It's been a while since i've posted in the SC2 topic area, however there are things i think we need to talk about. First let me say that did play sc2 at blizzcon and i was quite impressed with it. This game definitely has the potential to be an incredibly successful RTS game. I enjoyed almost every aspect of the game except for the interface; and that's what i'm going to talk about now.
I want starcraft 2 to be the best rts game ever. I don't want another warcraft 3. I also don't want silly newbie shit that brings this game a step down from it's older brother. And at the same time i definitely want to keep the game progressive so that we can attract new players.
I'm afraid of MBS (multiple building selection) and automining. I played SC2 at blizzcon for over seven hours. I was allowed to play the game the day before it was showed off at at blizzcon and there were so many things i loved about it. However, the MBS and automining felt absolutely terrible. It made sc2 feel A LOT slower than sc and that's very disappointing.
Now i know I've said i thought MBS could be a good thing. I was definitely wrong. It felt awfully newbie--macroing just wasn't fun. Tie this in with auto mining and it got even worse. I hardly had to think at all about my base. I think this could have massive negative ramifications on the competitive scene. Do we really want Starcraft 2 to always be known as the more popular but easier RTS game in the series? I would like to see it step up on all levels.
But what the hell are we supposed to do with these players who would find SC2 too hard without MBS and auto mining? My solution is to keep MBS and auto mining a setting that can only be played in non competitive games.
We all know BGH right? This mode of play is for players who aren't interested in expanding, they aren't interested in teching in a very mathematical or precise way. To say the very least, BGH players play a different and more simple version of starcraft. I'm not by ANY means saying that's bad. BGH players make up a huge part of the sc population. But i think you all would be as frustrated as i am if blizzard hosted BGH ladders and ONLY bgh style ladders. In fact, we don't even see BGH ladders around because for the most part SC players who want to be the best try to master low money maps because it's more difficult and there fore more attractive.
Lets keep MBS and auto mining in SC2, but out of competitive ladder play and tournaments. By doing this the new players who pick up SC2 and want to use an easier interface and play for fun can do this while the hard core competitive players, like me, can still play on a ladder where it was as fun and challenging as the old SC.
Edit: i've posted a comic to help further exemplify my point. this was originally posted on page 10 but i'm going to bump it up here. I will compare starcraft to golf
now here's starcraft 2 turned into minature golf with mbs and automining, as you can see the player has to preform less actions
On September 04 2007 05:48 MyLostTemple wrote: It's been a while since i've posted in the SC2 topic area, however there are things i think we need to talk about. First let me say that did play sc2 at blizzcon and i was quite impressed with it. This game definitely has the potential to be an incredibly successful RTS game. I enjoyed almost every aspect of the game except for the interface; and that's what i'm going to talk about now.
I want starcraft 2 to be the best rts game ever. I don't want another warcraft 3. I also don't want silly newbie shit that brings this game a step down from it's older brother. And at the same time i definitely want to keep the game progressive so that we can attract new players.
I'm afraid of MBS (multiple building selection) and automining. I played SC2 at blizzcon for over seven hours. I was allowed to play the game the day before it was showed off at at blizzcon and there were so many things i loved about it. However, the MBS and automining felt absolutely terrible. It made sc2 feel A LOT slower than sc. And that's very disappointing.
Now i know I've said i thought MBS could be a good thing. I was definitely wrong. It felt awfully newbie--macroing just wasn't fun. Tie this in with auto mining and it got even worse. I hardly had to think at all about my base. I think this could have massive negative ramifications on the competitive scene. Do we really want Starcraft 2 to always be known as the more popular but easier RTS game in the series? I would like to see it step up on all levels. But what the hell are we supposed to do with these players who would find SC2 too hard without MBS and auto mining? My solution is to keep MBS and auto mining a setting that can only be played in non competitive games.
We all know BGH right? This mode of play is for players who aren't interested in expanding, they aren't interested in teching in a very mathematical or precise way. To say the very least, BGH players play a different and more simple version of starcraft. I'm not by ANY means saying that's bad. BGH players make up a huge part of the sc population. But i think you all would be as frustrated as i am if blizzard hosted BGH ladders and ONLY bgh style ladders. In fact, we don't even see BGH ladders around because for the most part SC players who want to be the best try to mastered low money maps because it's more difficult and there fore more attractive.
Lets keep MBS and auto mining in SC2, but out of competitive ladder play and tournaments. By doing this the new players who pick up SC2 and want to use an easier interface and play for fun can do this while the hard core competitive players, like me, can still play on a ladder where it was as fun and challenging as the old SC.
I've thought about this a very long time since i attended blizzcon. I believe we must keep MBS and auto mining, but separate them as features that can only be used in non ladder/tournament games.
Thanks for reading <3 --Tasteless
I've been advocating that for forever. Those options should be in user preferences, but disabled by the server for all ladder play
I havent played the game but I would guess that automining is fine but I am against MBS. If people could learn this in the original starcraft why cant they learn to macro in SC2? Especially since everyone i heard from who played SC2 says it makes macro too simple.
I dont like the ide with 2 types of the game though. I just think that blizzard have to balance how much MBS should be allowed (if any)
Here is a post I made a while ago that talks about MBS:
Multiple building selection isn't really that helpful for macro.
Firstly, making units is just one small aspect of macro. The more game-changing aspects of macro are timing expansions, proper timing of adding production facilities and making the proper amount of production facilities, proper timing and amount of peons, and creating the proper ratios of desired units. All of these things can easily have bigger impacts on BW games than making units perfectly.
Secondly, the biggest error most players commit when trying to make units is improper timing. The gaps between making each round of units are what kill most players' macro. Multiple building selection does not help with this at all. What multiple building selection does is reduce the amount of time it takes to perform the action when you finally realize that you need to do it. Depending on the stage of the game, a fast BW player can build units in about 1-5 seconds and a mediocre BW player in about 3-8 seconds. So multiple building selection will drop this time to a split second for fast players, and about 1-2++ for slow players (depending if they'll sacrifice proper unit ratios for convenience). But multiple building selection simply will not help with timing. The pros build units like clockwork. The speed required to build units in BW is not as difficult as the skill required to always be on time.
The skill of going 4z5z7d8d9t0t will still probably exist because players won't want to build all of the same unit at once. To 10 gateways you can devote 3-5 hotkeys and build units in small groups, assuring that you can achieve the proper ratio with each round of production.
So basically multiple building selection helps with the easier half of one small aspect of macro and it is not even helpful in all situations. Those who are saying that it kills macro are going to be blown away by professional SC2 players who understand the true underlying forces at work to make a massive army appear from nowhere.
I know you've played the game and actually got to feel it out, but I'm skeptical about how much info anyone could gather about what the game will be like at the highest level of competition from playing the game for the first time.
I think you wrote a good argument and because of the changes in macro the competitive scene might be hurt.
My only question is do you think Blizzard will give players/tournaments/koreans the option of turning off all those new macro additions? It would seem logical, but you never know.
On September 04 2007 05:59 lakrismamma wrote: I havent played the game but I would guess that automining is fine but I am against MBS. If people could learn this in the original starcraft why cant they learn to macro in SC2? Especially since everyone i heard from who played SC2 says it makes macro too simple.
I dont like the ide with 2 types of the game though. I just think that blizzard have to balance how much MBS should be allowed (if any)
But I'd also like to add that having sets of options that meet the needs of competitive players and other sets of options that meet the needs of casual players is a very good idea. I don't know how it fits into Blizzard's gameplan but it has the potential of solving a lot of the conflicts in community demands.
I'm not quite sure what's so wrong with automining all by itself. I can see your point that, when automining is combined with MBS, there's not as much incentive for a player to continually check on his base, but alone, I don't see the problem. It's a relatively minor fix.
MBS is an issue I've been flipping back and forth on in my mind. Sometimes, I see it how Nony sees it; a significant improvement for lower/middle level players, but won't make as much of a difference as some say. Other times, I find myself agreeing with the hardcore anti-mbs people. Right now, I'm thinking that along with small groups of buildings to get right unit proportions, you'll also need to readjust your hotkeys when you feel the battle going a certain way because you'll need to readjust your army's current proportions.
One idea concerning MBS that I liked a lot was the version of MBS where you select your buildings with a hotkey, but you'll have to tab and build to make your units. So, a build command for 3 zealots and 3 immortals would be like 5tabztabztabztabitabitabi. It seemed like a pretty cool idea.
As for the topic itself, I'm uncomfortable with several differnt "modes" of play of ladder vs non-ladder. To me, it seems more extreme than the split between BGH/FPM and non-money maps.
Oh and for the stubborn naysayers of MBS, I'd like to throw this idea out there...
The tell-tale sign of a bad macro player in BW is that he has too many units queued into his buildings. We all know it's much better to only have 1 unit queued at a time. But if MBS does anything for a player like that, it only screws him even worse, making it easier to queue multiple units in his buildings.
Oh and on the other topic... automining is much much more macro killing than MBS. I really really really don't want to see automining in SC2. The extra money a player receives for taking the time to tell his peons to mine is huge.
All these arguments come from a SC1 Point of View, and indeed, Multi building selection and automining would ruin SC if they were implented just like that via Patch.
Fortunately they will be in SC2 a new game that takes these Features into account. Competative play isn´t centered around ordering around Peons.
Competative play needs variety and equality of options, a nonexistance of the luckfactor and distiction in skill.
Skill is a wide field, it includes mechanical skill (micro, the ability to control your units), knowledge of your and the enemys units, knowledge of strategies and their counters, the ability to react to enemy strategies, if possible the ability to "guess" the enemys strategy or identify it before the enemy can react and a lot more what I didn´t think of.
How much impact will MBS and auto mining really have on skill distinction? And what impact will they have on competative play? Imho they remove little distinction but improve ergonomicaly control a lot wich makes it a worthy "exchange" though I would simply call it a improvement.
On September 04 2007 06:11 NonY[rC] wrote: Oh and for the stubborn naysayers of MBS, I'd like to throw this idea out there...
The tell-tale sign of a bad macro player in BW is that he has too many units queued into his buildings. We all know it's much better to only have 1 unit queued at a time. But if MBS does anything for a player like that, it only screws him even worse, making it easier to queue multiple units in his buildings.
Oh and on the other topic... automining is much much more macro killing than MBS. I really really really don't want to see automining in SC2. The extra money a player receives for taking the time to tell his peons to mine is huge.
If you can go 1z and have 20 gates producing 1 zealot each, isn't that a lot easier than having to click each gateway or go 5z6z7z8z9z? Its pretty much impossible to screw up the former, but not being able to the the latter perfectly often leads to massively queued buildings while others are idle (from personal experience).
On September 04 2007 06:15 Unentschieden wrote: Skill is a wide field, it includes mechanical skill (micro, the ability to control your units), knowledge of your and the enemys units, knowledge of strategies and their counters, the ability to react to enemy strategies, if possible the ability to "guess" the enemys strategy or identify it before the enemy can react and a lot more what I didn´t think of.
Knowledge of units and strategies are pretty much necessities for even competing. Its mechanics, game sense and timing that really are the major factors in pro competition. Reducing the mechanical aspect is huge.
It seems to me that this is more of a "feel" issue than anything else.
Spamming off combinations and manipulating the redundant items are a big part of BW and it probably doesn't feel right to not have to do it. I'm sceptical as to how much skill it takes from the game though. Auto mining probably has a much larger effect than MBS.
Lets say your maxed in a pvz, your done teching, your done upgrading. All that's left is to macro out of your 20 gates and fight over resource locations. Now what if i could just hit 4z and make 20 zealots... macroing like reach. Now what am i supposed to do?... Micro?... But i'm not a war3 player. I don't just want to micro. I love macroing because i'm a true sc player. This wasn't some silly obstacle that had to be overcome with a better interface... it's an awesome feature that made sc so great.
Now lets take that a step further. Lets say z only needs this three unit combination on map A to beat a protoss. Meanwhile the protoss needs a 10 unit type combination to beat the zerg. Guess what happens:
here's how z will play:
4z5h6m
here's how p will play:
1m2h3y4s5z6c7q8o9l0n
obviously these hotkeys are made up as well as the scenario. The point is that races that may require only a few different types of units may have a WAY easier time macroing than the opposing race who needs to produce a more diverse unit base. The beauty of not having MBS is that it comes as a great equalizer regardless of how your macroing. You still have to make one action for every unit you wish to produce, regardless of how diverse the unit base is.
Again i don't really care if MBS is in sc2 as long as it's not in the multiplayer competitive scene.
On September 04 2007 05:58 XythOs wrote: Automining is just fine, Macro has to be reworked but not taken out completly.
I disagree, mostly because the fundamental point of an RTS like StarCraft is unit control. Removing the necessity of controlling the unit all other gameplay features is based off I find...ridiculously stupid.
On September 04 2007 06:11 NonY[rC] wrote: Oh and for the stubborn naysayers of MBS, I'd like to throw this idea out there...
The tell-tale sign of a bad macro player in BW is that he has too many units queued into his buildings. We all know it's much better to only have 1 unit queued at a time. But if MBS does anything for a player like that, it only screws him even worse, making it easier to queue multiple units in his buildings.
Oh and on the other topic... automining is much much more macro killing than MBS. I really really really don't want to see automining in SC2. The extra money a player receives for taking the time to tell his peons to mine is huge.
You've made some really good points.
When I stopped trying to compare the two (BW's system of macro and MBS) systems to figure out which is better, I realized that each is different, and has its own advantages and disadvantages.
It will stay take proper timing, like you said, to make the proper units at the right time. So, whether or not hitting one hotkey queues up one or 12 units isn't really important.
They at the very least need to eliminate one of the two features. Think about how much the combination takes out of the game. In BW, with 3 bases, every 30 seconds (whatever probe build time is), you have to press 00p, select probe, mine, 99p select probe, mine, 88p select probe, mine. That's a minimum of 15 clicks every 30 seconds to make a new probe from each expo and send the newly made ones mining. With MBS and automine, you press 0p, and the screen never pans away from whatever else you were doing. Automine without MBS at least requires you to pres 0p9p8p. It's not 15 clicks, but 6 is still some work to do considering its frequency. MBS WITHOUT automine actually makes it harder than it was in BW, because there's no easy way to center on each nexus to select the new probes (that I know of - I'm not sure if 00 centers on the 1st nexus, or the center of all your nexuses on the map). I'd be ok with one but not both. I'd rather have none, because I really don't think BW was too macro-intensive, and that's what made amazing micro battles that much more amazing.
i don't like MBS, but there is one issue - it would be hard to purchse units from warp gates without it.... (u have 20 gates, can't bind them all, so u have to click one, then press key then click on location and so on for 20 times o_O, although may be warp gates won't be that popular, who knows)
On September 04 2007 06:37 lamarine wrote: i don't like automining, but there is one issue - it would be hard to purchse units from warp gates without it.... (u have 20 gates, can't bind them all, so u have to click one, then press key then click on location and so on for 20 times o_O, although may be warp gates won't be that popular, who knows)
I think you mean MBS, not automine. And as Dustin has said, warpgates don't work with MBS anyway, so that point is irrelevant.
On September 04 2007 06:37 lamarine wrote: i don't like automining, but there is one issue - it would be hard to purchse units from warp gates without it.... (u have 20 gates, can't bind them all, so u have to click one, then press key then click on location and so on for 20 times o_O, although may be warp gates won't be that popular, who knows)
I think you mean MBS, not automine. And as Dustin has said, warpgates don't work with MBS anyway, so that point is irrelevant.
yeap:D fixed:D
about Dustin... i think u misunderstood something... oO
I understand that you want macro mentality to remain unchanged from the original but I think that MBS and automining is there to stay. Its gunna take you a lil get used to but after a while people will develop new playstyles. You ll just get to harass/expand/micro more than before.
I hope both automine and MBS are in SC2, since I honestly don't believe that they'll have a negative impact on competitive gaming. If anything, it will allow progamers to shift attention away from mundane tasks and focus more on crowd-pleasing things like executing micro-intensive battles. The legions of fans don't go to watch progaming matches for their ability to macro off 10 gates in a split second or order their new workers to mine.
I've responded to posts like this so many times that I don't know if I can put together a coherent response but I'll try to express my opinion. I greatly respect Tasteless' opinion and I think these are legitimate points but I think you all are underestimating the ability of the professionals to make a difference competitively.
When was the last time we saw a "pimp" play that involved pumping out units fast out of 8 barracks or making sure harvesters started mining? We continue to see pimp plays based off of timing, great strategies/decisions, trickery, creative skill usage, etc. In addition, those are the same factors that continue to make a big difference on the pro scene. Last time I checked, multiple building selection and auto-gather resources has no negative effect on any of this.
I really don't think that auto-rally resources makes any difference at the pro level where they never forget anyway. On the other hand, multiple building selection DOES matter EXCEPT we forget that you rarely build the SAME UNIT out of ALL of some building. So from that perspective, not that much has actually changed, since you still have to select all 12 of your Gateways, and then deselect 4 of them before hitting "Z" for the 8 Zealots you wanted which might be faster than it used to be but it's certainly not a two button "5+Z" or whatever like everyone is making it out to be.
And also, I made a thread about this earlier but specific features aren't what made WC3 not nearly as good as SC ... it was the style and spirit of the game.
Well personally I could do without automining, as I did think that was kind of an important part of SC during attacks, your econ suffered because new workers being built were not being sent to mine (unless you were good at macro, of course.)
I still support multiple building selection, however. I just see no reason not to, to be honest. It doesn't simplify the game as much as people make it out to. In a real game on a real ladder map you will still have to click multiple times, especially endgame, due to resource management and unit balance (if you mass a single unit from all your gateways, isn't that just asking to be hard countered?)
My 2 cents, I would like the UI to be improved in some ways but automining does sound kinda sketch for SC2.
On September 04 2007 06:11 NonY[rC] wrote: Oh and for the stubborn naysayers of MBS, I'd like to throw this idea out there...
The tell-tale sign of a bad macro player in BW is that he has too many units queued into his buildings. We all know it's much better to only have 1 unit queued at a time. But if MBS does anything for a player like that, it only screws him even worse, making it easier to queue multiple units in his buildings.
Oh and on the other topic... automining is much much more macro killing than MBS. I really really really don't want to see automining in SC2. The extra money a player receives for taking the time to tell his peons to mine is huge.
I have to disagree with this based on my experiences. In BW, the reason that a player will queue up more then 1 unit at a time is because they can't keep up with the speed of the game, or they have gotten behind (have a lot of resources built up). With MBS, this won't happen or mess up a player because the player will not get behind in the first place. MBS won't make things worse for anyone, it will make everything much easier. Even the worse players will not even need to look at there base unless they are making a building. The process of making units will be a lot simpler and faster meaning that you will have plenty of time to press 5-z or whatever even when microing heavily. Instead of clicking/hotkeying through all of your buildings. MBS will cause players like myself to be able to keep the minerals down with no difficulty at all and also make it very simple to keep up with the pace of the game. I think it will get rid of the frantic time spent making units and microing at the same time and that it will result in players with high apm having nothing to do (you can only micro SO much). I agree that an option to turn it on or off would be best.
On a related note, MBS and automining won't make a difference in progaming if it was added to SC1. The top pros are all have essentially perfect mechanics. MBS and automining will only hurt skill differentiation among the lower echelon of players; where often the determining factor in games is how many units one person can make over the other. If MBS was added to SC1, it would probably hurt the competitiveness of lower level play, but it would hardly affect play at the level of Korean pros.
I agree with tasteless but I think many of his hopes are unrealistic.
I think automining is really inevitable... at least it wont be there for zerg lol. I do hope there won't be multiple building selection for competitive play though... but chances are there most certainly will.
Good sc play requires a certain amount of multitasking. Sure, macroing from 10 gates or something will only take about a second, but the fact is that becuase you have to shift back to your base and manage it. Same with automining, it takes a very small amount of time to shift back to your base and tell workers to mine but it takes up time as well. With both automining and MBS, a player could essentially focus on their army the whole time, because you could have enough hotkeys to effectively macro without using the mouse. It would make micro battles less impressive IMO.
A lot of people for MBS seem to think that macroing is such a tedious task... but for even a slow player like me (140-170 apm zerg) its just a fun part of teh game that I am used to and its not that hard to keep your resources low or something. Its just that juggling all these tasks around, one of which is producing units at the right time and consistently, requires good multitasking which makes the game challenging. And thats just the mechanical aspect, the decision making and strategy aspect is very deep as well, but I feel the level of mechanics required complements the deep strategical depth of the game very nicely.
Anyways I think that as long as sc2 requires the same amount of multitasking level as sc does it'll be fine. Like constantly shifting around screens to juggle multiple tasks around, even to the point that one has to prioritize which tasks to complete first because there is too much to multitask.
One arguement i've seen reiterated over and over again is "battle on multiple fronts". Well not every game would be able to have this which would be bad if this is the only way sc2 will require heavy levels of multitasking. In contrast, sc games nearly always require a high level of multitasking to play well. And based on the reactions of people who played sc2, such as tasteless who said "I hardly had to think about my base", it seems like a much lower amount of multitasking will be required...
Anyways I agree with Tasteless' suggestions completely, but unfortunately I don't think they are likely to be implemented -_-
On September 04 2007 06:54 Jyvblamo wrote: I hope both automine and MBS are in SC2, since I honestly don't believe that they'll have a negative impact on competitive gaming. If anything, it will allow progamers to shift attention away from mundane tasks and focus more on crowd-pleasing things like executing micro-intensive battles. The legions of fans don't go to watch progaming matches for their ability to macro off 10 gates in a split second or order their new workers to mine.
actually they go to watch both. There is quite a fascination with both the great micro in battles and the players ability produce while doing it. I can say this because i've been to korea and all the koreans i've spoken to down there seem to share the love of both the macro and the micro. I don't see how making macro so much simpler will somehow unveil the genius strategy we weren't seeing before. If you play as much as a pro you can macro incredibly fast while microing at the same time. This is why they play 10 hours a day.
The point is that a very talented player can do both. a newbie player can probably only focus on one. If that's the issue, put an easier feature like MBS in non ladder games/non competitive games. I know blizzard keeps talking up all these new features that will occupy the players so that MBS won't be as noticeable. After playing i can say that you could easily macro like you do in starcraft AND micro these new abilities without problem. MBS is simply unnecessary for competitive play. It's FAR too easy, and I'm telling you this from first person experience. Some people need help to keep up, but good players wont. Let the best battle it out under the most strenuous of conditions. Let this game grow to be the best esport game ever.
BTW, concerning automining you re missing an important factor. You forgot the idle worker buton. Even if you forget to send your workers to mine. The ui will be there to remind you that you have idle workers. Now you may say that this will be bad for the "timing" part of the game but personally I think only newbs will ever need to use that button since we can also queue up commands now.
On September 04 2007 07:04 Silent`Assassin wrote: I have to disagree with this based on my experiences.
I think he meant that on the high level of play where he plays himself MBS will have little impact because a player needs to macro better than just stupidly using the still very powerful MBS hotkey system.
But, even at that level you can use MBS as an intelligent way to macro as well and reduce required APM.
At the same time at the lower level where near-perfect macro isn't a requirement it will also have a huge impact. Players from total beginners and competitive veterans will easily be able to build a lot with only a few actions. All will macro the same way and players that in SC would cover a wide spectrum of skill will be a lot closer together in SCII. And the main battlefield in terms of skill will be micro.
It will be a lot harder to beat a player of less skill just by outmacroing him. The game will last longer and luck will play a bigger role.
and for the record, those of you who think this can't/wont be implemented are wrong. I spoke with blizzard employees while at blizzcon and the MBS issue is up in the air still. As are many other interface features. They care about what the community has to say, especially tl.net. Stop assuming your voice has no impact or that your opinions have no weight. This is a more than feasible solution to a very vexing issue for starcraft2. Don't assume it's set in stone.
i personally agree with Tasteless. It wouldn't seem much fun if every multiplayer game you play required little to no macro whatsoever. but every now and then would be for maybe stress relief or something.
On September 04 2007 06:37 lamarine wrote: i don't like automining, but there is one issue - it would be hard to purchse units from warp gates without it.... (u have 20 gates, can't bind them all, so u have to click one, then press key then click on location and so on for 20 times o_O, although may be warp gates won't be that popular, who knows)
I think you mean MBS, not automine. And as Dustin has said, warpgates don't work with MBS anyway, so that point is irrelevant.
yeap:D fixed:D
about Dustin... i think u misunderstood something... oO
I see the point of both sides here. A toggle would be great and everyone could do as they want. Perfect. BUT: it could divide the comunity a bit having too many toggles for a game. You enter a game and it turns out to have the toggle set the way you do not like. You leave? Or should you choose when you search for games? automatch a game of my skillevel with all toggles my way. With only a few toggles it would reduce the number of availible players by a lot.
Nevermind, I'll be constructive: MBS and automining will reduce the time you ned for macroing those tasks. It is important that blizzard gives us new MACROING tasks to fill this time up!! Leave the time for micro and we get war3, or it becomes boring to play as was said in the OP.
These new macrotasks could be not only challenging not only in terms of handspeed, but also include some decision making. Clikcing through 8 gateways or setting drones to mine speed the game up, but they do not require any decisions to be made. Lets give us new tasks requiring the same speed, but ALSO some decisionmaking! Lets evolve the macroing, not just preserve it!
