|
On September 08 2007 19:24 Cheerio wrote:
we are only 10% (imo) of the future sc2 community. All the rest I bet will be massingly supporting the idea.
I very much disagree, seeing as how the majority of players don't even use hotkeys. Since you cannot box select buildings (as Blizzard has said), the only useful way to use MBS is by hotkeying (hotkey one to a #, then shift-# each other one as you add, or shift-click, click...hotkey them at once). The average newb (below 40 apm; doesn't play the game after a year or two) will never use hotkeys, so I don't see how he could argue for it. The only people who would really be vocal about it are the in-between newbs (50-100 apm, but devoted to the game) and the few competitive gamers (100+ apm) that don't care about skill gap and want every advantage they can get. It would appear there are three groups then, with the biggest being apathetic (newbs) and the smallest being anti-MBS (pros that want a large skill gap).
For this reason, I don't really fear too much of a problem with it being an option, because the majority of players won't use it anyway. As long as a significant number of people are indifferent, and KESPA, ICCUP, and other leagues set their own rules, neither side will be so dominant as to make the other side impossible to find a game on. It's the same way money maps didn't kill non-money maps. Sure, they took some players away, and split the community (save a few people that play both types), but in a way having the option between the two allowed for a bigger audience, and two separate, healthy BW communities. It IS going to have much more overlap (compared to money maps which are mostly multi-player vs non-money mostly 1v1) within the same game-type, but I think the leagues can decide for themselves which option to use, and if there's enough demand there will be amateur leagues on both sides of the MBS ruling.
|
Stop me if I'm wrong Tasteless, and I'll edit this post, but...
Based on what I've come to think and divulge in my last two posts, I think the pro-option side should steer the discussion towards the best way to implement the option: be it 1) a check-box for each separate feature like fog-of-war was in WC2, 2) have certain automation features binded-together and togglable as a group (e.g. MBS and automine), 3) if you want them embedded in some game types but not others, or 4) whatever your idea is for a method of having MBS an on/off option. If people are still arguing against it being an option, you can also defend why it is needed as an option, and why this is better than having a fixed setting for everyone.
The anti-option side (I'm not sure there were many in this group) should stick to making points as to why we need to have it one way or the other, but not argue which side you think is best, since that's irrelevant. We all agree there are considerable demand for both MBS and no MBS, so if you don't want it as an option discuss the negative aspects of making it one, and why having everyone play on the same setting is better.
Those wanting to argue as to which side is better (myself included) should find an older thread on the matter or create a new more narrowly defined thread specifically on that matter. Tasteless made this thread as a proposed solution to those arguments, not to move the arguments to this thread.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 08 2007 11:31 TeRRan`UseR wrote:
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.
I think I won of my first 10 games, at least one of my first 20 games. Probably by zealot rush vs zerg.
The fact that I lost so much was probably the main reason I played so much when I first started, it was fun to overcome the things I'd previously gotten smashed by. It was fun to have closer and closer games. If I'd started right off at close I don't think it'd been as fun, but I see your point.
I just don't want that type of game  I enjoyed the journey as much as the destination.
On September 08 2007 21:17 LonelyMargarita wrote:
Stop me if I'm wrong Tasteless, and I'll edit this post, but...
Based on what I've come to think and divulge in my last two posts, I think the pro-option side should steer the discussion towards the best way to implement the option: be it 1) a check-box for each separate feature like fog-of-war was in WC2, 2) have certain automation features binded-together and togglable as a group (e.g. MBS and automine), 3) if you want them embedded in some game types but not others, or 4) whatever your idea is for a method of having MBS an on/off option. If people are still arguing against it being an option, you can also defend why it is needed as an option, and why this is better than having a fixed setting for everyone.
The anti-option side (I'm not sure there were many in this group) should stick to making points as to why we need to have it one way or the other, but not argue which side you think is best, since that's irrelevant. We all agree there are considerable demand for both MBS and no MBS, so if you don't want it as an option discuss the negative aspects of making it one, and why having everyone play on the same setting is better.
Those wanting to argue as to which side is better (myself included) should find an older thread on the matter or create a new more narrowly defined thread specifically on that matter. Tasteless made this thread as a proposed solution to those arguments, not to move the arguments to this thread.
NO offense to tasteless, but I think the topic has moved on, people are discussing several MBS related things now and I feel several good posts have been made (ie 1esu's). Shouldn't force those out just because they are not 100% in line with the first post.
Anyway, I don't really like the idea of having an option - ideally everyone would play the same game so that the player pool is as big as it can be - but I dunno what else to do.
