EPTThere are plenty of things the developers could do, especially with the help of TL, to add "magic" or "energy" to more units, abilities that recharge over time, or require energy or magic, then add hotkeys to the abilities and voila.
Multiple Building Selection - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RyanTuosto
United States17 Posts
There are plenty of things the developers could do, especially with the help of TL, to add "magic" or "energy" to more units, abilities that recharge over time, or require energy or magic, then add hotkeys to the abilities and voila. | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
This is a classic apples vs oranges argument. There is no correct side because its completely a matter of TASTE. Either you like the physical aspect (or button mashing as one side likes to call it) of SC or you don't. | ||
|
Tiku
18 Posts
On May 25 2007 23:09 RyanTuosto wrote: In my opinion, too find what tasteless is looking for, you need to add more abilities to individual units to spice up the micro part of the game play. There are plenty of things the developers could do, especially with the help of TL, to add "magic" or "energy" to more units, abilities that recharge over time, or require energy or magic, then add hotkeys to the abilities and voila. From the information we've gotten till now, it seems that's exactly what Starcraft II will be avoiding (in contrast to Warcraft III). In Starcraft II the core of the armies will be "movers and shooters". What that means is that micro will mostly be about clever moving of your troops, attacking when and where it will be most effective, while fleeing when the enemy has good counter units, instead of having to go deep into every fight and telling all the soldiers what abilities they should use. I think this is one of the many things that made Starcraft a superior game to Warcraft III. However, since we at least know of the return of the High Templar, and with the introduction of the Mothership, it's safe to say that some units won't be able to do much without the direct interaction of the player behind the keyboard. So those that like casters will still have their fun. Anyhow, I guess this discussion is for another topic. Check this link to read about the "mover and shooter" philosophy. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
1)The game will be all about micro, army managment and harrassment. This is what would happen if original bw had MBS. (Let's face it the economy mangement part of bw is not taxing enough to take up more than 10 % max of a decent players time with MBS.) And most of us simply don't want a game where ALL on your mind is your army. Also please note the ""mindless button smashers"" (Guys with 200+APM) would still rape the slower guys cause they would be able to harass at 5 places instead of two. But it is not the game we want, we want a game that forces us to split attention not only between armies but between armies and ecconomy. 2) They somehow dumb the game down enough so that ppl that _doesn't_ practice 8 hours aday still has a chance to compete at the highest level. This would be terrible because we want sc2 to at the very very least match bw in terms of esports. But no sport ever would be a popular spectator sport if it didn't demand insane saccrifices as well as talent to be considered good at. | ||
|
EmS.Radagast
Israel280 Posts
Woah, woah, woah, automatic transmission? The reason automatic transmission is so popular is because it takes zero skill to operate. The same reason professional racers have manual transmission. When you make a car for the public, your not trying to encourage innovation and skill, when you make a strategy game you are! EDIT: the paragraph below was factually wrong, and was corrected. Professional racers actually use semi-automatic transmission in race cars. They still have a clutch, but they only have to use it for the first gear because they outperform the semi-automatic system at start. When the semi-automatic transmission was introduced, after finally outperforming the pro-level manual control, car racing didn't suddenly become a newbie or less interesting/demanding sport because of it. You could even argue controlling the clutch was a bigger part of racing than single building selection is part of bw. And give me a break, there is nothing "innovative" about selecting lots of individual buildings fast, whatever combination of hotkeys and mouse movements you happen to be using. It is about as innovative as being a skilled worker in a factory's assembly line from the 1900's. bah. The "UI" for shifting gears was simplified (paddles on the steering wheel instead of a stick) which now requires less motoric skill; also, skill in clutch control after the 1st gear (no doubt there was mechanical skill at that) is no longer relevant. The racer's decision when to switch gears is like the gamer's decision what and when to build from the factories. the mechanical details (stick+clutch vs pressing a button on the wheel, or