|
Honestly, my following response is going to be pretty asshole'ish and immature compared to my usual responses that are well supported. But...
I'm never going to be a progamer and don't ever plan to be. I'm going to be playing this game for fun during my spare time so I don't really care if they take away some of the skill in keybinding/micro/macro that the majority of people don't understand anyways. As long as they have enough of a skill aspect to define bad, good and great players then I'm happy. I just wanna chill out and have some RTS fun without having to work up a sweat.
When I was younger and played starcraft hardcorely, I was always made fun of by my personal friends for how intensely I played starcraft. It never bothered me; what bothered me was that the only way I could have a GG was by playing some mad skillz korean gamer -__-;. I'm kind of glad the game is becoming more noob friendly. Ontop of this, you have to look at it from a business and money making standpoint; from Blizzard's perspective. I don't think North American gamers aswell as casual gamers around the world care too much for having to learn 100 different hotkeys and have finely tuned micro/macro skills to be anywhere near good at a computer game.
I always found that with Broodwar, the skill factors were very black and white; you either win pretty well or you lose pretty badly; finding a nice balance of fun and good games was rare. WGTour/PGtour/Gamei/etc helped deliver GG's with their ranking systems, but the casual gamer could never find that aspect from pubbing. This game is going to be BRAND NEW, meaning, lots and lots of gamers; players who are new to starcraft, veterans, players who played the original but haven't played it in years. It seems now a days (and how it's been for the last few years), the majority of gamers on starcraft are long time, experienced players and we've grown too used to what it takes for someone to be successful and have good games. I remember when the game was new and fresh; you could play it all day without ever losing too badly or winning too much; everyone was around the same skill level. I think the way Starcraft 2 is going to be set up will keep this game fresh for a long time. This also translates into lots of $$$ for Blizzard.
|
terran user what you need to understand is RTS is about the decisions you make, no matter how easy they make it people who are bad at making decisions are going to fail (like that video i posted on page 17 for example) so why not make the logical decision and make the game for core gamers that want a C H A L L E N G E (and also want different ladders for different game speeds). I know blizz lurks these forums much, i would if i was a developer making SC2. They can iether choose to listen to the pro side like they said they would or lie. Or hire me and ill keep up with vivendi's demands so they dont lock me in underground blizz HQ where they got a remake of diablo 1 hell level 13 with insane developers that have failed to make enough content for WoW get put in the pit and forced to eat eachother while having their eye's and face ripped off. Make a decision or do something else. WoW is not going to last forever, atleast not as long as BW.
|
What you're failing to see, is that when Starcraft 2 hits the shelves and starts selling out all over the world, the people on these boards, the people who play in all the tournies and leagues, will make up around (random statistic) 15% of the Starcraft 2 population. Starcraft veterans will have their GG's, but they'll come from playing against other veterans. The game needs to appeal to the majority gamer; the noob.
|
That is why UMS were created.
|
I'm sorry, but lets say someone today, who's never played a game of starcraft in their life, goes to EB Games and picks up a copy and says "hey, this game is 11 years old, but I heard it was good and its only $15.00". He installs the game, learns the basics, etc. How long will it take this player to win his first legit battle.net pub game? Many months of hard practice/training; something a casual player doesn't care enough about at all.
With the game being more noob friendly, you'll still have your challenge. Someone might not be able to "decition make" as well as you, but he sure as hell can select 10 gateways and pop out 10 zealots as well as you. You'll still have your C H A L L E N G E.
By graying the skill scale, the game will appeal to players new and old, good and bad, casual and hardcore.
Besides, I think the things that will define someone as a gosu will be different from what they will be in Broodwar. Who knows, only time will tell. Now that macro is easy, maybe players can now focus more on micro. For example, a good micro'er will be far more successful over a bad micro'er.
|
On September 08 2007 10:10 HunterGatherer wrote:
Aphelion tell me how the gateways KNOW what your going to build. It seems you have created a paradox without you even realizing it.
Can you even think? My point is absolutely clear. If you hotkeyed 20 gates to 5, and you pressed z to build a zealot, no gate will build anything unless you have 2000 minerals, enough for every gate to at least produce a zealot. Otherwise nothing is built. If you have 1900 minerals and you hit 5z, you get the "not enough minerals" message.
|
Then there's still and aspect of strategy. You could have something like 3 gates per key or something. You'd then be required to memorize which gate group is producing keys so you don't hinder your macro by queuing. THERE'S AN ASPECT OF SKILL AND STRATEGY IN EVERYTHING! :D
|
On September 08 2007 11:26 HunterGatherer wrote:
That is why UMS were created.