Hopefully MBS will either prove to not be damaging in the beta, or be removed.
|
On September 08 2007 03:12 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2007 03:00 Blacklizard wrote:
@ FA,
You know I respect your opinion very much, so I do hear you loud and clear. I think you explain the reaons against MBS better than most.
Obviously, good players do most of those things I list that are useful (my lurker example probably bad example...)... but I don't know if they do them in a super exact way consistently. It's the line between "very good placement and micro" vs "almost exact" that I guess we are disagreeing on.
I do disagree on one particular other point... I don't think making the game more exact doesn't have to promote cautious (as in turtling or non-aggressive) play. It could, if the balance was bad, but I don't think it will if it's balanced similarly to BW. I guess you might be right, but if everything is done so perfectly how will we avoid making comebacks almost impossible?
Good point. I too do not want a game where in every MU if you make any one mistake, the game is always over. This is one of the trickier aspects of the game design I bet. Perhaps BW's ZvZ is a good example of this- or even PvP. But I don't think it will come to that as long as there are decent counters in the game. I think that's what's missing in the very exacting play of BW's ZvZ and PvP... no tech or tactic particularly counters anything else in a timely manner without putting yourself at great risk. Less options early game... and teching to quick dark temps or whatnot may be seen as a cheese/risky strat.
I do like the diversity of the matchups in BW and want to see some similarities in SC2 (not necessarily for the same race vs race matchup, but overall). Some MUs are very very precise. Some are loose. Some are about FE. Some are about teching or countering tech. Some about harass. Some defense. Etc. etc.
|
On September 09 2007 01:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I think I won of my first 10 games, at least one of my first 20 games. Probably by zealot rush vs zerg.
The fact that I lost so much was probably the main reason I played so much when I first started, it was fun to overcome the things I'd previously gotten smashed by. It was fun to have closer and closer games. If I'd started right off at close I don't think it'd been as fun, but I see your point.
Yeah im pretty much like this. But dammit too bad basically none of my friends which i tried to get into sc are like this, losing too many times didn't give them much motivation and they eventually quit for the most part -_-
Unfortunately, I think the majority of people who would buy sc and the mainstream rts players don't enjoy working hard for improvement so much and would rather own it up with little to no effort...
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On September 09 2007 03:11 mdainoob wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 01:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I think I won of my first 10 games, at least one of my first 20 games. Probably by zealot rush vs zerg.
The fact that I lost so much was probably the main reason I played so much when I first started, it was fun to overcome the things I'd previously gotten smashed by. It was fun to have closer and closer games. If I'd started right off at close I don't think it'd been as fun, but I see your point.
Yeah im pretty much like this. But dammit too bad basically none of my friends which i tried to get into sc are like this, losing too many times didn't give them much motivation and they eventually quit for the most part -_- Unfortunately, I think the majority of people who would buy sc and the mainstream rts players don't enjoy working hard for improvement so much and would rather own it up with little to no effort...
haha yeah i get that so much its so hard to get people to play sc they'd have to be really really motivated and not be discouraged by losing lots of times ...
|
On September 09 2007 03:11 mdainoob wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 01:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I think I won of my first 10 games, at least one of my first 20 games. Probably by zealot rush vs zerg.
The fact that I lost so much was probably the main reason I played so much when I first started, it was fun to overcome the things I'd previously gotten smashed by. It was fun to have closer and closer games. If I'd started right off at close I don't think it'd been as fun, but I see your point.
Yeah im pretty much like this. But dammit too bad basically none of my friends which i tried to get into sc are like this, losing too many times didn't give them much motivation and they eventually quit for the most part -_- Unfortunately, I think the majority of people who would buy sc and the mainstream rts players don't enjoy working hard for improvement so much and would rather own it up with little to no effort...
Which is why we also shouldn't bother making the game too friendly to them. They don't appreciate a good challenging game anyways. Its people like us who will be playing the game for ages after the initial hype.
|
I really don't see how MBS could negatively affect top-level games. I doubt that the 2 seconds that it takes a good player to jump into his base and go "click-m, click-c, click-t, etc..." are that much more challenging or relevant to the game than whatever new ways to make units MBS could present. I only see it having any affect at the extremely-newbie level, and even that will be minor.
IMO, what has the greatest impact on gameplay and balance is smart-casting. If anything, you should be worrying about that.
edit: Just to make it clear though, I'm not supporting MBS. Just sharing a thought. If I had a choice I would not add MBS, just because I think that it doesn't affect gameplay and I like the feeling of going through every single production building.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
NO offense to tasteless, but I think the topic has moved on, people are discussing several MBS related things now and I feel several good posts have been made (ie 1esu's). Shouldn't force those out just because they are not 100% in line with the first post.
yeah i understand FA. I just see some posts on here that are against mbs, but i can't even tell if they're against it as a setting or against it all together. I see the same thing the other way around too, people who are pro mbs but never actually bring up the competitive issues. Then i don't know how to respond because i'm not sure where they're actually standing.
