who do understand something about the game and are content with MBS at the same time.
I seriously think that there are much more time-consuming tasks at SC than clicking buildings (it seriously takes like 1-2 seconds to click them all and order units), and warpgates simply won't work without MBS. Autoclone, at the same time, is a terrible feature, and if not limited to workers, it WILL ruin the game.
Someone needs to take a test and analyze a pro FPVOD to see how much time is being devoted to different tasks. I won't be surprised if actual production takes a little time and most of it is invested into micro, rebinding (seriously, I was amazed when I saw a Reach's FPVOD at how much time he spends to proprely assemble his control groups) and constructing buildings.
It's about driving your attention elsewhere (base), and not about how much time it actually takes. There was this one game (loki 2 vs. zerg) where it took Midas like 3 seconds to macro from about 10 barracks. ;;
If Blizzard puts MBS in the game and it's impossible to play without it, I am sure KeSPA, OGN, GomTV, MBC, etc will step in. Either they will force Blizzard to change this, or they will make an esports mod for SC2.
I have always had this idea. And Tasteless recently said the same thing after actually taking with some Koreans about it.
On February 22 2008 18:49 WolfStar wrote: I'm new here and while I understand what you guys are saying about MBS (after reading a lot of posts!) I should like to give another point of view.
I've been playing SC/BW since it came out and I love it, it is still by far my favourate game. However I'm far from pro. I'm not even a good amature. The reason being not my understanding of the game but my ability to macro/micro/multitask. For that reason I can't wait for MBS and smartcast and automine, why? Because I might stand a chance of winning again I have an 8-5 job a misses and a house. I, like an ever growing percentage of the game playing population of the world, just don't have time to practice to reach that sort of level.
I understand that MBS, as thats what the thread is about, may ruin the competative side of the game and as someone has previously suggested there should deffinatly be an option to dissable it. But guys you can't expect them to cut it, there are too many old codgers (27 lol) like me who can't wait to get the chance of play a match and not just getting totally out produced in 5 mins!
To end I would seriously suggest everyone stops moaning and just concentrates on making sure there is an option to turn these features off which is much more achievable as there is no way they will cut them from the game propper.
EDIT:
Oh and all you guys who think you could do a better job than Blizzard, you love starcraft yeah? Guess what they made it without you last time I'm sure they will do just fine this time. Thanks.
Well here is the problem. You are exactly the type of gamer that destroys competative game. You want to be good without getting good. You want an advantage that makes it harder for someone who is better than you to win. Why should you rightfully beat a person who has had more experience and spent more time training than you?
Also I challenge you to post a replay of a game if you think "The reason being not my understanding of the game but my ability to macro/micro/multitask." 99% of all people who claim this have really poor understanding of the game.
See, there is a very large group of people in this world who believe that they are the shit when it comes to everything. No matter what it is, they think that they possess natural skillz that will mean they will always succeed. The problem arises when they come across something that you cannot just pick up and be good at. Instead of admitting, ok im not capable of this and will need time to practice, they delude themselves and make up excuses so their self perception of being the best is not harmed.
"The reason being not my understanding of the game but my ability to macro/micro/multitask." is a common example of this. We see it time and time again. People complaining that the only reason they cant win is because of a UI. Its generally completely wrong and these people have AWFUL game sense, but seeing as such a large number of people fall into this group, its often beleived that the aspect that they bitch about is actually the problem. I mean how couldn't it be, so many people are complaining about it.
Dont worry, when starcraft 2 comes out, you'll be bitching about an imbalance which means you cant win, or there will be something wrong with the map/game/computer. You'll just be having a bad day etc.
Zileas... Whatever happened to the RTS he was producing?
Anyway, MBS I should think will definitely stay in the game. Blizzard seem to realize they can't artificially gimp the UI because skill shouldn't be defined after who can best overcome a bad UI. But this is Blizzard we are talking about, and I would not not trust any other company to make the next generation RTS. I am confident they will give us the best UI along with a game that still has an unreachable skill ceiling. If not at the release then a couple of years after it.
Yeah man I hate all the crap about 'it puts more focus on strategic choices and really lets you get your plans off without having to worry about the finnickety mouse clicks'.
Well there is a game like that and it's called DotA and it sucks ass and if you like that then you can go and play DotA but don't play SC cos it's not for noobs ¬¬.
On February 22 2008 18:49 WolfStar wrote: I'm new here and while I understand what you guys are saying about MBS (after reading a lot of posts!) I should like to give another point of view.
I've been playing SC/BW since it came out and I love it, it is still by far my favourate game. However I'm far from pro. I'm not even a good amature. The reason being not my understanding of the game but my ability to macro/micro/multitask. For that reason I can't wait for MBS and smartcast and automine, why? Because I might stand a chance of winning again I have an 8-5 job a misses and a house. I, like an ever growing percentage of the game playing population of the world, just don't have time to practice to reach that sort of level.
I understand that MBS, as thats what the thread is about, may ruin the competative side of the game and as someone has previously suggested there should deffinatly be an option to dissable it. But guys you can't expect them to cut it, there are too many old codgers (27 lol) like me who can't wait to get the chance of play a match and not just getting totally out produced in 5 mins!
To end I would seriously suggest everyone stops moaning and just concentrates on making sure there is an option to turn these features off which is much more achievable as there is no way they will cut them from the game propper.
EDIT:
Oh and all you guys who think you could do a better job than Blizzard, you love starcraft yeah? Guess what they made it without you last time I'm sure they will do just fine this time. Thanks.
Well here is the problem. You are exactly the type of gamer that destroys competative game. You want to be good without getting good. You want an advantage that makes it harder for someone who is better than you to win. Why should you rightfully beat a person who has had more experience and spent more time training than you?
Also I challenge you to post a replay of a game if you think "The reason being not my understanding of the game but my ability to macro/micro/multitask." 99% of all people who claim this have really poor understanding of the game.
See, there is a very large group of people in this world who believe that they are the shit when it comes to everything. No matter what it is, they think that they possess natural skillz that will mean they will always succeed. The problem arises when they come across something that you cannot just pick up and be good at. Instead of admitting, ok im not capable of this and will need time to practice, they delude themselves and make up excuses so their self perception of being the best is not harmed.
"The reason being not my understanding of the game but my ability to macro/micro/multitask." is a common example of this. We see it time and time again. People complaining that the only reason they cant win is because of a UI. Its generally completely wrong and these people have AWFUL game sense, but seeing as such a large number of people fall into this group, its often beleived that the aspect that they bitch about is actually the problem. I mean how couldn't it be, so many people are complaining about it.
Dont worry, when starcraft 2 comes out, you'll be bitching about an imbalance which means you cant win, or there will be something wrong with the map/game/computer. You'll just be having a bad day etc.
If you've played the game for approx. 10 years and also watch a lot of replays and VODs, you will have a pretty good understanding of the game, but if you only have like up to 150 APM you will get crushed at some point by a faster player no matter what. Time will become your enemy, you might be able to survive quite some time vs. a better player but in mid or late game you will get overwhelmed quickly, even if you two have the same amount of expansions and a comparable economy. This is also how I lose every game vs. a better player: in late game, being outproduced. Sure, sometimes I can see a weakness and exploit it and win earlier, sometimes I win because he makes a big micro mistake, or I'm able to deal heavy damage to him while his army is somewhere else, things like that, but it's often impossible, in which case you can count on me losing. And this is frustrating, in a way.
The main problem here is that SC has a very high speed/APM base requirement, and this is only because of UI "obstacles" like SBS. If you don't fulfill this high requirement (it's way too high for players just starting out): - you won't have much success - you won't be able to use some of the more fun or advanced units at all because you're almost 100% busy with the basics - as a result: you won't have fun with the game
Now keep in mind that I'm not advocating that all players should stand a chance against a better player. No. It's just about the feeling they get during the game. If all they do is take care of the basics (macro mechanics, base layout, reproducing workers etc.), because the game is so fast and their APM is too low, it means they maybe never have real fun because they don't have access to many features of the game. In SC1, the speed requirement for doing the most basic things is so high that you can't really pay enough attention to the more fun things. And for a ton of players, having to spend so much time for producing units and workers is much less much fun than controlling their army (i.e. micro).
This is the core of the problem. And yes, this is really mainly about newbies and average players. The goal is to try to keep a high skill ceiling even with MBS, so that the competitiveness at the progamer level is not affected. But we really need to have this stuff for the lower skill regions. I'm pretty sure that almost every low-skilled player in the world will be happy (i.e. will know that you're truly better) if you "outmicro" or "outsmart" him, but he won't be so happy if you play exactly like him but have a few more units leading to his death because he couldn't click buildings as fast.
While this is also some form of skill differentiation, it is not a good one. Just because it takes skill to do so, doesn't mean that it should be in the game, because the skill itself is a "boring" and non-dynamic one. It always is the same, it doesn't change according to the situation. Yes, it works in SC1, and it can also work in SC2, but it's a skill many players aren't fond of. It should be replaced by something else, something better. It's one area of SC1 which should be improved.
On February 22 2008 22:58 BluzMan wrote: Just to add 2 cents since there's a talk about Dawn of War balance.
This game was dominated by Eldar from it's start to the release of two expansion. Right now, with ridiculous 7 races (and 2 more to come with the THIRD expansion pack) balance isn't really an issue anymore, but back then when it was only four of them, it was Eldar > SM ~ CSM > Ork and an alternate balance pattern of CSM Defiler tech > SM & Eldar & Ork. I've kinda played DoW ladder and I must say the balance issues with it were SO evident that I had no idea why nobody was doing anything. Eldar had close to 60% global winrate on ladder, Orks had < 45%. Basically, there was a thread about Warp Spider unit spawned every single day on the strat forums and another one about Defilers with some minor rants on Word of the Emperor/plasmarines since people at least had ideas of how to counter it. Seriously, balance in DoW was abysmal.
So, funnily enough, I can't say that "Dawn of War balance team leader" is a good resume point, their balance team had quite a bad reputation. Nevertheless, it might have to do something with the game's core mechanics, being close to impossible to balance "the right way", so that guy might do better at Blizzard. Otherwise, dunno, I can't probably be considered a StarCraft expert, but I'm one of those few who do understand something about the game and are content with MBS at the same time.
I seriously think that there are much more time-consuming tasks at SC than clicking buildings (it seriously takes like 1-2 seconds to click them all and order units), and warpgates simply won't work without MBS. Autoclone, at the same time, is a terrible feature, and if not limited to workers, it WILL ruin the game.
Someone needs to take a test and analyze a pro FPVOD to see how much time is being devoted to different tasks. I won't be surprised if actual production takes a little time and most of it is invested into micro, rebinding (seriously, I was amazed when I saw a Reach's FPVOD at how much time he spends to proprely assemble his control groups) and constructing buildings.
For your information, David Kim only worked on the last game, Dark Crusade, which you say is pretty balanced :-)
These are all good high level arguments, but I have a simple one. It's been addressed before, but not in a satisfactory way I think.
Why does the discussion stop at MBS and Automine? It's easy to imagine features like "ctrl+b+click rallies all barracks to this point" or "ctrl+c selects all command centers" or "ctrl+d causes all of your defilers to go eat a few zerglings until they have full energy." The automations would get laughed at, but MBS and automine aren't. The thing is, UI automation is arbitrary. There is no absolute standard, so people are just basing it on what they've experience. StarCraft's UI is extremely good, otherwise people wouldn't still player it. It's clean and simple. No one that still plays StarCraft says "man I wish this had Automine and MBS!"
So since UI automation is an arbitrary scale, why not just arbitrarily choose the level of automation that has already worked very well? And on a side note, something else that has already been mentioned is assigning hotkeys to characters other than 0-9, say just reserve the top row of letters for hotkeys and utilize the other ones for command hotkeys (or whatever, the implication doesn't matter). But that again is arbitrary, something that just seems reasonable to me. Even without it, who cares?
The argument for MBS seems to be self defeating: Reducing skill differentiation is bad so if it does that it's out, but if it doesn't reduce skill differentiation, it just changes the fundamental gameplay, which is also bad. No one has to "fight the interface" anyway, that's just silly. Learn it, maybe but not fight. Gameplay changes can come in the form of new units = new strategies etc.
On February 22 2008 22:58 BluzMan wrote: Just to add 2 cents since there's a talk about Dawn of War balance.
This game was dominated by Eldar from it's start to the release of two expansion. Right now, with ridiculous 7 races (and 2 more to come with the THIRD expansion pack) balance isn't really an issue anymore, but back then when it was only four of them, it was Eldar > SM ~ CSM > Ork and an alternate balance pattern of CSM Defiler tech > SM & Eldar & Ork. I've kinda played DoW ladder and I must say the balance issues with it were SO evident that I had no idea why nobody was doing anything. Eldar had close to 60% global winrate on ladder, Orks had < 45%. Basically, there was a thread about Warp Spider unit spawned every single day on the strat forums and another one about Defilers with some minor rants on Word of the Emperor/plasmarines since people at least had ideas of how to counter it. Seriously, balance in DoW was abysmal.
So, funnily enough, I can't say that "Dawn of War balance team leader" is a good resume point, their balance team had quite a bad reputation. Nevertheless, it might have to do something with the game's core mechanics, being close to impossible to balance "the right way", so that guy might do better at Blizzard. Otherwise, dunno, I can't probably be considered a StarCraft expert, but I'm one of those few who do understand something about the game and are content with MBS at the same time.
I seriously think that there are much more time-consuming tasks at SC than clicking buildings (it seriously takes like 1-2 seconds to click them all and order units), and warpgates simply won't work without MBS. Autoclone, at the same time, is a terrible feature, and if not limited to workers, it WILL ruin the game.
Someone needs to take a test and analyze a pro FPVOD to see how much time is being devoted to different tasks. I won't be surprised if actual production takes a little time and most of it is invested into micro, rebinding (seriously, I was amazed when I saw a Reach's FPVOD at how much time he spends to proprely assemble his control groups) and constructing buildings.
For your information, David Kim only worked on the last game, Dark Crusade, which you say is pretty balanced :-)
i would like to further add that none of the balancers who worked on DoW or WA worked on DC. DC had newly recruited talent in Stefan Haines (#1 on WA ladder), the Felhand (2 or 3 year WCG finalist), and 4 months later, a recruited David Kim. David Kim had no prior experience with DoW whatsoever, and within two months became the best Necron player on the team.
you must also understand that the balance process is extremely difficult. It's not just a matter of playing the game and figuring out what's imbalanced, putting in changes, and having a finished/polished game. It takes extensive testing, particularly in stages of pre-release where gigantic bugs hinder the testing. Invincible unit bugs, game crashing after 6 minute bugs, the UI disappearing for a half-day bugs, all these influence efficiency we can balance. The general reaction to DC balance was phenomonally good - much better than any other RTS relic has put out. It is an extreme testament to the balance team for achieving such balance, especially considering the low manpower and challenging work conditions.
I would like to put forward again: David Kim is an extremely apt, dedicated individual who loves the e-sport that is Starcraft. I believe that SC2 is in good hands (as far as balance is concerned, as i have not worked with any of the other developers).
On February 23 2008 03:53 Ancestral wrote: These are all good high level arguments, but I have a simple one. It's been addressed before, but not in a satisfactory way I think.
Why does the discussion stop at MBS and Automine? It's easy to imagine features like "ctrl+b+click rallies all barracks to this point" or "ctrl+c selects all command centers" or "ctrl+d causes all of your defilers to go eat a few zerglings until they have full energy." The automations would get laughed at, but MBS and automine aren't. The thing is, UI automation is arbitrary. There is no absolute standard, so people are just basing it on what they've experience. StarCraft's UI is extremely good, otherwise people wouldn't still player it. It's clean and simple. No one that still plays StarCraft says "man I wish this had Automine and MBS!"
So since UI automation is an arbitrary scale, why not just arbitrarily choose the level of automation that has already worked very well? And on a side note, something else that has already been mentioned is assigning hotkeys to characters other than 0-9, say just reserve the top row of letters for hotkeys and utilize the other ones for command hotkeys (or whatever, the implication doesn't matter). But that again is arbitrary, something that just seems reasonable to me. Even without it, who cares?
The argument for MBS seems to be self defeating: Reducing skill differentiation is bad so if it does that it's out, but if it doesn't reduce skill differentiation, it just changes the fundamental gameplay, which is also bad. No one has to "fight the interface" anyway, that's just silly. Learn it, maybe but not fight. Gameplay changes can come in the form of new units = new strategies etc.
Edit: WTF I'm a zealot now! Oh change~.
Not a good way of thinking, you should ALWAYS consider ways you can improve something. MBS should for sure be considered, probably even needs a beta test (I don't think the impact MBS has is big enough to totally change the game when you remove/add it).
Since warpgates pretty much only work with MBS, if MBS should ever be removed, you can just make an exception for gates in warp mode (I believe you should always be able to select multiple buildings for things like rally points anyway, maybe lift off too, not sure).
Arbitary is fine unless it annoys the Players. Once they get the feeling that they have to conquer a "skill" not because their enemy is better but because the developers said so is frustrating. That would feel artificial. Why would you want to do something just for the sake of doing it? Even anti-MBSers argue that SBS serves simply to distract and eat your time. It is Blizzards job to come up with something that feels less redundant ("Why can´t SC2 do that? Every other RTS does!").
Imagine it wasn´t SC2 but a completely new RTS Franchise. How important is SBS if we take away the "It should be like SC" factor?
On February 23 2008 04:36 Unentschieden wrote: Arbitary is fine unless it annoys the Players. Once they get the feeling that they have to conquer a "skill" not because their enemy is better but because the developers said so is frustrating. That would feel artificial. Why would you want to do something just for the sake of doing it? Even anti-MBSers argue that SBS serves simply to distract and eat your time. It is Blizzards job to come up with something that feels less redundant ("Why can´t SC2 do that? Every other RTS does!").
Imagine it wasn´t SC2 but a completely new RTS Franchise. How important is SBS if we take away the "It should be like SC" factor?
Then why not add those other features I mentioned? No one is even considering it. I'm just saying I don't understand the difference between saying on certain automation is good and another is not. Hence, in WC you could select 4 units, no hotkeys, and had to hold ctrl to drag. That is arbitrary and everyone would hate it. Everyone seems to like SC interface.
@Frozen arbiter, I don't know why Warpgates are only possible with MBS. I'm sure there's some way they could accommodate them without MBS (along the lines of, like you said an "exception" for them, because of the way they inherently work).
But I completely agree that Beta Testing is the best answer to almost any question. If it turns out all the pros and all the unwashed masses like MBS, then more power to it. My instinct is to think they won't, but who knows? Maybe someone else, not me.
On February 22 2008 18:49 WolfStar wrote: I'm new here and while I understand what you guys are saying about MBS (after reading a lot of posts!) I should like to give another point of view.
I've been playing SC/BW since it came out and I love it, it is still by far my favourate game. However I'm far from pro. I'm not even a good amature. The reason being not my understanding of the game but my ability to macro/micro/multitask. For that reason I can't wait for MBS and smartcast and automine, why? Because I might stand a chance of winning again I have an 8-5 job a misses and a house. I, like an ever growing percentage of the game playing population of the world, just don't have time to practice to reach that sort of level.
I understand that MBS, as thats what the thread is about, may ruin the competative side of the game and as someone has previously suggested there should deffinatly be an option to dissable it. But guys you can't expect them to cut it, there are too many old codgers (27 lol) like me who can't wait to get the chance of play a match and not just getting totally out produced in 5 mins!
To end I would seriously suggest everyone stops moaning and just concentrates on making sure there is an option to turn these features off which is much more achievable as there is no way they will cut them from the game propper.
EDIT:
Oh and all you guys who think you could do a better job than Blizzard, you love starcraft yeah? Guess what they made it without you last time I'm sure they will do just fine this time. Thanks.
Well here is the problem. You are exactly the type of gamer that destroys competative game. You want to be good without getting good. You want an advantage that makes it harder for someone who is better than you to win. Why should you rightfully beat a person who has had more experience and spent more time training than you?
Also I challenge you to post a replay of a game if you think "The reason being not my understanding of the game but my ability to macro/micro/multitask." 99% of all people who claim this have really poor understanding of the game.
See, there is a very large group of people in this world who believe that they are the shit when it comes to everything. No matter what it is, they think that they possess natural skillz that will mean they will always succeed. The problem arises when they come across something that you cannot just pick up and be good at. Instead of admitting, ok im not capable of this and will need time to practice, they delude themselves and make up excuses so their self perception of being the best is not harmed.
"The reason being not my understanding of the game but my ability to macro/micro/multitask." is a common example of this. We see it time and time again. People complaining that the only reason they cant win is because of a UI. Its generally completely wrong and these people have AWFUL game sense, but seeing as such a large number of people fall into this group, its often beleived that the aspect that they bitch about is actually the problem. I mean how couldn't it be, so many people are complaining about it.
Dont worry, when starcraft 2 comes out, you'll be bitching about an imbalance which means you cant win, or there will be something wrong with the map/game/computer. You'll just be having a bad day etc.
If you've played the game for approx. 10 years and also watch a lot of replays and VODs, you will have a pretty good understanding of the game, but if you only have like up to 150 APM you will get crushed at some point by a faster player no matter what. Time will become your enemy, you might be able to survive quite some time vs. a better player but in mid or late game you will get overwhelmed quickly, even if you two have the same amount of expansions and a comparable economy. This is also how I lose every game vs. a better player: in late game, being outproduced. Sure, sometimes I can see a weakness and exploit it and win earlier, sometimes I win because he makes a big micro mistake, or I'm able to deal heavy damage to him while his army is somewhere else, things like that, but it's often impossible, in which case you can count on me losing. And this is frustrating, in a way.
Ok question: Did you mean to write faster player, or was this just a freudian slip or something? Anyway, speed is ridiculously overrated by you it seems. Testie was one of the best non-korean players for years, and while he is probably faster than his APM would indicate he usually cruised around at 150. And you know what? The longer the game went, the harder he got to beat. Late game PvZ vs him is fucking hell.
There are a plethora of other players, who while fast, are not the speed monsters that NaDa or Chojja are. I expect SC2 progamers to be these same speed monsters in the end regardless, because 1) speed will always be good 2) it's a sign of practice 3) in the final stages, when the game is mostly figured out, having better execution than ingenuity will still be rewarded (like, on an average pro-level, I'm pretty sure the very, very best will always be the talented ones).
The main problem here is that SC has a very high speed/APM base requirement, and this is only because of UI "obstacles" like SBS. If you don't fulfill this high requirement (it's way too high for players just starting out): - you won't have much success - you won't be able to use some of the more fun or advanced units at all because you're almost 100% busy with the basics - as a result: you won't have fun with the game
- You shouldn't have much success. New players, unless playing other new players, never will. - "You must walk before you run". You can't pull flying armbars in judo before you know how to perform a normal armbar. You can't do half the stuff a good soccer player does before you have the basics down. - Learning is fun. Improving is fun. And it's bullshit that you can't use any advanced units, just use them if you want to, maybe you'll lose, but maybe you'll learn something while doing so. Maybe next time you use them, it will be easier. Learning and losing are pretty much one and the same in the beginning.
EDIT: Playing starcraft is un-natural. Playing starcraft 2 will be un-natural (except to RTS players). 4z5z6z7d8d9d0d is not something that comes without practice. But you know what? 4z5d then pulling off a bazillion extra micro maneuvers with the free time won't come easy either (I was thinking of something specific to put in here but I don't really know how the game will play, so from where we are now it feels a little scary, maybe there will be something tho).
My point is, playing good starcraft will always take time, MBS or no MBS you will be outclassed in the beginning, and for a long time forward as long as you continue to challenge yourself by playing better and better players.
Now keep in mind that I'm not advocating that all players should stand a chance against a better player. No. It's just about the feeling they get during the game. If all they do is take care of the basics (macro mechanics, base layout, reproducing workers etc.), because the game is so fast and their APM is too low, it means they maybe never have real fun because they don't have access to many features of the game. In SC1, the speed requirement for doing the most basic things is so high that you can't really pay enough attention to the more fun things. And for a ton of players, having to spend so much time for producing units and workers is much less much fun than controlling their army (i.e. micro).
If you spend most of your attention microing stuff, you'll find yourself winning games vs people who spend all their time macroing, provided he's not much better than you (or your macro is completely useless). And here is one of the problems I see with MBS; when everyone already macros the same, there won't be the same kind of incentive for the micro happy player.
Yes, the same thing happened in starcraft, the players that were macro only or micro only are no longer succesful, probably because everyone at the top has gotten so good you need a well-rounded game to succeed, since you can't out-pace them in that one area enough to win you the game. I guess this happens in a lot of sports tho (ie MMA, it used to be a lot more grappler vs striker, while now it's much harder for anyone who's not well-rounded to win).
But I feel that by adding MBS you might reduce this further, and even make it an issue at lower levels.
This is the core of the problem. And yes, this is really mainly about newbies and average players. The goal is to try to keep a high skill ceiling even with MBS, so that the competitiveness at the progamer level is not affected. But we really need to have this stuff for the lower skill regions. I'm pretty sure that almost every low-skilled player in the world will be happy (i.e. will know that you're truly better) if you "outmicro" or "outsmart" him, but he won't be so happy if you play exactly like him but have a few more units leading to his death because he couldn't click buildings as fast.
While this is also some form of skill differentiation, it is not a good one. Just because it takes skill to do so, doesn't mean that it should be in the game, because the skill itself is a "boring" and non-dynamic one. It always is the same, it doesn't change according to the situation. Yes, it works in SC1, and it can also work in SC2, but it's a skill many players aren't fond of. It should be replaced by something else, something better. It's one area of SC1 which should be improved.
Argh, I really disagree with you here. Like, ugh. No, they won't be happy. You'll be cheap for tanking his cliff. You'll be cheap for doing that ling speed rush. Your reaver drop will be cheap. Your dark templar drop will be cheap, even if you wade through a field of mines using awesome micro. Your bunker rush will also be cheap (damn no good bunker rushing terrans !).
And if it isn't cheap, the game is gonna be "clearly imbalanced". I mean somehow you won, and they didn't. This can't happen.
Maybe I've always understood the game well enough to appreciate macro (since I was introduced to pro BW vey very shortly after I started BW, after playing vanilla hunters, bgh etc for a while, although even then good production wasn't something I'd consider to be an invalid way of winning), I dunno.
All I know is I've felt equally helpless and frustrated when losing to someone's better macro as when I get pounded by a gang of invincible flying imbalisks (mutalisks, god damn them all), and frequently the latter is what leads to the former.
Finally, I, and many others, are fond of macro. While I think there are valid points of MBS, namely that the effect is hopefully not big enough to hurt anyone, it would seem you simply don't like macro and expect MBS to change this. Well, you can't really have it both ways.
Either it will have a tiny impact, making life a little bit easier perhaps, but not hurting anyone. And certainly not preventing a weak player from getting face trounced by superior production (as this is as much a case of faster hands as it is a case of him using an ineffecient, inferior opening, forgetting pylons, needlessly making too many units before expanding or carelessly letting said units die). Or it will have a big impact, and thusly hurt the competitive aspect. This last bit might leave you wondering; why the heck did he not say this right off the bat? Because I think your other points needed addressing, regardless of the impact MBS has on them.
Now, if the only way to get SC2 to become HUGE and universally accepted as the RTS to play if you are a serious player, is to include MBS then alright, I'm willing to take a slight loss in gameplay (I should say perceived loss, as with testing it might prove to be fine) for that.
So, anti-mbs in theory, but don't mind too much in practice (theoritcally!).
EDIT2: To expand a little on the "something specific" comment up above; I think a lot of you are thinking "Well, I'll have the time to *insert nydus worm sneak/warpgate to X location/perform some slick drop pod harass" but you have to take into consideration more than time requirements here. It may be that the way the game plays doesn't allow for these tactics to be used in mass at all.
Indeed, some of them are probably reasonably high-tech (or if they aren't, either risk becoming too powerful or un-utilizeable due to not having the economy to get effective usage out of them, ie keeping up wargate production). Maybe you won't even build ghosts in TvZ/TvT. Maybe marines won't be useful in TvT as a drop-pod unit. Maybe the way the matchup plays out, you won't be able to get all fancy all the time.
4z5z6z7z8z8z9z0z will always be there, and the time/attention that you "save" from having MBS won't build up, you can't put it in the bank for later usage.
Ahhh I haven't had this much fun writing in a long time
Thanks for your replies gents, some interesting points well made and also some presumptions not so well made.
In response I would say a few things;
Firstly I wouldn't want to play with pros and win I would never expect to. I would like to play against other people who agree to play with MBS ect. and I feel I would have a more even playing field because of the lower skill ceiling you all fear.
Secondly I take the point about buckets however with all the SC players out there I don't believe this would seriously hurt peoples chances to get a game.
FrozenArbiter your points on balancing issues are fine ones and lets face it if there was no MBS ect. I'd still buy it and play and love it!
I am also very much looking forward to an auto match up system providing it actually works MBS or not.
As for my destroying the competative game, frankly thats just arse, I don't even want to play ladder games let alone pro games why should casual players such as my self not even involved in the ladder not be allowed to enjoy a more streamlined version of the game when they both agree to play it that way?
This issue clearly means a great deal to you guys and I wish you the best of luck but to be honest I am predicting some sort of "clasic mode" option being the best that you are going to get.
Has anyone actually thought about how much the game would change due to MBS if you think in relation to expos?
Often it seems it's a good idea to place barracks in different expos cos then you can't have all your production cut by one attack, but it's hard to manage and multitask that. 2 barracks in 3 expansions is hard work to keep producing. But it would be embarrassingly easy with MBS. So would selecting rally points.
There are SO many things that MBS + automine would make easier, players would have more time to focus on the actual action in the game:
THAT'S A BAD THING!
Because you are LESS vulnerable to being caught off guard by drops and sneak attacks etc...because you are focusing more on that...which means people will do it less!
Which means imo you'll get less special strategies and interesting plays, and just more SINGLE ARMY massing and running into their base = gg.
Imo players NEED to have a lot of difficulty in just playing the game basically (like starcraft as opposed to aoe3) in order for great strategies which take advantage of this (which are usually the best anyway) to work.
Well, if noMBS is implemented, it will be VERY easy to make a map with MBS triggers on. The reverse is much harder.
Assuming casual players only want to play casual, then ladder will mean nothing to them, and this should be fine. Just like casual players play Fastest map. They dont care about iccup, they care about having fun in a simple environment, which can easily be done with triggers.
EDIT: Completely unrelated. Difficulty of execution is VERY important for longevity of a game.
Lets say that anyone can perform the advanced tactics, then the game will be 'solved' very fast. The best strategies will be found and used and the game will become stale. (how often do u see humans not going for archmage first)
With difficulty of execution, new strategies open up as players become better at handling the game. For example, Defilers werent used all that much in the older days of starcraft progaming. However as players got better, they became stronger at using defilers effectively. The defiler is now staple of ZvT
FA, you hit the nail right on the head. It's an attitude problem. People want to be able to pick up this game called SC2 and then play just as awesome as they think they should.
Right now they think they will be great players with MBS. But when they realize they still need to train and practice, just a lot less. they will still complain. When they realize learning to play with 120 APM is actually one of the easiest parts of SC, they will complain about strategy being too difficult. Or micro being too difficult, or scouting being too difficult, etc etc.
With eight gateways hotkeyed to 5, we have three options:
5,z,z,z,z,d,d,t,t ..... to make 4 zealots, 2 dragoons, 2 high templars -- (allows unit diversity) 5,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z ..... to make 8 zealots -- (faster production of one unit) hold5,z ..... to make 8 zealots -- (fastest production of one unit)
Holding the hotkey centers your screen onto your hotkeyed buildings forcing your attention away from the battlefield.
If each building gets highlighted for 0.25 seconds, then with 8 buildings, that is 0.25s x 8 = 2.0 seconds of animation time. Did you say Midas took 3 seconds to build from ten barracks? So that's a rate of 0.30 seconds per building, a slower production rate! + Show Spoiler +
Repercussions:
Inclusive: No need for dividing players further; we already have Fastest Players, BGH, low-money, Bound, RPG, Pro, and other communities.
Intuitive: If you can select multiple units, now you can for buildings. The tedium of massproducing a unit reduced to pressing two buttons. It would be counter-intuitive to remove the time/attention cost, however.
Logical: Unscaled MBS reduces attention/time cost to almost zero, whether you have 10 buildings or 1. But with scaled MBS, it should take you longer to build 10 units over 1! Why should Player A with 10 gateways have the additional advantage of having the same time/attention cost as Player B with 1 gateway? Yes, Player A already has a +9 unit advantage, but this is logically the reward for the inherent higher mineral cost.
Balanced: Pros will almost never use option 3, but it's there for newbs.
Pro-variety: If this scaled MBS is applied to SC1, it could make using ghosts a viable micro counter versus carriers, as opposed to just macro counters, goliaths and wraiths. (Note: this is Blizzard's goal with SC2, move from macro to micro slightly. Unscaled MBS is extreme; scaled MBS is middleground).
Simple: Not a lot of alternative "macro" tasks to compensate. Warping, upkeep, a third resource... anything else? Holding the hotkey already operates on the existing function of pressing it twice to center screen on the hotkeyed unit/building. There were other ideas on ways to moderate MBS such as increased build times or higher resource costs, but it's simpler to just preserve the crucial element of time/attention cost.
(I got replies back from pro-MBS players, calling the scaling down of MBS a "weird compromise", "illogical", and "gimped". What if I say unscaled MBS is overpowered? Though, I've got even fewer replies from those who understand the competitive side of Starcraft, the anti-MBS people. I'd like to submit this idea on behalf of TeamLiquid, and get TL recognized, just like "Operation AWOL".)
On February 22 2008 22:58 BluzMan wrote: Just to add 2 cents since there's a talk about Dawn of War balance.
This game was dominated by Eldar from it's start to the release of two expansion. Right now, with ridiculous 7 races (and 2 more to come with the THIRD expansion pack) balance isn't really an issue anymore, but back then when it was only four of them, it was Eldar > SM ~ CSM > Ork and an alternate balance pattern of CSM Defiler tech > SM & Eldar & Ork. I've kinda played DoW ladder and I must say the balance issues with it were SO evident that I had no idea why nobody was doing anything. Eldar had close to 60% global winrate on ladder, Orks had < 45%. Basically, there was a thread about Warp Spider unit spawned every single day on the strat forums and another one about Defilers with some minor rants on Word of the Emperor/plasmarines since people at least had ideas of how to counter it. Seriously, balance in DoW was abysmal.
So, funnily enough, I can't say that "Dawn of War balance team leader" is a good resume point, their balance team had quite a bad reputation. Nevertheless, it might have to do something with the game's core mechanics, being close to impossible to balance "the right way", so that guy might do better at Blizzard. Otherwise, dunno, I can't probably be considered a StarCraft expert, but I'm one of those few who do understand something about the game and are content with MBS at the same time.
I seriously think that there are much more time-consuming tasks at SC than clicking buildings (it seriously takes like 1-2 seconds to click them all and order units), and warpgates simply won't work without MBS. Autoclone, at the same time, is a terrible feature, and if not limited to workers, it WILL ruin the game.
Someone needs to take a test and analyze a pro FPVOD to see how much time is being devoted to different tasks. I won't be surprised if actual production takes a little time and most of it is invested into micro, rebinding (seriously, I was amazed when I saw a Reach's FPVOD at how much time he spends to proprely assemble his control groups) and constructing buildings.
For your information, David Kim only worked on the last game, Dark Crusade, which you say is pretty balanced :-)
Yes, but they had about 4 other top former starcraft players on the team before him I'm pretty sure
Why does the discussion stop at MBS and Automine? It's easy to imagine features like "ctrl+b+click rallies all barracks to this point" or "ctrl+c selects all command centers" or "ctrl+d causes all of your defilers to go eat a few zerglings until they have full energy." The automations would get laughed at, but MBS and automine aren't. The thing is, UI automation is arbitrary. There is no absolute standard, so people are just basing it on what they've experience. StarCraft's UI is extremely good, otherwise people wouldn't still player it. It's clean and simple. No one that still plays StarCraft says "man I wish this had Automine and MBS!"
Heres the reason MBS is bad (which you apperar to agree with). Its not about the time it takes to click on each barracks. Like most people have said, with practice, you can do about 8 barracks in 1-2 seconds.
If you want to keep up with your macro, you have to go back to your base to: -build marines/attack units (every cycle) -build scvs (every cycle) -build buildings -do upgrades -tell scvs to mine (every cycle)
Any reasonable player will do that cycle constantly, even in battle. If you watch the battle, and control individual units, your macro will suffer. If you go back to do the macro cycle, you won't be microing your units, and you will lose units unnecessarily.
This gives rise to macro style players and micro style players.
The reason MBS is bad is because instead of choosing between macro cycles and micro, the two most important parts - building marines/scvs and telling them to mine - are accomplished with 1s2m. With auto mining, you only have to go back to your base very occasionally.
This means that is entirely possible to spend an entire long drawn out battle with out ever taking your eyes off the battle. This means there is no micro advantage, no macro advantage, and progamers play like robots.
This is bad for competitive players, and its bad for spectators.
I think, and I hope that most people would agree with me, that multitasking is one of the reasons starcraft is so fun to play watch. Adding mbs essentially lowers the speed of the game as far as the player is concerned: he is no longer distracted, no longer forced to multitask, and no longer forced to play reflexively.
The playing basketball with trampolines analogy is perfect here.
You could claim that you know everything about basketball - you watch it a lot and play it leisurely with your friends. Now there's a new basketball being played with trampolines that is up and coming - it looks good: after all, why should people have to practice, work out, have the genetic height, etc. to slam dunk and/or play original basketball effectively? Besides, you already know how basketball works - and now you can just focus on slam dunking.
This is the same thing that all the newbs on this forum don't get. Basketball with trampolines is a terrible game and devoid of the magic and complexity in the original game. Here, newbs argue that they are afraid of losing, afraid of playing someone that, god forbid, might be more skilled and smarter than them. Therefore, let's just give everyone trampolines so they can slam dunk. Let's give all the players MBS, so we can watch them micro zeals and focus fire their units instead for 20 minutes (see WC3).
I just love the "everyone anti-mbs is a retarded noob" angle. It´s a killall argument, we can stop the discussion now-anyone who is for the change is an idiot and doesn´t count. Where is the line if I may ask? At what point does a noob subhuman turn into the Pro-Masterrace? When he changes his mind about the UI? When he reaches >80APM regulary?
On February 22 2008 22:58 BluzMan wrote: Just to add 2 cents since there's a talk about Dawn of War balance.
This game was dominated by Eldar from it's start to the release of two expansion. Right now, with ridiculous 7 races (and 2 more to come with the THIRD expansion pack) balance isn't really an issue anymore, but back then when it was only four of them, it was Eldar > SM ~ CSM > Ork and an alternate balance pattern of CSM Defiler tech > SM & Eldar & Ork. I've kinda played DoW ladder and I must say the balance issues with it were SO evident that I had no idea why nobody was doing anything. Eldar had close to 60% global winrate on ladder, Orks had < 45%. Basically, there was a thread about Warp Spider unit spawned every single day on the strat forums and another one about Defilers with some minor rants on Word of the Emperor/plasmarines since people at least had ideas of how to counter it. Seriously, balance in DoW was abysmal.
So, funnily enough, I can't say that "Dawn of War balance team leader" is a good resume point, their balance team had quite a bad reputation. Nevertheless, it might have to do something with the game's core mechanics, being close to impossible to balance "the right way", so that guy might do better at Blizzard. Otherwise, dunno, I can't probably be considered a StarCraft expert, but I'm one of those few who do understand something about the game and are content with MBS at the same time.
I seriously think that there are much more time-consuming tasks at SC than clicking buildings (it seriously takes like 1-2 seconds to click them all and order units), and warpgates simply won't work without MBS. Autoclone, at the same time, is a terrible feature, and if not limited to workers, it WILL ruin the game.
Someone needs to take a test and analyze a pro FPVOD to see how much time is being devoted to different tasks. I won't be surprised if actual production takes a little time and most of it is invested into micro, rebinding (seriously, I was amazed when I saw a Reach's FPVOD at how much time he spends to proprely assemble his control groups) and constructing buildings.
For your information, David Kim only worked on the last game, Dark Crusade, which you say is pretty balanced :-)
Yes, but they had about 4 other top former starcraft players on the team before him I'm pretty sure
They being blizzard? And 4? As far as I know he's replacing Pillars, that's the only other person we've been told about.
What I can't understand is the negativity towards him when his credentials are absolutely AMAZING, and he's even vouched for by someone as respectable as Mora. I mean this guy loves SC, plays it at a very high level and has a ton of balance experience - sure, Pillars is an RTS genius and would have done a good job, but this was a great replacement.
Maybe I don't get your post, which is very possible since I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm just sort of surprised that nobody else is as excited about having someone like him working on SC2 as I am.
On February 22 2008 22:58 BluzMan wrote: Just to add 2 cents since there's a talk about Dawn of War balance.
This game was dominated by Eldar from it's start to the release of two expansion. Right now, with ridiculous 7 races (and 2 more to come with the THIRD expansion pack) balance isn't really an issue anymore, but back then when it was only four of them, it was Eldar > SM ~ CSM > Ork and an alternate balance pattern of CSM Defiler tech > SM & Eldar & Ork. I've kinda played DoW ladder and I must say the balance issues with it were SO evident that I had no idea why nobody was doing anything. Eldar had close to 60% global winrate on ladder, Orks had < 45%. Basically, there was a thread about Warp Spider unit spawned every single day on the strat forums and another one about Defilers with some minor rants on Word of the Emperor/plasmarines since people at least had ideas of how to counter it. Seriously, balance in DoW was abysmal.
So, funnily enough, I can't say that "Dawn of War balance team leader" is a good resume point, their balance team had quite a bad reputation. Nevertheless, it might have to do something with the game's core mechanics, being close to impossible to balance "the right way", so that guy might do better at Blizzard. Otherwise, dunno, I can't probably be considered a StarCraft expert, but I'm one of those few who do understand something about the game and are content with MBS at the same time.
I seriously think that there are much more time-consuming tasks at SC than clicking buildings (it seriously takes like 1-2 seconds to click them all and order units), and warpgates simply won't work without MBS. Autoclone, at the same time, is a terrible feature, and if not limited to workers, it WILL ruin the game.
Someone needs to take a test and analyze a pro FPVOD to see how much time is being devoted to different tasks. I won't be surprised if actual production takes a little time and most of it is invested into micro, rebinding (seriously, I was amazed when I saw a Reach's FPVOD at how much time he spends to proprely assemble his control groups) and constructing buildings.
For your information, David Kim only worked on the last game, Dark Crusade, which you say is pretty balanced :-)
Nah, what I meant is that 7 races are absolutely impossible to balance, so noone even bothers doing that now, so, really balance isn't an isuue in a twisted way. =))) I didn't delve deep, but Tau pwn everyone early game and Necrons pwn Eldar. Relic tries to patch the game, but it's gotten too big. The main point of multiplayer DC now is showing off your cool color schemes for your favourite tabletop armies (and I must admit, here is where the game really delivers). But that has nothing to do with the balancing, so, if he didn't work on the vanilla, he probably deserves credit for the fact that the game doesn't at least fall apart.
How about Protoss Phase Cannons ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups for easier undeployement movement and redeployment ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups for easier focus fire ?
How about other defensive structures such as Terran Bunkers ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups for easier focus fire ?
How about non defensive non production buildings ? Such as Terran Supply Depots ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups to easily submerge them ?
If you can't select more than one production building at a time won't Terrans benefit from that ? Their production buildings with the Reactor add on can produce 2 units simultaneously.
If you can't select more than one production building at a time won't Zerg benefit from that ? Their production buildings can produce up to 3 units simultaneously. Persuming it stays the same as SC 1.
If you can't select more than one production building at a time won't Protoss suffer from that ? Their Warp In mechanics will require either having all their Warpgates assigned to separate hotkeys or rapid travelling many times in a row between the Warpgates's location on the map and the desired Warp in location depending on the amount of Warpgates you have. Since they do not have production queues won't single building selection further diminish their pottential efficiency?
How about building placement? Do you have to place or your production buildings in close proximity to each other for faster accessibility or do you spread them all over the map ?
Here's an example of *theorycraft* production with MBS:
Lets say we are in a situation where player A player B player C and player D are playing Terran and all have 12 barracks and an O.K. economy.
Player A is the that anti-MBS example guy, who has put all 12 barracks in group 4 and presses 4m every time he has 600 or more minerals to produce a group of 12 marines.
Player B is the guy who has 9 barracks in group 4 and 3 barracks with tech lab in group 5 and presses 4m5e/or whatever the button for medic will be in SC2 every time he has 600 minerals and 100 gas.
Player C wants more units in the mix. So he has 6 barracks in group 4, 4 barracks with tech lab in group 5 and 2 more barracks with tech lab in group 6 so he presses 4m6e5r/or whatever the button is for marauder in SC2 every time he has 600-700 minerals and some gas.
Player D is the one devoting the most time to macro properly. He has 6 barracks with reactor assigned to 4 and 6 barracks with tech lab assigned to 5. Every time he has 50-70 minerals he presses 4m or 5e or 5r.
Lets say it takes them 60 seconds to get 1200 minerals and they currently have 0 and arent producing anything, also it takes about 20 seconds for a unit to be produced. So after 70 seconds:
Player A has 12 marines ready and he is waiting for another 10 seconds for the next batch to finish.
4m4m for player A in 70 seconds.
Player B has 9 marines ready 3 medics ready and is as well waiting another 10 seconds for another 9-3.
4m5e4m5e for player B in 70 seconds.
Player C has 6 marines 4 marauders and 2 medics. And is waiting for another 10 seconds for another 6-4-2.
4m5r6e4m5r6e for player C in 70 seconds.
Player D has 20 units of his choice in whatever analogy he wishes. And is currently producing another 8 units.Lets say he wishes a 3marines-2marauders-1medic analogy. So he now has 10 marines 7 marauders and 3 medics.
In that case he has pressed until now: 4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e
Thats exactly the same amount of clicks or button presses you would have to do if there was no MBS. The only difference is that for player D to achieve that perfect production he has to press 4m or 5e or 5r exactly every 2.5 seconds. If he slips up he will probably overproduce some units and screw up his analogy, or they will be created later than they could. Therefore he is probably spamming 4m 5e 5r a bit more just to make sure.
So he has probably pressed until now: 4mmm5rrr4mmm5ee4mmm5rr4mmm5r4mmm5ee4mmm5rr4mmm 5rr4mmm5ee4mm5rr4mm5rr4mmm5e4mm5rrr4mm5r4mm5ee4m
Notice that the more his economy grows the smaller that time limit will grow. And he has to micro all that army, expand, produce buildings and counter whatever his opponent will do.
And a final example. Lets say you play Protoss, the game has got pretty hectic, you have all your 6 gates linked to 4, you just finished a micro intensive battle so your resources have pilled up to 500 minerals 700 gas and you just NEED two extra high templars for that Archon, before round two of the fight begins in a split second. What do you do ?
On February 24 2008 07:25 Unentschieden wrote: I just love the "everyone anti-mbs is a retarded noob" angle. It´s a killall argument, we can stop the discussion now-anyone who is for the change is an idiot and doesn´t count. Where is the line if I may ask? At what point does a noob subhuman turn into the Pro-Masterrace? When he changes his mind about the UI? When he reaches >80APM regulary?
It's the same as the "everyone who doesn't want mbs just fears their hard work is going to be taken away from them" argument, both sides make them, who cares ; [
On February 24 2008 10:20 Klouvious wrote: How much MBS is too much MBS?
Should buildings be selected only individually ?
How about Protoss Phase Cannons ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups for easier undeployement movement and redeployment ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups for easier focus fire ?
How about other defensive structures such as Terran Bunkers ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups for easier focus fire ?
How about non defensive non production buildings ? Such as Terran Supply Depots ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups to easily submerge them ?
If you can't select more than one production building at a time won't Terrans benefit from that ? Their production buildings with the Reactor add on can produce 2 units simultaneously.
If you can't select more than one production building at a time won't Zerg benefit from that ? Their production buildings can produce up to 3 units simultaneously. Persuming it stays the same as SC 1.
If you can't select more than one production building at a time won't Protoss suffer from that ? Their Warp In mechanics will require either having all their Warpgates assigned to separate hotkeys or rapid travelling many times in a row between the Warpgates's location on the map and the desired Warp in location depending on the amount of Warpgates you have. Since they do not have production queues won't single building selection further diminish their pottential efficiency?
How about building placement? Do you have to place or your production buildings in close proximity to each other for faster accessibility or do you spread them all over the map ?
Here's an example of *theorycraft* production with MBS:
Lets say we are in a situation where player A player B player C and player D are playing Terran and all have 12 barracks and an O.K. economy.
Player A is the that anti-MBS example guy, who has put all 12 barracks in group 4 and presses 4m every time he has 600 or more minerals to produce a group of 12 marines.
Player B is the guy who has 9 barracks in group 4 and 3 barracks with tech lab in group 5 and presses 4m5e/or whatever the button for medic will be in SC2 every time he has 600 minerals and 100 gas.
Player C wants more units in the mix. So he has 6 barracks in group 4, 4 barracks with tech lab in group 5 and 2 more barracks with tech lab in group 6 so he presses 4m6e5r/or whatever the button is for marauder in SC2 every time he has 600-700 minerals and some gas.
Player D is the one devoting the most time to macro properly. He has 6 barracks with reactor assigned to 4 and 6 barracks with tech lab assigned to 5. Every time he has 50-70 minerals he presses 4m or 5e or 5r.
Lets say it takes them 60 seconds to get 1200 minerals and they currently have 0 and arent producing anything, also it takes about 20 seconds for a unit to be produced. So after 70 seconds:
Player A has 12 marines ready and he is waiting for another 10 seconds for the next batch to finish.
4m4m for player A in 70 seconds.
Player B has 9 marines ready 3 medics ready and is as well waiting another 10 seconds for another 9-3.
4m5e4m5e for player B in 70 seconds.
Player C has 6 marines 4 marauders and 2 medics. And is waiting for another 10 seconds for another 6-4-2.
4m5r6e4m5r6e for player C in 70 seconds.
Player D has 20 units of his choice in whatever analogy he wishes. And is currently producing another 8 units.Lets say he wishes a 3marines-2marauders-1medic analogy. So he now has 10 marines 7 marauders and 3 medics.
In that case he has pressed until now: 4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e
Thats exactly the same amount of clicks or button presses you would have to do if there was no MBS. The only difference is that for player D to achieve that perfect production he has to press 4m or 5e or 5r exactly every 2.5 seconds. If he slips up he will probably overproduce some units and screw up his analogy, or they will be created later than they could. Therefore he is probably spamming 4m 5e 5r a bit more just to make sure.
So he has probably pressed until now: 4mmm5rrr4mmm5ee4mmm5rr4mmm5r4mmm5ee4mmm5rr4mmm 5rr4mmm5ee4mm5rr4mm5rr4mmm5e4mm5rrr4mm5r4mm5ee4m
Notice that the more his economy grows the smaller that time limit will grow. And he has to micro all that army, expand, produce buildings and counter whatever his opponent will do.
And a final example. Lets say you play Protoss, the game has got pretty hectic, you have all your 6 gates linked to 4, you just finished a micro intensive battle so your resources have pilled up to 500 minerals 700 gas and you just NEED two extra high templars for that Archon, before round two of the fight begins in a split second. What do you do ?
Good reasoning but, ironically, the result of implementing MBS is contrary to what pro-MBS crowd wants - we're now required to have speed instead of decision making in order to maintain good macro: you need to press the necessary combination every couple seconds, there's no need for macro cycles and micro-to-macro decision making (strategy). That's actually pretty hilarious.
I don't care whether they cut MBS or not, anymore. I'm waiting for the beta.
I really dont understand why there needs to be an argument at all. Why don't you just add a switch to the game, like say different game types, that allow the host of the game to chose how it's going to be played? Have a 'Default' with MBS, automining, no-selection-cap, autocast and whatever bells and whistles you want to add, and a 'Classic' mode with things as they were in SC1. Shouldnt take too many ressources to implement and will cover your ass.
I mean, in SC1, they implemented a whole bunch of game types (Melee, Greed, FFA, KotH, UMS etc TvB later), or a default speed of 5 (who uses that anyways?), and the game evolved to what it is - speed 7 and TvB/Melee, the rest having been abandoned. Just do the same in SCII and let the players decide what they want. I mean in primary school football you dont call off-side every minute, so why not have different, chosable rule sets for different 'leagues' of players too?
The thing is both parties (anti-MBS and pro-MBS WC3 players) want the settings the're in favour of to be default in ladder games and tournaments, so Blizzard would have to support either side. Splitting the community even more is not a good idea either. Not to mention balancing the game for two TOTALLY different modes... We're talking about two types of melee games - other types you've mentioned are not competitive.
This has already been discussed plenty of times, so, please, don't bring old solutions. It's MBS Discussion III after all.
On February 22 2008 22:58 BluzMan wrote: Just to add 2 cents since there's a talk about Dawn of War balance.
This game was dominated by Eldar from it's start to the release of two expansion. Right now, with ridiculous 7 races (and 2 more to come with the THIRD expansion pack) balance isn't really an issue anymore, but back then when it was only four of them, it was Eldar > SM ~ CSM > Ork and an alternate balance pattern of CSM Defiler tech > SM & Eldar & Ork. I've kinda played DoW ladder and I must say the balance issues with it were SO evident that I had no idea why nobody was doing anything. Eldar had close to 60% global winrate on ladder, Orks had < 45%. Basically, there was a thread about Warp Spider unit spawned every single day on the strat forums and another one about Defilers with some minor rants on Word of the Emperor/plasmarines since people at least had ideas of how to counter it. Seriously, balance in DoW was abysmal.
So, funnily enough, I can't say that "Dawn of War balance team leader" is a good resume point, their balance team had quite a bad reputation. Nevertheless, it might have to do something with the game's core mechanics, being close to impossible to balance "the right way", so that guy might do better at Blizzard. Otherwise, dunno, I can't probably be considered a StarCraft expert, but I'm one of those few who do understand something about the game and are content with MBS at the same time.
