EPTGood players will take advantage of MBS and automining in the only way a good player should - all games will be a macrofest. There will be considerably less micro involved, it will all be map control and macro.
competitive play issues - Page 21
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Good players will take advantage of MBS and automining in the only way a good player should - all games will be a macrofest. There will be considerably less micro involved, it will all be map control and macro. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
If a game is released with 2 modes, people will try them both. After trying them both, they will eventually choose to play one. A lot of ppl from SC1 will play MBS and a lot of players from other RTS's will play non-MBS. Sometimes the groups will play against each other when someone decides they wanna do something different and play by the other side's ruleset. The fact that there is a choice, will most likely make the playerbase much larger because no-one will be frustrated by a hard UI or leave because the game doesnt challenge them enough. Team this up with a kickass editor and SC2 could be massive. If one playstyle dies out, then it dies out, no biggy because the other playstyle wont. To me, a choice its the perfect option for Starcraft 2. Remmber when you first started playing starcraft. Most people would have been fastest and BGH players. However for some reason you started playing low-money maps and you stuck to it. Likewise there are people who started on low-money, discovered fastest and never went back. The community is still large. It doesnt matter if its split or not. Blizzard is still gonna make heaps of money, and everyone will be happy. If you have only 1 option, then you force everyone to play the one style, if they dont like that style, theyll quit, not assimilate. | ||
|
TeRRan`UseR
Canada692 Posts
On September 10 2007 17:43 travis wrote: MBS and automining will have the opposite effect of what you are saying. Good players will take advantage of MBS and automining in the only way a good player should - all games will be a macrofest. There will be considerably less micro involved, it will all be map control and macro. why isnt this obvious to anyone else Because assuming all players have = macro skill, the only determining factor in games will be micro, timing, and strategy. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On September 10 2007 17:53 TeRRan`UseR wrote: Because assuming all players have = macro skill, the only determining factor in games will be micro, timing, and strategy. why does it mean that? it means the opposite. if the influence macro/micro has on a game of sc stays the same but macro is made considerably easier, it will become the focal point of the game. do people micro more, or less on bgh? | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 10 2007 17:43 travis wrote: MBS and automining will have the opposite effect of what you are saying. Good players will take advantage of MBS and automining in the only way a good player should - all games will be a macrofest. There will be considerably less micro involved, it will all be map control and macro. I guess if there's no limit to how great your macro can be, this will be the case, otherwise I see everyone having more or less the same level of macro and spending time on other things. Which I think is a bad thing. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
cut the amount of actions required to manage an expansion by more than half and people are obviously going to focus on expanding, not on microing. why micro when it's so easy to replace your units just by controlling the map. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
part of the reason sc is such a great competitive game is because there is always more you can do. you can always scout more, you can always harrass more, you can always macro more and faster. quite simply, I think there is no benefit to taking away potential actions a skilled player could add to his Repertoire | ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On September 10 2007 18:26 travis wrote: why micro when it's so easy to replace your units just by controlling the map. he has a point in this. microing your units is good. but "over microing" your units won't give you that much of an advantage compared to speding your time with macroing again. and people that compare this to war3 COMPLETLY forget that war3 has heroes. so there is a certain double-loss in losing a unit making saving units overly importatnt. in war3, you can't compensate the xp you give the enemy hero by expanding. in sc, you don't even have that problem. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
Chodorkovskiy
Israel459 Posts
On September 10 2007 22:51 Aphelion wrote: And hero experience. The idea that the enemy could become STRONGER through me attacking him is pretty abhorrent. lol, welcome to the new ZvT... | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
On September 10 2007 18:21 Fen wrote: I think travis's comments effect the noob scene more than the pro scene. In a noob match with 2 players having 40APM. (both players will mostlikely have excess minerals) What are players going to focus on? Microing units with their low APM, or having their 12 factories pumping out tanks? They still wont be able to do both, but the macro action will have far greater benefits leading the game away from micro for the noobs. That's why MBS will not make the game much easier for noobs - they still will suck and better players will still rape them easily. The newbs will feel more comfortable with MBS but will still suck. It's a feature that's mainly targeted at the average, good and pro players, so that they can use their APM in a more useful way than just "spamming". | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On September 10 2007 17:17 TeRRan`UseR wrote: 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" No | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
|
Famehunter
Canada586 Posts