Also, with concerns to the SC2's general reception. I'm sure blizzard can publicly state the exact reasons why they felt MBS and auto mining should be a setting by pointing out Korea. We've seen Starcraft surpass the success of any other esport game within the microcosm of korea. Blizzard can simply state they wanted to preserve some of the competitive elements so that they game could be the next big successful esport as it's older brother was. I'm sure any game magazine, as newbie as they are, would be able to understand that.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On September 09 2007 05:06 fuglyfrog wrote:
I really don't see how MBS could negatively affect top-level games. I doubt that the 2 seconds that it takes a good player to jump into his base and go "click-m, click-c, click-t, etc..." are that much more challenging or relevant to the game than whatever new ways to make units MBS could present. I only see it having any affect at the extremely-newbie level, and even that will be minor.
IMO, what has the greatest impact on gameplay and balance is smart-casting. If anything, you should be worrying about that.
edit: Just to make it clear though, I'm not supporting MBS. Just sharing a thought. If I had a choice I would not add MBS, just because I think that it doesn't affect gameplay and I like the feeling of going through every single production building.
okay, you don't know what we're talking about, that's okay though, a lot of people keep making this mistake. Good sc players generally don't go "click t click t click v click v" if they can bind all their buildings to hotkeys and combo out units. A terran player, for instance, can macro easily before his first push by going 4t5t6v7v8v. If your frantically clicking on buildings while trying to micro your troops your going to lose versus a good player. The argument the competitive players are trying to make on this thread is that comboing units to macro was a completely unique and incredible feature that should be kept in SC2 for ladders and tournaments. We want to preserve what we believe to be an essential element that made starcraft into an awesome esport.
|
Throughout most of the game Terrans rarely have more than 2 or 3 production buildings hotkeyed. And I don't see what this has to do with my point.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On September 09 2007 06:21 fuglyfrog wrote:
Throughout most of the game Terrans rarely have more than 2 or 3 production buildings hotkeyed.
iloveoov showed me that lil macro combo at wcg italy. Doesn't mean every terran does it. But good ones will always find shortcuts.
|
Well, i dont post on this forum, but i did read the main post. For many games out there, mainly FPS genre, there have been 'pro mods', to where the general public can play the original, and then the competitive community plays the mods. Just an idea, wasnt sure if you guys knew about other genres
|
On September 09 2007 03:33 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 03:11 mdainoob wrote:On September 09 2007 01:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I think I won of my first 10 games, at least one of my first 20 games. Probably by zealot rush vs zerg.
The fact that I lost so much was probably the main reason I played so much when I first started, it was fun to overcome the things I'd previously gotten smashed by. It was fun to have closer and closer games. If I'd started right off at close I don't think it'd been as fun, but I see your point.
Yeah im pretty much like this. But dammit too bad basically none of my friends which i tried to get into sc are like this, losing too many times didn't give them much motivation and they eventually quit for the most part -_- Unfortunately, I think the majority of people who would buy sc and the mainstream rts players don't enjoy working hard for improvement so much and would rather own it up with little to no effort... Which is why we also shouldn't bother making the game too friendly to them. They don't appreciate a good challenging game anyways. Its people like us who will be playing the game for ages after the initial hype.
I'm gonna have to somewhat disagree with that statement. One of Blizzard's philosophies for RTS has always been "easy to learn, difficult to master" and thats what makes their games so unbelievably successful. In other words, the game must be "deceptively easy".
You have to make the game as simple and straightforward to pick up as possible initially, so the noobs don't get frustrated and get turned off right away (majority of people will fall into this category). However, at the same time it also to has to contain a huge amount of hidden depth so that once the noobs get sucked in, some of them realize how challenging and exciting the game can be once you get more skilled (these people will form the more hardcore/pro-gaming community). Of course, most people who buy the game will never reach this point and discover the true game due to either lack of skill, interest, time, or etc, but to Blizzard a sale is still a sale and they are ultimately equally important.
|
Yes. That's the difference to a real sport: if you compare SC and tennis for example, you'll notice that everyone can easily learn the rules and how to play on a very basic level in basically no time. In Starcraft, it takes a significant time to learn the interface (which button does what) and the units (what their abilities and attacks do, which units they can attack (air? ground? both?) and so on). You might imagine it for Terran units, but not for Zerg or Protoss).
In tennis, you just use the racket and the ball. You know how it's used after watching one single game. That means: it has a simple interface. The game itself however is still difficult to master, and newbies will never even be remotely as good as pros.