single building selection vs multi building selection) isn't what the competition is supposed to be about. From "Formula One Car" Transmission: Formula One cars use semi-automatic sequential gearboxes with six or seven forward gears and one reverse gear. The driver initiates gear changes using paddles mounted on the back of the steering wheel and electro-hydraulics perform the actual change as well as throttle control. Clutch control is also performed electro-hydraulically except from and to a standstill when the driver must operate the clutch using a lever mounted on the back of the steering wheel. By regulation the cars use rear wheel drive. A modern F1 clutch is a multi-plate carbon design with a diameter of less than four inches (100 mm), weighing less than 2.20 lbs (1 kg) and handling 900 hp (670 kW) or so. | ||
|
Schism
Australia85 Posts
[B] Look here's my song it's called PvT on Longinus 1 gate goon range into expo followed by 3 gate and robo : 0p0p0pbp0p0pbg0p0p ba0p0pby0pbp0p0p4d 0pbn0pbp4d0pbgbg0p 0pvr0p4d5d6d0p9pvo Thats dangerously close to pure nerdism. Chances are alot of the pro's would laugh at that quote,because they play via pure instinct,honed by practice,with a fair amount of talent thrown in. A good analogy would be that you can study and apply all the biomechanics science,nutritional knowledge,steroid technology and tactical training you like to some athlete (say, a footballer, for arguments sake),turn him into a methodical,over-analysing robot. Then along comes some 6'4",350 pound ANIMAL who eats hotdogs and can't even spell (let alone understand the need to apply) science, and DOMINATES the league. He plays on instinct and talent. Blizzard appear to have included MBS,but have also indicated they're making a game that's playable at a pro level. So,we can assume that if MBS is included,there will be features in the game that balance it out,yeah? | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17244 Posts
On May 26 2007 02:03 KlaCkoN wrote: I think that what most of us that dislike the idea of MBS (or atleast me) fears is the following two things. 1)The game will be all about micro, army managment and harrassment. This is what would happen if original bw had MBS. (Let's face it the economy mangement part of bw is not taxing enough to take up more than 10 % max of a decent players time with MBS.) And most of us simply don't want a game where ALL on your mind is your army. Also please note the ""mindless button smashers"" (Guys with 200+APM) would still rape the slower guys cause they would be able to harass at 5 places instead of two. But it is not the game we want, we want a game that forces us to split attention not only between armies but between armies and ecconomy. 2) They somehow dumb the game down enough so that ppl that _doesn't_ practice 8 hours aday still has a chance to compete at the highest level. This would be terrible because we want sc2 to at the very very least match bw in terms of esports. But no sport ever would be a popular spectator sport if it didn't demand insane saccrifices as well as talent to be considered good at. I was thinking about all of this and I think that I have found a game that could answer many peoples questions, help them get out of doubt and most of all - would provide a great practice for the upcoming SC2 both for BW and TFT players. I'm talking about Armies of Exigo here... Why? BW aspects: - massive armies - numerous expansions - A LOT of macro (in addition you have 3 resources there which makes things even harder) - very fast game pace - hard counters - no heroes - no creeps TFT aspects: - theme (more or less, Fallen are more "zergish" than Undead in TFT but they get some toss aspects aswell - and FvF is played almost exactly like ZvZ in BW) - multiple building selection (and interface in general) - you need more micro in battles than in BW (saving units is important because maybe there are no heroes but every single unit can advance and become a bit stronger) - battles start early on (and there's a lot of harassment options) So basically BW players could see for themselves how more advanced interfaces work while still having the original gameplay aspect while TFT players could learn to fight without heroes/creeps/items and how to control bigger armies that die fast. Just a thought  | ||
|
EmS.Radagast
Israel280 Posts
It's a shame, it had the potential to be an RTS on the same level as bw :/ | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5417 Posts
I wish I owned it...It's true though, that game was awesome... it was a really good mix of BW/TFT stuff I think you guys are really overexaggerating how 'easy' an RTS becomes when it has MBS. | ||
|
LxRogue
United States1415 Posts