I do not know exactly what these new tasks would be, but I will give you some examples from other threads, some things that are allready in the game, and some own idea, JUST TO DEMONSTARTE WHAT I MEAN. So please do not say "stupid ideas" without commenting on the concept itself! 1) The addon for terran that maks you build faster. 2) The protoss ability to warp in at different locations. "should I upgrade my gateway to a warpgate?" Where should I warp in my troops? More new macro tasks! (it could be discussed if this really is macro...) 3) Selling buildings back. OMG he killed one of my expansions and my entire army!! Well, sell your supply depots that you don't need to keep your factories going. Certianly opens for new more macroing. 4) Allowing to build units faster but to a higher price. This could be some upgrade, or come from the start or be availible only for certain units. As you want. Build the cheap scvs to get a fast expansion, or build the expensive scvs to get faster income early? 5) Premining. I suggested this in another thread. You could have workers go to a mineralpatch and start packing the minerals in packs of 8 minerals, but not bring them to the nexus. Then later other workers can come and get the packets without having to stay at the patch and extract it. Would be used mainly before your expansion nexus is done I guess. Have 12 drones prepack the minerals, and then when the nexus warps in you will mine really fast for a short while until you have taken all the packets.
There are more. So I say again: Macro is one of the things that makes sc:bw great. For sc2, EVOLVE the macro! Do not conserve it. Take another step. Let us help blizzard find good strategy-demanding macrotasks we can occupy ourselves with instead of clicking through barracks.
On September 04 2007 07:49 Cascade wrote: I see the point of both sides here. A toggle would be great and everyone could do as they want. Perfect. BUT: it could divide the comunity a bit having too many toggles for a game. You enter a game and it turns out to have the toggle set the way you do not like. You leave? Or should you choose when you search for games? automatch a game of my skillevel with all toggles my way. With only a few toggles it would reduce the number of availible players by a lot.
Nevermind, I'll be constructive: MBS and automining will reduce the time you ned for macroing those tasks. It is important that blizzard gives us new MACROING tasks to fill this time up!! Leave the time for micro and we get war3, or it becomes boring to play as was said in the OP.
These new macrotasks could be not only challenging not only in terms of handspeed, but also include some decision making. Clikcing through 8 gateways or setting drones to mine speed the game up, but they do not require any decisions to be made. Lets give us new tasks requiring the same speed, but ALSO some decisionmaking! Lets evolve the macroing, not just preserve it!
I do not know exactly what these new tasks would be, but I will give you some examples from other threads, some things that are allready in the game, and some own idea, JUST TO DEMONSTARTE WHAT I MEAN. So please do not say "stupid ideas" without commenting on the concept itself! 1) The addon for terran that maks you build faster. 2) The protoss ability to warp in at different locations. "should I upgrade my gateway to a warpgate?" Where should I warp in my troops? More new macro tasks! (it could be discussed if this really is macro...) 3) Selling buildings back. OMG he killed one of my expansions and my entire army!! Well, sell your supply depots that you don't need to keep your factories going. Certianly opens for new more macroing. 4) Allowing to build units faster but to a higher price. This could be some upgrade, or come from the start or be availible only for certain units. As you want. Build the cheap scvs to get a fast expansion, or build the expensive scvs to get faster income early? 5) Premining. I suggested this in another thread. You could have workers go to a mineralpatch and start packing the minerals in packs of 8 minerals, but not bring them to the nexus. Then later other workers can come and get the packets without having to stay at the patch and extract it. Would be used mainly before your expansion nexus is done I guess. Have 12 drones prepack the minerals, and then when the nexus warps in you will mine really fast for a short while until you have taken all the packets.
There are more. So I say again: Macro is one of the things that makes sc:bw great. For sc2, EVOLVE the macro! Do not conserve it. Take another step. Let us help blizzard find good strategy-demanding macrotasks we can occupy ourselves with instead of clicking through barracks.
I honestly am 100% for these new macro features, I think starcraft's essence was not really the physically demanding tasks (b/c to be honest clicking repeatedly is not that hard) but the fact that you had to constantly keep your mind on them while doing dozens of other things. I believe it is the ability to multi-tasking that's important. So like Cascade has said, if you remove some nuisance, you are going to HAVE to add some more things to keep and occupy the players' attention. That being said I don't care if MBS stays or goes but auto-mining has to go, it's a big part of macroing if you ask me (controlling your workers, i mean).
Don't we love Starcraft anymore? Shouldnt we be screaming at them for changeing how the game is played? Or is the Starcraft generation too old to really care now?
What exactly is good about ANY of the new interface features? Someone tell me why SC2 needs it's interface and gameplay mechanics changed at all.
I can't think of a single one that would make Starcraft more competative.. And i've read my average Starcraft addict share of SC2(pre-game) info by now. I don't even like waypoint building, auto repairing, auto scarabs,interceptors, resources shown on un-explored fog-of-war, health overlay... etc..etc.. Totally unecessary things.
For me atleast, Starcraft is not fun because of the shooting and killing in it, it's the gameplay, how the game is played that is fun to me. The micro is such a tiny fraction of the game, and its not what makes Starcraft fun for me.
I like it that I have to manually click each of my barracks because I never learnt how to use ctrl groups on buildings. Love the sound it makes, its too cute! etc... I don't want help!! Im totally okay with getting beaten by players that I would woop if we had the same economy. If I really wanted to own, i would practise my macro all day long. I choose not to, but the choice should be there for thoose that want to excell in the game. They should be able to have the option of playing like lunes and becoming better than others. It is about speed and timeing, and it should stay like that.
We are still playing Starcraft now because we love it right, so with this massive fanbase in place wouldnt they want to make a sequal that stays true to the original, and not rock the boat? I just don't get it None of the new features promotes Starcraft as a sport whatsoever. Only makes it easier to play, and kills of a large part of the massive multitasking we know is required from great Starcrafters. I don't know about haveing a "pro-mode".. I would vote no, if I had to pick one now, but havent given it much thought.. Better for the community to have everyone playing the same instrument maybe?
Totally adore all the people that work at Blizzard<3, and SC2 will be kickass as singleplayer. But from what i've seen and read so far; they are moveing too far away from Starcraft. And I don't think I will be interested in playing another game for a long period of time that doesnt feel like the original Starcraft when I play it.
I honestly don't think it'll make much of a difference in the long run. You still have to manage your unit mix, so whether you can hotkey one building or 12 isn't going to matter much.
You can ctrl click larvae. It's the same concept, just applied to all races.
Automine = JESUS FUCKING CHRIST BLIZZARD WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING
I agree with most of what Tasteless and others have posted, but Blizzard is definitely in a really difficult position here. Although, not having MBS and auto-mining are factors that makes SC a great competitive game, it's also directly at odds with attracting the average gamer who just plays for fun and probably has under 40 apm. The truth is though, that these are the people that will make up the majority of the player base outside of Korea (I'm guessing over 90%). They (and game reviewers) will probably look at the interface and complain about how outdated it is compared to other RTS's out there and sales will suffer.
While togglable options for ladder/competitive play is one solution, I honestly believe there's no way Blizzard will ever implement something like that. It'll just divide the player base and make people unhappy (no one likes to think they're playing on "easy mode"). It just won't realistically work and we have to accept that fact.
As mentioned before, I still think the best way to handle MBS is by having the ability to select all your buildings and being forced to tab through them one by one. This allows you to choose your unit combination effectively and still keep a lot of the actions in as well.
Regarding auto-mining, I'm pretty sure it's going to be in no matter what we say. It was already in War3, and I really doubt they'll change the interface back from what they already have. But again, by implementing the TABBING through the CCs one by one this really shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is now.
For a compromise, they could take automining out but keep idle peon selection. I hate it when my probes just get lost within my arrangements of buildings. Idle peon selection would still require clicking on each individual peon at an expansion and getting them to mine. MBS just sucks balls and definitely has to go though. It would suck if everyone had oov macro.
This is probably one of the very few threads that I ever would even bother replying in. Just the idea of making auto-mine, auto-repair, auto-build, multiple building selection, yada yada yada is disgusting to me. What has caused us as Starcraft players to want to drift towards the things that games such as Warcraft 3, and Command and Conquer contains, when they are not even nearly as great in popularity and skill gap.
Warcraft 3 has been out for a good amount of time, a few years, and they have less players than a game that is twice its age! Doesn't it make you wonder why? Why is Starcraft so popular? What would make someone to choose Starcraft, a game that has been on the market, 10 years this upcoming winter, when there are games with newer interfaces, newer and more advanced graphics, and everyone is leveled out in the beginning to allow an early start to become a reknown player such as Boxer who was known within a year after the game was out. That could be you! You can be the next boxer! All you have to do, is choose what game to play!
But as you can see obviously, these games don't even last very long. The new C&C Tiberian Wars for example, is doing horrible. I personally went 40-2 in the game, and I never played the C&C's that came before it. Is that what we are trying to do? Do you really want it possible for someone who has NEVER before played a game with no knowledge of build orders and timing to be able to do so well? I personally do not.
When we think about what can make Starcraft II such a great game, we have to think about what it is going to be based on. Starcraft: Brood War obviously will be the answer. We all know for a fact, since we all view TeamLiquid that Starcraft: Brood War is one of the most competitive games out there, we have prize purses of hundreds of thousands of dollars, players have fan clubs of hundreds of thousands, and people are making a living off playing a game! While that is at the professional league, we have players who don't even play in the competitive scene, nor are they even AWARE of it. Yet they have happily doing their business being a fan of the game that we all love.
If we are going to make Starcraft II a competitor in the RTS Competitive scene, we have to understand what makes games stable in that scene. First of all, we need a skill differential between those who play hours on end to get good, and keep that skill, and those who play one game a week, playing vs random computers on a fastest map possible. Of course we will want the person who plays 12 hours a day, perfecting every tiny detail about their play to be able to win flawlessly against the latter.
By taking away things that people take months to perfect, such as automining, and auto-repair, auto-building interceptors etc... takes away things that people spend months, if not years to perfect. The skill gap will be greatly reduced. Multiple Building Selection once again, takes away that gap that differentiates a skilled learned player and one who just bought the game that week.
It is a known fact that Starcraft is a macro-orientated game. For instance, we focus our times timing expansions, build orders, reacting to our opponents build orders, creating the right amount and type of units, the production of supplies, or in starcraft II's case, food, building production, etc... When we take away things that make Starcraft what it is, it loses that feeling. I have not played Starcraft II, but just through all of the press, it seems as if it is being more orientated to micro. Why should a player such as the monster, cheater terran (iloveoov), give up his amazing skills so someone who just bought the game can preform in macro management in such a way that it competes with him.
I think it is a very poor decision that blizzard is partaking in reducing the things that make Starcraft such a skill differentiated game, and lowering that skill gap to allow players be able to play just as well if not better than those who practice hundreds of hours every week?
On September 04 2007 11:12 CaucasianAsian wrote: This is probably one of the very few threads that I ever would even bother replying in. Just the idea of making auto-mine, auto-repair, auto-build, multiple building selection, yada yada yada is disgusting to me. What has caused us as Starcraft players to want to drift towards the things that games such as Warcraft 3, and Command and Conquer contains, when they are not even nearly as great in popularity and skill gap.
Warcraft 3 has been out for a good amount of time, a few years, and they have less players than a game that is twice its age! Doesn't it make you wonder why? Why is Starcraft so popular? What would make someone to choose Starcraft, a game that has been on the market, 10 years this upcoming winter, when there are games with newer interfaces, newer and more advanced graphics, and everyone is leveled out in the beginning to allow an early start to become a reknown player such as Boxer who was known within a year after the game was out. That could be you! You can be the next boxer! All you have to do, is choose what game to play!
But as you can see obviously, these games don't even last very long. The new C&C Tiberian Wars for example, is doing horrible. I personally went 40-2 in the game, and I never played the C&C's that came before it. Is that what we are trying to do? Do you really want it possible for someone who has NEVER before played a game with no knowledge of build orders and timing to be able to do so well? I personally do not.
When we think about what can make Starcraft II such a great game, we have to think about what it is going to be based on. Starcraft: Brood War obviously will be the answer. We all know for a fact, since we all view TeamLiquid that Starcraft: Brood War is one of the most competitive games out there, we have prize purses of hundreds of thousands of dollars, players have fan clubs of hundreds of thousands, and people are making a living off playing a game! While that is at the professional league, we have players who don't even play in the competitive scene, nor are they even AWARE of it. Yet they have happily doing their business being a fan of the game that we all love.
If we are going to make Starcraft II a competitor in the RTS Competitive scene, we have to understand what makes games stable in that scene. First of all, we need a skill differential between those who play hours on end to get good, and keep that skill, and those who play one game a week, playing vs random computers on a fastest map possible. Of course we will want the person who plays 12 hours a day, perfecting every tiny detail about their play to be able to win flawlessly against the latter.
By taking away things that people take months to perfect, such as automining, and auto-repair, auto-building interceptors etc... takes away things that people spend months, if not years to perfect. The skill gap will be greatly reduced. Multiple Building Selection once again, takes away that gap that differentiates a skilled learned player and one who just bought the game that week.
It is a known fact that Starcraft is a macro-orientated game. For instance, we focus our times timing expansions, build orders, reacting to our opponents build orders, creating the right amount and type of units, the production of supplies, or in starcraft II's case, food, building production, etc... When we take away things that make Starcraft what it is, it loses that feeling. I have not played Starcraft II, but just through all of the press, it seems as if it is being more orientated to micro. Why should a player such as the monster, cheater terran (iloveoov), give up his amazing skills so someone who just bought the game can preform in macro management in such a way that it competes with him.
I think it is a very poor decision that blizzard is partaking in reducing the things that make Starcraft such a skill differentiated game, and lowering that skill gap to allow players be able to play just as well if not better than those who practice hundreds of hours every week?
QFT to the max. Yes, change is sometimes good, but MBS and automine will just totally pollute the original pure essence of starcraft. Screw the newbies, satisfy the true fans first.
With a "screw-the-newbies" attitude, how is Blizzard going to sell SC2 to an audience beyond the current BW/WC3 players? I'd think that they'd need new people to play the game...
EDIT: This question isn't just about MBS/automine. I'm genuinely wondering how Blizz would plan on attracting new people w/o new features.
On September 04 2007 08:14 ocoini wrote: Don't we love Starcraft anymore? Shouldnt we be screaming at them for changeing how the game is played? Or is the Starcraft generation too old to really care now?
What exactly is good about ANY of the new interface features? Someone tell me why SC2 needs it's interface and gameplay mechanics changed at all.
I can't think of a single one that would make Starcraft more competative.. And i've read my average Starcraft addict share of SC2(pre-game) info by now. I don't even like waypoint building, auto repairing, auto scarabs,interceptors, resources shown on un-explored fog-of-war, health overlay... etc..etc.. Totally unecessary things.
For me atleast, Starcraft is not fun because of the shooting and killing in it, it's the gameplay, how the game is played that is fun to me. The micro is such a tiny fraction of the game, and its not what makes Starcraft fun for me.
I like it that I have to manually click each of my barracks because I never learnt how to use ctrl groups on buildings. Love the sound it makes, its too cute! etc... I don't want help!! Im totally okay with getting beaten by players that I would woop if we had the same economy. If I really wanted to own, i would practise my macro all day long. I choose not to, but the choice should be there for thoose that want to excell in the game. They should be able to have the option of playing like lunes and becoming better than others. It is about speed and timeing, and it should stay like that.
We are still playing Starcraft now because we love it right, so with this massive fanbase in place wouldnt they want to make a sequal that stays true to the original, and not rock the boat? I just don't get it None of the new features promotes Starcraft as a sport whatsoever. Only makes it easier to play, and kills of a large part of the massive multitasking we know is required from great Starcrafters. I don't know about haveing a "pro-mode".. I would vote no, if I had to pick one now, but havent given it much thought.. Better for the community to have everyone playing the same instrument maybe?
Totally adore all the people that work at Blizzard<3, and SC2 will be kickass as singleplayer. But from what i've seen and read so far; they are moveing too far away from Starcraft. And I don't think I will be interested in playing another game for a long period of time that doesnt feel like the original Starcraft when I play it.
WCG 09 - Broodwar is still king ? i dunno
Unfortunatly the starcraft 2 target customers are not reduced to the true starcraft lovers. As someone said above me, Blizzard has to do these changes to attract the nowadays newbs, even if it screws the game. Actually, i am sure most of the people posting in these sc2 forums don't really know why the game is still played & loved 9 years after its creation.
Most of fans are just switchers, thus want things to evolve in order to enjoy the game ! Evolve in a good way? in a bad way? It doesnt matter, they want the interface to "progress", in the sense it's easier. They use arguments like 'people should not fight against the interface anymore' without even thinking that, maybe, this very fight is what makes the game so great...
Actually, you almost never see a regular tl poster with a decent level posting in this crappy sc2 forum (especially the ones following the progaming scene closely). There are some though, and their view is usually very interesting and constructive. Usually, the guys who know the game better and can have a healthy view of the situation don't want to spend their time fighting against the outnumbering war3 teenagers, who're happy to be able to quit the previous played game without changing their lazy habits. As you said, the starcraft generation is probably getting too old.
In fact, i agree totally when you say most of these new things are totally useless ; it is useless in the sense it is not needed, not more fun, but for sure RISKY as hell to implement. Noone can predict what will be the real impact on the game, especially given the current development advance. But for sure there's nothing really 'good' or needed in most of them.
Of course it's not critical cause sc2 will still be a good game, certainly far better than other recent RTS. But as it's too often the case, people will be happy with it and the switch will be massive, as it was in the past. Most of the good players will also switch cause money will be on line. The true and only remaining hope will be the korean pro scene. It will be impossible to run a successful league for years if the game is not as competitive. Public won't pay and force themsleves to watch a boring show. There is a lot of money involve here as well, so if the game doesn't meet the expectations, it will be abandonned after some time, and hopefully sc will live.
Now, if you think the game will be as competitive if MBS, automining, along with all the automatic features mentionned above are settled, then we disagree. I respect the Nony's points when he says macro is not about clicking. Even with MBS, it will still play a role. However, i believe a side of the problem is missed here as well (though many people have already pointed it) :
The point is how you split your attention in the game !!!!!!
Clicking buildings, clicking peons is not really time consuming, but it requires concern and attention, more than doing 4z or using the wonderful Idle button (what the fuck is that?). The attention level you grant to these clicking actions is very important, and also fun somehow. It explains difference of levels, why defense has usually advantage over attack, why when you spend time on microing perfectly it's almost impossible to macro flawlessly. It allows spectacular come backs : imagine, as tasteless say, everything is settled in the game, you have an economic advantage and produce on ten gates ; nowadays, you can see sloppy play due to a drop of this very attention. Now i'll just produce on my 10 or twenty gates pushing two fucking buttons...
Once again, i cant be sure that all will be a great threat if implemented. As nobody can be sure it won't affect the game deeply. In all the cases, these automatic changes seem to be really useless features, given the risks they represent for the game interest.
lol SC2 could be the hardest game ever created and it will still sell like a legal $1 an hour clean hott fresh hooker when it comes out so if its just as hard as sc it wont hurt sales at all =P it will only improve its future competitive scene --; when sc:bw came out, did it sell like shit, mediocer, or decently good? -_- people arent gona care about how ez it is, they have to buy the game first, and a demo will proably just get them addicticted and want more of it, even if its hard as fuck
only good can come out of removing MBS and automining =P
On September 04 2007 11:54 OrderlyChaos wrote: With a "screw-the-newbies" attitude, how is Blizzard going to sell SC2 to an audience beyond the current BW/WC3 players? I'd think that they'd need new people to play the game...
EDIT: This question isn't just about MBS/automine. I'm genuinely wondering how Blizz would plan on attracting new people w/o new features.
I don't think that really affects initial sales, especially with AMM. Newbies have plenty of newbies to play, and they don't realize the potential of what really good people can do. When I played 3v3 BGH with a 60 apm and 2 friends years ago, I won 90% of the time. Even without AMM there was separation because of different maps (money vs non) and game types (3v3 vs 1v1), and this allows the game to fit everyone. Newbifying the game (the opposite approach) severely impacts the long-term sales though. What other games are still being sold 9 1/2 years after their release? In addition to that, setting up franchising fees will result in a lot more profit for Blizzard compared to if the game never has a pro scene.
Maybe I'm missing something logically, but it seems like catering to pros (but with AMM) seems like it will maximize their profits.
Even with AMM, there are newbs who wouldn't buy because they wouldn't see how SC2 evolved RTS gaming, or they'd see reviews asking the same question. That would hurt the initial sales of SC2. Even if they catered to the pros, the sponsor companies would want to see that SC2 is successful and thus have a solid target audience. If no one new buys SC2, then there'd be no real expansion of the progaming scene. It'd just be the same audience watching SC2... I might be reading this incorrectly, but I don't see why sponsors would pay for a SC2 gaming scene without new buyers.
On September 04 2007 12:11 OrderlyChaos wrote: Even with AMM, there are newbs who wouldn't buy because they wouldn't see how SC2 evolved RTS gaming, or they'd see reviews asking the same question. That would hurt the initial sales of SC2. Even if they catered to the pros, the sponsor companies would want to see that SC2 is successful and thus have a solid target audience. If no one new buys SC2, then there'd be no real expansion of the progaming scene. It'd just be the same audience watching SC2... I might be reading this incorrectly, but I don't see why sponsors would pay for a SC2 gaming scene without new buyers.
Actually if you think about it, Starcraft has a history of being heralded as "the best RTS ever", just by the mere fact that it is the sequel to this "best RTS ever" it should have pretty good initial sales along with some more advertising and hyping. I mean just look at Halo 2, it was even MORE popular than Halo, raking in much more money than its predecessor, just because it was over hyped and the sequel to Halo:CE. But, then again, it was noobified as well...
I´m trying to understand why do many of you think being quick at selecting 10,000 structures individually to make units and clicking on each produced peon just to send it mining again and again is essencial to SC.
The only explanation I can find is that most of you are very quick with the mouse/keyboard (high APMs) but are afraid not being good, creative strategists or tacticians at all.
MBS and auto-mining would minimize the advantage you have on "newbies" who spent a small fraction of the time you spent playing SC 'cause even them would be able to build armies quickly (if they manage to get resources enought) and boost their income from granted mining spots.
MyLost, what´s the point of your comparison between MBS/automining with BGH?? You even said BGH is easy because there is no need for expanding, but would these features make any easier the life for someone stuck and turtling in its choke? As I see, they´d just help the guy to spend his scarce resources even quicker, thus forcing him to expand. And if he´s not "teching in a precise way", he´ll be stomped by a foe that is doing it anyway.
IMO, the real fun in Starcraft lies in the "smart" and "strategic" decisions one can make before the information he gathers from enemy armies and structures, in being skilled when microing in battle, in knowing when and how to expand and shifting strategies according to opponent´s reaction and condition.
If SC2 is removing the need for mechanical actions that requires more repetition than intelligence, then the sequel is surely walking to the right direction.
On September 04 2007 12:44 Tupan wrote: 1.I´m trying to understand why do many of you think being quick at selecting 10,000 structures individually to make units and clicking on each produced peon just to send it mining again and again is essencial to SC.
The only explanation I can find is that most of you are very quick with the mouse/keyboard (high APMs) 2.but are afraid not being good, creative strategists or tacticians at all.
MBS and auto-mining would minimize the advantage you have on "newbies" who spent a small fraction of the time you spent playing SC 'cause even them would be able to build armies quickly (if they manage to get resources enought) and boost their income from granted mining spots.
MyLost, what´s the point of your comparison between MBS/automining with BGH?? You even said BGH is easy because there is no need for expanding, but would these features make any easier the life for someone stuck and turtling in its choke? As I see, they´d just help the guy to spend his scarce resources even quicker, thus forcing him to expand. And if he´s not "teching in a precise way", he´ll be stomped by a foe that is doing it anyway.
IMO, the real fun in Starcraft lies in the "smart" and "strategic" decisions one can make before the information he gathers from enemy armies and structures, in being skilled when microing in battle, in knowing when and how to expand and shifting strategies according to opponent´s reaction and condition.
If SC2 is removing the need for mechanical actions that requires more repetition than intelligence, then the sequel is surely walking to the right direction.
1. Why is it essential? Well in my opinion, two reasons. First of all, it is fun.
"What, dude, wtf are you talkingg about??? Macro =fun?? Crack???"
No, I'm not kidding. I'm quite serious in fact. I have played WC3. I have played C&C3. The former was acceptable, the latter was ridiculous. Fun for some is being able to press one button and a-move (or simply right click) and watch explosions happen. But fun for me, and I think I speak on the behalf of others, fun is cycling through 10 production buildings making units, managing my base producing workers, building up any defense I need, to add to this, managing three or more bases, constantly scouting my opponent, harassing, dropping, microing. Are all of those macro? No. But let's say you take away the macro concept, you are left with what? Microing units? Progamers can micro units and macro at the same time so where's the problem?
Next, we limit the skill gap between the newb and the progamer. I don't feel like talking about this as it is self-explanatory.
2. What is with people thinking that by taking away some aspect of the game their (non-existant beforehand) strategical genius will appear?