I seriously think that there are much more time-consuming tasks at SC than clicking buildings (it seriously takes like 1-2 seconds to click them all and order units), and warpgates simply won't work without MBS. Autoclone, at the same time, is a terrible feature, and if not limited to workers, it WILL ruin the game.
Someone needs to take a test and analyze a pro FPVOD to see how much time is being devoted to different tasks. I won't be surprised if actual production takes a little time and most of it is invested into micro, rebinding (seriously, I was amazed when I saw a Reach's FPVOD at how much time he spends to proprely assemble his control groups) and constructing buildings.
For your information, David Kim only worked on the last game, Dark Crusade, which you say is pretty balanced :-)
Yes, but they had about 4 other top former starcraft players on the team before him I'm pretty sure
They being blizzard? And 4? As far as I know he's replacing Pillars, that's the only other person we've been told about.
What I can't understand is the negativity towards him when his credentials are absolutely AMAZING, and he's even vouched for by someone as respectable as Mora. I mean this guy loves SC, plays it at a very high level and has a ton of balance experience - sure, Pillars is an RTS genius and would have done a good job, but this was a great replacement.
Maybe I don't get your post, which is very possible since I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm just sort of surprised that nobody else is as excited about having someone like him working on SC2 as I am.
they being relic
And no offense, but even with all those other talents, the game still turned out eye candy.
Didnt mora used to work for relic as well?
In an interview I saw, the balance team was making hints that their balance ideas all had to be approved by the designers.
So if the designers are set on a specific vision, it doesnt matter how many top players you have on the balance team.
Like I've said before, until they test it with a bunch of sc top players outside of the design/balance team, I'm going to be worried. It doesnt hurt that I think such a test would come out against invasive mbs.
On February 25 2008 02:13 maybenexttime wrote: anti-MBS and pro-MBS WC3 players
Whoa subtile.
At this point of the design process MBS or SBS is not a balance question - MBS doesn´t instabreak the possiblity for a balanced game unlike, say, 7 races. It does however have a effect HOW to balance wich invalidates the "switch" solution unfortunately. Back when SC2 was oficially anounced SC had a big reinflux of new and old Players - how many of these are still playing SC NOW? It was a good opportunity for Blizzard to look what parts of the old UI the players were uncompfortable with and had to be changed. They didn´t actually WANT to change most of the stuff wich is indicated a bit indirectly like when they compare 12 unit to unlimited selection (were testing it, etc.)but apperantly many "new" players were uncompfortable with it. (It always looked like a indirect disatvantage for the Zerg to me)
One of the slides at GDC said after all: "If it looks broken to the Player it IS broken.".
SC´s UI feels "wrong" to many Players that didn´t Play SC for 10years but always the lates RTSes, like C&C, Warhammer, even Warcraft3 etc... Like it or not a new bar in Ergonomic control for RTS was set and SC2 will be mesured at that. It is a bit like the optical advancements, the only genre that gets away with 2D today are the Fighting Games(?), even Jump and Runs have to add the 3rd dimension to be considered viable for the market.
Edit: On a different matter, why is it always SC players that have to test the game? Why not top DC or WC3 Players that also should have a clue about RTS Balance and it might help prevent SC2 from turning into a simple remake. And considering that the Game is supposed to be balanced on every skilllevel they should also add less skilled gamers to their closed BETA team.
Most RTS base their basic gameplay on lore. You have one truck mining tiberium. Or you have workers mining gold and chopping wood. Totally lore based.
But then it's discovered that one gives superior gameplay because it gives more depth and dynamics to the economy.
Before they even start to decide on a single concept they need to ask their balance team/competitive gaming specialists what kind of basic gameplay would be best for the game. Hell, they need to have this expertise themselves. Obviously having a lot of small resource gathering units is superior to having a single big one.
But why then doesn't every game copy Starcraft here?
Same with tech tree/scouting/strategy, etc.
They need to base all the basic game concepts around what creates the best gameplay.
For god's sake, the main core of the pro-mbs argument is to allow things to be easier for WC3 players and new players alike to a sequel of one of the most hardest challening RTS games ever. Starcraft was shaped and molded to how it was without any MBS, you defeated your opponent by having practiced macro or putting the time and effort to do so; Most veterens are Anti-MBS, because they understand the mechanics of the game and they're command of the game is stronge, whereas WC3 players are not even near that skill level. Why listen to new players whom have not followed the game or do not posess a complex understanding, unlike the veterens,and when they have not followed SC as extensively? Why let them dictate what should or should not be in the game at all or let them have any representation at all when they have no idea how Starcraft truly works or why Starcraft became the challenging sport that it was incomparison to the Anti-MBS crowd?
MBS may also really be needed... warp gates would be a total pain in the ass to use without MBS. Being able to hotkey your static defense and focus fire would also be nice. Same with rally points. Re-assigning rally points in SC1 is a total desaster that costs way too much time. It really doesn't mean that adding MBS will break the game no mater what. It depends on the gameplay. I agree it would break SC1 if you'd add it, but most changes to SC1 would break it (balance is a fragile thing), and it's SC2 after all. Blizzard also won't make a really stupid decision when designing the successor to one of the most successful games of all time. I'd bet money that many of anti MBS posters will actually start to like it once the game is released, and maybe even find it necessary...
On February 25 2008 02:13 maybenexttime wrote: anti-MBS and pro-MBS WC3 players
Whoa subtile.
I meant anti-MBS SC players and pro-MBS WC3 players were those two parties, as pro-MBS SC players do not care about competitiveness (well, a handful of them do), hence they don't care what's the default setting for ladder games.
At this point of the design process MBS or SBS is not a balance question - MBS doesn´t instabreak the possiblity for a balanced game unlike, say, 7 races. It does however have a effect HOW to balance wich invalidates the "switch" solution unfortunately. Back when SC2 was oficially anounced SC had a big reinflux of new and old Players - how many of these are still playing SC NOW? It was a good opportunity for Blizzard to look what parts of the old UI the players were uncompfortable with and had to be changed. They didn´t actually WANT to change most of the stuff wich is indicated a bit indirectly like when they compare 12 unit to unlimited selection (were testing it, etc.)but apperantly many "new" players were uncompfortable with it. (It always looked like a indirect disatvantage for the Zerg to me)
One of the slides at GDC said after all: "If it looks broken to the Player it IS broken.".
SC´s UI feels "wrong" to many Players that didn´t Play SC for 10years but always the lates RTSes, like C&C, Warhammer, even Warcraft3 etc... Like it or not a new bar in Ergonomic control for RTS was set and SC2 will be mesured at that. It is a bit like the optical advancements, the only genre that gets away with 2D today are the Fighting Games(?), even Jump and Runs have to add the 3rd dimension to be considered viable for the market.
Edit: On a different matter, why is it always SC players that have to test the game? Why not top DC or WC3 Players that also should have a clue about RTS Balance and it might help prevent SC2 from turning into a simple remake. And considering that the Game is supposed to be balanced on every skilllevel they should also add less skilled gamers to their closed BETA team.
Well, I for example played CNC Generals as my first RTS. Then I switched to WC3 and played it for like 2 years, then I switched to DoW and experimented with some other games. After some time I came across Armies of Exigo, and only then was I hooked on with StarCraft. Getting used to the interface didn't take me too much time.
As for GDC, how about Pardo talking about "breaking their rules" or StarCraft's "twitch gameplay?"
The balance team for SC2 has only 3 competent SC players btw.
I'd say none of the anti-MBS people and probably some pro-MBS people. The latter (I mean the bnet forums type) often want to do things the easy way (just look up some threads about further automating micro and macro - production looping, smart move command with autocast for things like lockdown, queues for Zerg, etc., just LOL).
Well the first part was basically me being annoyed at valuing Players opinion after their background. I have the same issue at arguments like: "Don´t listen to him, he has only 100 Posts!".
The comment about "new old" Players came after simply asking them (that kind of player rarely visits TL.net). The significant part is that you had to get USED to the SC UI, meaning it wasn´t intuitive enough.
You are right, they are very fond of "Twitch" gameplay, wich means they had very good reasons to remove some of it. I even pointed that out.
Edit:
On February 25 2008 04:07 Klouvious wrote: Getting a bit off the point here, but i just have to ask this:
How many of you will actually go as far as not playing/buying the game if it has the features you dislike (MBS/SBS) ?
I will propably preorder it i.e. buy it in any case. If the game ends up uncompfortable to play I would not bother with the official ladder, but instead play something like Spacedota that doesn´t even have Multiple buildings to select (man TDs would be a pain to play without MBS!).
On February 25 2008 03:41 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Being able to hotkey your static defense and focus fire would also be nice.
Imo it would make defence too easy therefore less rush and push potential (same goes for ridiculous aoe3-like gun on main building which basically means 'the developers don't want you to rush at all until this time kthx?')
Same with rally points. Re-assigning rally points in SC1 is a total desaster that costs way too much time.
But it is the difference between winning and losing a battle often. If everyone has perfect rally control, there is less point to trying to confuse and disorientate an enemy in a bitter pitched battle, because they can focus much more on the fighting. And you can spend more time checking your base for harass as opposed to looking for your buildings or using the Fkeys ---> less people use harass and the game loses a dimension.
I'd bet money that many of anti MBS posters will actually start to like it once the game is released, and maybe even find it necessary...
Well this I'm interested in. TBH I'm gona follow the korean pro scene. The pro's are at the pinnacle, and I want to aim for the pinnacle whenever I do something. I just hope Blizzard let the game be modded by Esports association so it can be turned from a noobish instant-gratification westernized game to something which stands the test of time yet again.
All this crap about sequels etc...GTA San Andreas is identical to GTA Vice City in UI, yet they feel like completely different games cos of all the new stuff and areas. If you just add a bunch of units and mechanics, but keep the core UI, I bet the game will be received better. (on a side-note, that's pretty much what they have done for smash bro's melee --> brawl and it has been received really well afaik)
On February 22 2008 22:58 BluzMan wrote: Just to add 2 cents since there's a talk about Dawn of War balance.
This game was dominated by Eldar from it's start to the release of two expansion. Right now, with ridiculous 7 races (and 2 more to come with the THIRD expansion pack) balance isn't really an issue anymore, but back then when it was only four of them, it was Eldar > SM ~ CSM > Ork and an alternate balance pattern of CSM Defiler tech > SM & Eldar & Ork. I've kinda played DoW ladder and I must say the balance issues with it were SO evident that I had no idea why nobody was doing anything. Eldar had close to 60% global winrate on ladder, Orks had < 45%. Basically, there was a thread about Warp Spider unit spawned every single day on the strat forums and another one about Defilers with some minor rants on Word of the Emperor/plasmarines since people at least had ideas of how to counter it. Seriously, balance in DoW was abysmal.
So, funnily enough, I can't say that "Dawn of War balance team leader" is a good resume point, their balance team had quite a bad reputation. Nevertheless, it might have to do something with the game's core mechanics, being close to impossible to balance "the right way", so that guy might do better at Blizzard. Otherwise, dunno, I can't probably be considered a StarCraft expert, but I'm one of those few who do understand something about the game and are content with MBS at the same time.
I seriously think that there are much more time-consuming tasks at SC than clicking buildings (it seriously takes like 1-2 seconds to click them all and order units), and warpgates simply won't work without MBS. Autoclone, at the same time, is a terrible feature, and if not limited to workers, it WILL ruin the game.
Someone needs to take a test and analyze a pro FPVOD to see how much time is being devoted to different tasks. I won't be surprised if actual production takes a little time and most of it is invested into micro, rebinding (seriously, I was amazed when I saw a Reach's FPVOD at how much time he spends to proprely assemble his control groups) and constructing buildings.
For your information, David Kim only worked on the last game, Dark Crusade, which you say is pretty balanced :-)
Yes, but they had about 4 other top former starcraft players on the team before him I'm pretty sure
They being blizzard? And 4? As far as I know he's replacing Pillars, that's the only other person we've been told about.
What I can't understand is the negativity towards him when his credentials are absolutely AMAZING, and he's even vouched for by someone as respectable as Mora. I mean this guy loves SC, plays it at a very high level and has a ton of balance experience - sure, Pillars is an RTS genius and would have done a good job, but this was a great replacement.
Maybe I don't get your post, which is very possible since I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm just sort of surprised that nobody else is as excited about having someone like him working on SC2 as I am.
they being relic
And no offense, but even with all those other talents, the game still turned out eye candy.
Didnt mora used to work for relic as well?
In an interview I saw, the balance team was making hints that their balance ideas all had to be approved by the designers.
So if the designers are set on a specific vision, it doesnt matter how many top players you have on the balance team.
Like I've said before, until they test it with a bunch of sc top players outside of the design/balance team, I'm going to be worried. It doesnt hurt that I think such a test would come out against invasive mbs.
Uhm can you please name these other 4 top SC players that worked for relic? Yes, relic has Mora, as far as I'm aware he never worked on anything but Company of Heroes. BC.Korn also used to work/works for them I think, but again, on Company of heroes.
And as I also think I said before, I'm almost positive blizzard has already said they will bring in progamers to test the game later on.
When it comes to multiple building selection for the purposes of setting rally points I'm 100% for it. This is because you can never have enough hotkeys to set rallypoints with your 20 gateways, so it's just super inconvenient.
One thing to keep in mind is that Blizzard is the gaming company that is the most serious about balance testing and that it's also the only company which really has the money do it seriously.
Unlike every other gaming company on earth they don't have to rush SCII out of the door so I expect it to be a lot more balanced when it hits the shelf than pretty much any other game.
i) agree that the playing field has to remain constant. mbs seems to be the future, so, only mbs.
ii) if the skill level of the game can be capped, it's not difficult enough. blizz should release this game with a default speed of like 3/40, with 40 being 100% IMPOSSIBLE, not under their definition, but dave's definiton, and then ramp up the maximum speed another 10%
iii) failing the implementation of that, make everything die really really fast
iv) if the game is so easy that good players always have nothing to do because mbs makes it too easy, then the game sucks and it will die
v) the failure of a videogame has no material impact on my life.
On February 25 2008 03:36 Jockeraroo wrote: For god's sake, the main core of the pro-mbs argument is to allow things to be easier for WC3 players and new players alike to a sequel of one of the most hardest challening RTS games ever. Starcraft was shaped and molded to how it was without any MBS, you defeated your opponent by having practiced macro or putting the time and effort to do so; Most veterens are Anti-MBS, because they understand the mechanics of the game and they're command of the game is stronge, whereas WC3 players are not even near that skill level. Why listen to new players whom have not followed the game or do not posess a complex understanding, unlike the veterens,and when they have not followed SC as extensively? Why let them dictate what should or should not be in the game at all or let them have any representation at all when they have no idea how Starcraft truly works or why Starcraft became the challenging sport that it was incomparison to the Anti-MBS crowd?
When compacted, your stance boils down to two separate arguments. The first goes something like:
If it's not broke don't fix it.
This is a pretty common point of view. But if nobody ever tried to improve anything that was annoying or bothersome just because it already "worked", we'd still be living in caves, huddling under animal skins. It works, but it can get better. It's not without risk, its entirely possible that what you're trying to improve will just get worse, but someone has to try if this genre is to evolve, and I'd trust no company more to do just that than Blizzard.
The second part of your argument is:
The people who are best at Starcraft1 should be the only ones allowed input for Starcraft2.
However, please note that the people who are best at this game may have ulterior motives besides wanting to make a better game. It's possible that they are simply people just like you, afraid of change. It's possible that they don't want all the hard work they spent overcoming a limited UI to go to waste. Like the hardcore raiders in WoW, they don't want the expansion because if the next noob who buys WoW can get better gear than they have out of the next 5 player dungeon, what the hell did they do wasting all that time in black temple anyway? I faced this when the Burning Crusade was launched, and I know, it sucks a whole lot, it does, but if not for the new content, people would stop playing and WoW would die.
Veterans know Starcraft1 better than most people. But does that mean they have anything more useful to add about a completely new game, Starcraft2, than a newb? They might, but don't take it for granted. Very possibly, the veterans know even less about how the new game should be designed because they are too encroached in their current favorite for them to be truly objective. Maybe they want it to play as close to their current favorite as possible, maybe they just want a visual upgrade, maybe they don't want the sequel at all, posting their views simply because of resentment. New players bring objectivity to the game, along with some whining and some bitching about them losing so much, but I don't think their input is useless.
I'm not stating the above is fact, I'm saying that it's a possible reason why game designers might want to listen to more people than just the veterans. Just because they are good at a game doesn't mean they know squat about how to make one.
MBS won't just kill macro, it will kill micro as well.
If you go through the pimpest plays, almost all of the micro-specific ones are one player microing against a player who isnt.
If both players have the free time to micro to their hearts content, paying attention to your units and properly microing loses value since you dont get any efficiency advantage over your opponent.
If both players only have to go back to their base to build buildings or upgrade, they spend 95% of their time watching their units...which means both progamers will likely be able to micro to about the same extent...micro players are based on their sacrifice of macro for micro, not their ability to use micro techniques.
If players are equivalent in both macro and micro, strategy is the only differentiator at the pro level, and thats a problem.
On February 25 2008 06:15 FrozenArbiter wrote: When it comes to multiple building selection for the purposes of setting rally points I'm 100% for it. This is because you can never have enough hotkeys to set rallypoints with your 20 gateways, so it's just super inconvenient.
I´m surprised to hear this. SBS being inconvenient is THE main reason (at least for me) for wanting MBS. On the other hand this argument is countered by stating that this very inconvenience is vital to SC gameplay.
fusionsdf just pointed it out, ending with a sentence that I find highly interesting: "...strategy is the only differentiator at the pro level, and thats a problem."
Strategy in a Strategy game!? It is supposed to be the deciding factor, Micro and Macro should be supporting ablilities to your Strategy! The winner in a strategy game should be the player with the better strategy, not the faster one. Some Strategies that could be possible (and impressive) in SC are invalidated since they are to hard to pull of mechanically - a shame in my opinion. When they DO get pulled of they are worthy Pimpest Plays though.
Speed shoul give you an advantage-fine but it shouldn´t be the deciding factor especially if that forces the game to be inconvenient.
As I understood fusionsdf the main SC Strategy would be to rely on the enemy being distracted elsewere by the UI to gain a advantage. Not smart proxies or something fancy like that, just praying that the enemy is looking somewhere else. SHOULD it be like that?
On February 25 2008 06:15 FrozenArbiter wrote: When it comes to multiple building selection for the purposes of setting rally points I'm 100% for it. This is because you can never have enough hotkeys to set rallypoints with your 20 gateways, so it's just super inconvenient.
but you never have enough hotkeys to be able to train from 20 gateways either...which is super inconvenient
so then it becomes arbitrary what is deemed "nescessary" macro and whats not. In this example, making units with MBS bad, but setting rallies good. Why is there this thought? The only reason I can think of right now is because most players CAN'T mass rally now, and they would LIKE to mass rally. (kind of like the argument that people can't split their attention to macro from 10 raxes properly, but they would LIKE to) .actually think mass rally would break the game more than MBS unit training
What about we keep MBS for multiple training, and players can use use that extra freed up time for setting up rallies one building at a time. Well, that just not intuitive.
If MBS is implemented, would you rather it be implemented with "smart-training" (smart casting sort of) or not? Where the computer finds an empty rax or the rax with the shortest queue or the rax with a unit whos going to finish training the soonest. I think WC3 just queues it in the first rax, and continues, until there are no more resources. Not that anyone ever got more than two of any training facility anyways (in my experience)
I don´t think that Tactics and Strategy can be seperated clearly anyway. But to be clear, what kind of "skills" do you want to see rewarded, and if possible to what extend? SC does reward a good strategy/tacics, otherwise no one would bother with scouting.
Edit: WC3 worked like that in the beginning but a sensible implication was quicly patched in, if I remember correctly.
On February 25 2008 09:57 fusionsdf wrote: MBS won't just kill macro, it will kill micro as well.
If you go through the pimpest plays, almost all of the micro-specific ones are one player microing against a player who isnt.
If both players have the free time to micro to their hearts content, paying attention to your units and properly microing loses value since you dont get any efficiency advantage over your opponent.
If both players only have to go back to their base to build buildings or upgrade, they spend 95% of their time watching their units...which means both progamers will likely be able to micro to about the same extent...micro players are based on their sacrifice of macro for micro, not their ability to use micro techniques.
If players are equivalent in both macro and micro, strategy is the only differentiator at the pro level, and thats a problem.
yeah
this is REALLY important. You guys who want to make the UI super streamlined, it screws up the game when it comes to competitiveness. For the seventh trillion time, an RTS game based PURELY on strategy is frickin' lame.
I'll equate it to martial arts: If you put a boxer and a shoot wrestler in the ring, you have a higher chance of a) a spectacular takedown from the wrestler or b) a fantastic knockout from the boxer
If you put 2 boxers in the ring they pound each other for ages, or 2 wrestlers, they basically dry hump each other for a short while.
You WILL remove the flashy cool stuff and special sneak attacks, clever drops and flanks if you make macro ANY easier, in my opinion. I've seen it happen to all the other games which have done it :S.
wc3 is horribly over-microed. There's no such thing as a strong macro wc3 player. It's literally boring as hell. After about 3 surrounds and a few TP pro moves, you get bored of almost everything wc3 has to offer imo ¬¬.
... Just make a "High learning curve" thread, mbs si not the issue, the learning curve and skill difference is, if by some miracle sc 2 would be harder to learn and master even with mbs I'm sure everyone will be pleased. Oh and the ability to overcome a player by pure-macro. Adress those issues not "oh me gee you can select moar buildingz in 1 group and maek unitz ezy". From what I read about how the warp-gates work it's a step forward, they do not have que's and require the same amount of commands it took in sc 1 to produce units (to make a zealot you'll have too z+click within the pylon area, do the same for the next zealot, 4 actions for 2 zealots). This way it doesn't inhibit some players from playing but it rewards better players because they will be able to spawn units where they want unlike they're lazyer opponent who'll just que stuff up and have them in 1 spot and waste travel time.
On February 25 2008 09:57 fusionsdf wrote: MBS won't just kill macro, it will kill micro as well.
If you go through the pimpest plays, almost all of the micro-specific ones are one player microing against a player who isnt.
If both players have the free time to micro to their hearts content, paying attention to your units and properly microing loses value since you dont get any efficiency advantage over your opponent.
If both players only have to go back to their base to build buildings or upgrade, they spend 95% of their time watching their units...which means both progamers will likely be able to micro to about the same extent...micro players are based on their sacrifice of macro for micro, not their ability to use micro techniques.
If players are equivalent in both macro and micro, strategy is the only differentiator at the pro level, and thats a problem.
yeah
this is REALLY important. You guys who want to make the UI super streamlined, it screws up the game when it comes to competitiveness. For the seventh trillion time, an RTS game based PURELY on strategy is frickin' lame.
I'll equate it to martial arts: If you put a boxer and a shoot wrestler in the ring, you have a higher chance of a) a spectacular takedown from the wrestler or b) a fantastic knockout from the boxer
If you put 2 boxers in the ring they pound each other for ages, or 2 wrestlers, they basically dry hump each other for a short while.
You WILL remove the flashy cool stuff and special sneak attacks, clever drops and flanks if you make macro ANY easier, in my opinion. I've seen it happen to all the other games which have done it :S.
wc3 is horribly over-microed. There's no such thing as a strong macro wc3 player. It's literally boring as hell. After about 3 surrounds and a few TP pro moves, you get bored of almost everything wc3 has to offer imo ¬¬.
Well, WC3 is vastly different from both SC1 and SC2. WC3 has several features that remove the need to macro (you need just a few workers, and very few expansions). Then there's the upkeep, heroes are the central part of the game, and so on. To counter this, micro is the biggest aspect in WC3. You shouldn't think "lol there's just micro and strategy, what a noob game, where's the macro". Because micro is much more complex and diverse there than in SC. It's all about micro there, so there's a lot more micro possibilities. Macro gets replaced by advanced micro. It's just a different game that has different priorities. If "micro only" were dull or shallow, WC3 wouldn't be the huge success that it is. Sure, in SC1, "micro only" would be dumb, but if you offer more possibilities to the player, it becomes a game that's complex as well, just in a different way.
SC2 is much more like SC1, units will die relatively fast, expanding a lot will be necessary (combine this with "using your resources wisely" and you have your macro skill (this is the most important part of macro anyway)), and large scale battles will occur regularly again.
Well it's more like the macro in wc3 is not that complex as it is in sc, it still exists though and does matter to some extent (for intance humans after fast expanding que the upgrades before going to low upkeep even if at that time it won't benefit any units because they have just footmen in that stage, however they gain time and have 1-1/1-0 units - mass spellbreakers and mortars vs ne for instance- by the time they push). Or if you plan to harras and go t3 after the same fast expand staying 52 food instead of 50 when you have just footmen is gonna bite you in the ass later. Also the undead banking who rather spend their resources in items (potions, rod, orb. scrolls etc) rather then units until the later part of the game. Also vs orc it's important to know how to waste the blademasters mana so he can harass less effectively and also how to distribue damage to his units to make him spend more gold on healing thus you know if you are able to play more defensively or aggresively depending on what you and him are using gold on. Wc3's macro is all about counting what you and you're opponent spend and make the right choice on how to use that information. However this is all relatively easy, can be learned through practice and it's not even half as hard as sc macro.
On February 25 2008 12:40 HamerD wrote: this is REALLY important. You guys who want to make the UI super streamlined, it screws up the game when it comes to competitiveness. For the seventh trillion time, an RTS game based PURELY on strategy is frickin' lame.
Right now the destruction of competative play by either a good UI and/or more focus on Strategy is a simple asumption. We can prove neither for or against it without a Beta. The only way to make it PURELY strategic would mean to make it turn based AND remove direct unit control from the player. Even so "frickin' lame" is a personal opinion, and personally I´d like to see SC2 have a bigger focus on Strategy/Tactics rather than APM competitions.
Strategy and Tactics are not just a elaborate form of Rock Paper Scissors, but honestly that would go offtopic fast and I hope it is convincing enough if I point out that even Chess a game based purely on Strategy/Tactics (depending on definition) is very exiting and not random AT ALL.
On February 25 2008 09:35 Meh wrote: Just because they are good at a game doesn't mean they know squat about how to make one.
But they know how to make a game wich they would be good at
But really, currently in starcraft micro<macro since macro gives a safer win. However if starcraft 2 puts a bit more of the power towards micro and risky playing we would have a lot more games were the players use offensive strats and such to get an upper hand now that its harder to get it by macro means.
So, they made macro more effecient by reducing the time it takes, giving people more time to micro. Then they added a lot of ways to abuse your opponents defensive lines with micro heavy units were you can put your time instead of the lost macro clicks. This strengthens boxers type of play wich today is nearly dead at the top, but im sure that a lot of players will still go the macro approach of not taking many risks but instead go the vanilla way and rely on just playing that style better instead of trying to outsmart their opponent.
Btw, in starcraft you can just as well rename macro-micro players to lowrisk-highrisk players, beacuse thats what makes the styles different.
On February 25 2008 21:01 Klockan3 wrote: So, they made macro more effecient by reducing the time it takes, giving people more time to micro. Then they added a lot of ways to abuse your opponents defensive lines with micro heavy units were you can put your time instead of the lost macro clicks. This strengthens boxers type of play wich today is nearly dead at the top, but im sure that a lot of players will still go the macro approach of not taking many risks but instead go the vanilla way and rely on just playing that style better instead of trying to outsmart their opponent.
It wont strengthen boxers type play at all. It will just chuck everyone into the same style of play. Honestly, look at a progamers FPview. They are able to macro and micro brilliantly right now. The reason boxers style is weak is because players are good enough to handle the micro that he sends at them while macroing so they are not beaten.
A common trend we are seeing in starcraft these days is that micro gods and macro gods are being phased out. Because most players can micro well enough to handle a micro god and macro well enough to handle a macro god at the same time. This is due to people getting better at the game and therefore finding the game easier.
You stand to remove most of the difficulty of macro with the new features, meaning every starcraft pro will have no problems keeping up in the macro war. Macro will become standardised. Everything then revolves around micro, and we will see the same game being played over and over again. There will be no room for micro or macro players, there will just be players who all play the same style. And the only thing serperating players will be subtle differences in micro (mainly because of mistakes by players), game imbalances and luck.
An RTS game's strategy is always going to revolve around Rock paper scissors effects. Thats about as complex as strategy can get in a real time environment. Theres nothing wrong with this as long as the game has more to it than choosing the correct strategy. Micro adds to this by giving players the ability to make another decision on top of their strategy which is how to control their troops. Macro in starcraft adds another layer by forcing the players to choose where they want to focus their attention and making tradeoffs between advantage now or advantage later.
By removing the macro layer, you then make the game all about 2 players with standardised armies clashing in a micro war to determine the winner. THIS IS BORING. Maybe you can stare at pretty graphics for games and games on end, but they get boring to everyone else. The game must be complex so that we dont see the same things occuring over and over again.
On February 25 2008 16:16 Loverman wrote: ... Just make a "High learning curve" thread, mbs si not the issue, the learning curve and skill difference is, if by some miracle sc 2 would be harder to learn and master even with mbs I'm sure everyone will be pleased. Oh and the ability to overcome a player by pure-macro. Adress those issues not "oh me gee you can select moar buildingz in 1 group and maek unitz ezy". From what I read about how the warp-gates work it's a step forward, they do not have que's and require the same amount of commands it took in sc 1 to produce units (to make a zealot you'll have too z+click within the pylon area, do the same for the next zealot, 4 actions for 2 zealots). This way it doesn't inhibit some players from playing but it rewards better players because they will be able to spawn units where they want unlike they're lazyer opponent who'll just que stuff up and have them in 1 spot and waste travel time.
Less emo plz.
They don't have queues but there's an icon telling you when and at how many Warp Gates the cooldown's done...
As for WC3 micro, it's not that complex. The way you micro your units is pretty linear: focus fire, draw damaged units, surround, block, etc. Abilities are more complex, but most of the time pretty straight forward anyway.
In SC not only are most units nonlinear in terms of micro, but the micro itself differs VASTLY from race to race. SC micro is distinct to the point where you don't just practice micro on a whole (like in WC3) but rather specific afpects of micro like Marine micro (spreading, distraction, going up the ramp, breaking the Sunken wall, etc.), Vulture micro (Spider Mine surrounding, blocking the approaching Zealots, luring enemy units so that they blow up enemy workers with mines, patrol micro; there's also a lot of game knowledge/tricks to that, like putting mines in specific places to prevent Reaver drops, preventing DTs, delaying expansions, "blocking" Gates, etc.), Reaver+Zealot/Dragoon distraction, Muta micro (hit n run - not so much after Overlord trick invention though ,spreading).
Sorry for the wall of text. ;p
I know that some WC3 players will disagree, but SC micro really is more distinct.
I feel like im repeating myself but i will restate this:
I believe you are overreacting. The effect that MBS has on the gameplay is not that large. MBS is not some form of Artificial Intelligence that plays the macro part of the game for you. All the desicions that have to taken without MBS are still there to be taken. MBS doesn't decide when to expo for you, it doesn't build buildings for you, it doesn't decide what kind of units and what combinations and what analogies of units you build . It doesn't remove the macro part of the game.
It generally does less than you fear it does.
The only difference in the early game is instead of having all the production buildings, of the same kind linked, to seperate hotkeys, they will be linked to one,two or three hotkeys instead.
Instead of having to 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z you will have to 4z4z4z4z4z4z4z, well unless you actually wait to have enough resources to produce from all of them at once. Which is not the most effective way to produce your units.
Linking all your production buildings to one hotkey has drawbacks.
Notice what happens though when you want to produce a combination of units:
Without MBS: wait for resources,4z5z6s7s8i9t0t 2 zeals 2 stalkers 1 immortal 2 templars You can do this in 1 to 7 steps.
With MBS and all your gates linked to 4: You have to actually to do this in 4 to 7 steps. wait for resoources,4z4z,wait for resources,4s4s,wait,4i,wait,4t4t So you spend more attention on resources because if you wait for the resources to accumulate to do it in one move you will get 7 zeals instead.
Therefore you either have to pay a lot more attention to your production. Or you have to have your gates linked to more than 1 button, in the above example to 4 seperate buttons. Also notice that the more units you put into your combinations the more buttons you will have to have your gates linked to. And if you want to switch the analogies of units in the combinations you will have to either reassign the gates or divert more attention to your esource count.
An example:
You want 1 dt 2 ht 2 zeals 1 immortal and 1 stalker:
Without MBS, without returning to base: 4z5z6h7h8d9i0s 14 actions (1-7 steps, your choice)
With MBS,lets say you have 4 gates assigned to 4,3 gates assigned to 5, without returning to base: 4z, double click a gateway in the control group,cancel,s,4, double click another gateway,cancel,d,3h, double click a gateway in the control group,cancel,i, 17 actions (1 step) Fewer actions to a minimum of 10 actions in 3 steps, which means you have to turn your attention to production three times instead of a minimum of one, if you want to benefit from mbs.
Of course you could actually assign 2 gates to 4,2 gates to 5,one gate to 6,one gate to 7,one gate to 8, but is that much better than SBS ??
Furthermore in the cases when you want to produce smaller amounts of units than your resources and production buildings allow MBS actually hurts you.
Example:
You just want 1 dark templar but you have 600 gas 800 minerals.
Without MBS you have to press: 4d
With MBS,you have 7 gates in group4, you have to press: 4, double click a gate,d.
When you begin to have more production buildings than hot keys, then is when finnaly MBS begins to make a diffference. Up until that point having each production building bound to a different hotkey is more beneficial, well unless all you do is produce a bunch of zeals every 30 or so seconds.
After this point, MBS allows you to skip the return back to the base part of the macro/micro circle at the cost of not having precise control of the amount of units you produce, unless you devote more time to macro than with SBS.
Again an example:
Lets say you have 4 barracks 12 factories and 2 starports. Without MBS you return to the base every 30 or so seconds and presicely decide how many of each unit you want.
With MBS you will probably have like 4 barracks in group 4, 3 factories in group 5 , 4 factories in group 6, 5 factories in group 7, 2 starports in group 8. Yes you no longer have to return to your base to produce the army, but if you turn your attention to production only once every 30 seconds you can only produce combinations of 4 barracks units, 3-4-5, 7-5,4-8,3-9,12 factory units and 2 starport units. In order to achieve different combinations you will have to : a) reassign the buildings, which requires you to return to their locations b) seperately select production facilities by double clicking them in their respective groups c) produce the desired units as soon as you have exactly the nesseccary resources for them, therefore diverting your attention to production more often.
TL:DR
In the early game MBS reduces the actions you would have to perform with SBS in 2 cases: A) You do not produce as effectively as you can with SBS. B) You pay more attention to your resources and production than with SBS.
In late game MBS allows you to retain your attention on the battlefield for longer, at the cost of either: A) presicion and versatility in your unit numbers and analogies. B) attention which is diverted to your resources and production.
but you never have enough hotkeys to be able to train from 20 gateways either...which is super inconvenient
No, lets compare: If you want to set the rally of 20 gates you have to select them one by one, then select the place you want them rallied to, either on the minimap, or on the screen (which means going back and forth), then if you lose control of that area you have to RESET ALL THOSE GATES.
Compare this to building from them, where they are most of the time tightly clustered and you can relatively easily (conveniently) just click click click. If you don't reset the rally points there's a pretty huge penalty btw.
As I've said countless times in the older iterations of this thread, it's all about finding the right balance. Hence why I'm opposed to some UI improvements, but in favour of others. Yes, it's arbitrary, but that's the only way to do it.
Good post, Klouvious. The decision of "when to macro" becomes "how to macro". Although I disagree with your point about versality suffering - you can have buildings groups in a specific manner to mirror the army composition you need. E.g. 8 Gates under 5 for Zealots, 3 Gates under 6 for Stalkers, 2 Gates under 7 for HTs, 2 Robos under 8, and Stargates under 9, or whatever. You'd only have to adjust it every now and then.
But in the end the result is contrary to what most pro-MBS people want. Macro becomes more about speed (aka spending your resources as you go all the time) as opposed to decision making (macro cycles, micro-to-macro decisions). This is, again, quite ironic. ^^
On February 25 2008 21:01 Klockan3 wrote: But really, currently in starcraft micro<macro since macro gives a safer win. However if starcraft 2 puts a bit more of the power towards micro and risky playing we would have a lot more games were the players use offensive strats and such to get an upper hand now that its harder to get it by macro means.
Well I mean first of all I don't really think micro is dead. Flash, Jaedong, Casy, Luxury have all displayed phenomenal micro play recently.
Like I said before, I would draw a completely different conclusion from what would happen if you 'upset' the starcraft micro/macro balance. I would say that the easier macro is, the easier defending micro pushes will be, and therefore the less people will attempt them as it will be impossible to trick your opponent or catch them off guard when they have to divide their attention less. Also, various micro tricks will become so basic and normal to everyone that there'll be no magic in the game there, and people will be CRAVING for a complicated macro build.
Micro and macro HAVE to be balanced imo. A pure micro game like WC3 really is such a different thing, and tbh you should just go play medieval total war if you want that. If you want to get stuck into a real manly (C tasteless) rts you go SC because it's actually challenging on many levels.
And I really want to hammer this: Micro is ONE level. No matter how much you want to put into it, it's still just one bloody level. You can't have micro on many levels, you just have a lot of micro. Levels involve different skillsets, whereas micro is always going to just be economising your units.
I posit that SC has the maximum amount of micro and macro allowed in a game which is STILL balanced between the two, and that you should leave the mechanics that make this the case alone.
On February 26 2008 00:14 maybenexttime wrote: Good post, Klouvious. The decision of "when to macro" becomes "how to macro". Although I disagree with your point about versality suffering - you can have buildings groups in a specific manner to mirror the army composition you need. E.g. 8 Gates under 5 for Zealots, 3 Gates under 6 for Stalkers, 2 Gates under 7 for HTs, 2 Robos under 8, and Stargates under 9, or whatever. You'd only have to adjust it every now and then.
But in the end the result is contrary to what most pro-MBS people want. Macro becomes more about speed (aka spending your resources as you go all the time) as opposed to decision making (macro cycles, micro-to-macro decisions). This is, again, quite ironic. ^^
Yes(Especially the first part) and no. You obviously, like so many before, completely forgot the new Players and the sub-korean-demigod skillevels. While suboptimal, MBS allows the new players a much smoother gameplay. Don´t only look at the effect it would have on the top players.
Yes(Especially the first part) and no. You obviously, like so many before, completely forgot the new Players and the sub-korean-demigod skillevels. While suboptimal, MBS allows the new players a much smoother gameplay. Don´t only look at the effect it would have on the top players.
Frankly, I think we have to look at the impact on better players first, the long standing RTS pros. They are the ones who are going to be playing it the most and abusing it the most.
While casual enjoyment is certainly important, I think it's more difficult to concentrate on a game that is fun casually that transfers to pro-level depth than to create a deep game that happens to be fun to play lightly as well.
On February 25 2008 21:01 Klockan3 wrote: But really, currently in starcraft micro<macro since macro gives a safer win. However if starcraft 2 puts a bit more of the power towards micro and risky playing we would have a lot more games were the players use offensive strats and such to get an upper hand now that its harder to get it by macro means.
Well I mean first of all I don't really think micro is dead. Flash, Jaedong, Casy, Luxury have all displayed phenomenal micro play recently.
Like I said before, I would draw a completely different conclusion from what would happen if you 'upset' the starcraft micro/macro balance. I would say that the easier macro is, the easier defending micro pushes will be, and therefore the less people will attempt them as it will be impossible to trick your opponent or catch them off guard when they have to divide their attention less. Also, various micro tricks will become so basic and normal to everyone that there'll be no magic in the game there, and people will be CRAVING for a complicated macro build.
Micro and macro HAVE to be balanced imo. A pure micro game like WC3 really is such a different thing, and tbh you should just go play medieval total war if you want that. If you want to get stuck into a real manly (C tasteless) rts you go SC because it's actually challenging on many levels.
And I really want to hammer this: Micro is ONE level. No matter how much you want to put into it, it's still just one bloody level. You can't have micro on many levels, you just have a lot of micro. Levels involve different skillsets, whereas micro is always going to just be economising your units.
I posit that SC has the maximum amount of micro and macro allowed in a game which is STILL balanced between the two, and that you should leave the mechanics that make this the case alone.
I agree with the concept that micro and macro should be balanced. However, I don't find conclusive evidence that MBS sends the balance tipping disastrously in the level of micro.
Also, there are many more levels than micro and macro. Terrain, game flow, large scale battle planning, army positioning, unit mix, map/resource control, scouting. A chunk of time taken from macro doesn't directly flow into micro because there is still so much else going on.
Even at a pro level, I think micro pretty much sucks. Casy's is pretty awesome, but that's a rare exception, and I think it's a shame that only the top few pros have enough time to actually micro their units effectively.
On February 26 2008 00:14 maybenexttime wrote: Good post, Klouvious. The decision of "when to macro" becomes "how to macro". Although I disagree with your point about versality suffering - you can have buildings groups in a specific manner to mirror the army composition you need. E.g. 8 Gates under 5 for Zealots, 3 Gates under 6 for Stalkers, 2 Gates under 7 for HTs, 2 Robos under 8, and Stargates under 9, or whatever. You'd only have to adjust it every now and then.
But in the end the result is contrary to what most pro-MBS people want. Macro becomes more about speed (aka spending your resources as you go all the time) as opposed to decision making (macro cycles, micro-to-macro decisions). This is, again, quite ironic. ^^
Yes(Especially the first part) and no. You obviously, like so many before, completely forgot the new Players and the sub-korean-demigod skillevels. While suboptimal, MBS allows the new players a much smoother gameplay. Don´t only look at the effect it would have on the top players.
The reason I am focusing on the more experienced part of the playerbase is because that is the part whose gameplay is affected by the UI mechanics the most. It is also these players in whose matchups you will actually see the benefits and drawbacks of MBS play an active role in the outcome. Furthermore it is about how MBS affects these players gameplay that is the source of the most controversy on the MBs issue.
The newer players will only see the positive effects of MBS, that is because they do not strive to achieve optimal production but an inferior production is sufficient for them. Anyone in his right mind can understand that MBS isn't going to suddenly make an average or bad player win any half-decent player. Yes a "noob" can press 4z and make 8 zealots at once, but to do that the other player must have allowed him up to that point : a) Survive !, any decent player would have scouted him by now, realized his opponent is a noob from a thousand different factors(build order, reaction to scouting, building placement,etc.. etc..) and probably put an early end to the game. b) create an economy that sustains 8 gateway production, that means the other player allowed him to have at least on expo. c) sat there doing nothing with his resources until they got to 800 and any half-decent player with the option of MBS will be producing more efficiently than that.
As for the statements that the gap between the top and almost the top will close due to MBS since their macro level will be the same.
First of all, MBS affects only the unit production part of macro, not the superior game sence, timing and reaction from witch progamers macro derives from. They still will know what (building or unit) to build, when to build and where to build it better than almost-progamers.
Yes decent players will be able to produce as current starcraft progamers do nowadays in terms of numbers, they may even do it better. However, the players at the progamer level, using their superior APM, game sence and situation assessment skills will achieve a much more optional production, both in term of numbers and also unit analogies and combinations than the almost-progamers of tommorow . That is because they will be closer to the optimal unit production system than progamers nowadays, which will still be humanly unachievable after a certain point in the game.
On February 25 2008 06:15 FrozenArbiter wrote: When it comes to multiple building selection for the purposes of setting rally points I'm 100% for it. This is because you can never have enough hotkeys to set rallypoints with your 20 gateways, so it's just super inconvenient.
I´m surprised to hear this. SBS being inconvenient is THE main reason (at least for me) for wanting MBS. On the other hand this argument is countered by stating that this very inconvenience is vital to SC gameplay.
fusionsdf just pointed it out, ending with a sentence that I find highly interesting: "...strategy is the only differentiator at the pro level, and thats a problem."
Strategy in a Strategy game!? It is supposed to be the deciding factor, Micro and Macro should be supporting ablilities to your Strategy! The winner in a strategy game should be the player with the better strategy, not the faster one. Some Strategies that could be possible (and impressive) in SC are invalidated since they are to hard to pull of mechanically - a shame in my opinion. When they DO get pulled of they are worthy Pimpest Plays though.
Speed shoul give you an advantage-fine but it shouldn´t be the deciding factor especially if that forces the game to be inconvenient.
As I understood fusionsdf the main SC Strategy would be to rely on the enemy being distracted elsewere by the UI to gain a advantage. Not smart proxies or something fancy like that, just praying that the enemy is looking somewhere else. SHOULD it be like that?
strategy being the only differentiator is a HUGE problem in an RTS...
For a given map there are really only 3 different outcomes 1) one strat is the strongest. As a consequence, with micro/macro ability being negligible, its the only one used -same strategies always used, games are predictable (and play out predictably because of lack of micro/macro mistakes), and boring to watch
2) Rock Paper Scissors. Various strats counter eachother. Because macro/micro mistakes dont weaken the counter, it essentially becomes build order based. Whoever picks rock vs scissors wins. Boring for the fan.
3) No dominant strategy. Micro and macro make less of a difference because micro/macro mistakes are less common. It becomes difficult for a player to gain an advantage without resorting to rock paper scissors hard counters. Games drag on forever, until players standardize on a popular one for whatever reason. We see the same relatively effective builds, the same flawless micro, and no strategic differences among players. In other words, long, boring, close games.
The only real way to get rid of this would be to have super fast map rotation - keep in mind progamers play 13 hours a day, and if micro/macro arent an issue when creating a build, it won't take very long at all for the strategic depth of a map to be fully explored.
The slower you rotate the maps, the more boring it is for the fan. The faster you rotate maps, the less the fan can keep up, the more alienated the fan.
So you can see why if micro/macro are unimportant for whatever reason, strategy wont hold up an rts alone and allow it to be a successful esport...It certainly cant be argued that removing the value of macro/micro and having strategy all important will improve the spectator value.
NOTE: for those of you who will inevitably attack this. I am referring to a hypothetical situation where strategy by and large determines the victor and macro/micro are unimportant. While I dont think MBS will completely ruin the value of micro/macro, I believe it will lessen its effects substantially.
On February 25 2008 06:15 FrozenArbiter wrote: When it comes to multiple building selection for the purposes of setting rally points I'm 100% for it. This is because you can never have enough hotkeys to set rallypoints with your 20 gateways, so it's just super inconvenient.
but you never have enough hotkeys to be able to train from 20 gateways either...which is super inconvenient
so then it becomes arbitrary what is deemed "nescessary" macro and whats not. In this example, making units with MBS bad, but setting rallies good. Why is there this thought? The only reason I can think of right now is because most players CAN'T mass rally now, and they would LIKE to mass rally. (kind of like the argument that people can't split their attention to macro from 10 raxes properly, but they would LIKE to) .actually think mass rally would break the game more than MBS unit training
What about we keep MBS for multiple training, and players can use use that extra freed up time for setting up rallies one building at a time. Well, that just not intuitive.
If MBS is implemented, would you rather it be implemented with "smart-training" (smart casting sort of) or not? Where the computer finds an empty rax or the rax with the shortest queue or the rax with a unit whos going to finish training the soonest. I think WC3 just queues it in the first rax, and continues, until there are no more resources. Not that anyone ever got more than two of any training facility anyways (in my experience)
The reason that SBS is important isnt because of the time it takes. Its not an APM argument.
The reason SBS is important is because it forces a great player to multitask. Every macro/micro cycle they must send scvs to mine, build scvs, build zealots/marines/whatever, micro units.
Those 4 steps are really the only ones that occur (or should ideally occur) every single macro/micro cycle.
combine MBS with auto-mining, and you effectively kill the macro/micro cycle. All 4 steps can be done without even going to your base. Which means you can watch your units all the time unless you are either starting upgrades (I should point out that since you will have more hotkeys free because of MBS, you could always hotkey your armories and never have to go back to your base to upgrade.) or making buildings.
Even if you eliminate automining, at some point in the mid/late game, making scvs and telling them to mine right away is going to become less important.
Now because a progamer can watch their units pretty much all the time, you do two things. First, you make micro mistakes far less likely. When they do occur, players will react faster and lose less units. Doing this also kills the macro/micro type players. Even with the game set up as it is in starcraft brood war, there are many players who spend 90% of the time watching their units. Then there are other players who focus on watching their base a bit more, and their units a bit less.
This is most pronounced in a conflict, whether the player is pro or amateur. If you engage an enemy, you must decide to make sure your marines dodge lurker spines to get a few kills, or run them out and focus on not missing your macro cycle. The players who watch their units for extra efficiency are generally considered micro players. Players who focus on making new units as fast as possible are generally considered macro players.
I may be repeating myself, but by not forcing a player to focus on their base, you get rid of this conflict and destroy both macro and micro styles of play. By doing so you make game-styles more homogenous, more vanilla, and less interesting for the fan to watch.
In addition to this, because you no longer have one player microing a unit around and capitalizing on the micro mistakes of his opponent - his opponent will be less likely to make a mistake and generally make less costly mistakes, because the multitasking requirement is less - you have players executing complex micro maneuvers and gaining no momentum.
For a fan, this is pretty boring. Many of the pimpest plays involve a micro mistake (or inattentiveness) compounded by the other player's micro.
As just one example, think how much less effective and impressive hold lurker would be...A lot of the damage is based on the reaction time of the terran, and in general, the more units that can suddenly die, the bigger and faster the momentum shifts and the more entertaining the game is to the viewer.
mass rally point is semi-reasonable (but not something I fully agree with) because it is not necessary every cycle and is more of an annoyance, rather than a tool for a multi-tasking player to try and gain an advantage.
@ fusionsdf: Well we know that viewpoint by now, but you have two mistakes in your thinking:
1. You seem to think that all micro tasks are equal. But they're not. There's micro tasks that are very easy (e.g. retreating or focus firing), and there are also some that are harder to do (e.g. spreading your marines nicely, or muta micro). There's also time intensive micro actions and those which are not. So even if all pros would only have to micro (which is not true, read on...) there would still be some better in certain areas than others. Microing is a complex field compared to macro mechanics. What you should do and what you can do varies greatly in each situation, map, matchup and game.
2. Read Klouvious' post on the previous page. He made a nice, very detailed post about why MBS will not destroy anything and, in fact, only help you in some situations. In many situations, you will have to use SBS because SBS grants you flexibility and total control. You can only use MBS if you want to mass 1 unit type only.
So, in conclusion, don't worry so much. Macro and switching to the base will still be there, and in late-game we will see slightly cooler micro actions because of the time you save. Everyone wins, and it will feel almost like SC1, yet be slightly better because there's a little bit more time for micro in late game.
MBS is not actually replacing SBS, it's more like complementing it in a useful way. You must use SBS if you want full control over what you produce (pros will often use this). MBS may actually be a trap for newbies: if they decide to build masses of 1 unit type because it's easy to do so, they will have an inefficient unit mix most of the time. But even with that trap it's useful for them to have it because they like having an easy UI, and they like focusing on their army.
Oh, by the way, I never include auto-mining into my posts here, and you shouldn't too. There's a different thread about that. Try to keep it seperated, because you get to wrong conclusions if you say "MBS is bad because MBS + auto-mining will destroy macro". I'm still unsure if auto-mining is good or bad, but I tend to think it's bad. But MBS itself is definately a good and useful feature.
On February 26 2008 18:50 0xDEADBEEF wrote: @ fusionsdf: Well we know that viewpoint by now, but you have two mistakes in your thinking:
1. You seem to think that all micro tasks are equal. But they're not. There's micro tasks that are very easy (e.g. retreating or focus firing), and there are also some that are harder to do (e.g. spreading your marines nicely, or muta micro). There's also time intensive micro actions and those which are not. So even if all pros would only have to micro (which is not true, read on...) there would still be some better in certain areas than others. Microing is a complex field compared to macro mechanics. What you should do and what you can do varies greatly in each situation, map, matchup and game.
Progamers practice for 13 hours a day and are already the best of the best. Do you really think there are micro tasks that are too complex for some progamers? Even if that was possible, the lack of multitasking would force them out of the top progaming ranks, because macro (see the macro/micro style thing I discussed above) is less of a skill differentiator.
2. Read Klouvious' post on the previous page. He made a nice, very detailed post about why MBS will not destroy anything and, in fact, only help you in some situations. In many situations, you will have to use SBS because SBS grants you flexibility and total control. You can only use MBS if you want to mass 1 unit type only.
I read it. Tell me, when you are protoss reinforcing a battle vs terran, do you spend time deciding to build various units? You will probably notice that almost every good protoss reinforces with zealots. In the same way, zerg reinforces with lings, and terran reinforces with marines.
Now, if its not a reinforcing situation, its perfectly possible for a player to hotkey 5 gateways to one key and 5 to another, or 6 to 1 key and 2 to another.... as long as your ratios are semi consistent, you dont have to go back to reassign every cycle.
How is this different from SBS? In SBS, there are not enough hotkeys to hotkey every gateway, every nexus, every upgrade building, every unit group.
Because a player cant possibly hotkey every gateway, they must multitask, they must go back to their base, and they must be distracted.
MBS will free up a few keys. Unlimited selection will free up quite a few more. automining will further reduce the need to multi task.
If a player wants to waste a few extra keys for more flexible unit production, how is that any closer to SBS? They will have free keys to do so anyways, and still be able to skip the distraction of going back to their base every cycle .
All of this is important because of reasons I pointed out in my last post.
So, in conclusion, don't worry so much. Macro and switching to the base will still be there, and in late-game we will see slightly cooler micro actions because of the time you save. Everyone wins, and it will feel almost like SC1, yet be slightly better because there's a little bit more time for micro in late game.
And less room for micro mistakes, which means less excitement
MBS is not actually replacing SBS, it's more like complementing it in a useful way. You must use SBS if you want full control over what you produce (pros will often use this).
You are drastically overestimating the need to build a whole bunch of units in a custom mix. 2 or 3 preset ratios - 5,5 - 8,2 - whatever - should be more than enough, and I think its unlikely that super specific ratios will give a significant advantage. If it did, you should have more than enough hotkeys to create a better ratio.
Bind 8 gateways to 3, 2 gateways to 4 3z,4z - 10 zealots 3z, 4t - 8zealots, two high templar
You get the idea. Since you will need maybe two hotkeys for all your units, 1 hotkey for all your nexuses...which still leaves you with a minimum of 3 hotkeys to do whatever you want with.