On May 26 2007 03:52 EmS.Radagast wrote: EDIT: the paragraph below was factually wrong, and was corrected. Professional racers actually use semi-automatic transmission in race cars. They still have a clutch, but they only have to use it for the first gear because they outperform the semi-automatic system at start. When the semi-automatic transmission was introduced, after finally outperforming the pro-level manual control, car racing didn't suddenly become a newbie or less interesting/demanding sport because of it. You could even argue controlling the clutch was a bigger part of racing than single building selection is part of bw. And give me a break, there is nothing "innovative" about selecting lots of individual buildings fast, whatever combination of hotkeys and mouse movements you happen to be using. It is about as innovative as being a skilled worker in a factory's assembly line from the 1900's. bah. The "UI" for shifting gears was simplified (paddles on the steering wheel instead of a stick) which now requires less motoric skill; also, skill in clutch control after the 1st gear (no doubt there was mechanical skill at that) is no longer relevant. The racer's decision when to switch gears is like the gamer's decision what and when to build from the factories. the mechanical details (stick+clutch vs pressing a button on the wheel, or single building selection vs multi building selection) isn't what the competition is supposed to be about. From "Formula One Car" Transmission: Formula One cars use semi-automatic sequential gearboxes with six or seven forward gears and one reverse gear. The driver initiates gear changes using paddles mounted on the back of the steering wheel and electro-hydraulics perform the actual change as well as throttle control. Clutch control is also performed electro-hydraulically except from and to a standstill when the driver must operate the clutch using a lever mounted on the back of the steering wheel. By regulation the cars use rear wheel drive. A modern F1 clutch is a multi-plate carbon design with a diameter of less than four inches (100 mm), weighing less than 2.20 lbs (1 kg) and handling 900 hp (670 kW) or so. You're missing the whole point. I'm not saying automatic transmission and mass selection are exactly the same, but they both simplify complex actions. When you oversimplify a game, it loses a lot of its competitive nature, and because SC is so complex, its the most competitive game around. "Mechanical details" like having to select each factory by itself or telling workers to mine are what makes the game competitive. If you want a game where everyone has perfect macro and only needs to dance around with their units, thats fine, but I think most players like SC because of how competitive it is. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On May 25 2007 18:26 Blacklizard wrote: Part 2 To decide whether MBS is bad you have to weigh the pros and cons. Where does MBS fit in exactly... and I mean in the SC world, not the War3 world? 1. Does it hurt Micro and Macro both... equally? Hard to say. 2. Does it benefit the newb only? Don\\\'t think so. 3. Does it actually make the game more battle and maneuver based? Probably. 4. Would being more battle and maneuver based mean all the players that rely on APM would become much worse players? I seriously doubt it. 5. Would some pro players be hurt by MBS? Probably... but only those that didn\\\'t master every aspect of the game. 6. Does MBS take away from the beauty of the game of SC2? We can\\\'t answer this, because there may be so much more to do... we won\\\'t know till we play. And really play... not just 1 month of alpha testing. I will say this. Don\\\'t be so sure of why you didn\\\'t enjoy Warcraft 3. The design sounded like it\\\'d be fun for me, but for whatever reason I just couldnt stick with it. It wasn\\\'t as fun as SC. So i won\\\'t take a hard stance on MBS. The situation for SC2 and MBS isn\\\'t clear until the game is played. It could be for the better... it could be for the worse. But I will stand by my distinct preference that sloppy micro, when you are trying to micro, is just a travesty to see. ------ MBS would take away from one large luck factor in SC. Those every so present moments at fastest play games (it wasn\\\'t always fastest in the old days) where you decide to go back to your base to build men during a battle... and then because of that 2 second delay, you lost half of your force due to something that you totally could have prevented if you had watched the battle. Sometimes you are able to avoid these simply due to good scouting and not being surprised... but sometimes you don\\\'t know what\\\'s in the back of that tank push because you don\\\'t have a comstat (toss/zerg) to get past the turrets, tanks, and mines. Well, perhaps you can\\\'t take your eyes off a tank push, but late game that means death. With MBS, you could keep fighting when you knew it was important and not take your eyes off the battle at that point in time. MBS frees up more hotkeys and will allow for more hotkeying of groups of units... for fancier flanks and attacking more areas at once. As some have pointed out, for maximum mechnical and dexterity you could actually take away some of the UI features like hotkeying units, etc. There is a balance