On September 04 2007 12:44 Tupan wrote: IMO, the real fun in Starcraft lies in the "smart" and "strategic" decisions one can make before the information he gathers from enemy armies and structures
There is no novel strategy in BW, and there won't be in SC2 after a year or two. Everyone knows every strategy and every counter, and it comes down to execution, intuition, timing, and luck. There is no room to open up for "strategic geniuses" to master the game just by lessening macro - that's what chess is for. Reducing one aspect of the game without adding enough in another area only weakens the skill curve, and makes luck much more of a factor. That's not a good game - that's a game where practicing isn't worth it past a certain point, and there's no room for standouts.
I don't understand where the pro-automation side gets the idea that they can win because they'll come up with some super-great strategy on the spot. That might happen in 1 game in your playing career (very shortly after the game is released), but if it was really a great move, everyone else will adopt it as part of their arsenal and it will become a basic strat/counter. I also don't see how manually macroing your buildings to produce somehow impedes on your strategic genius or decision making.
EDIT: I guess wizard said basically the same thing while I was typing this...
Starcraft is like a continuous dance to me. Or a song. I know a lot of you just shut off your ears to me because of what I just said, but hear me out.
I'm sure most of you know how it feels to be perfectly in-sync with the game. When you're playing your best. Never queuing workers but still always producing them and telling them to mine immediately.
What I love about Starcraft is that the game doesn't move, it expands. You start with 1 task and 1 task alone. To mine. This is essentially your only task right from the very beginning. You never lose this task. Throughout the entire game, that primary action still needs to be done. Instead of the game changing from one task to another, you add other tasks, but never losing them. You scout pretty early, and that is another task you need to keep up for the entire game. You expand, produce, construct, and theoretically, all of these continue from when you first start these tasks. Everytime you gain a new task, you add it to the cycle. The dance gains more steps. The song becomes more elaborate, but deep inside that song, you hear the original melody. Workers mining.
Everyone has seen the faces of progamers playing in intense situations. Everyone always says "They're so emotionless. The game isn't fun anymore for them, it's so serious!"
Quite the contrary. They're deep inside a ritual. A beautiful song that fully encompasses them. We've also seen their face right before they type out. All of a sudden, they're conscious again. You can tell by their face alone that for them, the game is over. Within a few seconds, you see those letters. GG, or if I'm not mistaken, ㅈㅈ.
I, for one, wouldn't change that song for anything in the world. Do I really believe that adding auto-mining would have this drastic an impact? I absolutely do. It takes out the very foundation that the song was built on.
If this is overly spiritual for some, I apologize, lol.
Personally, I'm okay with MBS. But, I would also be okay without it. Although in the end, I'd probably prefer it. I do not want it to be toggleable, however. I would just loathe having to adjust to playing with it on, and playing with it off. It would be frustrating to play a few games with MBS, then hop on a game and once I set up a couple production facilities realize I have to go back to the original method.
On the topic of automining; I do NOT want this. You've got the idle worker key, use it! It's more boring starting with two extra workers, but having automine for the first 2/3, then starting with 4 and actually having to pay attention to when they pop out. Also, automine seems to leave Zerg out in the cold, as they still have to use their rally for their military units.
I'm sure I've posted something like this before but I feel compelled to post it again.
Everyone I know who has played StarCraft absolutely loved it despite whatever level they were able to play on. I honestly do not see the point in making the game easier for the sake of attracting new players. Even to this day you can still find entry level players to compete against, 9 or so years after it's release. My point is, you don't have to give the very casual player oov-like macro for him to have fun.
No one I know who has played this game on a regular basis wants MBS. In fact, 90% of the people who advocate MBS on this forum, have shown they have no idea how BW works or I've never seen them post before and am, naturally, skeptical. These people think for some reason micro is better than macro because macro "mindless clicking". First of all, it's not. Secondly, micro will become as trivial, as you think macro is now, if you enable it to be done so easily.
To someone who mentioned pimp plays. Those plays are pimp because the players can do this under immense pressure during a very face-paced game. I also can name at least one mechanic base Pimpest Play: Oov's mnm split. Boxer's insane mnm or dropship micro would be nothing without the need to macro, quite frankly, because everyone else would be able to do it.
To fend off the always-present "if you don't like it just play BW then" retort: Fuck you. Why don't you play something else?
imo MBS will improve micro in that you wont have to worry as much about shit being messed up in your main and will be able to focus on units which is good. As nony said macro isnt even about how fast you press the keys.
Also automining is fine too, I dont see what the big deal is. It takes away one dumb aspect of the game that cancels out at high levels anyway. BW shouldnt necessarily be about how good your multi task is, it can help I guess but its sort of dumb that it has sort of come to that when competing at higher levels (and lower levels too I guess)
edit:
Also lets not forget you still have to tell things to build as well as manage your money/supply and micro, all this does is get rid of stupid situations such as where you are back at your base because something didnt build and your army gets raped because you werent able to watch because of some shit pathing function.
This has nothing to do with either of your skill, its purely chance that they attacked the very instant you decided to go back to your base because of stupid pathing. They did not know you werent watching your units for that split second, its just dumb luck.
If you are faster obviously you will have less of these situations but this idea of speed translating into somesort of bw skill is dumb(obviously you have to be skilled at the other parts of the game, but for example a reason why non koreans seem to struggle vs the koreans is partly due to the vastly superior mechanics of the professionals vs the amateurs)
IMO its dumb, it has little to do with the actual skill of the game, ya it can give you an advantage, but like I said at the highest levels of the game it cancels out anyway so why even bother to have it. Ya its part of the reason why bw is so difficult but that doesnt necessarily mean its a good facet of the game.
Having MBS and Automining could possibly even speed up play since faster players would be allowed much more freedom to harass and use the full potential of units than ever before. Imagine actually being able to use optical flare and shit in meaningful games?
Imagine it being hectic to where you have to manage several battles all over the map with nice micro to survive? I mean where one facet of the game theoretically goes away, another part of the game is allowed to be better.
I think a lot of people may be jumping to conclusions. As I said I'm not a fan of auto mining, but I can see why others are opposed to MBS. But is it not arguable that if there are new macro opportunities beyond the UI, then that makes up for it?
Warp gates for example, they cannot be multiple selected, and every individual gateway must be chosen to turn into a warp gate. Then of course involves clicking where the warp gate will warp too... that doesn't sound APM intensive to you? I think top Protoss players will truly make warp in shine.
As long as GAMEPLAY features make up for the UI "friendliness," isn't the overall result a much better and competitive game?
Well, one thing I definitely disagree with is having different settings for "competitive" and normal starcraft games. It will simply make competitive games less exciting and appreciative for the pro's skills, and it will also likely affect balancing in some way.
Basically my argument is that they have essentially freed up many apm. So now they can add more features and complexity to the game while keeping it at the same level of speed as the original.
(I'm not saying your arguments aren't good, I'm talking about macro in general.)
Nice reasoning guys. But I think MBS/automining all comes down to this:
What if I could go outside one day, pick up a tennis racket, and automatically be able to have perfect mechanics on my forehand...there would be no need to PRACTICE mechanics on my forehand now. Now the only action left, is to hit the ball wherever I want. That is equivilent to MBS/automining being included in SC2.
Now, same situation. Real world, real game, real SPORT. I go outside, pick up my tennis racket. If I want to be able to master where I want to hit my shot, I cannot just pick up the racket a couple times and have awesome mechanics...nonono sir. I will get my forehand to land on my opponent's side of the court at the precise angle, with the exact amount of topspin, speed, and depth by PRACTICING MY FOREHAND mechanics over and over. Only once I've mastered the mechanics will I be able to then implement my strategies and tactics. This situation = SC1 macro = you must practice!
Which one do we want? I'd rather have the more human of the two - the second one, that requires practice and dedication to be the best, rather than having the mechanics of the game almost mastered for me. And that is why SC1 is so great, challenging, and will be loved forever.
Micro has no real value if basic Macro is gone. As of now macro>micro in BW and it looks like its going in the direction of micro>macro, there needs to be a balance in how Much attention you give to either macro or micro. Its inevitable that they are going to lower the amount of buildings and units you produce in SC2, but i didn't expect them to lower the tank count so BoxeR cant ever say "That is many tanks yes?". And i also didn't expect them to build the game around protoss instead of terran first.If they want to make the game faster and have more emphasis on harassment and micro, then why not build the game around zerg? I just want a fun micro/macro game that has less buildings/less units, but faster production.Im looking at 1-3 hotkeys being the number of units in packs of 12-16 that you can control @ 200/200 and the standard 4-0 buildings that would be your whole base @ 200/200. I want it to feel like the game ive been playing for 10 years, just harder,better,faster,stronger,newer and wont hinder the pro players we look up to and follow. BoxeR maybe could come back on top in sc2 if it was more directed at micro and harasment, but his skill would be capped and it wouldn't be the boxer we know, while new-age BW players like sAviOrBisu and NaDa will be paralyzed from the waste down.
Blizzard could even make a new race if they wanted to (if they stayed true to BW). Its space, a new race can come from anywhere.This isn't Warcraft where 2 random races come from no where and start making trouble.When i first switched from War2 to SC, the races were genuine and uniqe. The game was simply fast zerg, strong/slow terran, fast/strong protoss. And now today i try out any other RTS and im still not impressed since the day Broodwar was released, and they think im going to buy SC2 if its a inferior to BW? Their right, but I want RTS to take other directions and Blizzard is the only one that can accomplish that. Or else SC2 is going to look like all the generic bad RTS's wich communities die within a year. Its simply not a good idea if Blizzard chooses to be scientific instead of thinking long term. They are already holding park place and boardwalk with micro RTS's like Warcraft3 and true RTS's that take full macro/micro skill like Broodwar, SO WHATS WITH THIS CNC3/WARCRAFTINSPACE BLASPHEMY?! I want Blizzard to be king of MMORPG's and RTS's and maybe even FPS's in the future. But no matter what they are going to be king of RTS just because of Broodwar. A better RTS will come along in 50 years and nock Broodwar off, only then ill be too old to play with my massive carpo tunnel from playing BW for 50 years, but that wont matter because ill be able to micro/macro with my mind inside a fish tank. Seriously tho, alot of stuff can be added,tweaked, and taken from what Broodwar is TODAY! Not totally revamped... this is going to be a sequal isnt it? And an expansion in SC2 thats going to magically fix and ballance everything like what Broodwar did is not something i want, i want them to get it right the first time if they do what they say they do. Then they put shields on marines and gave dark templars a 4 strength 4 stam leather belt...
As a long time SC vet, I'll probably always do it the way I do it now. I'm just so used to double clicking 5 and then building all my units, or it will take some time getting used to clicking 5d which will create like 5 goons then 6z for 5 zealots. I won't mind about auto-mineral mining rallying, but this is coming from a player who gets like 4 probes idle -_-;;;
All you guys saying MBS will give everyone "oov-like macro" are being ridiculous. You still have to manage which units are being built and when you build them, it's not like MBS suddenly gives everyone the ability to macro like a pro without any practice at all (i.e. that tennis analogy). You still have to build tech, supply, production in a timely manner. Most players will probably hotkey, for example, 4 facts for vult and 3 for tank, etc. or hotkey all buildings and tab through them. MBS will also be beneficial to lategame army management, when you have 10+ gates, giving you more time to use spellcasters, flank properly, etc. Hell even midgame, if you are really too bored because of your high APM, then go select everything individually and pretend there's no MBS. My point is that the MBS feature does not equalize skill, but rather consolidates a repetitive task. It will also not make SC2 like WC3 because you micro more, an assumption just as retarded as MBS = oov macro.
On the other hand, I'd prefer not to have automining and rather just an idle peon button/key. At pro level it's almost the same thing anyway.
On September 04 2007 07:25 oshibori_probe wrote: Wether or not its better. I am 99% certain that Blizzard wont have an on/off setting for MBS and automine.
This should mean more multi front micro.
I'm so sick of this argument, forced multi-front micro just because macro takes about 10% of your effort is a bad, bad bad badbadbadbabdabd thing.
On September 04 2007 06:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: i also don't like the trapezoidal, messy looking screen location indicator on the minimap
the minimap in starcraft looks way more polished than the minimap in sc2 it seems
In real 3d you'll always have a trape-whatever, because of perspective. The only way to make it square is if they use pseudo 3d like in BW, which makes switching to a 3d engine kinda pointless ^_^
Stating WC3 is bad, because it's all micro is ridiculous, because micro in WC3 is NOT EVEN FUCKING RELATED to micro in Starcraft. In WC3 you have extremely high hp units and heroes, which you just need to pull back when damaged and spells, that you just spam when they have cooldowned, is that anything like BW -> NO.
On September 04 2007 13:56 Sadist wrote: imo MBS will improve micro in that you wont have to worry as much about shit being messed up in your main and will be able to focus on units which is good. As nony said macro isnt even about how fast you press the keys.
Also automining is fine too, I dont see what the big deal is. It takes away one dumb aspect of the game that cancels out at high levels anyway. BW shouldnt necessarily be about how good your multi task is, it can help I guess but its sort of dumb that it has sort of come to that when competing at higher levels (and lower levels too I guess)
edit:
Also lets not forget you still have to tell things to build as well as manage your money/supply and micro, all this does is get rid of stupid situations such as where you are back at your base because something didnt build and your army gets raped because you werent able to watch because of some shit pathing function.
This has nothing to do with either of your skill, its purely chance that they attacked the very instant you decided to go back to your base because of stupid pathing. They did not know you werent watching your units for that split second, its just dumb luck.
If you are faster obviously you will have less of these situations but this idea of speed translating into somesort of bw skill is dumb(obviously you have to be skilled at the other parts of the game, but for example a reason why non koreans seem to struggle vs the koreans is partly due to the vastly superior mechanics of the professionals vs the amateurs)
IMO its dumb, it has little to do with the actual skill of the game, ya it can give you an advantage, but like I said at the highest levels of the game it cancels out anyway so why even bother to have it. Ya its part of the reason why bw is so difficult but that doesnt necessarily mean its a good facet of the game.
Having MBS and Automining could possibly even speed up play since faster players would be allowed much more freedom to harass and use the full potential of units than ever before. Imagine actually being able to use optical flare and shit in meaningful games?
Imagine it being hectic to where you have to manage several battles all over the map with nice micro to survive? I mean where one facet of the game theoretically goes away, another part of the game is allowed to be better.
Sadist I like you but I can't finish reading this post because I disagree so much with it -.-
First of all, if you take out MBS, the warp gate feature will get broken at an instant. Well, it is gonna be ok early-game, but not at late game when gate number exceeds 6-8. There is no way to successfuly control something that requires a repetetive procedure of "select something on screen - > precisely click on a spot at another point of the map". If it happens rarely, like recall or re-rally, well, you can take the time to aim. But those are gates, FFS. So the only thing you can do is rework MBS. FA has proposed "every building is a subgroup" feature, so that you need to press TAB, a variation of reworked MBS is already implemented with warp gates. Taking it out at all is not an opportunity.
As for auto-mine, I don't really know. It certainly has effect, but it's unbelievably mundane. I guess I could accept it, but only if I get something in return.
On September 04 2007 17:20 BluzMan wrote: First of all, if you take out MBS, the warp gate feature will get broken at an instant. Well, it is gonna be ok early-game, but not at late game when gate number exceeds 6-8. There is no way to successfuly control something that requires a repetetive procedure of "select something on screen - > precisely click on a spot at another point of the map". If it happens rarely, like recall or re-rally, well, you can take the time to aim. But those are gates, FFS. So the only thing you can do is rework MBS. FA has proposed "every building is a subgroup" feature, so that you need to press TAB, a variation of reworked MBS is already implemented with warp gates. Taking it out at all is not an opportunity.
As for auto-mine, I don't really know. It certainly has effect, but it's unbelievably mundane. I guess I could accept it, but only if I get something in return.
For the average player warp gates will be hard to use, yes. Isn't that just asking for the next Oov of Protoss to warp in 12 dragoons somewhere, which would be exceedingly APM intensive.
Just like to point out to those that imply that war3 is BW with MBS and automine features that they should learn how to build an argument...
War3 has Heroes War3 has Upkeep
Don't compare things that can't be compared...
What you should point out is that you like the frantic action in BW and by action I mean clicks and button pressing. You like the fact that APM is REQUIRED to be of any success.
Frankly with my 170 APM max i also like the fact that I can't "beat the game" and sometimes even playing my A game i'm behind the pace of the game eventhough i can't imagine how I could be faster.
But having said that I'm also depressed when I hear Nony in his commentary telling us (average TL.net member) that the only way to get to a higher level is just to gain speed...
On September 04 2007 17:20 BluzMan wrote: First of all, if you take out MBS, the warp gate feature will get broken at an instant. Well, it is gonna be ok early-game, but not at late game when gate number exceeds 6-8. There is no way to successfuly control something that requires a repetetive procedure of "select something on screen - > precisely click on a spot at another point of the map". If it happens rarely, like recall or re-rally, well, you can take the time to aim. But those are gates, FFS. So the only thing you can do is rework MBS. FA has proposed "every building is a subgroup" feature, so that you need to press TAB, a variation of reworked MBS is already implemented with warp gates. Taking it out at all is not an opportunity.
As for auto-mine, I don't really know. It certainly has effect, but it's unbelievably mundane. I guess I could accept it, but only if I get something in return.
Well, I think being able to select multiple buildings for the purposes of setting rally points is a good thing, so you could just make it so you can select multiple gateways, transform them into warpgates and then build from them.
On September 04 2007 18:40 Leon-bw wrote: Just like to point out to those that imply that war3 is BW with MBS and automine features that they should learn how to build an argument...
War3 has Heroes War3 has Upkeep
Don't compare things that can't be compared...
What you should point out is that you like the frantic action in BW and by action I mean clicks and button pressing. You like the fact that APM is REQUIRED to be of any success.
Frankly with my 170 APM max i also like the fact that I can't "beat the game" and sometimes even playing my A game i'm behind the pace of the game eventhough i can't imagine how I could be faster.
But having said that I'm also depressed when I hear Nony in his commentary telling us (average TL.net member) that the only way to get to a higher level is just to gain speed...
I disagree that the only way to get better would be to gain speed, better execution and a deeper understanding of the game is as important.
It could be argued that better execution means gaining speed, but just stop to think about players like Savior, nal_ra or iloveoov.
All have great execution, and they are all 200~ something APM players.
Most of you don't even try to hide that their arguments are based on "I want the game to feel the same as the game I loved playing the last 10 years". That's a fine opinion but it wont make the game worse for players who were not connected to BW. It's just emotional. I guess we can agree that both features will not change pro gaming much, right? And i guess we can agree, that it would be dumb if buildings would be built faster or worker would mine more if you'd continuously click on them (which would be examples for features that would demant your attention the whole time).
On September 04 2007 13:56 Sadist wrote: imo MBS will improve micro in that you wont have to worry as much about shit being messed up in your main and will be able to focus on units which is good. As nony said macro isnt even about how fast you press the keys.
Also automining is fine too, I dont see what the big deal is. It takes away one dumb aspect of the game that cancels out at high levels anyway. BW shouldnt necessarily be about how good your multi task is, it can help I guess but its sort of dumb that it has sort of come to that when competing at higher levels (and lower levels too I guess)
edit:
Also lets not forget you still have to tell things to build as well as manage your money/supply and micro, all this does is get rid of stupid situations such as where you are back at your base because something didnt build and your army gets raped because you werent able to watch because of some shit pathing function.
This has nothing to do with either of your skill, its purely chance that they attacked the very instant you decided to go back to your base because of stupid pathing. They did not know you werent watching your units for that split second, its just dumb luck.
If you are faster obviously you will have less of these situations but this idea of speed translating into somesort of bw skill is dumb(obviously you have to be skilled at the other parts of the game, but for example a reason why non koreans seem to struggle vs the koreans is partly due to the vastly superior mechanics of the professionals vs the amateurs)
IMO its dumb, it has little to do with the actual skill of the game, ya it can give you an advantage, but like I said at the highest levels of the game it cancels out anyway so why even bother to have it. Ya its part of the reason why bw is so difficult but that doesnt necessarily mean its a good facet of the game.
Having MBS and Automining could possibly even speed up play since faster players would be allowed much more freedom to harass and use the full potential of units than ever before. Imagine actually being able to use optical flare and shit in meaningful games?
Imagine it being hectic to where you have to manage several battles all over the map with nice micro to survive? I mean where one facet of the game theoretically goes away, another part of the game is allowed to be better.
Sadist I like you but I can't finish reading this post because I disagree so much with it -.-
its fine to disagree Ill give a golf analogy here.
New technology in golf clubs came along in the early 90's people no longer needed to use wooden (persimmon) drivers and the new titanium ones had bigger heads and were "easier" to hit, new irons came along to with a bigger "sweet spot" and were "easier" to hit too. People feared that golf would never have a dominant player again because these clubs took all the skill out of golf. They were wrong, while ball striking has improved in golf dramatically, the courses are much more difficult today to combat that and the need for a great shortgame has improved. Players now are better than before on average, but the courses they play are 10x harder than they played 10 years ago. The dominance part was retarded, theres plenty of dominant players including the most dominant all time in Tiger Woods. So the game changed a bit, but its still the same for the most part and it actually helped people get better by improving the clubs.
IM sure its the same in tennis, people assumed the modern racket would ruin the game, it wasnt true tennis because now you could get by on having a godly serve etc. But thats not true, the players today are nuts, the game is much faster than ever before and and players like federer can come along and revolutionize the game showing that you need to not have holes in your game anymore.
So, while you feel handspeed should be an important part of bw(and it still would be if you read my post about being able to harass at multiple spots along with manage economy/expand/ build stuff etc) I feel like the stuff you are talking about is there strictly because of a archaic design. Ya someone who played bw for only 3 months will never beat you, but does that mean they are significantly worse than you? Once you learn how to manage economy and such, handspeed really gets in the way and probably takes away from us players who could otherwise improve the game with better game management and micro etc.
And to the guy who said he thinks about boxers multitask when observing his micro......are you kidding me? THe beuty of boxers micro is he takes units that are notoriously difficult to control in certain situations (say marine/scvs) and rapes with them.
This isn't new golf clubs, it's turning golf into mini-golf.
And of course the guy who's played for 3 months is significantly worse than me, at every single facet of the game.
BoxeR's focus on micro would not be special if everyone was focusing on it, and that's what will happen when you simplify macro. Of course I don't think about his multitasking when watching him micro 1 marine vs a lurker, but it's going to be a lot less impressive when everyone is doing it since they don't have anything else to do.
Even if you will free up time for more harass or whatever it's not a desireable evolution to me, I prefer the frantic pace of trying to harass while keeping your macro tidy.
I don't know how much of an impact it will actually have, but everyone who's played it from TL has said it makes macro too simple. At least this is something that can easily be fixed in the beta (I assume) if needed.
Well I'm not going into that discussion once again, I just want to share 1 more aspect to think about: Starcraft is ~9 years old. Players like us are pretty hardcore (excluding those who just started it in order to "prepare" for SC2), still playing it, watching reps/VODs, following the Korean pro scene and so on. The game is very balanced and very fitting for e-sports.
All combined, this creates a certain feel or opinion that this game is perfect, that it has no weakness or that the few weaknesses it has are irrelevant or even "necessary" for the game in order to be perfect (paradox?). And this results in a thinking that SC2 must in large parts be exactly like SC1 (e.g.: having no multiple building selection) otherwise it's going to suck. Basically, many just want SC1 again with new units and new graphics, and every other major change is looked at sceptically.
You know, that's just normal... humans are very much based on habit. So, a drastic change like MBS is often seen as "bad". But I'm pretty sure that once we all tested the game for a bit longer and know more about it, know how the gameplay is, know exactly how MBS affects the gameplay, then we can judge much more objectively if MBS is a good or bad thing for the game. We need to be more skilled in SC2 (not SC1) in order to say that. Blizzard should include MBS as planned (they will do that anyway I'm 99% sure), and MAYBE later on, with a patch, remove it for competitive gaming if it turns out to be really bad. And keep it for casual gamers or kids who play BGH/Fastest.
But all this talk right now about MBS, be it from the pro or contra faction, is all mostly based on prejudice, scepticism or optimism. Even from the people who have already tested SC2 for a short time (wasn't it 1 hour at Blizzcon?), because that short time just isn't enough to estimate the impact correctly.
What about make MBS as an upgrade? It would be called something like 'Commanding skill' so it will give you ability to send same command do more then one building. It would be something expensive like shield upgrade in SC1 and it would have three levels. So at level 1 you can select two buildings, level 2 - three and level 3 - four buildings. And also place the upgrade in separate building (expensive) building which will increase the cost of this comfort even more.
So on the high level of the play it would be recognized as waste of money and maybe usable in the late game when you reached the unit cap and have a lot of money. This auto regulation would be imo a lot better and more natural then something artificially forced. So noobs will be upgrading asap so but will die vs timed attack executed by any decent player. And on BGH and FME you can afford anything so noobs will have what they want.
my two euro cents.
EDIT: and unlimited selection could be something like 4th level ultimate upgrade which would costs something like 3000/3000
I just want to say that if we have MBS than we need something which will render this ability useless on the pro level. I just don't like the idea of some toggles in options menu that will be turned off in ladder/tournament games.
On September 04 2007 21:50 FrozenArbiter wrote: This isn't new golf clubs, it's turning golf into mini-golf.
And of course the guy who's played for 3 months is significantly worse than me, at every single facet of the game.
BoxeR's focus on micro would not be special if everyone was focusing on it, and that's what will happen when you simplify macro. Of course I don't think about his multitasking when watching him micro 1 marine vs a lurker, but it's going to be a lot less impressive when everyone is doing it since they don't have anything else to do.