MBS may actually be a trap for newbies: if they decide to build masses of 1 unit type because it's easy to do so, they will have an inefficient unit mix most of the time. But even with that trap it's useful for them to have it because they like having an easy UI, and they like focusing on their army.
Oh, by the way, I never include auto-mining into my posts here, and you shouldn't too. There's a different thread about that. Try to keep it seperated, because you get to wrong conclusions if you say "MBS is bad because MBS + auto-mining will destroy macro". I'm still unsure if auto-mining is good or bad, but I tend to think it's bad. But MBS itself is definately a good and useful feature.
You mean that Huge one? Serious case of TL:DR imho.
Some points are by nature not debatable/right or wrong due to their nature. Like the need to pressue Players into mistakes being hardcoded into the UI. That is something that your enemy needs to take care of in my opinion. If your enemy doesn´t make mistakes you need to provoke them-while resisting your enemys attemtpts to do the same to you. At lest that is what I think. Maybe there are some people out there that never make mistakes no matter what. But these deserve to be unbeatable ;9-
well if you are unwilling to read, why are you even bothering to argue? For all you know, I've conclusively proved that mbs is bad, or since you havent read it, for all you know I am claiming that MBS is awesome.
There is absolutely no point disagreeing with someone if you refuse to read their points
Yeah, reading this thread alone takes up a big amount of time already, can't read and reply to everything... I'll do it in my next post maybe. Now I have to reply to this huge wall of text first... (yay)
On February 27 2008 03:31 fusionsdf wrote: Progamers practice for 13 hours a day and are already the best of the best. Do you really think there are micro tasks that are too complex for some progamers? Even if that was possible, the lack of multitasking would force them out of the top progaming ranks, because macro (see the macro/micro style thing I discussed above) is less of a skill differentiator.
Well, maybe not "complex", but too time-consuming, definately. One example would be muta-harass at two positions at once. This would be a very neat thing to do in ZvT if the Z builds more mutas than usual (for example, goes for a heavy muta into guard build). Jaedong tried it once on Bluestorm, but he didn't do it nicely because there's just too much going on to really do things like that. Even for pros. This was also the only game where I've ever seen a Z pro do that. In SC1, as it is, pros use up to 11 mutas + overlord (for stacking) and just micro with that group, the other mutas are inactive. See a recent game between Jaedong and Flash on Blue Storm where Jaedong did a mass muta into guards build (and won in the end). He had A LOT of mutas just standing around during mid-game. He could have used them, if macro wasn't so demanding. That's easy to understand, isn't it? You have to think a little bit outside the box. There will be new micro possibilities which would be too "hard" to do in SC1, trust me. SC1 simply doesn't allow so much because of the constant macro strain. It's just a logical consequence. The more tasks a player has to juggle, the less good he will be in each of them, and SC1 macro mechanics are almost too time-consuming, thus reducing the micro possibilities too much.
I read it. Tell me, when you are protoss reinforcing a battle vs terran, do you spend time deciding to build various units? You will probably notice that almost every good protoss reinforces with zealots. In the same way, zerg reinforces with lings, and terran reinforces with marines.
Now, if its not a reinforcing situation, its perfectly possible for a player to hotkey 5 gateways to one key and 5 to another, or 6 to 1 key and 2 to another.... as long as your ratios are semi consistent, you dont have to go back to reassign every cycle.
How is this different from SBS? In SBS, there are not enough hotkeys to hotkey every gateway, every nexus, every upgrade building, every unit group.
You have to reinforce with the unit you need. Zeals, lings and marines might be often the right choice but not always. For example, if there's tons of vults surviving in a battle and just a few to no tanks, you'll want to reinforce with goons and maybe templars. And the ratio always changes. It's not always the same ratio. That's the problem with MBS: if you use it, you really have to be sure that you need exactly this ratio. This is not often the case, unless you want to lose. It's a dynamic game, you play against your opponent, you must build units that counter your opponent's units, not always the same.
Because a player cant possibly hotkey every gateway, they must multitask, they must go back to their base, and they must be distracted.
Same with MBS. You won't always have to, less than with SBS, but still often.
And less room for micro mistakes, which means less excitement
Now that's an interesting statement. In essence, this means you want to make the UI deliberately "hard" so that players inevitably make all sorts of mistakes, so that it's more fun for the spectators? If you do that, you basically introduce more random luck elements. The UI shouldn't make the player do mistakes. The opponent should do that, by playing smart, by denying scouting, by making him "guess" (educated guessing) what you're up to, by attacking him at multiple fronts, and so on. The moment the player can be distracted by something else than his enemy, the skill aspect of the game is weakened. The spectators probably don't find such things exciting too if their favorite player does a stupid mistake yet again, and besides, they should enjoy the more awesome microing anyway. So, no, I think this is a really bad thing if you introduce "artificial distractions". This must be a game where everything depends on the skill of the players alone. Your opponent must distract you, not the UI.
Auto-mining and mbs are heavily inter-related.
Not really. But there's a separate thread for that, that's the main reason we should separate these things here. It just leads to more strange generalizations (statements like "MBS is bad because in combination with auto-mining it will ruin macro") and confusion.
We're going in circles yet again I think. Most of the arguments are old, just reformulated... There's just no solution in sight. Since I don't want to be the last idiot arguing here for nothing, I soon have to join all those who have already quit the discussion.
I DID read it I just wanted to convey that the post lacked a summary.
I just wonder about some of the more interesting statements that show up:
"strategy being the only differentiator is a HUGE problem in an RTS..." Makes you wonder what Real Time Strategy games are really about...
or
"And less room for micro mistakes, which means less excitement" This is worrying since it suggests that the UI should provoke mistakes... think about it.
You can´t really argue about points like that, which in the end is the reason the discussion is rotating. I mean how often did we get the "MBS removes Macro" issue with pages long "proof" pro and contra? I also had loads of posts about that to the point that I could only repeat myself. That´s why I avoid stuff I already argued about. The only meaningfull discussion right now would be about the gameplay principles since these are balance and beta independent but allow conclusions for the UI.
Is it really exciting to see the players make mistakes? Would they play perfectly and provoke stalemates if the UI was "good" enough? Are RTS about Strategy? Or Speed? Or economics? Or Diplomacy? What do the players want? Should we even care about what they want? (Just saying that they want more of the same is inconclusive - in that case no one would want a sequel)
Summary: Some arguments sound really stupid, the MBS discussion is basically finished, we should go deeper.
Well I think the general argument is that most RTS's suck ass and Starcraft pwns them and you generally want to work out why.
I was thinking that if perhaps all of these insane, n00bish UI additions were finalised, as long as the units in the game weren't too fast and weren't hardcounters, and you still played on big maps with good balance, I'd still probably like the game.
On February 27 2008 11:43 HamerD wrote: Well I think the general argument is that most RTS's suck ass and Starcraft pwns them and you generally want to work out why.
Well, to me it's easy to tell: because of its pretty much perfect balance (making it the best-balanced sci-fi RTS) and because it's become almost a "national sport" in Korea (if it wasn't, this site here probably wouldn't exist anymore). This makes people all over the world want to be as good as the pros, and constantly shows us where the skill ceiling is. It's very good for competitive play if you have such "idols". Other, newer games will have a hard time getting ground in Korea. All the pros and commentators are in danger, the spectators are used to SC1, and so on. SC2 will have a hard time getting established there as the "next pro game", even if it had the exact same UI as SC1. You don't replace something as big as SC1 so easily. Which is why I think that we will have a seperate league for SC1, at best. SC2, or any other game for that matter, is not going to replace SC1 there so easily. It will take time, if it happens at all. But in other parts of the world, SC2 will probably be a big success. So... once SC2 is out and doesn't gain ground in Korea at first, it doesn't mean it has to be bad.
Why do so many of you keep shooting blank bullets in the dark? SO many people are so 'mis-informed' it isn't even funny anymore.
Reasons why SC:BW became so huge in Korea are the following:
1) Internet and LAN Cafes surge in the late 1990s all over Korea led to the influx.
2) SC:BW requirements allow you to play the game on practically any PC. In other words, any Korean could play!! There were a few games that hit it big during this time including Lineage (one of the first Korean MMORPG's by NC Soft) and SC:BW to name a few.
3) Incredible balance (no argument here, but you have to remember what this includes: game length, well-balanced races, mechanics -- limitations of the UI give the player more 'CONTROL' of situations which allow for more 'MISTAKES' -- this is why you probably won't see another bonjwa for sometime because the ceiling is so high now, dexterity, commitment, etc.)
4) SC:BW is the perfect spectator sport and lucky for us it turns out to be a computer game. This goes back to game length and the fact it is pretty easy to follow on a screen. Now, going back to the example of Jaedong microing 2 groups of mutalisks... do you think a SPECTATOR can actually FOLLOW that crap without a splitscreen? I didn't think so!!
Sure, on the odd occasion they will attempt to micro two groups to show their superiority but the UI is there for a reason. If you include MBS as I have said many times over the game will become robotic and all about hard counters rather than soft counters and hence the balance wion't be there. Why do you think there are so many problems with WC3? You can blame it on a variety of other things including it is harder to balance a game with four races instead of three and that is one of the many reasons Blizzard won't introduce a forth one in SC2's multiplayer.
5) Left another thing out lmao. SC:BW a national sport? I'd use the WWE/WWF comparison that has been tossed around in the past. It has it's own niche market in North America and SC:BW has it's own in Korea, but once you go outside of those countries the numbers drop off significantly.
Wake up!
Blizzard tinker with the UI interface all you want, but please add some more limitations to what the player can and cannot do (oh yes, we're talking about you MBS) because I assure you the game won't be as competitive as many of the dingbats would have you believe. The simple solution isn't always the best answer!
I will end my post with the following: 'MBS cannot live up to it's own hype' (Showtime!: 2008).
QFT
Since SC:BW we've seen many games go down the MBS route and they've all failed and landed flat on their ass. In other words, they've all disappeared after a few years for several reasons including balance, developer's stopped supporting/patching the game, small communities, mirror matchups/no diversity in play, only hard counters (RPS) and the UI.
On February 27 2008 19:06 Showtime! wrote: limitations of the UI give the player more 'CONTROL' of situations which allow for more 'MISTAKES'
Shouldn´t that say LESS control? There is simply a fundamental disagreement here: I think that UIs that intentionally provoke mistakes are HORRIBLE! If the Developers have to resort to a intentionally bad UI for balance they would be simply lazy and/or incompetent!
Overall your post had lots of accurate information and good reasoning about the unique position of SC in Korea. But then you seem to change your mind and state that MBS would ruin the balance. This has been argued to death and that there is a semiconsens that we have to wait for the BETA untill we can come to a conclusion regarding that issue.
Surprisingly outside of that you deconstruct the (generalized) argument that the crappy UI made SC the top RTS for 10 Years. 1) Release date timing was perfect 2) Low system reqs 3) Incredible balance 4) Spectator friendly - though today there are better alternatives, C&C3 beats SC at least here by far. 5)It is a local phenomeon in Korea anyway
The simple solution is not always the best. True. Simple would be to Copy/Paste the old UI. Challenging would be to invent a new one that is both compfortable AND balanced.
The reason starcraft became a national sport in Korea is because it is perfect for spectators. One of the greatest things being that the best players are AMAZING at the game. You watch them play and your jaw is on the floor. Its incredible to see people doing what they are doing because you know yourself that its shit hard to do. Every game of starcraft I play, I get a better appreciation for what the pros are doing and it mezmerises me every time.
Differences in skill should be emphasized a lot. Running a 5 base economy shouldnt just be a part of the game. It should be something that only the best can do. Blizzard sets the bar of what is spectacular and what is mediocre. If I could pull off the same game mechanically as a pro, then as a spectator, I will not enjoy starcraft 2. As a player, I will have no motivation to get better.
Its no different from watching and mimicing your favourite basketball player. You dont train yourself to gain the game sense that they have. You train yourself to be able to handle the ball like they do.
On February 27 2008 19:06 Showtime! wrote: limitations of the UI give the player more 'CONTROL' of situations which allow for more 'MISTAKES'
Shouldn´t that say LESS control? There is simply a fundamental disagreement here: I think that UIs that intentionally provoke mistakes are HORRIBLE! If the Developers have to resort to a intentionally bad UI for balance they would be simply lazy and/or incompetent!
No, you keep on missing our point entirely. Look at it from my perspective/point of view and perhaps you'll understand what fusion and I are talking about (you cannot afford to be near-sighted when you go into any debate; you have to look at the entire picture or else ignorance will get the best of you).
Here we go:
The reason we say the player has MORE control is because there are more things s/he must do in order to win the game. In other words, the controller is in control of his/her destiny without depending on A.I. to do it for them. They have to do every component themselves and they cannot be LAZY or incompetent!!
It might just cost them the game. There have been many eras in SC:BW. To name a few: BoxeR, the Emperor of cute micro and pioneer of strategy; NaDa, bringing macro to a whole new level; OoV, the Cheater Terran who put the MAC into the Ro; etc.
Now we're seeing the best of both world's collide with such players like Bisu -- bringing new purpose into the Dark Templar; Flash -- technically sound against everything except for Carriers, Jaedong, InteR.Mind and the list goes on.
***
Back on topic:
From this point of view MBS gives the player LESS control because there are fewer moves they can make, i.e. game becomes more about the hard counters because there are fewer things for the player to do and as a result the game becomes more robotic in nature (player A does x player B has to do y). This is but one example.
So you see, it is through limitations that make the game MORE exciting.
We live in a world of impurities and imperfection. Perfection is boring and that is why many artists counter it with imperfect masterpieces. We find it more pleasing and satisfying because we draw all sorts of connections to it. It is more stimulating to look at. This is why we go to galleries and the theatre. It is undeniable.
The intention of the UI is to give the player the utmost control and freedom of controling every segment of the game rather than only a few.
A.I. is a fascinating idea, but when it comes down to player versus player you want to see all the variables play out. You want to FEEL like you're in control! No, you want to HAVE control!
MBS is nothing more than a dream in an ideal world, but we don't live in one. Why start now?
BW's UI isn't bad. That is a matter of opinion in which to this present day cannot be fully supported for there has never been a RTS with MBS that rised to the occasion. It is nothing but a dream.
This is where everyone gets all pissy because when it comes down to it. It becomes a matter of opinion and lucky for the Nay sayers there is more evidence to backup our claims to this present day until proven otherwise.
I have no problem with them improving a proven system that works. You have to learn how to crawl before you can walk and you have to learn how to walk before you can run. Unfortunately the RTS genre is still in its baby stages. We have very few well-balanced RTS video games to use as a reference point and right now SC:BW is it. There have been many test tube babies with MBS and it just hasn't worked out. They got aborted too soon. Why not grow an adult? 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.
On February 27 2008 19:06 Showtime! wrote: Since SC:BW we've seen many games go down the MBS route and they've all failed and landed flat on their ass. In other words, they've all disappeared after a few years for several reasons including balance, developer's stopped supporting/patching the game, small communities, mirror matchups/no diversity in play, only hard counters (RPS) and the UI.
Indeed there are many games with MBS that don't live up to Starcraft's success. However how many Blizzard games have failed to be successful since Warcraft 2 ?? And as far as MBS is conserned, how many Blizzard games with MBS have been a failure ?
Warcraft 3 may be a failure in your eyes ... but both :
Klouvious don't repeat yourself. I had the displeasure of reading practically every post and if you couldn't tell many of us who have been around for a while don't feel like arguing with people who are trolling the website. It isn't worth the time or patience and I highly doubt Blizzard exec's are reading these pages so it does nothing. But here I am yet again wasting my time.
Yes, WC3 has a bigger global fanbase but there are many reasons for this as well. Don't throw out wild numbers for the sake of it. You have to understand the plausible causes.
Here are some fun facts:
a) it came out several years after SC:BW. The consumer wants to buy the latest toy. Something that is exciting and different.
b) more people were hooked up online around the world than ever before! The Internet's big boom took place in the mid-1990s and like any other technology advancement it gets cheaper over time so more people have access to it.
c) Blizzard's success first started with the original Warcraft. Then came Diablo, WCII and their expansion Tides of Darkness. All of these games won many awards further expanding their markets. It is all about the lore. Of course people will overlook an older game and move onto a new one in which they believe to be better because of the visuals and so forth. Don't judge a book by its cover! These days it is all about the graphics. The RTS genre should have little weight on the graphics and more weight on the gameplay.
d) with every successful game you have more revenue. Blizzard has been bought out 2 times by the highest seller, Vivendi Games and now Activision, making every product they produce more marketable. They never had the advertising capabilities they had back then to boost SC:BW's reputation.
These are only a few examples.
Now then you tell me the level of competition between the two are the same.
They are totally different.
SC:BW has been around for a lot longer than WC3 and WC3 is already losing steam because of balance issues just like Orcs dominated the Humans because they have the Bloodlust spell in WCII. Although it looks like there are more things in play (heroes, items, creeping, etc.) the player is very limited in what they can and cannot do because of the UI interface. Making it more micro intensive and leaving little room for any soft counters. If player A does y player B has very few options.
"I don't know where the hell midas is getting all his units.......haha"
***
You hear the Korean commentators say something like this in televised events all the time. As soon as one battle is over there are some players who are ready to collide once again.
They scroll over to the player's base and boom another force is moving out to tango. SC:BW is already fast. Now try picturing something that is even faster.
Some of us had the luxury of playing the game at Blizzcon on the fast setting. Games were fast. Imagine playing the demo on the fastest setting. As a spectator sport it probably wouldn't work because too much shit would be happening on and off the screen. Right now the game has too many colors and it is too flashy for its own good.
1) I admit I can´t wrap my head around the argument that less control allows for deeper gameplay. By increasing content (new mechanics like Warp-in) you generate the need to adequately control them or they are effectivly nonexistant.
"The intention of the UI is to give the player the utmost control and freedom of controling every segment of the game rather than only a few. "
Please, do tell how SBS gives more control compared to MBS. You pretty much detailed how SBS removes control and forces the player to deal with that.
2) You must be a fan of EA Games. They perfected the art of producing a decent game and then rereleasing it ad absurdum. (Battlefield anyone!?) Well it seems to work for them and I have no doubt Blizzard could adapt that strategy. Personally I hope they don´t, call me a dreamer if you want.
You are right about the fact that this is a waste of time. I don't believe anyone will change his opinion because of what is said here, no matter how reasonable it sounds or how true it is. I too had the "displeasure" of reading everything that has been posted in this forum since Starcraft's 2 announcement, although I started posting only lately.The reason I even posted in the first place was to bring obvious, well at least to me, facts to people's attention, again. Such as that Starcraft is not the only successful RTS in the history of computer games thus it isn't the only reference for successful RTS games, the main reason for the success of an RTS is not its UI and Starcraft 2 having MBS, automine, unlimited selection doesn't make it an automatic failure. Not that I expected anyone's opinion to actually change hearing those things once again.
Obviously warcraft 3 is VERY different from both starcraft and starcraft 2. But I don't think anyone can deny that it is very successful. I once again have to resort to quoting myself :
Warcraft III Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne – Real-Time Strategy (1vs1, PC)
Played professionally all around the world with hot spots in South Korea, China and Germany, there are a few dozen "professional" teams. The game lacks a uniting body and has no definable world championship.
The finals of tournaments all around the world are considered to be the biggest tournaments to win. These include the six "Major tournaments" listed below as well as events organised by Blizzard Entertainment, televised Korean leagues, several tournaments held in China (IEST & WEF), ESL's WC3L Series and NGL One.
Warcraft III is seen as the competitive game with the second biggest playerbase, with the number players online at Battle.net ranging between 70,000 and 100,000 at any given moment. It must also be noted that the Chinese scene, which has over three million players, uses their own clients for online competition due to a poor connection to the outside world.
Wiki articles about Warcraft III competitions include a historical overview of "world championships" as well as a ranking based on them and a number of player biographies such as: Zdravko "Insomnia" Georgiev, Xiaofeng "Sky" Li, Dae Hui "FoV" Cho, Jang "Spirit Moon" Jae Ho, Fredrik "MaDFroG" Johansson and Manuel "Grubby" Schenkhuizen.
Now then you tell me the level of competition between the two are the same.
Please quote where i said that. I don't think I have used the word competition or competitive until now. I don't like the term competitive when it comes to computer games, I think it is too vague when it comes to defining what makes a computer game more competitive than another and can be interpretted in many ways.
All the fun facts you mention that helped in W3's larger playerbase are reasons that will lead to an even larger playerbase for SC 2. Whether you will like SC 2 or not, is obviously up to you. Whether it is accepted in Korea as Starcraft 1 was, is yet to be seen. As for the rest of the world, if Blizzard makes another amazing game, as it has managed to do until now without fail, Starcraft 2 will probably become the most successful RTS of all times.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
On February 28 2008 02:21 0xDEADBEEF wrote: 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.
Hell, if not for the heroes (or more the fact that the game revolves around them), creeps and lack of macro I'd probably be playing WC3 still. But it's hard to make such an assumption, as WC3 would be a completely different game if not for those things.
WC3 is intentionally like it is - in fact the very first concept of it was a Squad based RTS.You could even argue that it still is (Imho the numbers don´t really mesure up to "armys"). As such is naturally has different specifics than a pure RTS like Starcraft.
On February 28 2008 02:21 0xDEADBEEF wrote: 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.
wow. I don't even know how to respond to that...
maybe thats why you want sc2 to be a micro game
DB's post doesn't say that. He wants SC2 to have the strengths of WC3, without the weaknesses
weaknesses would be WC3 features like heroes, upkeep, "almost no macro" etc.
where does it say that he wants SC2 to be a micro game, just because he states WC3 is successful and it rivals the success of SC? Turn on a game channel in china and you'll see nothing but WC3 games being aired. Looks like success to me.
where does it say that he wants SC2 to be a micro game, just because he states WC3 is successful and it rivals the success of SC? Turn on a game channel in china and you'll see nothing but WC3 games being aired. Looks like success to me.
My impression was that Blizzard wanted to build a true successor to Warcraft 2, but the engine couldn't support many units on the system specs they wanted, so they made a game revolving around fewer units, and then they added the hero system to make it more interesting.
WC3 shows that you can design a highly competitive game that has almost no macro and is almost purely about army micromanagement. Which is pretty much what the anti-MBS side considers to be "impossible" or "not competitive enough". WC3's success proves that this isn't true. Contrary to WC3, SC2 will have real macro (just slightly less time-consuming than SC1's, so you use the little time you gain for better micro, as in WC3). I don't see how this game which has both elements should become a competitive failure, when even WC3 isn't one (although it basically just has one element). Unless Blizzard somehow fucks something up completely. But at least theoretically it's absolutely possible that it can become a highly competitive game as well, regardless of MBS or not.
The first thing I read about WC3 was that you were supposed to travel around the lands of Warcraft with your hero. He would have a few followers. And you would gain experience, find items, hire mercenaries, encounter famous characters, make moral choices, recruit more followers, etc.
I was surprised that when I first played the game it was just a straightforward RTS game, economy wise. I realized that they changed it a bit and that it would be an RTT game rather than an RPG. Let alone an RTS.
I played WC3 for 2 years and I do find it boring compared to SC, a lot more boring. T___T
I have to agree. I just found this game, 3 set tourney finals with everything on the line to be one of the most exciting games I've ever watched, in any e-sport.
It is relatively rare though that a Warcraft 3 game entertains me that much.
It's just a little proof though that War 3 is very competative, which means that MBS can't be proven detrimental to competition, as a counter example of an extremely competative game WITH MBS exists in Warcraft 3.
But as has been pointed out in the past: MBS has 0 effect on WC3 cause you have like 3-4 production buildings and spend 95% of your time microing anyway.
A better example would be Armies of Exigo which was a competitive game, despite getting 0 exposure.
yeah but WC3 and SC are totally different feeling games. WC3 is all about camping your screen in one location and endlessly flicking units in different directions until your opponent gets a bit unlucky or tired. There's no mineral harrass...taking the whole map...drops and stealth units (frequently) ..blah anyone could go on for hours.
You said it yourself, they are different games; you can't compare apples and oranges.
CS has no buildings and is competitive, therefore we have definitive proof that the existence or absence of buildings doesn't impact a game's competitiveness. Therefore we can get rid of buildings in SC2.
Does that sound like a reasonable argument to you? Of course it doesn't, because you can't compare games that are so different. Let me quote you again: "Clearly Warcraft 3 and Brood War are profoundly different games."
They're both RTS games and thus open to comparison. If you compare to Counter-Strike, DotA, Smash brothers, or Kart Rider, then Warcraft III and Starcraft are almost exactly the same. They're more like two different types of apple than two entirely different fruits (if we equate the domain of fruits to the domain of video games).
They are profoundly different as RTS games go, but Warcraft III proves conclusively that an RTS game WITH MBS can be extremely competative.
On March 01 2008 04:07 GeneralStan wrote: They're both RTS games and thus open to comparison. If you compare to Counter-Strike, DotA, Smash brothers, or Kart Rider, then Warcraft III and Starcraft are almost exactly the same. They're more like two different types of apple than two entirely different fruits (if we equate the domain of fruits to the domain of video games).
They are profoundly different as RTS games go, but Warcraft III proves conclusively that an RTS game WITH MBS can be extremely competative.
Yes but it doesn't prove that an RTS game like starcraft, with a focus on macro, can be competitive if you include mbs! MBS has next to 0 impact on WC3 as you simply don't do much macroing, therefore it's proof of pretty much nothing in this context.
However, as I argued above, I think Armies of Exigo offers some kind of proof that it's possible, despite never getting any mainstream exposure.
I don´t think that MBS effecting competativness is on the debate. The fuss is actually if it effects gameplay in a positive way. The strongest counterargument is after all "MBS destroys Macro". There was LOADS of argumentation over that but obviously nothing convincing enough yet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lets be clear about the fact that exciting WC3 games are rare though. I played a boring Starcraft game once, doesn't make the game boring.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
that's still slightly off topic cos i doubt they're gona have that in sc2 lol
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.
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.
Well I don't think it's cliche because I'm saying that I LIKE change when it's needed, but not when it isn't. I just think so much of SC doesn't need to be changed, the only things are the units, maps, mechanics, and a few UI issues.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Addendum: As long as its fun and forces multi-tasking
Second - I have no problems about MBS for supply depots and defenses and stuff. Only a a problem with buildings that produce having MBS.
I haven't read all of the pages before this post, but just look at how it only really took a dozen patches to make starcraft what it is today, whereas warcraft is on it's 21st patch and there are still issues...
The most likely possibility I see them trying to replace macro with is unit abilities, like having to load marines for the ghost drop pods and other things like that...
warcraft3 was a completely different game from SC aside from being another RTS. but I think it's key to remember that when you put too many races into a game it just gets too complicated... like extended rock paper scissors
I'm not too concerned with them making it over-complicated by any means, the standard mid-game unit mixes in SC1 games atm are so inflexible and run mostly the same in most matchups (note the 'mostly'). Having to really consider drastic variance in these mixes to counter an opponent you can't scout well will make a greater deal of chance in the game, and more apparent imbalance too.
Anyway, MBS...
I'd like to see it used and used well, my gut instinct says 'no' but that's probably one of many reasons why i've never really got into another RTS after SC/BW cos i can't adapt enough.
There's a real danger of keeping the game too similar to the original and not taking the opportunity to utilise changes in the RTS market which are prevelent for good reason, and i think making a game more accessable to new players is probably better than hedging your bets on the possibility of it becoming a progaming game, just because BW made it (it seems obvious but i feel it's by no means guaranteed if it turns out to be shit, tho you may disagree).
One of the greatest parts about starcraft and macro is that i, as a spectator, am able to get excited over something that has nothing to do with unit control (micro, spells and such). These different layers of starcraft make it troughout interesting. It doesn't even matter what was intended or not, what is a feature or the result of old ways of designing games.
The more i know how difficult something actualy is to master, the more i get excited over it. You can look at a tennis match and all you see is a player beating his opponent. You may be able to realise that some moves are difficult, just by common sense and physics. But if you played tennis by yourself, and you know how hard it acctualy is to be that good, you get sucked in to a profesional match on a hole different level.
I don't play tennis, played it once, tought it was too hard. I don't follow the scene at all, but i am still able to understand when a game is good. It comes automatically.
Now we have computer games. And since what you see is digital we have the power to change the game completly. To put it in other words. We can play basketball on a basketball court, and then play football on the same court. Tennis, hockey, you decide. If we wan't we can slice the court in half and make the field smaller. You get the picture.
That's why it is important to stay calm. We must create games with the right spirit in mind. Allways. And since we have so many games and genres, we must study why good games are good and bad games bad.
We are at a point where computer games are able to replace a real sport. Not completly, just from a spectators point of view. You have both, no discussion there. But the value is important. Just look at one of the big ass proleague finals. That is troughout impressive. And that's why i think we need to sit back, and let it swirl around in our heads for a minute. Engrasp how big this acctualy is.
Only then we will realise that the responsibility starcraft 2 has is huge. And we need to analyse starcraft from each and every direction. Every feature, every layer has to be considered.
Can starcraft 2 become a great game with mbs? Can starcraft 2 become a great successor of starcraft/broodwar? Can starcraft 2 provide the deepness that is required to stay alive? Can starcraft 2 carry hundreds of professional players, teams, leagues and tv stations?
See when you read these questions you will realise that there are so many levels of where starcraft 2 would have to succeed to take over starcraft. The best singleplayer in the world has nothing to do with progaming. A good multiplayer is no guarantee for a huge following and the important basis, the sponsoring.
I'm completly honest. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer. I have a tendency of course, but that doesn't mean that this is the only way. We can do nothing but sit back and hope for the best. Wich is quite hard, because you never know if blizzard acctualy puts up enough research in why starcraft progaming is so huge. The standard phrase "it's just a good game" is too simplified and "just another good game" might fail at what starcraft made possible.
And that's why i don't follow the hype much. There is this part in me that just fears the outcome. I believe it will be a great game nomatter what happens. But will it be able to be that good?
Hopefully it will have a big impact on the non-Korean world. For Korea, I don't see it replacing SC1 anytime soon. SC1 is just too big and established. Hopefully SC2 will get a new starleague and grow, but it will take a while until it can take on SC1 in terms of popularity and number of progamers.
And I definately want the game to be more accessible for the low and mid skill range. The problem with SC1 really is that you have to be too good and too fast in order to really enjoy many facets of the game. If you're fairly low APM and don't have enough time or intent to train, then whenever you play you will be 90% busy with completely basic macro mechanical tasks. Which just isn't very fulfilling for many players.
On March 04 2008 02:45 0xDEADBEEF wrote: If you're fairly low APM and don't have enough time or intent to train, then whenever you play you will be 90% busy with completely basic macro mechanical tasks. Which just isn't very fulfilling for many players.
Huh?
Thats only true if you are playing someone better than you and trying to win...which means you are playing competitively. If you are playing competitively, I dont think its too much to expect some practice....APM isn't a natural gift, and not all that valuable by itself.
If you want to play against someone your own skill level (or worse), then no, you dont have to spend 90% of the time doing that, because you dont have to have flawless micro. You arent playing for points either, so if you want to play 40APM, 1 base nuke rush, go for it. There is absolutely nothing stopping you.
On March 04 2008 02:45 0xDEADBEEF wrote: The problem with SC1 really is that you have to be too good and too fast in order to really enjoy many facets of the game.
edit: oh dear i misread ur post. my utmost apologies.
I'm speaking from the average perspective myself, but I include the newb perspective too. You completely missed the point btw. My point was that there's extreme pressure on you just to get the basic mechanics done. Whenever I play, I have to invest 90% of my APM into macro or else I won't have enough units, whether I play a bad player or a good one it's always the same. The UI puts a lot of pressure on me, without the enemy even contributing anything to the pressure yet. Which is why I want it improved. Oh well you edited it now... well nvm.
On March 04 2008 09:23 0xDEADBEEF wrote: I'm speaking from the average perspective myself, but I include the newb perspective too. You completely missed the point btw. My point was that there's extreme pressure on you just to get the basic mechanics done. Whenever I play, I have to invest 90% of my APM into macro or else I won't have enough units, whether I play a bad player or a good one it's always the same. The UI puts a lot of pressure on me, without the enemy even contributing anything to the pressure yet. Which is why I want it improved. Oh well you edited it now... well nvm.
do I have to pull off 40 apm ghosts to prove a point? If you want to play for fun, there is no mechanics pressure.
If you want to play competetively, then yes, you do have to have strong mechanics, but that is just as much because this game is 10 years old and has such an experienced playing base....
On the other hand, I have a friend who just started playing and has a decent battlenet (not ladder) record for 1v1 melee with like 60 apm and absolutely no understanding of builds (forge first pvt for instance) and still gets a few wins...so its not like if you want to play for fun there arent any options.
You just have to realize that if you want to play competitively, you are going to have to put in the work. Expecting otherwise is like expecting auto-aim in counterstrike.
i wonder if they'll have a BGH equivalent in SC2? They'd better have or else they'll lose a lot of users! I think MBS would make approximately no difference to that game style tho.
On March 04 2008 09:23 0xDEADBEEF wrote: I'm speaking from the average perspective myself, but I include the newb perspective too. You completely missed the point btw. My point was that there's extreme pressure on you just to get the basic mechanics done. Whenever I play, I have to invest 90% of my APM into macro or else I won't have enough units, whether I play a bad player or a good one it's always the same. The UI puts a lot of pressure on me, without the enemy even contributing anything to the pressure yet. Which is why I want it improved. Oh well you edited it now... well nvm.
do I have to pull off 40 apm ghosts to prove a point? If you want to play for fun, there is no mechanics pressure.
If you want to play competetively, then yes, you do have to have strong mechanics, but that is just as much because this game is 10 years old and has such an experienced playing base....
On the other hand, I have a friend who just started playing and has a decent battlenet (not ladder) record for 1v1 melee with like 60 apm and absolutely no understanding of builds (forge first pvt for instance) and still gets a few wins...so its not like if you want to play for fun there arent any options.
You just have to realize that if you want to play competitively, you are going to have to put in the work. Expecting otherwise is like expecting auto-aim in counterstrike.
You're right, but it isn't exactly what I meant. Let's say I choose to play with 40 APM (is that even possible, lol). Then, I can't ever keep up with the most basic of tasks. Ok, it won't matter if I play another 40 APM guy. But the problem is simply that you're being forced to play with a certain minimum APM just to get the very basics done in a decent way. Now a true newbie who doesn't build more than 10 SCVs and has 2 marines after 10 minutes and zero game understanding might not realize that he totally sucks, but let's assume that you have enough game knowledge so that you know what you should do, but doing these totally basic tasks is keeping you busy most of the time and thus preventing you from doing the more advanced (fun!) things. Or in other words: low-APM SC means doing the most basic things and nothing else. This is frustrating to new players, as well as seasoned but fairly low-APM players. In SC1, simple things like pumping marines from 5 rax and moving 3 groups of M&M around the map is already "hard" and requires quite a bit of APM. The "minimum requirements" to play SC are too high. You might say that's good for the competitiveness, and you wouldn't even be wrong with that, but it should be obvious that it should just scale better. Simple things should be simple, hard things hard. That's all I want. When simple things are hard, something is wrong with the UI.
On March 04 2008 19:16 Resonate wrote: i wonder if they'll have a BGH equivalent in SC2? They'd better have or else they'll lose a lot of users! I think MBS would make approximately no difference to that game style tho.
That is exactly the point. Why is BGH so popular in the first place? It isn´t some kind of revolutionary UMS map it just makes the game, for the lack of another word, easier. It isn´t official, it isn´t balanced but obviously it is (more?) fun than regular SC for a big number of players.
Shure WC3 has alternatives too but none of them are slightly modified versions of the original game (no upkeep maps are unpopular).
I am not saying that BGH is better than "vanilla" SC but that there is a reason many players prefer it to SC - why is that so?
Probably because it's easier (less need to expand, simple map), but maybe also because you're faster into the game. The first 5 minutes of SC are always boring and always the same. Every game you play you waste 5 minutes for nothing. On BGH and FMP you have an army much faster and can start fighting right away. SC2 will help there by making you start with 6 workers, accelerating the boring start phase.
On March 04 2008 19:16 Resonate wrote: i wonder if they'll have a BGH equivalent in SC2? They'd better have or else they'll lose a lot of users! I think MBS would make approximately no difference to that game style tho.
That is exactly the point. Why is BGH so popular in the first place? It isn´t some kind of revolutionary UMS map it just makes the game, for the lack of another word, easier. It isn´t official, it isn´t balanced but obviously it is (more?) fun than regular SC for a big number of players.
Shure WC3 has alternatives too but none of them are slightly modified versions of the original game (no upkeep maps are unpopular).
I am not saying that BGH is better than "vanilla" SC but that there is a reason many players prefer it to SC - why is that so?
One word: Stats. And ofcourse that its a lot easier to play than the normal game, you don't have to think about economy at all on those maps.
In starcraft 1 you can play any map for stats as long as it doesn't use triggers or changes the stats of units, in wc3 you can only play the official ladder maps for stats. If you could get stats for unlimited money, tons of easy creep exp, chokepoint maps in wc3 they would be played a ton also just like the bgh variants of sc.
And yes, i know that the stats of starcraft doesn't mean anything but players do suddenly care a lot more about stuff when they get numbers doing it instead of nothing. And since the official ladder maps will now be the only way to get stats those are the one that even the current bgh noobs etc will play, and the offshots of moneymaps that will get created will die under the pressure of much better real ums maps.
Like in wc3, it started with high gold maps, then 3 big gold mine maps, then 9 gold mine maps, then everything is free and costs no food maps, then they got outclassed by the typical spamcentered ums instead since they are better. In starcraft it stopped were you can't alter the maps more since anything more than what they have done isn't possible without losing the stats.
Nice, but you kind of dodged the point: why don´t they play the "original" game? Why do they prefer the "easier" gameplay? Is it a problem of the game or the players? If it is the game: improve it. If it is the Players: whyt to do? Unless it is closed beta you don´t have the luxury to choose your players. Blizzard even admited that they are slightly manipulating the playerbase more or less directly.
On March 04 2008 23:39 Unentschieden wrote: Nice, but you kind of dodged the point: why don´t they play the "original" game? Why do they prefer the "easier" gameplay? Is it a problem of the game or the players? If it is the game: improve it. If it is the Players: whyt to do? Unless it is closed beta you don´t have the luxury to choose your players. Blizzard even admited that they are slightly manipulating the playerbase more or less directly.
Because the original starcraft is very hard on about every angle making a straight up 1v1 overwhelming for most players, wich is why noobs like to play games were their skill is less important such as teamgames or any of the simplifications of the game such as moneymaps.
Have you never wondered why RTS is such a small genre after all, compared to FPS and especially mmorpgs its a very tiny genre. Well, its because the games are hard to play, and starcraft is probably the hardest RTS game to play properly out there.
Yeah, I agree that MBS/autocasting should not be added because... again, people who put in the effort to pay attention to everything that's going on is rewarded with victory.
You can't win in StarCraft if you're not outdoing your opponent, and I'd like to keep it that way.
Imo it's just watering down the most manly game. If you can't take the concentration of RTS then go and play some pissant bubblegame. Starcraft is about dedication and getting loads out of it.
Chess takes more time to master, but it doesn't have ghosts and siege tanks so it loses.
Why am I not surprised that we have anti-MBS posters not getting anything? No one here said that BGH/FMP is good, we merely guessed why so many people play it.
On March 05 2008 03:34 Klockan3 wrote:overwhelming for most players
That is the problem. Overwhelming means that players don´t feel challenged but well - overwhelmed. As argued before there is a difference between challenging and frustrating. If you don´t see any progress in your own training you will abort it. Of course Players need a competative spirit but gameside the question is how to encourage that.
On March 05 2008 03:34 Klockan3 wrote:overwhelming for most players
That is the problem. Overwhelming means that players don´t feel challenged but well - overwhelmed. As argued before there is a difference between challenging and frustrating. If you don´t see any progress in your own training you will abort it. Of course Players need a competative spirit but gameside the question is how to encourage that.
Yeah, both pro and anti mbs can probably agree on that starcraft is probably the hardest rts out there, at all levels of play.
Of course its easy vs the comp, but i talk about vanilla 1v1 play, then there is so much shit to think about that your average gamer gets a brain meltdown while others love it since it challenges them. This is probably the main reason Blizzard would go with mbs, it lowers the skill requirement for the game to be played in a comfortable way much more than anything else. Ofcourse it arguably kills a lot of depth at the higher levels of play, but you always have starcraft when you feel really hardcore.
But what i really wonder is, how can every anti-mbs person be so sure that putting starcraft 2 a little bit towards wc3 gameplay will destroy the game? And yes its just a little bit, you still have extreme lethality, you still don't have upkeep, you still don't have creeps, you still have dynamic expansionpoints, you still have a deep economy game, you still don't have heroes, you still have terrain importance and you still have 3 extremely unique races.
I repeat: But what i really wonder is, how can every anti-mbs person be so sure that putting starcraft 2 a little bit towards wc3 gameplay will destroy the game?
I repeat: But what i really wonder is, how can every anti-mbs person be so sure that putting starcraft 2 a little bit towards wc3 gameplay will destroy the game?
Because most of them thinks war3 wasn't a good game and mbs throws away lots of macro which they really like = lowers the skill gap.
On March 04 2008 23:39 Unentschieden wrote: Nice, but you kind of dodged the point: why don´t they play the "original" game? Why do they prefer the "easier" gameplay? Is it a problem of the game or the players? If it is the game: improve it. If it is the Players: whyt to do? Unless it is closed beta you don´t have the luxury to choose your players. Blizzard even admited that they are slightly manipulating the playerbase more or less directly.
Well look at how many NR 15 mins games there are as well. Should we change starcraft so military units dont unlock until 15 mins into the game?
The answer to why people play like this is simple. People have feeling like noobs. Regardless if theyve played the game for 5 hours or 5 years. People hate the notion that they are a lower ranked player. There are 2 routes to take when you come to this realisation. Learn to get better so you can compete with higher players, or artificially close the gap between players so that a good player is forced to play on the same level as a noob.
FPM and BGH close the gap between players. No-one can take a macro advantage. With NR, the players will not be attacked before they are ready. The game is pretty much decided by who can micro their carriers better.
This is the type of game that the pro-mBS are pushing towards. A game where macro is not a defining characteristic of players. Where everyone will have standardised armies, and the winner will be only the one that can micro the best during the 10% of the game when you are actually in combat.
Now if someone wants to make FPM or BGH for Sc2, they can go ahead. All power to them, thats what they enjoy. However the players who dont play BGH and FPM dont want to be forced into playing a simplified version of what the game could be.
The optimal difficulty is "scaling". It is very rare in Solo-games since it is close to impossible to balance. It means that the internal difficulty is based on the players skill, i.e. if he does good it becomes harder and vice versa.
In a multiplayer game the only difference between "easy" and "hard" should be the opponent. First step is to match up players of equall skill. Then their skill needs to translate into difficulty - that looks obvious but it isn´t that easy. SC itself has a good example for what I mean: Lurkers beat M&M. That holds true until the Terran player is good enough to "dance" his infantry, I hope you know what I mean. This reverses the matchup and therefore makes it harder for BOTH players.
The mechanics behind SBS (and other stuff that doesn´t belong in this thread) are static on the other hand. No matter how good your opponent is you always get the same "reward" for your effort. Against a "bad" player this doesn´t become easier - you just get more leeway. You can train and translate this against a Computer player exactly fine and playing against the computer is pretty much barrel fishing.
Edit: Example: Lets assume we were programming a fighting game. Lets assume we want to give a character a special attack - the fireball. Lets also assume that we already used up all buttons on the pad for "normal" punches and kicks. Obviously there needs to be a special command to execute the attack. Should it be very simple but not accidetnably triggerable like quarter circle forward punch OR very complex like halfcircle forward, forward down downforward (or even harder)? Both would accomplish the same, shooting a fireball. But when it is easier the fireball is part of the repertiour of this character, the harder option would limit it to "better" players and therefore give them a (bigger) advantage.
If we apply the hard option (extraggated) normal players would be limited to normal attacks - fair but boring. A easy control scheme gives the new players the "advantage" of being able to execute all "special" attacks and therefore remove the "skill" of mechanical execution of special attacks (note: combos are barely affected by this). The core question is: What is the core gameplay for the game? Is it about mechanical execution, strategy, feeling and prediction?
Easy controls would lessen the gap between noobs and pros by the amount of skill it takes to execute the extended special attacks. I´d say this is worth it to let everyone enjoy executing every attack and focus instead on proper application.
@ Fen: No one is arguing to make the game like NR or BGH. The issue is to realize that these games ARE popular and to fugure out WHY. The second step would be to figure out a way to encourage these players to play the "original" game. Up to now the reason for is argued to be a faulty ranking system. Also, the last time I checked you were not forced to join a BGH game - how exactly is anyone FORCED to play it? If your point is that without BGH your stats would "suffer" it is actually a problem with the stats and not the map. Official approval for maps to be counted could be a way. Players could maybe vote for a certain map each month to become part of the "rankingpool".
Maps are part of the balance just like unit values. Maps CAN be unbalanced for certain races/matchups - just plain checking for "melee" settings is obviously NOT the optimal method to determine rankingworthy maps.
I was wondering as ive read most of the posts on mbs but not all .. and was just curious, maybe someone who knows more about it than i do, does mbs in sc2 work like war3 in that when u have more than 1 gateway/rax/fact hotkeyed u cant see progress of units being built, and if that is the case that will probabbly force most good players to check manually on the status of units being built otherwise you would have to guess or go by timing on when to build more units which is not exaclty optimal for macro, so you wouldn't be able to check when to build more units like in sc where u press 4 or 5 during battles or while microing to check when u need to build more units..im not for mbs just thought id bring this up since i havnt really read anything about it, and after reading what moon had to say about sc2 today mentioning that control are very similar to war3 was just curious about that mechanic of it... and if it is like war3 in that way
From the Zerg news here: Progamer opinions Not a single bad comment about MBS. I especially liked Jaedong's (current #1 SC gamer) comment:
If I play StarCraft 2 (I assume they mean professionally?) I'll keep playing with zerg. In SC1 the zerg was a macro-specific race but in SC2 macro was obvious, but I think it requires more strategic and skillful techniques.
Which is pretty much what I was preaching the whole time in this thread.
Ok. Either MBS was removed already. Or someone needs to force feed Dustin all the MBS topics we had on tl.net:
"A lot of the very hardcore players are concerned about multiple-building selection because they think it reduces skill. Now I can go back and double-click on my barracks, select all five of my barracks, and build a marine. Before you'd have to click marine, marine, marine, marine across the entire base."
Either Dustin is a noob that doesn't even use hotkeys because it will only make him worse. Or MBS can only be used without hotkeys. And we have only been discussing it's usage with hotkeys.
On March 12 2008 01:49 BlackStar wrote: Ok. Either MBS was removed already. Or someone needs to force feed Dustin all the MBS topics we had on tl.net:
"A lot of the very hardcore players are concerned about multiple-building selection because they think it reduces skill. Now I can go back and double-click[b] on my barracks, select all five of my barracks, and build a marine. Before you'd have to click marine, marine, marine, marine across the entire base."
Either Dustin is a noob that doesn't even use hotkeys because it will only make him worse. Or MBS can only be used without hotkeys. And we have only been discussing it's usage with hotkeys.
[/b]
He has probably seen pros play upclose.. or maybe he hasn't.
If Blizzard were smart they couldve avoided this whole discussion by starting out saying: "WE are including an autoque feature".
That way noone would care about mbs and everyone would argue about this feature instead. Then after a lot of whining Blizzard could say "Ok, ok, you win, we will remove this feature" and suddenly most guys would be happy with mbs.
i've spoken to several of the people invited to play SC2 in korea. They all hated MBS and automing with a passion. many of them say it feels too much like war3 with the very easy interface and they super units (they called them heros) like the queen and the mother ship.
A Korean Progamer is worth the voice of like.. a hundred top foreigners... Which is worth the voice of a Thousand tl.net'ers, Which is worth the voice of say.. 10 thousand Casual players?
I speak in terms of how much weight words will carry. I don't want idiots to chime in saying "A Korean progamer is only 1 copy of SC2, vs thousands of others sold.." If Blizzard was just out for money, they'd release this thing in a couple months, sell millions and millions of copies, and then pull out their support for it. They are interested in making the single greatest RTS of all time. That's not created solely by sales.
My point is. Yeah, we need to convince some progamer, or maybe an Ex-progamer to start speaking up publicly about it. A frank discussion on their concerns on the project. I have no doubt in my mind that if NaDa said everything that Tasteless is saying, about how detrimental mbs and auto-mining are, then all the fan boys/girls will stand behind him. No offense to you Tasteless. I agree with you completely. But theorycrafting and MBS threads only go so far. Gogo peer pressure?
MBS arguments are exactly the same as anti-MBS arguments.
Both sides CAN be argued for. I'm just wondering why YOU MBS-ers want it?
You want to expand the community perhaps? You want more people playing? Well 2 things I thought about that:
1. if you make SC2 basically WC3 with worse heroes and in the future, i bet half the current WC3ers will just stick with WC3!
2. if you are 'dumbing down' a game, how can you not expect to just get more dumb people in it? More instant-gratification kids who refuse to play unless they have a veritable wheelchair of features. It can't possibly increase the community in a good way!
But oh! We'll bring pro's from other games, yeah! Bah, fuck that, all good pros who don't have an addiction to their previous game coming RUNNING to SC, because it is the major pro game.
I predict that with MBS, automine, autoqueue, soon probably auto-fight and auto-click; Starcraft will just be a battle of 3 or 4 decisions, instead of hundreds.
On March 15 2008 20:12 GTR-2-Go wrote: Just wondering, what is so bad with the tab-variation of MBS (if all Barracks are hotkey'd to one, m tab m tab m tab etc)?
I don't see anything really wrong with it at all.
Because you are still able to do all your macro from the the battlefield. The only reason to go back to base is to build new buildings.
On March 15 2008 20:00 HamerD wrote: MBS arguments are exactly the same as anti-MBS arguments.
Both sides CAN be argued for. I'm just wondering why YOU MBS-ers want it?
You want to expand the community perhaps? You want more people playing? Well 2 things I thought about that:
1. if you make SC2 basically WC3 with worse heroes and in the future, i bet half the current WC3ers will just stick with WC3!
2. if you are 'dumbing down' a game, how can you not expect to just get more dumb people in it? More instant-gratification kids who refuse to play unless they have a veritable wheelchair of features. It can't possibly increase the community in a good way!
But oh! We'll bring pro's from other games, yeah! Bah, fuck that, all good pros who don't have an addiction to their previous game coming RUNNING to SC, because it is the major pro game.
I predict that with MBS, automine, autoqueue, soon probably auto-fight and auto-click; Starcraft will just be a battle of 3 or 4 decisions, instead of hundreds.
Starcraft is just a major pro gaming game in Korea, in other countries its not really that big. For it to get bigger in the non Asian world it needs an easier interface and being easier to get into, the western market just doesn't like games that challenge them a ton from the get go or they will just stop playing. Guess why so many plays FPS or why all games have been made easier the past 20 years?
Thats why, if we want to make it big in ALL of the world we need mbs like features. And MBS destroying the game is not a fact, its an opinion. None can really say exactly why starcraft is so big since its the only game of that kind Blizzard have made, and only Blizzard make such polished games while other companies are too up tied with realism and graphics.
Imagine what can happen if they have mbs in it for example: 1. It doesn't spark in Korea due to this, but the rest of the world loves it since its not as frustrating for them to play as starcraft, have better graphics and still keep the flawless polish of its preceder making all other games incomparable. 2. It sparks even in Korea since physical macro doesn't really mean that much to them as people think. 3. Hmm, nope, thats really all that can happen, its not like starcraft 2 have any serious competition in the western market anyway, its not possible that it will not be a hit as long as it keeps the updated UI. Ofcourse you can argue that the UI wont even dent this, but at the same time i can argue that the UI wont even dent the korean market, both assumptions are just as viable.
Sigh, why havent you been banned yet Klockan? Your post contains absolutely no argumentative points whatsoever. I tried to rebut it, but realised there is nothing written that can be rebutted, its just crap. You make statements, and then give absolutely nothing to back them up.
On March 15 2008 20:50 Fen wrote: Sigh, why havent you been banned yet Klockan? Your post contains absolutely no argumentative points whatsoever. I tried to rebut it, but realised there is nothing written that can be rebutted, its just crap. You make statements, and then give absolutely nothing to back them up.
I'm sorry, your post got squeezed in between, wasn't against you at all, or did you really think that i wrote all that in 3 minutes? I edited my post with a quote to make it clear. I am not stupid you know, I have been in the mbs discussion from the beginning and if I were I would have gotten banned a long time ago.
But ofcourse lately I just post a few stick-ins since i realised that this war is pointless.
Did you guys look at the fpvod from savior playing sc2 ? Do you really imagine that MBS will give average players the same kind of macro as him ? He moves the mouse so INCREDIBLY FAAAAAAST. If you think that mbs will take away any kind of credit from his macro play, then I think you re retarded.
I think the major problem is that there are fundamentally different views about how gameplay should be if the game is "perfect".
Anti-MBS likes physical challenge, measuring skill mostly with multitasking abilities, and is happy that you basically can't do many things really well because you have to do so many things at once. Artificial limitations are welcome as long as they work toward that goal.
Pro-MBS likes to remove artificial limitations because they feel stupid (on principle, i.e. regardless of the result at first. The game has to be designed from scratch with that feature or else there will be balance/competitiveness issues), and likes the game to be more tactical with increased micro challenges. MBS will also likely make the game more interesting for spectators, because SBS macro mechanics and multitasking ability is not something you see on the screen. It's just something the players do all the time. 80% of the time the screen shows battle scenes, because that's of course what the most interesting part of the game is. So add in MBS and you'll automatically have even more impressive plays by the pros there.