That's bullshit.
If the game doesn't appeal to the wide mass of casual gamers then they could just stop developing the game right now, as it won't sell, and if there's no popularity then it won't be played in tournaments/leagues as well. It would be dead from the release.
And if all the other current RTS games have MBS and similar things, then Blizzard almost has no choice. They must include it. And then still try to make it a good game for e-sports and a worthy successor to BW in every aspect. It's very hard to find that balance.
[offtopic]Much harder than it was back in 1998, where SC basically had no competition. And Blizzard probably would have never imagined how big the game was going to be, and how well it was suited for e-sports. I'm assuming this because you just have to look at the Blizzard maps (which all suck or are imbalanced or unsuitable for competitive play), or the unpatched 1.00 game version (imbalanced as hell), or the game speed bar (who plays on NORMAL speed? Why didn't they make Fastest the normal speed and remove all other speeds?), or the strategy advice they gave on their websites. Nevertheless it developed into this intense e-sports game that it is now. It's almost as if this game has completely changed for the better.
In SC2 they can't count on "luck" like that, as the expectations are so extremely high right from the start...
|
On September 08 2007 10:21 JiggaJay wrote:
Can't stop progress.
By your logic, it is better to just program in a build order and what to do in some countering situations before the game starts, then press OK and watch the computer play the whole game for you. You cannot say something is "progress" just because it makes things easier or allows you to do exactly what you intended to do. Would baseball be fun if everyone could hit the ball exactly where they wanted every time, or basketball fun if everyone had a 100% shooting percentage? No. Games and sports need to be so impossible to master that there is plenty of room for differentiation. By your logic, we should slow down pitching in baseball so the best player in the world has a 1.00 batting average. That's not progress. Baseball is competitive because no one can even maintain a .400 average. It's the same with StarCraft.
|
Okay, I've been busy for the past half a day, and it took me a while to catch back up, so forgive me if I miss a point or two someone brought up.
As many of you know, my position is pro-MBS because I want us to experience the feature in closed beta before we make a final judgement on the degree to which it affects the game. I think it will have little effect on the skill balance and overall competitiveness of the game, i.e. those who dominate in SC now will continue to dominate regardless of MBS. On the other hand, there are those like FA who believe that the decrease in skill involved in macro-application (to use his term) will have a significant, and indeed major, effect on the skill curve. Both of us have made what I believe to be good arguments on our respective beliefs, but we agree that they are just 'beliefs', and that playing the game with MBS is required to discover which position is correct. Therefore, the majority of this post is directed towards those who don't see why MBS should even be added to the game in the first place.
To those who ask "why put this in?":
I think we all want SC2 to become a professional e-sport in the non-Asian markets. However, I don't think the current SC competitive community is large enough to support a professional e-sport, whether as a league of its own or included in the CPL/CGS/ESWC/etc. In what was probably his only coherent post in this thread, HunterGatherer gave a link to a poll that shows that about 430 (29% of the respondees) members of TL use the site mainly to follow SC in Korea, and play SC sparingly, if at all. (Not surprisingly, I might add, as it's one of the best, if not THE best, e-sports news sites around despite the fact that no one to my knowledge is being paid to do this.) That's a fair number of people who love to watch SC, but for some reason don't play it. I think the a big reason for this is the interface, as one can't be truly competitive in SC until they've mastered it, especially the '4z5z6z7z8z9z0z' part of macro-application. This is more the fault of the hotkeys being uncustomizable, as the hotkeys were assigned by Blizzard to correspond to the name of the unit/ability, NOT to be ergonomic. I would bet that the fact that the hotkeys set awkwardly is the main reason SC players don't use them; with customizable hotkeys a set (and community-approved) feature for SC2, noobs WILL be using the hotkeys, and thus they play a factor in MBS. But even WITH customizable hotkeys, there still will be resistance to non-MBS play by the newer players that are vital to the growth of the SC2 competitive community and its potential as an e-sport. This is due to the perception of the macro interface as "artificially limiting". With some conjecture on why Blizzard made the SC interface the way they did, I'll try to explain why people might (and imho, will) think of '4z5z6z7z8z9z0z' as "artificial".