Even if you will free up time for more harass or whatever it's not a desireable evolution to me, I prefer the frantic pace of trying to harass while keeping your macro tidy.
I don't know how much of an impact it will actually have, but everyone who's played it from TL has said it makes macro too simple. At least this is something that can easily be fixed in the beta (I assume) if needed.
I mean, if you like a frantic pace why not have it like war2 where you cant que units in buildings. Or how about you have to manually build the buildings with an scv (ie it starts, stops and you have to move it diagnal or something to get it to start again, and it repeats until it is finished)
IMO it adds nothing to the game. BW wasnt this frenetic before, only up until the past 3-4 years. Youll still have an advantage with handspeed, is bw more about your economy and managing units or is it about handspeed? I mean tasteless suggesting that there should be "key combinations that allow you to build things faster" I mean why stop there, why not just completely code the game by yourself at the start of everygame, then well see whos fast.
On September 04 2007 22:39 sundance wrote: I just want to say that if we have MBS than we need something which will render this ability useless on the pro level. I just don't like the idea of some toggles in options menu that will be turned off in ladder/tournament games.
This is just an example how it could be done.
why should it be useless at the pro level?
All of those guys are relatively equal in game mechanics anyway, it cancels out regardless.
Brutalisk, they played for way more than 1 hour - tasteless said he played for 7 hours and I'm not sure how long the people who went to blizzcon played, but I think they played more than 10 games, and 1 game was .. 15? 20? minutes.
Not that it's a lot of playtime but they all said it made macro too simple. I actually had decided to withhold final judgement until people had actually tested the game, maybe it wasn't extensive testing but.. Meh.
Agreed with Sadist. Macro is much more about not to forget to build that damn units than some hand speed. If you forget to build units now than you will forget to press 4z too.
On September 04 2007 09:18 rpf wrote: I You can ctrl click larvae. It's the same concept, just applied to all races.
THANK YOU ! I've been trying to explain that since forever. MBS is not such a big thing, it won't truly simplify macro in a high skill game. I will just make it different. The multitasking required to actually produce units is still necessary.
On September 04 2007 22:29 sundance wrote: What about make MBS as an upgrade? It would be called something like 'Commanding skill' so it will give you ability to send same command do more then one building. It would be something expensive like shield upgrade in SC1 and it would have three levels. So at level 1 you can select two buildings, level 2 - three and level 3 - four buildings. And also place the upgrade in separate building (expensive) building which will increase the cost of this comfort even more.
So on the high level of the play it would be recognized as waste of money and maybe usable in the late game when you reached the unit cap and have a lot of money. This auto regulation would be imo a lot better and more natural then something artificially forced. So noobs will be upgrading asap so but will die vs timed attack executed by any decent player. And on BGH and FME you can afford anything so noobs will have what they want.
my two euro cents.
EDIT: and unlimited selection could be something like 4th level ultimate upgrade which would costs something like 3000/3000
I feel your idea is REALLY good, but I don't truly know if it will work out. Except for the unlimited selection part, that is unwanted.
On September 04 2007 09:18 rpf wrote: I You can ctrl click larvae. It's the same concept, just applied to all races.
THANK YOU ! I've been trying to explain that since forever. MBS is not such a big thing, it won't truly simplify macro in a high skill game. I will just make it different. The multitasking required to actually produce units is still necessary.
No wtf you can't select all larvae across the map at once with this method.
How can you even consider it to be REMOTELY the same fucking thing.
On September 04 2007 23:02 lololol wrote: Glaring micro mistakes just because the benefit of macro is much higher than micro is NOT what a pro game in a spectator sport should have, period.
.....
WHAT KIND OF ARGUMENT IS THIS!?
The fact that players aren't perfect due to work overload is appealing. The fact that the best players are still so much closer to perfect than the less-than top players is much more apparent with the way things are now than if you do what you suggest.
A player losing all his vessels to scourges because he's too busy defending his base makes things EXCITING.
On September 04 2007 22:29 sundance wrote: What about make MBS as an upgrade? It would be called something like 'Commanding skill' so it will give you ability to send same command do more then one building. It would be something expensive like shield upgrade in SC1 and it would have three levels. So at level 1 you can select two buildings, level 2 - three and level 3 - four buildings. And also place the upgrade in separate building (expensive) building which will increase the cost of this comfort even more.
So on the high level of the play it would be recognized as waste of money and maybe usable in the late game when you reached the unit cap and have a lot of money. This auto regulation would be imo a lot better and more natural then something artificially forced. So noobs will be upgrading asap so but will die vs timed attack executed by any decent player. And on BGH and FME you can afford anything so noobs will have what they want.
my two euro cents.
EDIT: and unlimited selection could be something like 4th level ultimate upgrade which would costs something like 3000/3000
Sounds needlessly complicated, don't like this idea at all personally.
Anyway, MBS + unlimited selection just sounds ugh to me :[
I like Nony's argument for MBS. I mean, you have teamliquid people saying SC2 was very easy etc, but come on, who from TL loses to pub noobs? Tasteless's split for competition would be a good compromise to the situation.
I personally don't think MBS will be that bad. I actually don't like playing SC as much cuz I am bored of macroing.
Having some experience from Armies of Exigo which used both automining and MBS, I have to agree that introducing these to BW would have drastic effects on how the game is played. In the early game you\'ll be staring at your band of men which you will either have in a defensive position or be moving back and forth to pressure or micro in a battle. Some argue that multifront-micro will help you outwit your opponent by being mechanically faster, but splitting your army early would mostly just cause you to lose map control because his more concentrated army would be able to scare away both parts of your army.
You would mostly win that game by having better timing on your macro (making production buildings at the right times, cutting worker production, expo timing etc), a specifically optimized build order or just plainly using some hidden strat that the opponent would not be able to see in time. Despite having more time to micro, micro became a smaller part of the game, I felt, because the power of micro is strongest when the opponent is not microing well.
Starcraft II will be different from Armies of Exigo, but I fear MBS and automining will have similar effects on it. As a consumer I would want something more than a game that boils down to little more than knowing some build orders. But at the same time I think it's time to leave the realm of repetitive tedious actions. If Blizzard decides to keep MBS and automining, they really need something new to keep you occupied in the early part of the game...
On September 04 2007 22:43 sundance wrote: Agreed with Sadist. Macro is much more about not to forget to build that damn units than some hand speed. If you forget to build units now than you will forget to press 4z too.
But the thing is, if you can hotkey all ur production buildings to just a few hotkeys, you can more easily check on when to build things. Also, you will very rarely have to go back to your base(s) for the purpose of building units since you have enough hotkeys for everything, hence lessening the amount of multitasking required. I dunno if its just me and my slow speed, but sometimes I know the timing of when I need to build the next cycle of units but choose to delay it slightly becuase microing my army at the moment takes precedence. With mbs just one or two press you could get macro out of the way.
So mbs would affect macro a lot simply because you wouldn't need to devote as much attention to your base.
A lot of people have proposed the multiple select but you have to tab... but to be honest tabbing through 10 gates instead of using one 1 would only take at most one second longer anyways. The difference between tabbing through gates with mbs and the current interface in sc1 is that you dont have to press 55 then click z click z click z ect..., which takes away from your attention and time. One reason why speed is so important is because you have to get macro out of the way quickly in order to focus again on your army. If you can essentially focus on your army the whole time, then it doesn't really matter than much how fast you macro because your attention is not diverted nearly as much. The same concept applies with automining... you dont have to go back to your cc or nexus to tell probes to mine.
I mention multitasking speed a lot because for a player like me its no problem playing fast at like 300+ apm when I'm looking on one screen, but when I'm forced to constantly shift between base and my army and other shit my speed drops considerably because my multitasking isn't that fast. Still, i think tabbing would be better than mbs with none at all since at least it would add some need for hand dexterity. But then again, with both mbs and automining, the importance of speed is greatly lessened.
But ya as people have said it doesn't matter if mbs and automining are in teh game as long as there are more macro tasks that require good multitasking.
What about make MBS as an upgrade? It would be called something like 'Commanding skill' so it will give you ability to send same command do more then one building. It would be something expensive like shield upgrade in SC1 and it would have three levels. So at level 1 you can select two buildings, level 2 - three and level 3 - four buildings. And also place the upgrade in separate building (expensive) building which will increase the cost of this comfort even more.
So on the high level of the play it would be recognized as waste of money and maybe usable in the late game when you reached the unit cap and have a lot of money. This auto regulation would be imo a lot better and more natural then something artificially forced. So noobs will be upgrading asap so but will die vs timed attack executed by any decent player. And on BGH and FME you can afford anything so noobs will have what they want.
my two euro cents.
EDIT: and unlimited selection could be something like 4th level ultimate upgrade which would costs something like 3000/3000
I really like the general idea.
I'd rather have a button in the UI for that though, "personal upgrades" or something. Ok, that's not a great name, but it symbolizes the level of personal competence (of the character you represent in the game) when it comes to managing your subordinated. It would obviously be reset to 0 when a new game starts.
"So on the high level of the play it would be recognized as waste of money and maybe usable in the late game when you reached the unit cap and have a lot of money."
So let me get this straight: what makes BW so great is having to play despite having to macro, as opposed to the silly notions of strategic depth and faction balance. Therefore, making macro significantly easier will turn SCII into a boring C&C clone with hordes of units rolling over one another. In the end, BW is basically just another RTS, only you have to do absolutely everything yourself. Cue progaming.
Did I come close to accurately describing the sentiment here?
On September 05 2007 02:04 Chodorkovskiy wrote: Okay...
So let me get this straight: what makes BW so great is having to play despite having to macro, as opposed to the silly notions of strategic depth and faction balance. Therefore, making macro significantly easier will turn SCII into a boring C&C clone with hordes of units rolling over one another. In the end, BW is basically just another RTS, only you have to do absolutely everything yourself. Cue progaming.
Did I come close to accurately describing the sentiment here?
Do you try extra hard to miss the point or something?
BW is great because it is is all those things, it has strategic depth, it has great demands for dexterity, it is superbly balanced.
Making macro signficantly easier would not turn it into CnC, it would just make the game less good than SC.
On September 05 2007 02:04 Chodorkovskiy wrote: Okay...
So let me get this straight: what makes BW so great is having to play despite having to macro, as opposed to the silly notions of strategic depth and faction balance. Therefore, making macro significantly easier will turn SCII into a boring C&C clone with hordes of units rolling over one another. In the end, BW is basically just another RTS, only you have to do absolutely everything yourself. Cue progaming.
Did I come close to accurately describing the sentiment here?
Do you try extra hard to miss the point or something?
BW is great because it is is all those things, it has strategic depth, it has great demands for dexterity, it is superbly balanced.
Very well. Will tipping the balance in favor of micro turn it into a C&C clone?
On September 04 2007 06:27 MyLostTemple wrote: Lets say your maxed in a pvz, your done teching, your done upgrading. All that's left is to macro out of your 20 gates and fight over resource locations. Now what if i could just hit 4z and make 20 zealots... macroing like reach. Now what am i supposed to do?... Micro?... But i'm not a war3 player. I don't just want to micro. I love macroing because i'm a true sc player. This wasn't some silly obstacle that had to be overcome with a better interface... it's an awesome feature that made sc so great.
Now lets take that a step further. Lets say z only needs this three unit combination on map A to beat a protoss. Meanwhile the protoss needs a 10 unit type combination to beat the zerg. Guess what happens:
here's how z will play:
4z5h6m
here's how p will play:
1m2h3y4s5z6c7q8o9l0n
obviously these hotkeys are made up as well as the scenario. The point is that races that may require only a few different types of units may have a WAY easier time macroing than the opposing race who needs to produce a more diverse unit base. The beauty of not having MBS is that it comes as a great equalizer regardless of how your macroing. You still have to make one action for every unit you wish to produce, regardless of how diverse the unit base is.
Again i don't really care if MBS is in sc2 as long as it's not in the multiplayer competitive scene.
Maybe they should make it so that when you have multiple buildings selected it requires you to press the key once for every unit you wanna make.
So that would make a bit less of an imbalance between races that require more diversity
with the same example you used, in order to make 8 zealots, instead of doing: 4z. you would have to do 4zzzzzzzz.
Very well. Will tipping the balance in favor of micro turn it into a C&C clone?
So you read the notice, and then continue making small posts that contribute next to nothing to the discussion. Take it elsewhere.
Anyway.. I feel that MBS and auto-mining should not be in the game. MBS will obviously not make every player suddenly transform into iloveoov and be able to utilise his amazing feats of macro, but it will make macromanagement considerably easier. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Depending on how matchups play out in SC2 (for instance, MBS in SC1 in TvP would be ridiculous, all you'd need to do is hotkey 4 factories to 6 and 8 factories to 7. 6t7v done) and on how many units need to be utilised, which appears to be something that Blizzard is trying to address what with the introduction of Hardened Shields and other such abilities, MBS could break the game. Sure, it's not as easy as hotkeying all of your factories/gateways/hatcheries to one key and just hitting a single combination of keys, but hotkeying 3-4 groups of said production facilities and being able to mass-produce units out of them instead of tabbing back to your base to select each one individually is going to be a lot easier.
Will it make the game less enjoyable (enjoyment is subjective, but I feel that's the closest word I can get to describe it)? I think it will, and so does the majority of the forum. Will it make the game easier to play? This is hard to say. It will make macromanagement easier, for sure, but overall your focus now is probably going to be on the battles you're fighting instead of having to strike a balance between managing your base and managing your fights. I'm not the best of players, and I have to strike a balance between micromanagement and macromanagement because I cannot do both at the same time in a matchup like TvZ, where marines are being pumped constantly and you're fighting battles over expansions and fending off harass all game. You know what? I like it that way. It gives me something to aim for. I am really, really glad that I can't just start playing seriously and do everything perfectly. I'm not saying that MBS will grant me the ability to do anything perfectly, but it will certainly make it easier.
On to the next point of discussion, auto-mining.
In SC1, base management plays a very important role. You have to 1) Make expansions when you deem it fit. 2) Build supply depots/pylons/overlords at regular intervals. 3) Tab back to your base every so often and keep the units pumping from your production facilities. 4) Make sure your workers aren't slacking off at their rally point. 5) Do the above in an efficient manner that doesn't sacrifice all of your micromanagement. This is very hard. This is why oov is regarded as an amazing player, because he can do all of these efficiently. Obviously, this is not all there is to base management, as there are some other minor things that must be addressed (like building placement. Nobody wants their dragoons to be trapped behind pylons), but I feel these are the crucial points.
Now, point 3 is lessened somewhat in that you can probably accomplish the majority of it with hotkeys while your screen is on a battle, so the 'balance' between micro and macro here is being pushed firmly in the favour of micro. I personally don't like that at all. The people who do seem to be in the vocal minority here at TeamLiquid, which is most likely because of the audience it caters to.
Point 4 is completely nullified. Once you've got scvs on all of your starting minerals, you don't have to worry about where your scvs are. You can just pump them and forget about it. I don't really know what the aim of this change is, but the apparent effect is that it simplifies base management in a large way and makes the game easier. I'm not sure if Blizzard wants an easier game, but I know I don't. I really don't feel that the current SC UI is 'outdated' or 'archaic' at all. I think it's doing perfectly fine 9 years down the track.
SC2 will look like a dinosaur in the gaming industry without standard modern RTS features like MBS and intelligent rallying. One aspect of that I'm especially worried about is that non-SC RTS gamers will be put off by the relatively archaic interface most of you are suggesting for SC2, and the community will be hurt by the loss of that demographic. Also, gamers in general are following the trend of more user friendly interfaces, and Blizzard must consider them because we hardcore SC fans will not form the majority of the people who will be purchasing SC2 (At least outside of Korea).
Uhm, I'm not sure that easier macro = micro more important.
It could be that macro becomes even more important, and if you don't keep up you'll lose. Time spent microing perhaps can't compare to time spent macro in terms of output. Why? Improved attack-move, better pathing, and since miners now auto-gather, every time you miss-time unit production the hit will be bigger, since the unit won't sit around idle anyway in your base etc
So imo everything points right now that macro is -more- important than before, not the other way around.
On September 05 2007 03:06 Luhh wrote: Uhm, I'm not sure that easier macro = micro more important.
It could be that macro becomes even more important, and if you don't keep up you'll lose. Time spent microing perhaps can't compare to time spent macro in terms of output. Why? Improved attack-move, better pathing, and since miners now auto-gather, every time you miss-time unit production the hit will be bigger, since the unit won't sit around idle anyway in your base etc
So imo everything points right now that macro is -more- important than before, not the other way around.
Well I guess if you screwed up macro you would be even more behind (since opponents would have much better unit production than before).
However, because much less time is spent macroing than before, a much larger portion of the game will be centered around microing. And becuase unit production and base management is easier, the chances of two average players having similar levels of macro is higher.
When macro is relatively even, the distinction between the two will then come down to the micro, hence making micro more important. In sc1 out macroing your opponent could often result in victory but in sc2 the chances of that happening to an adequate margin is reduced, again making micro more important.
Two things. First, something I don't think has been brought up. I've said that reducing macro with things like MBS, automine, building queuing, etc. won't hurt that much if there are other tasks (on the micro side) that are added in order to keep a player busy (or ideally, overwhelmed). The problem is, they seem to be doing the exact opposite:
1) In BW, there's no easy "hard counter" to tanks once mines are up. You need to carefully move command some zealots to drag the mines, or use very micro-intensive zealot drops while you're sending the rest of your force in. In SC2, the immortals shields kick in vs terran metal, and less micro is required. 2) In BW, splash damage is deadly if you don't carefully micro against it. A firebat can kill tons of zerglings, corsairs fry all your mutas, and lurkers annihilate marines. In SC2, Firebats are gone, as are corsairs, and we don't know about lurkers. Even archons seem to have a smaller radius based on the clips I've seen. Sure, there's the phoenix's overload, but that just requires you to move your units once, and might not be used much because of the immobility drawback. You don't have to constantly be microing mutas, making sure no two are touching each other in order to avoid splash. 3) In BW, AoE spells are very powerful, especially when your opponent is occupied with macroing. Storm has a large area of effect, and kills or leaves most zerg units with only a few hit points. Irradiate can decimate a control group of mutalisks, and even less common spells like stasis, ensnare, and plague make it beneficial to carefully space your units when you see a caster around, adding more to the micro side of the game. In SC2, storm is smaller and weaker, irradiate's gone, and stasis appears to be smaller. We don't know about zerg's spells, but given the current trends, I'd be surprised if they weren't all removed or weakened, meaning less micro required because of casters. Disruption web is also gone. 4) There are several other smaller elements that are being removed, like having to remember to train interceptors and scarabs (probably falls under macro though), the micro-intensive lockdown ability is gone, and vulture mines (hugely powerful in the hands of someone with amazing micro) are out. Small things like microing 1 vulture vs several zealots or lings were fun and could change an entire game, but sadly most of the units appear to require LESS micro than in BW. What does that mean? If we shift SC2 towards the most basic micro (moving back weak units and selective targeting), it becomes WC3 micro, but with a few less hitpoints. That's not fun micro. Fun micro mixes in controlling unit formations, dropping some units (reavers, zealots) while attacking with others from the front, casting spells, dodging splash and AoE spells, carefully using multiple control groups, and not having enough time to do it right because you have to manually select each gateway to make more units. It's somewhat frantic, but that adds a lot to the feel and the enjoyment of it. MBS, unlimited unit selection, automine, and hard counters remove or weaken most of these things, even if indirectly.
Granted there are things I'm missing. Blink can probably use a lot of micro, but I don't see it using THAT MUCH more than a goon. From blizzcon, it appears 1 cannon at each base prevents reaper raids, so that's another attempt to add micro that appears to have failed. Other units may appear to have amazing micro-intensive uses that have simply not developed yet because we haven't seen or used them enough, etc.
The second thing I wanted to mention is the claim the pro-automation side is using, saying people against automation are simply being emotional, trying to make the game suit them, and trying to make it a certain way to be the same as the game we love, BroodWar. If anything, it's the exact opposite. As you can see from reading the posts in this thread, it is the ANTI-automation side making well thought-out, concise posts. We are using logic to explain exactly how we believe MBS and other features will affect casual and competitive gaming. It is the PRO-automation side using arguments like "it'll shift it towards other things" and "we can't tell until the game's out." Well what are those other things, and why would that be an improvement? And as for waiting until the game's out, it'll be too late then. They aren't going to patch something like MBS out of the game once it's released, and I DOUBT they'd take it out if it's in the beta testing. The time to use our knowledge and experience of RTS games and features is now. A lot of it IS guessing, but we are making educated guesses based on an insane amount of combined gaming experience. Don't take features out just because you were too slow to master BW, then try to call the other side the irrational, manipulative side.
That's my two cents on the matters, and I don't think that had been mentioned.
Really guys... why keep a outdated interface. It's true if SC2 alot of similar mechanics to SC1 the game would be a dinosaur. Stuff like smart casting auto worker gathering, multiple building selection etc are rather mandatory in this day and age. I don't think it'll hamper competitive play at all, but all we can do is wait and see.
The myth is that it takes alot of handspeed to play BW, when it only takes timing. And guess what? You can play the game on normal speed, bet you didnt know about that ^_^. Make ladders for seperate speeds if anything, dont need to make mbs/non mbs ladders when you can just leave MBS out ^_^.
On September 05 2007 04:00 HunterGatherer wrote: The myth is that it takes alot of handspeed to play BW, when it only takes timing. And guess what? You can play the game on normal speed, bet you didnt know about that ^_^. Make ladders for seperate speeds if anything, dont need to make mbs/non mbs ladders when you can just leave MBS out ^_^.
That's actually a great point I hadn't thought of: If you think there's too much macro and clicking, play on the fast game speed. Problem solved.
On September 05 2007 04:00 HunterGatherer wrote: The myth is that it takes alot of handspeed to play BW, when it only takes timing. And guess what? You can play the game on normal speed, bet you didnt know about that ^_^. Make ladders for seperate speeds if anything, dont need to make mbs/non mbs ladders when you can just leave MBS out ^_^.
That is a good alternative. Maybe we will even see different styles of gameplay emerge on different speeds, because it's possible to do more on Fast than it is on Fastest in the same timeframe. I completely forgot about different gamespeeds. I would be in support of seperate-speed ladders/tournaments if it meant MBS was out.
On September 05 2007 02:04 Chodorkovskiy wrote: Okay...
So let me get this straight: what makes BW so great is having to play despite having to macro, as opposed to the silly notions of strategic depth and faction balance. Therefore, making macro significantly easier will turn SCII into a boring C&C clone with hordes of units rolling over one another. In the end, BW is basically just another RTS, only you have to do absolutely everything yourself. Cue progaming.
Did I come close to accurately describing the sentiment here?
Do you try extra hard to miss the point or something?
BW is great because it is is all those things, it has strategic depth, it has great demands for dexterity, it is superbly balanced.
Very well. Will tipping the balance in favor of micro turn it into a C&C clone?
NO? It just makes it a worse game!?
On September 05 2007 03:46 YinYang69 wrote: Really guys... why keep a outdated interface. It's true if SC2 alot of similar mechanics to SC1 the game would be a dinosaur. Stuff like smart casting auto worker gathering, multiple building selection etc are rather mandatory in this day and age. I don't think it'll hamper competitive play at all, but all we can do is wait and see.
I pity the people of the next generation who'll grow up with pussy games where the computer plays for you, since obviously that's where things are headed.
On September 05 2007 02:04 Chodorkovskiy wrote: Okay...
So let me get this straight: what makes BW so great is having to play despite having to macro, as opposed to the silly notions of strategic depth and faction balance. Therefore, making macro significantly easier will turn SCII into a boring C&C clone with hordes of units rolling over one another. In the end, BW is basically just another RTS, only you have to do absolutely everything yourself. Cue progaming.
Did I come close to accurately describing the sentiment here?
Do you try extra hard to miss the point or something?
BW is great because it is is all those things, it has strategic depth, it has great demands for dexterity, it is superbly balanced.
Very well. Will tipping the balance in favor of micro turn it into a C&C clone?
NO? It just makes it a worse game!?
Chillax. I may sometimes sound stubborn and deaf to reason, but I'm honestly not.
In fact, I have mixed feelings about the issue myself. On one hand, something is very wrong with a game, when you need to practice for weeks, before you can simply build an army as fast as the mechanics let you. On the other hand, intensive macro does promote intensive micro, since it sets the pace for the whole game. I think the only reason Blizzard wants to implement these changes, is to make the game appeal to a wider audience than now. I know for a fact, that a lot of gamers shun from BW precisely because of the focus it puts on economy. Naturally, Blizzard would want them to stop doing that and buy the damn game already.
Bottom line: One cannot stand in the way of progress (capitalism). The changes will be made and they will make the game more user-friendly. However, you and others have made a compelling argument for the current state of the UI and I believe Blizzard understands the value of judgement by experienced players. I find it likely, that the game will have a "classic" mode of sorts, only instead of old units, it will feature the old UI. This way, the competitive community can choose for itself.
Even on the slowest speed in BW you are handicapped by what you can possibly do. Slower game speeds does not mean less skill, it just means more micro and less macro.Im trying to see the light in MBS but its just not kosher. Panning back to my base away from micro into macro is the whole point of it, and its going to make slower game speeds drop in how rich your gameplay experience is. Its only 1 extra click on iether the minimap or hotkey to make it back to your base.Blizzard is going to install MBS wich causes more bad than good over 1 simple click with your mouse?BW style macro is what needs to be in every next-generation RTS, not this bs we have been seeing!