to be made, for sure. I don\\\'t think anyone would argue that being able to hotkey units is a bad thing... yet in the old days of RTS you couldn\\\'t do it and it required more actions to do the same thing you can do in Starcraft. This hardly makes Starcraft a less skillful game. MBS would fix something that would make me happy. A pet peeve of mine is rallying production facilities one at a time. it\\\'s fine when you have two gates. When you have 10+ gates it\\\'s more than a little annoying to do them one at a time without hotkeys and just about impossible to have all 10+ of them hotkeyed. -Realizations- Realization: After thinking on this more, I\\\'m actually leaning to MBS being a good thing. Realization2 (slightly off topic, but while we\\\'re on design): Going back to the \\\"fast speed\\\" vs \\\"fastest speed\\\"... gamers will gravitate to fastest, but I think fast speed games typically emphasize early game balance, whereas fastest speed games typically emphasize late game balance. Early game balance being more critical in design so that late game can even be achieved. I hope to see fast speed (or faster) played in the SC2 beta. Realization 3: i take back what i said in other post a little. Perhaps not all races in SC are micro/macro equal. Terran must be more macro friendly despite Boxer\\\'s micro fame. i say this because (correct me if i\\\'m wrong) there are more terran pros making it to higher levels of tournaments and more of their styles usually revolve around late game macro. And Terran, perhaps, has the easiest chance to defend against early aggressive micro/harrass and even late game harrass... early vs. zerg is probably the trickiest but that\\\'s 1 out of 3 matches (or 1 out of 4 now with Terran\\\'s large presence). Conclusion? Blizzard will do what they think is right. They are smart, lucky, and stubborn. I think they\\\'ll get it right. What you said was quite good. I read all these posts last night and then got in my bed. I couldn't sleep. I just stared at the celling thinking about what we have talked about. I thought about all the starcraft games I've casted. I thought about the games that were fun to cast and the games that weren't. I thought about the games that enlightened my understanding of Starcraft and the ones that confused me. One game was stuck in my mind. WCG 2006 Iloveoov versus white-ra. White-ra has always been one of my favorite players. He's sneaky and creative. His builds are also brilliant. But i feel he shines more in his creative builds and daring moves than in his ability to follow a linear path to get maxed out. When he faced the mighty iloveoov white-ra played with no fear in his eyes. He wasn't afraid to leave his base. He wasn't afraid to take some risks while the world was watching. He wasn't afraid to keep trying new strategic moves after the first one failed. When i was watching the game i thought iloveoov was losing. But white ra fumbled and made one or two simple mistakes. Even though Iloveoov lost so many scvs he grew faster than his opponent. He knew the song to play and he played it quite well. Although White-ra made the game more exciting, he was penalized for taking risks. I remember wishing that White-ra had won that game because i thought he was playing in a much more fun way watch. Esports can only grow if people can watch--and what they're watching must be exciting. From reading this thread several times i am starting to see what my opponents are trying to tell me. I'm going to articulate this through some basic starcraft logic. Koreans have mastered the art of setting themselves up in macro positions. Fast expoing and then syncing up their gateways or hatches or barracks. That's a good technique, the problem is it that this technique is SO powerful that taking a big risk and trying to do something new and sexy can lose easily if it's not executed in a perfect manner. And even then, why would one bother attempting to try a crazy strategy if he or she knows that defending and macroing is more likely to win? Is this what you guys are trying to explain to me? Perhaps i never thought about it this way. GG, you have made an excellent point, and it seems like you are getting mine. Just know I'm also not in love with 'mashing' the keyboard. I cheese often, ask any of the other american starcraft players who i play with. Protoss has the coolest cheese in my opinion. quick wins when done in a cool way are tight. I like both the macro massing up and getting a lot of units concept just as much as i like the risky micro parts. However it seems that the player can get punished too easily in starcraft for taking risks. The player is also more easily rewarded for sitting back and massing... especially if he is a musician. We need is a new game where macro is important, but not so important that a the best players are the ones who played the safest. I don't generally enjoy watching savior play, don't get me wrong he's terrifyingly good, just not like sexy like nal ra or boxer. Does anyone know