SC, as we all know, is a RTS. Being a strategy game, IMHO skills should revolve around one of two groups: strategic, and tactical. In SC, theorycraft and macro-theory fall under strategic skills, as they revolve around the overall game-plan, while micro-application falls under tactical, as it revolves around battles. However, macro-application in the 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z sense doesn't fall under either, as it doesn't involve decision-making. At best, it would fall under a "logistical" group, but all of the other skills that would fit in this category (keeping supplies in ratio to army size, building static defenses to help defend your supply chain, remembering to build units while involved in battles) involve a decision. 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is unique in that the decision has already been made, but the skill is required to get a result. Real-time strategy games should focus on fast, efficient decision-making; 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z by itself involves no decision-making, and so it feels artificial. Even worse, this skill is required before all others for a potential competitive SC player; while FA makes a good explanation of his worry that a 5/5/5/3 player would have a significant chance of beating him at 5/5/5/5 if MBS were used, I doubt that such a player would ever exist, as there's simply little point in training the other skills to such a high degree if you're just going to lose to overwhelming numbers due to your inefficient interfacing. If I have an advantage in army numbers, it should be a result of a tactical victory earlier on where I took an economic advantage (in SC, by taking an expansion while keeping my opponent from doing the same), not because I've committed sequences of awkwardly-placed keys to muscle memory when my opponent hasn't. I think it's this, even more than the uncustomizable hotkeys, that keep people from playing SC competitively.
Then why would Blizzard put it in the game, you ask. Well, my hunch was that it was the same reason there was a 12-unit grouping limit. Blizzard wanted big armies in SC, but they were likely afraid that if they made units too easy to produce either: 1) players wouldn't bother controlling them and would just attack-move all over the place; 2) games would become massive rush-fests, which at the time (and to an extent now) was considered a very boring strategy, and a sign of poor design (C&C's tank rush as a classic example); or 3) large numbers of units would produce lag on the technology of the time. There are two obvious ways Blizzard could disencourage building too many units; by making large groups of units more difficult to control, or by making the production of units progressively difficult as the scale of production (number of producing buildings) increased. The former led to the 12-unit/group limit; the second led to the inability to group buildings. Blizzard knew the value of hotkeys, and probably thought that the difficulty of producing through hotkeys would keep building numbers down. Of course, this seems rather silly in retrospect, but you have to keep in mind that they also didn't expect anyone to actually play on fastest. Game design is like that; the results of your design are often unexpected. This is could also explain why hotkeys were never customizable for SC, even though SC was still being significantly updated when customizable hotkeys were introduced in WC3. Unfortunately, requiring extensive, awkward key sequences backfired, as SC was such a good game players adapted themselves (many with their non-dominant hand) to the interface in order to stay competitive. However, with SC2, Blizzard wants to focus on microing large armies, and thus, the heavy-handed disincentives to mass-produce are no longer needed. Thus, we have effectively unlimited unit selection, and MBS. Automine, on the other hand, is simply an AI improvement; if medics are now smart enough to hang back and heal units instead of running straight into enemy fire, wouldn't it seem rather stupid if worker units, whose primary purpose is to mine unless the commander needs them to build or fight, need to be individually told to do so?
In summary, MBS is an improvement to the game for three reasons: 1) It allows the SC2 competitive community to grow, and therefore makes SC2 much more likely to be picked up as a serious e-sport; 2) RTS skills should be ones that emphasize fast, accurate decision-making, and 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is one of the few if not the only skills that doesn't involve decisions, and furthermore is a requirement if one wants to effectively apply any of the others; and 3) Blizzard wants to focus on microing large armies with SC2, and MBS works towards this purpose, while the current interface makes it more difficult to make large armies.
EDIT: As if this post wasn't long enough, two quickies for LonelyMargarita: First off, the reductio ad absurdum argument doesn't work for either side, as just like you think it's ridiculous that you'd want to add more limitations to the SC interface to introduce more physical skill, we think it's ridiculous to want automation for anything that requires the player to make a decision. Take autocasting, for example: while we want autocasting for interceptor building and scarab building, since no decision goes into making those (as the units would be a waste of resources without them) we want them autocast; on the other hand, stuff like casting storm or stim requires the player's input to be used effectively, so we'd be furious if the AI tried to do it for us. Secondly, there's far more depth to skills that involve quick, dynamic decision-making like theorycraft, macro-theory, and micro-application than there is in the muscle memorization of awkwardly-spaced key sequences that is the part of macro-application that you're defending (in fact, all pro players have already effectively mastered it when they go pro). Therefore, it is hardly the case that if the latter were removed, anybody would be able to play 'perfect' SC/SC2.