On September 04 2007 11:12 CaucasianAsian wrote: It is a known fact that Starcraft is a macro-orientated game. For instance, we focus our times timing expansions, build orders, reacting to our opponents build orders, creating the right amount and type of units, the production of supplies, or in starcraft II's case, food, building production, etc... When we take away things that make Starcraft what it is, it loses that feeling. I have not played Starcraft II, but just through all of the press, it seems as if it is being more orientated to micro. Why should a player such as the monster, cheater terran (iloveoov), give up his amazing skills so someone who just bought the game can preform in macro management in such a way that it competes with him.
Listing all the aspects of macro that make SC great that MBS/automine do not effect is certainly a logical approach to explaining why MBS/automine should not be in the game.
If you want logical arguments, I'll give you two:
1) SC2 without MBS/automine will make it a very inaccessible game compared to its brethren in the RTS genre for those who haven't been playing it for the past 9 years. Inaccessability is one of the best way to kill a game's e-sport potential, as it decreases the flow of new players into the community. Look at Quake for example. It's one of the best FPS games, yet it's losing its position in esports because the movement required to play at a decent skill level is considerably difficult to learn. For those who would point out Korea as a counterexample, SC's popularity in Korea is something of a fluke - due to the government's concentration on broadband and the high cost of computers, PC baangs became a major social activity, and since Korean law at the time banned most FPSs due to violent content, SC was one of the few (if not the only) high-quality games available to the Korean public at the time. However, this is not the case nowadays, so if SC2 continues to be as inaccessible to incoming players no esports organization outside of Korea will pick it up.
2) Blizzard taking out MBS/automine without testing it first in beta would be a very poor decision. One of the first rules of iterative game design is that you need to play the game in order to determine the affect that changes in the rules have on the dynamics of the gameplay. Therefore, there is no real way for us to determine whether MBS/automine benefits or detriments the gameplay without extensive playtesting on our part.
Different speed is a bad idea. The whole concept of being able to select different game speeds is bad. Once a casual player used to slow speed comes in interaction with BattleNet or a public LAN he will be forced by all other players to play with fastest. So why not just start with the one that all use... if there is a speed setting, all players use fastest anyway. BW showed that. Normal? Fast? No, from beginning on players created games at Fastest setting. So just make the fastest speed the default game speed and remove the option to choose game speed altogether.
Actually, this probably also means that MBS should be either completely in (for all games, casual and competitive) or completely out... if you make UI differences, then you basically really split the game in two and make it VERY difficult for players who are not used to the other side to change their habit/timing/game feel and so on.
On September 05 2007 03:33 LonelyMargarita wrote: Two things. First, something I don't think has been brought up. I've said that reducing macro with things like MBS, automine, building queuing, etc. won't hurt that much if there are other tasks (on the micro side) that are added in order to keep a player busy (or ideally, overwhelmed). The problem is, they seem to be doing the exact opposite:
1) In BW, there's no easy "hard counter" to tanks once mines are up. You need to carefully move command some zealots to drag the mines, or use very micro-intensive zealot drops while you're sending the rest of your force in. In SC2, the immortals shields kick in vs terran metal, and less micro is required. 2) In BW, splash damage is deadly if you don't carefully micro against it. A firebat can kill tons of zerglings, corsairs fry all your mutas, and lurkers annihilate marines. In SC2, Firebats are gone, as are corsairs, and we don't know about lurkers. Even archons seem to have a smaller radius based on the clips I've seen. Sure, there's the phoenix's overload, but that just requires you to move your units once, and might not be used much because of the immobility drawback. You don't have to constantly be microing mutas, making sure no two are touching each other in order to avoid splash. 3) In BW, AoE spells are very powerful, especially when your opponent is occupied with macroing. Storm has a large area of effect, and kills or leaves most zerg units with only a few hit points. Irradiate can decimate a control group of mutalisks, and even less common spells like stasis, ensnare, and plague make it beneficial to carefully space your units when you see a caster around, adding more to the micro side of the game. In SC2, storm is smaller and weaker, irradiate's gone, and stasis appears to be smaller. We don't know about zerg's spells, but given the current trends, I'd be surprised if they weren't all removed or weakened, meaning less micro required because of casters. Disruption web is also gone. 4) There are several other smaller elements that are being removed, like having to remember to train interceptors and scarabs (probably falls under macro though), the micro-intensive lockdown ability is gone, and vulture mines (hugely powerful in the hands of someone with amazing micro) are out. Small things like microing 1 vulture vs several zealots or lings were fun and could change an entire game, but sadly most of the units appear to require LESS micro than in BW. What does that mean? If we shift SC2 towards the most basic micro (moving back weak units and selective targeting), it becomes WC3 micro, but with a few less hitpoints. That's not fun micro. Fun micro mixes in controlling unit formations, dropping some units (reavers, zealots) while attacking with others from the front, casting spells, dodging splash and AoE spells, carefully using multiple control groups, and not having enough time to do it right because you have to manually select each gateway to make more units. It's somewhat frantic, but that adds a lot to the feel and the enjoyment of it. MBS, unlimited unit selection, automine, and hard counters remove or weaken most of these things, even if indirectly.
Granted there are things I'm missing. Blink can probably use a lot of micro, but I don't see it using THAT MUCH more than a goon. From blizzcon, it appears 1 cannon at each base prevents reaper raids, so that's another attempt to add micro that appears to have failed. Other units may appear to have amazing micro-intensive uses that have simply not developed yet because we haven't seen or used them enough, etc.
The second thing I wanted to mention is the claim the pro-automation side is using, saying people against automation are simply being emotional, trying to make the game suit them, and trying to make it a certain way to be the same as the game we love, BroodWar. If anything, it's the exact opposite. As you can see from reading the posts in this thread, it is the ANTI-automation side making well thought-out, concise posts. We are using logic to explain exactly how we believe MBS and other features will affect casual and competitive gaming. It is the PRO-automation side using arguments like "it'll shift it towards other things" and "we can't tell until the game's out." Well what are those other things, and why would that be an improvement? And as for waiting until the game's out, it'll be too late then. They aren't going to patch something like MBS out of the game once it's released, and I DOUBT they'd take it out if it's in the beta testing. The time to use our knowledge and experience of RTS games and features is now. A lot of it IS guessing, but we are making educated guesses based on an insane amount of combined gaming experience. Don't take features out just because you were too slow to master BW, then try to call the other side the irrational, manipulative side.
That's my two cents on the matters, and I don't think that had been mentioned.
Edit x2.
All you're doing is naming the things SC2 doesn't carry over from BW, and with that mentality of course SC2 won't satisfy you. 1 cannon per base prevents reaper raids? What? Hello mines? Autobuild interceptors will eat up minerals, and how often do you see carriers in pro games regardless? Not serious business. Lockdown was lost but now there's snipe, where ghosts will be employed to snipe templar, other ghosts, medics, god knows what the Zerg have.
We could do this all day, where we just point out things that are or are not in SC2. No matter what, these features will probably be in SC2, as they SHOULD be. The least you can do is try to offer ways of keeping the macro level on a competitive level with such a feature (ie warp gates.) If you can't, then SC2 probably isn't the game for you.
Wow. The pro-automation side has now abandoned all logic and argumentation, and has resorted to, "it's going to be done no matter what you say; deal with it." You KNOW you've lost the debate when that's all you're left to type.
On September 05 2007 06:45 LonelyMargarita wrote: Wow. The pro-automation side has now abandoned all logic and argumentation, and has resorted to, "it's going to be done no matter what you say; deal with it." You KNOW you've lost the debate when that's all you're left to type.
I'm sorry you don't want to hear the truth. And to be quite honest I don't want to see auto-mining in the game, but it probably will. That's the reality of it, the UI becomes IMPROVED with each generation, it doesn't take a step backward. And really, a game having to rely on its UI for difficulty just shouldn't be so.
So yes, MBS will almost likely be in SC2. Already warp gate, interchangeable Terran addons and salvage fight to make up for this. Hell, warp gate is even more difficult to use than the current construction methods due to the fact that you have to click where they go. So please, keep using words like "pro-automation" to try and look like a TL elite. Meanwhile the rational ones will actually try and think of ways to IMPROVE a game while keeping it challenging and competitive.
On September 05 2007 05:59 Brutalisk wrote: Different speed is a bad idea. The whole concept of being able to select different game speeds is bad. Once a casual player used to slow speed comes in interaction with BattleNet or a public LAN he will be forced by all other players to play with fastest. So why not just start with the one that all use... if there is a speed setting, all players use fastest anyway. BW showed that. Normal? Fast? No, from beginning on players created games at Fastest setting. So just make the fastest speed the default game speed and remove the option to choose game speed altogether.
Actually, this probably also means that MBS should be either completely in (for all games, casual and competitive) or completely out... if you make UI differences, then you basically really split the game in two and make it VERY difficult for players who are not used to the other side to change their habit/timing/game feel and so on.
Ladder used to be on Fast and initially people didn't play fastest, it was added as a joke speed.
On September 05 2007 03:33 LonelyMargarita wrote: Two things. First, something I don't think has been brought up. I've said that reducing macro with things like MBS, automine, building queuing, etc. won't hurt that much if there are other tasks (on the micro side) that are added in order to keep a player busy (or ideally, overwhelmed). The problem is, they seem to be doing the exact opposite:
1) In BW, there's no easy "hard counter" to tanks once mines are up. You need to carefully move command some zealots to drag the mines, or use very micro-intensive zealot drops while you're sending the rest of your force in. In SC2, the immortals shields kick in vs terran metal, and less micro is required. 2) In BW, splash damage is deadly if you don't carefully micro against it. A firebat can kill tons of zerglings, corsairs fry all your mutas, and lurkers annihilate marines. In SC2, Firebats are gone, as are corsairs, and we don't know about lurkers. Even archons seem to have a smaller radius based on the clips I've seen. Sure, there's the phoenix's overload, but that just requires you to move your units once, and might not be used much because of the immobility drawback. You don't have to constantly be microing mutas, making sure no two are touching each other in order to avoid splash. 3) In BW, AoE spells are very powerful, especially when your opponent is occupied with macroing. Storm has a large area of effect, and kills or leaves most zerg units with only a few hit points. Irradiate can decimate a control group of mutalisks, and even less common spells like stasis, ensnare, and plague make it beneficial to carefully space your units when you see a caster around, adding more to the micro side of the game. In SC2, storm is smaller and weaker, irradiate's gone, and stasis appears to be smaller. We don't know about zerg's spells, but given the current trends, I'd be surprised if they weren't all removed or weakened, meaning less micro required because of casters. Disruption web is also gone. 4) There are several other smaller elements that are being removed, like having to remember to train interceptors and scarabs (probably falls under macro though), the micro-intensive lockdown ability is gone, and vulture mines (hugely powerful in the hands of someone with amazing micro) are out. Small things like microing 1 vulture vs several zealots or lings were fun and could change an entire game, but sadly most of the units appear to require LESS micro than in BW. What does that mean? If we shift SC2 towards the most basic micro (moving back weak units and selective targeting), it becomes WC3 micro, but with a few less hitpoints. That's not fun micro. Fun micro mixes in controlling unit formations, dropping some units (reavers, zealots) while attacking with others from the front, casting spells, dodging splash and AoE spells, carefully using multiple control groups, and not having enough time to do it right because you have to manually select each gateway to make more units. It's somewhat frantic, but that adds a lot to the feel and the enjoyment of it. MBS, unlimited unit selection, automine, and hard counters remove or weaken most of these things, even if indirectly.
Granted there are things I'm missing. Blink can probably use a lot of micro, but I don't see it using THAT MUCH more than a goon. From blizzcon, it appears 1 cannon at each base prevents reaper raids, so that's another attempt to add micro that appears to have failed. Other units may appear to have amazing micro-intensive uses that have simply not developed yet because we haven't seen or used them enough, etc.
The second thing I wanted to mention is the claim the pro-automation side is using, saying people against automation are simply being emotional, trying to make the game suit them, and trying to make it a certain way to be the same as the game we love, BroodWar. If anything, it's the exact opposite. As you can see from reading the posts in this thread, it is the ANTI-automation side making well thought-out, concise posts. We are using logic to explain exactly how we believe MBS and other features will affect casual and competitive gaming. It is the PRO-automation side using arguments like "it'll shift it towards other things" and "we can't tell until the game's out." Well what are those other things, and why would that be an improvement? And as for waiting until the game's out, it'll be too late then. They aren't going to patch something like MBS out of the game once it's released, and I DOUBT they'd take it out if it's in the beta testing. The time to use our knowledge and experience of RTS games and features is now. A lot of it IS guessing, but we are making educated guesses based on an insane amount of combined gaming experience. Don't take features out just because you were too slow to master BW, then try to call the other side the irrational, manipulative side.
That's my two cents on the matters, and I don't think that had been mentioned.
Edit x2.
All you're doing is naming the things SC2 doesn't carry over from BW, and with that mentality of course SC2 won't satisfy you. 1 cannon per base prevents reaper raids? What? Hello mines? Autobuild interceptors will eat up minerals, and how often do you see carriers in pro games regardless? Not serious business. Lockdown was lost but now there's snipe, where ghosts will be employed to snipe templar, other ghosts, medics, god knows what the Zerg have.
We could do this all day, where we just point out things that are or are not in SC2. No matter what, these features will probably be in SC2, as they SHOULD be. The least you can do is try to offer ways of keeping the macro level on a competitive level with such a feature (ie warp gates.) If you can't, then SC2 probably isn't the game for you.
What are you talking about? Carriers are one of the most frequent units used in PvT.
What are you talking about? Carriers are one of the most frequent units used in PvT.
Carriers are a powerful unit against the terran yes, but does every game last until carrier tech? Regardless, main point of my post wasn't about carriers, so stop trying to pick a useless point.
What are you talking about? Carriers are one of the most frequent units used in PvT.
Carriers are a powerful unit against the terran yes, but does every game last until carrier tech? Regardless, main point of my post wasn't about carriers, so stop trying to pick a useless point.
It's far from a useless point. A lack of understanding of a subject means that you shouldn't be involved in an in-depth discussion about it and its sequel.
On September 05 2007 06:45 LonelyMargarita wrote: Wow. The pro-automation side has now abandoned all logic and argumentation, and has resorted to, "it's going to be done no matter what you say; deal with it." You KNOW you've lost the debate when that's all you're left to type.
That's rather hypocritical for you to say, considering you skipped over two reasonably thought-out points of mine. How about you address the actual "pro-automation" arguments for a change?
Edit: I'm sorry if that sounded rude, but I'm getting irritated of both sides ignoring the valid points the other side is making and nit-picking just so they can feel 'right'.
It's far from a useless point. A lack of understanding of a subject means that you shouldn't be involved in an in-depth discussion about it and its sequel.
And I retorted that point anyways, so stop trying to rebuke my entire argument by trying to take a stab at some bad wording. You lose.
Tasteless your the man, but this topic has been discussed already. I love how because tasteless posted this how no one flames, but when some one like red[sparten] posts you get well, this...
Anyway I'm going to say what I said back then which has already been brought up in this post but got not recognition in a closed thread:
On August 07 2007 20:43 houseurmusic wrote: I think a lot of people are scared the game is going to turn how like warcraft where there wasnt much to do (as opposed to starcraft). I think Blizzard knows this and have no intentions of making a boring or slow paced game. I have a feeling from the other forums I have read that SC2 is going to be a lot faster pace then the original. If this is true, yah they are adding some things that in a sense are making the game easier, but by having less time to do these things will make the game just as hard as the original or not even harder.You also have to add in the fact that by making things easier in this aspect its going to make it a lot easier to lose your force or get your base fucked over, thus making it a more difficult game.
So mb blizzard wont have a amatuer and pro mode of the game, but if you are able to adjust the speed of the play, then that would be equivelent to your post.
Also by making the game faster paced, and the macro easier, wouldnt this make for more room to expand? If the game ends up being faster with a lot less room for error in macro, by the 10 minute marker of a standard game starting a new expansion (assuming you already have your natural) would be easily viable. By the 15 minute marker on a bigger map a player can take quite a few expansions and easily tend to their defenses.
An example: I'm a pretty newb BW player, your average c c- player. My zvt is good till I get to late game because its just to hard to defend all my expos with defilers while trying to build the right amount of lurkers, defilers, contantly building drones and sending them to mine all while trying to do some damage to the terran. By making all these things easier it will be easier for me to defend the few espos that I have. Now at a pro level making all these things easier will be able to manage and defend even more expansions. What if the standard play for SC2 is twice the macro of todays BW? I think that would compensate for the easier UI.
What are you talking about? Carriers are one of the most frequent units used in PvT.
Carriers are a powerful unit against the terran yes, but does every game last until carrier tech? Regardless, main point of my post wasn't about carriers, so stop trying to pick a useless point.
Uh, carrier rushing is used a shitload, and they see lategame use in every matchup.
I was just pointing it out.
Saying "How often do you see carriers used in progames anyway" does not make sense, if you said "How often do you see queens used in progames anyway" that'd be one thing.
If MBS is not implemented, i agree the different game speeds would do the trick to (potentially) satisfy everyone, but it will never be the case and you know why ?
Fucking everyone will end up playing on fastest cause it's fast paced, keep players on the toes, and finally everyone will enjoy it much more. That's why we don't even need MBS.
In WHICH way is it an improvement seriously ? And im sick and tired of people saying ironicaly dune interface will be better in that case. Are you fucking stupid ? It's not the solution either, everything is about balance...
Ok, so now let me make a couple of points here from the (mainly) wc3 players perspective:
1. Why the hell would auto-minig suck? It's an awesome feature that lets you handle the army and not the workers.
2. MBS is bullshit? Man, if you have different kinds of buildings under one hotkey and you have to tab through them to build stuff (and notice that you don't even see if you started producing there, you can check it by the amount of resources missing but if you want to be sure that your command actually worked you would have to select single building anyway) and (what was raised in other topic) if you have more than one building under one hotkey you don't really control which one of them is producing units. Edit: And what if let's say you have 3 barracks under one hotkey and 2 factories under the other. You don't have much resources and you can afford and you want to produce 2 units from barracks and 1 unit from factory. How will that help? If you select factories first you will build 2 units from the factories and if you select barracks first you will produce 3 units there and won't be able to afford this 1 unit you wanted off the facts. (I know it doesn't make much sense but I hope you get my point)
3. MBS and AM being forcefully turned off in all ladder? The game would die too fast, because there wouldn't be enough people who would wish to suffer from inferior/outdated interface. Man, if you really want to control your macroing you have to do most of it manually anyway (taking into consideration 2 previous points: MBS and AM make macroing simplier but not precise, and I truly believe that at competetive level you won't be able to let yourself be imprecise and you will have to struggle more).
So please stop once for all bitching about interface improvements which don't make it all that easier but completely DIFFERENT (new game, new interface, remember? How many times and how many people have to tell you that SC2 IS NOT going to be SC:BW 2.0 FFS?).
And what the hell all this features have to do with BGH games? Even with easier macro control you will still have to expand.
On September 05 2007 06:45 LonelyMargarita wrote: Wow. The pro-automation side has now abandoned all logic and argumentation, and has resorted to, "it's going to be done no matter what you say; deal with it." You KNOW you've lost the debate when that's all you're left to type.
That's rather hypocritical for you to say, considering you skipped over two reasonably thought-out points of mine. How about you address the actual "pro-automation" arguments for a change?
Edit: I'm sorry if that sounded rude, but I'm getting irritated of both sides ignoring the valid points the other side is making and nit-picking just so they can feel 'right'.
I didn't address them because I thought everyone saw how obviously invalid they were. I guess you didn't.
1) Removing the features doesn't make it less accessible to anyone. With auto-matchmaking and variable speed settings anyone can play someone at their skill level, and you can choose the balance between micro and macro if fastest is too fast. ADDING the features SEVERELY hurts the potential for progaming, simply by weakening the skill curve. Professional sports don't just require the largest pool of potential players possible. If that were the case, minesweeper would be the biggest esport ever, and the NFL would be touch-football. Professional sports require a skill curve that makes it impossible to master, fast paced or anticipation-based action, and stand-outs that have abilities that seem inhuman to everyone but themselves. MBS doesn't lessen the pool at all, but it does weaken the learning curve and makes stand-outs like Boxer and iloveoov very unlikely.
2) Not true at all. They will have internal alpha and closed beta to test everything. They also have all the other RTS games that use MBS and automine, and all of our knowledge and experience about what features have what effect on a game to base their decisions on. Something like MBS is unlikely to be removed once it's in the beta, and I think you know that, which is why you're arguing for it to be in. I could extend your logic to more accurately say that MBS has to be out in the beta, since we've already tested it in the alpha, and both modes need some testing.
It's not that auto mineing completely takes away macro if anything limiting resources tends to do that. In some ways I dont want automineing to have any place in sc to keep apm high while doing something "productive" especally in the beggining i mean if they auto mine form the start what do you do for the first 30 secs sss ppp sdsdsd
There seems to be a fallacy that these "improvements" are based on. I'll get to that in a second though. What are games supposed to be? Fun, right? If something doesn't increase the fun of a game then it isn't an improvement, while in a myopic sense the feature might make certain aspects of the game easier to do and therefore seem like an improvement. Does ease of use equal fun? Sometimes, and sometimes not. With all that said, these features that are simplifying the UI seem to be based on the premise that controlling your army is fun, while doing other things are not fun.
On September 05 2007 11:26 A3iL3r0n wrote: There seems to be a fallacy that these "improvements" are based on. I'll get to that in a second though. What are games supposed to be? Fun, right? If something doesn't increase the fun of a game then it isn't an improvement, while in a myopic sense the feature might make certain aspects of the game easier to do and therefore seem like an improvement. Does ease of use equal fun? Sometimes, and sometimes not. With all that said, these features that are simplifying the UI seem to be based on the premise that controlling your army is fun, while doing other things are not fun.
Well you know fun or not I think its a matter with what people are confortable with.
On September 05 2007 11:26 A3iL3r0n wrote: There seems to be a fallacy that these "improvements" are based on. I'll get to that in a second though. What are games supposed to be? Fun, right? If something doesn't increase the fun of a game then it isn't an improvement, while in a myopic sense the feature might make certain aspects of the game easier to do and therefore seem like an improvement. Does ease of use equal fun? Sometimes, and sometimes not. With all that said, these features that are simplifying the UI seem to be based on the premise that controlling your army is fun, while doing other things are not fun.
Well you know fun or not I think its a matter with what people are confortable with.
That's not a response.
You have the first part down, you make an assertion; and then! you back it up with reasoning.
On September 05 2007 11:19 IzzyCraft wrote: It's not that auto mineing completely takes away macro if anything limiting resources tends to do that. In some ways I dont want automineing to have any place in sc to keep apm high while doing something "productive" especally in the beggining i mean if they auto mine form the start what do you do for the first 30 secs sss ppp sdsdsd
You start with 6 workers in SC2 anyways, so the "dead time" in the early game is far shorter.
On September 05 2007 06:45 LonelyMargarita wrote: Wow. The pro-automation side has now abandoned all logic and argumentation, and has resorted to, "it's going to be done no matter what you say; deal with it." You KNOW you've lost the debate when that's all you're left to type.
That's rather hypocritical for you to say, considering you skipped over two reasonably thought-out points of mine. How about you address the actual "pro-automation" arguments for a change?
Edit: I'm sorry if that sounded rude, but I'm getting irritated of both sides ignoring the valid points the other side is making and nit-picking just so they can feel 'right'.
I didn't address them because I thought everyone saw how obviously invalid they were. I guess you didn't.
1) Removing the features doesn't make it less accessible to anyone. With auto-matchmaking and variable speed settings anyone can play someone at their skill level, and you can choose the balance between micro and macro if fastest is too fast. ADDING the features SEVERELY hurts the potential for progaming, simply by weakening the skill curve. Professional sports don't just require the largest pool of potential players possible. If that were the case, minesweeper would be the biggest esport ever, and the NFL would be touch-football. Professional sports require a skill curve that makes it impossible to master, fast paced or anticipation-based action, and stand-outs that have abilities that seem inhuman to everyone but themselves. MBS doesn't lessen the pool at all, but it does weaken the learning curve and makes stand-outs like Boxer and iloveoov very unlikely.
2) Not true at all. They will have internal alpha and closed beta to test everything. They also have all the other RTS games that use MBS and automine, and all of our knowledge and experience about what features have what effect on a game to base their decisions on. Something like MBS is unlikely to be removed once it's in the beta, and I think you know that, which is why you're arguing for it to be in. I could extend your logic to more accurately say that MBS has to be out in the beta, since we've already tested it in the alpha, and both modes need some testing.
If you thought my points were so "obviously invalid" as to not be worth addressing, why did you then choose to address an even more invalid point, and then generalize it to be the stance of everyone supporting the macro changes? Don't bother trying to insult my intelligence, it's not going to get us anywhere.
First, let me clarify what I meant by "accessibility": the time/effort required in order to attain an average level of skill amongst the "competitive" community of a particular game. This is important for e-sports since it determines the size of the competitive segment of the community, and thus the attention professional e-sports organizations will give the game (since the competitive segment is the largest target market of these organizations). CS is accessible; Quake is not. WoW is inaccessible due to the time required to level/gear up a character to participate in the competitive levels of the Arenas; Fury dramatically reduces this buildup time, and is therefore more accessible than WoW. The only reason WoW is currently an e-sport is because the total community population is so large that the small percentage that is competitive is equal to the other e-sports.