In the end its blizzard who makes the decisions and if something coming from the comunity does nt have full support from the very same fan base who is making the suggestion, then I doubt its worth bringing this up to them. Basically, discuss what they want you to discuss (currently the mothership) or if you have an idea of your own but with great support from the comunity then it would be worth sending this to blizz. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On September 11 2007 06:25 Famehunter wrote: I think that the feature you re trying to suggest with spliting game modes for the casual and pro comunity is not gunna work. There is just too many diverge opinions about this to consider it. In the end its blizzard who makes the decisions and if something coming from the comunity does nt have full support from the very same fan base who is making the suggestion, then I doubt its worth bringing this up to them. Basically, discuss what they want you to discuss (currently the mothership) or if you have an idea of your own but with great support from the comunity then it would be worth sending this to blizz. no and the competitive community seems to support this... a large component who helped maintain the popular existence of this game. i think this community matters. if you'd like to share your thoughts with facts, then please utilize them. otherwise i don't think assertion will be the best method of debate. Edit: also, the mothership isn't useful debating until a beta comes out, until then it's all theorycraft | ||
|
uppTagg
Sweden473 Posts
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". Well isn't that what was said about sc1..? Then why is there a need to make it even easier to learn and easier to master? :< I feel MBS will narrow the distance between the learning->master and in my opinion, that's never good for a very competative sport/game. part of the reason sc is such a great competitive game is because there is always more you can do. you can always scout more, you can always harrass more, you can always macro more and faster. quite simply, I think there is no benefit to taking away potential actions a skilled player could add to his Repertoire You said it. :> | ||
|
Bash
Finland1533 Posts
| ||
|
Asta
Germany3491 Posts
On September 10 2007 18:05 FrozenArbiter wrote: I guess if there's no limit to how great your macro can be, this will be the case, otherwise I see everyone having more or less the same level of macro and spending time on other things. Which I think is a bad thing. True. Also, assuming players would indeed expand a lot more because they have an easier time spending the money and getting things to work (sounds reasonable), that still doesn't mean that players will focus more on macro gameplay-wise. Strategically they will, but because it's also a lot easier to macro so you don't have to put much attention to it. After all, the amount of time required to manage your bases will barely grow with the number of expansions. Thus you will be focusing on micro but you will also gather huge amounts of troops. Which in my opinion is a terrible thing. You could take away the expanding part as well, if this is how it turns out in the end. I wrote something on the topic of multitasking vs micro in the other thread that got closed so I will c&p it because I think everybody should know why some (me included) don't like the idea of replacing one part of the gameplay with another. Warcraft3 was already a perfect display of what can happen if you change the distribution of skill-requirements in the game. It didn't require much base-management and rudimentary unit-management (gathering armies, re-rallying, re-locating armies). Of course that didn't make it an 'easy' game to win, because obviously if you play against another human, the game alone doesn't make winning easy or hard. But the profile of what makes a good player changed a lot. While in BW multi-tasking monsters developed to be the most successful players, in WC3 it was mostly about micro-perfection. (Strategy was important in both, but pros usually know that part too well to win a bo5 just with better strats.) It's a completely different feeling if you either watch one part of the map and have to time every click very carefully or if you have to watch as many spots of the map as possible and can not allow yourself to micro units carefully because you lack the attention-time. I felt the latter was what made you feel exhausted during the game and I could never get that feeling in WC3. Regarding Pros: it obviously takes a lot of training as well to be perfect at microing but I don't think it is as spectacular and defined as BW. First of all, in a micro-oriented game, the audience has to have experience at the game to recognize the greatness of the moves, because they are very 'small'. In Broodwar, everyone realized when there was a lot of action going on, when multiple fights happened, when the game-observer couldn't catch up etc. (Realize that is was not only about the fights, but the crowd also cheered, when the battle was over and the commentator switched back to oov's base and he had an even bigger army ready; or when savior had two additional expansions.) Secondly, it's harder to tell if a player is really dominating the other one or if he just got lucky. Although that's probably just a consequence of the first point. And of course, the need to always try to commit a few less clicks to an important situation to maybe gain an advantage in another way gave players the feeling that they could really outplay the opponent. You could tear a newbie apart because he'd put all his attention to something that you just did along the way. In a micro-game, you have to go all the way to attack him directly and although you might come out as the clear winner, it always seems as if you had to get your hands dirty. Just think of that game where Rainbow won with just Storm and Reaver drops, iirc. Ok, so now I have compared BW and WC3. Trouble is, right now it seems as if Blizzard was going to go the same way in SC2 as they went in WC3. Of course not in graphic design, and luckily not in basic unit design (size, speed, dmg/hp rate). But they seem to be focusing a lot on unit abilities (micro) and remove the part of the game which a good player definitely spent 70% of his time with in Broodwar: basic, rudimentary macro, just lots of it. Someone should remind them that WC2 was a good RTS and is still being played on a very high level and it had almost no special unit abilities at all. | ||
| ||