Pages upon pages of discussion here have shown (though I didn't nearly read everything) that from a neutral viewpoint, there's nothing really wrong with either. Both can work, but you can't make everyone happy. There are many different skill sets in a RTS game like Starcraft, and the question is simply which ones you want to put the focus on, which ones should be the most important. Speed, multitasking? Then add SBS and maybe even more obstacles making the game harder and harder to play for each player, independent of his opponent's skill (so basically, playing alone would already be a challenge, lol). Tactics/Strategy? Then add MBS, nerf current macro mechanics a bit and watch as players do totally insane battles and moves (instead of A-click).
So in the end, the only thing that matters is how many people want MBS or SBS. And I think that there's lots more MBS supporters out there.
I'll end this post by mentioning once more that none of the Korean pros trying out SC2 in the past days have mentioned anything negative about MBS (and automining? Is that in the game too?). If MBS was the desaster that many think it would be, they would have screamed "rofl noob game, fuck it" etc. But the only ones doing that are far less experienced members from the foreign community.
@Famehunter: uh no, he was really slow there, but that's understandable because it's a completely new game and it was for fun anyway. But seriously, he wasn't fast at all. That was like 100-120 APM at most. He has 300-400 in SC1. Watch an SC1 FPVOD of him or, even better, Jaedong with 400-600 APM.
There is currently no substitute for mechanical skill, which is btw almost purely mental, gained trough practice, or what Blizzard calls 'twitching skills'
I personally don't like those skills that much. I think they should be secondary. But RTS competitive gaming is very primitive. We only have one game that does well and some games that come somewhat close to it.
MBS is a step in the wrong direction. It is a step away from competitiveness and towards arcade/simplification/McDonalds culture/easy fix, etc.
It's that mentality that is the issue of this debate. The pro-MBS people realize there is no substitute but want an easier game nonetheless. The anti-MBS side realises RTS games are primitive and based on realism and its either mechanical skill or no skill.
Sure, there are also decision making skills in RTS games, and SC has a lot more of them than other RTS games. And I think there is more decision making in SC than many pro-MBS people realize. And it's also harder to master.
But you can't make a purely decision making skill based compettive RTS game. If you remove all execution skill from an RTS, both mechanical and otherwise, then you get a turn based game.
Rather than reducing execution, which made SC progaming viable, add more decision making for SC2. Mature the decision making as much as the execution. Not the other way around. It's a step back.
We need to move away from casual games. SC2 needs to be an abstract game build around the idea of having a game in which players compete. A game all players approach like how a club chess player would approach chess; specific practice and training, long term dedication.
Not saying SC2 shouldn't be a casual game as well. But at the core it should be an esports game. Donut theory. Blizzard needs to do that. It would be the first game ever optimized for esports and made with esports in mind all the way through.
Each thing they want to add to SC2, the first question they should ask themselves should be: "Is this good for competitive gaming?" "Does this make SC2 a better esport?"
On March 15 2008 22:26 0xDEADBEEF wrote: @Famehunter: uh no, he was really slow there, but that's understandable because it's a completely new game and it was for fun anyway. But seriously, he wasn't fast at all. That was like 100-120 APM at most. He has 300-400 in SC1. Watch an SC1 FPVOD of him or, even better, Jaedong with 400-600 APM.
that was not my point. Good players will remain good macroers and its not mbs that will take this away from them. imo you could really see from that fpvod that the experience and practice savior has with SC is not something that anyone can achieve with merely a couple hours of play. And just wait til he starts playing the game for real
The fact that TL team raped everyone at the blizz offices also serves as good proof that people who already have experience with BW will not be complete strangers in the SC2 gameplay domain.
@BlackStar: What makes you think that there is no substitute? Why is WC3 such a success then? (man, I really hate these WC3 comparisons, but sometimes they just fit) And also, what makes you think that micro alone (along with reduced macro) can't be challenging too? It is also a form of multitasking (although you won't have to switch to your base so often): the faster (read: more skilled) player will be able to control more of his units better and coordinate attacks or attack+harassment much better than the lesser skilled player. And the best thing about this is that spectators will see it directly on the screen. Another problem with SBS is that if you include it again, the game will automatically develop into a macro-dominated game (happened with SC1 too). Sure micro and decision making is also important, but always less so than macro in normal length matches. In SC1, micro is very important in the very early stages and in the VERY late stages of the game (when the map is completely mined out), but not in-between (where almost all games are decided), which is a shame.
On March 15 2008 23:36 0xDEADBEEF wrote: @BlackStar: What makes you think that there is no substitute? Why is WC3 such a success then? (man, I really hate these WC3 comparisons, but sometimes they just fit) And also, what makes you think that micro alone (along with reduced macro) can't be challenging too? It is also a form of multitasking (although you won't have to switch to your base so often): the faster (read: more skilled) player will be able to control more of his units better and coordinate attacks or attack+harassment much better than the lesser skilled player. And the best thing about this is that spectators will see it directly on the screen. Another problem with SBS is that if you include it again, the game will automatically develop into a macro-dominated game (happened with SC1 too). Sure micro and decision making is also important, but always less so than macro in normal length matches. In SC1, micro is very important in the very early stages and in the VERY late stages of the game (when the map is completely mined out), but not in-between (where almost all games are decided), which is a shame.
Warcraft 3's micro is on a different level to starcraft's micro however. Units in warcraft 3 were made to have 800 health and survive 50 hits with an axe to increase micro play. Because your units dont die, there are many more micro actions that can be performed in a battle (longer battles equal more time to micro). Starcraft battles are fast and generally over quickly. Less time in the battles means that there is less that you can micro.
This is something that I think is being overlooked a bit. In battle, Warcraft 3 players and Starcraft players most likely have the same APM. In both games, the limit is hit where you have lots to do, and you cannot move fast enough to do it all. However you spend a lot more of your game fighting in warcraft than you do starcraft. Unless something is added to make players constantly fight, starcraft 2 looks like it will have a lot of dead space where the players arent challenged to be moving at their limits.
Isn't WC3 even more twitch skill based? Clearly micro has less strategy and tactics than macro and maneuvering and positioning your armies.
Not to mention the lack of multitasking which makes it easy to master. No huge mechanical advantage for progamers.
WC3 may be a success as a game, it is not as an esports title.
SC is not macro oriented. It has a balance between macro and micro where micro is more about tactics and positioning rather than spamming special abilities.
Very simple solution. Pro-MBS players vs anti-MBS players bo5.
My guess is that DEADBEEF and other anti-MBS players are trash at SC and WC3. Why should someone that has no demonstrable understanding of the game be allowed to comment and troll about it?
Maybe I´m idealistic but isn´t that what the dev team is paid for? To create a game that is both easy to play AND challenging to compete in? To be enjoyable to players of every skilllevel? If there is no "substitute" (i think that will more be balanced out with tuning rather than a whole new mechanic) they should create one. What is wrong with having blizzard develop the "gravity gun" for RTS? If they can´t do it who could?
Not easy to play, easy to learn the absolute basics.
Ooh, and they aren't trying to make a next gen RTS game. So they can't substitute execution skill with decision making skill.
And even if they tried, I am not sure how this would be done. They really would need to take a step as big as the one taken by Dune2.
Probably that game would be totally abstract, no realism whatsoever.
A new dimension needs to be added. Right now we have macro, micro and strategy with mutlitasking uniting them. We need a 4d RTS in terms of gameplay. Of course SC2 won't be able to be that yet. But right now it's more like 2d; micro and strategy.
Ok, this post is aimed at the reoccuring comment "spectators only care about watching the battles". I believe this statement is flawed and would like to point out what spectators really do want to watch.
To start with, watch this video.
Ive used this video before, but I love it because it is soo good at articulating this point.
I watch that video, and it sends a chill down my spine. However why does it do so?
I have no knowledge of this game. I know its streetfighter, but I have no idea what version. Ive never played it or any other 2d fighters for more than a few minutes. I do not know what button combinations are required to pull off what occured in this video. I dont know how hard it is to do what they do.
I am the spectator that doesnt know the game, but still likes to watch. The one that every talks about when they say "The spectators dont know or care whats going on behind the scenes, they are only there to watch the battle". However, does streetfight (or starcraft for that matter) look all that visually appealing? Not really.
What is enjoyable about this video is the crowds reaction. Now hundreds of people in that room obviously know Street fighter. They know what was actually occuring behind the scenes to cause what we saw on screen. They know the button combinations and the timing. And they all know that under pressure it isnt a very easy thing to pull off. So when they DO pull it off. These people cheer. This then moves onto the people who don't know whats going on. They see something on screen, and a bunch of people going beserk. They can put 2 and 2 together and see that what is happening is huge. Its hard and rare and it just happend. They dont need to know exactly why its hard. All they need to know is that it is. And so they cheer. And when the spectator sees a similar thing in the future, he will know that yes, this is hard to do and is special that the players are doing it and will cheer again.
This makes up the understanding of the spectator who doesnt play. He generally isnt aware why its skillful to see a certain event happen. But the knowledge that it is skillful is there. And the game becomes very exciting for this player to watch.
Pretty graphics will NOT make a spectator sport. Units killing each other does NOT make a spectator sport. What does make a spectator sport is feats of difficulty that only the best can perform. Sure a person whos never played the game doesnt know right off the bat what is easy and hard, but thats easily picked up by the crowds reactions to certain events. Why its difficult is not important to the spectator, only the fact that it is. Getting into starcraft is very easy, because you have a commentator going "SCOUUUURGIIIIIEEEE" and then a cheer from the crowd when 2 dropships get taken out. There are a lot of cues for the spectator to watch and go, ah that was somehting special.
So if you turn around and say "spectators only care about watching the battles" then you are wrong.
On March 15 2008 23:48 Fen wrote: Warcraft 3's micro is on a different level to starcraft's micro however. Units in warcraft 3 were made to have 800 health and survive 50 hits with an axe to increase micro play. Because your units dont die, there are many more micro actions that can be performed in a battle (longer battles equal more time to micro). Starcraft battles are fast and generally over quickly. Less time in the battles means that there is less that you can micro.
This is something that I think is being overlooked a bit. In battle, Warcraft 3 players and Starcraft players most likely have the same APM. In both games, the limit is hit where you have lots to do, and you cannot move fast enough to do it all. However you spend a lot more of your game fighting in warcraft than you do starcraft. Unless something is added to make players constantly fight, starcraft 2 looks like it will have a lot of dead space where the players arent challenged to be moving at their limits.
All true, but I fail to see why the last argument is a bad thing. If there's nothing happening currently, why introduce something to make something happen? I know you are under constant pressure in SC1, whether your opponent is doing something or not, but why should this be?
@naventus: The troll is obviously you. I'm not playing anyone because I'm inactive. And besides, you're trash too, because you're not at Jaedong or Flash level, so you clearly have insufficient understanding of the game too. There, refuted your "argument". Next time, come up with something better than trolling.
On March 16 2008 00:44 Fen wrote: Ok, this post is aimed at the reoccuring comment "spectators only care about watching the battles". I believe this statement is flawed and would like to point out what spectators really do want to watch.
To start with, watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtuA5we0RZU Ive used this video before, but I love it because it is soo good at articulating this point.
I watch that video, and it sends a chill down my spine. However why does it do so?
I have no knowledge of this game. I know its streetfighter, but I have no idea what version. Ive never played it or any other 2d fighters for more than a few minutes. I do not know what button combinations are required to pull off what occured in this video. I dont know how hard it is to do what they do.
I am the spectator that doesnt know the game, but still likes to watch. The one that every talks about when they say "The spectators dont know or care whats going on behind the scenes, they are only there to watch the battle". However, does streetfight (or starcraft for that matter) look all that visually appealing? Not really.
What is enjoyable about this video is the crowds reaction. Now hundreds of people in that room obviously know Street fighter. They know what was actually occuring behind the scenes to cause what we saw on screen. They know the button combinations and the timing. And they all know that under pressure it isnt a very easy thing to pull off. So when they DO pull it off. These people cheer. This then moves onto the people who don't know whats going on. They see something on screen, and a bunch of people going beserk. They can put 2 and 2 together and see that what is happening is huge. Its hard and rare and it just happend. They dont need to know exactly why its hard. All they need to know is that it is. And so they cheer. And when the spectator sees a similar thing in the future, he will know that yes, this is hard to do and is special that the players are doing it and will cheer again.
This makes up the understanding of the spectator who doesnt play. He generally isnt aware why its skillful to see a certain event happen. But the knowledge that it is skillful is there. And the game becomes very exciting for this player to watch.
Pretty graphics will NOT make a spectator sport. Units killing each other does NOT make a spectator sport. What does make a spectator sport is feats of difficulty that only the best can perform. Sure a person whos never played the game doesnt know right off the bat what is easy and hard, but thats easily picked up by the crowds reactions to certain events. Why its difficult is not important to the spectator, only the fact that it is. Getting into starcraft is very easy, because you have a commentator going "SCOUUUURGIIIIIEEEE" and then a cheer from the crowd when 2 dropships get taken out. There are a lot of cues for the spectator to watch and go, ah that was somehting special.
So if you turn around and say "spectators only care about watching the battles" then you are wrong.
I completely agree with your point of view but this does not prove that SC2 can not be as competitive as BW with the implementation of MBS...
On March 15 2008 23:48 Fen wrote: Warcraft 3's micro is on a different level to starcraft's micro however. Units in warcraft 3 were made to have 800 health and survive 50 hits with an axe to increase micro play. Because your units dont die, there are many more micro actions that can be performed in a battle (longer battles equal more time to micro). Starcraft battles are fast and generally over quickly. Less time in the battles means that there is less that you can micro.
This is something that I think is being overlooked a bit. In battle, Warcraft 3 players and Starcraft players most likely have the same APM. In both games, the limit is hit where you have lots to do, and you cannot move fast enough to do it all. However you spend a lot more of your game fighting in warcraft than you do starcraft. Unless something is added to make players constantly fight, starcraft 2 looks like it will have a lot of dead space where the players arent challenged to be moving at their limits.
All true, but I fail to see why the last argument is a bad thing. If there's nothing happening currently, why introduce something to make something happen? I know you are under constant pressure in SC1, whether your opponent is doing something or not, but why should this be?
Because this is a competative medium. There should always be something that a better player can be doing that a lesser player is not. While of course this wont be perfect, it is something that should be strived for. If you get into a battle, one person just attack moves his entire army, one person focus fires, and one person focus fires and moves the hurt units back, you expect that the person who is doing more should be adequetely rewarded for it.
Maybe the person who only attack-moves is limited by his APM and cannot move his mouse fast enough, maybe he doesnt see the tactical advantage. Regardless of why, everyone would argue that the person who does the better micro should be rewarded. This needs to be continued throughout the entire game. Those that do more smart actions get rewarded. Which is why anyone who argues that the game shouldnt reward people with high APM's is an idiot.
Now there will be micro in Starcraft 2, but it will not be a long drawn out process like in warcraft 3. There will be a much smaller window for a better player to show that he is better if micro is the only area where he can make more smart moves than his opponent.
Now if there are periods of time where there is no fighting, we have MBS, automine working for us. You can see how there is very little that a better player can do to gain the advantage in this situation. And this is something that does not work towards making a good esport.
EDIT: @ Famehunter. That post wasnt made to point out why MBS or noMBS should be included. It was written to rebut every argument from either side that states that "spectators only care about watching a battle". What I want to make clear is that the game must be hard for it to become a spectator spot. There must be a clear reason why the best are the best, not just subtle differences in game styles.
@Streetfighter post: Sounds reasonable, but still doesn't mean that I was wrong. In SC1, you clearly see amazing micro early in the game and less and less so as the game goes on. Big battles ensue, the only micro being displayed is pretty much A-click, retreat and a few spells here and there. We've reached the point where the players are so stressed with managing their economy and bases and units that they have to prioritize, they HAVE to ignore lots of micro moves simply because they either can't do it at that time (not enough APM) or because they think that macroing at that point is more important.
And the spectators, as I said, don't see that. They don't see these decisions. All they see is that there is less and less micro as time goes on. Sure, it's still quite epic with the big armies and all, and if the others all cheer they will do so too, but there is still a certain decrease in the quality of the battles. Now if players had more time for that, the battles would be spectacular again.
Imagine that macro was twice as hard and time-consuming as it is in SC1. The battles and micro would be quite pathetic and boring as a result, because you'd need like 400 APM purely for macro, leaving you with almost nothing for micro. The commentators can make it far more exciting than it is, but you still have to ask yourself: why is this already so hard that only pros can do it? Shouldn't there be more? Shouldn't it be even better? Shouldn't it be more spectacular?
On March 15 2008 22:26 0xDEADBEEF wrote: @Famehunter: uh no, he was really slow there, but that's understandable because it's a completely new game and it was for fun anyway. But seriously, he wasn't fast at all. That was like 100-120 APM at most. He has 300-400 in SC1. Watch an SC1 FPVOD of him or, even better, Jaedong with 400-600 APM.
that was not my point. Good players will remain good macroers and its not mbs that will take this away from them. imo you could really see from that fpvod that the experience and practice savior has with SC is not something that anyone can achieve with merely a couple hours of play. And just wait til he starts playing the game for real
The fact that TL team raped everyone at the blizz offices also serves as good proof that people who already have experience with BW will not be complete strangers in the SC2 gameplay domain.
First of all, it wasn't your point. T_____T Second of all, what does hand speed have to do with macro, or why would hand speed giving you an advantage equal to macro being important? ;;
Or a more extreme example: imagine that moving units was so hard that only pros can do it well. For example, because a single rightclick wasn't enough and you'd need to press like 10 different keys within 1 second or else the units won't move at all. According to your post, spectators would cheer because it's hard and they can't do it, but you still have to ask yourself: is this really great?
On March 16 2008 01:26 0xDEADBEEF wrote: @Streetfighter post: Sounds reasonable, but still doesn't mean that I was wrong. In SC1, you clearly see amazing micro early in the game and less and less so as the game goes on. Big battles ensue, the only micro being displayed is pretty much A-click, retreat and a few spells here and there. We've reached the point where the players are so stressed with managing their economy and bases and units that they have to prioritize, they HAVE to ignore lots of micro moves simply because they either can't do it at that time (not enough APM) or because they think that macroing at that point is more important.
And the spectators, as I said, don't see that. They don't see these decisions. All they see is that there is less and less micro as time goes on. Sure, it's still quite epic with the big armies and all, and if the others all cheer they will do so too, but there is still a certain decrease in the quality of the battles. Now if players had more time for that, the battles would be spectacular again.
Imagine that macro was twice as hard and time-consuming as it is in SC1. The battles and micro would be quite pathetic and boring as a result, because you'd need like 400 APM purely for macro, leaving you with almost nothing for micro. The commentators can add a lot of excitement but you still have to ask yourself: why is this already so hard that only pros can do it? Shouldn't there be more? Shouldn't it be even better? Shouldn't it be more spectacular?
Prioritsation is an important part of the game and should DEFINATELY be a part of starcraft 2. Players should never be able to do everything they want to do just like an athlete cannot run as fast as he would like or jump as high as he would like.
The problem youve outlined here with macro being favoured over micro isnt due to macro being too hard. Its actually due to the fact that the game balance and map balance favours macro over micro. When faced with a choice of micro or macro, it should be an even split, however macro actions seem to be the better option a lot of the time.
Maps have a very big impact on this. If you look at the general trend in progaming, maps have moved from being very low in resources (6-7 mineral patches per base) to being higher in resources (12-14 patches). Builds such as Fast expo are much more rewarding due to naturals being easier to defend and cashflow being higher. With more cash, you end up building more units, more units mean they are more expendable and you have to spend more time at your barracks and factories.
Game balance also has an impact. There is no point in microing some units in battle because attack-move works fine. For example, microing your lings around in late game zvp isnt going to help much a lot of the time and you might as well just let them attack.
That being said, ive never seen a pro just attack-move carriers into an enemy. As the game gets later, the weak cannon fodder units do get thrown into the battle with a-move, but the big expensive units still get babysat.
I dont believe the micro does diminish all that much as the game goes on. However I do see that macro is a more desired action from mid game onwards, but that is due to the large economies people have at this point in the game.
The solution to this problem is not to reduce the difficulty of macro, only to fix the causes of why macro is a better option than micro.
On March 15 2008 22:26 0xDEADBEEF wrote: @Famehunter: uh no, he was really slow there, but that's understandable because it's a completely new game and it was for fun anyway. But seriously, he wasn't fast at all. That was like 100-120 APM at most. He has 300-400 in SC1. Watch an SC1 FPVOD of him or, even better, Jaedong with 400-600 APM.
that was not my point. Good players will remain good macroers and its not mbs that will take this away from them. imo you could really see from that fpvod that the experience and practice savior has with SC is not something that anyone can achieve with merely a couple hours of play. And just wait til he starts playing the game for real
The fact that TL team raped everyone at the blizz offices also serves as good proof that people who already have experience with BW will not be complete strangers in the SC2 gameplay domain.
First of all, it wasn't your point. T_____T Second of all, what does hand speed have to do with macro, or why would hand speed giving you an advantage equal to macro being important? ;;
its rather obvious no ? Do I really have to explain it ?
On March 16 2008 01:44 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Or a more extreme example: imagine that moving units was so hard that only pros can do it well. For example, because a single rightclick wasn't enough and you'd need to press like 10 different keys within 1 second or else the units won't move at all. According to your post, spectators would cheer because it's hard and they can't do it, but you still have to ask yourself: is this really great?
This is a pretty extreme example now isnt it.
Spectators might not cheer, because I can imagine this game to be very boring due to a serious lack of variety with the lack of options to a player. However those that did play the game would be wow'ed by the fact that those players did get their units to move perfectly. Ever watched someone do Through Fire and Flames on expert. Its just dots flying down the screen, but if youve played guitar hero, its pretty amazing.
Cheering requires climatic moments. I can imagine your example wouldnt have too many. However imagine if your example was true and you saw someone play a game of starcraft as well as you currently play starcraft. It would be pretty fricken amazing, and when you saw a unit actually run away with red health, then youd probs be cheering.
On March 15 2008 22:26 0xDEADBEEF wrote: @Famehunter: uh no, he was really slow there, but that's understandable because it's a completely new game and it was for fun anyway. But seriously, he wasn't fast at all. That was like 100-120 APM at most. He has 300-400 in SC1. Watch an SC1 FPVOD of him or, even better, Jaedong with 400-600 APM.
that was not my point. Good players will remain good macroers and its not mbs that will take this away from them. imo you could really see from that fpvod that the experience and practice savior has with SC is not something that anyone can achieve with merely a couple hours of play. And just wait til he starts playing the game for real
The fact that TL team raped everyone at the blizz offices also serves as good proof that people who already have experience with BW will not be complete strangers in the SC2 gameplay domain.
First of all, it wasn't your point. T_____T Second of all, what does hand speed have to do with macro, or why would hand speed giving you an advantage equal to macro being important? ;;
its rather obvious no ? Do I really have to explain it ?
You better do. I can't see how his being fast in that game (which he was not...) has anything to do with being good at macro. Hand speed gives you an advantage in WC3, following your "logic," macro is important in WC3... That's just idiotic, sorry.
On March 16 2008 01:49 Fen wrote: The problem youve outlined here with macro being favoured over micro isnt due to macro being too hard. Its actually due to the fact that the game balance and map balance favours macro over micro. When faced with a choice of micro or macro, it should be an even split, however macro actions seem to be the better option a lot of the time.
Which is exactly what I think MBS will allow for: a better balance between micro and macro. Macro should still be there of course, but it has to be less time-consuming than in SC1, otherwise there will probably always be a dominance of macro over micro.
Maps have a very big impact on this. If you look at the general trend in progaming, maps have moved from being very low in resources (6-7 mineral patches per base) to being higher in resources (12-14 patches). Builds such as Fast expo are much more rewarding due to naturals being easier to defend and cashflow being higher. With more cash, you end up building more units, more units mean they are more expendable and you have to spend more time at your barracks and factories.
Game balance also has an impact. There is no point in microing some units in battle because attack-move works fine. For example, microing your lings around in late game zvp isnt going to help much a lot of the time and you might as well just let them attack.
That being said, ive never seen a pro just attack-move carriers into an enemy. As the game gets later, the weak cannon fodder units do get thrown into the battle with a-move, but the big expensive units still get babysat.
All true. I hope maps will be better in SC2 Although the carriers are really somewhat special: they are extremely expensive, so when you build carriers in PvT you won't have that many other units (you would have a TON of zeal/goon/HT if you didn't go carrier). So there's of course more time for you to micro the carriers.
The solution to this problem is not to reduce the difficulty of macro, only to fix the causes of why macro is a better option than micro.
That's a good point, and I have been thinking about this already, but I don't really know what a different solution would be like. One of the possibilities I came up with was simply increasing unit production time. When you can't produce 10 goons within 30 seconds, but it takes like 45 seconds or even 1 minute until they're done, the units will become much more valuable and you have to micro ("babysit") them far more than you have to in SC1, otherwise you won't have an army for a "long" time. This would maybe solve the micro/macro imbalance without the need of adding MBS. But still, I think that MBS is also a perfectly nice solution for this problem.
On March 16 2008 01:44 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Or a more extreme example: imagine that moving units was so hard that only pros can do it well.
This pretty much shows your failure in debating this.
Hehe, I have to disappoint you there. Although it is an extreme example, the core of this discussion is pretty much about the same thing: pro-MBS doesn't like the fact that relatively mundane macro tasks are as time-consuming as they are currently. If it's a simple task, it should also be easy to execute. Period.
On March 16 2008 01:49 Fen wrote: The problem youve outlined here with macro being favoured over micro isnt due to macro being too hard. Its actually due to the fact that the game balance and map balance favours macro over micro. When faced with a choice of micro or macro, it should be an even split, however macro actions seem to be the better option a lot of the time.
Which is exactly what I think MBS will allow for: a better balance between micro and macro. Macro should still be there of course, but it has to be less time-consuming than in SC1, otherwise there will probably always be a dominance of macro over micro.
Not at all. If it is more advantagous to macro over micro, then players will macro over micro. The only thing MBS will do is remove the situation where your forced to make a choice between one or the other. You will be able to do both.
The solution to this problem is not to reduce the difficulty of macro, only to fix the causes of why macro is a better option than micro.
That's a good point, and I have been thinking about this already, but I don't really know what a different solution would be like. One of the possibilities I came up with was simply increasing unit production time. When you can't produce 10 goons within 30 seconds, but it takes like 45 seconds or even 1 minute until they're done, the units will become much more valuable and you have to micro ("babysit") them far more than you have to in SC1, otherwise you won't have an army for a "long" time. This would maybe solve the micro/macro imbalance without the need of adding MBS. But still, I think that MBS is also a perfectly nice solution for this problem.
Yes, longer times to build units/unit producing structures, more expensive units/unit producing structures. They are the types of things that will tip the balance in the favour of micro more. MBS will not.
Of course it won´t. But MBS is not indented as remedy for Micro/Macro balance. It is supposed to
"At the same time, we want to give what is now a fairly standard RTS interface to a lot of players. There's a lot of low-skill and medium-skill level players who will get a lot of value out of this." (Bowder, from the Design Interview)
On March 16 2008 02:37 Unentschieden wrote: Of course it won´t. But MBS is not indented as remedy for Micro/Macro balance. It is supposed to
"At the same time, we want to give what is now a fairly standard RTS interface to a lot of players. There's a lot of low-skill and medium-skill level players who will get a lot of value out of this." (Bowder, from the Design Interview)
MBS would be a FACTOR in the process though.
Yes I understand this and I do know that MBS will be part of starcraft 2.
Now we move to the next part of the argument. If MBS is added for the purpose of helping the low-skill players, then we can implement the 1 unit producing building per hotkey limitation. Using hotkeys to build units from the battlefield is something that low-skill players generally do not do and will therefore not affect their game. However to the better players, the Starcraft style of having to go back to base to macro will be preserved.
This is a win-win situation. Lesser-skilled players can build large armies with a few clicks, while as the skill level increases, this ability becomes less useful as hotkeying production buildings is required.
So far the progamer's remarks about the game have been somewhat positive(?) They didn't seem to mention that much about MBS though, which is wierd... maybe they were just trying to be nice? The response to unlimited selection seems pretty positive too, which is surprising but good.
Anyways, it should be interesting to see what their genuine reaction to the game is once beta testing commences.
I don't know though, are there transcripts somewhere that unveils more of their reactions to SC2 in more detail?
They didn't mention it because they're really used to SC 1 UI so they didn't even use it, they don't really follow SC 2 developement (including MBS) most probably.
It's very unlikely that all 10 or 15 pros who have played SC2 lately didn't realize that there is MBS (or automining, if it's still in the game). The foreigners who were there probably all knew about it and used it, so they also could have seen it by watching them shortly. Besides, there's probably also a lot of media coverage of the game in Korea, mentioning the new features... we all know it, so why should the land of Starcraft not know it? If they really didn't know about these things they must have literally been living under a rock.
On March 16 2008 03:42 maybenexttime wrote: They didn't mention it because they're really used to SC 1 UI so they didn't even use it, they don't really follow SC 2 developement (including MBS) most probably.
On March 16 2008 04:17 HamerD wrote: yeah unfortunately i think SC2 is going to embody everything that sucks about the west:
1. instant gratification
2. easy
3. good looking
4. pretending what you're doing is hard
Haha, I think that you're wrong (not entirely though :p).. while WC3 wasn't everyone's cup of tea, it does have a successful professional esports following.. among a million other "western games," including your beloved Starcraft1 lol.
A bunch of progamers have been given the special opportunity to play an upcoming blizzard game before everyone else in the world. They are not going to turn around and start baggin it out. That would just be spitting in blizzards face.
Someone buys you a chocolate icecream. You would have rathered a vanilla icecream, but you dont complain about that.
i can not believe people actually think that MBS will make the game an esport outside of korea. to put it bluntly anyone who honestly tries to use that argument is a retard. War3 was used outside of korea because it was new and had good graphics. Korean esports was way ahead of it's time when they started using SC. Every major esport organizer i've talked to has said they didn't think they could put SC on TV because of it's graphics. Havn't you noticed that major esport companies outside korea ALWAYS put new games in their tournaments rather than seasoned and tested esports? SC is a very popular spectator sport, the GSL has now gotten way over a million unique IP hits outside of korea. And that's only the first major korean starcraft tournament to be casted, it was fairly underground and later tournaments are expected to be huge.
Every korean i've talked to who played SC2 thought the interface was bad. Every good foreigner (me included) who's played SC2 thought it was bad too. That should say enough.
On March 16 2008 11:18 Fen wrote: A bunch of progamers have been given the special opportunity to play an upcoming blizzard game before everyone else in the world. They are not going to turn around and start baggin it out. That would just be spitting in blizzards face.
As long as you believe that SC interface is the esport's unique and primal formula for sucess it will be a horrible interface and game ruining.
But not everyone needs to agree with that, mbs still has lots to show, and we cant realy say it hurts the game until we can see it being played in its most top level (witch no one did, because it isnt finished and no progamers had time to master the game)
On March 16 2008 04:17 HamerD wrote: yeah unfortunately i think SC2 is going to embody everything that sucks about the west:
1. instant gratification
2. easy
3. good looking
4. pretending what you're doing is hard
Haha, I think that you're wrong (not entirely though :p).. while WC3 wasn't everyone's cup of tea, it does have a successful professional esports following.. among a million other "western games," including your beloved Starcraft1 lol.
WC3's following is an insignificant dot compared to the following StarCraft has accomplished in Korea. And as Tasteless mentioned above, the foreign e-sports scene is filled with fools who ignorantly pick games with nice graphics and good ratings, rather than a game that would actually logically make a good e-sport.
On March 16 2008 14:43 MyLostTemple wrote: Every korean i've talked to who played SC2 thought the interface was bad. Every good foreigner (me included) who's played SC2 thought it was bad too. That should say enough.
On March 16 2008 14:43 MyLostTemple wrote: i can not believe people actually think that MBS will make the game an esport outside of korea. to put it bluntly anyone who honestly tries to use that argument is a retard. [...] Every korean i've talked to who played SC2 thought the interface was bad. Every good foreigner (me included) who's played SC2 thought it was bad too. That should say enough.
Sorry, your opinions alone are not good enough. Greater people have been dead wrong before. I'll quote a post from another forum:
"..so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value." - committee advising Ferdinand and Isabella regarding Columbus' proposal, 1486
"I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that stones fell from the sky" - Thomas Jefferson, 1807 on hearing an eyewitness report of falling meteorites.
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." - Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." - Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon." - Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.
"Such startling announcements as these should be depreciated as being unworthy of science and mischievious to to its true progress" - Sir William Siemens, 1880, on Edison's announcement of a successful light bulb.
"We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy." - Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1888
"Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." - Thomas Edison, 1889
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote…. Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals." - physicist Albert. A. Michelson, 1894
"It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere." - Thomas Edison, 1895
"The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force can be united in a practicable machine by which men shall fly for long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be." - astronomer S. Newcomb, 1906
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1911
"Caterpillar landships are idiotic and useless. Those officers and men are wasting their time and are not pulling their proper weight in the war" - Fourth Lord of the British Admiralty, 1915, in regards to use of tanks in war.
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." - 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard’s revolutionary rocket work.
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" - David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.
"All a trick." "A Mere Mountebank." "Absolute swindler." "Doesn't know what he’s about." "What's the good of it?" "What useful purpose will it serve?" - Members of Britain's Royal Society, 1926, after a demonstration of television.
"This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd lengths to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists." -A.W. Bickerton, physicist, NZ, 1926
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." - Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." — Albert Einstein, 1932
"The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine" - Ernst Rutherford, 1933
"The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]…presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished.” Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator's "Rockets in Space", Nature, March 14, 1936
"Space travel is utter bilge!" -Sir Richard Van Der Riet Wolley, astronomer
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." - The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957
"Space travel is bunk" -Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik
"There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States." -T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, 1961
"But what… is it good for?" - Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
How can you be so condescending when it's clear no one can know how this will play out? Tone it down and learn some humility, it might just spare you future embarrassment.
Those are awesome quotes, but to be fair, not entirely relevant. Nearly all those sources are doing the equivalent of what we do in the MBS discussion threads: theorycraft. What tasteless said is quite different. He is relaying the opinions of those who have already played the current build, ABOUT the current build. In other words, hes saying (I could be wrong!), that if the interface is to stay roughly the same until release, the game will not be as successful as Starcraft as an e-sport. To bring this back to the quotes, it would be the equivalent of this:
"It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the current model of aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must continue to develop." - Thomas Edison, 1895
And in that case, he would be correct. The airplane would still need another 8 years of work before it produced a successful heavier-than-air flight.
That said, I personally haven't given up hope on the current SC2 interface, though I haven't played it. It is still yet to be subject to real high level play, and its not likely to be until long into beta. Yes, progamers as well as other skilled players have gotten their hands on it, but that doesn't mean they were playing it the same way they would be playing it in a real tournament match. They couldn't even if they wanted anyways, they don't know the game well enough. Even in the realm of theory, I'm still on the fence for MBS as there are just too many variables to accurately assess its viability one way or the other in my opinion. I've yet to see an argument (even one of my own ) fully convince me in either direction.
You guys overrate Macro. I took up SC 2 months ago, Ive watched the pro scene for years longer though. When i started playing i noticed that micro is very easy in SC compared to war3. But the lack of some UI integrations (that most newer RTS have) made it difficult for me to manage my economy and production in the start. After a while, i discovered how to do these things. if you have production buildings scattered all over, its hard to produce anything, but if you put them close, the lack of MBS isn't really that big of a deal. Its just a different set of actions (not different skill) required to learn, to get them in your routine. After 2 months and a couple of weeks i can say that i macro very well, its not hard at all, micro is very simple, so i have covered the fundamentals of SC. However, the reason i lose a LOT, is not my lack of macro or micro, or APM (i had 250+ in war3 i have 200+ in SC). Its my lack and thorough understanding of many strategies i have to play against, my lacking of timing, and proper counter strats. In my opinion, Macro is overrated, its not that hard to learn and difficult to pull off as many of you state, and today, macro is not what decides games between 2 even fairly competent players, we can all macro, hence i don't have any objections to MBS. The victory comes from strats and tactics and timing, from game sense. What bothers me in SC and makes my games difficult is not lack of MBS but just 12 unit selection, and I'm happy that this number is raised in SC2. Also I'm sick of this praise Koreans attitude I see all over these forums. Yes they are the best in SC. They make a living out of it, they HAVE to be. Was it always so? No. Lest take a look at the early WCGs, BoXeR was almost eliminated by DIDI8(Bulgarian) once, and he played Elky(French) in the finals. In war3, the popularity of the game spawned many European pro teams, distinct styles (Euro and korean) very different for some time. Euro strats were more creative, while korean strats were more based on micro (ill just get this and this and Micro war with my opponent). Top war3 players are both Koreans and Europeans.
Ignorant cocky statements of the SC community:
1)You guys think that the SC pros will be on top once SC2 comes out. What makes you so sure. 2)You think Koreans will just "liek wtf pwn" everyone when SC2 comes out. Why do you think like this? 3)You think SC players will "liek wtf pwn" every war3 player. What makes you so sure?
On March 16 2008 20:01 eugen1225 wrote: You guys overrate Macro. I took up SC 2 months ago, Ive watched the pro scene for years longer though. When i started playing i noticed that micro is very easy in SC compared to war3. But the lack of some UI integrations (that most newer RTS have) made it difficult for me to manage my economy and production in the start. After a while, i discovered how to do these things. if you have production buildings scattered all over, its hard to produce anything, but if you put them close, the lack of MBS isn't really that big of a deal. Its just a different set of actions (not different skill) required to learn, to get them in your routine. After 2 months and a couple of weeks i can say that i macro very well, its not hard at all, micro is very simple, so i have covered the fundamentals of SC. However, the reason i lose a LOT, is not my lack of macro or micro, or APM (i had 250+ in war3 i have 200+ in SC). Its my lack and thorough understanding of many strategies i have to play against, my lacking of timing, and proper counter strats. In my opinion, Macro is overrated, its not that hard to learn and difficult to pull off as many of you state, and today, macro is not what decides games between 2 even fairly competent players, we can all macro, hence i don't have any objections to MBS. The victory comes from strats and tactics and timing, from game sense. What bothers me in SC and makes my games difficult is not lack of MBS but just 12 unit selection, and I'm happy that this number is raised in SC2. Also I'm sick of this praise Koreans attitude I see all over these forums. Yes they are the best in SC. They make a living out of it, they HAVE to be. Was it always so? No. Lest take a look at the early WCGs, BoXeR was almost eliminated by DIDI8(Bulgarian) once, and he played Elky(French) in the finals. In war3, the popularity of the game spawned many European pro teams, distinct styles (Euro and korean) very different for some time. Euro strats were more creative, while korean strats were more based on micro (ill just get this and this and Micro war with my opponent). Top war3 players are both Koreans and Europeans.
Ignorant cocky statements of the SC community:
1)You guys think that the SC pros will be on top once SC2 comes out. What makes you so sure. 2)You think Koreans will just "liek wtf pwn" everyone when SC2 comes out. Why do you think like this? 3)You think SC players will "liek wtf pwn" every war3 player. What makes you so sure?
You are correct in the fact that in SC, especially in the upper echelons of skill, macro is not that important when it comes down to the wire. However, the problem is lowering that skill level to the point where a noob can macro just as efficiently as what you call a "fairly competent player." If SC2 is to be a competitive e-sport, you should not lower the bar, you should keep it high. In physical sports, there's a word for things that lower the bar so that untalented people can compete with the better players. I think they're called "steroids."
As for the SC community being cocky and ignorant, I believe your post was pretty much the most ignorant or cocky thing I've ever read on TL.net. It is, of course, impossible to argue who will be better at a game that has not been released yet, but the fact stands that in the greatest RTS ever made, Koreans have held the position at the top for quite a while.
Yes, there was a time when Korea's domination wasn't so definite, but that was also a time when SC build orders weren't set in stone and everyone was still figuring out new ways to play. The fact is that in the decade since SC has been released, SC has become even more competitive (and arguably harder to succeed in).
In a recent interview with TheMarine and YellOw, they both talk about how they thought the skill ceiling had been reached years ago, and yet they continue to be proven wrong with new players like Jaedong and Flash. No foreigner since the days when SC was still being discovered has come remotely close to challenging these top Korean players now, when build orders have pretty much been worked to a science and unit counters are well-known.
As for SC players "wtf pwn"-ing WC3 players, quite a few of the top WC3 players agree that SC is a harder game. I think Tasteless mentioned this once.
Koreans will "liek wtf pwn" non-Koreans within couple months. That's because of their training schedules and techniques, because of salaries, and dedication. Gaming (professional for that matter) is not looked down on in Korea like it is in most other countries.
MBS keeps looking worse, but I'm still going to hope that Blizzard manages to implement it in such a fashion as to not kill macro the way it is doing now. It just seems like a shame to have to artificially lessen an interface just to make the game more competitive. Cutting it completely would be like sending Delta Force to war with muskets instead of M16s.
On March 16 2008 20:01 eugen1225 wrote: 1)You guys think that the SC pros will be on top once SC2 comes out. What makes you so sure. 2)You think Koreans will just "liek wtf pwn" everyone when SC2 comes out. Why do you think like this? 3)You think SC players will "liek wtf pwn" every war3 player. What makes you so sure?
The people who will be at the top in SC2 require a couple things:
A lot of practice time with the game. They more they play it, the better chance. Having more time to play it is always a plus.
The quickest to make dominant strategies. Even if the game is balanced, some strategies will take awhile to figure out. Grubby's recent Fickle Balance article covers the topic well. The analysis of the metagame of certain strategies is just harder to figure out sometimes, especially when its executed well.
Previous skill in the field. I don't think someone who has never played an RTS before will make it to the top. For one, they would certainly need high APM. They need to have some understanding of how an RTS plays out. They also need to be somewhat accustomed to the way SC2 games will play out.
So going back to those cocky statements...
1.) I don't think this is completely true, but there is some thought behind it. It just so happens that the Korean SC progamers are very well developed in each of these areas. It will give them a better chance. 2.) I don't really think this either. But just as with 1.), Koreans who are very in to starcraft are going to likely be ready for the above criteria.. 3.) Refer to the third criteria I listed. WC3 and other RTS players will likely have an understanding of RTS's and some will have good APM. But SC2 will certainly favor SC play styles over other games. Players used to gaining an advantage with their hero wont be given that opportunity in SC2.
As for your macro claims: Who cares if its not as hard as its made out to be. Thats completely irrelevant to the issue of MBS. No matter how hard(easy) it is, MBS will require less attention on unit production than SBS, meaning less attention on macro. Less attention on macro means more attention on micro. Personally, I don't know if this would be bad for the game as an e-sport (its simply too theoretical and too much is subject to change to draw conclusions), but many will argue it is.
In addition to that, some people just liked the macro aspect of SC more than the micro aspect, and were hoping that will be recreated in SC2. Maybe they sucked at micro or were flawless at macro, or maybe they just flat out preferred the large number battles over fancy footwork (even if they could do either). Even more likely though, is that they simply liked the BALANCE between the two in SC1. These people will obviously be more supportive of a system that splits the attention between micro and macro about the same as SC1 did.
Statements 1) 2) and 3) are not my views, but views i have seen a majority of ppl here have. Seeing how you comment on them, just proves me right. The only thing you will bring to SC2 from SC1 will be your fundamentals (APM, micro/macro). Learning SC1 fundamentals is very easy. Stating that macro is a hard part to learn in fundamentals, and from that deducting that putting MBS in the game will make this very easy, is flawed as an argument. I love SC. Its the best RTS out there atm, but i have high hopes for SC2, and I'm sure it will surpass it. MBS will not ruin the game, it will not make it 30 times easier like a lot of you think. The pure clicking required to pull Macro off effectively is not that high. I can take any war3 player with an apm higher than 150 and i will teach him to Macro effectively in a week. The raw process is not nearly as complicated as some of you state, hence it cannot hold as an argument of simplifying this as a bad move and a game ruining one. No MBS = normal difficulty; with MBS = easy difficulty. It is not how you would like it to seem: no MBS = nightmare mode; MSB = uber easy mode.
You've just pulled an unsuccessful strawman, sorry. No one's arguing that macro is APM demanding in SC or that it should be like this in SC2... We're talking about attention requirement...
On March 16 2008 23:38 eugen1225 wrote: Statements 1) 2) and 3) are not my views, but views i have seen a majority of ppl here have. Seeing how you comment on them, just proves me right. The only thing you will bring to SC2 from SC1 will be your fundamentals (APM, micro/macro). Learning SC1 fundamentals is very easy. Stating that macro is a hard part to learn in fundamentals, and from that deducting that putting MBS in the game will make this very easy, is flawed as an argument. I love SC. Its the best RTS out there atm, but i have high hopes for SC2, and I'm sure it will surpass it. MBS will not ruin the game, it will not make it 30 times easier like a lot of you think. The pure clicking required to pull Macro off effectively is not that high. I can take any war3 player with an apm higher than 150 and i will teach him to Macro effectively in a week. The raw process is not nearly as complicated as some of you state, hence it cannot hold as an argument of simplifying this as a bad move and a game ruining one. No MBS = normal difficulty; with MBS = easy difficulty. It is not how you would like it to seem: no MBS = nightmare mode; MSB = uber easy mode.
Uh you do realize that going from normal difficulty to easy is a HUGE step? IF MBS truly meant that, would be even more opposed to it than I am now.
EDIT: Wooooooow, just read your first post. You've played 2 months and you think you macro 'very well'..... Of course macroing when there's nothing else going on isn't hard, putting it all together under pressure is what's hard.
Add in MBS and there's a good chance it won't be as hard, as pretty much everyone from here who has played the game has said.
No, they probably weren't playing the hardest opponents of all time, but you can't just dismiss their experience either, it has to be considered and tested carefully.
On March 16 2008 11:18 Fen wrote: A bunch of progamers have been given the special opportunity to play an upcoming blizzard game before everyone else in the world. They are not going to turn around and start baggin it out. That would just be spitting in blizzards face.
Someone buys you a chocolate icecream. You would have rathered a vanilla icecream, but you dont complain about that.
But if they then ask you "Next time I buy you an ice cream, what flavor would you prefer?", it is NOT a good idea to lie. Sog said that Dustin didn't receive any internal feedback on MBS at all from the progamers. If they really do hate it and think it will ruin the game like Tasteless says, but aren't telling Blizzard when they ask for feedback, then they're useless as testers. Blizzard can't get a good idea of the extent to which MBS needs fixing/removing if the progamers they bring in for testing are withholding information.
Ive read this when i oppened this thread: "7. For the purpose of discussion in this thread, the term "Macro" takes the meaning given to it by StarCraft players. It means "Economy and Production Management", not whatever you think it should mean."
This is macro, the raw clicking required to manage unit production and economy, according to the post starter (and his supporters) MBS will affect just this. The raw skill required to do this (only this, cuz we are not debating what we think macro is, OP stated that and wrote it in stone) is not high, its not difficult. Doing it under pressure is another thing entirely, and anyone who has played any rts (and was good) will have no preassure, and will be able to addopt to this outdated concept fairly quickly (i have, and there are a lot more competent and tallented gammers than me out there). when i said difficulty change from normal to easy, i was reffering to Management only, not the entire game. The raw clicking required to manage production and economy is a very small part of SC, denying this, and giving it more meaning would mean spiting on SC, devaluazing every other aspect of this fantastic game, reducing the value of strategies, the invaluability if timing, the importance of surprise, and every other aspect of the game. SC is a very complicated game, it has evolved beyond of its programers intentions, and became something groundbreaking and standard setting in this world. Stating that removing a small part of it (by introducing MBS) will ruin the entire concept, is verry insulting to both the game, its fans, and progamers who have skills beyond what most of us will ever have, and the reason they are so good is not because most of us cant learn to macro like them, its because their entire game is so close to perfection. Throwing all that aside, and stating Macro is most important, and simplifying this will ruin the entire game is just in my opinion wrong and insulting, to everyone. You overrate macro, this is the point i want to make. Its not that hard to pull out. Because from the definition of macro, we can asume that what units you produce is a part of another game ability (situation analyzing, strategy, adaptation to the enemy), macro is just a means to realizing this, an isignificant change. most bad players dont lose because they cant make units, its because they make the wrong amount or the wron unit alltogeather (and from the macro definition in the thread starters post, this is not part of macro).
I'm no going to waste my time replying to that useless gibberish. Go back to MBS Discussion II, and understand that we're not against macro requiring less clicks but against it requiring less ATTENTION.
On March 17 2008 00:04 maybenexttime wrote: You've just pulled an unsuccessful strawman, sorry. No one's arguing that macro is APM demanding in SC or that it should be like this in SC2... We're talking about attention requirement...
Attention requirement eh? Well you need to pay attention at what you should make, this is strategy. Macro is the tool you use to facilitate this, even if you can macro and play without MBS, if you make wrong units, you are still screwed. The attention requirement to make these hard choices, game deciding choices, are still the same. Its like in an martial art, you train and train in the fundamentals, learning proper positioning of the body untill this becomes second nature, so when you lets say fight you dont think is my leg positioned the right way, you dont think about it, its just your normal behavior, a routine. Same with macro, with enough practise (more like getting used to) it becomes something you don't even think about, you just know oh i need hydras here, look at resources, realise you have the cash, and then decide "Time to make hydras" and now macro takes over. if you need to press "4 s H" or "4 s h ; 5 s h" its not that big of a deal. If you are toss, just press F2 or double click 4 to move to your gates and start selecting and pressing, the old way requires a few more clicks, and is a bit harder, but not that much that its groundbreaking. On the other hand lets say we have MBS and you put all gates on one number, you realize you need 2 temps, 2 DT and rest zealots, how will you do this? You will eventually go back to the old way of clicking like in SC, you have to, cuz removing 2 gates from selection (cloning like) and then building will eventually take up more time than just screen to your buildings and press them SC1 style, MBS will not change this. The attention required to make the right units at the right time will be the same MBS or no MBS.
I know my posts are long, but i like stating my arguments thoroughly, if my posts are annoying or disturbing, well i thaught i state my oppinion in this debate. An admin can just tell me I am out of line and to fuck off and i will.
The definition of macro is completely irrelevant to my point.
Macroing when there is nothing else going on is not hard. Macroing when you have to micro a couple of battles and expand at the same time, is. With MBS it becomes a lot easier to play 'perfect'.
Good? Bad? Dunno until we can beta test it, but it's potentially bad, something the SC2 developers seem very aware of.
Also, while the mechanical side of SC certainly isn't everything, why would I want to - possibly - make any aspect of the game worse (from a competitive standpoint)? I'm not die-hard against MBS, as long as it proves to work fine when they beta test it I don't care, but I disagree strongly with your opinion of it being an insignificant change.
On March 16 2008 20:26 maybenexttime wrote: Koreans will "liek wtf pwn" non-Koreans within couple months. That's because of their training schedules and techniques, because of salaries, and dedication. Gaming (professional for that matter) is not looked down on in Korea like it is in most other countries.
Sure. But the game needs to be difficult enough so that 6 hours of practice a day actually pays off.
Doesn't Moon practice as much as the SC people? And he loses to an inactive person?
Imagine Testie winning WCG, beating the Koreans and everyone else, after a long inactivity.
The reason Koreans are so good in SC has nothing, at least not directly, to do with the acceptance of society of esports, of course.
I am trying to say that the game will be difficult regardless of MBS. Practice will still pay off, MBS will make the game easier for new players and those not used to the SC system, but I am 100% sure that no good player will put all his baracks / gates / hatcheries under 1 key, hence the way we produce in SC2 will be very similar to the way we produce units in SC just a bit easier. I am sure that at the end of a match the player that plays a matchup better will win and that practice will pay off.
On March 17 2008 00:04 maybenexttime wrote: You've just pulled an unsuccessful strawman, sorry. No one's arguing that macro is APM demanding in SC or that it should be like this in SC2... We're talking about attention requirement...
Attention requirement eh? Well you need to pay attention at what you should make, this is strategy. Macro is the tool you use to facilitate this, even if you can macro and play without MBS, if you make wrong units, you are still screwed. The attention requirement to make these hard choices, game deciding choices, are still the same. Its like in an martial art, you train and train in the fundamentals, learning proper positioning of the body untill this becomes second nature, so when you lets say fight you dont think is my leg positioned the right way, you dont think about it, its just your normal behavior, a routine. Same with macro, with enough practise (more like getting used to) it becomes something you don't even think about, you just know oh i need hydras here, look at resources, realise you have the cash, and then decide "Time to make hydras" and now macro takes over. if you need to press "4 s H" or "4 s h ; 5 s h" its not that big of a deal. If you are toss, just press F2 or double click 4 to move to your gates and start selecting and pressing, the old way requires a few more clicks, and is a bit harder, but not that much that its groundbreaking. On the other hand lets say we have MBS and you put all gates on one number, you realize you need 2 temps, 2 DT and rest zealots, how will you do this? You will eventually go back to the old way of clicking like in SC, you have to, cuz removing 2 gates from selection (cloning like) and then building will eventually take up more time than just screen to your buildings and press them SC1 style, MBS will not change this. The attention required to make the right units at the right time will be the same MBS or no MBS.
I know my posts are long, but i like stating my arguments thoroughly, if my posts are annoying or disturbing, well i thaught i state my oppinion in this debate. An admin can just tell me I am out of line and to fuck off and i will.
Your argument doesn't hold. If I decide that I need two temps, two DT, and two zealots, with MBS you never even have to double-tap 4 for hit F2. You can keep your screen with the battle while maintaining production, due to the ability to bind buildings to a hotkey. Also, the fact is that although unit combinations matter, there are many points in the game where it is simply better to have ten units than no units at all.
In SC, it is difficult (though apparently you do not think so) to micro your army while maintaining production at the same time. One of the biggest parts of SC is the micro/macro trade-off. You must sacrifice one for the other. You cannot have perfect micro with perfect macro. Do not even attempt to argue this. The incorporation of MBS helps to eliminate that trade-off, allowing you to always be producing (even if it's not the right unit combinations) while you're fighting.
As for your martial arts example, as I said my post above, in any competitive sport, you still need to have the strength and endurance in your body to carry out the moves you want. I could have the greatest martial mind in the world, but without muscles, I would get my ass handed to me every time.