Since this post ended up being much longer than I was anticipating, I'll put my solutions in the following post.
|
Before the solutions, I'd like to comment on Aphelion's solution. IMHO, by putting in MBS, but severely harming the player's chances to win for actually making use of it, you're sending contradictory messages to the player: "In SC2, we're giving you a streamlined UI so it's more about you making fast, accurate decisions on a dynamic playing field and less about rote order-giving, BUT if you actually make use of it, your orders will be carried out much less efficiently than someone who self-imposes upon themselves the artificial restrictions we built into SC." Not only will people who actually want to win force themselves through the frustration of SC-style unit production, you're really going to piss them off by blatantly lying about the interface being updated (as in effect, it hasn't).
Okay, solutions time. If after closed beta, it does turn out that MBS is hurting the game, I have four ideas on what to do:
1) Create two separate battle.net competitive ladders, one which has MBS enabled, and the other which doesn't. This is obviously not a solution I'd end up wanting implemented, but I'm listing it because it IS better than only allowing non-MBS users to participate in competitive ladder play.
2) Allow automine and MBS to be toggleable in the map editor. I'd actually recommend this even if I was absolutely certain MBS would work in SC2, as even if it does become generally accepted there will still be people who hate it, and will want to play on maps that has it turned off. On the other hand, if the community doesn't like MBS during closed beta, then the programming is in place to reverse it. And in the worst case, where the hardcore SC community doesn't like MBS but everyone else does and SC2 ends up having it, then the community can just set up an independent ladder like PGT or ICCUP that only uses non-MBS/AM maps. Or if you want to go all the way, this + the inclusion of the SC units in the map editor makes it much easier for a team to recreate SC in the SC2 engine, like Project Revolution has been doing in the WC3 engine.
3) This is the most complex, and therefore least likely to happen, of my solutions, but I like how it ties unit production into expansions and forces the player to make new decisions about base organization and building placement. First, the only way to select multiple buildings to group them is by double-clicking on a unit-producing building, which selects all buildings of that type on the screen. Secondly, the area usually allowed for initial bases must be restricted, so that only a certain number of buildings can be built without the possibility of getting units trapped (Limiting the number of buildings that could be built within a certain radius of a cc/hatch/nexus would also work, but it's a more artificial limitation imo). This way, you could have, say, 6 gateways in your base which you can all group to one hotkey, but much of your tech buildings and stargates would have to be proxied or built in your expansions, which are much more vulnerable. Also, this would introduce a negative feedback loop in that it would be increasingly difficult to produce units at full capacity as one's expansions increased (assuming that players end up spreading out their unit-producing buildings due to the desire to keep their tech buildings safe in their main), thus allowing for comebacks if one's opponent stretches themselves beyond their physical abilities.
4) My favorite, and simplest, solution would be to add hotkeys that selected the last built building of a given type (LIFO because players usually want the buildings closest to the enemy to produce units first). For example, pressing 'b' would select the last barracks you built if you were playing terran. My initial idea was to make these hotkeys only work if you didn't have anything currently selected at the time, but if the unit-action hotkeys were relocated you could do this while units were selected too. 'bmbmbmbmbm' is much less awkward to type than '6m7m8m9m0m', and still allows for that flying-across-the-keyboard 'aesthetic'. My only concern is that it will be slightly easier for Zerg to use this, since they only have a hatchery building units (at least, as far as we know), while Protoss and Terran will have to switch between keys depending on which type of building they want to produce units from; I don't think it will be that big of a deal, however.
|
On September 08 2007 14:12 1esu wrote:
Before the solutions, I'd like to comment on Aphelion's solution. IMHO, by putting in MBS, but severely harming the player's chances to win for actually making use of it, you're sending contradictory messages to the player: "In SC2, we're giving you a streamlined UI so it's more about you making fast, accurate decisions on a dynamic playing field and less about rote order-giving, BUT if you actually make use of it, your orders will be carried out much less efficiently than someone who self-imposes upon themselves the artificial restrictions we built into SC." Not only will people who actually want to win force themselves through the frustration of SC-style unit production, you're really going to piss them off by blatantly lying about the interface being updated (as in effect, it hasn't).