Secondly, lowering the learning curve is not necessarily the same as lowering the skill curve. For an analogy, let's say Go was once played like this: on your turn, you had to win a game of Roshambo (Rock Paper Scissors) to place a stone; if you lost, you lost your turn. Therefore, in order to effectively participate in the intellectual battlefield of Go, one had to first master Roshambo. Then one day, someone came by and commented, "If what you want to play is Go, then why don't you just place stones and avoid all that Roshambo business?" The reply came, "Fool! That would weaken the skill curve and ruin Go as a competitive game!" Don't you think that reply would be slightly ridiculous? However, the same situation exists in the case of MBS; macro is composed, at least, of the following components: - Timing expansions - Executing build orders - Adapting build orders to the opponent's actions - Utilizing resources to build the most efficient number and type of units to combat the opponent's army - Keeping the production of supplies constant - Ordering buildings to produce the units
Now, are you really prepared to say that the last component is essential to macro skill, i.e. that making that last task easier would completely eliminate all of the significant skill involved in macro? I would say that the other five would still be in full effect, and extend that by saying that they come closer to the essence of what makes SC's gameplay truly great than simply ordering your buildings to produce units quicker than other people can. And more importantly, this is how the majority of those outside the SC community will view SC2 if MBS is not included: they won't see the SC interface as enriching the game by increasing the physical barrier required to play the game at a competitive level as many in this community do; all they will see is a poor UI making it needlessly difficult for them to perform basic actions within the game. The same goes for automine; if the workers' primary function is to mine, incoming players will view the inability to automine as a deficient AI. The fact is, the SC community as it now stands is not large enough to support SC2 as a professional e-sport, and keeping the interface as-is will significantly limit the flow of people into the SC2 competitive community.
Of course, there are many who consider the physical aspect of SC to be one of its best attributes as an e-sport. I say, why then ruin SC:BW as an e-sport by including the same features in SC2? If SC2 focuses on the mental factors of SC and leaves BW to the physical side, then both games will be different enough to co-exist as e-sports, and will relieve Korea from having to make the awkward and risky transition away from BW to SC2.
You do have a point about Blizzard having the internal alpha to test MBS; I meant by beta to include both closed and open beta. The point I was trying to make is that Blizzard is listening closely to these arguments, and I'm afraid that given their previous responses might nix MBS before it was properly tested, which I feel would be a grevious mistake for the reasons given above. I feel closed beta would be enough to determine whether the macro changes would be as greviously detrimental to the game as some feel.
Finally, I would like to make it clear that I would not personally mind at all if MBS and/or automine were taken away from SC2; as long as I'm able to customize my hotkeys, I'll be happy. I'm arguing for their inclusion because I feel that it would hurt SC2 and BW in the long run, particularly in the non-Korean community that desires a professional community of its own, to not include them.
Thanks for taking the time to respond intelligently to my arguments, so that I could clarify my position to you.
P.S. Your logical extension may be valid, but it's unsound, as the premises don't necessitate the conclusion. Trust me, I've got a B.A. in Philosophy.
Wouldn't a easier interface still give the higher APM player more things to do and therefore still be better than their opponent? So instead of like the old game where you have to fight the outdated/bad interface to storm and build zealots in a few seconds, now you can storm, web, maelstrom, build zealots, do two simultaneous drops, expand and get a few extra gateways all in the span of like five seconds. Doesn't that sound better?
On September 05 2007 11:26 A3iL3r0n wrote: There seems to be a fallacy that these "improvements" are based on. I'll get to that in a second though. What are games supposed to be? Fun, right? If something doesn't increase the fun of a game then it isn't an improvement, while in a myopic sense the feature might make certain aspects of the game easier to do and therefore seem like an improvement. Does ease of use equal fun? Sometimes, and sometimes not. With all that said, these features that are simplifying the UI seem to be based on the premise that controlling your army is fun, while doing other things are not fun.
Well you know fun or not I think its a matter with what people are confortable with.
That's not a response.
You have the first part down, you make an assertion; and then! you back it up with reasoning.
I'll explain the reasoning in his stead.
In game design theory, the opposite of fun is frustration; if a player is frustrated by something in the game which they feel is the fault of the game, not them, they are not having fun. Removing elements of the game that frustrate players (which they feel is the game's fault) is just as much an improvement to a game as adding elements that make it more fun, as both increase the net amount of "fun". Now, think back to when you were first playing SC. Weren't you frustrated at the time by how the game made you rotely perform the simplest actions, and how dumb the AI was at times? (Incidentally, if you had fun in this when you were just starting out, I'd say either there were no other games with a better interface out or you were enjoying it in the masochistic sense, which is actually considered a component of fun by certain game theory scholars; either way, they are irrelevant to the argument I'm constructing) Now, however, you are comfortable with having to deal with the UI, and you revel in how your mastery of the UI makes you better than your peers at SC. Therefore, you view having to do these actions as fun, and therefore enriching your game experience, and after 9 years no one could say you were wrong in your subjective view. However, the fact stands that before you got used to the UI because the rest of the game was so good, you were frustrated by it, and therefore not having fun. This is why Blizzard is simplifying the interface, to remove the parts of SC that caused frustration in people originally experiencing the game, not because they feel controlling your army is more fun than other aspects of the game. The problem is, after 9 years those who got comfortable with the interface now view the fact that the interface makes you do even the most basic tasks as fun, and naturally object to the "noobification" of the interface.
On September 05 2007 14:33 YinYang69 wrote: Wouldn't a easier interface still give the higher APM player more things to do and therefore still be better than their opponent? So instead of like the old game where you have to fight the outdated/bad interface to storm and build zealots in a few seconds, now you can storm, web, maelstrom, build zealots, do two simultaneous drops, expand and get a few extra gateways all in the span of like five seconds. Doesn't that sound better?
No it does not. It's much, much worse. Luck is a part of every game. As you decrease the skill-gap (through automation for instance), luck becomes more and more of a factor, until it is the primary factor. Play the lotto if you want a game based on luck. We don't want SC2 to be a crap-shoot like CNC3.
I like the way you think esu!! You're so right, everyone and I mean everyone in this board when they first play the game I bet didn't enjoy the interface. Hell I would say some even hated it. But they kept on trekking cause starcraft the game itself was so awesome. Years of playing led for alot of you guys to circumvent the outdated UI, and got use to it and therefore accept it. But the UI was not what brought you into starcraft and it was not what made starcraft the game it is. You can argue the difficult UI is what made starcraft so competitive and that's why it boom in Korea but that's not true at all. An improve UI is going to benefit the starcraft 2 more than hamper it. In the end of the day we are all just speculating, we really don't know how improve interface will affect competitive gaming but improving interfaces in various other genres never put games behind the curve so I don't see why it would do so for starcraft.
On September 05 2007 11:26 A3iL3r0n wrote: There seems to be a fallacy that these "improvements" are based on. I'll get to that in a second though. What are games supposed to be? Fun, right? If something doesn't increase the fun of a game then it isn't an improvement, while in a myopic sense the feature might make certain aspects of the game easier to do and therefore seem like an improvement. Does ease of use equal fun? Sometimes, and sometimes not. With all that said, these features that are simplifying the UI seem to be based on the premise that controlling your army is fun, while doing other things are not fun.
Well you know fun or not I think its a matter with what people are confortable with.
That's not a response.
You have the first part down, you make an assertion; and then! you back it up with reasoning.
... Now, think back to when you were first playing SC. Weren't you frustrated at the time by how the game made you rotely perform the simplest actions, and how dumb the AI was at times? ... Now, however, you are comfortable with having to deal with the UI, and you revel in how your mastery of the UI makes you better than your peers at SC. Therefore, you view having to do these actions as fun, and therefore enriching your game experience, and after 9 years no one could say you were wrong in your subjective view. However, the fact stands that before you got used to the UI because the rest of the game was so good, you were frustrated by it, and therefore not having fun. This is why Blizzard is simplifying the interface, to remove the parts of SC that caused frustration in people originally experiencing the game, not because they feel controlling your army is more fun than other aspects of the game. The problem is, after 9 years those who got comfortable with the interface now view the fact that the interface makes you do even the most basic tasks as fun, and naturally object to the "noobification" of the interface.
Wow, this has definitely got to be one of the best posts here so far. This is so true. There are SO many good examples of this at play here. I'll just list a few frustrations off the top of my head when I think back to my days as an SC noob.
1) Goon AI pathing Absolutely hated this at first, but now that I'm used to it, I don't mind at all and see it more as requiring a bit of extra control to maximize the usage of goons 2) Reaver scarab AI Total garbage. It doesn't even explode half the time. This fact made me hate using reavers and therefore I rarely ever built them for a long time. However, now that I understand the uses and am more proficient with reaver/shuttle micro, I see it as an element of skill rather than an AI fault. 3) Lack of auto-mining Who else here didn't get frustrated when they first learned how to use rally points then tried putting rallying workers onto minerals only to find out that the scvs stopped right next to them and didn't start to mine? I mean they're ALREADY there, why aren't they mining? Now, this lack of a feature is pretty much accepted as an addition to the game by many. 4) Lack of smart-casting Who else found it painful to use any of the one target spells when controlling a group of casters just to see them all cast them at the same time on said target (i.e. lockdown, feedback, irradiate, etc) Irradiate is only used now because of how ridiculously powerful it is against zerg when handled properly despite the UI issues. Now SC players argue that the UI limitations are a feature of the casters.
I'm sure there's a lot more that other people can think of. Either way, if we want to attract more new players into buying/playing SC2 and build up a community and form a pro scene outside of Korea, these frustrations need to be dealt with.
this is getting to annoying... Are you guys that want an easier interface even playing Starcraft still? If not please shut up... seriously, get away from our game.
1esu pretty much nailed it. I liked the Go comparison. That's a good one... in Starcraft, basically, in order to "use" your troops you need to do a tedious action first that is quite out of place (it does require more skill but it is something stupid). So why not just remove it.
That's also what I meant in my post about priorities: the part of macro that is clicking through your factories is stupid, time-consuming and may make the game become more and more macro based. It does introduce a new skill element, but this element is misplaced. Might as well do a stupid mini-game each time before you are able to build units. Having MBS will enable the players to pay more attention to the "real" game. Of course, the real game should then offer a big enough strategical and tactical depth. It's hard to tell at this point. We also haven't seen the Zerg yet. But with all the new possibilities like walking over terrain, the moving phase cannons, being able to deploy your troops anywhere on the map (warp gates, nydus worm), and very dangerous AoE attackers like Banshee, Mothership or Phoenix, the game has at least the potential to become more intense and fast-paced than BW ever was. You will need to pay more attention to your units, and you probably won't be able to feel so safe in your base.
Also, many people who are against MBS forget that Starcraft wasn't always this way. It's just that everyone is MUCH more skilled today than back in 1999-2001, and they basically exploit one weakness of the game nowadays: it's less important to take care of your troops than simply reproducing them. Reproducing them is hard, so it is a (questionable) skill, but the problem is that it's more rewarding. I can simply choose to have 10 zealots die doing almost nothing (at least much less damage that they could have done) when I can rebuild them from 10 gateways within a very short time. Of course this doesn't apply to early or mid game, but late game. So basically, not having MBS will cause players to concentrate much more on the macro side (the micro players will have less and less success as time goes on) and will cause them to get more and more sloppy with their armies (A+click, let many units die) and more and more risky/greedy with their build orders.
my take on this is that I understand that Blizz wants to attract lots of players to buy their game. That's why it has to be accessible and that's why feature like mbs and automining are good.
However, in the long run the same players that are attracted by ease of use will move on to another game that has a) better graphics b) is even easier to use
Back in 1998 Starcrafts main competitor was C&C 2: Red Alert. I used to play both with my friends at LAN parties. Most everyone liked C&C better. Why? I can't speak for the others, but a) you don't have to click your buildings to build units, let alone select one building to build one (!) unit, then do the same shit all over again until you build 5 tanks. In C&C 5 tanks are 5 clicks away, regardless where you are on the map. b) there was one players amongst us that owned us at Starcraft. I was mostly on the other team. The few times we won we teamed up on him or one of his allys and turn the game into a 3:2. Back then the games were mainly Cannon up-> rush to carriers. So we liked C&C better because the edge the good player had over us lesser players wasn't as painful. c) competitive gaming was close to non-existent in 1998. there was no glory in being good at computer games.
Now look where C&C is today. Red Alert is all but forgotten. The sequels didn't sell as well and even though the latest sequel got a lot of attention my prediction is that it'll be dead before Starcraft II is out.
Accessibility is one thing, but in the long run you want to please the nerds, the people who'll play the game 24/7, the pros. Plus: At the point when Starcraft II comes out it'll have to face like no competition at all, it'll be the best RTS ever and fans of the genre will buy it, mbs and automining or not.
On September 05 2007 14:33 YinYang69 wrote: Wouldn't a easier interface still give the higher APM player more things to do and therefore still be better than their opponent? So instead of like the old game where you have to fight the outdated/bad interface to storm and build zealots in a few seconds, now you can storm, web, maelstrom, build zealots, do two simultaneous drops, expand and get a few extra gateways all in the span of like five seconds. Doesn't that sound better?
No it does not. It's much, much worse. Luck is a part of every game. As you decrease the skill-gap (through automation for instance), luck becomes more and more of a factor, until it is the primary factor. Play the lotto if you want a game based on luck. We don't want SC2 to be a crap-shoot like CNC3.
it doesnt decrease the skill gap because the faster player will always be able to do more than the slower player.
On September 05 2007 10:27 Manit0u wrote: Ok, so now let me make a couple of points here from the (mainly) wc3 players perspective:
1. Why the hell would auto-minig suck? It's an awesome feature that lets you handle the army and not the workers.
If your after a micro-heavy game, yeah Automining rocks. However Starcraft didnt become the legend that is it due to its micro. It grew to the level it is due to the base management requirements + micro togther. For all players that say "I dont wanna look at my base I wanna micro units instead", Just wait, when the game comes out, there will be plenty of UMS maps where you have to just micro units. Broodwar was about finding the balance between base management and unit management that you could use against your opponent. If SC2 is the sequel to SC1 (which the name suggests), It should follow the same style of heavy base macromanagement with equal needs for unit micromanagement, not a micro heavy game with a dumbed down macro system.
And what if let's say you have 3 barracks under one hotkey and 2 factories under the other. You don't have much resources and you can afford and you want to produce 2 units from barracks and 1 unit from factory. How will that help? If you select factories first you will build 2 units from the factories and if you select barracks first you will produce 3 units there and won't be able to afford this 1 unit you wanted off the facts. (I know it doesn't make much sense but I hope you get my point)
Um, this is retarded, If you only want 2 mairines, you deselect one of your barracks before clicking the marine selection. Multibuild selection doesnt hamper you at all in this situation, it still helps, because you can do this action from the otherside of the map and spend all your time playing your micro wars. In this situation, multibuild still elimates the skill of macro.
3. MBS and AM being forcefully turned off in all ladder? The game would die too fast, because there wouldn't be enough people who would wish to suffer from inferior/outdated interface. Man, if you really want to control your macroing you have to do most of it manually anyway (taking into consideration 2 previous points: MBS and AM make macroing simplier but not precise, and I truly believe that at competetive level you won't be able to let yourself be imprecise and you will have to struggle more).
What would kill the game? People not being rewarded for their speed and skill. If I can control my base and units at 3 times the speed of my opponent but am limited by the game, then thats not exactly fair is it? Its like putting a speed limit on running races because the slower people cant keep up. People must always have actions that require doing, These actions must not be localised to one point either. They should be spread out over the entire map. I should have to jump to my multiple expansions to make them mine and make them build units. Not sit around watching my army and pressing 6 keys to make sure my bases are working at full capacity. If fast players dont have something they can do to get ahead of slow players, then the game is unrewarding for the people who spend a lot of time playing it. If people dont need to mass-game to be the best, then the competative scene is gonna fail.
On September 05 2007 10:27 Manit0u wrote: Ok, so now let me make a couple of points here from the (mainly) wc3 players perspective:
1. Why the hell would auto-minig suck? It's an awesome feature that lets you handle the army and not the workers.
Lol you speak of this as if it's a good thing hahaha I don't really mind auto-mining but you have to realize that a lot of us don't see this as a point in favour of auto-mining, we see it as a point against implementing it, it's one less thing you have to keep track of.
2. MBS is bullshit? Man, if you have different kinds of buildings under one hotkey and you have to tab through them to build stuff (and notice that you don't even see if you started producing there, you can check it by the amount of resources missing but if you want to be sure that your command actually worked you would have to select single building anyway) and (what was raised in other topic) if you have more than one building under one hotkey you don't really control which one of them is producing units.
I don't mind if you have to tab through them, in fact - it's something I've suggested time and time again as a compromise.
But you don't have to tab through them. You can just click 4z and 10 gateways build zealots instantly.
Edit: And what if let's say you have 3 barracks under one hotkey and 2 factories under the other. You don't have much resources and you can afford and you want to produce 2 units from barracks and 1 unit from factory. How will that help? If you select factories first you will build 2 units from the factories and if you select barracks first you will produce 3 units there and won't be able to afford this 1 unit you wanted off the facts. (I know it doesn't make much sense but I hope you get my point)
This is true. But why do you even want MBS if its useless? From what the people who went to blizzcon said, macro was too easy, so.. It probably has a bigger impact than you'd think.
3. MBS and AM being forcefully turned off in all ladder? The game would die too fast, because there wouldn't be enough people who would wish to suffer from inferior/outdated interface. Man, if you really want to control your macroing you have to do most of it manually anyway (taking into consideration 2 previous points: MBS and AM make macroing simplier but not precise, and I truly believe that at competetive level you won't be able to let yourself be imprecise and you will have to struggle more).
So please stop once for all bitching about interface improvements which don't make it all that easier but completely DIFFERENT (new game, new interface, remember? How many times and how many people have to tell you that SC2 IS NOT going to be SC:BW 2.0 FFS?).
And what the hell all this features have to do with BGH games? Even with easier macro control you will still have to expand.
When people say fastest they mean the game speed, not the map ;O
On September 05 2007 06:45 LonelyMargarita wrote: Wow. The pro-automation side has now abandoned all logic and argumentation, and has resorted to, "it's going to be done no matter what you say; deal with it." You KNOW you've lost the debate when that's all you're left to type.
That's rather hypocritical for you to say, considering you skipped over two reasonably thought-out points of mine. How about you address the actual "pro-automation" arguments for a change?
Edit: I'm sorry if that sounded rude, but I'm getting irritated of both sides ignoring the valid points the other side is making and nit-picking just so they can feel 'right'.
I didn't address them because I thought everyone saw how obviously invalid they were. I guess you didn't.
1) Removing the features doesn't make it less accessible to anyone. With auto-matchmaking and variable speed settings anyone can play someone at their skill level, and you can choose the balance between micro and macro if fastest is too fast. ADDING the features SEVERELY hurts the potential for progaming, simply by weakening the skill curve. Professional sports don't just require the largest pool of potential players possible. If that were the case, minesweeper would be the biggest esport ever, and the NFL would be touch-football. Professional sports require a skill curve that makes it impossible to master, fast paced or anticipation-based action, and stand-outs that have abilities that seem inhuman to everyone but themselves. MBS doesn't lessen the pool at all, but it does weaken the learning curve and makes stand-outs like Boxer and iloveoov very unlikely.
2) Not true at all. They will have internal alpha and closed beta to test everything. They also have all the other RTS games that use MBS and automine, and all of our knowledge and experience about what features have what effect on a game to base their decisions on. Something like MBS is unlikely to be removed once it's in the beta, and I think you know that, which is why you're arguing for it to be in. I could extend your logic to more accurately say that MBS has to be out in the beta, since we've already tested it in the alpha, and both modes need some testing.
If you thought my points were so "obviously invalid" as to not be worth addressing, why did you then choose to address an even more invalid point, and then generalize it to be the stance of everyone supporting the macro changes? Don't bother trying to insult my intelligence, it's not going to get us anywhere.
First, let me clarify what I meant by "accessibility": the time/effort required in order to attain an average level of skill amongst the "competitive" community of a particular game. This is important for e-sports since it determines the size of the competitive segment of the community, and thus the attention professional e-sports organizations will give the game (since the competitive segment is the largest target market of these organizations). CS is accessible; Quake is not. WoW is inaccessible due to the time required to level/gear up a character to participate in the competitive levels of the Arenas; Fury dramatically reduces this buildup time, and is therefore more accessible than WoW. The only reason WoW is currently an e-sport is because the total community population is so large that the small percentage that is competitive is equal to the other e-sports.
Secondly, lowering the learning curve is not necessarily the same as lowering the skill curve. For an analogy, let's say Go was once played like this: on your turn, you had to win a game of Roshambo (Rock Paper Scissors) to place a stone; if you lost, you lost your turn. Therefore, in order to effectively participate in the intellectual battlefield of Go, one had to first master Roshambo. Then one day, someone came by and commented, "If what you want to play is Go, then why don't you just place stones and avoid all that Roshambo business?" The reply came, "Fool! That would weaken the skill curve and ruin Go as a competitive game!" Don't you think that reply would be slightly ridiculous? However, the same situation exists in the case of MBS; macro is composed, at least, of the following components:
THIS IS THE DUMBEST ANALOGY I HAVE EVER HEARD.
You compare a mechanical ability to a game of rock paper scissors? What the fuck? The fact that it takes time to become truly competitive at a game is a good thing, for it heightens the skill-cap, ie the game won't be 'perfected' as quickly.
- Timing expansions - Executing build orders - Adapting build orders to the opponent's actions - Utilizing resources to build the most efficient number and type of units to combat the opponent's army - Keeping the production of supplies constant - Ordering buildings to produce the units
Now, are you really prepared to say that the last component is essential to macro skill, i.e. that making that last task easier would completely eliminate all of the significant skill involved in macro? I would say that the other five would still be in full effect, and extend that by saying that they come closer to the essence of what makes SC's gameplay truly great than simply ordering your buildings to produce units quicker than other people can. And more importantly, this is how the majority of those outside the SC community will view SC2 if MBS is not included: they won't see the SC interface as enriching the game by increasing the physical barrier required to play the game at a competitive level as many in this community do; all they will see is a poor UI making it needlessly difficult for them to perform basic actions within the game. The same goes for automine; if the workers' primary function is to mine, incoming players will view the inability to automine as a deficient AI. The fact is, the SC community as it now stands is not large enough to support SC2 as a professional e-sport, and keeping the interface as-is will significantly limit the flow of people into the SC2 competitive community.
Yes, you are god damn right I'm prepared to say that the last component is god damn essential to macro skill. Of course it wouldn't eliminate all skill in that regard, but why should that have to be the case in order for it to be viewed as an essential part?
Turn it on for single player then, which is all these people will play, or make a compromise a la the tab function I've been suggesting (not only because it will make macroing less easy, it will also make it more precise which is a good thing).
Of course, there are many who consider the physical aspect of SC to be one of its best attributes as an e-sport. I say, why then ruin SC:BW as an e-sport by including the same features in SC2? If SC2 focuses on the mental factors of SC and leaves BW to the physical side, then both games will be different enough to co-exist as e-sports, and will relieve Korea from having to make the awkward and risky transition away from BW to SC2.
You do have a point about Blizzard having the internal alpha to test MBS; I meant by beta to include both closed and open beta. The point I was trying to make is that Blizzard is listening closely to these arguments, and I'm afraid that given their previous responses might nix MBS before it was properly tested, which I feel would be a grevious mistake for the reasons given above. I feel closed beta would be enough to determine whether the macro changes would be as greviously detrimental to the game as some feel.
Finally, I would like to make it clear that I would not personally mind at all if MBS and/or automine were taken away from SC2; as long as I'm able to customize my hotkeys, I'll be happy. I'm arguing for their inclusion because I feel that it would hurt SC2 and BW in the long run, particularly in the non-Korean community that desires a professional community of its own, to not include them.
Thanks for taking the time to respond intelligently to my arguments, so that I could clarify my position to you.
P.S. Your logical extension may be valid, but it's unsound, as the premises don't necessitate the conclusion. Trust me, I've got a B.A. in Philosophy.
BW won't survive as a competitive sport past SC2 unless SC2 completely fails, there is just no way. SC2 should be SC's successor in every way.
On September 05 2007 14:33 YinYang69 wrote: Wouldn't a easier interface still give the higher APM player more things to do and therefore still be better than their opponent? So instead of like the old game where you have to fight the outdated/bad interface to storm and build zealots in a few seconds, now you can storm, web, maelstrom, build zealots, do two simultaneous drops, expand and get a few extra gateways all in the span of like five seconds. Doesn't that sound better?
Nope, because the human brain is technically incapabale of mutitasking concious actions, Sure you can do one action and quickly switch to another making it look like you did both at the same time, but you really didnt. Starcraft works on this brilliantly, becuase you cannot control a base and an army at the same time, even if the interface allowed you to do so. So to make the game easier for you, you would ask that one action is really easy to do so you can focus on the other. Way to take out the difficulty in starcraft. Starcraft is about mulitasking, which is the hardest thing for the concious brain to do. This is what makes it hard, not the handspeed requirements. Dont remove this multitasking focus.