The strength, speed, and endurance is what separates the top from the bottom, in any sport. I'm sure I could think of ways to break a zone defense in basketball, but unless I actually have the speed, strength, and height of someone like Kobe or LeBron, there's no way I'm going to be able to do that. Part of the concern about MBS is that it closes the gap. A competitive game or sport should not have the gap closed - it needs to be kept wide.
Gap closers do the same thing to e-sports and sports alike, they just have different names. In SC we call it MBS. In sports we call it steroids.
On March 17 2008 02:07 eugen1225 wrote: I am trying to say that the game will be difficult regardless of MBS. Practice will still pay off,
Sure. But it's about professional practice. Not about practice in the usual sense of the word. And professional practice is very unusual even in competitive gaming in general.
SC2 should not just be a cool competitive game that requires practice to become good at. It should be progaming-viable.
Mechanically it should be as hard as SC and strategically/decisionmaking-wise it should be more difficult.
On March 17 2008 01:32 eugen1225 wrote: ... you realize you need 2 temps, 2 DT and rest zealots, how will you do this?
I made a post on this. With MBS the game has several ways to get a balanced army while being a lot quicker, multitasking friendly and easier than before.
But remember, more units>balanced army. Not to mention that often you just need to reinforce your army rather than replace it. Or follow up the main attack. Therefore, you often need the fastest unit. If you can press 9z during a 200 vs 200 battle to produce 24 zealots rallied at the location of the fight, then this is A LOT better than not producing them and producing a balanced army by going back to your base after the battle.
There isn't just one way to use MBS; the stupid way. You can use MBS intelligently. Sometimes you have a lot of time to macro, relatively speaking. Sometimes you have none. The reason SC is so macro heavy is because 'more units' are so much more helpful than 'good micro' in many situations.
Not using MBS is like not using hotkeys.
So go back and read my post.
So all the units may be set up so that you need to mix them for the best army. But if the macro mechanics still force you to mass produce one or two, then what's the point? Then if you are going to add MBS, because it's such a good idea, then maybe add an additional feature to it that just makes you produce the preset unit on each production building. You can set a default unit for each production building. And if it's selected you can press 'b' to build it. You can even queue it if you don't have the resources for it. You put all your production buildings under a hotkey and then you just press 'b' for a full perfect macro cycle. I mean, we don't want a stupid interface improvement, right? We want an intelligent one. MBS is powerful but stupid. Shouldn't it be smart as well if it's so great?
On March 16 2008 02:37 Unentschieden wrote: Of course it won´t. But MBS is not indented as remedy for Micro/Macro balance. It is supposed to
"At the same time, we want to give what is now a fairly standard RTS interface to a lot of players. There's a lot of low-skill and medium-skill level players who will get a lot of value out of this." (Bowder, from the Design Interview)
MBS would be a FACTOR in the process though.
Yes I understand this and I do know that MBS will be part of starcraft 2.
Now we move to the next part of the argument. If MBS is added for the purpose of helping the low-skill players, then we can implement the 1 unit producing building per hotkey limitation. Using hotkeys to build units from the battlefield is something that low-skill players generally do not do and will therefore not affect their game. However to the better players, the Starcraft style of having to go back to base to macro will be preserved.
This is a win-win situation. Lesser-skilled players can build large armies with a few clicks, while as the skill level increases, this ability becomes less useful as hotkeying production buildings is required.
Three problems with one-building-per-hotkey:
1) It's inconsistent.
Considering that the main reason Blizzard implemented MBS in the first place was that it was standard enough that focus players were confused when they couldn't do it (according to Rob Pardo's GDC talk), what is the use of putting it in with an even more specific restriction on hotkeying that only applies to unit-producing buildings? SBS would make it harder for players of other RTSs to transition to SC2, but at least its self-consistent.
2) Which method of selecting buildings are you going to use?
If you stick with shift-clicking, it will still take many clicks for lesser-skilled players to use MBS, undermining the point of including MBS in the first place in your words.
If you change to double-clicking/ctrl-clicking, players will have to resort to SBS if they want to produce more than one type of unit out of the same type of building, which hardly helps lesser-skilled players. Plus, it will make post-hotkey unit production easy, as the player just needs to hotkey back to their base, ctrl-click a gateway, and press 'z' to order zealots out of all their gateways. Assuming the player always organizes their buildings in the same positions, this could probably be done fast enough that the break in attention becomes a non-issue.
3) It makes forward bases non-effective.
One of the strategic pluses of MBS is that it allows the player to effectively produce from buildings at non-main locations (such as proxies or forward bases) in the late-game, thus making them viable strategic options. Making forward bases viable makes expansions more valuable, as it lets you build closer to the enemy, but losing the expansion becomes a loss in both economic production and productive capacity instead of just the former.
I'm speaking as someone who see SC2 forrmost as a game he wants to play, and love to the point to spend the time becoming decent at it. So my point is biased, as the point of the most involved in the e-sport scene may be. My personnal wish is to be able to discover a fair part of SC2 depth, without absurdingly having to forget using micro intensive units for months until I can keep production rate with outmacroers.
Neither do MBS or hotkey concern real noobs, it's a matter for people playing on a regular base. Of course these people won't rant on SC2 if SMS remains the norm. But they'll definitively feel something's outdated. It's not MBS only, it's the whole philosophy behind the UI at stake. Because the norm is presenting new features of rts UI, allowing more and more intuitive and transpartent control. Having the UI willingly hindered, won't be understood as a good choice, ever. It may be the most neutral, or cautious choice, but not the real satisfying one. And the next step should be ? The people catering most for the pro scene certainly foresee their favorite game in a distant future. But if for the second iteration of SC, the move is to stick with outdated UI format, what will be the third, the fourth releases? The same questions will arise, and if a proper answer hasn't been found, I doubt further evolution may possible, with now 15 + years of BW and SC2 behind us, and even more acute belief on what defines the perfect rts. The conservative vision of starcraft will be stronger as ever.
When we think of a game like chess, we can argue that the rules are engraved in stone and don't need any, any alteration. People don't rant because there is no novelty involved in chess or other games. But these have been refined for centuries, travelled through various civilizations. Isn't thinking that after 10 years and some light fixes the perfect formula for SCish RTS is before our very eyes quite audacious ?
Meh, I know that arguing for or against won't do any good, since the final decision is more of a gamble than anything else, theoricraft is like this. So let's propose for positive macro evolutions I'll take the SC definition of macro : "all actions required to build armies, gathering ressources included".My definition of "good" addition would be : "alternative actions enhancing macro objectives without strict necessity." Necessity will come of course from competitive environment.
Existing : By making alternate patchs of blue/yellow minerals, map makers may force players to manually dispatch their drone on yellow for an early boost. Casual player won't have do this, and may rely on auto gather. There are some reports of manual upgrade system for the zerg. A good move. Pro will carefully use the options they need, casual won't have to, unless they want an edge.
Propositions : Vespene eruption. On a regular basis, a geyser may enter eruption status, with output doubled, and 6/9 workers allowing perfect rotation. Eruption start is signaled to players and end occurs within a minute or two. Competitive players may want to shift they drones to havest more vespene and don't forget to send them to minerals when time has come.
A la SupCom, production enhancement. VCS may be used to accellerate production rate with a sensible additional cost (+20% speed, +20% cost)Players in need will have to dispatch them among their factories, without forgetting to remove them depending of context.
I don't have yet other ideas. But it's for the sake of presenting them.
Of course , interratial additions are more welcome because they make balance simpler. But here's the idea : allowing people to do more to enhance their macro, keeping simplicity for the basic tasks. People should feel that they are outmacroed because they did'nt get enough attention to various specific additions, not because they couldn't keep the the pressure on a tedious limitation. In order to works, all these additions must be rewarding and somewhat risky : attention is a ressource that should wisely spent.
On March 17 2008 02:07 eugen1225 wrote: I am trying to say that the game will be difficult regardless of MBS. Practice will still pay off,
Sure. But it's about professional practice. Not about practice in the usual sense of the word. And professional practice is very unusual even in competitive gaming in general.
SC2 should not just be a cool competitive game that requires practice to become good at. It should be progaming-viable.
Mechanically it should be as hard as SC and strategically/decisionmaking-wise it should be more difficult.
Why not make it mechanically easier than SC, but strategically/decisionmaking-wise harder than SC? That is if it is possible.. but it would seem that it would be with the new units/buildings/abilities in SC2?
Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game.
It's the same as adding auto aim to Counterstrike 2. Computer games have traditionally been mainly about execution. Even more so in the case of RTS games, real time was added so that execution would be added as well.
The execution difficulty of SC made it progaming worthy. Now, SC2 aims to do the same with the decision making, hopefully. I don't see why execution has to be easier. There is not a single good argument for that.
You may argue that you want to replace one type of execution with a more appropriate one. But that's another issue. And we all know that micro can't replace macro. Even Blizzard realizes that now, while they didn't do at first.
Not denying that maybe a purely decision making game would theoretically be better. But competitive games haven't advanced enough for that. And that's why I also play chess.
There will always be RTS-like games where execution is tested. There may also be competitive turn based strategy games in the future. Or probably another genre of games somewhat related.
But I just don't understand why one would add execution to the skills tested by a game that's supposed to be competitive and then level the playing field. If SC2 is going to test execution, then A+ progamers need to get an advantage over B- progamers. And that means it needs to be difficult enough. And that will 'hurt' those 60 APM players who played SC 8 years ago and never got into multiplayer but want to in SC2. But that can't be helped.
On March 17 2008 08:40 BlackStar wrote: Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game.
It's the same as adding auto aim to Counterstrike 2. Computer games have traditionally been mainly about execution. Even more so in the case of RTS games, real time was added so that execution would be added as well.
The execution difficulty of SC made it progaming worthy. Now, SC2 aims to do the same with the decision making, hopefully. I don't see why execution has to be easier. There is not a single good argument for that.
The problem is, there's a certain limit to how well the human brain can multitask, and SC on fastest comes very close to that limit. You could model it like this:
Time = Decision-making + Execution
If you want to add more time-intensive decision-making features, you're going to have to simplify something else, or you run the risk of people ignoring those features because they don't have enough time to effectively use them.
On March 17 2008 09:04 BlackStar wrote: You don't stop playing to think about something.
No, but you can never play faster than you think. Every action you execute is a thought, if that thought is not there you wont do anything. The rest is just the physical part of moving the mouse to the right place or pressing the right key, or even a sequence that is trained long enough to become a reflex so you do not have to think about that particular move creating biological macros.
Usually low apm comes from players thinking to slow, not moving their mouse to slow. I mean even FPS junkies can move the mouse extremely fast while still maintaining deadly precision. Whats the difference? You don't have to think a lot to realise that you should point and click at your opponents head.
On March 17 2008 09:04 BlackStar wrote: That makes no sense.
Making decisions doesn't take time. Well, it doesn't take time away from playing.
You don't stop playing to think about something.
Adding more decision making skill or depth to the game doesn't mean you have to make something else easier. Let alone just to compensate.
Take unit production for example. You have to decide what number and type of units you are going to produce in this wave based on a variety of information, and then you make the clicks to execute that decision. The decision takes time, it's just that most decisions in SC are simple enough that players can learn to make them very quickly.
But if you want to add more complicated decisions, then you have to worry about how much time is taken up by execution. Otherwise, everyone will prioritize the simpler decisions over the more complicated ones, unless the benefit of the latter is so great it eclipses the time advantage of the former.
More units and more abilities does not mean there are more decisions to be made.
Look at any other RTS - most of them have more options than SC, but actually the metagame is extremely limited. Even WC3 is much more limited than SC (1-2 game trees per race per map). It is very doubtful and probably infeasible to expect SC2 to have too much more decision making than SC1.
But, for the sake of argument - consider there to be 25% more decisions to be made. Then say on a given matchup on a given map, you have basically 1 more possible game tree (maybe another opening, another midgame timing). Do you think this would compensate for the lack of mechanical demands? You don't think a pro would immediately know what to do? Maybe you might need the time to think through the decision process - but for anyone practiced enough - it's automatic and instant.
The only exemption here is something like chess where there are more game trees than the total processing power of the universe. Computer games are fundamentally not chess because there are in fact more restraints on game flow.
That's a good point. I think there should develop a new genre from RTS games where there are many many more 'game trees' which the game can follow.
I mean, right now if you open with a proxy cheese, if that attack does some damage but is actually defended so that both players are equal, then the middle and late game will be basically standard.
In some way the gameplay should be more dynamic so that each game is more unique and less linear.
One way to do that is to use the map as a dynamic factor in the game. Imagine the map is not just the map like it is now, but that it is also the playing board for a go-like game. Players basically 'edit' the map while playing the game as usual. And how the map evolves during the game of course also influences the basic gameplay we already have.
On March 17 2008 09:45 naventus wrote: More units and more abilities does not mean there are more decisions to be made.
Look at any other RTS - most of them have more options than SC, but actually the metagame is extremely limited. Even WC3 is much more limited than SC (1-2 game trees per race per map). It is very doubtful and probably infeasible to expect SC2 to have too much more decision making than SC1.
But, for the sake of argument - consider there to be 25% more decisions to be made. Then say on a given matchup on a given map, you have basically 1 more possible game tree (maybe another opening, another midgame timing). Do you think this would compensate for the lack of mechanical demands? You don't think a pro would immediately know what to do? Maybe you might need the time to think through the decision process - but for anyone practiced enough - it's automatic and instant.....
Right, but isn't the mechanical execution part of the game just as automatic/instant?
Its just my opinion that strategy/multitasking is the more interesting part of the game than the mechanical execution part. I'd rather the game be developed to have a much deeper/complex gameplay when it comes to strategy. While I acknowledge the immense skills it takes to be a keyboard wizard, it just doesn't appeal to me that much. I'd like to think I'm more of a general rather than a squad leader.. which was the case in Warcraft 3.
And again in my humble opinion, its the crazy/risky/unique strategies that progamers pull off onscreen that amazes the audience. I think it should be the complexity of the strategies that make it difficult for above average/decent/average/noob players to duplicate rather than the mechanical aspect.
1. Any given strategy can be duplicated even by D level players. Knowing when to duplicate it is a different issue - this is what makes strategy exciting and compelling.
I also want to point out that great strategy doesn't have to be complex. It's only complex in the sense that you need to really understand everything about the game/whatever subject to come up with it in the first place. But looking back, we might say that a lot of the things that players invented might seem obvious now.
2. You mentioned multitasking is an interesting part of the game. The issue is not that MBS removes keyboard presses, but that it removes multitasking.
3. The fact is that even the most complex decisions can be trained to be instantaneous, or close to it. Examples include brilliant mathematicians, great chess players, etc. - anyone that is sufficiently great enough at their art will have mastered it to the extent where their understanding is intuitive. There is no decision in a RTS complicated enough to take 10 seconds every minute. Adding more abilities, techs, or upgrades will not change that.
What I am saying is this - for average players, they need to understand (and perhaps never will) that no matter how smart they think they are, there's no good game where you can expect to sit there without rigorous training and somehow "outthink" a better player. You aren't a general, you can't roleplay one because you are a fucking newb.
I point this out because your opinions are NOT valid. Would you, as an amateur painter, go to an art forum and claim Van Gogh's works are deeply flawed? Why is it then that you think you have some sort of grasp of SC that a better player doesn't have? Have some humility and STFU.
Isnt multitasking and quick decision making what make up a rts, seems all the people that seem to want to be able to out think their opponent should look for some good turn based stategy games...meh
Somehow, most competitive games have been designed as games in the first and then talented and obsessive players stirred and pushed their mechanics to the extreme toward the highest level of competition. Game developpers may or may not have followed the trend, letting balance crumble or like Blizzard, catering to the competitive scene. To the point where people can make a living of it (of course with unparalleled training schedules)
Now, it looks like SC2 should be designed for this level of play, that is designed for people with abnormal level of training and dedication. Most points against MBS are quite valid, I must admit, that I imagine players may not have to focus away form battle as often as before, provided they they perfectly set their production and income flows. The outcome of this still lies as theoricraft, but I do understand the reasoning behind sticking to SBS. But you may understand why other people can fell it as utterly wrong, people feeling that the first player base of the craft series, is now looked down and put aside because the pro scene doesn't need a large player base anymore. Don't tell me the competitive scene would have been the one we know without a large player base in the first hand. And definitively, SC was not designed as a tedious, difficult to play rts on release, it was quite easy to pick up, compared to the standards of the day. Ten years later, I'm witnessing a reverse of values, with basic players flagged as lazy morons whose claims may hinder the supreme level of play.
They express the will of putting the focus on decision making, and the answer is certainly that rts wise, the player level is paired with execution, not decision. It's a misunderstanding. The question is having to cope with rewarding and interesting execution. Have I prepared a counter for this harass, where did I put them, can I set a trap for those muta, have I checked his expansion, is my mineral line defenceless,etc ? Simple tasks that become exponentially difficult to cope with time pressure, to the point where basic mistakes are done, garrison units forgotten, and ressources wasted. Average players express the will to train their focus on this, instead of training to go through a dull production loop. Players and some pro scene followers, hoping to witness more interesting feats. Still super quick decision making and execution, but more related to what happens in game than mechanically defined by the UI.
On March 17 2008 08:40 BlackStar wrote: Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game.
Not denying that maybe a purely decision making game would theoretically be better. But competitive games haven't advanced enough for that. And that's why I also play chess.
And that will 'hurt' those 60 APM players who played SC 8 years ago and never got into multiplayer but want to in SC2. But that can't be helped.
That annyos me more than it should. You basically admit that a RTS with "Chess like" depht would be good but "we are not there yet". Also that SBS would negativly impact new Players but "that can´t be helped".
WHY NOT? SC2 is supposed to become the "next Gen" RTS that sets new standards. SC basically established 3 Races in RTS. Why shouldn´t SC2 pull of a similar feat? Pre-SC 3 races was a neat idea but "they weren´t there yet". Blizzard has no excuse not to act as quality inovator. They did it with each of their previous games.
Yes. Starcraft should'nt give up ambition on it's second iteration. Blizzard are already seen as overly conservative by most gamers. Today, what I see of Terrans is quite depressing, core units unchanged, and the remaining changes like sniping or drop pads still scorned by some people on these forums. We don't want to end with BW terrans against SC2 Protoss and Zergs, don't we ?
On March 17 2008 16:44 naventus wrote: What I am saying is this - for average players, they need to understand (and perhaps never will) that no matter how smart they think they are, there's no good game where you can expect to sit there without rigorous training and somehow "outthink" a better player. You aren't a general, you can't roleplay one because you are a fucking newb.
I point this out because your opinions are NOT valid. Would you, as an amateur painter, go to an art forum and claim Van Gogh's works are deeply flawed? Why is it then that you think you have some sort of grasp of SC that a better player doesn't have? Have some humility and STFU.
God, I cannot agree more.
People also need to realise that this is a RTS game. It is a modified version of a turn based strategy game. Its modified so that speed is a major skill as well as strategical skill. If you think that speed shouldnt be a defining factor, then your in the wrong game genre.
Yes, no question the rts genre is about speed. The question is what this speed should be dedicated to, and pro MBS people don't expect it to be cycling through production buildings. Other dumb tasks are handled by the UI. What make it so special the line had to be drawn here ?
On March 17 2008 08:40 BlackStar wrote: Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game.
Not denying that maybe a purely decision making game would theoretically be better. But competitive games haven't advanced enough for that. And that's why I also play chess.
And that will 'hurt' those 60 APM players who played SC 8 years ago and never got into multiplayer but want to in SC2. But that can't be helped.
That annyos me more than it should. You basically admit that a RTS with "Chess like" depht would be good but "we are not there yet". Also that SBS would negativly impact new Players but "that can´t be helped".
WHY NOT? SC2 is supposed to become the "next Gen" RTS that sets new standards. SC basically established 3 Races in RTS. Why shouldn´t SC2 pull of a similar feat? Pre-SC 3 races was a neat idea but "they weren´t there yet". Blizzard has no excuse not to act as quality inovator. They did it with each of their previous games.
I could be wrong, but I think BlackStar's point is that StarCraft is not a game where "thinking" will suffice. Just because you know how to do it doesn't mean you actually can. Much of playing the game is the physical execution of the motions - being able to both macro and micro at the same time. There will never be an RTS that is simply a game of "thinking." As BlackStar pointed out, we already have that in chess. There is no physical execution in chess - if you can think of a move, you can do it. However, in StarCraft, you can think of a strategy that involves incredible micro with flawless macro, but it is not always possible to execute such strategies if your APM is 50.
On March 17 2008 19:13 Seelys wrote: Yes, no question the rts genre is about speed. The question is what this speed should be dedicated to, and pro MBS people don't expect it to be cycling through production buildings. Other dumb tasks are handled by the UI. What make it so special the line had to be drawn here ?
Starcraft is a game of equal micro vs macro. You in theory want to spend half your game on each action. Now of course currently starcraft is about 60 - 40 in favour or macro, but idealy it is a split down the middle. MBS and Automine I predict will bring this ratio to about 20 - 80.
If we wanted a micro game, we'd be playing warcraft 3. Warcraft 3 also has a macro to micro ratio of about 20 - 80. We want an even split macro/micro game. A 50-50 split. So if your going to remove so much of current macro, I would like some other macro to be added in. However blizzard currently has no plans to do so. Hence why MBS and Automine are bad features, as they destroy the balance. If blizzard added somehting else in, then I would be fine with MBS and automine. However until that day, I will not change my stance on this matter.
On March 17 2008 08:40 BlackStar wrote: Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game.
Not denying that maybe a purely decision making game would theoretically be better. But competitive games haven't advanced enough for that. And that's why I also play chess.
And that will 'hurt' those 60 APM players who played SC 8 years ago and never got into multiplayer but want to in SC2. But that can't be helped.
That annyos me more than it should. You basically admit that a RTS with "Chess like" depht would be good but "we are not there yet". Also that SBS would negativly impact new Players but "that can´t be helped".
WHY NOT? SC2 is supposed to become the "next Gen" RTS that sets new standards. SC basically established 3 Races in RTS. Why shouldn´t SC2 pull of a similar feat? Pre-SC 3 races was a neat idea but "they weren´t there yet". Blizzard has no excuse not to act as quality inovator. They did it with each of their previous games.
I could be wrong, but I think BlackStar's point is that StarCraft is not a game where "thinking" will suffice. Just because you know how to do it doesn't mean you actually can. Much of playing the game is the physical execution of the motions - being able to both macro and micro at the same time. There will never be an RTS that is simply a game of "thinking." As BlackStar pointed out, we already have that in chess. There is no physical execution in chess - if you can think of a move, you can do it. However, in StarCraft, you can think of a strategy that involves incredible micro with flawless macro, but it is not always possible to execute such strategies if your APM is 50.
20-80 ratio ? So you're saying that production building cycle accounts for more than 50% of the whole BW macro nowadays ? Doesn't this scream for some revamp ?
I proposed some clues to give players something to use their focus with. Why aren't there more proposals toward this objective rather than pressuring Blizzard to stick with openly restrictive UI ?
Anyway I highly doubt SC2' micro would ever have something in common with WC3, would the MBS have the effects you describe. Most units are designed as expendable and devasting effects occurs on a regular basis. We are not speaking of the slow hit point badass warcraftish ones.
On March 17 2008 21:19 Seelys wrote: 20-80 ratio ? So you're saying that production building cycle accounts for more than 50% of the whole BW macro nowadays ? Doesn't this scream for some revamp ?
I proposed some clues to give players something to use their focus with. Why aren't there more proposals toward this objective rather than pressuring Blizzard to stick with openly restrictive UI ?
Anyway I highly doubt SC2' micro would ever have something in common with WC3, would the MBS have the effects you describe. Most units are designed as expendable and devasting effects occurs on a regular basis. We are not speaking of the slow hit point badass warcraftish ones.
If you are surprised at the 50/50 ratio, you obviously do not play/watch SC at the caliber at which MBS would be detrimental - especially in this style of macro-heavy play that has recently become very popular. That might explain your confusion as to why so many of us are opposed to MBS and the repercussions we see coming from it.
SC has been successful for this long with that ratio (give or take a little on each side), and in removing it, you just have another RTS set in space without a lot of the difficulty and depth that makes SC so incredible. One of the largest parts of SC gaming is that micro/macro trade-off.
If you simply add micro-intensive features (like extra spells or new unit gimmicks) to "give players something to use their focus on," you are still removing the macro while increasing the micro, thus skewing the ratio and making SC2 into a game that is completely different form SC, and one that will have far less success as a competitive e-sports genre.
I don't play SC as this level (I don't play it anymore at all), I just watch games. And I can see how macro heavy they currently are, but this give me the feeling that all distracting/deceptive manoeuvers aren't worth it, in front of raw overwhelming production. This deters the player from showing the depth games could have, imho.
I didn't speak about the 50-50 ration between micro and macro, but of the 50-50 ration between cycling through production buildings and all other macro tasks. At least, it sounds this way to me since you foresee a huge shift toward micro with MBS.
I didn't speak about micro intensive features, but macro additions (I consider all task aiming at army production as macro), read again. Optimizing and securing ressource income, tweaking production, can't account for micro. This was the spirit of my propositions.
i think blizzard should make MBS an option which you can turn on and off and have 2 ladders - one with MBS and one without. so everyone can choose what they prefer and like.
the pros and bw player will of course play the non-MBS ladder and after some time it would be more popular to play without MBS and even international tournament rules will say that the MBS has to be turned off.
it's like the gamespeed in starcraft. blizzard intended to set the speed "fast" as the standard game speed. but for us players it was too slow and it were us players who set the new standard as "fastest".
On March 17 2008 08:40 BlackStar wrote: Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game.
Not denying that maybe a purely decision making game would theoretically be better. But competitive games haven't advanced enough for that. And that's why I also play chess.
And that will 'hurt' those 60 APM players who played SC 8 years ago and never got into multiplayer but want to in SC2. But that can't be helped.
That annyos me more than it should. You basically admit that a RTS with "Chess like" depht would be good but "we are not there yet". Also that SBS would negativly impact new Players but "that can´t be helped".
WHY NOT? SC2 is supposed to become the "next Gen" RTS that sets new standards. SC basically established 3 Races in RTS. Why shouldn´t SC2 pull of a similar feat? Pre-SC 3 races was a neat idea but "they weren´t there yet". Blizzard has no excuse not to act as quality inovator. They did it with each of their previous games.
It has already missed the chance to become the "next Gen" RTS. If the hard-core StarCraft scene would not have gotten involved or would not have existed then maybe SC2 could have become the game that takes RTS to the next level. Or maybe it could have become another shitty RTS.
But, thanks to the hard-core SC scene SC2 will be a standard sequel building upon original SC.
But to call it next gen? SC2 seems extremely retro (not necessarily something bad).
There is some serious extraggation going on. MBS so influentional that it would turn the game essentially turn-based? Significant enough to demand it´s own ranking?
The small mechanic has been turned into a symbol for a completely different type of gameplay.
Maybe not on purpose but Black earlier essentially trivialized the depht of strategy in SC, as if there is somewhere a list on the Internet that lists "what counters what" for units/Build orders and therefore everyone is equally good at "thinking" because it is hardly more complex than "rock beats scissors".
"Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game."
Well, it should. He even used chess as example that strategy CAN be used to differinate players - hell SC2 might adapt the ELO ranking system from chess. The issue is that he does not regard the mechanic itself is bad - but the inability of Blizzard to implent it and therefore turn the mechanical factor of gameplay insignificant. But since the strategy or "thinking part" is so shallow the game would end up bad.
IS strategy in SC THAT shallow?
Edit: But to call it next gen? SC2 seems extremely retro (not necessarily something bad).
So was SC. Next gen isn´t about some new nice feature (look at bullet time for example) these don´t define next gen. Next gen is a reference for everything after it, a new standart. Half Life bought NOTHING revolutionary but the kind of immersive storytelling (not the story itself)became reference. Or as used before - 3 balanced races. Lots of games had way more than 3 races - but these either were effectivly the same or unbalanced. SC also set a bar in support - early games have obvious bugs and glitches today. Far Cry made smarter KI enemys desierable- before they were "not there yet" and therefore didn´t have to be in a game. Now everyone asks: "why are these spacezombies so dumb?". Looks are the same though but these grow without problem because 1. "Easy" to implement. (compared to new AI routines) 2. Loads of support from the industry - Hardware producers know that they need demanding games to survive.
On March 17 2008 21:55 Seelys wrote: I don't play SC as this level (I don't play it anymore at all), I just watch games. And I can see how macro heavy they currently are, but this give me the feeling that all distracting/deceptive manoeuvers aren't worth it, in front of raw overwhelming production. This deters the player from showing the depth games could have, imho.
I didn't speak about the 50-50 ration between micro and macro, but of the 50-50 ration between cycling through production buildings and all other macro tasks. At least, it sounds this way to me since you foresee a huge shift toward micro with MBS.
I didn't speak about micro intensive features, but macro additions (I consider all task aiming at army production as macro), read again. Optimizing and securing ressource income, tweaking production, can't account for micro. This was the spirit of my propositions.
if you dont play the game why are you even arguing?
On March 17 2008 22:59 Unentschieden wrote: There is some serious extraggation going on. MBS so influentional that it would turn the game essentially turn-based? Significant enough to demand it´s own ranking?
The small mechanic has been turned into a symbol for a completely different type of gameplay.
Maybe not on purpose but Black earlier essentially trivialized the depht of strategy in SC, as if there is somewhere a list on the Internet that lists "what counters what" for units/Build orders and therefore everyone is equally good at "thinking" because it is hardly more complex than "rock beats scissors".
"Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game."
Well, it should. He even used chess as example that strategy CAN be used to differinate players - hell SC2 might adapt the ELO ranking system from chess. The issue is that he does not regard the mechanic itself is bad - but the inability of Blizzard to implent it and therefore turn the mechanical factor of gameplay insignificant. But since the strategy or "thinking part" is so shallow the game would end up bad.
IS strategy in SC THAT shallow?
Yes SC strategy is THAT shallow. Of course its that shallow. An RTS game sacrifices deep strategy for fast hectic gameplay. Gameplay that requires different skills. Such as being able to control crazy situations, playing under pressure, feeling short of time, having too many tasks to possibly complete.
Take chess and speed chess. In chess, a GM will be thinking 30 moves ahead, in speed chess, even the best would only be thinking about 5. The strategy in speed chess is thus, a LOT more shallow. However the time constraint and pressured thinking cause speed chess to be an awsome game.
RTS games by principle do not stand on strategy alone. In depth strategy is impossible with the time constraints that a RTS game places on the player. High APM's should be rewarded, and required to compete with the best in RTS. Because skill in RTS games includes being fast and coordinated.
A famous saying about chess made by many people is 'Chess is 99& tactics.'
Same goes for decision making in RTS games, mostly tactics.
Actually, you can't have a game that is grounded in strategy. Strategy is the metagame, the layer on top of the basic skills that are tested.
Ooh, and SC2 won't be a next gen game. It's basically a remake of SC with new unit and new graphics. It's trying to reimagine SC but this time with esports in mind.
I have nothing against making a next gen RTS, of course. I do have something against claiming to make an esports game and then dumbing down the game. Let's admit it. They aren't adding MBS because it adds more strategy. They are adding MBS because newbie players demand it just because other games have it. Newbie players demand it because they want to be good at SC2 without having to practice/train. They think they are above average intelligence and that an RTS game should be some kind of 'strategic IQ' test.
if you dont play the game why are you even arguing?
anymore
So state precisely the level of play required to even argue.
I'm clearly stating witch contributor group I belong to. Pure honesty. Why do I feel legitimate to argue ? Because it's a game, I'll surely invest time into. Because I have taken time to see and ask about what BW has become nowadays, to understand what is at stake. Because I wish this could be another jump to a even more breathtaking RTS, with people enjoying its depth at several play levels. Because I don't want to argue on change on an existing game you love, only another game to come.
RTS games by principle do not stand on strategy alone. In depth strategy is impossible with the time constraints that a RTS game places on the player. High APM's should be rewarded, and required to compete with the best in RTS. Because skill in RTS games includes being fast and coordinated.
So we may argue on what the required high speed actions should be about.
Well yes of course it's not as strategically demanding as chess for example, or turn-based games in general. But the interesting question is: could it be designed so that strategy is at least slightly more valuable than it is right now? Imagine that ALL units and special abilities were useful, not just very few in each matchup. This would make the game more interesting. Or imagine that macro isn't as dominant anymore as it is right now. These are a few situations where micro and strategy will become more valuable, and from my viewpoint MBS will work towards that goal. SBS will not, it won't change any of SC1's "drawbacks". SBS "forces" you to play in a way that the game will be relatively shallow, because that's the only way you can with SBS: it puts way too much pressure on you to do it any other way, you have to rely on the "easiest" solutions, if you try to get "fancy" you'll probably be punished by your opponent's superior numbers. That means macro being too important is a serious drawback and prevents the gameplay from becoming at least slightly deeper.
On March 17 2008 23:17 BlackStar wrote: Let's admit it. They aren't adding MBS because it adds more strategy. They are adding MBS because newbie players demand it just because other games have it.
I´d say that is part of the reason and not even bad. No one should programm a game against the player. Would you like it if they removed the pause mechanic?
The importance of strategy in RTS came up in the first place because MBS was portrayed as removing the time critical part of the game entirely wich to me is a gross overextragation.
Strategy can and should be a integral part of RTS. "Strategic IQ" should , together with mechanical execution define gameplay.
Edit: 0xDEADBEEF made a good point: SBS is one (of many) reasons SC is shallow since "better" strategies are harder to execute but not stronger (enough) to justify the effort.
On March 17 2008 23:17 BlackStar wrote: Newbie players demand it because they want to be good at SC2 without having to practice/train. They think they are above average intelligence and that an RTS game should be some kind of 'strategic IQ' test.
Do I even have to deconstruct that line of reasoning? You can do better than this. There have to be better arguments than "Only idiots want that, so there".
On March 17 2008 09:45 naventus wrote: More units and more abilities does not mean there are more decisions to be made.
Look at any other RTS - most of them have more options than SC, but actually the metagame is extremely limited. Even WC3 is much more limited than SC (1-2 game trees per race per map). It is very doubtful and probably infeasible to expect SC2 to have too much more decision making than SC1.
But, for the sake of argument - consider there to be 25% more decisions to be made. Then say on a given matchup on a given map, you have basically 1 more possible game tree (maybe another opening, another midgame timing). Do you think this would compensate for the lack of mechanical demands? You don't think a pro would immediately know what to do? Maybe you might need the time to think through the decision process - but for anyone practiced enough - it's automatic and instant.
The only exemption here is something like chess where there are more game trees than the total processing power of the universe. Computer games are fundamentally not chess because there are in fact more restraints on game flow.
You have a good point, but I think you misunderstand the core of my argument. My point was that when you add new units/buildings/abilities you add more stuff for the player to do if they want to utilize these new abilities. Since SC already demands a lot from the player, if you don't change the execution you're very limited at what you can add to the game.
To use Dustin's quote, say the average player can perform 2 out of 5 actions they want to make at any given point in SC. Now, let's say we add new abilities while keeping the overall execution the same. Now the average player can perform 2 out of 8 actions. What's the point of adding new actions if the player never has the time to properly utilize them?
Either you have to make the new actions so easy to decide and execute that it doesn't make a significant impact on the player's multitasking load (which makes for boring actions), or you reduce the player's multitasking load to make room for the new actions, in MBS's case by reducing the physical execution requirements of unit production. Now, I'm not saying that MBS currently does this perfectly; in fact, it's pretty clear that there isn't enough attention-intensive stuff currently added to bring the multitasking load back up to par.
On March 17 2008 23:55 1esu wrote: Either you have to make the new actions so easy to decide and execute that it doesn't make a significant impact on the player's multitasking load (which makes for boring actions), or you reduce the player's multitasking load to make room for the new actions, in MBS's case by reducing the physical execution requirements of unit production. Now, I'm not saying that MBS currently does this perfectly; in fact, it's pretty clear that there isn't enough attention-intensive stuff currently added to bring the multitasking load back up to par.
I couldn´t agree more, but the point adressed seems to be more that Blizzard CAN´T increase gameplay depht and therefore they shouldn´t attempt to. Pro-MBS argumentation is based on the assumption that they can - indicated by their previous works, they SHOULD be able to do it. And given that they can do it that there should be no reason why they should not do that.
It is often argued that there is no new stuff added - but look alone at static defenses. Terrans can salvage their bunkers giving them HUGE room to utilize them compared to the permanent version. Protoss cannons are mobile and Pylons look more vulnerable. Zerg get the Queen and loose the old colonies.
Each time it gets more involved compared to the previous game, demanding more attention from the player to be used at maximal effectivity.
On March 17 2008 23:43 Unentschieden wrote: I´d say that is part of the reason and not even bad. No one should programm a game against the player. Would you like it if they removed the pause mechanic?
Pausing is already illegal in kespa games. And while paused you can't execute orders.
The importance of strategy in RTS came up in the first place because MBS was portrayed as removing the time critical part of the game entirely wich to me is a gross overextragation.
Strategy can and should be a integral part of RTS. "Strategic IQ" should , together with mechanical execution define gameplay.
I said 'strategical IQ test'. The nature of an IQ test is that you can't 'fake' your IQ with training or education.
Strategy can't be a foundation of an RTS game because of the nature of the genre. Don't be fooled by the 'S' in RTS. 'strategy games' as we know it are generally board games, and later also computer games, that are based in skill rather than luck. Some of them lack all forms of 'strategy' in the military sense of the word. No strategizing in some 'strategy games' at all. But most are mostly tactics with just a little strategy.
Chess is 99% tactics. There is very little actual strategy in chess. Chess is about calculation, which is superhumanly difficult. Strategy in chess is often the most simple part of the game. At least for humans. There is such a thing as 'advanced chess'. Here you can use a computer to do the tactics for you. And you can do the strategy.
The term RTS in video games of course means it's real time and that yo gather resources, build bases and produce units.
Edit: 0xDEADBEEF made a good point: SBS is one (of many) reasons SC is shallow since "better" strategies are harder to execute but not stronger (enough) to justify the effort.
Example?
I find this actually quite pathetic. Early game everyone who uses hotkeys properly can macro quite near perfect. And there are tons of early strategies one could imagine that just don't work. Either units are bad, build timings are off, gas requirements too high, energy too low(or energy requirements too high), etc etc.
Do I even have to deconstruct that line of reasoning? You can do better than this. There have to be better arguments than "Only idiots want that, so there".
On March 18 2008 00:11 Unentschieden wrote: I couldn´t agree more, but the point adressed seems to be more that Blizzard CAN´T increase gameplay depht and therefore they shouldn´t attempt to. Pro-MBS argumentation is based on the assumption that they can - indicated by their previous works, they SHOULD be able to do it. And given that they can do it that there should be no reason why they should not do that.
Because it requires a change in the fundamental way bases or the economy functions. You need to add an entire new gameplay mechanic. Not just a bunker you would salvage after there is no rush.
It needs to be something like having to build supply depots. This is one thing all Blizzard games have and many other RTS games lack. It's a strength of SC because it requires base management and multitasking as well as timing.
You need to add something like that. I joked in the past about adding sudoku puzzles to production buildings. It really has to be something like that! No matter how crazy and silly it sounds. But then of course in a way that makes sense in the context of the actual game.
It has to be something you have to think about, otherwise it won't improve over the base management MBS is to remove. And something you have to physically go back to your base for to do. It also has to be optimal.
But I really think the only reason people want MBS is because it's an attitute problem. I don't think most people want it because they want a next gen RTS game that is more based in decision making and less in execution.
When MBS is added and people realize how frustrating strategy/BO counters can be then I imagine them complaining about that. Because that requires more training that just using hotkeys to get 120/140 APM. And once you reach that level of mechanics you can beat people with better mechanics by outplaying them in decision making or tactics quite easily.
On March 18 2008 00:26 BlackStar wrote: Pausing is already illegal in kespa games. And while paused you can't execute orders.
Thats why I used that example. Pause adds nothing to competative gaming, it actually detracts (and is therefore banned) but still a central part of the game for playability reasons.
On March 18 2008 00:26 BlackStar wrote: I said 'strategical IQ test'. The nature of an IQ test is that you can't 'fake' your IQ with training or education.
Strategy can't be a foundation of an RTS game because of the nature of the genre. Don't be fooled by the 'S' in RTS. 'strategy games' as we know it are generally board games, and later also computer games, that are based in skill rather than luck. Some of them lack all forms of 'strategy' in the military sense of the word. No strategizing in some 'strategy games' at all. But most are mostly tactics with just a little strategy.
Chess is 99% tactics. There is very little actual strategy in chess. Chess is about calculation, which is superhumanly difficult. Strategy in chess is often the most simple part of the game. At least for humans. There is such a thing as 'advanced chess'. Here you can use a computer to do the tactics for you. And you can do the strategy.
The term RTS in video games of course means it's real time and that yo gather resources, build bases and produce units.
Well it seems I have a completely screwed up view of RTS games and the nature of Strategy and Tactics. You convinced me on that
On March 18 2008 00:26 BlackStar wrote: Example?
I find this actually quite pathetic. Early game everyone who uses hotkeys properly can macro quite near perfect. And there are tons of early strategies one could imagine that just don't work. Either units are bad, build timings are off, gas requirements too high, energy too low(or energy requirements too high), etc etc.
Thats why I wrote "one of many". Of course we want more viable strategies. You are suggesting that I argued that SBS was the only factor in the viability of strategies. I can´t and don´t want to argue that SBS on it´s own is responsible. It is a SMALL factor and there are other reasons I´m arguing for MBS, mainly playability.
On March 18 2008 00:26 BlackStar wrote: Do I even have to deconstruct that line of reasoning? You can do better than this. There have to be better arguments than "Only idiots want that, so there".
You think that newbies are idiots? WTH!?!
Anyway, this is what Rob Pardo said.[/QUOTE]
That wasn´t what you said but what you meant. Please not that I split that argument into the, what I think, relevant part and the part that blames new players for a detremental influence on the game.
So we can acutely predict almost none of the new addition to the micro will be actually used unless tremendously rewarding, since the macro bearing will stay the same.
It's an attitude problem, since we're feeling SC2 will definitively be SC1.5 if all pro claims are validated by Blizzard. The real next generation RTS king may come out from nowhere in the years to come and SC fans won't have influence on it, because it won't be Blizzard's for sure. MBS is merely an excuse to express the bland misunderstanding between all the different expectations for this game. MBS is highly symbolic because it draws the line between balancing the game with UI constraint or relying solely on gameplay features.
I fear Blizzard has enormous issues thinking out of the box, but how could they, facing people shielded with ten years of extensive pratice ?
It's actually Blizzard's fault for not bringing in very strong SC players, telling them they want to make a next generation RTS a lot more heavy in strategy and decision making than SC but still just as difficult to master, asking them for their insights, ideas and opinions.
They didn't exploit the 10 years of extensive practice people had in SC. Only recently Blizzard realized they can't replace macro with micro.
They never wanted to innovate and they didn't bring in competitive RTS gaming expertise early on.
I really think Blizzard took competitive gaming too lightly.
On March 18 2008 00:11 Unentschieden wrote: I couldn´t agree more, but the point adressed seems to be more that Blizzard CAN´T increase gameplay depht and therefore they shouldn´t attempt to. Pro-MBS argumentation is based on the assumption that they can - indicated by their previous works, they SHOULD be able to do it. And given that they can do it that there should be no reason why they should not do that.
Because it requires a change in the fundamental way bases or the economy functions. You need to add an entire new gameplay mechanic. Not just a bunker you would salvage after there is no rush.
It needs to be something like having to build supply depots. This is one thing all Blizzard games have and many other RTS games lack. It's a strength of SC because it requires base management and multitasking as well as timing.
You need to add something like that. I joked in the past about adding sudoku puzzles to production buildings. It really has to be something like that! No matter how crazy and silly it sounds. But then of course in a way that makes sense in the context of the actual game.
It has to be something you have to think about, otherwise it won't improve over the base management MBS is to remove. And something you have to physically go back to your base for to do. It also has to be optimal.
Not a bad reasoning and I would actually agree if along with MBS there were factors like: removal of queue tax removal of supply system removal of 2 resource system addition of basic AI setting etc.
but I don´t see MBS as such a big "noobification".
Oh and I don´t get what you mean with " It also has to be optimal." please explain that.
On March 18 2008 00:36 BlackStar wrote: But I really think the only reason people want MBS is because it's an attitute problem. I don't think most people want it because they want a next gen RTS game that is more based in decision making and less in execution.
When MBS is added and people realize how frustrating strategy/BO counters can be then I imagine them complaining about that. Because that requires more training that just using hotkeys to get 120/140 APM. And once you reach that level of mechanics you can beat people with better mechanics by outplaying them in decision making or tactics quite easily.
Please elaborate since such a assumption really kills a discussion. You are portraying your opposition as lazy and exploitive. You are completely dismissing ANY pro-MBS argument like that. It is kind of like as if I argue that pro-SBS only support SBS because they would hate change.
Maybe there are some people like that but we can´t evaluate arguments on that.
On March 18 2008 01:02 BlackStar wrote: It's actually Blizzard's fault for not bringing in very strong SC players, telling them they want to make a next generation RTS a lot more heavy in strategy and decision making than SC but still just as difficult to master, asking them for their insights, ideas and opinions.
They didn't exploit the 10 years of extensive practice people had in SC. Only recently Blizzard realized they can't replace macro with micro.
They never wanted to innovate and they didn't bring in competitive RTS gaming expertise early on.
I really think Blizzard took competitive gaming too lightly.
What do you call too lightly ? Of course, Blizzard claims may just be that, claims, but they at least cater to to competitive players.
But they just can't listen exclusively to the highest level players : how could they handle anything different from what they like in SC, since they are precisely in the competitive scene because they like SC as a whole ? Of course you can't ask people used to heavy macro to accept a more micro oriented sequel : whose who find SC flawed have given up ages ago, and may have not found their pleasure elsewhere, since there is only one company so dedicated to polish , and other rts are mostly hampered by wacky balance or too different gameplay.
They need those people to make something different, because they express thoughts competitive players wouldn't even dare to play with.
Actually, I do care about making it difficult to execute, but I think the way it is done now (with SBS) isn't the best. I want micro to be hard. I want players to utilize advanced micro tasks and techniques to offset the fact that they have to spend less time with producing units. At the same time, I also want the game to be slightly deeper. I perfectly understand that RTS will never be very deep but it wouldn't hurt to add a LITTLE bit more strategical and tactical depth. These are the things I'd love to see as a spectator. What some of you don't seem to realize is that if you make one thing (macro) "easier" it doesn't mean the other things stay as they are. Because then you can put more time, skill and effort into the other thing (micro). And you have to do that, because your opponents will. Or in other words: the skill ceiling for micro increases when the skill ceiling for macro decreases (due to MBS).
On March 18 2008 01:04 Unentschieden wrote: Not a bad reasoning and I would actually agree if along with MBS there were factors like: removal of queue tax removal of supply system removal of 2 resource system addition of basic AI setting etc.
but I don´t see MBS as such a big "noobification".
Then our judgment of the effect of MBS on the way the game is played is different. But is seems people who played agree it's quite extensive.
It needs serious compensation in the macro/base management department. It's also of course not just MBS, also automining and building queues for workers.
Oh and I don´t get what you mean with " It also has to be optimal." please explain that.
I meant 'optional'. Sorry.
Please elaborate since such a assumption really kills a discussion. You are portraying your opposition as lazy and exploitive. You are completely dismissing ANY pro-MBS argument like that. It is kind of like as if I argue that pro-SBS only support SBS because they would hate change.
Sirlin decribes that Rob Pardo said at GDC as: "In the end, they decided to allow unlimited selection even though it goes against the "support skill differentiation" rule-of-thumb because players thought the restriction was arbitrary and felt like broken UI."
Same is probably true for MBS. They aren't adding that for some ideal about future RTS games. They are adding it because of how they think the player base thinks about it.
You must realize that you are not the average pro-MBS person. At least I assume you aren't.
Most people who are pro-MBS are people who have problems using hotkeys, get outmacroed in every 1v1 they play, get frustrated and never get to experience anything about SC tactics, strategy, etc.
I think this is the main issue of MBS; that in SC below 120 APM macro was so much more useful to know and so decisive in the actual game. At the same time learning to play with 120 APM and proper hotkeys is one of the most straightforward things you can learn in SC. But yet so many people never did that. Why?
Therefore, I think it's an attitude problem, resulting in frustration. And not some intellectual ideal about the future of RTS games not having to have these 'primitive mundane action requirements'.
Maybe there are some people like that but we can´t evaluate arguments on that.
No. But as I said, Blizzard does, apparently. That's the point. Just go to a random public 3v3 BGH game. Then afterwards open the replay in BWchart and you will see people who use hotkeys very poorly or not at all. They also have low APM. Sometimes even below 55. Can you imagine their frustration in not being able to experience worker harass? BO counters? Positioning and maneuvering of armies?
Why don't you ask them why they don't use hotkeys? Why they don't take a little time to learn how to use them? These are the people Pardo talks about when he said "arbitrary" and "UI perceived as broken".
You can't experience chess strategy if you are a lowly rated player, you will make a tactical blunder and hang a minor piece or two and lose. Same goes for Starcraft. I am not entirely sure if deep strategy is limited only to high level play in all games. This may actually be the case.
This is why people play BHG, FMP, UMS, etc. And Blizzard can think about fixing this without affecting the 1v1 normal games.
On March 17 2008 23:30 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Well yes of course it's not as strategically demanding as chess for example, or turn-based games in general. But the interesting question is: could it be designed so that strategy is at least slightly more valuable than it is right now? Imagine that ALL units and special abilities were useful, not just very few in each matchup. This would make the game more interesting. Or imagine that macro isn't as dominant anymore as it is right now. These are a few situations where micro and strategy will become more valuable, and from my viewpoint MBS will work towards that goal. SBS will not, it won't change any of SC1's "drawbacks". SBS "forces" you to play in a way that the game will be relatively shallow, because that's the only way you can with SBS: it puts way too much pressure on you to do it any other way, you have to rely on the "easiest" solutions, if you try to get "fancy" you'll probably be punished by your opponent's superior numbers. That means macro being too important is a serious drawback and prevents the gameplay from becoming at least slightly deeper.
No, this is why you will always be a scrub and a newb. A better strategy is not one that's some elaborate theorycraft with queen and ghost timings.
A better strategy is built on very fundamental and subtle foundations like timing and game control. That's strategy and something you obviously don't grasp. Like I said before, adding more units and abilities will not result in more strategy. There is nothing shallow about SC as it stands.
It's only the newb that thinks that somehow having X unit that does Y thing will suddenly open up the game. What they don't understand is a complete overview and WHY the game is being played as it is. And all you can do is theorycraft bullshit reasons and bullshit ways to fix it. I would recommend leaving Teamliquid and checking out Bnet forums.
On March 18 2008 00:57 Seelys wrote: So we can acutely predict almost none of the new addition to the micro will be actually used unless tremendously rewarding, since the macro bearing will stay the same.
It's an attitude problem, since we're feeling SC2 will definitively be SC1.5 if all pro claims are validated by Blizzard. The real next generation RTS king may come out from nowhere in the years to come and SC fans won't have influence on it, because it won't be Blizzard's for sure. MBS is merely an excuse to express the bland misunderstanding between all the different expectations for this game. MBS is highly symbolic because it draws the line between balancing the game with UI constraint or relying solely on gameplay features.
I fear Blizzard has enormous issues thinking out of the box, but how could they, facing people shielded with ten years of extensive pratice ?
You are a fucking retard.
Here's your bullshit strawman argument: Hey, decent players don't want to see X change, but I do. Clearly decent players just want to keep their advantage in the game.
You know why this is bullshit? Because you fucking suck at this game and no amount of fixing it is going to prevent your 3v3 BGH ass from sucking.
Have you considered that better players may have some understanding of what make a good game? And why no RTS (do you know how many have come since SC? There's more than just WC3) have failed to live very long despite having all the sorts of bullshit that you fags argue for?
The trend in recent games has been to decrease macro. The only exception is SupCom, based on totally different mechanics than SC. Of course I'm speaking of a totally different genre, here, but they dont put emphasis on thoughless tasks, hence they have unlimited queues. What they give player to toy with is building placement, production boost, building upgrades, production shifting, etc.
So why not ask people with most insight with the game what they would want to have to do as macroer ? I can't believe they are happy with endlessly selecting their barracks, they do it because they must and they do it extremely fast because not being dedicated to it is not even remotely possible in the competitive scene.
Just answering "keep SBS and the hell with the casuals" is equally unlegitimate than saying "add MBS and the hell with the pro"
On March 18 2008 01:14 Seelys wrote: What do you call too lightly ?
That they can just make a fun game and expect it to be great for competitive gaming if it's properly balanced. You can have gameplay features that are fun and good or bad for competitive gaming. You can have features are good or bad for competitive gaming, but don't affect fun. They never thought about how they could change basic SC gameplay to give it more potential as an esports game.
I think they should have made an esports commission and get a review of every idea they had as seen from the esports point of view. And input ideas of their own. It would have been very hard to recruit the right people for the job. But they should have done that.
Your last comments are purely about describing high level players as being conservative and against any form of change. The contrary is actually my point. First of, these people aren't conservatives or against change because they are or were high level players. And the point of having them is just to be able to add good changes. Because obviously that's what future RTS esports games need. That's also why SC was great. It had certain features, mainly through luck and coincidence, that no other game had but that made it great for esports. Why not consciously think about finding more of these kinds of features and adding them?
And which annouced features are you currently happily with ? I don't flag high level players as conservative by nature. But obviously they must be fond of BW current balance.
What would you state as changes the future e-sport need ? And more importantly, do you think it's too late to implement these ?
More dynamic play. Each game should be unique. Like a chess game. The possibility tree expands exponentially.
Like if you proxy gateway in PvT then in SC the late game could still be the totally normal and standard Carrier vs goliaths, for example. Imagine if you couldn't 'transpose' back to the standard game after opening with a creative unusual build.
If I knew how to do that exactly, I wouldn't tell you and become very rich.
Obviously this change needs a new dimension. If SC is a 4d RTS game, with macro, micro, strategy and multitasking, then we neeed a 5d RTS.
This is of course the most major issue that SC2 and even WC4 or SC3 will probably not address.
On March 18 2008 01:29 naventus wrote: What they don't understand is a complete overview and WHY the game is being played as it is.