Okay, solutions time. If after closed beta, it does turn out that MBS is hurting the game, I have four ideas on what to do:
1) Create two separate battle.net competitive ladders, one which has MBS enabled, and the other which doesn't. This is obviously not a solution I'd end up wanting implemented, but I'm listing it because it IS better than only allowing non-MBS users to participate in competitive ladder play.
2) Allow automine and MBS to be toggleable in the map editor. I'd actually recommend this even if I was absolutely certain MBS would work in SC2, as even if it does become generally accepted there will still be people who hate it, and will want to play on maps that has it turned off. On the other hand, if the community doesn't like MBS during closed beta, then the programming is in place to reverse it. And in the worst case, where the hardcore SC community doesn't like MBS but everyone else does and SC2 ends up having it, then the community can just set up an independent ladder like PGT or ICCUP that only uses non-MBS/AM maps. Or if you want to go all the way, this + the inclusion of the SC units in the map editor makes it much easier for a team to recreate SC in the SC2 engine, like Project Revolution has been doing in the WC3 engine.
3) This is the most complex, and therefore least likely to happen, of my solutions, but I like how it ties unit production into expansions and forces the player to make new decisions about base organization and building placement. First, the only way to select multiple buildings to group them is by double-clicking on a unit-producing building, which selects all buildings of that type on the screen. Secondly, the area usually allowed for initial bases must be restricted, so that only a certain number of buildings can be built without the possibility of getting units trapped (Limiting the number of buildings that could be built within a certain radius of a cc/hatch/nexus would also work, but it's a more artificial limitation imo). This way, you could have, say, 6 gateways in your base which you can all group to one hotkey, but much of your tech buildings and stargates would have to be proxied or built in your expansions, which are much more vulnerable. Also, this would introduce a negative feedback loop in that it would be increasingly difficult to produce units at full capacity as one's expansions increased (assuming that players end up spreading out their unit-producing buildings due to the desire to keep their tech buildings safe in their main), thus allowing for comebacks if one's opponent stretches themselves beyond their physical abilities.
4) My favorite, and simplest, solution would be to add hotkeys that selected the last built building of a given type (LIFO because players usually want the buildings closest to the enemy to produce units first). For example, pressing 'b' would select the last barracks you built if you were playing terran. My initial idea was to make these hotkeys only work if you didn't have anything currently selected at the time, but if the unit-action hotkeys were relocated you could do this while units were selected too. 'bmbmbmbmbm' is much less awkward to type than '6m7m8m9m0m', and still allows for that flying-across-the-keyboard 'aesthetic'. My only concern is that it will be slightly easier for Zerg to use this, since they only have a hatchery building units (at least, as far as we know), while Protoss and Terran will have to switch between keys depending on which type of building they want to produce units from; I don't think it will be that big of a deal, however.
Heh, your fourth solution is similar to that which is used in AoE. There, ctrl + (building hotkey, say B for rax, G for gate) cycles through all your buildings. So you go ctrl+b + click unit 10-20 times. That might work too, but I think my idea is better. Your 2) is basically same as splitting the community so I already gave my reasons against it. It WILL kill the prospect of SC2 becoming a esport.
Your 3) is actually similar to what I included in one of my drafts, but I forgot out of frustration after I lost my post twice. Basically, you allow MBS, but not multiple building selection. So you can go to your base, ctrl-click your 12 gates, and build from all of them, but you cannot hotkey them to 5 and go 5-d in the middle of battle. I actually think that might be a very good way to reduce the manual dexterity required to mass produce while still giving requiring you to take the attention away from the battle (and 5d6d7d8d9d0d is still more efficient). Thats a very good method, in fact.
I recognize your objections about the contradictory nature of the message your sending to the newbie player (or so you think), but you realize that the very nature of this discussion is about not about us "streamlining the ui" so the noob can better "channel his energies into realize his creative strategic genius". That is NOT the message I want to send. From our standpoint, its a compromise. The message is, "here's a crutch so you can still better enjoy the game and not die of frustration if your not serious, but if you really want to play better you have to take the next great leap and learn it the hard way." Your right though, the inconsistency in my method does bother me, but you have to admit from a practical standpoint it accomplishes all my listed goals. MBS should come, and it ought not split the community, but to do well you should do without it. My third method listed above is smoother, but all three of my methods manage to implement the concept of "MBS with penalties".
|
It seems this debate is going to rage on forever. Beta can't come soon enough blizzard!
|
As much as i dislike the idea of spliting the community, there is no hope to find an agreement.