what i mean? What Starcraft 2 needs is to balance this. And balance it carefully. I did try playing those notes (the revised MBS method). I like it. It feels good on my hands. And with no PSI limit... hm... this could get insane in the late game. It also seems less prone to patterns (but i don't know that for sure because i haven't started playing the actual game yet.) Here's some of my thoughts on how we could combine these two features in a cool way. a) Let the game music go with the the macroing patterns. I'm talking about the actual game music, not the notes that you play on the keyboard. Let it get more dramatic as the game picks up (more and more units). Maybe the music could change in battles too. And give the races tons of songs to play along with. b) Make the tech tree a little bit different from starcrafts original one. I tend to make all of the same type of units at once: 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d. Then I'll make another wave with a different variation: 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t. Now i have a healthy mix of units. Maybe after i do 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t again I'll more those templars into an archon (because they have less energy). But I'm only getting to make these combinations late game because i finished the tech tree. Perhaps we could setup an earlier tech tree system so that we can get different units out early. This would allow for more openings for the player. The hard part would be balancing all those units. c) Slow down the macroing part at the start. I think so many people get confused on how to play starcraft because things need to happen so fast right at the start. If there's no psi limit it will get very fast in the late game. d) pay close attention to the ways units are used in starcraft. There are so many different ways to abuse their size, speed, and special abilities. Give us more ways to do this. e) maybe give the mineral patches less minerals?... i'm not sure but it seems like if there were less minerals in each patch i would be forced to expand faster. This would keep it like starcraft and not like warcraft. But then again i have no control over these things. Blizzard does. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On May 25 2007 21:28 Lx_Rogue wrote: racers use manual transmission because it's more efficientWoah, woah, woah, automatic transmission? The reason automatic transmission is so popular is because it takes zero skill to operate. The same reason professional racers have manual transmission. When you make a car for the public, your not trying to encourage innovation and skill, when you make a strategy game you are! likewise, players are still going to individually select their buildings at times for the exact same reason. anyone that thinks that MBS is going to completely destroy all sense of macro needs to play warcraft 3 for FIVE MINUTES, then they'll understand that the system is very poor at selecting the proper buildings when macroing a group of them. an empty barracks will often get skipped for one that has a unit in the queue, and it makes no effort to pick the best building based on training time left. pros will probably end up macroing their barracks in small clusters, expecting the game the game to figure out how to properly distribute 600 minerals across 12 gateways is pretty silly...it's bound to screw up somewhere | ||
|
EmS.Radagast
Israel280 Posts
racers use manual transmission because it's more efficient likewise, players are still going to individually select their buildings at times for the exact same reason. anyone that thinks that MBS is going to completely destroy all sense of macro needs to play warcraft 3 for FIVE MINUTES, then they'll understand that the system is very poor at selecting the proper buildings when macroing a group of them. an empty barracks will often get skipped for one that has a unit in the queue, and it makes no effort to pick the best building based on training time left. pros will probably end up macroing their barracks in small clusters, expecting the game the game to figure out how to properly distribute 600 minerals across 12 gateways is pretty silly...it's bound to screw up somewhere I disagree. It is very simple to add units into the production queue of multiple buildings in an optimal manner and I'm positively certain the computer would do it better than you or nada can. Suppose that pressing the hotkey for your unit of choice with your building group would add only 1 unit total (not 1 per building). Then all the program would have to do is queue it up in the building that has the least total production time left in its queue(*). For idle buildings this quantity would be zero, so they would always be selected first. Easy. It just can't get any better than this. If you want to build specific units in specific physical locations, use more than 1 building group. It makes alot of sense, for rallying purposes as well. A common example from bw would be the gates on your first main vs. the gates on your second main. * - It gave me an idea, it would be cool if when you selected multiple buildings it would write the amount of delay somewhere, so you will know whether what you're putting into the queues starts right away, or how long is the delay going to be. This way you would also know immediately if there are idle buildings, because that would cause this number to be zero; you could use it to add units until you see the number increase from zero, to ensure all of your buildings are busy, and if it says 5 seconds you will know at least 1 building will be idle again within 5 seconds. Very cool. | ||