Sure I do. You just have no clue. But that's to be expected, because you're a retarded troll. I hate explaining myself to someone like you, but I will (just this one time though, you can just fuck off if you still don't get it): I'm hoping for Blizzard to change the current situation. Why the fuck do you think I don't understand why it is being played like it is? Compare PvZ and ZvZ. In ZvZ the most efficient thing to do is muta/ling. Always. In PvZ the game can develop into completely different directions, making a lot of units viable in certain situations. PvZ, I think, is the only matchup where almost all units can come into play. Even queens can be used (Mondragon did it 1 or 2 years ago vs. Draco, and won. Game was on Longinus I think. And why am I telling you this? So that you can't say "fucking noob, no good player uses queens"). So at the end of the day, PvZ is way more diverse, interesting and strategically and tactically challenging than ZvZ. I want the same to happen in ZvZ, TvZ, TvP.
The works of Van Gogh are indeed deeply flawed. Scars of color are garishly arranged in patterns that form Lilies and faces in our mind. The canvas is nothing but a patchwork of gashes in deeply contrasted colors, the contrast and visual violence of real life, capturing the essence of the clash in modern life.
Van Gogh's works are deeply flawed, fundamentally flawed to mirror the reality of the situation, the primal scars of humanity living so far out of their element.
On March 18 2008 01:52 BlackStar wrote: More dynamic play. Each game should be unique. Like a chess game. The possibility tree expands exponentially.
Like if you proxy gateway in PvT then in SC the late game could still be the totally normal and standard Carrier vs goliaths, for example. Imagine if you couldn't 'transpose' back to the standard game after opening with a creative unusual build.
If I knew how to do that exactly, I wouldn't tell you and become very rich.
Obviously this change needs a new dimension. If SC is a 4d RTS game, with macro, micro, strategy and multitasking, then we neeed a 5d RTS.
This is of course the most major issue that SC2 and even WC4 or SC3 will probably not address.
I'm not entirely clear on what you meant on the second half of your post, but the first part caught my attention. I think that there needs to be this risk vs. reward dynamic in the game, its part of strategy.. and what I think makes the game competitive and fun. If you chose a rush strategy (such as a closer proxy base) naturally.. based on how much resources/time you dedicated to the rush, there would obviously be a risk/opportunity cost associated with it. That is, if the rush fails, my econ then is at a huge disadvantage/becomes more vulnerable. I think thats one of the beautiful aspects of games. I don't think you should have the complete freedom to choose one strategy without any risk/opportunity cost associated with it to some degree. So I guess the idea that you should be able to easily transition back to standard game after doing one type of risky strategy doesn't make sense to me... unless of course your opponent is a noob, then of course.
That's not the point. A strategy that can potentially give you an instant win should come with a big or huge risk to compensate, naturally.
What I mean is that there are only a few different ways to play a matchup. And if you proxy then that doesn't turn the whole game into a very odd one if the game was going to last beyond that point.
If in chess someone plays a very strange odd opening then the entire game will always be a legacy of that strange opening.
In SC the game will automatically transition back to the mainstream.
That's what I meant. And the only way to change that is to have a new dimension to the fundamental gameplay.
Isn't it that possible combinations outside of mainstream (for instance vult+tanks for TVP) may be balanced ressource wise, thanks for the dev, but unbalanced micro wise, that is too attention consuming to stay as viable options ?
I admit that SBS is surely a important balancing element when expansions and income explode, because it weights macro burden. With MBS, macro would be overly simple compared to microing huge armies. At the same time, openings are quite unnaffected by the UI. Still I don't see how increased complexity of micro may be beneficial, with unchanged macro dynamic :alternative options would have to be both ressource and focus balanced to simply exist.
BlackStar, have you an exemple in another franchise of something you would flag as fifth dimension ? TA had production, micro and army scavenging, but I wouldn't call it a new dimension.
Nah you are still the retard. I spent like 3 posts in a row trying to hammer it into your newb brain that more units in play does not mean a more complex or interesting game. ZvZ is an exception because it is terrible in both aspects, we get it.
But just because more units are used in PvZ vs PvT doesn't mean that there are necessarily more viable game trees.
A good example is in WC3 where Orc v HU might use 3 different production buildings for 4-5 different unit types in total - but guess what, there is still 1-2 overall timing/strategy in the matchup. Strategy IS NOT FUCKING UNIT CHOICE.
You have a ICCUP ranking DEADBEEF? Or do you not play this game and just theorycraft about it?
On March 18 2008 01:29 naventus wrote: What they don't understand is a complete overview and WHY the game is being played as it is.
Sure I do. You just have no clue. But that's to be expected, because you're a retarded troll. I hate explaining myself to someone like you, but I will (just this one time though, you can just fuck off if you still don't get it): I'm hoping for Blizzard to change the current situation. Why the fuck do you think I don't understand why it is being played like it is? Compare PvZ and ZvZ. In ZvZ the most efficient thing to do is muta/ling. Always. In PvZ the game can develop into completely different directions, making a lot of units viable in certain situations. PvZ, I think, is the only matchup where almost all units can come into play. Even queens can be used (Mondragon did it 1 or 2 years ago vs. Draco, and won. Game was on Longinus I think. And why am I telling you this? So that you can't say "fucking noob, no good player uses queens"). So at the end of the day, PvZ is way more diverse, interesting and strategically and tactically challenging than ZvZ. I want the same to happen in ZvZ, TvZ, TvP.
I'm not picking sides here, but you don't need to have a high ranking in a ladder system to understand how the game works, and those kind of arguments are utterly retarded. It's like saying, your opinion doesn't matter because I'm better than you at the game. I for one have a good grasp of many starcraft aspects, I watch every vod, but I don't play often and as a result I'm not near a good player.
I didn't want to answer but since you insist on picking me up...
I didn't talk at all about strategy on the whole thread, so please don't put words in my mouth. I never accused competitive players to defend SBS to keep some kind of advantage so spare me with the opposite accusation. I never pretended to have been an above average player (depends where you put average, though) because I wasn't, and I don't intend to beat more dedicated players with some cunning skill I may believe to have.
I'm here to understand how high level play may shape the nex issue of the starcraft series, and to give some input on how more casual players feel about it. I still think this is an interesting place for debate, even if I belong to a minority.
If I wasn't targeted by the above post, I apologize, but still expression from all sides should be welcome.
On March 17 2008 23:30 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Well yes of course it's not as strategically demanding as chess for example, or turn-based games in general. But the interesting question is: could it be designed so that strategy is at least slightly more valuable than it is right now? Imagine that ALL units and special abilities were useful, not just very few in each matchup. This would make the game more interesting. Or imagine that macro isn't as dominant anymore as it is right now. These are a few situations where micro and strategy will become more valuable, and from my viewpoint MBS will work towards that goal. SBS will not, it won't change any of SC1's "drawbacks". SBS "forces" you to play in a way that the game will be relatively shallow, because that's the only way you can with SBS: it puts way too much pressure on you to do it any other way, you have to rely on the "easiest" solutions, if you try to get "fancy" you'll probably be punished by your opponent's superior numbers. That means macro being too important is a serious drawback and prevents the gameplay from becoming at least slightly deeper.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. First off, starcraft is more strategically demanding then chess, you can go ahead and counter units in both games, in starcraft your timed. The game doesn't revolve around the units to become special, that is for the programmers, we have no say in the matter. If you want to make a game more strategic based build a map to revolve around an endless possible scenario. That way the players are given there guidelines they are given the basic information about the units, now they must cope with the map and with each other. Strategy is not numbers or who masses what units (for other posts) its how you react to your opponent and decide the ultimate route while micro and macro managing your short term and long term goals. For so many games the basics strategy and basic counters revolve around the map, how close and how far away from your enemy you are. Ultimately the distance and base positioning determine the fanciness of the game. If you want to see a good game play a map like blue storm or loki2 where you are forced to move your larger units around to get to your enemy's base.
On March 18 2008 08:09 Seelys wrote: I didn't want to answer but since you insist on picking me up...
I didn't talk at all about strategy on the whole thread, so please don't put words in my mouth. I never accused competitive players to defend SBS to keep some kind of advantage so spare me with the opposite accusation. I never pretended to have been an above average player (depends where you put average, though) because I wasn't, and I don't intend to beat more dedicated players with some cunning skill I may believe to have.
I'm here to understand how high level play may shape the nex issue of the starcraft series, and to give some input on how more casual players feel about it. I still think this is an interesting place for debate, even if I belong to a minority.
If I wasn't targeted by the above post, I apologize, but still expression from all sides should be welcome.
I can see where you're coming from Seelys, and I do apologize if any of us here have made you feel insulted. The UI creation process for SC2 should receive input from both competitive players and casual players. That said, as of now, Blizzard has not presented to us a feasible way of incorporating MBS without severely dumbing down macro.
If you've read LR/SoG's posts on their play of SC2, I think LR in particular mentioned that in one day, his macro in SC2 was just as good (if not better) than his macro in SC1. That should not be. You should not be able to shoot a jumpshot in basketball consistently after one day of practice. You should not be able to hit the ball in baseball consistently after one day of practice. Things that require practice should not have such a ridiculous learning curve.
SC2 reminds me of Smash Bros Brawl. They removed tons of techniques in Brawl, and that spurned alot of hate. But people will move on an adapted, while developing new techniques. Its inevitable.
There are many arguments against MBS, and most of them valid. But MBS is the future. Sure, it will reduce the significance of macro, but we don't even know if that will significantly change the discrepancy between good players and bad players. It might just open up more opportunity for players to focus on other aspects of the game, such as unit choice, strategy, and micro.
Comparing SC2 to Warcraft III is a bad example in terms of macro (not saying anyone did, just in general), because Warcraft III has upkeep and heroes. I say give MBS time. Most pros nowadays are similar with respect to macro, and usually games are determined by micro, positioning, strategy, timing, etc., rather than being determined the way they were during the Gorilla's reign.
Just as how the primitive WC2 interface moved on to the more modernized Starcraft (go play Warcraft II if you don't know what I mean), so much Starcraft move into the modern phase of MBS. Only time can truly tell how it will affect pro games.
On March 18 2008 07:48 naventus wrote: Strategy IS NOT FUCKING UNIT CHOICE.
It's part of it. And not an insignificant one. Imagine chess with pawns only. Nuff said. Now get out of here, kid. Go to the Battlenet forum. The 10 year old retarded newbs like you are all there. TL is nothing for you.
MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
On March 18 2008 11:42 valiance. wrote: MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
I agree with this post. But I would like to add why SC2 would probably be better off with MBS.
Warcraft III is a very successful strategy game that is played vigorously on the pro level, especially in Europe and China, the latter of which the pro scene has been on a rapid rise.
The main reasons Warcraft III would not, or does not, appeal to certain players is due to Upkeep, Heroes, and items. MBS is not a factor here.
Starcraft II will attact new players who want to play a true strategy game without the Upkeep, Heores, and Items. MBS will make their interface easier, they will adjust better, and Starcraft II with MBS will become just as big, if not bigger, than Warcraft II, since many pro players like Moon, etc, and most Warcraft III players will move onto Starcraft II. (The majority of people who stay will either be hardcore players, or Defense of the Ancients players);
The only community that is criticizing MBS is us, the hardcore Starcraft fans. However, Starcraft II will be a very competitive game regardless of whether SC casuals, hardcores, and pros decide to move to it or not. This is because, as I mentioned before, a limited game like Warcraft III is still highly popular. New players will flood SC2, and new players will dominate it.
SC2 is not SC1. Yes, they will be limiting a strategical element of SC2 - macro - but removing MBS would only cater to players of a 10 year old game, who ( when considering the amount of players of all RTS's and the amount of new players who will move to SC2) are and will be a very, very small minority in SC2.
It would be very illogical for Blizzard to step back from MBS just to cater the crowd of a ten year old game. That would be similar to Java programmers reverting their code back to the binary 1's and 0's to cater to the old school hardcore programmers. New pro's will rise in SC2, and SC2 will be a success regardless of what the SC1 community demands of the game.
On March 18 2008 11:42 valiance. wrote: MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
I agree with this post. But I would like to add why SC2 would probably be better off with MBS.
Warcraft III is a very successful strategy game that is played vigorously on the pro level, especially in Europe and China, the latter of which the pro scene has been on a rapid rise.
The main reasons Warcraft III would not, or does not, appeal to certain players is due to Upkeep, Heroes, and items. MBS is not a factor here.
Starcraft II will attact new players who want to play a true strategy game without the Upkeep, Heores, and Items. MBS will make their interface easier, they will adjust better, and Starcraft II with MBS will become just as big, if not bigger, than Warcraft II, since many pro players like Moon, etc, and most Warcraft III players will move onto Starcraft II. (The majority of people who stay will either be hardcore players, or Defense of the Ancients players);
The only community that is criticizing MBS is us, the hardcore Starcraft fans. However, Starcraft II will be a very competitive game regardless of whether SC casuals, hardcores, and pros decide to move to it or not. This is because, as I mentioned before, a limited game like Warcraft III is still highly popular. New players will flood SC2, and new players will dominate it.
SC2 is not SC1. Yes, they will be limiting a strategical element of SC2 - macro - but removing MBS would only cater to players of a 10 year old game, who ( when considering the amount of players of all RTS's and the amount of new players who will move to SC2) are and will be a very, very small minority in SC2.
It would be very illogical for Blizzard to step back from MBS just to cater the crowd of a ten year old game. That would be similar to Java programmers reverting their code back to the binary 1's and 0's to cater to the old school hardcore programmers. New pro's will rise in SC2, and SC2 will be a success regardless of what the SC1 community demands of the game.
You forget the fact that StarCraft has the most dominant e-sports scene out of any RTS ever created. I would argue that the fanbase (comprised mostly of Koreans) obliterates that of all other RTS scenes combined. You are right in the fact that new players will flood into SC2. Blizzard does not make crap games. It will receive top-notch ratings along with a large fan-base. However, the fact of the matter is we are not concerned with the game's popularity. We are concerned about how competitive SC2 will be, and how viable it will be as an e-sport. In other words, you are right in saying that SC2 will be popular, but you are wrong in saying that it will be competitive. And by competitive, I mean at the level it is today.
You are missing the point. Casual players of a game, attracted by "popularity," do not spend ten years following a game, perfecting their strategy, and continuing to get better. SC1 has such depth due to this micro/macro trade-off that it has players who will play a ten-year old game with inferior features over the newer games of today. You are wrong in stating that the people who move from SC1 to SC2 will be a minority. I argue that they will be one of the largest factors in deciding whether anyone will play SC2 for ten years.
Our goal is not to beat WC3. We could do that on any given day. Our goal is to match SC1 in its success and longevity. We cannot do that with MBS. As I have said already, MBS removes a part of the game that is too valuable to remove - the macro-oriented part. Only in SC do people lose because they have micro-ed too long and forgotten to macro, and only in SC do people lose when they have macro-ed too much and left their units to die. In adding MBS, you gut the macro-portion of SC, and castrate much of the competitive potential SC2 has as an e-sport.
On March 18 2008 11:42 valiance. wrote: MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
I agree with this post. But I would like to add why SC2 would probably be better off with MBS.
Warcraft III is a very successful strategy game that is played vigorously on the pro level, especially in Europe and China, the latter of which the pro scene has been on a rapid rise.
The main reasons Warcraft III would not, or does not, appeal to certain players is due to Upkeep, Heroes, and items. MBS is not a factor here.
Starcraft II will attact new players who want to play a true strategy game without the Upkeep, Heores, and Items. MBS will make their interface easier, they will adjust better, and Starcraft II with MBS will become just as big, if not bigger, than Warcraft II, since many pro players like Moon, etc, and most Warcraft III players will move onto Starcraft II. (The majority of people who stay will either be hardcore players, or Defense of the Ancients players);
The only community that is criticizing MBS is us, the hardcore Starcraft fans. However, Starcraft II will be a very competitive game regardless of whether SC casuals, hardcores, and pros decide to move to it or not. This is because, as I mentioned before, a limited game like Warcraft III is still highly popular. New players will flood SC2, and new players will dominate it.
SC2 is not SC1. Yes, they will be limiting a strategical element of SC2 - macro - but removing MBS would only cater to players of a 10 year old game, who ( when considering the amount of players of all RTS's and the amount of new players who will move to SC2) are and will be a very, very small minority in SC2.
It would be very illogical for Blizzard to step back from MBS just to cater the crowd of a ten year old game. That would be similar to Java programmers reverting their code back to the binary 1's and 0's to cater to the old school hardcore programmers. New pro's will rise in SC2, and SC2 will be a success regardless of what the SC1 community demands of the game.
You forget the fact that StarCraft has the most dominant e-sports scene out of any RTS ever created. I would argue that the fanbase (comprised mostly of Koreans) obliterates that of all other RTS scenes combined. You are right in the fact that new players will flood into SC2. Blizzard does not make crap games. It will receive top-notch ratings along with a large fan-base. However, the fact of the matter is we are not concerned with the game's popularity. We are concerned about how competitive SC2 will be, and how viable it will be as an e-sport. In other words, you are right in saying that SC2 will be popular, but you are wrong in saying that it will be competitive. And by competitive, I mean at the level it is today.
You are missing the point. Casual players of a game, attracted by "popularity," do not spend ten years following a game, perfecting their strategy, and continuing to get better. SC1 has such depth due to this micro/macro trade-off that it has players who will play a ten-year old game with inferior features over the newer games of today. You are wrong in stating that the people who move from SC1 to SC2 will be a minority. I argue that they will be one of the largest factors in deciding whether anyone will play SC2 for ten years.
Our goal is not to beat WC3. We could do that on any given day. Our goal is to match SC1 in its success and longevity. We cannot do that with MBS. As I have said already, MBS removes a part of the game that is too valuable to remove - the macro-oriented part. Only in SC do people lose because they have micro-ed too long and forgotten to macro, and only in SC do people lose when they have macro-ed too much and left their units to die. In adding MBS, you gut the macro-portion of SC, and castrate much of the competitive potential SC2 has as an e-sport.
Wait.. what? You're saying that StarCraft II's popularity very is dependent on how well it will manage to convert StarCraft: BroodWars players to the sequel?
If every sequel is dependent on the following of the earlier entries in the series how do you explain the success of games like: StarCraft:Broodwars, Everquest, World of Warcraft, Counter Strike?
And it's not like we haven't seen big evolutions from one sequel to another which were successfull: Quake 2 --> Quake 3 for example.
Blizzard is generally good at pleasing their fans, but they make games for everyone - not just the rabid fanboys. Surely, their aim must be to cater not only to the hardcore fans but to new players alike. Hardcore fans are relatively easy to please. They would settle for, well, they would settle for StarCraft: Broodwars. New players, who tried the original but couldn't get into it, or who've never ever heard of StarCraft though.. they are harder to cater to.. and a MUCH larger group than the hardcore fanbase.
Actually, it's the contrary - casual players are way easier to please, most of them are satisfied with a good singleplayer/lore and a playable game. ;;
But WC3 is too easy for a competitive game. Inactive players can beat ones that practice very very hard. And it's because WC3 lacks multitasking. Even Grubby said so.
On March 18 2008 21:29 BlackStar wrote: But WC3 is too easy for a competitive game. Inactive players can beat ones that practice very very hard. And it's because WC3 lacks multitasking. Even Grubby said so.
Maybe he's just really talented and deserves it? I mean, I know next to nothing about WC3 pros but Grubby is a name I've read about a few years ago alreaedy, so he's been at the top for quite some time. If WC3 was too easy then there would be much more change at the top, but I don't see much change there. Btw, Flash started playing SC just 3 years ago (at the age of 12), and he's almost at the very top right now, dominating pretty much everyone, AND he's attending school as well, meaning he's not devoted purely to SC. Most pros can concentrate on SC only, yet they aren't as good. There are people who find games like this easy, it just comes naturally to them, meaning they don't have to train that much.
Deadbeef you couldn't be more wrong, sorry. What you just said brings a tear to my eye out of pure stupidity. What was one of the first rules? Look things up if you don't know! Stop making outlandish remarks.
I said I know next to nothing about it so it was obviously just an assumption, I don't know if it's right or wrong. Nothing about stupidity, go look up that word if you don't know it. Though I'd need confirmation from someone else, I don't really trust you on that matter. Because you like to flame. Or give me more info. For starters, you could tell which part exactly was wrong, and why. Then I might look it up.
On March 18 2008 20:23 maybenexttime wrote: Actually, it's the contrary - casual players are way easier to please, most of them are satisfied with a good singleplayer/lore and a playable game. ;;
Not wrong, but semi casual are not. Hence, people who just want to go online without reaching high level are not so really pleased with the game, hence the number of BGH, and DoTA games blossoming on b.net. Unbalance is as irritating for them as a it is for high level players, for instance.
I'll try to express the diffuse feeling some softcore players had with BW. From single player and casual lan play, they discovered the many units, upgrades, spells and could get a glimpse of actual SC depth. Then things get serious, and you start playing against unknown player, experiencing cheese, macro overwhelming and all game features that can spell distaster upon the unprepared one. Then you start refining your speed and multitasking, cranking enough unit to wistand the ennemy macro. And at least, you can start toying with your army, microing vulture, mutalisk, reavers, using successfuly defilers, templars, etc. But, the issue is, if you can micro at will, it's quite obvious you stand above your opponent in some way. Confronting a new level of challengers reverts it to a macro/macro domination. Then some day, people playing for fun come to the conclusion they won't find satisfaction in honing again and again their macro skills, whereas they can't really have fun playing against weakers, unchallenging opponents. Eventually they stop their progression and later quit playing. (if they didn't, they wouldn't be softcore )
It may be only a element among others but somehow Blizzard felt this issue and annouced WC3 as a micro oriented game. A really micro, micro oriented game, but losing some key elements that contributes heavily to SC : responsive units, insanely brutal fights, scattered expansions and ruthless fight for ressources. By no way it could be played as more micro oriented starcraft : it wasn't at all .
So maybe there is a group of players, the "could-be-dedicated-ones" waiting for SC2 as a complex game with immense skill curve, but more rewarding progression than BW, or rather rewarding in a slighty different way. Something around 40-60 macro/micro whereas BW stands about 60-40. And all other SC features included, scattered armies and bases, quick killing machines to micro, etc. Of course, a game responding to new gaming standards as well.
Issue is : will MBS and micro additions spawn that kind of a game, or in a micro unbalanced one ?
Well, I believe that good ladder system (liek the one used in WC3) solves such issues to a large degree. Semi-casual players will play people more or less on their skill level.
That is already assumed. The problem SHOULD be your enemy but a lot of the challenge in SC is hardcoded. Macroduties don´t differ between playing against the computer or in a top tournament. Just the amount of leeway differs there.
Exactly : almost all players want to play against challenging opponents and this is what a good ladder provides. But what some players don't like is having to focus too much on some macro tasks before anything else when playing for the win. One may outnumber his opponent with good multitasking and macro, but not feel satisfied with it, while others don't mind at all. The reason is they sense so much depth in the whole game, but they must resort to focus on production to get an edge.
Try to look at macro as an action that you can perform. It has a downside, it has an upside. The downside of course being that it requires attention, it is hard to manage while doing other things as well. The upside is that it will give you more units and mean your micro actions will be stronger. To macro is a strategical choice. Something that you can use to beat your opponent. You can neglect one area, for strength in another area.
Now MBS makes building units a trivial action. Something that does not have a downside, just something that must be done every defined period in time to maintain the constant advantages that it is providing. Do you think it will diversify strategy? I highly doubt it. In fact, it will stunt strategical diversity. With a trivial unit building system, pros will always be equal macro-wise.
Someone posted a game of warcraft a little while ago showing how 'exciting' the game was supposed to be. It was a mirror matchup, and 1 thing stood out in that game which dissapointed me greatly. Both players built identicle numbers and mixtures of units. They literally had identicle bases (with a slight difference in layout) and the EXACT same army.
Do you think the same will happen in starcraft 2? I think so. The nature of the proscene is to find the best possible way to do something. Add things like MBS and automine and you result in standardising a gameplay element.
A well known saying is that what determines a good player isnt how he plays when things are going his way, but how he plays when they are not. If you lose the advantage in macro in starcraft 2 due to getting base raided or losing a battle. Im curious as to what a better player can do to get himself back into the game.
MBS surely makes building units a trivial actions. Moving an army is a slightly less trivial one, because you have to account for limited selection (wich is no more in SC2) and keeping different unit separate.
The feeling with SBS being illogical is simple : if one managed to get all expansion, mining, production structures, supplies to afford a large unit output, why does he have to cope with cycling within all the buildings to get his army ? If he managed to build an excellent eco or at least keep his opponent's eco at a lower level than his, he deserves some kind of reward. At this point, pro MBS think the focus on macro has been sufficient, because expanding and base building are not trivial tasks when pressured by the ennemy, while pro SBS consider more focus has to be given to get constant or increasing reinforcements.
On March 19 2008 00:56 Seelys wrote: The feeling with SBS being illogical is simple : if one managed to get all expansion, mining, production structures, supplies to afford a large unit output, why does he have to cope with cycling within all the buildings to get his army ? If he managed to build an excellent eco or at least keep his opponent's eco at a lower level than his, he deserves some kind of reward. At this point, pro MBS think the focus on macro has been sufficient, because expanding and base building are not trivial tasks when pressured by the ennemy, while pro SBS consider more focus has to be given to get constant or increasing reinforcements.
Everything must have an up side and a down side to be balanced.
You get more bases than your opponent, then you also have to deal with the difficulty of controlling them. This way, as soon as one person gets a macro advantage, its not gg. The other player can pull himself back into the game, because he has less to worry about and therefore will be more efficient.
When you look at starcraft, 2 bases generally means twice the macro power of one base. However 3 for most people represents only about 2.6 times macro power. 4 Bases is worth about 3 times the macro power and so on. There is a diminishing returns situation where each base you add on means youve got another base to look after, and seeing as you can only handle a certain number of bases effectively. This is another aspect of balance which prevents the person in front from being just statistically too powerful to realistically take on.
Well expanding have its down side : ressources spent, focus needed, being more vulnerable, dispatching units. If Blizzard does indeed put more emphasis on raiding, aggressive expanding will be a risky move. Of course map configuration wil have a huge impact on this.
But I agree early advantage should'nt be GG.
By the way, do you consider the new Zerg upgrade system as a new macro task ? I would personnally, since it's related to preparing armies.
The issue is that certain parts of Macro are already standertized, just hard to do. The act of expanding is a gameplay fact and only completely unrealistic theorycrafting can come up with a scenario in that you can realistically win without expanding or at least building more of the same building.
Expanding though, is a difficult act - timing protection utilization (just defenses/mining or also production and tech?) are all (supposed to be) vital challenges in game progression. Edit: To clarify, this is good. This allows you to improve your gameplay on the macro side completely unrelated from your handspeed (as it should be imho).
In the last years Maps had to activly support expanding to avoid "2base". (More minerals at expansions, easy to defend naturals - well naturals themselves!)
As you pointed out, yes you are supposed to expand - but the effectivitiy of expansions isn´t supposed to errode like that. The stretching of your defenses/terretory to cover is supposed to be the drawback (allowing for "fancy" flankings, nuking, sneaking, proxying etc...)not economic ineffeciency.
@Fen: Well, first of all, it was a mirror matchup. Watch some SC1 mirror matchups and you'll see that both players also pretty much always have the same unless someone gets a significant advantage, expands, and from then on has more or stronger units. In which case the other player has a problem (of course). Second, WC3 is supposed to be heavily micro-oriented, so one can assume standardized macro among good players. In SC2, however, the need to constantly expand and manage your bases will be there, so even if at some point both players should have the exact same armies, after a battle someone will probably have an advantage and build upon this advantage (maybe expand, tech to something stronger, or build more of the same, or start a small harassment attack/worker raid, or other things). After that, armies will be different. Just like in SC1. In non-mirror matchups it's of course silly to speak of "exactly the same army".
On March 18 2008 11:42 valiance. wrote: MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
I agree with this post. But I would like to add why SC2 would probably be better off with MBS.
Warcraft III is a very successful strategy game that is played vigorously on the pro level, especially in Europe and China, the latter of which the pro scene has been on a rapid rise.
The main reasons Warcraft III would not, or does not, appeal to certain players is due to Upkeep, Heroes, and items. MBS is not a factor here.
Starcraft II will attact new players who want to play a true strategy game without the Upkeep, Heores, and Items. MBS will make their interface easier, they will adjust better, and Starcraft II with MBS will become just as big, if not bigger, than Warcraft II, since many pro players like Moon, etc, and most Warcraft III players will move onto Starcraft II. (The majority of people who stay will either be hardcore players, or Defense of the Ancients players);
The only community that is criticizing MBS is us, the hardcore Starcraft fans. However, Starcraft II will be a very competitive game regardless of whether SC casuals, hardcores, and pros decide to move to it or not. This is because, as I mentioned before, a limited game like Warcraft III is still highly popular. New players will flood SC2, and new players will dominate it.
SC2 is not SC1. Yes, they will be limiting a strategical element of SC2 - macro - but removing MBS would only cater to players of a 10 year old game, who ( when considering the amount of players of all RTS's and the amount of new players who will move to SC2) are and will be a very, very small minority in SC2.
It would be very illogical for Blizzard to step back from MBS just to cater the crowd of a ten year old game. That would be similar to Java programmers reverting their code back to the binary 1's and 0's to cater to the old school hardcore programmers. New pro's will rise in SC2, and SC2 will be a success regardless of what the SC1 community demands of the game.
You forget the fact that StarCraft has the most dominant e-sports scene out of any RTS ever created. I would argue that the fanbase (comprised mostly of Koreans) obliterates that of all other RTS scenes combined. You are right in the fact that new players will flood into SC2. Blizzard does not make crap games. It will receive top-notch ratings along with a large fan-base. However, the fact of the matter is we are not concerned with the game's popularity. We are concerned about how competitive SC2 will be, and how viable it will be as an e-sport. In other words, you are right in saying that SC2 will be popular, but you are wrong in saying that it will be competitive. And by competitive, I mean at the level it is today.
You are missing the point. Casual players of a game, attracted by "popularity," do not spend ten years following a game, perfecting their strategy, and continuing to get better. SC1 has such depth due to this micro/macro trade-off that it has players who will play a ten-year old game with inferior features over the newer games of today. You are wrong in stating that the people who move from SC1 to SC2 will be a minority. I argue that they will be one of the largest factors in deciding whether anyone will play SC2 for ten years.
Our goal is not to beat WC3. We could do that on any given day. Our goal is to match SC1 in its success and longevity. We cannot do that with MBS. As I have said already, MBS removes a part of the game that is too valuable to remove - the macro-oriented part. Only in SC do people lose because they have micro-ed too long and forgotten to macro, and only in SC do people lose when they have macro-ed too much and left their units to die. In adding MBS, you gut the macro-portion of SC, and castrate much of the competitive potential SC2 has as an e-sport.
Wait.. what? You're saying that StarCraft II's popularity very is dependent on how well it will manage to convert StarCraft: BroodWars players to the sequel?
If every sequel is dependent on the following of the earlier entries in the series how do you explain the success of games like: StarCraft:Broodwars, Everquest, World of Warcraft, Counter Strike?
And it's not like we haven't seen big evolutions from one sequel to another which were successfull: Quake 2 --> Quake 3 for example.
Blizzard is generally good at pleasing their fans, but they make games for everyone - not just the rabid fanboys. Surely, their aim must be to cater not only to the hardcore fans but to new players alike. Hardcore fans are relatively easy to please. They would settle for, well, they would settle for StarCraft: Broodwars. New players, who tried the original but couldn't get into it, or who've never ever heard of StarCraft though.. they are harder to cater to.. and a MUCH larger group than the hardcore fanbase.
You are wrong; you are not reading my post. I am not speaking of the popularity of SC2 of a game I have not a doubt in my mind that SC2 will be a popular game, one that is "cool" with "awesome graphics" and "awesome new units and buildings" with a "cool storyline." I am speaking of the potential for long-time success as a competitive e-sport. A huge part of that involves getting the current pros to sign on and say that SC1 is a legitimate competitive game and also to get the fans to follow them. Did you miss the first sentence of my post where I iterate that SC1 has the most dominant e-sports scene (fanbase and players included) out of any RTS ever? It would be a massive blow to SC2 to have the pros claim that SC2 is too easy (which is exactly what they're doing now).
Another part of this longevity I speak of, of course, revolves around a fanbase which always does need new players and fresh blood. However, I am saying that the sacrifice of MBS is one that is too large to make to get new players to sign on. If MBS is the kill-all for them, I would argue that they are the type of casual gamers who will play the game for a while, then drop it when the next "cool" game comes out. That has no positive effect whatsoever on the longevity of SC2.
As someone has already mentioned, hardcore fans are hardly "easy to please." SC1 created what we believe to be the perfect balance between micro and macro, and we would like to maintain that balance. No other RTS on the planet has the type of balance we have achieved, and I don't think we should settle for less.
On March 18 2008 16:36 Fen wrote: Once again, we seem to come to the agreement that we need more macro tasks if MBS is to be implemented. I really do hope blizzard is working on this.
QFT
I would like to throw out points to agree on.
1. MBS doesn't affect the competativeness of the game, but it severly affects game feel and multi-tasking need, and as such is worthy of consideration. 2. Macro is important, and if MBS trivilizes macro, it should be scrapped. 3. Unforseen macro tasks could still be implemented preserving macro play / balance and MBS. and finally 4. I posted that War 3 game. If you couldn't see the excitement you are DUMB DUMB DUMB
As always I´d like to have your beta that lets you deduct that MBS lowers the quality of the game. Or your research data that predicts consumer behavior according to game features. It has been argued a lot but without facts it is just opinions and will simply be ignored/counterargued. It happend before.
Do players follow the pros? Do Pros follow the money/sponsors? At what point does a person become aware of a given "pro-scene" and how does that affect his behavior according to that game?
I had played WC3 for two years but I still couldn't see the excitement. Most WC3 games have a "meh, even I could do that" feel to them. T_____T It's just not as aweseome when your units have 500 HP on average, are relatively slow, and the only thing you do in a game is micro. ;;
On March 18 2008 11:42 valiance. wrote: MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
I agree with this post. But I would like to add why SC2 would probably be better off with MBS.
Warcraft III is a very successful strategy game that is played vigorously on the pro level, especially in Europe and China, the latter of which the pro scene has been on a rapid rise.
The main reasons Warcraft III would not, or does not, appeal to certain players is due to Upkeep, Heroes, and items. MBS is not a factor here.
Starcraft II will attact new players who want to play a true strategy game without the Upkeep, Heores, and Items. MBS will make their interface easier, they will adjust better, and Starcraft II with MBS will become just as big, if not bigger, than Warcraft II, since many pro players like Moon, etc, and most Warcraft III players will move onto Starcraft II. (The majority of people who stay will either be hardcore players, or Defense of the Ancients players);
The only community that is criticizing MBS is us, the hardcore Starcraft fans. However, Starcraft II will be a very competitive game regardless of whether SC casuals, hardcores, and pros decide to move to it or not. This is because, as I mentioned before, a limited game like Warcraft III is still highly popular. New players will flood SC2, and new players will dominate it.
SC2 is not SC1. Yes, they will be limiting a strategical element of SC2 - macro - but removing MBS would only cater to players of a 10 year old game, who ( when considering the amount of players of all RTS's and the amount of new players who will move to SC2) are and will be a very, very small minority in SC2.
It would be very illogical for Blizzard to step back from MBS just to cater the crowd of a ten year old game. That would be similar to Java programmers reverting their code back to the binary 1's and 0's to cater to the old school hardcore programmers. New pro's will rise in SC2, and SC2 will be a success regardless of what the SC1 community demands of the game.
You forget the fact that StarCraft has the most dominant e-sports scene out of any RTS ever created. I would argue that the fanbase (comprised mostly of Koreans) obliterates that of all other RTS scenes combined. You are right in the fact that new players will flood into SC2. Blizzard does not make crap games. It will receive top-notch ratings along with a large fan-base. However, the fact of the matter is we are not concerned with the game's popularity. We are concerned about how competitive SC2 will be, and how viable it will be as an e-sport. In other words, you are right in saying that SC2 will be popular, but you are wrong in saying that it will be competitive. And by competitive, I mean at the level it is today.
You are missing the point. Casual players of a game, attracted by "popularity," do not spend ten years following a game, perfecting their strategy, and continuing to get better. SC1 has such depth due to this micro/macro trade-off that it has players who will play a ten-year old game with inferior features over the newer games of today. You are wrong in stating that the people who move from SC1 to SC2 will be a minority. I argue that they will be one of the largest factors in deciding whether anyone will play SC2 for ten years.
Our goal is not to beat WC3. We could do that on any given day. Our goal is to match SC1 in its success and longevity. We cannot do that with MBS. As I have said already, MBS removes a part of the game that is too valuable to remove - the macro-oriented part. Only in SC do people lose because they have micro-ed too long and forgotten to macro, and only in SC do people lose when they have macro-ed too much and left their units to die. In adding MBS, you gut the macro-portion of SC, and castrate much of the competitive potential SC2 has as an e-sport.
Wait.. what? You're saying that StarCraft II's popularity very is dependent on how well it will manage to convert StarCraft: BroodWars players to the sequel?
If every sequel is dependent on the following of the earlier entries in the series how do you explain the success of games like: StarCraft:Broodwars, Everquest, World of Warcraft, Counter Strike?
And it's not like we haven't seen big evolutions from one sequel to another which were successfull: Quake 2 --> Quake 3 for example.
Blizzard is generally good at pleasing their fans, but they make games for everyone - not just the rabid fanboys. Surely, their aim must be to cater not only to the hardcore fans but to new players alike. Hardcore fans are relatively easy to please. They would settle for, well, they would settle for StarCraft: Broodwars. New players, who tried the original but couldn't get into it, or who've never ever heard of StarCraft though.. they are harder to cater to.. and a MUCH larger group than the hardcore fanbase.
You are wrong; you are not reading my post. I am not speaking of the popularity of SC2 of a game I have not a doubt in my mind that SC2 will be a popular game, one that is "cool" with "awesome graphics" and "awesome new units and buildings" with a "cool storyline." I am speaking of the potential for long-time success as a competitive e-sport. A huge part of that involves getting the current pros to sign on and say that SC1 is a legitimate competitive game and also to get the fans to follow them. Did you miss the first sentence of my post where I iterate that SC1 has the most dominant e-sports scene (fanbase and players included) out of any RTS ever? It would be a massive blow to SC2 to have the pros claim that SC2 is too easy (which is exactly what they're doing now).
Another part of this longevity I speak of, of course, revolves around a fanbase which always does need new players and fresh blood. However, I am saying that the sacrifice of MBS is one that is too large to make to get new players to sign on. If MBS is the kill-all for them, I would argue that they are the type of casual gamers who will play the game for a while, then drop it when the next "cool" game comes out. That has no positive effect whatsoever on the longevity of SC2.
As someone has already mentioned, hardcore fans are hardly "easy to please." SC1 created what we believe to be the perfect balance between micro and macro, and we would like to maintain that balance. No other RTS on the planet has the type of balance we have achieved, and I don't think we should settle for less.
Don't assume that the only way SC2 will be competitive in the future is if "current" SC pros move on to it. That isn't the case of WC3, and it won't be the case of SC2.
SC2 will develop a competitive scene regardless of if the pros choose not to move on to it. New pros will inevitably arise. It happens in ALL games, otherwise by your logic, no strategy games which have ever come out sequentially to another would have become competitive due to pros in the former refusing to move onto the latter, which is false when one looks at the simplified example of SC1 --> WC3, or even WC2 --> SC. (There are many other strategy games that demonstrate this, but we are all more familiar with Blizzard)
SC1 pros could help dictate the competitive scene, but they are NOT required at all. What is required is that SC2 attract a large enough fanbase such that new, or even old, pros arise to define the meta-game. SC2 won't be as competitive as SC1 with respect to macro, but it will still be very competitive. If its not competitive in the way SC1 fans want, then thats that.
To everyone else, stop comparing SC1 SC2 to WCIII. The only similar aspect between SC2 and WCIII is MBS, but this cannot be used to determine why the games are different. WCIII is fundamentally different from SC1 because of Upkeep, a much lower pop cap, a high hp / low damage ratio, Heroes, and Items. Do not use MBS to support why WCIII is "dull" or "uninspiring" when compared to SC!, because do to the nature of WCIII, MBS isn't even an issue when determining gameplay; its all the other factors that matter.
Only SC2 can be used as a basic for determining the effects of MBS, but SC2 hasnt come out yet.
On March 18 2008 11:42 valiance. wrote: MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
I agree with this post. But I would like to add why SC2 would probably be better off with MBS.
Warcraft III is a very successful strategy game that is played vigorously on the pro level, especially in Europe and China, the latter of which the pro scene has been on a rapid rise.
The main reasons Warcraft III would not, or does not, appeal to certain players is due to Upkeep, Heroes, and items. MBS is not a factor here.
Starcraft II will attact new players who want to play a true strategy game without the Upkeep, Heores, and Items. MBS will make their interface easier, they will adjust better, and Starcraft II with MBS will become just as big, if not bigger, than Warcraft II, since many pro players like Moon, etc, and most Warcraft III players will move onto Starcraft II. (The majority of people who stay will either be hardcore players, or Defense of the Ancients players);
The only community that is criticizing MBS is us, the hardcore Starcraft fans. However, Starcraft II will be a very competitive game regardless of whether SC casuals, hardcores, and pros decide to move to it or not. This is because, as I mentioned before, a limited game like Warcraft III is still highly popular. New players will flood SC2, and new players will dominate it.
SC2 is not SC1. Yes, they will be limiting a strategical element of SC2 - macro - but removing MBS would only cater to players of a 10 year old game, who ( when considering the amount of players of all RTS's and the amount of new players who will move to SC2) are and will be a very, very small minority in SC2.
It would be very illogical for Blizzard to step back from MBS just to cater the crowd of a ten year old game. That would be similar to Java programmers reverting their code back to the binary 1's and 0's to cater to the old school hardcore programmers. New pro's will rise in SC2, and SC2 will be a success regardless of what the SC1 community demands of the game.
You forget the fact that StarCraft has the most dominant e-sports scene out of any RTS ever created. I would argue that the fanbase (comprised mostly of Koreans) obliterates that of all other RTS scenes combined. You are right in the fact that new players will flood into SC2. Blizzard does not make crap games. It will receive top-notch ratings along with a large fan-base. However, the fact of the matter is we are not concerned with the game's popularity. We are concerned about how competitive SC2 will be, and how viable it will be as an e-sport. In other words, you are right in saying that SC2 will be popular, but you are wrong in saying that it will be competitive. And by competitive, I mean at the level it is today.
You are missing the point. Casual players of a game, attracted by "popularity," do not spend ten years following a game, perfecting their strategy, and continuing to get better. SC1 has such depth due to this micro/macro trade-off that it has players who will play a ten-year old game with inferior features over the newer games of today. You are wrong in stating that the people who move from SC1 to SC2 will be a minority. I argue that they will be one of the largest factors in deciding whether anyone will play SC2 for ten years.
Our goal is not to beat WC3. We could do that on any given day. Our goal is to match SC1 in its success and longevity. We cannot do that with MBS. As I have said already, MBS removes a part of the game that is too valuable to remove - the macro-oriented part. Only in SC do people lose because they have micro-ed too long and forgotten to macro, and only in SC do people lose when they have macro-ed too much and left their units to die. In adding MBS, you gut the macro-portion of SC, and castrate much of the competitive potential SC2 has as an e-sport.
Wait.. what? You're saying that StarCraft II's popularity very is dependent on how well it will manage to convert StarCraft: BroodWars players to the sequel?
If every sequel is dependent on the following of the earlier entries in the series how do you explain the success of games like: StarCraft:Broodwars, Everquest, World of Warcraft, Counter Strike?
And it's not like we haven't seen big evolutions from one sequel to another which were successfull: Quake 2 --> Quake 3 for example.
Blizzard is generally good at pleasing their fans, but they make games for everyone - not just the rabid fanboys. Surely, their aim must be to cater not only to the hardcore fans but to new players alike. Hardcore fans are relatively easy to please. They would settle for, well, they would settle for StarCraft: Broodwars. New players, who tried the original but couldn't get into it, or who've never ever heard of StarCraft though.. they are harder to cater to.. and a MUCH larger group than the hardcore fanbase.
You are wrong; you are not reading my post. I am not speaking of the popularity of SC2 of a game I have not a doubt in my mind that SC2 will be a popular game, one that is "cool" with "awesome graphics" and "awesome new units and buildings" with a "cool storyline." I am speaking of the potential for long-time success as a competitive e-sport. A huge part of that involves getting the current pros to sign on and say that SC1 is a legitimate competitive game and also to get the fans to follow them. Did you miss the first sentence of my post where I iterate that SC1 has the most dominant e-sports scene (fanbase and players included) out of any RTS ever? It would be a massive blow to SC2 to have the pros claim that SC2 is too easy (which is exactly what they're doing now).
Another part of this longevity I speak of, of course, revolves around a fanbase which always does need new players and fresh blood. However, I am saying that the sacrifice of MBS is one that is too large to make to get new players to sign on. If MBS is the kill-all for them, I would argue that they are the type of casual gamers who will play the game for a while, then drop it when the next "cool" game comes out. That has no positive effect whatsoever on the longevity of SC2.
As someone has already mentioned, hardcore fans are hardly "easy to please." SC1 created what we believe to be the perfect balance between micro and macro, and we would like to maintain that balance. No other RTS on the planet has the type of balance we have achieved, and I don't think we should settle for less.
First of all, I believe that your overestimating the importance of the pro-scene of StarCraft: Broodwar for the success of StarCraft II. Why would it be a "massive blow to SC2" if the pros claim it's too easy? Warcraft III has succeeded in becoming a successful e-sport despite claims that it's "too easy", the need to fight AI-controlled units to win, upkeep, slower pace, micro-oriented game play, cluttered visuals and several random factors. Now, if Warcraft could be come successful in spite of all these things working against it, then surely StarCraft II, featuring fast paced, action oriented combat with clear visuals, could be successful too.
Second, there are non-SBS-ways of adding harder macro to the game without making it feel like you're making macro harder for the sake of making macro harder. If Blizzard would increase the incentives for using Warp-in and juggling Add-ons they would be able to increase the macro complexity without alienating the casual gamers.
Third, why do you believe that the balance between macro and micro is perfect in StarCraft today? In fact, logically, it would seem very unlikely that the current balance is perfect - surely one fraction of a percentile toward micro or macro could make the balance better, no?
Fourth, the pro scene is easy to please. It goes like this: large fan base spawns competitive scene which due to the large fan base attracts sponsors which does two things: 1) makes it possible for people do make money playing the game, which means they have more time to practice and get better and 2) makes more people interested in becoming good. These two points can make the fan base even larger, and the cycle repeats itself.
As long as theirs money to be won by playing the game, there will be players fighting for the cash. And Blizzard has deep enough pockets to create monetary incentives for people to practice more and get better at their game (don't think this will be needed, but.. if all else fails).
On March 18 2008 11:42 valiance. wrote: MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
I agree with this post. But I would like to add why SC2 would probably be better off with MBS.
Warcraft III is a very successful strategy game that is played vigorously on the pro level, especially in Europe and China, the latter of which the pro scene has been on a rapid rise.
The main reasons Warcraft III would not, or does not, appeal to certain players is due to Upkeep, Heroes, and items. MBS is not a factor here.
Starcraft II will attact new players who want to play a true strategy game without the Upkeep, Heores, and Items. MBS will make their interface easier, they will adjust better, and Starcraft II with MBS will become just as big, if not bigger, than Warcraft II, since many pro players like Moon, etc, and most Warcraft III players will move onto Starcraft II. (The majority of people who stay will either be hardcore players, or Defense of the Ancients players);
The only community that is criticizing MBS is us, the hardcore Starcraft fans. However, Starcraft II will be a very competitive game regardless of whether SC casuals, hardcores, and pros decide to move to it or not. This is because, as I mentioned before, a limited game like Warcraft III is still highly popular. New players will flood SC2, and new players will dominate it.
SC2 is not SC1. Yes, they will be limiting a strategical element of SC2 - macro - but removing MBS would only cater to players of a 10 year old game, who ( when considering the amount of players of all RTS's and the amount of new players who will move to SC2) are and will be a very, very small minority in SC2.
It would be very illogical for Blizzard to step back from MBS just to cater the crowd of a ten year old game. That would be similar to Java programmers reverting their code back to the binary 1's and 0's to cater to the old school hardcore programmers. New pro's will rise in SC2, and SC2 will be a success regardless of what the SC1 community demands of the game.
You forget the fact that StarCraft has the most dominant e-sports scene out of any RTS ever created. I would argue that the fanbase (comprised mostly of Koreans) obliterates that of all other RTS scenes combined. You are right in the fact that new players will flood into SC2. Blizzard does not make crap games. It will receive top-notch ratings along with a large fan-base. However, the fact of the matter is we are not concerned with the game's popularity. We are concerned about how competitive SC2 will be, and how viable it will be as an e-sport. In other words, you are right in saying that SC2 will be popular, but you are wrong in saying that it will be competitive. And by competitive, I mean at the level it is today.
You are missing the point. Casual players of a game, attracted by "popularity," do not spend ten years following a game, perfecting their strategy, and continuing to get better. SC1 has such depth due to this micro/macro trade-off that it has players who will play a ten-year old game with inferior features over the newer games of today. You are wrong in stating that the people who move from SC1 to SC2 will be a minority. I argue that they will be one of the largest factors in deciding whether anyone will play SC2 for ten years.
Our goal is not to beat WC3. We could do that on any given day. Our goal is to match SC1 in its success and longevity. We cannot do that with MBS. As I have said already, MBS removes a part of the game that is too valuable to remove - the macro-oriented part. Only in SC do people lose because they have micro-ed too long and forgotten to macro, and only in SC do people lose when they have macro-ed too much and left their units to die. In adding MBS, you gut the macro-portion of SC, and castrate much of the competitive potential SC2 has as an e-sport.
Wait.. what? You're saying that StarCraft II's popularity very is dependent on how well it will manage to convert StarCraft: BroodWars players to the sequel?
If every sequel is dependent on the following of the earlier entries in the series how do you explain the success of games like: StarCraft:Broodwars, Everquest, World of Warcraft, Counter Strike?
And it's not like we haven't seen big evolutions from one sequel to another which were successfull: Quake 2 --> Quake 3 for example.
Blizzard is generally good at pleasing their fans, but they make games for everyone - not just the rabid fanboys. Surely, their aim must be to cater not only to the hardcore fans but to new players alike. Hardcore fans are relatively easy to please. They would settle for, well, they would settle for StarCraft: Broodwars. New players, who tried the original but couldn't get into it, or who've never ever heard of StarCraft though.. they are harder to cater to.. and a MUCH larger group than the hardcore fanbase.
You are wrong; you are not reading my post. I am not speaking of the popularity of SC2 of a game I have not a doubt in my mind that SC2 will be a popular game, one that is "cool" with "awesome graphics" and "awesome new units and buildings" with a "cool storyline." I am speaking of the potential for long-time success as a competitive e-sport. A huge part of that involves getting the current pros to sign on and say that SC1 is a legitimate competitive game and also to get the fans to follow them. Did you miss the first sentence of my post where I iterate that SC1 has the most dominant e-sports scene (fanbase and players included) out of any RTS ever? It would be a massive blow to SC2 to have the pros claim that SC2 is too easy (which is exactly what they're doing now).
Another part of this longevity I speak of, of course, revolves around a fanbase which always does need new players and fresh blood. However, I am saying that the sacrifice of MBS is one that is too large to make to get new players to sign on. If MBS is the kill-all for them, I would argue that they are the type of casual gamers who will play the game for a while, then drop it when the next "cool" game comes out. That has no positive effect whatsoever on the longevity of SC2.
As someone has already mentioned, hardcore fans are hardly "easy to please." SC1 created what we believe to be the perfect balance between micro and macro, and we would like to maintain that balance. No other RTS on the planet has the type of balance we have achieved, and I don't think we should settle for less.
First of all, I believe that your overestimating the importance of the pro-scene of StarCraft: Broodwar for the success of StarCraft II. Why would it be a "massive blow to SC2" if the pros claim it's too easy? Warcraft III has succeeded in becoming a successful e-sport despite claims that it's "too easy", the need to fight AI-controlled units to win, upkeep, slower pace, micro-oriented game play, cluttered visuals and several random factors. Now, if Warcraft could be come successful in spite of all these things working against it, then surely StarCraft II, featuring fast paced, action oriented combat with clear visuals, could be successful too.
Second, there are non-SBS-ways of adding harder macro to the game without making it feel like you're making macro harder for the sake of making macro harder. If Blizzard would increase the incentives for using Warp-in and juggling Add-ons they would be able to increase the macro complexity without alienating the casual gamers.
Third, why do you believe that the balance between macro and micro is perfect in StarCraft today? In fact, logically, it would seem very unlikely that the current balance is perfect - surely one fraction of a percentile toward micro or macro could make the balance better, no?
Fourth, the pro scene is easy to please. It goes like this: large fan base spawns competitive scene which due to the large fan base attracts sponsors which does two things: 1) makes it possible for people do make money playing the game, which means they have more time to practice and get better and 2) makes more people interested in becoming good. These two points can make the fan base even larger, and the cycle repeats itself.
As long as theirs money to be won by playing the game, there will be players fighting for the cash. And Blizzard has deep enough pockets to create monetary incentives for people to practice more and get better at their game (don't think this will be needed, but.. if all else fails).
On March 18 2008 11:42 valiance. wrote: MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
I agree with this post. But I would like to add why SC2 would probably be better off with MBS.
Warcraft III is a very successful strategy game that is played vigorously on the pro level, especially in Europe and China, the latter of which the pro scene has been on a rapid rise.
The main reasons Warcraft III would not, or does not, appeal to certain players is due to Upkeep, Heroes, and items. MBS is not a factor here.