Btw for anyone who thinks they can mutltitask. Place your hands in front of you with your two fingers pointing together. Now rotate ure fingers around each other in the same direction. After youve done that, rotate them in the opposite direction. Then After than try and rotate them in different directions at the same time. If you can do so, PM me because you are one of the few people in the world who are able to actually multitask.
On September 05 2007 19:17 Brutalisk wrote: 1esu pretty much nailed it. I liked the Go comparison. That's a good one... in Starcraft, basically, in order to "use" your troops you need to do a tedious action first that is quite out of place (it does require more skill but it is something stupid). So why not just remove it.
Because it requires more skill and is not stupid, but fun?
That's also what I meant in my post about priorities: the part of macro that is clicking through your factories is stupid, time-consuming and may make the game become more and more macro based. It does introduce a new skill element, but this element is misplaced. Might as well do a stupid mini-game each time before you are able to build units.
Fihsugdufy8hu8iiuufdhg
Having MBS will enable the players to pay more attention to the "real" game. Of course, the real game should then offer a big enough strategical and tactical depth. It's hard to tell at this point. We also haven't seen the Zerg yet. But with all the new possibilities like walking over terrain, the moving phase cannons, being able to deploy your troops anywhere on the map (warp gates, nydus worm), and very dangerous AoE attackers like Banshee, Mothership or Phoenix, the game has at least the potential to become more intense and fast-paced than BW ever was. You will need to pay more attention to your units, and you probably won't be able to feel so safe in your base.
Ok, try to understand what I'm saying this time, I recognize that you might not think the same way about this but at least you'll understand why I think what you say is completely unsatisfactory:
All these features add to the micro aspect of the game. So you add to the micro, remove a lot of the macro, what do you get? The balance between the two is ruined, I want these new features you speak of, they seem fun and cool but they should not be added instead of macro, it's like removing rushing from the game and adding some cool late game scenario instead.
Also, many people who are against MBS forget that Starcraft wasn't always this way. It's just that everyone is MUCH more skilled today than back in 1999-2001, and they basically exploit one weakness of the game nowadays: it's less important to take care of your troops than simply reproducing them. Reproducing them is hard, so it is a (questionable) skill, but the problem is that it's more rewarding. I can simply choose to have 10 zealots die doing almost nothing (at least much less damage that they could have done) when I can rebuild them from 10 gateways within a very short time. Of course this doesn't apply to early or mid game, but late game. So basically, not having MBS will cause players to concentrate much more on the macro side (the micro players will have less and less success as time goes on) and will cause them to get more and more sloppy with their armies (A+click, let many units die) and more and more risky/greedy with their build orders.
It's not a questionable skill, it is a skill.
And personally, I like the shift of focus that happens as you move from early game to midgame, from midgame to late game and from late game to extreme late game (when it basically becomes a micro map).
Btw for anyone who thinks they can mutltitask. Place your hands in front of you with your two fingers pointing together. Now rotate ure fingers around each other in the same direction. After youve done that, rotate them in the opposite direction. Then After than try and rotate them in different directions at the same time. If you can do so, PM me because you are one of the few people in the world who are able to actually multitask.
done
it wasn't really that hard >_> i think the one hand with closed fist going up and down and 1 open palm sliding forwards and backwards thing is harder lol
On September 05 2007 19:17 Brutalisk wrote: It's less important to take care of your troops than simply reproducing them. Reproducing them is hard, so it is a (questionable) skill, but the problem is that it's more rewarding. I can simply choose to have 10 zealots die doing almost nothing (at least much less damage that they could have done) when I can rebuild them from 10 gateways within a very short time. Of course this doesn't apply to early or mid game, but late game. So basically, not having MBS will cause players to concentrate much more on the macro side (the micro players will have less and less success as time goes on) and will cause them to get more and more sloppy with their armies (A+click, let many units die) and more and more risky/greedy with their build orders.
Ok I think this is the fourth time ive argued this point in the last 2 days. Getting kinda annoying because the point keeps coming up and the proMBS ppl seem to think it really supports their cause.
In starcraft units range from the shit units to the good units. A Zealot is a shit unit. The Zealots role is to absorb damage and to force a player to take em out before they get close. They cost 100 minerals (bugger all). They are an expendable unit. So yes, you dont care when they die and you build more to replace without problems. Lets look at a carrier now. A carrier is a good unit. It does large amounts of damage, cost a lot of money, and is high up in the tech tree. If a carrier dies, its a big deal. You dont just attack move a bunch of carriers into an enemy force of goliathsm forget about them and build more, because they are worth something. This is a gameplay style of starcraft. Crap units are expendable and therefore you use them throughout the game as meatshields or extra damage etc. It doesnt matter when they die. Good units are expensive and hard to produce, you protect these units because they are the real might of your army. They are the factor that will cause you to win or lose a game.
The expendability of crap units in no way supports or works against MBS, or macro at all. These units are part of a structure that starcraft has which makes crap units worth getting even in the late stages of a game
Btw for anyone who thinks they can mutltitask. Place your hands in front of you with your two fingers pointing together. Now rotate ure fingers around each other in the same direction. After youve done that, rotate them in the opposite direction. Then After than try and rotate them in different directions at the same time. If you can do so, PM me because you are one of the few people in the world who are able to actually multitask.
done
it wasn't really that hard >_> i think the one hand with closed fist going up and down and 1 open palm sliding forwards and backwards thing is harder lol
I think that one is WAY easier haha T_T This one was hard for me aka I havent succeeded yet.
Ahhhh it feels like moving into a wall when I try to do th is. Mind goes like blank when I try to figure out how I should be moving them.
Btw for anyone who thinks they can mutltitask. Place your hands in front of you with your two fingers pointing together. Now rotate ure fingers around each other in the same direction. After youve done that, rotate them in the opposite direction. Then After than try and rotate them in different directions at the same time. If you can do so, PM me because you are one of the few people in the world who are able to actually multitask.
done
it wasn't really that hard >_> i think the one hand with closed fist going up and down and 1 open palm sliding forwards and backwards thing is harder lol
Im calling BS on that, Brain physiology doesnt allow it. Im assuming that your doing it wrong. Its not the same as rubbing your tummy and patting your head. Both of these actions at the same time require the same nerve to give different signals, a nerve can only produce 1 signal at a time.
If you still beleive you can do it, make a video, ill be glad to watch it
Btw for anyone who thinks they can mutltitask. Place your hands in front of you with your two fingers pointing together. Now rotate ure fingers around each other in the same direction. After youve done that, rotate them in the opposite direction. Then After than try and rotate them in different directions at the same time. If you can do so, PM me because you are one of the few people in the world who are able to actually multitask.
done
it wasn't really that hard >_> i think the one hand with closed fist going up and down and 1 open palm sliding forwards and backwards thing is harder lol
Im calling BS on that, Brain physiology doesnt allow it. Im assuming that your doing it wrong. Its not the same as rubbing your tummy and patting your head. Both of these actions at the same time require the same nerve to give different signals, a nerve can only produce 1 signal at a time.
If you still beleive you can do it, make a video, ill be glad to watch it
Just because he's "one in the few" (personally I think SC players would be better at this anyway) doesn't mean he's doing it wrong. I did it too. Maybe I'm wrong as well?
Let me get this straight.
Start with two fingers pointing at each other. Rotate them, say, clockwise. Then counterclockwise. Then in opposite directions?
yep, place your hands in front of you, with your index fingers pointing together (not touching) Now its easy to rotate em around each other in the same direction, its easy rotate em around each other in the opposite direction. But virtually impossible to do different directions at the same time without looking like a total goof.
On September 05 2007 23:27 Fen wrote: yep, place your hands in front of you, with your index fingers pointing together (not touching) Now its easy to rotate em around each other in the same direction, its easy rotate em around each other in the opposite direction. But virtually impossible to do different directions at the same time without looking like a total goof.
wtf seriously are you sure? i'm uploading a video soon
and lolololol who cares about MBS and automine this is much more interesting
On September 05 2007 22:32 FrozenArbiter wrote: All these features add to the micro aspect of the game. So you add to the micro, remove a lot of the macro, what do you get? The balance between the two is ruined, I want these new features you speak of, they seem fun and cool but they should not be added instead of macro, it's like removing rushing from the game and adding some cool late game scenario instead.
[/b]
The balance is already ruined! Making macro tedious and "hard" made micro less important. We need micro to become more important again. I've noticed how BW turned from a micro-based game into a macro-based one. And I don't want SC2 to "suffer" the same fate.
@ Fen: Yes the zealot is a "crap" unit, but that doesn't mean that you pointlessly waste it. I'm not even talking about using it as a meatshield, which would be a useful tactic. I'm really talking about making the mistake of sending them into certain death (e.g. sending them in a group of lurkers) without having any advantage from it. But also no big disadvantage, because you need only ~15 seconds to rebuild them all. And that's the problem, and the reason why BW has become a macro game: in late game it's often about rebuilding your stuff faster than your opponent, the rest is A+click. (Yes I'm exaggerating, of course there is micro needed with some units, but not nearly enough to be as important as macroing).
On September 05 2007 23:39 Brutalisk wrote: @ Fen: Yes the zealot is a "crap" unit, but that doesn't mean that you pointlessly waste it. I'm not even talking about using it as a meatshield, which would be a useful tactic. I'm really talking about making the mistake of sending them into certain death (e.g. sending them in a group of lurkers) without having any advantage from it. But also no big disadvantage, because you need only ~15 seconds to rebuild them all. And that's the problem, and the reason why BW has become a macro game: in late game it's often about rebuilding your stuff faster than your opponent, the rest is A+click. (Yes I'm exaggerating, of course there is micro needed with some units, but not nearly enough to be as important as macroing).
No-one said that you deliberatly waste it, but yeha if you lose it late game when your economy is going, its not so bad, its a crap unit. At the start of the game, a zealot is importnat but it loses that value as the game goes on. The expensive units however will never reach that status unless your playing fastest or somehting. This is a gameplay style of starcraft. Why should you bother microing your crappy units, they are there to die, if you lose them due to mistake, ok bad luck. If you lose your 8 carriers due to mistake, you probs gonna have to GG pretty soon.
EDIT: Affla - Wow Im surprised at how well you can do that, thats beyond what the average person can do. Granted the motion isnt as fluid as when your going the same way, but remember that is very simple multitasking, the human brain is not good at multitasking. That would have required a decent amount of concentration to pull off. Even though youve surprised me and pulled it off, it doesnt change the fact that multitasking is still damn hard.
On September 05 2007 22:32 FrozenArbiter wrote: All these features add to the micro aspect of the game. So you add to the micro, remove a lot of the macro, what do you get? The balance between the two is ruined, I want these new features you speak of, they seem fun and cool but they should not be added instead of macro, it's like removing rushing from the game and adding some cool late game scenario instead.
The balance is already ruined! Making macro tedious and "hard" made micro less important. We need micro to become more important again. I've noticed how BW turned from a micro-based game into a macro-based one. And I don't want SC2 to "suffer" the same fate.
[/b] Macro is not tedious.
BW has not gone from micro to macro, it's just that everyone (pro) has sick micro nowadays so it doesn't stand out the way it did in the past when only a few people had sick micro and most had avg. macro.
+ A lot of it is how playstyle and maps have changed, BW could become what it was years ago if balance changes were made that nerfed the power of fast expanding.
@ Fen: Yes the zealot is a "crap" unit, but that doesn't mean that you pointlessly waste it. I'm not even talking about using it as a meatshield, which would be a useful tactic. I'm really talking about making the mistake of sending them into certain death (e.g. sending them in a group of lurkers) without having any advantage from it. But also no big disadvantage, because you need only ~15 seconds to rebuild them all. And that's the problem, and the reason why BW has become a macro game: in late game it's often about rebuilding your stuff faster than your opponent, the rest is A+click. (Yes I'm exaggerating, of course there is micro needed with some units, but not nearly enough to be as important as macroing).
Uh you still need to control your units late game, but the fact that the balance between micro/macro tips in macros favour doesnt bother me at all, once you get into extreme lategame suddenly the macro aspect is all but gone, just as it is in early game.
On September 05 2007 23:46 lololol wrote: Yes, BW is a macro game and SC2 needs to tip the balance in favor of micro and MBS and automining are the right choice.
Err, No, Starcraft is about expanding your base to cover the map, building large armies and clashing them together and effectivly being in charge of a war machine, not moving a few units around and killing everything with them.
On September 05 2007 23:46 lololol wrote: Yes, BW is a macro game and SC2 needs to tip the balance in favor of micro and MBS and automining are the right choice.
Err, No, Starcraft is about expanding your base to cover the map, building large armies and clashing them together and effectivly being in charge of a war machine, not moving a few units around and killing everything with them.
I think the solution has been posted before, and that is keep MBS and automine but introduce new strictly macro tasks that are very difficult to execute perfectly without compromising some micro, more than just warpgates. It's the guys at Blizz that have the creativity to come up with them, but I really think it's the only way to satisfy both pro and anti MBS and automine players.
On September 05 2007 23:46 lololol wrote: Yes, BW is a macro game and SC2 needs to tip the balance in favor of micro and MBS and automining are the right choice.
Err, No, Starcraft is about expanding your base to cover the map, building large armies and clashing them together and effectivly being in charge of a war machine, not moving a few units around and killing everything with them.
After all considering personal preference - it's all about opinion what fun is. Considering spectator sports however, micro is obviously more appealing
I did the finger thingy. I think the only thing that makes it really hard is the fact that when you're doing them separate ways you have no reference point. Try rotating around a pen or something when you're doing the opposite direction, it makes it easier.
Yes but there's already a lot of it in BW, and it's more impressive because anyone who plays the game knows how much other stuff you need to do as well -.-
back on topic though, i'm a 'shitty' UI lover like frozenarbiter. and i dont even wanna try argue my side because every argument for and against has been put out already.
As for the go play supcom comment, you frustrate me. I cannot count the number of times where Ive read people say stuff like, "well if you dont like unlimited unit selection go play warcraft 1 where you could only select one unit at a time..." Your argument holds no merit at all, its just a gross exaggeration. Supcom is a game with no micro at all, Im after a balance that is slightly tilted towards macro, not a 100% macro game.
EDIT: OK, Hyjacking again, Lets make a rule that you cant talk about the fingers without posting something constructive thats related to SC2. (Try the finger thing with your fingers overlapping, one on top of the other, but dont let em touch when you go both ways)
There is micro in SupCom, too and I didn't say you should go play SupCom, only that you're describing SupCom with the "being in charge of a war machine" thing.
The balance in BW is definitely in favor of macro thought. There was a game Kingdom Under Fire, which was made by korean BW fans and was supposed to overthrow BW from it's throne, it had some publicity, but it utterly failed, because the game was heavily macro oriented, that's what a lot of die hard mass game BW players like, but it's not so good for the game and considering spectator sports, SC2 should focus on things that make the public go "wow" I have also played BW quite a lot, but I always liked micro, maybe just because I suck at micro, but it made the game fun for me
On September 06 2007 01:09 Fen wrote: Only If you keep posting about em.
As for the go play supcom comment, you frustrate me. I cannot count the number of times where Ive read people say stuff like, "well if you dont like unlimited unit selection go play warcraft 1 where you could only select one unit at a time..." Your argument holds no merit at all, its just a gross exaggeration. Supcom is a game with no micro at all, Im after a balance that is slightly tilted towards macro, not a 100% macro game.
EDIT: OK, Hyjacking again, Lets make a rule that you cant talk about the fingers without posting something constructive thats related to SC2. (Try the finger thing with your fingers overlapping, one on top of the other, but dont let em touch when you go both ways)
I always did it with top of my fingers overlapping cause it's easier to see if I'm doing it right or wrong this way no? :X
Anyway, I always was a micro over macro player so I find it funny that I am now arguing against making the game MORE micro intensive.. I just dislike the idea of the game forcing you to favour micro over macro.
On September 06 2007 01:15 lololol wrote: There is micro in SupCom, too and I didn't say you should go play SupCom, only that you're describing SupCom with the "being in charge of a war machine" thing.
The balance in BW is definitely in favor of macro thought. There was a game Kingdom Under Fire, which was made by korean BW fans and was supposed to overthrow BW from it's throne, it had some publicity, but it utterly failed, because the game was heavily macro oriented, that's what those die hard mass game BW players like, but it's not so good for the game and considering spectator sports, SC2 should focus on things that make the public go "wow"
Mm, I love micro, my favorite players have always been the micro/strat guys but I'm also a player and I wouldn't find the micro as fun if I didn't have to constantly try to macro while doing the micro stuff.
I used to constantly get 1000 minerals PvT because I was too busy microing my shuttle (I used to have ill shuttle micro btw, waaay better than I do nowadays).
On September 06 2007 01:07 alffla wrote: ahhaha @ FA
back on topic though, i'm a 'shitty' UI lover like frozenarbiter. and i dont even wanna try argue my side because every argument for and against has been put out already.
Do you love the shitty UI or the fact that you have concentrate on different tasks? Would you be happy with an improved interface that challenged you in other (macro-type) ways than not having MBS and automine (albeit similar)?
On September 06 2007 01:07 alffla wrote: ahhaha @ FA
back on topic though, i'm a 'shitty' UI lover like frozenarbiter. and i dont even wanna try argue my side because every argument for and against has been put out already.
Do you love the shitty UI or the fact that you have concentrate on different tasks? Would you be happy with an improved interface that challenged you in other ways than not having MBS and automine (albeit similar)?
I have a hard time imagining what could replace 4z5z6z78z9z0z while at the same time cloning zealots to different tanks and storming with your high templars that you just dropped out of a shuttle.
I just enjoy the constant jumping from place to place >.<
On September 06 2007 01:15 Doctorasul wrote: Do you love the shitty UI or the fact that you have concentrate on different tasks? Would you be happy with an improved interface that challenged you in other ways than not having MBS and automine (albeit similar)?
Im sure everyone would be happier if they added something that was new, but required the same kinds of abilities as macro. However so far we havnt seen anything, so we are forced to assume that blizzard arent going to implement anything. I think they would have annouced it by now if they were going to however, because it would have such a massive impact on the game, they would need to know the publics response before taking it too far.
To FA- yeah I was always doing it with the fingers overtop of each other as well, thats why im guessing its a lot harder, those videos have shown people with their fingers apart.
(yes I know I was the one who told everyone to put your fingers apart, im sorry, however if you can do it with the fingers on top of each other I will bow down to your benevolance)
On September 06 2007 01:15 Doctorasul wrote: Do you love the shitty UI or the fact that you have concentrate on different tasks? Would you be happy with an improved interface that challenged you in other ways than not having MBS and automine (albeit similar)?
Im sure everyone would be happier if they added something that was new, but required the same kinds of abilities as macro. However so far we havnt seen anything, so we are forced to assume that blizzard arent going to implement anything. I think they would have annouced it by now if they were going to however, because it would have such a massive impact on the game, they would need to know the publics response before taking it too far.
To FA- yeah I was always doing it with the fingers overtop of each other as well, thats why im guessing its a lot harder, those videos have shown people with their fingers apart.
(yes I know I was the one who told everyone to put your fingers apart, im sorry, however if you can do it with the fingers on top of each other I will bow down to your benevolance)
Oh well so far I can't do either so :D I'll bow down to them either way.
On September 06 2007 01:15 lololol wrote: There is micro in SupCom, too and I didn't say you should go play SupCom, only that you're describing SupCom with the "being in charge of a war machine" thing.
Ok, sorry, you didnt say I should play I misinterpreted. That bloody argument where ppl tell me to go play warcraft 1 has broken a part of me and I get VERY frustrated when its used against me.
Still, most RTS games can be considered building a massive war machine. There arent all that many RTS games where you only build a handful of units then go off to attack. In a way supcom and Starcraft have a lot in common, its about maximising your economy while at the same time keeping your military strong, lots of economy attacks, and large scale conquering of maps (not many RTS games where you can see a split down the middle of the map which divides 2 bases. However Supcom plays a lot differently, with barely any micro and just straight macro, which is not what I want from Starcraft. I want blizzard to hit that balance again that they originally hit with BW.
I've just read through this entire thread. A lot of interesting points brought up. Let me remind everyone that this discussion is not JUST about MBS and automining. It's about making these features a setting that can only be used in public games. Thus keeping the good people still able to compete in the manner they did in the original SC
You can break all sports into two basic parts: The strategic element and the physical aspect
there is incredible strategy weaved within all sports: baseball, soccer, football, tennis, racket ball, boxing, wrestling, starcraft etc
SC2 has less of a physical aspect than SC. They've turned baseball into tee ball. That ball is a lot easier to hit when it isn't moving huh? Well maybe one fun part of the game was the challenge of hitting a moving ball. As we all know, baseball > tee ball as far as skill and competition goes. But making a game that requires less dexterity (lower apm) they are reducing physical aspect which made the original starcraft so fucking awsome.
Let me use another sport, this time with pictures:
Starcraft as golf
Starcraft 2 turned into minature golf due to MBS and auto mining.
Before you respond to this, look at your keyboard. Does it have missing keys?... like the windows ones? You might not even be playing starcraft correctly... This is what mine looks like:
At the bare minimum do you have your windows keys missing? are you using your entire keyboard when you play (i'm talking about the keys that actually work in sc)? Do you bind all the number keys when you play?... from 1 to 0? do you know every hotkey for your race? I mean everything--from special upgrades to unit hot keys. Do you use all five fingers? Do you know which fingers to use on which keys? Most starcraft players don't. Even the die hard ones. They spend too much time looking at the screen and less time looking at their hands. There's a reason why those koreans have such high apm. I just want that same feel in the new starcraft. I'll be sad if new players pick up starcraft 2 and start laddering with the computer playing the game for them. This is essentially the autocast of macroing.
Again, i only care about this for ladder/competitive play. If you want your buildings all bound to one key and your probes going to minerals the second they get out--fine, but don't expect to be a progamer. Don't expect to be the best. MBS and auto mining deter from the very elements that make the game competitive.
What about all these progamers, people who devoted their lives to starcraft, mastering these skills and falling in love with them. MBS and automining is a spit in the face for these people, the ones who know the game far better than Blizzard does. Blizzard should be building off what made the game successful, not "fixing" it. I can only assume that Blizzard wants MBS to bring a new type of macro into starcraft. However that macro type seems to be a much slower, much easier one. One that involves less apm and less concentration. One that is centered around memorizing when different unit combos are coming up and then rebinding gateways accordingly. Hmm... Should be quite easy to master with the computer making sure my probes mine for me when they pop out.
Again, if you don't like the difficulty and demanding dexterity of starcraft then that's fine. But don't fuck up Starcraft because this game was too hard for you. Play another game. Keep MBS and automining as a setting and keep it out of the esports scene.
On September 04 2007 05:48 MyLostTemple wrote: It's been a while since i've posted in the SC2 topic area, however there are things i think we need to talk about. First let me say that did play sc2 at blizzcon and i was quite impressed with it. This game definitely has the potential to be an incredibly successful RTS game. I enjoyed almost every aspect of the game except for the interface; and that's what i'm going to talk about now.
I want starcraft 2 to be the best rts game ever. I don't want another warcraft 3. I also don't want silly newbie shit that brings this game a step down from it's older brother. And at the same time i definitely want to keep the game progressive so that we can attract new players.
I'm afraid of MBS (multiple building selection) and automining. I played SC2 at blizzcon for over seven hours. I was allowed to play the game the day before it was showed off at at blizzcon and there were so many things i loved about it. However, the MBS and automining felt absolutely terrible. It made sc2 feel A LOT slower than sc and that's very disappointing.
Now i know I've said i thought MBS could be a good thing. I was definitely wrong. It felt awfully newbie--macroing just wasn't fun. Tie this in with auto mining and it got even worse. I hardly had to think at all about my base. I think this could have massive negative ramifications on the competitive scene. Do we really want Starcraft 2 to always be known as the more popular but easier RTS game in the series? I would like to see it step up on all levels.
But what the hell are we supposed to do with these players who would find SC2 too hard without MBS and auto mining? My solution is to keep MBS and auto mining a setting that can only be played in non competitive games.
We all know BGH right? This mode of play is for players who aren't interested in expanding, they aren't interested in teching in a very mathematical or precise way. To say the very least, BGH players play a different and more simple version of starcraft. I'm not by ANY means saying that's bad. BGH players make up a huge part of the sc population. But i think you all would be as frustrated as i am if blizzard hosted BGH ladders and ONLY bgh style ladders. In fact, we don't even see BGH ladders around because for the most part SC players who want to be the best try to master low money maps because it's more difficult and there fore more attractive.
Lets keep MBS and auto mining in SC2, but out of competitive ladder play and tournaments. By doing this the new players who pick up SC2 and want to use an easier interface and play for fun can do this while the hard core competitive players, like me, can still play on a ladder where it was as fun and challenging as the old SC.
I've thought about this a very long time since i attended blizzcon. I believe we must keep MBS and auto mining, but separate them as features that can only be used in non ladder/tournament games.
Thanks for reading <3 --Tasteless
No. Go back to SC1 or at least wait till beta to see what blizzard will build upon having an easier UI. They already said having an easier UI leaves room to design other game mechanics that will occupy a players skill.