And this is basically my view on the subject too. Make the interface very easy (do not make it hard just so that it requires additional skill), but the game very rich and extremely difficult to master. The SC interface was also designed to be easy when it was released. If you don't think so, compare it to Warcraft 2 or Dune 2, which are even harder to control. So SC2's interface must be easier than SC, because 80% of the gamers want it this way. They still want a game that's hard to master though, so that it's good for competitive gaming as well.
This can be possible, although some contra-MBS people think it's impossible or at least makes the game less fun. Well... we all have to adapt sometimes. 
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Comparing SC to tennis is unfair, tennis is the FPS, SC is like.. American football or something.
I've never actually had the opportunity to watch an entire game of american football, sadly, so I don't know if it's that easy to follow but it always seemed to have a lot of rules and breaks and stuff.
|
Congrats frozen arbiter you have more posts than this thread has views or posts combined. That means it would take forever to read all the good thoughtful posts you have made, and thats alot of good thoughtful posts ^_^.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
no people cant pick up tennis like pros just by wathcing lol TONS of people that dont take proper coaching have improper form and play like shit
i dont think its that unfair comparing sc to tennis
|
Sweden33719 Posts
He meant understanding it, ie the rules and what's happening, I assume?
Obviously no sport can just be taken up from watching it..
|
I've had a few days to think about it and here's some thoughts:
-Starcraft 2 cannot be compared to WC3. MBS in WC3 was pretty bad; you only needed 2, at the most three of a certain type of building to macro effeciently enough to use up your resources and macro near perfectly. This allowed me to put my two or three barracks (assuming I'm playing Human becasue I can't remember the other race's buildings) on one key and pump out footies/rifles/knights all day long, and always have a fresh army ready. Starcraft 2, however, is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT game in nearly every other aspect; one of the most defining being SPEED. IMO, MBS will not give SC2 the same sluggish feel it gave WC3, as I will have 10+ gates by midgame, and will still be taking part in micro intensive battles (which I can now pay more attention/focus to as I don't have to worry about macro as much. This brings me to my next point...
-MBS will make macro easier; there's no doubt about it, but I can't see it making the game totally newbie. It's be stated, that if you MBS-keybind and try to build a zealot out of your 5 gates, but you only have enough minerals for 3, it won't build. This still leaves room for a minor aspect of strategy. You will have to manage your buildings and their assigned keys to ensure you're running at 100% macro effeciency. Sure you're no longer going to have to always center your screen over your base and macro your 10 buildings. I ultimately see MBS only playing a serious role in the late game scinarios. A time in the game when nearly any battle can determine the outcome. Late game is when the resources are absolutely flowing, allowering for the highest rate of macro at any given time of the game. MBS is going to CLEAN UP the game at this stage, allowing players to focus more intensely on micro, expo control, strategy, etc. During early game, the resource income rate isn't high enough for MBS to be too effective, especially with strategies involving fast teching and intensive early harrassment. This brings me to my final point...
-With MBS cleaning up the game a bit, it gives the player's mind a bit more room to breathe and think. I can't see MBS being a feature that will make it easier to be gosu. I actually see it as altering what aspects of the game determine a gosu. I said this in an earlier post that was lost amongst some rambling; what DEFINES a player as a gosu will be different in SC2. Back in BW, macro was one of those aspects that defined a good player. With that now a little easier, a player can focus more skill and attention on another aspect of the game; for example, micro; a player who is more superior at micro, or has the time to pull off some kind of crazy move with his units/army will win the games. I can ultimately see this making even the proscene more entertaining. People never screamed at OOv "OMG WHERE DID THOSE 20 MORE TANKS COME FROM?!!?"; they screamed "OMG LOOK AT BOXER DANCE THAT DROPSHIP AROUND!!!!1". And to continue my ramblings; IMO Starcraft was never as entertaining as when The Emperor was in his prime. Boxer's most entertaining and awe inspiring aspect of play was his micro. As the years went on, strategies changed and play styles changed. He was never as good as he was back in the day, because the game was far more macro intensive (ie. Nada and OOv). A player could make up for their mediocre unit control with machine-like macro; something that eventually made the proscene boring for me, as nearly all games were the same. Why is it SCLegacy struggle to make PimpPlay videos? Because in the last two years, the pimpest thing in starcraft has been a progamer's ability to 3v4v5v6v7t8t9t (I'm exaggerating here quite a bit ofcorse.) . To sum up this rediculous point: with macro now a bit easier, players will now be more skillful in other aspects of RTS game play; aspects that are usually more entertaining and more fun (ie. Micro,strategy, timing,etc).
Whew...I think it's time for bed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