Starcraft II will attact new players who want to play a true strategy game without the Upkeep, Heores, and Items. MBS will make their interface easier, they will adjust better, and Starcraft II with MBS will become just as big, if not bigger, than Warcraft II, since many pro players like Moon, etc, and most Warcraft III players will move onto Starcraft II. (The majority of people who stay will either be hardcore players, or Defense of the Ancients players);
The only community that is criticizing MBS is us, the hardcore Starcraft fans. However, Starcraft II will be a very competitive game regardless of whether SC casuals, hardcores, and pros decide to move to it or not. This is because, as I mentioned before, a limited game like Warcraft III is still highly popular. New players will flood SC2, and new players will dominate it.
SC2 is not SC1. Yes, they will be limiting a strategical element of SC2 - macro - but removing MBS would only cater to players of a 10 year old game, who ( when considering the amount of players of all RTS's and the amount of new players who will move to SC2) are and will be a very, very small minority in SC2.
It would be very illogical for Blizzard to step back from MBS just to cater the crowd of a ten year old game. That would be similar to Java programmers reverting their code back to the binary 1's and 0's to cater to the old school hardcore programmers. New pro's will rise in SC2, and SC2 will be a success regardless of what the SC1 community demands of the game.
You forget the fact that StarCraft has the most dominant e-sports scene out of any RTS ever created. I would argue that the fanbase (comprised mostly of Koreans) obliterates that of all other RTS scenes combined. You are right in the fact that new players will flood into SC2. Blizzard does not make crap games. It will receive top-notch ratings along with a large fan-base. However, the fact of the matter is we are not concerned with the game's popularity. We are concerned about how competitive SC2 will be, and how viable it will be as an e-sport. In other words, you are right in saying that SC2 will be popular, but you are wrong in saying that it will be competitive. And by competitive, I mean at the level it is today.
You are missing the point. Casual players of a game, attracted by "popularity," do not spend ten years following a game, perfecting their strategy, and continuing to get better. SC1 has such depth due to this micro/macro trade-off that it has players who will play a ten-year old game with inferior features over the newer games of today. You are wrong in stating that the people who move from SC1 to SC2 will be a minority. I argue that they will be one of the largest factors in deciding whether anyone will play SC2 for ten years.
Our goal is not to beat WC3. We could do that on any given day. Our goal is to match SC1 in its success and longevity. We cannot do that with MBS. As I have said already, MBS removes a part of the game that is too valuable to remove - the macro-oriented part. Only in SC do people lose because they have micro-ed too long and forgotten to macro, and only in SC do people lose when they have macro-ed too much and left their units to die. In adding MBS, you gut the macro-portion of SC, and castrate much of the competitive potential SC2 has as an e-sport.
Wait.. what? You're saying that StarCraft II's popularity very is dependent on how well it will manage to convert StarCraft: BroodWars players to the sequel?
If every sequel is dependent on the following of the earlier entries in the series how do you explain the success of games like: StarCraft:Broodwars, Everquest, World of Warcraft, Counter Strike?
And it's not like we haven't seen big evolutions from one sequel to another which were successfull: Quake 2 --> Quake 3 for example.
Blizzard is generally good at pleasing their fans, but they make games for everyone - not just the rabid fanboys. Surely, their aim must be to cater not only to the hardcore fans but to new players alike. Hardcore fans are relatively easy to please. They would settle for, well, they would settle for StarCraft: Broodwars. New players, who tried the original but couldn't get into it, or who've never ever heard of StarCraft though.. they are harder to cater to.. and a MUCH larger group than the hardcore fanbase.
You are wrong; you are not reading my post. I am not speaking of the popularity of SC2 of a game I have not a doubt in my mind that SC2 will be a popular game, one that is "cool" with "awesome graphics" and "awesome new units and buildings" with a "cool storyline." I am speaking of the potential for long-time success as a competitive e-sport. A huge part of that involves getting the current pros to sign on and say that SC1 is a legitimate competitive game and also to get the fans to follow them. Did you miss the first sentence of my post where I iterate that SC1 has the most dominant e-sports scene (fanbase and players included) out of any RTS ever? It would be a massive blow to SC2 to have the pros claim that SC2 is too easy (which is exactly what they're doing now).
Another part of this longevity I speak of, of course, revolves around a fanbase which always does need new players and fresh blood. However, I am saying that the sacrifice of MBS is one that is too large to make to get new players to sign on. If MBS is the kill-all for them, I would argue that they are the type of casual gamers who will play the game for a while, then drop it when the next "cool" game comes out. That has no positive effect whatsoever on the longevity of SC2.
As someone has already mentioned, hardcore fans are hardly "easy to please." SC1 created what we believe to be the perfect balance between micro and macro, and we would like to maintain that balance. No other RTS on the planet has the type of balance we have achieved, and I don't think we should settle for less.
Don't assume that the only way SC2 will be competitive in the future is if "current" SC pros move on to it. That isn't the case of WC3, and it won't be the case of SC2.
SC2 will develop a competitive scene regardless of if the pros choose not to move on to it. New pros will inevitably arise. It happens in ALL games, otherwise by your logic, no strategy games which have ever come out sequentially to another would have become competitive due to pros in the former refusing to move onto the latter, which is false when one looks at the simplified example of SC1 --> WC3, or even WC2 --> SC. (There are many other strategy games that demonstrate this, but we are all more familiar with Blizzard)
SC1 pros could help dictate the competitive scene, but they are NOT required at all. What is required is that SC2 attract a large enough fanbase such that new, or even old, pros arise to define the meta-game. SC2 won't be as competitive as SC1 with respect to macro, but it will still be very competitive. If its not competitive in the way SC1 fans want, then thats that.
To everyone else, stop comparing SC1 SC2 to WCIII. The only similar aspect between SC2 and WCIII is MBS, but this cannot be used to determine why the games are different. WCIII is fundamentally different from SC1 because of Upkeep, a much lower pop cap, a high hp / low damage ratio, Heroes, and Items. Do not use MBS to support why WCIII is "dull" or "uninspiring" when compared to SC!, because do to the nature of WCIII, MBS isn't even an issue when determining gameplay; its all the other factors that matter.
Only SC2 can be used as a basic for determining the effects of MBS, but SC2 hasnt come out yet.
Both very good and intelligent posts. What determines the competitive scene more so than any factor is game popularity. What creates game popularity? Fun.
Nal-Ra knows this best: "It looks fun. For a game to be popular, isn't that the most important thing? I think it will do well when it's released. It's too early to talk about balance. Each race has new, powerful units, so it should be fun."
That is ultimately it boys. If the game is fun, it will be popular. If its popular, that increases sponsorship, because that means theres money to be made. If theres money to be made, pro gamers will naturally start popping up, whether they be old Starcraft progamers/ old WC3 progamers or completely new ones. So if theres MBS or not, it only matters if it affects how fun the game is.. ultimately the MASSES, not the minority, will decided this.
A big problem with a lot of "fans" (whether they be dedicated proscene followers or "noob" players) is that they tunnel into what specific thing they like about their game as opposed to looking at the bigger picture. They fall into the comfirmation bias and tunneling effect when looking at what they "think" is the cause for their games success, and tend to only listen to arguments that "confirm" their own bias. The end result tends to be a narrower view on the subject matter.
Don't get be wrong, I love the whole esports scene, but its a fun and popular game that allows for that to exist in the first place... esports is a biproduct of a great game. I think we should keep that in mind during our discussion.
Although its hard to compare the two games perfectly, overall I will go on the record for saying that Starcraft was a more fun STRATEGY game than Warcraft 3.
How many times have you seen in pro games, with 300+ apm koreans who do nothing but play starcraft all day, and they would still lose many valuable units because they were distracted clicking 14 different buildings while his forces got attacked by surprise.
You see it a lot in every single game. Regardless of how good the player is, there is too much stuff going on late game you cannot micro decently when there is so much to macro.
It makes the game looks silly and unresponsive when you have 300+ apm korean pros wasting units out of distraction caused by excessive macroing. Clearly there is an unbalance in actions needed vs human actions possible in SC1. MBS is not gonna reduce the number of actions, it is gonna shift those actions another area, to microing.
Microing = creative fun smart gameplay Building selection = repetitive boring dumb gameplay
I would much rather play and watch a game where creativity and skill are valued over repetitive tasks.
Concept: Terran reactor v 2.0 (maximizing macro play for experienced players while still keeping MBS as part of unit production).
Just something that came up to me, when I saw a post somewhere that mentioned that the terran building upgrade called reactors would no longer allow production of 2 units at once but rather increased the production queue (wich is completely useless if you ask me, even counter productive).
The way I was thinking the reactor could work is, it would give a boost in the unit building time but in order to do so , a SCV would have to be moved inside the reactor (make a small animation with a door that lets the SCV inside). Once the SCV enters the reactor, the production speed of the next unit from that facility is increased.
Once the unit is finished being produced, the SCV is ejected from the reactor, requiring the players attention to send it back inside another time if he wants to speed up the production for the next unit in queue. This would add an element of skill, as micromanagement of the SCV would require the players attention everytime he wants to "boost" the production of units.
This is also a nice way of optimizing macro play for experienced players and takes no advantage of the MBS feature, rather requiring the player to actually perform mechanical manoeuvres with the mouse (by sending the scv inside the reactor) in order to boost unit production.
That I have seen too. The fear with MBS is letting pro player approaching flawless play and flattening gameplay. But while WC3 featured massed armies with casters, heroes, support so focused in a single tactical groupe, SC is about scattered expansions and chokes on most maps. There are so many many things to do, errors will occur, but maybe not as blatant as today.
With SBS, mirror matchups can be dull as well (I did found Kal vs Jambi PvP to be) almost all buildings and units popping at the same time, match nearly decided on the event of a single big clash...
I think a important element of fun is giving or at least letting players believe they have several ways of dealing with every situation. But some moves need so much focus they can't be performed without damaging far too much the macro.
EDIT : I did a similar proposal, to use SCV to boost production, but with addition ressource cost rather than ejection. I think the zerg lore could also give birth to some macro elements, like recycling wounded units (dump them into hatcheries or something else for assimilation) since all zergs are expendable living weapons.
Maybe Blizzard should toy with the ressource system, leaving sudden vespene pools to be scavenged or something. Anything that could make players interact with their probes in a more regular fashion than just sending them to the minerals and protecting them from raids.
On March 19 2008 07:55 Famehunter wrote: Concept: Terran reactor v 2.0 (maximizing macro play for experienced players while still keeping MBS as part of unit production).
Just something that came up to me, when I saw a post somewhere that mentioned that the terran building upgrade called reactors would no longer allow production of 2 units at once but rather increased the production queue (wich is completely useless if you ask me, even counter productive).
The way I was thinking the reactor could work is, it would give a boost in the unit building time but in order to do so , a SCV would have to be moved inside the reactor (make a small animation with a door that lets the SCV inside). Once the SCV enters the reactor, the production speed of the next unit from that facility is increased.
Once the unit is finished being produced, the SCV is ejected from the reactor, requiring the players attention to send it back inside another time if he wants to speed up the production for the next unit in queue. This would add an element of skill, as micromanagement of the SCV would require the players attention everytime he wants to "boost" the production of units.
This is also a nice way of optimizing macro play for experienced players and takes no advantage of the MBS feature, rather requiring the player to actually perform mechanical manoeuvres with the mouse (by sending the scv inside the reactor) in order to boost unit production.
Seconded, I read somewhere that Blizzard is shooting for a 60/40 micro/macro ratio with SC2. Sounds like that they are well on their way to achieving this (if true). Macro in the metagame is redundant and does take away from the creativity of micro battles. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making macro a hard skill to master, but only in the sense of timing, base building, etc., not in fighting the UI to build units faster.
That's a nice idea Famehunter. I don't mind macro being a big part of gameplay if it's at least fun, non-repetitive and dynamic to do so. SBS may help keep up a certain amount of macro in the game, but the stupid repetitiveness spoils the fun. Something like the reactor mechanic would require the player to pay attention to his base just as in SC1, but what he's doing is far less repetitive, doesn't feel like fighting the UI and it has to be adapted to each situation. All in all a nice thing.
I can agree that fun is certainly one of the most important parts to the success of a game as an e-sport. Or as yangstuh said, popularity. All that matters is that lots and lots of people play the game (in the standard 1v1 setting that is - if everyone is playing UMS then that won't help the competitive scene). As long as plenty of people are playing, some are going to be better and want to make money off that skill. I think SC2 is going to become an e-sport regardless of what Blizzard changes from now until release (as long as the final product is relatively balanced that is). It has so much hype and because the game is being revealed and shown off long before its release, there is little chance of the final product not living up. Its not like a movie where you see plenty of hype and yet still go in to the movie hopeful but clueless - people have already played SC2, seen the units, seen the graphics, seen the gameplay.
The big question isn't if it will become an e-sport, but will it expand e-sports? Will it have its devout audience around the size of the current SC audience (or even smaller), or will it reach beyond the boundaries and pull people in to a scene they didn't know existed? I feel like there are two things that will help the game to accomplish this:
One is its hype and advertisement. This is in Blizzard's hands as much as it is in the community's. There needs to be a defined effort to bring in new people to the audience, and not just the game. Some of this will come naturally depending on the popularity of the game, but people playing the game will need to know that they can have just as much fun watching the game too. Blizzard should be showing off the fact that the best gamers are battling and that you should be watching. Communities should do the same.
The second though is just as, if not more important. Entertainment. The game has to produce exciting moments, and plenty of them. There shouldn't be too many dull moments in the game, and when there are they should be full of anticipation. The game also needs to produce stars, people who fans can devote themselves to, feeling their defeats just as strongly as their triumphs. Some argue this will come naturally no matter how the game is made (after all - some people are just naturally talented at certain activities). Others will argue that this is largely in the hands of the developers to make sure the game is not too easy to master.
So enters MBS. Will it make the game easier? If it does, will it be significant? I don't know. If the game becomes significantly easier as a result of the simplification changes, Blizzard always has the option of making up the difficulty in the other area of the game (micro). This brings up a different concern: alienating the current Starcraft community. If the game becomes a micro war with macro being less than 10% of the action, then one of the key elements of the Starcraft game (multitasking) has been thrown out the window and that will not sit well with many people. They could also revert the game to an SBS system,and take out other changes like automine and smartcasting too. I'm sure many Starcraft fans would rejoice, but then Blizzard would be sacrificing their new potential player base for their old one.
So whats the solution? A balance of sorts. Many of the people on this board have already admitted they would be satisfied with some of the changes, but in the end they really just want the game to still require a large portion of attention on macro in successful play. So maybe keeping SBS but changing the rest would be of some help. Possibly, but this would not be the win-win situation everyone hopes for. SC fans would still see less attention on macro (due to automine and idle worker selection), and new players would still have the challenge of SBS. The real solution would be to find a perfect balance by creating something else to add to the macro side of the game. They would make up the difficulty by having players do many different relatively easy things with macro, instead of only a few challenging ones. This way players will still need to keep their screen in their base to be successful, but they can also do all of the activities required with relative ease. A good example is that reactor idea that Famehunter said. Simple, yet demanding. Hopefully Blizzard can come up with similar ideas for all the races.
On March 19 2008 07:39 VIB wrote: Microing = creative fun smart gameplay Building selection = repetitive boring dumb gameplay
This is really not a good way of looking at it. You have to remember, the concern is for the entertainment value of the game. There can certainly be repetitive elements, because not everything the player does is viewed on the spectator screen. In fact, its best that there are some repetitive elements because the players are so damn fast. This way the players can make full use of their speed without having too much action that the observers cant even follow.
MBS will only make the game easier for Starcraft players. Starcraft is a 10 year old game. Most games since then have incorporated MBS. Logically, Blizzard would be out of their mind to not include MBS, for that would just be purposely limiting a more modern interface just to cater to the fans of a 10 year old game, instead of attract new players from other genres.
Starcraft is not entertaining to watch because of macro; its entertaining because of strategies employed, timing attacks, and brilliant displays of micro. Most pros, and players of similar skill levels, macro equivalently, so the other factors are what usually come into play. Starcraft II will be the same.
The most important aspects of macro should revolve around proper economy management and precise timing. It shouldn't revolve around the ability to select 9 different factories as fast as possible when you know you want to build 9 vultures. That aspect is being reduced. Players who manage their economy, build orders, and unit production timing well will still beat players who don't do so as well.
MBS will not be as big of a deal as most of you make it to be.
@ yangstuh
Many can argue that Starcraft is more fun strategy wise than Warcraft III, whether its true or not. But the reasonings behind that argument cannot, and should not, involve MBS at all. In WCIII it is common, actually its very common, to be pumping units from a single building producer (or at most 2), like ghouls from one crypt, bears from two Ancients of Lores, etc. MBS rarely has an effect on WCIII, if at all. Thats why Warcraft III should not even be mentioned in this thread.
On March 19 2008 02:13 0xDEADBEEF wrote: WC3 is supposed to be heavily micro-oriented, so one can assume standardized macro among good players.
This is my point. MBS and automine work towards standardising macro. A macro mistake for the pros will just not happen. You will end up with standardised armies, with no variations from game to game.
I should mention I'm fairly on the fence about MBS myself. I don't really think its going to be as big a deal as most people say either. I have my doubts about MBS taking so much difficulty away, that the macro/micro balance is thrown out of whack. At the same time, I can see the merit in concerns if it were the case. Sure, the exciting moments of the game for spectators are micro situations, but that doesn't mean that making the game mostly micro would be beneficial for observing. We can barely catch most of what goes on now, and thats without the observers watching the pros macro up. If the game were to become mostly micro, I would envision multiple simultaneous battles to become the norm, which doesn't exactly make it easy for spectators. There needs to be a balance because people don't watch at the same speed progamers play.
On March 19 2008 07:39 VIB wrote: How many times have you seen in pro games, with 300+ apm koreans who do nothing but play starcraft all day, and they would still lose many valuable units because they were distracted clicking 14 different buildings while his forces got attacked by surprise.
You see it a lot in every single game. Regardless of how good the player is, there is too much stuff going on late game you cannot micro decently when there is so much to macro.
It makes the game looks silly and unresponsive when you have 300+ apm korean pros wasting units out of distraction caused by excessive macroing. Clearly there is an unbalance in actions needed vs human actions possible in SC1.
Your opinon boggles me. Why would you games to be played perfect? Then wheres the room for improvement?
Back in the day, players like boxer were thought to have almost perfected the game. People thought that he had hit the limit where he couldnt improve his game any further. Of course we've made leaps and bounds and players these days could crush boxer's play back in his time.
Take grubby for example. What could grubby do to improve his game? Not a whole lot. Pretty much, work on not making mistakes. There is no higher level to warcraft, its just what it is. The limits have been reached and players are playing as good as they are probably ever going to get at the moment.
Within a few months. Macro is going to become very standardised if MBS and Automine are implemented without some sort of compensation implementation. The best ways to control your base and economy will be mapped out. The only thing one player will have over another will be micro. It wont make for a very interesting pro-league at all.
Brawl makes me worried. When I heard there would be no L cancelling, I was sure that he'd just include something to make gameplay just as frenetic as it was in melee. However, after playing brawl now for like 20 hours, it just seems so slow and I feel like i'm already getting bored of it.
I hope sc2 doesn't end up the same way, dumbed down to the point where it's not even fun to compete with anymore.
I just found these threads ragging on Brawl and it pretty much echoes everything I see in these threads about SC2. I found it hilarious, because you see the exact same stereotypes of people arguing there as you see here: the "competitive" people, the "noobs", etc.
On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote:Your opinon boggles me. Why would you games to be played perfect? Then wheres the room for improvement?
STRATEGY may always improve! C'mon look at the star invitational a month ago. Flash used an unique fast armory build with an unique Goliath micro to stop toss players in maps like Katrina that has always been known to heavily favor carriers against terrans. Stork tried to counter that with arbiters and got countered by well pre-placed mass turrets. I wouldn't be impressed if a few months from now we'd be seeing many protoss using disruption web to counter mass turrets that countered the arbiters that countered early armory that countered mass carriers. And that was a month ago! And we're talking about a game that is about 10 years old, and we still see new strategies born TODAY! It would be an absurd hypocrisy to say there could be no more room to improvement with MBS. Strategy will always improve!
Don't compare it to WC3. I knew someone would. It's a whole different story. WC3 is too much centered around microing that one small army with your hero, there is very small room to new builds, macroing styles and positioning like in SC.
You guys need to remember that macro is not all about who clicks on buildings faster. That's the repetetive boring part of macroing in sc1. Macro is also about build strategy, build placement, counter builds, expansion decisions, when/where/how to expand. Those are the creative part of macroing that are on SC1, are STILL on SC2, but are much less present on WC3, which helps making the game boring. Clicking rapidly on multiple buildings is less than 10% of all the time/actions/decisions you take when macroing. That is the repetetive uncreative part of macroing. You remove that, you open room for... EVERYTHING else! You'll have more room to improve both your micro AND your macro strats with MBS. Really guys, stop this "omg MBS will kill macroing!" behavior because it makes no sense, macroing is MUCH more than that.
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....
Not gonna directly quote you (that was a big ass post), but I think that macro even with MBS is still going to be a very important part of Starcraft 2. I'd like for Blizzard to maintain a strong emphasis on macro and stay away from the micro intensive WC3 gameplay. My point is that even though it may be easier to execute the mechanical aspect of the macro gameplay with MBS, the strategizing/timing/manuavering will still remain... overall macro will be just as important as it was in Starcraft 1. The main reasons is that Starcraft's emphasis has always (generally) been lower HP and lower cost units. This equates to large armies which requires macro skills to utilize mass numbers of units effectively.
@anti-MBSers I think one of the diverging points that people make from this aspect of the game (macro), is the MBS feature. I don't think it will nuder macro as much as people think. The essense of macro isn't just the difficulty in which it takes to execute mechanical keyboard commands to produce units, thats such a tiny fraction of the overall framework that makes macro gameplay what it is. Macro isn't just about producing units (MBS being a subfactor within unit production of macro.. making it a sub-sub-factor) or expansion management, people seem to have lost focus on that. Theres the constantly evolving strategies, battle tactics, timing, maneuvering and orginizational aspect of managing large armies in macro gameplay-many of these factors overlapping other "pillars" of Starcraft and RTS games in general.
I think that MBS might make it harder for progamers to distinguish themselves from one another on skill level, however thats while keeping other factors constant. Obviously Starcraft 2, while feeling like a Starcraft game, is utlimately a different game. There are so many new variables with units, abilities, techs, timings, balance statistics, and so on. My point is that there is potentially going to be more depth for strategy, variation, and gameplay for progamers to "flex" their muscles. So while I acknowledge that this is not for certain, only a potential, so to must anti-MBS critics accept the "potential" that MBS might not actually by as bad as you think and to please relax a little, beta testing has yet begun.
Wow, nice game. I played WC3 only for about two years so I was able to understand all the nuances and battleshifts through that game despite the low quality vid. WC3 has some amazing players and has produced some amazing games. Of course as we all know; same is true of SC, let's hope SC2 produces top quality games.
VIB, Ive already argued against your point. Im not going to bother again. Its a constant cycle, where a new person enters the fray, the verteran arguers argue them down, then someone else comes in and makes the same point.
Our points are exactly the same, however, I want to turn my attention to this:
On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote: VIB, Ive already argued against your point. Im not going to bother again. Its a constant cycle, where a new person enters the fray, the verteran arguers argue them down, then someone else comes in and makes the same point.
Lets take a look at your "argument" shall we, Mr. Veteran?
On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote: Your opinon boggles me. Why would you games to be played perfect? Then wheres the room for improvement?
Back in the day, players like boxer were thought to have almost perfected the game. People thought that he had hit the limit where he couldnt improve his game any further. Of course we've made leaps and bounds and players these days could crush boxer's play back in his time.
Good argument. Now try arguing towards the point of this thread instead of stating the obvious.
Take grubby for example. What could grubby do to improve his game? Not a whole lot. Pretty much, work on not making mistakes. There is no higher level to warcraft, its just what it is. The limits have been reached and players are playing as good as they are probably ever going to get at the moment.
Stop, stop using Warcraft III as a comparison. I have said it before, but I'll explain it again to you, Mr. "Veteran".
Warcraft III is fundamentally different from Starcraft because of a much lower unit cap, units with a much higher food cost, Upkeep, Creeps, Heroes, and Items. Where does MBS come in? It doesn't. Go watch pro Warcraft III replays. You will never see pro players make more than 4 unit producing buildings max in most games, if even that. The game design favors micro. MBS has nothing to do with that, so you cannot use that as a basis for SC2, or even SC1.
Within a few months. Macro is going to become very standardised if MBS and Automine are implemented without some sort of compensation implementation. The best ways to control your base and economy will be mapped out. The only thing one player will have over another will be micro. It wont make for a very interesting pro-league at all.
Macro is not about producing 7 vultures from 7 factories when you know you want them. Macro is about proper building timing, proper building placement, proper build orders, building the perfect balance between workers and units at every possible time with accordance to your build, expanding at the proper times, allocating your resources properly between a tech advantage, etc etc I could go on forever.
You MBS critics equivalate macro to being 100% selecting production facilities and producing units. In high level play, that is only a fraction of macro at best. I like the example VIB uses with Flash. Go read it, Mr. "Veteran".
Here is a lesson: post count does not = veteran arguer. We MBS supporters bring up the same points because you fail to contradict them. We bring up the same points because they contradict you, especially when you try to use Warcraft III in your argument.
And, with respect to what MBS will rectify in SC2, macro is already standardized. Or at least your very limited scope of macro is, by which I mean the ability to produce units from production facilities. Who isn't able to do that after a certain threshold of skill is past?
Once again, Mr. "Veteran", macro entails something much, much larger than being able to select multiple buildings. The player who manages his economy better will be able to produce better in both MBS and SBS.
On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote:Your opinon boggles me. Why would you games to be played perfect? Then wheres the room for improvement?
STRATEGY may always improve! C'mon look at the star invitational a month ago. Flash used an unique fast armory build with an unique Goliath micro to stop toss players in maps like Katrina that has always been known to heavily favor carriers against terrans. Stork tried to counter that with arbiters and got countered by well pre-placed mass turrets. I wouldn't be impressed if a few months from now we'd be seeing many protoss using disruption web to counter mass turrets that countered the arbiters that countered early armory that countered mass carriers. And that was a month ago! And we're talking about a game that is about 10 years old, and we still see new strategies born TODAY! It would be an absurd hypocrisy to say there could be no more room to improvement with MBS. Strategy will always improve!
Don't compare it to WC3. I knew someone would. It's a whole different story. WC3 is too much centered around microing that one small army with your hero, there is very small room to new builds, macroing styles and positioning like in SC.
You guys need to remember that macro is not all about who clicks on buildings faster. That's the repetetive boring part of macroing in sc1. Macro is also about build strategy, build placement, counter builds, expansion decisions, when/where/how to expand. Those are the creative part of macroing that are on SC1, are STILL on SC2, but are much less present on WC3, which helps making the game boring. Clicking rapidly on multiple buildings is less than 10% of all the time/actions/decisions you take when macroing. That is the repetetive uncreative part of macroing. You remove that, you open room for... EVERYTHING else! You'll have more room to improve both your micro AND your macro strats with MBS. Really guys, stop this "omg MBS will kill macroing!" behavior because it makes no sense, macroing is MUCH more than that.
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....
no
and it's highly unlikely that we'll see corsairs unless the maps are even more carrier friendly than katrina. corsairs come from the same building as carriers do and if you start waisting that much gas and making that many less carriers terran will just walk over you.
obviously macro is more than building clicking, however the other factions you're talking are the easier half of macroing. the participatory (SBS and non automing) factor is something that forces places to chose macro over micro at specific moments rather than have supreme control. This allows for more styles and more back and fourth game play.
On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote: VIB, Ive already argued against your point. Im not going to bother again. Its a constant cycle, where a new person enters the fray, the verteran arguers argue them down, then someone else comes in and makes the same point.
Lets take a look at your "argument" shall we, Mr. Veteran?
On March 19 2008 11:25 Fen wrote: Your opinon boggles me. Why would you games to be played perfect? Then wheres the room for improvement?
Back in the day, players like boxer were thought to have almost perfected the game. People thought that he had hit the limit where he couldnt improve his game any further. Of course we've made leaps and bounds and players these days could crush boxer's play back in his time.
Good argument. Now try arguing towards the point of this thread instead of stating the obvious.
Take grubby for example. What could grubby do to improve his game? Not a whole lot. Pretty much, work on not making mistakes. There is no higher level to warcraft, its just what it is. The limits have been reached and players are playing as good as they are probably ever going to get at the moment.
Stop, stop using Warcraft III as a comparison. I have said it before, but I'll explain it again to you, Mr. "Veteran".
Warcraft III is fundamentally different from Starcraft because of a much lower unit cap, units with a much higher food cost, Upkeep, Creeps, Heroes, and Items. Where does MBS come in? It doesn't. Go watch pro Warcraft III replays. You will never see pro players make more than 4 unit producing buildings max in most games, if even that. The game design favors micro. MBS has nothing to do with that, so you cannot use that as a basis for SC2, or even SC1.
Within a few months. Macro is going to become very standardised if MBS and Automine are implemented without some sort of compensation implementation. The best ways to control your base and economy will be mapped out. The only thing one player will have over another will be micro. It wont make for a very interesting pro-league at all.
Macro is not about producing 7 vultures from 7 factories when you know you want them. Macro is about proper building timing, proper building placement, proper build orders, building the perfect balance between workers and units at every possible time with accordance to your build, expanding at the proper times, allocating your resources properly between a tech advantage, etc etc I could go on forever.
You MBS critics equivalate macro to being 100% selecting production facilities and producing units. In high level play, that is only a fraction of macro at best. I like the example VIB uses with Flash. Go read it, Mr. "Veteran".
Here is a lesson: post count does not = veteran arguer. We MBS supporters bring up the same points because you fail to contradict them. We bring up the same points because they contradict you, especially when you try to use Warcraft III in your argument.
And, with respect to what MBS will rectify in SC2, macro is already standardized. Or at least your very limited scope of macro is, by which I mean the ability to produce units from production facilities. Who isn't able to do that after a certain threshold of skill is past?
Once again, Mr. "Veteran", macro entails something much, much larger than being able to select multiple buildings. The player who manages his economy better will be able to produce better in both MBS and SBS.
Veteran was said because Ive been arguing this since the first MBS topics began on this forum, go have a look. You seem to think that no-one has ever brought up the points that you make. Every couple of weeks, a new person comes to these forums, and posts something that has already been debated before, and then thinks theyve made a solid post because no-one can be assed replying to the same thing over and over again.
In this case, id already argued this point within the last few days, so I sure as hell wasnt going to do so again.
Warcraft 3 is a perfectly fine example to use as long as you dont say "MBS is why warcraft 3 is a shit game". I was using an example of a game with a standardised macro setup, where there were standard builds that every player executed perfectly without mistake. Something that I believe we will see if we add MBS and Automine. Your dead right that a lot of starcraft 1's macro is standardised atm. This is because players are getting soo good, that the current system has become easy for them to navigate.
You've written the standard response to anyone who uses warcraft 3 as an example. You havnt even considered the reasoning why I used warcraft 3. Basically your rebuttle against it holds as much water as me saying, "Your a noob, therefore your opinion doesnt matter"
This has been debated since day 1. I can safely say I have read 90% of all MBS arguments on this board. Go read them, come back when you have a new argument that hasnt already been debated into the ground.
On March 19 2008 18:24 Unentschieden wrote: Now we have to answer the counterargument, being that Real Time Strategy does not (and should not?) contain strategy. I still don´t get that.
If SC is weak on the Strategic/Tactical side (aka shallow) shouldn´t SC2 try to improve there?
The problem is that it cant without giving up some of its speed. The faster your forced to think, the less in depth you can get. The most advanced tactics in starcraft are things like moving hurt units back, focus firing or flanking. They are really basic manouvers as far as strategy goes. The option is there for really brilliant tactical moves. But people are just unable to make the necessary calculations in the seconds they have to make their move. If you wanted to increase the depth, you need to give people more time to think. Which means making the battles last longer (Something we dont want)
It's the same BS over and over and over again. How about this: we close the !@#$% thread already and have them stickied so people can read the 150 pages on this. You can only wrap/package something in so many ways. Some people just don't get it. Fine, let them bask in their own retardedness. We won't have any power until they do the open beta anyway and then we can jam it down Dustin's throat.
Many of the old vets at TL stopped posting a long time ago because it is pointless.
I think one of the main points of anti-MBS arguments is that in some BW battles (on fastest speed of course), micro tactics aren't important enough to be used because you will be better off buidling workers and other units, etc. Now my general feeling is that many of the anti-MBS crowd isn't necessarily against micro, but they are against War3 sort of micro which doesn't fit in SC or SC2 (which I agree with fully). So what if more SC/BW type micro is useful/game deciding in big battles in SC2? For instance, like in BW when muta harass is useful... or dark templar harass, or mnm dancing around lurkers, or mnm getting out of dark swarm, etc. What if more of those situations exist in SC2, then is MBS all bad? With the early game supposedly being shortened and more game changing specials coming at tier 2, I think without MBS more sloppy micro is going to be seen. Is a whole lot of sloppy micro play "OK"? I don't think so.
And to make my point, look at the following game from the front page news (link way below) and the comments about that map. The Demon's Forest map apparently is a totally crap map due to the archon warping bugs and vultures getting stuck when mining. This match didn't go bad because of warping or units getting stuck. This match went wrong mostly (I think) b/c units required a few more moments of attention than normal, and battles were not decided as easily by attack move, etc. b/c units didn't go where they normally do... requiring more micro. The key point, requiring more micro. While this is my opinion, watch it yourself and see if that makes sense.
These two pro players didn't use spidermines or archons. One did obviously use lurkers and they probably required more attention. I think for that one reason, requiring more attention every time he used his units, he ran out of multi-tasking abilities or APM or whatever like and played really really sloppy. To sum up the sloppy play, a stack of mutas is left in the top left for half the game. Probably 10 low speed overlords sitting in a dangerous place where where attacked. Etc. The terran player also played very sloppy in some spots.
I'm glad we have this ugly example because it's one of the few places where it's obvious that when the pros are forced to pay more attention to units, suddenly even they don't have enough time to do everything that needs to be done even in a "good enough" way by anybody's standards. I think it starts to show that if there are a few more moments of micro needed for each battle in SC2, MBS could be fine. This still obviously doesn't solve the problem for people that want to see less micro in battles as games progress past early game regardless, in other words they want macro to win 90% of all games past early game. But if you think micro and macro are both important, I think SC2's development is still headed in the right direction... albeit, with more micro options than SC/BW past early game. Which sounds good to me.
On March 19 2008 18:24 Unentschieden wrote: Now we have to answer the counterargument, being that Real Time Strategy does not (and should not?) contain strategy. I still don´t get that.
If SC is weak on the Strategic/Tactical side (aka shallow) shouldn´t SC2 try to improve there?
The problem is that it cant without giving up some of its speed. The faster your forced to think, the less in depth you can get. The most advanced tactics in starcraft are things like moving hurt units back, focus firing or flanking. They are really basic manouvers as far as strategy goes. The option is there for really brilliant tactical moves. But people are just unable to make the necessary calculations in the seconds they have to make their move. If you wanted to increase the depth, you need to give people more time to think. Which means making the battles last longer (Something we dont want)
You described one of the main complaints on Starcraft that many hope will change in SC2. Some percieve SC as "clickfest" that overempatises Handspeed - I think the term APM was coined by Starcraft.
"The problem is that it cant without giving up some of its speed." Is it that you can´t or that no one did it before? I bought this up before but pre-SC you couldn´t have 3 distinctivly different races in a RTS and have them balanced too. Point being: if anyone could do it it´s Blizzard. So let us encourage them to make a game previously thought to be impossible.
No way the intensity and speed of SC lowers the need for strategy and tactics. Obviously not strategy, if you understand the term correctly, because that's your plan to win on the grand scale.
And tactics, that's positioning and maneuvering your army. It includes a lot of pure micro as well.
I don't at all think that late game SC needs more intense specific and focused micro. Wasn't a complain about RTS always that it's too much about very specific unit control? SC is different. It's more about strategy and tactics and less about micro. If you dedicate your army late game in the wrong way and lose your army, you are losing. Even if you were able to build new units earlier than your opponent.
I don't want to see a lot of ability spamming in late game micro battles. Because you aren't going to micro damaged units and you aren't going to focus fire, obviously.
Not being able to execute certain tactics or strategies because the game is too intense for you to mentally come up with them is just silly. You can't harass storm drop because you don't have the multitasking. Not because you aren't intelligent or creative enough to come up with it. Actually, because you can't think out your SC decisions there is more creativity in SC. Compare it with correspondence chess and rapid chess.
And strategy has nothing to do with the pace of the game. How will you suddenly be able to use strategies that weren't viable before just because you have more time to think? I mean, you can think about it before or after the game. And people have done so. So how does it suddenly help to be able to think about it during the game? How can m&m suddenly stand up against a protoss who has reavers and HTs available to him? How can a terran suddenly outexpand the zerg and be safe enough to make it pay off?
And again, APM is totally mental. It has to do with planning, keeping helicopter view, managing the list of tasks to execute in your mind properly. It has nothing to do with how fast your hands and fingers are.
Ooh, and whoever said macro and micro should be in a 60-40 ratio, no matter what Blizzard said, what makes the biggest rectangle? 50x50 or 60x40?
Obviously all dimensions of play need to be as close in proportions as possible. If it's 50 micro, 20 macro and 30 strategy the game has a depth of 30000. If the game has the perfect ratios of 33 1/3 then it has a depth of 37000, rounded off.
Of course a bit of silly numbers throwing around. But obviously macro, micro and strategy need to be balanced.
Yes, they should step up from the old UI and "invent" something new. New gameplay would be very refreshing. If the addition of MBS doesn't allow for more or advanced micro, then (and only then) the game will become easier in the end. To compensate for that Blizzard would have to add other aspects to the game emphasizing on macro. Something like the Terran reactor mechanic Famehunter described. It would especially be cool if they'd add something like this and make it different for each race. Then each race would have their own macro mechanics, making them even more unique and fun.
But adding SBS again is really a step back, because whether you like it or not, or whether it works for the current pro scene or not, it is a very repetitive task at its core, that's why it should be replaced with something else, something that isn't always the same, something dynamic. Which also would require more skill in the end, more thinking. You'll be forced to think about more small things. Really simple repetitive tasks like SBS macroing can be learned with tons of practice, making you play like a "machine". In SC1, micro is dynamic of course, but SBS macro is not. So let's hope they'll improve it, in whatever way seems best.
I think many anti MBSers could agree with this (except the stupid trolls who can't ever think outside their small box), as I've formulated it in a neutral way, including the possibility that adding MBS without changing anything else could be a bad thing (though I personally still don't believe it unless Blizzard can confirm it during beta testing).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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....
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....
This really does clearly demonstrate that you haven't read any of the debate
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.
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On March 20 2008 12:49 MyLostTemple wrote: 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.
...I never said it wasn't rare, you're putting words in my mouth. The point is that it does happens sometimes, therefore they could be playing a bit better without it. You completely blindly missed the whole argument without even trying just to flame me for no reason... please stop these senseless ad hominem attacks, keep TL.net clean. This is no place for random battle.netish flames....
On March 20 2008 10:13 VIB wrote: 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!
On March 20 2008 10:13 VIB wrote: many
On March 20 2008 14:30 VIB wrote: ...I never said it wasn't rare, you're putting words in my mouth. The point is that it does happens sometimes, therefore they could be playing a bit better without it. You completely blindly missed the whole argument without even trying just to flame me for no reason... please stop these senseless ad hominem attacks, keep TL.net clean. This is no place for random battle.netish flames....
God so many bad arguments on both sides, it hurts my eyes. People really need to get the hell off of the artificial difficulty arguments. Equivocating the SBS to MBS transition to Tractor to Shovels is just really stupid, and no one should have to explain why. But... I'll go ahead and indulge. There is a wide potential spectrum for game difficulty. The easiest way to place the game in a very specific position on that spectrum is to use elements of artificial difficulty. In fact, its virtually the only way, depending on how liberal you want to be with your definition of artificial difficulty. If you stretch it beyond user interface limitations to autoaim + automove then you have taken a leap from game to movie. Show me a game that has NO elements of artificial difficulty, and I'll show you that its not a fucking game. This doesn't mean the game should be throwing in excessive amounts of it either - you have to remember, they are aiming for a very specific difficulty level so they must be careful with how they structure the difficulty of the game.
At the same time, people need to stop comparing the game to WC3 and claiming what a failure that was. WC3 wasn't designed as an upgrade to Starcraft; from the very beginning it had certain elements set in stone, the same way SC2 does right now, that were unique amongst Blizzard games to that specific franchise. Sure, the game does not perform nearly as well as a spectator sport as Starcraft does, but the reasons for that are most certainly not because the designers screwed up. In reality, they made the game they felt was best suited for the Warcraft franchise, taking key elements from the previous games, making some upgrades and coming out with a game that I doubt they designed specifically to corner the e-sports market. Just as Starcraft community would feel distraught and disgusted with Blizzard were they to change SC2 to lower the population cap and add upkeep and heroes, surely the Warcraft community would feel the same were they to remove them from WC3. The game is simply, different. If the elements of Starcraft that made it a success in the e-sports scene were the very defining characteristics of the game, then Blizzard were forced to aim away from e-sports with WC3 because they simply couldn't change all the fundamental aspects of Warcraft for e-sports alone, especially with SC2 on their minds in the years to come.
I think quite a few people here have faith in Blizzard, and those that don't, should. They certainly have many opportunities in the future to fine tune the game, and with all the beta testing they will do, they WILL know what works and what doesn't. I really really doubt they are going to be beta testing it for the 100APM audience alone - hell they've even set up an e-sports team... do you think they would miss something as critical as getting the game into the hands of GOOD players during beta? People seem to think chimps are running Blizzard.
Blizzard is known for making not small, but fundamental changes during betas, evidenced in their WoW betas. They are not afraid of changing many aspects of the game if they turn out not to work out in real play. At least, they certainly don't have a record for behaving that way and there is no reason to think they would change. Arguing over MBS back and forth so vehemently, and even worse, personally isn't really necessary because the players have already convinced the devs that its a hot button issue, and its not even in beta yet. It wouldn't surprise me if the weekly builds they are having RIGHT NOW have been trying not only MBS and SBS, but also likely many variations between the two as well as other compromises. There is, I'm sure, still some use in discussion on the potential effect of MBS though. The issue is not so cut and dry as people make it out to be. I would like to see more concern with compromise, as thats likely what Blizzard is considering right now anyways. It would seem worthwhile to figure out another way to keep a focus on the base and away from the units so that players can't babysit their armies because of their useful new hotkeys.
Can someone explain how MBS will kill macro in SC2.
If I'm not mistaken, macro implies much more than being able to click on seven gateways to produce seven zealots.
Its build orders, knowing which build orders produce your optimized strategy the fastest, using effective building placement, employing the best economy management, knowing when to make units vs miners, making the right amount of miners at a certain time, knowing when to expand, knowing how many expansions you must take to maximize your build, knowing how to gain the most from expansions, knowing when to kill economy for a timing push, and if so, how much economy to sacrifice,(etc etc) and, on top of that, being able to produce the desired units by repetitively clicking on all your production buildings.
MBS only reduces the last part of that. How does that have any significant effect on macro as a while?
You anti MBS'ers need to learn what macro truly is. Macro is very deep. MBS only removes the clicking aspect of it.
I've seen the argument evolve interestingly. I think we've gone from the more primitive reasons for and against MBS to much more complex ones.. from very technical to very general arguments. I ultimately see that both sides have begun to understand each other somewhat, hopefully this can continue. I think we're at a point where we see MBS taking away portion of the game that requires skill, potentially hurting the overall skill required to play the game on a pro level. At the same time, we see the discussion slowly going towards what kind of new macro elements could be added/already exist that could replace the void (some say big, some say small) that MBS might create. I think we can become a little more constructive if we head this route and expand on it.
Let us move in this direction, I think its the right path to achieving some real solutions.
Also, we should take each others comments with a grain of salt.. because, again, beta testing has yet to begin! Its still alpha boys!
Yes we can! :D
PS: FeArTeHsCoUrGe makes a good point in that there are many aspects to macro besides MBS. Thats where the issue is, how MBS will affect macro.. so don't forget that MBS isn't the ONLY thing there is in regards to macro. There are many other elements as FeAr mentioned. I think if we take this into consideration during discussion, we can better assess the impact MBS makes in comparison to other factors/elements that make up MBS. I think that too often we've lost track of this.
Its actually very simple. The concern with MBS isn't the "killing" of macro, but rather the simplification of it. There will be just as many important aspects of macro, maybe even more. Unit production and control will now also feature drop pods and reactor add-ons. Base management will be improved with heightened base defense mechanisms like Phase cannons, the Queen, and the Sensor Tower which will all encourage more expansion-centric play. I could go on and on. But its not truly important "what" is happening in the scheme of things; progamers in the future are likely to have even more to deal with when it comes to macro in SC2.
What is important is the amount of time it takes to cycle or otherwise accomplish these tasks, with a special emphasis on the tasks that require a focus on the area at hand instead of hotkey usage. The game can certainly have more macro oriented tasks than SC1 and still end up taking less attention from the player to accomplish them successfully. If this is the case in SC2, then the game could end up with an uncharacteristic (to the Starcraft franchise) switch to heavy focus on micro tasks. This will not lower the importance of multitasking in the game - but it would certainly decrease the time involved in doing so as well as the types of actions viewable from the perspective of the observer, which is not an entertaining consequence for many Starcraft fans.
First about the skill ceiling. We can define this as when a pro can achieve everything he wants to achieve. When there are no actions that he is foregoing because he needs to be focusing on something else. This is seen when players are spam clicking. Every spam click is a waste of time, and is a waste of APM, but there is nothing that the pro wants to do, so wasting APM is fine. On youtube, there is a FPVOD of Nada playing where he is spam clicking between actions until he has a 3 base economy. Thats the point where macro tasks become difficult enough that he has no free time to just idle anymore. Until that point, he has hit the skill ceiling.
How long will pros be spam clicking between actions if MBS and Automine are added. Will there be any point in the game where they will be soo tied up with actions that they everything they do has a defined purpose? A great characteristic of Starcraft is that it gets harder and harder as the game progresses and as player's armies and bases get more numerous. This dynamic should be kept.
Secondly, This relates to the FPS has streamlined UI argument. What about Gears of war's reload feature? For those who dont know, when you hit the reload button, a little bar pops up and you gotta hit the reload button again when line is in the white, otherwise he fucks up his reload. It is an addition which is there for the sole purpose of making reloading slightly more demanding. And I think its a great feature (even though you never miss after playing the game for long enough).
I do not believe MBS will increase the use of spam clicking much at all. Spam clicking in SC1 occurs in the early game, when pros really have nothing better to do and would rather keep their APM high then stop moving when they have nothing to do. You are right to say this is sort of a skill ceiling. But I think the increase in potential actions the player can take is more exponential in nature than linear. So linear changes in the amount of actions required for any one specific part of the game (in this case, unit production), would not produce a significant shift in the point at which the game becomes more difficult than humanly possible.
In addition to this, it must also be noted that MBS is not drastically different than SBS in terms of actions required; it gains its significance more so from the ability to produce units easily through hotkeys, while focusing on other areas of the game - minimizing the multitasking element of unit production (and thus, macro in general.)
On March 20 2008 12:49 MyLostTemple wrote: 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.
...I never said it wasn't rare, you're putting words in my mouth. The point is that it does happens sometimes, therefore they could be playing a bit better without it. You completely blindly missed the whole argument without even trying just to flame me for no reason... please stop these senseless ad hominem attacks, keep TL.net clean. This is no place for random battle.netish flames....
then how often do you think this is happening!? anyone who is losing to this TOO MUCH is uncoordinated and i can't possibly see how MBS fixes that other than lowering the skill ceiling. Do you honestly think these attacks are ad hominem? It's abundantly clear how in a skill based game room for error is necessary.
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.
On March 20 2008 15:35 FeArTeHsCoUrGe wrote: Can someone explain how MBS will kill macro in SC2.
If I'm not mistaken, macro implies much more than being able to click on seven gateways to produce seven zealots.
Its build orders, knowing which build orders produce your optimized strategy the fastest, using effective building placement, employing the best economy management, knowing when to make units vs miners, making the right amount of miners at a certain time, knowing when to expand, knowing how many expansions you must take to maximize your build, knowing how to gain the most from expansions, knowing when to kill economy for a timing push, and if so, how much economy to sacrifice,(etc etc) and, on top of that, being able to produce the desired units by repetitively clicking on all your production buildings.
MBS only reduces the last part of that. How does that have any significant effect on macro as a while?
You anti MBS'ers need to learn what macro truly is. Macro is very deep. MBS only removes the clicking aspect of it.
you need to read through the forum and possibly the other old threads if you're going to ask a question like this. Do not reset the thread. MBS removes the clicking, hotkeying and momentum aspect. Go find a quality argument you feel hasn't been engaged yet because posts like this force the thread to run in circles.
Pro-MBS people could also stop using the word "clicking" and replace it with the word "actions". Unless you can somehow prove that clicking on a building and producing a unit isn't an action.
On March 20 2008 12:49 MyLostTemple wrote: 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.
...I never said it wasn't rare, you're putting words in my mouth. The point is that it does happens sometimes, therefore they could be playing a bit better without it. You completely blindly missed the whole argument without even trying just to flame me for no reason... please stop these senseless ad hominem attacks, keep TL.net clean. This is no place for random battle.netish flames....
then how often do you think this is happening!? anyone who is losing to this TOO MUCH is uncoordinated and i can't possibly see how MBS fixes that other than lowering the skill ceiling. Do you honestly think these attacks are ad hominem? It's abundantly clear how in a skill based game room for error is necessary.
I think this is one of the main rubs that the pro-MBS side and anti-MBS side can't fully agree on. It's really the main reason I lean towards MBS at least. I'm talking about the definition of sloppy play relating to losing units or not building units when doing something else. I think the amount and kind of error here is perceived differently on both sides, and neither is completely right or wrong... it's simply a matter of taste (no pun intended).
For me, even if the player wins due to way better macro or overall positioning or whatnot, but he lost 10 more marines that game than he should have or he missed cycles of building units a few times by several moments (say 10-20 seconds)... it just really bothers me a lot. My argument (take this with a grain of salt, I don't watch football) is that it's like watching a pro football team throw 4 interceptions but still win. It's just ugly.
Now, my impression from some of the less angry posts on the anti-MBS side is that we shouldn't perceive a little bit of this as something that much of a travesty. It's war, war's hell, and you have to get a little dirty to get the job done. A valid argument, I'd say. But again, it's a matter of opinion to some degree, maybe a large degree, on how much of that is acceptable. I was lucky to watch that ugly game with Yellow and FrOzean on Demon Forest (see my post a couple of pages back) b/c I was sure that nobody on either side of the argument could accept that much sloppy play. I still say if there is enough time to use units in battle/harass plus the ability to make time spent with those units game changing "enough" to make a big enough difference in SC2, and that this is more than in SC1, that (hopefully) most people on both sides of the argument will enjoy SC2 as much as BW.
But that is a lot of ifs, and I can't blame anybody for being paranoid about how anybody (even Blizzard) will pull this off. Except that I may offer one small sliver of perspective that I think a lot of people that post here don't have... and that's having played SC and BW fairly competitively in the days of yore when (yes, God forbid, it is slow even for me now) speed Fast was used. And in those days, there were only a handful of well-known players that (by popular opinion and their own publicly made opinion at least) were good enough with micro to rely more on it than macro past early game. And some of those players were heavily reliant on reaver drops when they were by Blizzard's definition, broken. In other words, there was room for improvement in micro and b/c micro was more dangerous therefore macro (at certain points of time in the game... certainly not every single second) on being "sloppy" even on speed Fast.
Despite pros coming up with some awesome BOs and tricks, and many strats/builds/tactics not being developed back in the day, you'd be very surprised at just how many strats/builds/tactics used back then are still used or rediscovered even in the pro scene today in some form or another. And compared with speed Fast (aka more time to micro), at least some strats/builds/tactics that worked way back then will probably never work on Fastest in BW b/c nobody is humanly fast enough to do them. This is why I'm not so against MBS.
What I'm trying to say is, given a few more moments per battle or harass in SC2 (naturally on speed Fastest), I hope and think the opportunities to use your units a little better to make a nice juicy impact on the game will happen more often. That a little sloppy play is going to cost you. And I think the balance between macro and micro will still be close enough for most competitive players to enjoy the game and not hit a big skill ceiling for 30 years.
And let me reiterate one more point on this- I think the ways Blizzard is emphasizing harass and base attack options, namely reapers, colossus, nydas worms, Nomad auto-turrets vs workers (irrad was only good vs drones), ghost sniping, drop pods (they're out ATM), jackals, charge on zealots, banelings vs workers or zealots, muta harass (notice how scouts and wraiths are gone), stalkers........ and the way they are introducing more AOE (read, more dangerous battles where it'll make sense to watch the battle and micro more... and more AOE worker harass)... the ways they are emphasizing all these things, my hopes are definitely in more interesting conflicts between units which will cause a few seconds of what I'm calling sloppy play, aka ignoring a harass for a few moments or missing a cycle of building units for 20 seconds, to totally cost you the game.
So in conclusion, a little sloppy play in BW can still let you win the game... but I think Blizzard is looking for ways to narrow the sloppiness to make MBS feel like it was meant to be in there for SC2 and not something that is making you feel the game has not enough actions in it. Will they pull it off? Maybe a year after the SC2 expansion beta we'll know for sure, but if we are lucky we'll have a feel for if they are close to that goal in the next year or so.
Sorry- huge post. I'm probably going to retire from the MBS thread again for a long time... these things are draining.
When a basketballer misses an open basket, when a tennis player make an unforced error, these are also sloppy plays. Players are being pushed to their limits. When you get pushed to your limits, you make mistakes, it happens and does help gameplay.
A large portion of skill in most competative sports and games comes from how well you capitalise on your opponents mistakes and how well you recover from your own. This holds true with starcraft. One player loses a bunch of marines due to sloppy play, it now becomes a test of skill whether one player can capitalise on this and make his opponent pay for that mistake, and a test of skill how well the player can negate the advantage he just gave away.