|
NoNameLoser
United States1508 Posts
1. Have lots of newb friendly options like outocasting, multibple buildings/army selections, ai controlled unit formations etc. This makes it easier for new people to play but makes the game less competetive. 2. have none of that so the player has to learn the hard way but in the end have a lot of control over the game. better for differing good players from rest. IMO both are vitaly important, 1 builds a good player base as it is easy to learn while 2 gives more room for hardcore players. So why not make an option to chose between what kind of control level you want to set the game at. For example in a ladder of 0 to 1000 points, 0-200 ratings would play in "noob" mode, 201-600 in intermediate mode, and 600+ in hardcore mode. or some other variation of such setup. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 25 2007 13:03 Tal wrote: Wow...great post from Tasteless....I finally can actually understand the ''keep the interface shit'' school of thought. Good to see it written so passionately, and now I finally feel some sympathy for everyone seeing Starcraft 2 as a step in the wrong direction (as the interface will obviously be changed from the SC one). You've finally conveyed why SC is seen as so special in those ways. But...I'm still with radagast et al....I don't want to play the starcraft that Tasteless and you guys love. I have no desire to develop those mechanical skills on a computer game- I'd rather devote that time to playing guitar, and play computer games with more user friendly interfaces. Like Radagast I want to play a strategy game in real time, with the oppurtunity to act simultaneously to and decieve my opponent- engage in a battle of wills. The whole total focus of mechanical skills + brain just doesn't appeal to me- I'd rather just need 100apm to compete at top level, even if I know that won't happen. And to be honest, most gamers I talk to are on the same side. Its too much to have to devote so much time to mastering an interface- even for your favourite game. I've played games all my life, and I agree SC is the best RTS ever made. But with improvements to interface, it could be so much better by my (and other gamers standards). I don't want the same intense experience- I want a different one- focussed on planning and thinking (under pressure), instead of executing multiple commands under pressure of interface (and trying to think too). Hopefully starcraft 2 will have it. Just one question though- if they made starcraft 2 with the option to either play with a great super user-friendly interface (no unit select limit, select multiple buildings, sophisticated hot key system, even autobuild/ orders for troops like retreat on sighting enemy etc) or to play with a SC1 replica interface, would many of you really choose to play on the server with the old style interface? I guess tasteless would (and fair play to him), but what about the rest of you? If there was autobuild and crazy automated troop orders I'd most likely either play on the old interface server if it was what became popular or possibly not play at all. If it "only" had multiple building/unlimited unit select then I'd have to see how it was implemented, I have faith in blizzard until I see otherwise, when it comes to this. Reading through thread so I guess I'll edit whatever I want to answer to into this post. EDIT: I'm pretty sure there'll be a Psi limit, they haven't said anything to the contrary. No limit on how many units you can select tho. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On May 25 2007 23:09 RyanTuosto wrote: In my opinion, too find what tasteless is looking for, you need to add more abilities to individual units to spice up the micro part of the game play. There are plenty of things the developers could do, especially with the help of TL, to add "magic" or "energy" to more units, abilities that recharge over time, or require energy or magic, then add hotkeys to the abilities and voila. i don't even know what i want any more man! i just want to play a game that's starcraft but improved in all senses. I'm just thinking outloud (uh or quietly on a fourm i guess). I don't have a special mold or anything that i want starcraft 2 to fit into like a hand in a glove. I know it wont have everything i expect or want, i also know it wont have things that i've even imagined yet.. it better! The bigger point i was trying to get at was to defend the hotkey system in the original starcraft. And that it wasn't a bad thing to begin with. It was an incredible way to play an RTS. I've gotten a lot of good responses. I just want people to understand that while my ancestors were french irish and austrian making me a caucasian on the outside... my heart still beats with korean blood on the inside. | ||