Make it an option, then let's see which part is chosen by kespa, which part will be successful and the other become marginal. Then it will be time for those pro MBS kids to whine on the fact their side is not as recognized as the other. But if you think twice its not really a problem, since by that time another game will be out for their classical switch. And that improved new game will allow a more complete auto micro mode, so they'll be the most happy on earth.
|
I agree with Terran'User. I used to play a lot too, but i'm not going to do the same with SC2. I'll play through the campaign 2 times, then have some games online but nothing structured or intensive at all. It'd be nice if blizz made the game work for the pros as well as i'd like to see a proscene happen again, but personally i don't mind some noobifying. I'm not going to invest a couple months of time to be able to play at a decent level...
|
Sorry, but that's stupid (ok let's say simply egoistic). I'll also have no time to play starcraft 2 intensively, and for sure i wont become a pro at it. Does it lead me to desire the game noobified : for sure NO. If you don't have time to play the game, it doesn't change the fact you'd better help to design it the way the ones who'll play a lot will enjoy most.
It's just gay to say : i won't play tennis for next years cause no time, so i honestly don't care so much if they allow the net to be 1m lower. It would be better for me and my lack of training.
Furthermore, you still can enjoy the game a lot without these newbs features. Please keep in mind that the game will always be better if designed for pro playing, even on lower ranks.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
I'm depressed to see the LACK of analysis in this thread since page 17. I see a bunch of people rambeling about MBS. Not debating a setting, they're just rambling. STOP FUCKING RAMBLING.
If your your not talking about mbs and auto mining as a setting please SHUT THE FUCK UP and stop posting on this thread. I'm getting sick of reading pages of bullshit barely engaging this topic. I have at least posted somewhat of a solution on this... all the way on page one, read the post and respond to the topic. this is not a 'MBS vs brood war' thread. This is a 'setting vs embedded' debate.
This has been almost 3 pages of dog shit that makes my eyes bleed. Talk about the topic, i made this thread so we wouldn't regurgitate another random MBS thread, any irrelevant post after this WILL be called out. Use your brain before you talk.
|
I fully support 2 seperate modes of play.
If one mode takes over as the dominant mode. Then players will switch to that mode because they want more competition. If your part of the group that is against the winning mode, bad luck.
If both modes manage to get an audience that will play, then the chances are that SC2 will have a very large playerbase will be much higher, which is what blizzard wants.
If they just have one mode, people from the other side of the argument may not buy the game.
The answer is simple. 2 Modes of play. 2 Ladders. When people go to play custom games, it will be clearly shown which mode the game is played in. With 2 different modes, there are a lot more opportunities for different UMS games. Im certainly gonna try lots of diff UMS games, regardless of what mode they are designed to play in. Ill stick to my non-MBS ladder unless it dies out, in which case I'll look at moving ladder or moving on.
|
Well, this discussion is never gonna end. Both sides have a point but its up to blizzard to decide. Im pretty much sure they WILL include MBS&co into sc2 in release version. But they MAY take it out in patches/addon if the core gamers say no to it. This way the game will be sold at its best and the progames will end up happy. On the other hand I dont see a way blizzard should not include the MBS&co thing in the release:
1) the game is not finnished, it's too early to claim the new macro will spoil the game
2) even among starcraft veterans there is a split. And we are only 10% (imo) of the future sc2 community. All the rest I bet will be massingly supporting the idea.
3) the primary objective is financial success. The game can be patched, attracted audience can not.
|
Instead of too many togglable features clogging up the screen and confusing people when they join games (there's already host, map, game type, speed, number of teams, timestamp), they could have MBS in some types and not others, and then customizable for UMS. So maybe TvB has MBS, but melee doesn't, and FFA does but 1v1 doesn't, so basically you can play any normal type of game (1v1, 2v2, 3v3) with or without it. Then UMS maps would either have a togglable option, or it would be programmed into the map whether MBS is in or not.
Not that that's a good idea or that I support it (just brainstorming), but it is one way to possibly make it available without having too many confusing options to look at when choosing a game to join. That way you can also easily filter the game list by the level of automation you play. Of course they could just have more/better filters than BroodWar (which I'm sure they will).
At the very least, I think it needs to be somehow an option in UMS, simply because the variety of maps possible with the new editor will necessitate MBS for some maps and no-MBS for others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