On March 20 2008 15:35 FeArTeHsCoUrGe wrote: Can someone explain how MBS will kill macro in SC2.
If I'm not mistaken, macro implies much more than being able to click on seven gateways to produce seven zealots.
Its build orders, knowing which build orders produce your optimized strategy the fastest, using effective building placement, employing the best economy management, knowing when to make units vs miners, making the right amount of miners at a certain time, knowing when to expand, knowing how many expansions you must take to maximize your build, knowing how to gain the most from expansions, knowing when to kill economy for a timing push, and if so, how much economy to sacrifice,(etc etc) and, on top of that, being able to produce the desired units by repetitively clicking on all your production buildings.
MBS only reduces the last part of that. How does that have any significant effect on macro as a while?
You anti MBS'ers need to learn what macro truly is. Macro is very deep. MBS only removes the clicking aspect of it.
As Tasteless has pointed out, it reduces the hotkeying and momentum aspect of StarCraft. In addition, it makes micro-to-macro multitasking almost nonexistent - it actually makes the game MORE of a "clickfest" since now the most efficient way to macro is not having macro cycles but rather producing units as you go, i.e. whenever you have enough resources for one units, you queue it.
E.g. you want to produce Siege Tanks (mid/late game) from your Factories. Instead of going back to base every 20-30 seconds to produce more Tanks (SBS system), you'll queue one more Tank as soon as you get 100 mins and 150 gas (or whatever the cost now is). In mid/late game you'd have to do that like every other second, seeing as you have so many production buildings.
In conclusion, MBS leads to opposite results when it comes to the emphasis on "clicking"...
Yes definitely, but it's all a matter of degree and it's all relative is my point.
In BW in it's current form, it's probably fair to equate losing a handful of marines to missing a basket.
But say in a BW where you have a little more time for things (or SC2 with MBS), maybe it'd be fair to equate losing 1 or 2 marines to missing a basket. But not 5-10 marines in the span of 4 seconds to a reaver in your worker line. Maybe you would have to always have your men spread out if you know you are facing AOE, and screwing that up once is a much bigger deal than it is in BW.
Or if you had more time, maybe missing your marine building cycle by 2 seconds is equal to a missed basket... but missing it by 4 seconds is game over.
It's kinda like Obi-Wan telling Luke that Vader killed his father. It's all in how you look at it.
On March 20 2008 17:43 geno wrote: I do not believe MBS will increase the use of spam clicking much at all. Spam clicking in SC1 occurs in the early game, when pros really have nothing better to do and would rather keep their APM high then stop moving when they have nothing to do. You are right to say this is sort of a skill ceiling. But I think the increase in potential actions the player can take is more exponential in nature than linear. So linear changes in the amount of actions required for any one specific part of the game (in this case, unit production), would not produce a significant shift in the point at which the game becomes more difficult than humanly possible.
In addition to this, it must also be noted that MBS is not drastically different than SBS in terms of actions required; it gains its significance more so from the ability to produce units easily through hotkeys, while focusing on other areas of the game - minimizing the multitasking element of unit production (and thus, macro in general.)
Good post.
I think that one more important thing has to be noted, namely, the fact that the metagame does not always allow for as much multitasking within micro tasks as it does within micro & macro actions combined. What I mean is that at some point splitting your army even more is not costeffective anymore.
This is something many pro-MBS debaters seem not to realize when saying macro APM will shift to micro, allowing for more multitasking within micro aspect of the game, i.e. more fronts, drops, and such. At some point, creating more fronts would be considered bad strategy-wise, leading to multitasking skill cap due to the lack of micro-to-macro multitasking.
Also you won't micro every single unit, as some people claimed, since oftentimes it doesn't give you any benefit, and can some even make you lose the game (e.g. pulling out damaged Marines WC3 style).
I agree, trying to micro every single unit in every situation (even if you had time) would certainly not always be your best option... and even though I like micro a lot, there is very much a limit where too much of it becomes annoying even to me. So I would never hope to have SC2 where you'd have to constantly move every single unit you had... that'd be terrible. But I would like the option to be able to do much more with my units when there are more bases and units to deal with. Again, it's all a matter of opinion and perspective on what is the right amount of attention a battle should have. For me, probably much more attention than a lot of anti-MBS people.
If a player simply thinks spending more than 3 seconds at a battle front is boring, I can't offer them anything b/c I just disagree. But if they are saying for competition sake, what's acceptable in terms of mistakes... then I think we have something to talk about. Like, if SC2 makes it worth your while to spend 5 seconds longer on a battle than a very similar battle in BW... enough of a difference to ignore your unit production (or the right mix)... then would that player say MBS is OK?
And perhaps the other point to be made clear is that say, 10 or 15 minutes into the game, if there is the occasion where you have a short moment to do no worthwhile actions, I think that's fine. Maybe I've missed a discussion, but I get the impression some anti-MBS people think even a moment here and there of downtime past early game is too much. I'll just have to disagree with that.
Certainly though, if SC2 turns out to be a snore fest where you are always waiting around for something to do all b/c of MBS (hopefully doubtful, but if), then I'd probably be one of the first people calling Blizzard employees at their home to tell them MBS has got to go. As it stands though, I can imagine interesting enough macro and interesting enough micro that will keep you occupied as much as in BW. So for now, I still mostly back MBS.
God these MBS threads are long, takes quite a while to read them. While i understand the anti-MBS arguments, i feel that they are over rated. While it will make the game simpler, it wont be that much easier. However, i consider it unfair to a lot of people, to have them learn a particular basic skill for months just so they can compete with semi descent SC1 players in SC2, i see MBS just as a way of facilitating the introduction of new players to SC2, and to creating a fresh community. I know many of you will disagree, but most of us are "old". We are in the mid twenties, a lot of us will probably stop playing games in a few years because of real life (job, wife==>family), we need to face the fact that we are not the future of eSports nor its community/fan base, this will be the part to play of a new generation, new kids, new fans and new players. Just because a bunch of "old" guys disagrees on a "modern" RTS feature claiming it to be less "pro",its not justified, its more selfish. Imagine a teenager who played other games start playing SC2 without MBS. It will be more frustrating than entertaining, and soon he will stop playing. Imagine this on a larger scale, it will spell the doom of SC2, and its fresh fanbase.
Another thing, a guy said once: "You can't lower the skill cap in SC because the level of how good you can be is limitless, players keep raising this skill level constantly, and having MBS will only lower the already infinite skill cap a bit lower (still infinite)." I think he was right, there is no limit to how good you can be. MBS lowers that limit, but its still very high, and no human will be able to pull out perfect plays MBS or no MBS, hence competition still exists, players will train and train to achieve the most perfect possible play, and every once in a while a new guy will elevate the level of play compared to his peers (like it hapens today, over and over).
I will stress this out again, keeping MBS out of the game, will only frustrate a lot of new players, and without this new blood (more than half of ppl that will play SC2, maybe even more) SC2 cannot survive.
edit: We forget that SC1 spoiled us as well, it had the best UI back then, and a lot of UI features other RTS' didn't have, why should the new generations have to suffer?
Blacklizard, I would definitely appriciate the fact that you'd be able to spend more time focusing on the battle, but the problem with MBS is that it makes going back to base so rare that you almost ALWAYS focus on the battle(s). Using hotkeys only for production makes macro cycles non-existent, and thus sacrificing some macro time for micro is not as much of a drawback anymore, since it's only a small fraction of it (you macro basically every other second in mid/late game, "as you go", remember? - because of that you skip only a few units at best when focusing on control instead of production, not the whole macro cycle).
One argument that sort of came up before but somehow vanished is the ongoing erroding to efficiency. More a old UI/ new UI issue it incorporates SBS and MBS.
How many expansions show up in a competative game? Or more specifficately, why don´t we expand untill all "spots" are taken? Simple, for a number of reasons each successive expansion is less attractive than the one before it. And I think that the old UI has a mayor hand in that. But I also think that more expansions increase "attractivness" (is that even a word?) of a match, it increases need for map awareness, defense strategies, unit spreading (static defenses alone just don´t cut it) and creative ways to exploit the above.
On March 21 2008 00:15 Unentschieden wrote: One argument that sort of came up before but somehow vanished is the ongoing erroding to efficiency. More a old UI/ new UI issue it incorporates SBS and MBS.
How many expansions show up in a competative game? Or more specifficately, why don´t we expand untill all "spots" are taken? Simple, for a number of reasons each successive expansion is less attractive than the one before it. And I think that the old UI has a mayor hand in that. But I also think that more expansions increase "attractivness" (is that even a word?) of a match, it increases need for map awareness, defense strategies, unit spreading (static defenses alone just don´t cut it) and creative ways to exploit the above.
Increased expansions also comes with a need for more drones for the expansion to be worthwhile. When you start reaching the 200 limit, you dont want to be building any more drones, you want units. By this stage of the game, you already have enough to support your army, so more expansions arent really a need.
That being said, its a good thing that expansions have diminishing returns. Without this, the person with more expansions has too much of an advantage over his opponent. It simply becomes a game of, this guy has more expansions and therefore he will win. The diminishing returns means that one player has more expansions and therefore has an advantage, but the advantage of having 1 more expo wont be enough to seal a victory.
On March 20 2008 20:36 Blacklizard wrote: For me, even if the player wins due to way better macro or overall positioning or whatnot, but he lost 10 more marines that game than he should have or he missed cycles of building units a few times by several moments (say 10-20 seconds)... it just really bothers me a lot. My argument (take this with a grain of salt, I don't watch football) is that it's like watching a pro football team throw 4 interceptions but still win. It's just ugly.
Now, my impression from some of the less angry posts on the anti-MBS side is that we shouldn't perceive a little bit of this as something that much of a travesty. It's war, war's hell, and you have to get a little dirty to get the job done. A valid argument, I'd say. But again, it's a matter of opinion to some degree, maybe a large degree, on how much of that is acceptable.
this is the fundamental missunderstanding you're having. anti-mbs does not view mistakes as dirty or ugly or something requiring a degree of acceptance. they're encouraged and they are healthy. we want mistakes and we want them everywhere. there should never be perfection, always better, faster, smarter.
you go on to talk about the extra attention afforded to the player changing 5-10 marine mistakes into 1-2 marine mistakes, 10-20 wasted seconds into 1-2 wasted seconds. this is bad for the game. if average unit counts remain comparable to sc1 1-2 marines simply is not going to make a difference and mistakes and errors will be marginalised. if micro becomes so mechnical that player skill difference is only worth 5% like you indirectly suggest would pleasing for you to watch (less ugly) then the game would very much fall into build wars and unit hard-counters.
that is not sensationalism; the less potential for mistakes the less variation between player input. the less variation in player input the more relevant hard unit and build counters becomes.
the only other thing you could possibly mean is that 1-2 marines will (somehow?) make as much difference as 5-10 marines do currently, that the difference would in the end be only to the outside observer and the to the player mistakes andclutch plays would have the same impact as ever. my response to this is WHY? the only thing this would achieve is to make it less exciting, less visceral for spectators. attempting to change the game so professionals appear more perfect is silly.
Maybenexttime, I think I understand what you are getting at... if not please correct me. You are saying that with MBS you'll never be more worse off on macro than being behind a few units (over the course of a match) as opposed to huge amounts of units that you'd be behind in BW.
I agree that could happen, but that's part of my point. The game will be much tighter with much less room for error in that way. I think it'd be more competitive (in theory at least), because players get smaller advantages for everything they do instead of much bigger advantages they get in BW.
In BW, if someone missing two cycles of making units from minute 6 to minute 10, ... he'd probably lose (I'm making up these times, but you get my meaning). In SC2 with MBS, the same player may have made those units that he previously wouldn't have made... but if the other player is better (and scouting, harass etc. allows him to see the other guy is short on units at this exact point in time), he would have attacked him or distracted him even more or attacked even harder or in another place at this point and gained a bigger lead. Now granted, if the 2nd player never has the opportunity to gain momentum from the smaller mistakes, then the game will probably fail. But even if it takes a long time for players to be able to capitalize on these mistakes by gaining a "feel" for what the other guy should be doing or should have in terms of units, etc. ... even if that doesn't happen for a year or two or five after the game comes out, maybe that will still be fine or even good b/c it requires that much more experience to get past that level of expertise.
On March 20 2008 20:36 Blacklizard wrote: For me, even if the player wins due to way better macro or overall positioning or whatnot, but he lost 10 more marines that game than he should have or he missed cycles of building units a few times by several moments (say 10-20 seconds)... it just really bothers me a lot. My argument (take this with a grain of salt, I don't watch football) is that it's like watching a pro football team throw 4 interceptions but still win. It's just ugly.
Now, my impression from some of the less angry posts on the anti-MBS side is that we shouldn't perceive a little bit of this as something that much of a travesty. It's war, war's hell, and you have to get a little dirty to get the job done. A valid argument, I'd say. But again, it's a matter of opinion to some degree, maybe a large degree, on how much of that is acceptable.
this is the fundamental missunderstanding you're having. anti-mbs does not view mistakes as dirty or ugly or something requiring a degree of acceptance. they're encouraged and they are healthy. we want mistakes and we want them everywhere. there should never be perfection, always better, faster, smarter.
you go on to talk about the extra attention afforded to the player changing 5-10 marine mistakes into 1-2 marine mistakes, 10-20 wasted seconds into 1-2 wasted seconds. this is bad for the game. if average unit counts remain comparable to sc1 1-2 marines simply is not going to make a difference and mistakes and errors will be marginalised. if micro becomes so mechnical that player skill difference is only worth 5% like you indirectly suggest would pleasing for you to watch (less ugly) then the game would very much fall into build wars and unit hard-counters.
that is not sensationalism; the less potential for mistakes the less variation between player input. the less variation in player input the more relevant hard unit and build counters becomes.
the only other thing you could possibly mean is that 1-2 marines will (somehow?) make as much difference as 5-10 marines do currently, that the difference would in the end be only to the outside observer and the to the player mistakes andclutch plays would have the same impact as ever. my response to this is WHY? the only thing this would achieve is to make it less exciting, less visceral for spectators. attempting to change the game so professionals appear more perfect is silly.
If all anti-MBS players want the max number of mistakes in a game, then the arguments that everybody laughs at... that all the UI enhancements from Warcraft1 or 2 should be taken out... so that even more mistakes are made and things are even more impossible to do with the given time... would be totally valid.
I have to believe that there is a balance to be struck between not necessarily how many mistakes are made, but the level of the mistakes. If SC2 has more harassment, then there certainly will be more opportunity for mistakes in that area and the macro mistakes may be critical at the level of a few moments as opposed to larger chunks of time. I think that'd probably be fine.
I'm making up numbers, so please don't hold me to a number like 5% difference or whatnot. But you do get my point I think, and disagree. If not, let me say this (i'm out of time at the moment... gotta post)... I love seeing units die! I love it, I do not want War3 style battles. The more that die the better. Maybe a better example I should have given is if you have a group of 50 marines in BW in a close match, and half of them die in one battle when if you had microed them only 10 or 15 would have died... I say that's bad.
On March 20 2008 22:10 eugen1225 wrote: God these MBS threads are long, takes quite a while to read them. While i understand the anti-MBS arguments, i feel that they are over rated. While it will make the game simpler, it wont be that much easier. However, i consider it unfair to a lot of people, to have them learn a particular basic skill for months just so they can compete with semi descent SC1 players in SC2, i see MBS just as a way of facilitating the introduction of new players to SC2, and to creating a fresh community. I know many of you will disagree, but most of us are "old". We are in the mid twenties, a lot of us will probably stop playing games in a few years because of real life (job, wife==>family), we need to face the fact that we are not the future of eSports nor its community/fan base, this will be the part to play of a new generation, new kids, new fans and new players. Just because a bunch of "old" guys disagrees on a "modern" RTS feature claiming it to be less "pro",its not justified, its more selfish. Imagine a teenager who played other games start playing SC2 without MBS. It will be more frustrating than entertaining, and soon he will stop playing. Imagine this on a larger scale, it will spell the doom of SC2, and its fresh fanbase.
Another thing, a guy said once: "You can't lower the skill cap in SC because the level of how good you can be is limitless, players keep raising this skill level constantly, and having MBS will only lower the already infinite skill cap a bit lower (still infinite)." I think he was right, there is no limit to how good you can be. MBS lowers that limit, but its still very high, and no human will be able to pull out perfect plays MBS or no MBS, hence competition still exists, players will train and train to achieve the most perfect possible play, and every once in a while a new guy will elevate the level of play compared to his peers (like it hapens today, over and over).
I will stress this out again, keeping MBS out of the game, will only frustrate a lot of new players, and without this new blood (more than half of ppl that will play SC2, maybe even more) SC2 cannot survive.
edit: We forget that SC1 spoiled us as well, it had the best UI back then, and a lot of UI features other RTS' didn't have, why should the new generations have to suffer?
Don't glance over this one anti-MBS debaters.
As for macro, my definition of macro was slightly incorrect. In the first half of the game, before expansions are fully utilized, macro has many, many factors. But once build orders are established, and strategy is decided, macro shifts more who can click their producers the fastest - no, who can make faster actions to make more units over the course of time. Meaning, the majority of late game macro would be eliminated by MBS due to hotkeys.
I think its time for pro MBS'ers to accept that argument. Limiting the amount of actions required to produce the desired affects always leads to an easier game, and MBS will lead to a easier late game macro war in Starcraft.
Shift the focus. Is it worth removing MBS just to satisfy a 10 year old fan base, who will continue to age, and probably stop playing SC2 soon after it comes out? Or should the game now focus on the new generation, where most other current RTS games incorporate MBS or something similar to it?
On March 21 2008 00:15 Unentschieden wrote: One argument that sort of came up before but somehow vanished is the ongoing erroding to efficiency. More a old UI/ new UI issue it incorporates SBS and MBS.
How many expansions show up in a competative game? Or more specifficately, why don´t we expand untill all "spots" are taken? Simple, for a number of reasons each successive expansion is less attractive than the one before it. And I think that the old UI has a mayor hand in that. But I also think that more expansions increase "attractivness" (is that even a word?) of a match, it increases need for map awareness, defense strategies, unit spreading (static defenses alone just don´t cut it) and creative ways to exploit the above.
Increased expansions also comes with a need for more drones for the expansion to be worthwhile. When you start reaching the 200 limit, you dont want to be building any more drones, you want units. By this stage of the game, you already have enough to support your army, so more expansions arent really a need.
That being said, its a good thing that expansions have diminishing returns. Without this, the person with more expansions has too much of an advantage over his opponent. It simply becomes a game of, this guy has more expansions and therefore he will win. The diminishing returns means that one player has more expansions and therefore has an advantage, but the advantage of having 1 more expo wont be enough to seal a victory.
Well as I pointed out, that is not only a MBS/SBS issue. Do workers have to cost ANY supply?
Isn´t it shizophrenic when you argue for more skill differination yet want to encourage comebacks and dimish advantages ingame? Blizzard encourages a steep "slippery slope", that put´s a lot of pressure on players, more than macro circles ever could.
Even today matches don´t last until the "official" win condition, very often you see a "GG" long before all buildings are razed. There is no need or point to drag out the inevitable. "Skilled players need to be able to defeat "inferiors" quickly.
On March 20 2008 15:35 FeArTeHsCoUrGe wrote: Can someone explain how MBS will kill macro in SC2.
If I'm not mistaken, macro implies much more than being able to click on seven gateways to produce seven zealots.
Its build orders, knowing which build orders produce your optimized strategy the fastest, using effective building placement, employing the best economy management, knowing when to make units vs miners, making the right amount of miners at a certain time, knowing when to expand, knowing how many expansions you must take to maximize your build, knowing how to gain the most from expansions, knowing when to kill economy for a timing push, and if so, how much economy to sacrifice,(etc etc) and, on top of that, being able to produce the desired units by repetitively clicking on all your production buildings.
MBS only reduces the last part of that. How does that have any significant effect on macro as a while?
You anti MBS'ers need to learn what macro truly is. Macro is very deep. MBS only removes the clicking aspect of it.
As Tasteless has pointed out, it reduces the hotkeying and momentum aspect of StarCraft. In addition, it makes micro-to-macro multitasking almost nonexistent - it actually makes the game MORE of a "clickfest" since now the most efficient way to macro is not having macro cycles but rather producing units as you go, i.e. whenever you have enough resources for one units, you queue it.
E.g. you want to produce Siege Tanks (mid/late game) from your Factories. Instead of going back to base every 20-30 seconds to produce more Tanks (SBS system), you'll queue one more Tank as soon as you get 100 mins and 150 gas (or whatever the cost now is). In mid/late game you'd have to do that like every other second, seeing as you have so many production buildings.
In conclusion, MBS leads to opposite results when it comes to the emphasis on "clicking"...
AFAIK, MBS doesn't work like that. MBS lets you shift-click buildings and then group the shift-clicked buildings under a hotkey. Then, doing "1z" (using gateways and zealots) builds a single zealot in every gateway in the group only if you have the resources to pay for all those zealots and none of the gateways in the group are producing units. Otherwise, pressing "1z" simply queues a zealot in the first gateway in the group.
On March 21 2008 00:15 Unentschieden wrote: One argument that sort of came up before but somehow vanished is the ongoing erroding to efficiency. More a old UI/ new UI issue it incorporates SBS and MBS.
How many expansions show up in a competative game? Or more specifficately, why don´t we expand untill all "spots" are taken? Simple, for a number of reasons each successive expansion is less attractive than the one before it. And I think that the old UI has a mayor hand in that. But I also think that more expansions increase "attractivness" (is that even a word?) of a match, it increases need for map awareness, defense strategies, unit spreading (static defenses alone just don´t cut it) and creative ways to exploit the above.
Increased expansions also comes with a need for more drones for the expansion to be worthwhile. When you start reaching the 200 limit, you dont want to be building any more drones, you want units. By this stage of the game, you already have enough to support your army, so more expansions arent really a need.
That being said, its a good thing that expansions have diminishing returns. Without this, the person with more expansions has too much of an advantage over his opponent. It simply becomes a game of, this guy has more expansions and therefore he will win. The diminishing returns means that one player has more expansions and therefore has an advantage, but the advantage of having 1 more expo wont be enough to seal a victory.
Well as I pointed out, that is not only a MBS/SBS issue. Do workers have to cost ANY supply?
Isn´t it shizophrenic when you argue for more skill differination yet want to encourage comebacks and dimish advantages ingame? Blizzard encourages a steep "slippery slope", that put´s a lot of pressure on players, more than macro circles ever could.
Even today matches don´t last until the "official" win condition, very often you see a "GG" long before all buildings are razed. There is no need or point to drag out the inevitable. "Skilled players need to be able to defeat "inferiors" quickly.
Yes, SC gameplay does involve a steep "slippery slope" or an emphasis on positive feedback, in that advantages tend to lead to more advantages. The problem is that having too steep a slippery slope leads to uninteresting gameplay, as the first player to gain an advantage essentially gets an autowin. One of the balance issues with MBS (that I first pointed out, actually ) is that it removes the negative feedback loop associated with having an economic advantage. In SC, the larger your economy, the more time you have to devote to managing it, which gives the player at an economic disadvantage the opportunity to come back. Since MBS reduces the difficulty in managing larger bases, it's possible that if uncompensated the slippery slope will become too steep.
However, if MBS still works like I mentioned above, then the flexibility and timing penalties associated with abusing MBS should give high-level players the incentive to keep groups small and go back from time to time to reassign them for maximum efficiency, which would make managing larger bases more difficult again.
Also, the feasibility of building unit-producing buildings in expansions, the design emphasis on base-raiding/drop possibilities, reduced effectiveness of static defense, and increased damage of worker loss due to easier basic unit production is likely to create a new negative feedback loop where getting more bases makes it harder to defend individual bases, allowing the player at an economic disadvantage to more easily take out an individual base and reduce the economic advantage.
Do we really think that these "mistakes" won't be made in Starcraft 2? At least in one form or another? A game must be incredibly shallow if it were to so easily be played "perfectly" don't you think? I'll make the assumption and say that Starcraft 2 will offer plunty of challenges that push players to their limit and offer plunty of opportunities for mistakes.
Nice answer 1esu, that´s what I wanted to convey. The disatvantage in expanding should be the increased vulnerability of you "empire". That is how the nuke worked - against a single base that thing was worthless. But try to look for that dot in 4 Bases.
That encourages and requires the disatvantaged player to activly exploit his enemys weaknesses. And isn´t that what RTSes are all about?
On March 20 2008 22:10 eugen1225 wrote: God these MBS threads are long, takes quite a while to read them. While i understand the anti-MBS arguments, i feel that they are over rated. While it will make the game simpler, it wont be that much easier.
It will significantly reduce a game defining element of the game.
However, i consider it unfair to a lot of people, to have them learn a particular basic skill for months just so they can compete with semi descent SC1 players in SC2,
I think this is totally irrelevant. SC2 has to be made as such so that it is the best competitive game possible. If this is unfair, how is it fair that SC1 skills a lot of people worked for for a long period of time don't carry over? No, this is nonsense. It's like complaining about chess960 since normal chess skills carry over.
i see MBS just as a way of facilitating the introduction of new players to SC2, and to creating a fresh community.
Noobs don't use hotkeys. How will MBS help them?
I know many of you will disagree, but most of us are "old". We are in the mid twenties, a lot of us will probably stop playing games in a few years because of real life (job, wife==>family), we need to face the fact that we are not the future of eSports nor its community/fan base,
You are right. We are followed by the McDonalds/MTV generation of people who expect an easy fix. The nature of esports and of SC or even RTS in general goes against that. They will just have to adapt. Not because they have to adapt to us. But because they have to adapt to what it means to have an esports game.
...this will be the part to play of a new generation, new kids, new fans and new players. Just because a bunch of "old" guys disagrees on a "modern" RTS feature claiming it to be less "pro",its not justified, its more selfish.
What is 'modern' about MBS? Do you mean in the sense of McDonalds/MTV generation? If so, esports is dead.
Imagine a teenager who played other games start playing SC2 without MBS. It will be more frustrating than entertaining, and soon he will stop playing. Imagine this on a larger scale, it will spell the doom of SC2, and its fresh fanbase.
Yes. It's an attitute problem. People aren't willing to practice and train for an esports game because they except a game where the game gives them the illusion that they are extremely skilled while in fact they aren't. That's how most games work.
There is an inherent conflict between an esports game and a normal 'fun' game.
Another thing, a guy said once: "You can't lower the skill cap in SC because the level of how good you can be is limitless, players keep raising this skill level constantly, and having MBS will only lower the already infinite skill cap a bit lower (still infinite)." I think he was right, there is no limit to how good you can be.
Obviously, there is a limit. There is in any game.
MBS lowers that limit, but its still very high, and no human will be able to pull out perfect plays MBS or no MBS,
This is just a pure assumption. First off, not every game will be difficult enough. WC3 was not difficult enough. Inactive players beat players who practiced like SC players. SC2 will be made for esports. It has to be even more difficult to master. There are already pro's waiting. I think top players still lose too often against lesser players because of bad shape of the day or bad luck, eventhough clearly they are more skilled. Compare the wining percentages of top SC players with top chess players.
And even if the above is not a problem on any level of play, why do a step in the wrong direction? Why purposely imbalance the balance between macro and micro to appeal to new players who aren't even willing to learn how to play the game anyway, you claim? Starcraft is so great because it has 3d gameplay; macro, micro and strategy. Now, we need 4d gameplay to make it even more exiting. All other games lack in at least one area. WC3 is a 2d game. You want SC2 to be a 2.5d game? Rather than reducing the dimensions of play, it should be increased.
We don't even need those people you describe. There was once a post by orangeguy who made the same claim. How will people that are unwilling to learn to play SC because of lack of MBS be able to beat Flash if he were to switch to SC2?
I will stress this out again, keeping MBS out of the game, will only frustrate a lot of new players, and without this new blood (more than half of ppl that will play SC2, maybe even more) SC2 cannot survive.
It's not a game for those people in the first place. Sad but true. There is nothing that can be done about this. Either Blizzard abandons the idea of replacing SC with SC2 and makes it a fun game for the market/majority. And then they make a new game totally based on esports to replace SC. Or they do what they want now; make SC2 that game.
edit: We forget that SC1 spoiled us as well, it had the best UI back then, and a lot of UI features other RTS' didn't have, why should the new generations have to suffer?
This is false. SC was slammed for it's interface and rush heavy-ness. SC was slammed for all kinds of features that we know now made it a progaming-capable esports, drawing many spectators. All other games had 'better' interfaces. Reviewers even said that Blizzard had to artificially limit this because otherwise rushing would be too strong as you could easily attack move all your unit towards the opponent.
Yes, SC was slammed for one sided multiplayer, bad UI, not so great gameplay and praised for the great graphics.
On March 21 2008 02:11 yangstuh wrote: At least in one form or another? A game must be incredibly shallow if it were to so easily be played "perfectly" don't you think?
No. It happens quite easily, actually. If you want a game that is played competitively by people that practice hours and hours a day in professional teams, you better make sure the game is very difficult.
Even chess is too easy, actually. Of course computers play a role. But even without those humans with a lot of hard study can solve the game.
Why do we all use certain set build orders? Because it is very easy to learn which build orders are good in which situations. We know because people figured all that out long ago. That was somewhat difficult. But once that's done it's easy.
Just one example about a feature of gameplay that is actually dead in SC because it was too easy in that respect.
I hope this does not get OT but i posted an idea on Page 22 and since someone said something stupid on the same page everyone chose to respond to him telling him how invalid the argument is. If my Idea is crap or has been discussed before (and I did not read it) I'm sorry, but it looks like it was simply overlooked. If it is not demanded too much i would be happy about any kind of response.
I think this is totally irrelevant. SC2 has to be made as such so that it is the best competitive game possible.
Its most relevant actually. In order for a sport to be competitive, it needs to have players who are payed to play it(pro= makes money from playing), in order for someone to pay these guys, they need to have a fanbase. If a game is fun and cool, it generates fans. In order to like a game, you need to play it, and like it, if you don't like it, who cares who is good at it. A lot of ppl who watch Starcraft are chobos. They sucked before, and they wil always be bad at it. But they like the game, and enjoy watching people that a re good at it.
Noobs don't use hotkeys. How will MBS help them?
I have yet to see a RTS player (and i know quite a few) who doesn't use hotkeys. Even suck players use them, at least to put theyr army under "1". Either way, this isn't a real argument.
Obviously, there is a limit. There is in any game.
Ofc there is, but even with MBS humans can't achieve it. Perfection is something humans are inherently bad at. As a species we aren't perfect at anything we do, this is a scientific fact.
WC3 was not difficult enough. Inactive players beat players who practiced like SC players.
This is a quote mine. You have read this and copy pasted it here. When they say inactive in WC3, it means he was pro before, he stopped playing for a few months, then got back, trained hard like before for a couple of months, and then beat a guy who was weaker than him before. This doesn't mean he woke up today, decided to play wc3 again and owned all on the ladder the same morning.
Yes, SC was slammed for one sided multiplayer, bad UI, not so great gameplay and praised for the great graphics.
Name one game that has a better UI that appeared before SC did. I was in 8th grade when SC showed up, and i remember being very happy with the UI then. The only RTS back then that i maybe liked better than SC was TA, but these two games are not even remotely similar. And CnC:RA didn't have a better UI, up to CnC3 the CnC games didn't even have an attack move command.
t's not a game for those people in the first place. Sad but true. There is nothing that can be done about this. Either Blizzard abandons the idea of replacing SC with SC2 and makes it a fun game for the market/majority. And then they make a new game totally based on esports to replace SC. Or they do what they want now; make SC2 that game.
I can't even discuss this, its totally deluded. Go to my response no1, and check that. If you still don't get it, theres nothing i can do, not all people can understand some things. Just look at any NES game that has existing sequels today. Take for example Castlevania. The first couple were insanely hard, and ive played them as a 11 year old kid, wasted hundreds of hours playing it, and eventually beat it. Now look at the castlevania games today. Game mechanics are better, but the char is a lot easyer to control. The games are easier, but its something necessary. I gave a young relative of mine to play CV1. He died so many times only on the first level, he started bashing the keyboard, and said "THIS GAME IS SHIT!!!". Imagine a guy that played some RTS' that have facilitated macro (either thru MBS, or some sort of popup build menu) play SC2 with SBS. The first impression will be, it looks cool, the second would be frustration. Who will play it in a couple of years?? 30 year olds that have failed in life and the only thing they have is the "competitive" SC2? How many of these can you envision? Is this the future of eSports? Some things just come with time, and its on every one to adapt. MBS is sadly one of those things, it just has to happen.
Popularity is extremely important. I laughed when I heard that World of Warcraft is actually being played competitively in some kind of arenas with a team of 5 vs. 5 or similar. The thought of a competitive MMORPG (i.e. not just for fun) is just ridiculous to me, but it just shows the power and influence of a huge fanbase.
In the end, everything is secondary to that. Blizzard has to cater to the whole market, not just one small portion of it which demands certain things.
Everything is about balance. You could bring out a ridiculously difficult game to the market (far more difficult to play than SC1), but then almost no one would bother trying to play it. So you have to make it easy for the low skill region to make them get started with that game (it's important that these demands change over time. Remember that easy to play also means fun to play, and no one will start a GAME if it isn't fun to begin with. SC1's UI was OK for newbies (i.e. all players starting it) back in 1998, but it isn't quite OK anymore nowadays), and then you try your best to make gameplay deep enough so that progamers can emerge, and so that the game can also become highly competitive.
Now you could say "where will this end? The newer generations will only want it even more easier than before". The answer is no one knows. We just know that SC1 is too hard for low skilled players, and we also know that a UI like WC3 has it is being considered BETTER than SC1's for the majority of all players. So Blizzard has to build upon that, use this as the basis for making a competitive game. Obviously it won't play exactly the same as SC1 as a result, but it doesn't have to.
You really have to try finding this balance between an efficient, accessible UI and not adding too many automations (which is why the comparison between MBS and autoaiming in FPS games is just stupid). If you make it too difficult OR too easy, it won't be as big of a success as it could be, and it won't become an e-sport. Make it too difficult and the player base will be ridiculously small, rendering the game uninteresting for sponsors and tournament organizers. Make it too easy and it will be seen as a pure fun game with no competitive qualities. Both lead to this end: no tournaments, no sponsors, no progamers, no e-sports.
There are tons of people who will be willing to play SC2 without MBS. And without it it won't be broken or frustrating to play.
It will just be frustrating to lose. And that's the point of a competitive game.
Also, I am not the one who says an esports oriented game is not fun. You are asking me?
Either you fine tune a game for competitive play. Or you make it shallow fun for the majority.
And yes, go join a random 3v3 on USwest. Then watch after the game how they used hotkeys. There will probably be one or two people who never used a single hotkey. There will be one or two that used only a few for their army.
It will be very rare for a player to use hotkeys like player on iccup.
1st)Competitive game = A game in witch people compete to see witch is better, one wins, one loses. Features cannot change this. As long as people will strive to be better than others, they will compete, it has nothing to do with MBS. To be competitive is an attitude, sort of spirit, a state of mind. Playing a harder game doesn't make it more competitive, the amount of good players you have to face makes it more competitive. Just so we define some things. 2nd) You are missing the big picture here. eSports are in shatters today, although there are more sponsors than ever before, the amount of games being played competitively in a given genre (FPS etc.) are a lot. This has the fanbase of the genre separated, and no big community exists. SC2 can be so much more than just a game for SC1 fans. It has the potential of creating a huge RTS community, because of the lack of good RTS on the market. A big unified RTS community centered on 1 game will make it very popular, will attract more fans, more fans bring more sponsors, will be a popular eSport, and this all means it will be very competitive. I would hate to see this not happen because some stubborn people can't accept some things, and cry foul all the time. I am very sad if a lot of you can't see the potential SC2 has, and just how big it can be world wide. Also, no big competition will be present to break this one big community, because RTS' need dedicated servers like blizz Bnet. No other game has this. Some use GameSpy (it sux, and people hate it) others use other providers (like Microsoft LIVE, people hate this even more), and its very unlikely that some random company will invest a ton of money to make dedicated servers for a second rate RTS. Analyze this. Think this thru, and see the bigger picture. This is the biggest reason why i object to SBS being in SC2, it will damage SC2s popularity and acceptance, and damage its potential fanbase (witch is very important).
I think both points are disproved by SKorea. If there is to be popular esports in Europe or the US, it will be in the style of how it is done in SKorea. Either it exists that way, or it doesn't.
Obviously the competitive nature of the game is very important. Some games cannot be played competitive. For example, rock paper scissors or tic tac tou. There are very simple rules to follow in both games that result in perfect play. Why will people invest in professional teams if the extra practice gains them no advantage over amateurs?
And yes, WC3 is an example of that as well. Several time an inactive player won. Someone said it was quote mining, apparently that term was misunderstood by that person. But it cannot be disputed that this is the case and that this happened because of the limited multitasking in WC3.
I don't see how people refuse to watch SC2 as spectators because they themselves found it too difficult to become skilled in the game. Because that's what the whole MBS discussion is about. People lose and get frustrated. They don't want to put a lot of effort in learning the mechanics of SC. And then they lose always because they get outmacroed.
How is this going to damage esports? I don't get it. Do you really think people will say: "Ooh, this game is a clickfest, it's too difficult to learn. I tried it but I can't catch up with those 10 year SC veterans. I am not going to watch this?"
And battle.net will have no role in esports. It didn't have in Korea, it won't have anywhere else with SC2.
Can you be more ignorant? Battle.net is a huge reason why SC was popular in the first place. Its all about popularity, but then again, you just keep repeating your posts over and over, you don't even read what i write thoroughly, you just throw a glimpse, see something you dislike and start attacking my point of view. This is a debate, we throw arguments (some more solid some not as solid) at each other, and judges will decide the winners. In this case the judges are Blizzard (if they are reading this) and the side with a better case will be known when the game comes out and we see what is in it and what not. This is not trial and you strategy to win is not discrediting the opposition, like some tend to post here. Off topic: Nal_Ra, one of my favorite players, said. SC2 should look cool and be fun, because that is whats most important, for a game to be fun. That was the best progamer comment about SC2 that Ive seen so far. SC2 will be a clickfest regardless of MBS, wc3 is a clickfest as well, but then again you probably never played, so how would you know. Read my post as to what an inactive pro gamer is, and what coming back from inactivity actually is.
P.S. I have stated my views on the pros and cons on MBS. If something more comes up i will add to the arguments i have stated in these few (longish) posts. If you think i am flaming you (BlackStar) i am not. if you feel that way i apologize it wasn't my intention, I am just stating my points.
You keep confusing popularity with esports. I said bnet didn't play a role in the development of esports. It was the pc bangs in SKorea. And for years people have been using hamachi in the foreign community. Not to mention all those popular non-Blizzard ladders.
@ The War3 inactive quote, give me a break. Creopholus was a great player back in his day, rivaling Moon in his skill. He took a few months off and then trained hard for the tourney.
It's more like if Mind took a couple months off, came back, practiced hard for two weeks and won an MSL. Maybe that's unlikely, but it has far more to do with thhe competative nature of Starcraft pro scene than it does "limited multitasking in WC3."
I have never seen a perfect game of Warcraft 3 played, and I don't think it's humanly possible. You can argue that War 3 doesn't have macro, doesn't require multi-tasking (I highy disagree, but whatever).
Stop bringing up the WCG as an example of how "Easy" War3 is.
And BlackStar, if you have other examples of inactive players winning tournies, I want names and tournies won.
On March 21 2008 05:58 BlackStar wrote: You keep confusing popularity with esports. I said bnet didn't play a role in the development of esports. It was the pc bangs in SKorea. And for years people have been using hamachi in the foreign community. Not to mention all those popular non-Blizzard ladders.
Well lets stop going on about Battle.net. We all want it and love it, no more to discuss there.
So lets isolate the popularity vs. esports discussion. In my view, it is the popularity of a game that comes first and foremost, esports emerges as a biproduct of a game's popularity especially in FPS/RTS games. A game has to be fun/addicting/easy to get into if it wants to be popular. It is from this popularity that you have the potential for an esports fanbase. This is really just an reiteration of this point, made many times before. But I think it deserves special emphasis because there seems to be too much anti-newb rhetoric. I myself am not a newb (not a pro either of course), I've played Starcraft/Brood War for many years and then WC3 afterwards.. I've played many games of all sorts and sizes. Its the popular games that have the highest esports density in its community. And amazingly.. yeah, the games that are most popular are the "funnest" most balanced and polished games out there. And I can tell you clearly that it is a game's popularity that determines its ability to be an esport.. not the other way around- an esports game that becomes popular because its a hardcore esports game.
Sorry, this was a bit irrelevent to MBS but I think its worthwhile to remember this.
So lets isolate the popularity vs. esports discussion. In my view, it is the popularity of a game that comes first and foremost, esports emerges as a biproduct of a game's popularity especially in FPS/RTS games. A game has to be fun/addicting/easy to get into if it wants to be popular. It is from this popularity that you have the potential for an esports fanbase
Thats what Ive been writing about in a couple of posts, I am glad some one shares this view.
On March 21 2008 05:57 UBERGOD wrote: If "MBS" is such a big fucking deal, how come you nerds don't complain about hotkeys or MUS (multiple unit select)?
Some of you desperately need to get laid.
Do you really think Blizzard is going to dumb down the AI for a bunch of Korean internet virgins?
Do not insult people, its counterproductive, immature and irrelevant.
(e)sports are mesured by popularity. It simply goes hand in hand, I dare you to mention even one (e)sport that is unpopular but succesfull. It´s a paradox.
When Blizzard talks about making SC2 a esports game they think about avoiding the issues games like C&C have by designing Multiplayer first and then the singleplayer part. The counterpart to a E-sports game is not a fun game but a single player /player versus enviroment game. Thats why games like Diablo2 and WoW are not exactly e-sports ready. They are simply not designed for it.
Damn this thread is far too cyclical to participate in willingly anymore. Too few people find it worthwhile to read any posts, much less the ones that have already brought up their arguments or the ones that then counter them.
SC1 is of course self-sustaining in Korea. It could go on for years, regardless of which games come along. But the thing that sparked the huge interest was the popularity of course. It was a fun game, almost every PC could run it (very low sysreqs) and internet access (online play) was just becoming mainstream. The right game in the right time. Unfortunately, only in SKorea. but still. It's important to note that almost all of the pros, past or current ones, started playing this because the game was FUN first and foremost. Not because they saw some kind of abstract big competitiveness or because they thought it would be great to compete in this game because it is a good e-sports. No, they just played it, and became better over time. Then played it even more, and so on... just a gradient development. And then came the pro-teams, sponsors, leagues, ... everything followed that.
If we want something like this to happen in other countries too, you have to make a game that's fun for everyone. And the market has already "decided" that MBS is the way to go. Not SBS anymore.
On March 21 2008 05:43 eugen1225 wrote: Can you be more ignorant? Battle.net is a huge reason why SC was popular in the first place. Its all about popularity, but then again, you just keep repeating your posts over and over, you don't even read what i write thoroughly, you just throw a glimpse, see something you dislike and start attacking my point of view. This is a debate, we throw arguments (some more solid some not as solid) at each other, and judges will decide the winners. In this case the judges are Blizzard (if they are reading this) and the side with a better case will be known when the game comes out and we see what is in it and what not. This is not trial and you strategy to win is not discrediting the opposition, like some tend to post here. Off topic: Nal_Ra, one of my favorite players, said. SC2 should look cool and be fun, because that is whats most important, for a game to be fun. That was the best progamer comment about SC2 that Ive seen so far. SC2 will be a clickfest regardless of MBS, wc3 is a clickfest as well, but then again you probably never played, so how would you know. Read my post as to what an inactive pro gamer is, and what coming back from inactivity actually is.
P.S. I have stated my views on the pros and cons on MBS. If something more comes up i will add to the arguments i have stated in these few (longish) posts. If you think i am flaming you (BlackStar) i am not. if you feel that way i apologize it wasn't my intention, I am just stating my points.
stop assuming shit and taking people's quotes out of context. I know many people who have played WC3 and came right back to BW AND if you look at the average APMs gamewise the average player in SC is about 70 APM faster than those of WC3.
So lets isolate the popularity vs. esports discussion. In my view, it is the popularity of a game that comes first and foremost, esports emerges as a biproduct of a game's popularity especially in FPS/RTS games. A game has to be fun/addicting/easy to get into if it wants to be popular. It is from this popularity that you have the potential for an esports fanbase
Thats what Ive been writing about in a couple of posts, I am glad some one shares this view.
It's true - the game needs to be played on a big scale to go somewhere before it has a chance to do anything else. And on your earlier comment about age... well I can talk first hand there as well. My friends and I were nuts about SC when it came out... we were in our mid-twenties. Now we are in our mid-thirties, and I'm the only one that still keeps up with SC/BW (at least here and there). If not for the younger generation picking up the game and running with it, the people here in TL, the progamers in Korea,... then SC would have been just another nice game for a few years that people finally moved on from. Luckily, it was popular, very replayable, exciting to watch, and it came early enough in recent history to not be overshadowed by fluff like Halo and other light console games.
Video games are not like sports. They don't have a hundred or 500 year history. They aren't displayed and watched by everybody in every "big" country. But maybe things are changing enough that esports may start to work in more places than Korea. The only chance it has is the younger generation who have the time to take the games very seriously.
On March 21 2008 05:43 eugen1225 wrote: Can you be more ignorant? Battle.net is a huge reason why SC was popular in the first place. Its all about popularity, but then again, you just keep repeating your posts over and over, you don't even read what i write thoroughly, you just throw a glimpse, see something you dislike and start attacking my point of view. This is a debate, we throw arguments (some more solid some not as solid) at each other, and judges will decide the winners. In this case the judges are Blizzard (if they are reading this) and the side with a better case will be known when the game comes out and we see what is in it and what not. This is not trial and you strategy to win is not discrediting the opposition, like some tend to post here. Off topic: Nal_Ra, one of my favorite players, said. SC2 should look cool and be fun, because that is whats most important, for a game to be fun. That was the best progamer comment about SC2 that Ive seen so far. SC2 will be a clickfest regardless of MBS, wc3 is a clickfest as well, but then again you probably never played, so how would you know. Read my post as to what an inactive pro gamer is, and what coming back from inactivity actually is.
P.S. I have stated my views on the pros and cons on MBS. If something more comes up i will add to the arguments i have stated in these few (longish) posts. If you think i am flaming you (BlackStar) i am not. if you feel that way i apologize it wasn't my intention, I am just stating my points.
stop assuming shit and taking people's quotes out of context. I know many people who have played WC3 and came right back to BW AND if you look at the average APMs gamewise the average player in SC is about 70 APM faster than those of WC3.
-_-
Don't quote an entire, relevant post, just to criticize it while throwing in your own made up statistics with no logic behind it. [bullshit] I know many people who have played SC and moved onto WC3 and their average apm is 70 APM faster than alot of SC players. [/bullshit]
Right now, I'm waiting for an anti MBSer to prove that SC2 will be successful without appealing to too current generation.
I think that besides the MBS issue we have here, there are many main factors that will prove SC2 to be more successful from both types of players than WC3.
First, you have less micro intensive gameplay (borring) from WC3. There is more emphasis on macro. Some would argue its less than Starcraft1's.. fine, but its still much more macro than WC3.
Second, you're playing with a real army (cheaper more units, lower HP = more exciting battles), not a small squad of units. Thats already fun right there.
Third, its the freaking Starcraft universe! I always thought the Starcraft universe was just plain cooler than Warcraft's.
Fourth, the game is not as cartoony as WC3 (cartoony still, but not as bad we'd agree?) I think the super cartoony style of WC3 turned off a lot of players. Isn't it embarrassing when people see you playing a game that looks like its for 12 year olds.. especially if you're trying to play it competitively/seriously?
All these factors equate to a cooler "feel" and more exciting/frantic gameplay that draws/keeps attention. I think that overall these, and I'm sure others, will eclipse any negative effect (if any, we're still debating this) that MBS adds to the game, even for esports.
On March 21 2008 02:45 BlackStar wrote: There is an inherent conflict between an esports game and a normal 'fun' game.
I think that sums up your position. Yet I and many others disagree with that. Do you say that Starcraft isn´t fun?
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.
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.
This is a valid argument, the most valid one actually the SBS side has, and they are right. MBS will reduce a games difficulty. MBS:
So lets isolate the popularity vs. esports discussion. In my view, it is the popularity of a game that comes first and foremost, esports emerges as a biproduct of a game's popularity especially in FPS/RTS games. A game has to be fun/addicting/easy to get into if it wants to be popular. It is from this popularity that you have the potential for an esports fanbase
This is in my opinion the best counter argument (although not directly linked). Its agreed upon this that SBS will impact the appeal of SC2 to new generation players that are spoiled over the years by macro facilitating UIs.
I think both sides largely accept both these arguments. The question here is. What is more relevant, and how big of an impact these 2 options could have. Will MBS really make it so much easyer, so that a semi decent player can easily achieve the performance of a pro (tis is were SBS and MBS sides do not agree upon), and how much of a potential audience will SC2 lose if MBS is not incorporated in the game (MBSers say quite a few, SBS say not many). I guess there is no real answer here. We can only speculate. But both arguments have their weight. And lets stop using the term competitive game wrong. Competition is the rivalry of two or more parties over something. Competition gives incentives for self improvement. (source: Wikipedia). Competitive Game = A game witch is used in competition. In SC/wc3/SC2 players compete over a win, as long as some practice more than others and there is a ranking system, and people want to be on top, the game is competitive. MBS doesn't make the game less competitive(read the definition of competition), it reduces an aspect of a games difficulty down a bit. SC is not more competitive than WC3 is, its just more popular today thanks to the Korea pro scene. People played to be top on the ladder in both games. A harder game is not necessarily more competitive, take a look at CS and Q3. Q3 is a lot harder to play, there are more things to keep track of, more skills to learn than in CS. Did this make CS less competitive? No. CS was more competitive, there were a lot more pros in CS, CS was a lot more popular to a wide variety of players, especially new players(you just buy a gun and start shooting, no worries about time, armor, spawn points etc.), and eventually the hard q3 died out, and CS lived a lot longer as an eSport, and was more competitive (more good players emerged, and a lot more tournaments were present). I personally hate CS, but i cannot say it was a game for noobs. I just don't want to see SC2 meet the fate Q3 met.
i find it hard to believe that people WON'T play the game because MBS isn't a feature. there's no way there is a massive fan base that would refuse to watch or play sc2 because MBS isn't there. People with this attitude will most likely avoid the game once they get out microed 20 times in a row by vetran sc and war3 players.
On March 21 2008 02:45 BlackStar wrote: There is an inherent conflict between an esports game and a normal 'fun' game.
I think that sums up your position. Yet I and many others disagree with that. Do you say that Starcraft isn´t fun?
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.
You basically repeated what I wanted to point out: Why do the anti-MBSers want to have Blizzard sacrifice fun for competativness? The basis of competativness isn´t the game but the competitors! Of course they will demand patches and suppport etc. but they will also help themselves, for example with Tournament rules (no pause etc...).
Also, don´t try to argue MBS as such a big issue. SBS or MBS won´t make or break the game. Here we are discussing if SC2 would be a (slightly) better game with or without a improved UI.
On March 21 2008 02:45 BlackStar wrote: There is an inherent conflict between an esports game and a normal 'fun' game.
I think that sums up your position. Yet I and many others disagree with that. Do you say that Starcraft isn´t fun?
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.
You basically repeated what I wanted to point out: Why do the anti-MBSers want to have Blizzard sacrifice fun for competativness?
Every time I read a comment such as this, I ask myself, why we bother? We might as well be arguing against a 4 year old.
Every time I read a comment such as this, I ask myself, why we bother? We might as well be arguing against a 4 year old.
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.
Every time I read a comment such as this, I ask myself, why we bother? We might as well be arguing against a 4 year old.
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.
On March 21 2008 02:45 BlackStar wrote: There is an inherent conflict between an esports game and a normal 'fun' game.
I think that sums up your position. Yet I and many others disagree with that. Do you say that Starcraft isn´t fun?
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.
Nah really Tasteless? They are blinded by the light; revved up like a douche another runner in the night.
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.
An aurguement on the previous page or so claimed something along the lines of: MBS means bigger armys clashing which equals "more excitement." I can't help but think alot of the pro-MBS people would agree, but does bigger armys fighting really = more excitement? I don't think so. Some of SC's best pimpest plays are small micro skirmishes. I think the idea of big army clashes gets boring quickly.
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.
Of course it is harder to watch and understand what's going on in big battles. I laughed when you said 'bigger excitement' because micro battles can just be as intense. I would stick to the hard to watch and understand argument though.
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?
I'm repeating an old argument here but w/e. You shouldn't ignore or overlook these arguments because they are perfectly valid reasons (not necessarily true for each pro, but very likely for some).
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.
If Blizzard had some balls, they would start another franchise. Somehow, they had some balls in the design of WC3 and its extreme micro gameplay. Well, maybe they could also definitevely design SC2 for the core SK playbase, and throw appart the tentation of noobification; I wouldn't call it have balls, imho, it would be just straightening the scope of the game and aiming at a niche.
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.
No that isn't it DB. Stop repeating old sentiments you have against us. As I have said many times before many of us have played other RTS games and the system/fun/challenge isn't there.
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.)
Everyone here wants a sport, but we have different opinions about competitiveness and gameplay.
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.
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.
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?
Well, methinks the competition is not here, but MBS hasn't really something to do with it. Most of popular recent rts are fully micro battle, or have a very slick macro focus. So far, the only rts with heavy macro and MBS is SupCom, useless to said, it doesn't give any meaningful argument to apply to SC2.
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 ?)
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.
The main issue with "worksaround" is that their impact evolves with players evolution. Somehow, players get used to them and modify the initially intended balance, whereas core gameplay elements remain as they where designed.
Who said the UI had to be hard? A SBS UI doesn't have to be hard. It's as if Blizzard doesn't even want to try by adding unlimited MBS. It sounds like they're defeated and Seelys that was a very good guess :p
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.
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.
EPT
I have an 8-5 job a misses and a house. I, like an ever growing percentage of the game playing population of the world, just don't have time to practice to reach that sort of level. 
![[image loading]](http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u189/magigary/Rock_Paper_Scissors.jpg)
) After all, it makes the game easier!