|
Day[9]
United States7366 Posts
On May 26 2007 07:12 Schism wrote: Thats dangerously close to pure nerdism. Chances are alot of the pro's would laugh at that quote,because they play via pure instinct,honed by practice,with a fair amount of talent thrown in. A good analogy would be that you can study and apply all the biomechanics science,nutritional knowledge,steroid technology and tactical training you like to some athlete (say, a footballer, for arguments sake),turn him into a methodical,over-analysing robot. Then along comes some 6'4",350 pound ANIMAL who eats hotdogs and can't even spell (let alone understand the need to apply) science, and DOMINATES the league. He plays on instinct and talent. Blizzard appear to have included MBS,but have also indicated they're making a game that's playable at a pro level. So,we can assume that if MBS is included,there will be features in the game that balance it out,yeah? This is actually incorrect. Many coaches on starcraft pro teams make sure their players can type builds exactly as tasteless typed it out. In the mind of the coaches (as well as most players), its just as important that your fingers know your build as your mind. | ||
|
yangstuh
United States120 Posts
If Starcraft were to only be played by 10 competitive players, do you think it'd still have all the strategies/tactics today? Do you think that the micro and macro portions of the game would be scrutinized at such a high level? Do you think all these factors would be the same as opposed to 1000 competitive players.. 10,000? What makes a game competitive is the game being so freaking fun, addictive, and balanced that it attracts millions of players.. in which case it gets played to hell and back again.. and you get what happened to Starcraft. MBS does nothing to lower the competitive playing field, focus goes elsewhere on the battlefield.. it doesn't dissappear. I think I explained why it wouldn't ruin competition.. this factor is unrelated to it. It might be more newb friendly, but that just attracts a larger audience and increases competition. Now that I explained that, lets talk about.. whether it gives newbs an advantage. I'm going to be short, it does not give them an advantage. A pro player always wins against a newb. Newbs don't account for scouting, they don't account for micro, they don't understand flanking, they don't understand counters, they don't understand econ management, they don't understand when to push or when to pull, they don't understand adaptation, and they don't understand a ton of small and big things that make it really impossible for them to win against a pro. How does allowing MBS change any of that, except for making their experience a little less frustrating? Why should the game come down to where a few less clicks jeopordizes everything that it now stands for, that is competition? Why does streamling the building/training process have to = less skill. Manualy selecting individual buildings doesn't mean skill, it purely is just more monotonous work. It isn't like recourse management, and manualy placing buildings. Should a Student Bob be graded higher for manually typing in every letter of his research website addresses into his source page as opposed to Student John who copy pasted the addresses into his source page? Of course not, the student who wrote a better paper gets a higher grade. The same is true for Starcraft, the better player wins the game. Individual building selection versus multiple building selection.. is not what Starcraft is about. Because we've played it so many damn times, and so many of us did.. that we've lost track of what made Starcraft 1 of the best/competitive games ever. We've forgotten that Starcraft too was once a new, reovutionary, and innovative game. Things like MBS is just furthering the evolution of the game. It cuts out unneccessary 'manual address typing' that doesn't do anything for the game in the first place. | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
That way either both sides will be happy, or neither of them. | ||
|
Schism
Australia85 Posts
On May 27 2007 01:28 Doctorasul wrote: My prediction is they'll implement multiple building selection but on the other hand introduce another (new) task that requires speed and "pace" to execute, hard enough to only be performed properly by top gamers. That way either both sides will be happy, or neither of them. The new warp-in and phase prism strategies,will pretty much wipe out any hole left by MBS. Imagine the strats that will develop once the pro's have had their hands on SC2 for a few months. | ||
| ||