I saw nothing but an easy starcraft with awsom graphics and some very creative cool new units. Don't get me wrong though, it looks REALLY good and will obviously sell well when it releases. But i just can't see what game mechanics will some how fill up my time now. blinking around with stalkers? Leme tell you something... i can blink my ass off with stalkers, micro colossus up and down ledges and do all that cool shit the mother ship does WHILE going 4s5s6s7s8s9s0s and making sure my probes are mining. Unfortunately i didn't have to do that. What a shame if i don't have to do it any more at all.
I think people would've been happier if blizzard had released sc2 under a different name -_- .
I like playing sc a lot and the physical element makes it way different and more engaging than those other newer rts. What recent rts can make you sweat and tired and full of adrenaline after an intense game?
I dunno if its just me, but I wouldn't like to lose to those terrans on bnet with pretty good micro and army control but manage to accumiliate 3k/3k resources later on in the game hehe. I mean if they have a good idea of how to micro units but can't micro for their life i don't think they deserve to win too much. A game that requires a balance of skill sets will allow for more distinction in skill level and raise the difficulty curve and make it harder to master (such as macro and micro for instance).
Too bad an sc2 without mbs and automining would get terrible reviews from all game review sites for being archaic. I'm starting to like Tasteless' idea more and more. I mean fastest map players shifting to melee players have to learn a huge new amount of skillsets, timing, strategy, ect but can still switch. I don't see too much of a problem with a competitive mode in sc. A casual player used to playing mbs and AM wouldn't have to even undergo as much as a change in playstyle than say, a fastest player changing to melee. I mean fastest map players shifting to melee players have to learn a huge new amount of skillsets, timing, strategy, ect but can still switch. An interface switch from casual players to those trying to ladder wouldn't be too difficult either, within a short while they cud get used to it and start learning a more intense, fast paced, and in my opinion, fun, game.
I don't see it as archaic but rather a UI which creates a good necessity for hand dexterity and a balanced set of micro and macro skills (even if unintentionally). I mean just look at sports. There are lots of artificial limitations that could easily be taken out (dribbling in basketball, not using hands in soccer) but are obviously in place to make the game good.
Of course, if sc2 can have mbs and automining while still requiring u to spend a similar amount of time macroing and multitasking and apm then its fine... but its gonna be pretty hard to achieve that. And to forget to do these new macro elements would have to be as damaging as forgetting to send workers to mine for an extended period of time or not macroing out of all your gates enough.
On September 06 2007 05:09 MyLostTemple wrote: They said that. I played it already.
I saw nothing but an easy starcraft with awsom graphics and some very creative cool new units. Don't get me wrong though, it looks REALLY good and will obviously sell well when it releases. But i just can't see what game mechanics will some how fill up my time now. blinking around with stalkers? Leme tell you something... i can blink my ass off with stalkers, micro colossus up and down ledges and do all that cool shit the mother ship does WHILE going 4s5s6s7s8s9s0s and making sure my probes are mining. Unfortunately i didn't have to do that. What a shame if i don't have to do it any more at all.
Ya I played it too for hours at blizzcon but it was still wasn't even alpha so the races and gameplay is not fully fleshed out ( mostly for terran and zerg). While protoss may almost seem complete there can be so much that can be added. The warp in system is one of those mechanics that can occupy and reward skilled players but the warp in seems to be mid to late game which I did not see much at blizzcon especially considering how weak terran was against protoss at the time.
The terrans new building switch add on feature and salvage seems like a nice start for terran but the terran race are said to not be fully done concept wise which was evident on how stale and weak they were at blizzcon. It seems like blizzard is focusing on getting the concepts (like terran being a "nomadic") and foundation of each race into the game first, then they will get into the many small details of new game mechanics for each race to occupy player skills macro and micro.
The early game does seem less involving macro/hotkey wise and maybe that's where blizzard should pay more attention for all races or the gameplay as a whole. I just hope blizzard and the sc community can think of ideas and gameplay mechanics to help this issue and to further expand and make sc2 more dynamic than it's predecessor instead of just reverting back to the old SC1 UI suggestions. That is a cop out and the lazy way to go for for the game designers to keep sc2's competitive edge.
On September 04 2007 05:48 MyLostTemple wrote: It's been a while since i've posted in the SC2 topic area, however there are things i think we need to talk about. First let me say that did play sc2 at blizzcon and i was quite impressed with it. This game definitely has the potential to be an incredibly successful RTS game. I enjoyed almost every aspect of the game except for the interface; and that's what i'm going to talk about now.
I want starcraft 2 to be the best rts game ever. I don't want another warcraft 3. I also don't want silly newbie shit that brings this game a step down from it's older brother. And at the same time i definitely want to keep the game progressive so that we can attract new players.
I'm afraid of MBS (multiple building selection) and automining. I played SC2 at blizzcon for over seven hours. I was allowed to play the game the day before it was showed off at at blizzcon and there were so many things i loved about it. However, the MBS and automining felt absolutely terrible. It made sc2 feel A LOT slower than sc and that's very disappointing.
Now i know I've said i thought MBS could be a good thing. I was definitely wrong. It felt awfully newbie--macroing just wasn't fun. Tie this in with auto mining and it got even worse. I hardly had to think at all about my base. I think this could have massive negative ramifications on the competitive scene. Do we really want Starcraft 2 to always be known as the more popular but easier RTS game in the series? I would like to see it step up on all levels.
But what the hell are we supposed to do with these players who would find SC2 too hard without MBS and auto mining? My solution is to keep MBS and auto mining a setting that can only be played in non competitive games.
We all know BGH right? This mode of play is for players who aren't interested in expanding, they aren't interested in teching in a very mathematical or precise way. To say the very least, BGH players play a different and more simple version of starcraft. I'm not by ANY means saying that's bad. BGH players make up a huge part of the sc population. But i think you all would be as frustrated as i am if blizzard hosted BGH ladders and ONLY bgh style ladders. In fact, we don't even see BGH ladders around because for the most part SC players who want to be the best try to master low money maps because it's more difficult and there fore more attractive.
Lets keep MBS and auto mining in SC2, but out of competitive ladder play and tournaments. By doing this the new players who pick up SC2 and want to use an easier interface and play for fun can do this while the hard core competitive players, like me, can still play on a ladder where it was as fun and challenging as the old SC.
I've thought about this a very long time since i attended blizzcon. I believe we must keep MBS and auto mining, but separate them as features that can only be used in non ladder/tournament games.
Thanks for reading <3 --Tasteless
No. Go back to SC1 or at least wait till beta to see what blizzard will build upon having an easier UI. They already said having an easier UI leaves room to design other game mechanics that will occupy a players skill.
That's what every game designer says, and it usually comes true. Resulting in a game that cannot be played competitively.
You compare a mechanical ability to a game of rock paper scissors? What the fuck? The fact that it takes time to become truly competitive at a game is a good thing, for it heightens the skill-cap, ie the game won't be 'perfected' as quickly.
Okay, Roshambo isn't the best analogy, as it's interactive whereas mechanical skill is not, but I was trying to think of a simple but difficult to master task that was required to get to the real meat of the gameplay (in the analogy, Go). Let's put it this way: say before each move in Go, a third person would say a Chinese word and the first player to write the move legibly would get to place a stone. This way, if a player had quicker calligraphy, they would always get to move, and dominate the game. Then a person comes by and points out that the calligraphy part has nothing to do with the rest of the game of Go, and simply keeps people who haven't mastered calligraphy from being able to exercise their mental skills. The reply is that taking the calligraphy out of the game would weaken the skill curve, and therefore ruin the competitiveness of Go. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument: I'm using your argument (that taking the physical aspect out of SC2 would completely ruin it as a competitive game) and putting it in a different situation, where the conclusion seems "absurd"; I doubt anyone would say that Go was less competitive or had a smaller skill curve if you took out the calligraphy requirement, it would just be an entirely mental game.
I don't get why so many people assume that there is some sort of "skill ceiling" to SC and SC2, such that it's possible to play the game "perfectly" if you take out some of the physical requirement; what's keeping the mental game from developing further now that the competitive community will be expanded by streamlining the interface? Is the physical aspect of SC the only reason why it is the most popular e-sports game of all time? After two years of following professional SC, I think there's much more to why the game is so great than just the extra mechanical skill involved.
Yes, you are god damn right I'm prepared to say that the last component is god damn essential to macro skill. Of course it wouldn't eliminate all skill in that regard, but why should that have to be the case in order for it to be viewed as an essential part?
Turn it on for single player then, which is all these people will play, or make a compromise a la the tab function I've been suggesting (not only because it will make macroing less easy, it will also make it more precise which is a good thing).
By essential, I mean if we make two players' skill in ordering units to be built the same (which MBS/automine won't do, but it will make it easier to accomplish), then even if the other player is superior in all the other aspects I've listed, the two players' macro will be the same. I doubt this is the case; in fact, I think the first three I listed are the majority of macro skill in the highest levels of play, once the mechanics have become muscle memory. MBS/automine simply removes the need to build up such a high degree of muscle memory before one can concentrate on the macro that really counts.
Keeping MBS/automine only for singleplayer/noncompetitive play, and this is @ MyLostTemple too, is sending a message to players that only noobs use MBS/automine, and will cause most players to force themselves to go without it for dignity's sake, even if they don't enjoy playing the game with such an "outdated" interface.
BW won't survive as a competitive sport past SC2 unless SC2 completely fails, there is just no way. SC2 should be SC's successor in every way.
I can pretty much guarantee that Kespa will be very reluctant to pick up SC2; after all, look how long SC took before it was balanced to the degree that Korean e-sports has been thriving on. Korea will wait until they are sure that SC2 can fully take the place of SC before they switch the leagues over to SC2. The best solution would be for the games to be different enough that Kespa can support leagues for SC AND SC2; Blizzard seems to be aiming for this approach, as they're including most if not all of the original SC units in the map editor for SC2, thus making it easy for a team like Project Revolution to recreate SC in the new engine.
Let's be honest here, none of us have any idea how MBS/automine will affect SC2, as it is incredibly difficult to look at an idea and figure out how it will affect gameplay dynamics without actually playing the game. That's why the iterative method of game development, where the game is made playable at a very early state and constantly playtested, is far superior to the 'waterfall' method, where the game is only made playable after most of the content has already been made. Even the TL peoples who were at Blizzcon played a very early internal alpha version of the game, that is nowhere close to having all features implemented, and played mostly against people of far inferior skill level, to the point where they could sit back and max up without experiencing severe harrass (which is what units like reapers and colossus who can traverse cliffs, and the recall abilities given to all races seem to be headed for). Is it too much to wait until closed beta, which I assume some members of TL will have access to, when all the features are complete and players of equal skill will be playing, to decide whether MBS/automine should stay or go?
On September 06 2007 05:09 MyLostTemple wrote: They said that. I played it already.
I saw nothing but an easy starcraft with awsom graphics and some very creative cool new units. Don't get me wrong though, it looks REALLY good and will obviously sell well when it releases. But i just can't see what game mechanics will some how fill up my time now. blinking around with stalkers? Leme tell you something... i can blink my ass off with stalkers, micro colossus up and down ledges and do all that cool shit the mother ship does WHILE going 4s5s6s7s8s9s0s and making sure my probes are mining. Unfortunately i didn't have to do that. What a shame if i don't have to do it any more at all.
Ya I played it too for hours at blizzcon but it was still wasn't even alpha so the races and gameplay is not fully fleshed out ( mostly for terran and zerg). While protoss may almost seem complete there can be so much that can be added. The warp in system is one of those mechanics that can occupy and reward skilled players but the warp in seems to be mid to late game which I did not see much at blizzcon especially considering how weak terran was against protoss at the time.
The terrans new building switch add on feature and salvage seems like a nice start for terran but the terran race are said to not be fully done concept wise which was evident on how stale and weak they were at blizzcon. It seems like blizzard is focusing on getting the concepts (like terran being a "nomadic") and foundation of each race into the game first, then they will get into the many small details of new game mechanics for each race to occupy player skills macro and micro.
The early game does seem less involving macro/hotkey wise and maybe that's where blizzard should pay more attention for all races or the gameplay as a whole. I just hope blizzard and the sc community can think of ideas and gameplay mechanics to help this issue and to further expand and make sc2 more dynamic than it's predecessor instead of just reverting back to the old SC1 UI suggestions. That is a cop out and the lazy way to go for for the game designers to keep sc2's competitive edge.
Maybe that's a lazy way, but it's the only sure and confirmed solution to get a competitive game which lasts long enough and can be suitable for progaming.
Finally, maybe the pro-MBS will be able to explain why it is "needed", and in which sense it's an "improvement". As someone described perfectly above, it's pure "limitation"... In EVERY competitive game or sport you must have limitations, to a certain extent, for a certain balance. It is necessary, as it's necessary for starcraft to keep an important macro side for the physical and stressful aspect it generates. This kind of thing which keeps you on the toes all games. Of course, as Nony said, the pure essence of macro will maybe stay, fact is the attention you'll give to this side will be greatly reduced, especially with auto minning shit thing. Not mentionning it will necesseraly close the skill gap, you can't even argue. OH, YES I FORGOT, in fact you still can argue :
On September 05 2007 14:33 YinYang69 wrote: Wouldn't a easier interface still give the higher APM player more things to do and therefore still be better than their opponent? So instead of like the old game where you have to fight the outdated/bad interface to storm and build zealots in a few seconds, now you can storm, web, maelstrom, build zealots, do two simultaneous drops, expand and get a few extra gateways all in the span of like five seconds. Doesn't that sound better?
No it does not. It's much, much worse. Luck is a part of every game. As you decrease the skill-gap (through automation for instance), luck becomes more and more of a factor, until it is the primary factor. Play the lotto if you want a game based on luck. We don't want SC2 to be a crap-shoot like CNC3.
it doesnt decrease the skill gap because the faster player will always be able to do more than the slower player.
I wont comment on this statement cause its so obviously failed, but I had to quote it somewhere...
Also i dont want to introduce an other debate but why the fuck the idle button ? Why do you all want a fucking assisted game ? If you want to try to replace macro and base attention by another kind, more "interesting" and "constructive" as you seem to suppose, please do testing on your war4. At least you'll find plenty rooms to improve, and you still can fail without blowing up the future progaming industry.
You compare a mechanical ability to a game of rock paper scissors? What the fuck? The fact that it takes time to become truly competitive at a game is a good thing, for it heightens the skill-cap, ie the game won't be 'perfected' as quickly.
Okay, Roshambo isn't the best analogy, as it's interactive whereas mechanical skill is not, but I was trying to think of a simple but difficult to master task that was required to get to the real meat of the gameplay (in the analogy, Go). Let's put it this way: say before each move in Go, a third person would say a Chinese word and the first player to write the move legibly would get to place a stone. This way, if a player had quicker calligraphy, they would always get to move, and dominate the game. Then a person comes by and points out that the calligraphy part has nothing to do with the rest of the game of Go, and simply keeps people who haven't mastered calligraphy from being able to exercise their mental skills. The reply is that taking the calligraphy out of the game would weaken the skill curve, and therefore ruin the competitiveness of Go. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument: I'm using your argument (that taking the physical aspect out of SC2 would completely ruin it as a competitive game) and putting it in a different situation, where the conclusion seems "absurd"; I doubt anyone would say that Go was less competitive or had a smaller skill curve if you took out the calligraphy requirement, it would just be an entirely mental game.
I don't get why so many people assume that there is some sort of "skill ceiling" to SC and SC2, such that it's possible to play the game "perfectly" if you take out some of the physical requirement; what's keeping the mental game from developing further now that the competitive community will be expanded by streamlining the interface? Is the physical aspect of SC the only reason why it is the most popular e-sports game of all time? After two years of following professional SC, I think there's much more to why the game is so great than just the extra mechanical skill involved.
Congratulations on making yet another analogy that's completely nonsensical. I realize it's hard to come up with one that makes sense, and that's because there isn't one.
Having to actually PLAY the game is an integral part of any computer game, and yes, it is one of the reasons SC is played at such a high competitive level.
It's not some retarded pre-requisite for playing the game, it IS the game. You want to take golf, remove the drive and make it a game of pure putting.
Comparing 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z to caligraphy pre-stone placement in go would make sense if Starcraft was a Turn-Based Strategy game, but it's a Real Time Strategy game - speed will and is supposed to be a factor.
Starcraft is what it is because it combines quickness of mind with quickness of hands. Starcraft is not chess. Starcraft is not Go. Starcraft is not turn based and it's not a game of purely strategy, being faster than your opponent should be rewarded just as much as being smarter should.
Yes, you are god damn right I'm prepared to say that the last component is god damn essential to macro skill. Of course it wouldn't eliminate all skill in that regard, but why should that have to be the case in order for it to be viewed as an essential part?
Turn it on for single player then, which is all these people will play, or make a compromise a la the tab function I've been suggesting (not only because it will make macroing less easy, it will also make it more precise which is a good thing).
By essential, I mean if we make two players' skill in ordering units to be built the same (which MBS/automine won't do, but it will make it easier to accomplish), then even if the other player is superior in all the other aspects I've listed, the two players' macro will be the same. I doubt this is the case; in fact, I think the first three I listed are the majority of macro skill in the highest levels of play, once the mechanics have become muscle memory. MBS/automine simply removes the need to build up such a high degree of muscle memory before one can concentrate on the macro that really counts.
That is not what essential means. ALL of the things listed are essential PARTS of the whole that is macro ability.
Keeping MBS/automine only for singleplayer/noncompetitive play, and this is @ MyLostTemple too, is sending a message to players that only noobs use MBS/automine, and will cause most players to force themselves to go without it for dignity's sake, even if they don't enjoy playing the game with such an "outdated" interface.
Good. In theory it's not all that different from ladder games being played on fast instead of normal speed.
Ok, I'm being a smartass here, I don't like the idea of different modes at all since I hate the thought of the community splitting, but if that's the only way we'll have non-MBS SC2 I guess I'm prepared to accept it.
BW won't survive as a competitive sport past SC2 unless SC2 completely fails, there is just no way. SC2 should be SC's successor in every way.
I can pretty much guarantee that Kespa will be very reluctant to pick up SC2; after all, look how long SC took before it was balanced to the degree that Korean e-sports has been thriving on. Korea will wait until they are sure that SC2 can fully take the place of SC before they switch the leagues over to SC2. The best solution would be for the games to be different enough that Kespa can support leagues for SC AND SC2; Blizzard seems to be aiming for this approach, as they're including most if not all of the original SC units in the map editor for SC2, thus making it easy for a team like Project Revolution to recreate SC in the new engine.
It doesn't matter one little bit what KESPA will do or not do, SC2 is going to be the biggest RTS ever released, it will most likely completely wipe out the fanbase. SC will not survive long term unless SC2 completely bombs. Yes, there'll be a short time where both games have leagues, but that won't last long.
Let's be honest here, none of us have any idea how MBS/automine will affect SC2, as it is incredibly difficult to look at an idea and figure out how it will affect gameplay dynamics without actually playing the game. That's why the iterative method of game development, where the game is made playable at a very early state and constantly playtested, is far superior to the 'waterfall' method, where the game is only made playable after most of the content has already been made. Even the TL peoples who were at Blizzcon played a very early internal alpha version of the game, that is nowhere close to having all features implemented, and played mostly against people of far inferior skill level, to the point where they could sit back and max up without experiencing severe harrass (which is what units like reapers and colossus who can traverse cliffs, and the recall abilities given to all races seem to be headed for). Is it too much to wait until closed beta, which I assume some members of TL will have access to, when all the features are complete and players of equal skill will be playing, to decide whether MBS/automine should stay or go?
"Let's wait for blizzcon" <- Done, judgement: MBS is inferior to the way it works in SC. Let's wait for Beta: Okay, say it still sucks after we've played the beta.
Are you really going to change your mind? I'm not at all averse to waiting for the beta before passing final judgement, but I am going to argue against its implemention in topics such as these, as I have just as much of a leg to stand on as you do.
If by beta it turns out that hey, MBS isn't so bad, it doesn't really change the balance between micro and macro all that much, then I'll be really happy.
I can imagine reviews saying 'oh no, UI is not as advanced as *Generic RTS 2008*).
I don't see why MBS is needed at all. I haven't heard one convincing argument. All of it is based on speculation. Simplification alone won't encourage new people to buy the game. Why? Because if they were new players they wouldn't know much about RTS's anyway and whether or not the UI has been "improved". Anyone who follows StarCraft will have an opinion on this, but some random newb in an electronics store won't have an opinion either way. They will buy the game based on other things. The key staying power is how the game itself plays, and whether or not it is consistently enjoyable. Obviously, StarCraft at all levels is. Look at all the newbs that play BGH. Do you think they are honestly going to buy SC2 based on the UI? Hell no. They will buy it because it has shiny new graphics. But to keep the old fans and generate new ones, you need to have a game that has lots of different facets to it, that you have to improve at to be good, to marvel at when someone has them mastered etc.
That's the point of the analogy...despite the fact that skill at calligraphy doesn't have anything to do with skill at Go, the players still feel that it is an essential part of the game. With MBS/automine, fast players will still have a huge advantage, but players won't have to commit awkward sequences of inputs in order to perform what should be basic actions within the game.
Maybe the golf analogy will work better. Think of SC like a par 5 golf hole. There's the initial drive, the shot at which failure screws any chance of playing the hole well, while success simply sets you up for the difficult part: the second shot, the approach shot, and the putting. Because of the consequences of failure, the initial drive must be perfected to start playing golf competitively, but mastery of it has no real effect on the overall play of the hole. The other shots remain, and that's where the strategy and really difficult execution takes place. The most competitive golfers are still the ones who have mastered the short game.
The mechanics of macro are analogous to the drive: if you don't have the sequences committed to muscle memory, it becomes almost impossible to compete against someone who has. The second shot and short game that remains corresponds to the rest of the macro (including the mechanics, which are still important because there is now no room for error), the micro, and the strategy. , i.e. these other components of SC. The best SC players are not those who have simply mastered the mechanics of macro, but who have done that and excel in these other factors. MBS/automine makes the 'drive' easier, thus allowing players to reach the real meat of the game and develop them further.
As I've said before, I don't care whether MBS/automine is implemented or not, as long as it goes through closed beta. If during closed beta, the majority opinion is that it's hurting the game, I'll be fine with dropping it. But Blizzard has been so sensitive to our complaints about the game lately, I'm worried that they might make a huge mistake and drop the idea before it's properly tested. Personally, I think they have a stronger backbone than that, but it's possible.
But caligraphy has nothing to do with go, strong technical fundamentals has everything to do with a computer game! I don't want someone who hasn't mastered that to be able to beat me without being significantly superior to me in the other aspects of the game just because the importance of it has been diminished greatly.
The amazing things you can pull off are only made more impressive because of the constant pressure to not slack off on your macro.
It's not some obstacle you have to get over before you can reach the 'real game', it is a major part of the real game.
I've just read through this entire thread. A lot of interesting points brought up. Let me remind everyone that this discussion is not JUST about MBS and automining. It's about making these features a setting that can only be used in public games. Thus keeping the good people still able to compete in the manner they did in the original SC
You can break all sports into two basic parts: The strategic element and the physical aspect
there is incredible strategy weaved within all sports: baseball, soccer, football, tennis, racket ball, boxing, wrestling, starcraft etc
SC2 has less of a physical aspect than SC. They've turned baseball into tee ball. That ball is a lot easier to hit when it isn't moving huh? Well maybe one fun part of the game was the challenge of hitting a moving ball. As we all know, baseball > tee ball as far as skill and competition goes. But making a game that requires less dexterity (lower apm) they are reducing physical aspect which made the original starcraft so fucking awsome.
Let me use another sport, this time with pictures:
Starcraft as golf
Starcraft 2 turned into minature golf due to MBS and auto mining.
Before you respond to this, look at your keyboard. Does it have missing keys?... like the windows ones? You might not even be playing starcraft correctly... This is what mine looks like:
At the bare minimum do you have your windows keys missing? are you using your entire keyboard when you play (i'm talking about the keys that actually work in sc)? Do you bind all the number keys when you play?... from 1 to 0? do you know every hotkey for your race? I mean everything--from special upgrades to unit hot keys. Do you use all five fingers? Do you know which fingers to use on which keys? Most starcraft players don't. Even the die hard ones. They spend too much time looking at the screen and less time looking at their hands. There's a reason why those koreans have such high apm. I just want that same feel in the new starcraft. I'll be sad if new players pick up starcraft 2 and start laddering with the computer playing the game for them. This is essentially the autocast of macroing.
Again, i only care about this for ladder/competitive play. If you want your buildings all bound to one key and your probes going to minerals the second they get out--fine, but don't expect to be a progamer. Don't expect to be the best. MBS and auto mining deter from the very elements that make the game competitive.
What about all these progamers, people who devoted their lives to starcraft, mastering these skills and falling in love with them. MBS and automining is a spit in the face for these people, the ones who know the game far better than Blizzard does. Blizzard should be building off what made the game successful, not "fixing" it. I can only assume that Blizzard wants MBS to bring a new type of macro into starcraft. However that macro type seems to be a much slower, much easier one. One that involves less apm and less concentration. One that is centered around memorizing when different unit combos are coming up and then rebinding gateways accordingly. Hmm... Should be quite easy to master with the computer making sure my probes mine for me when they pop out.
Again, if you don't like the difficulty and demanding dexterity of starcraft then that's fine. But don't fuck up Starcraft because this game was too hard for you. Play another game. Keep MBS and automining as a setting and keep it out of the esports scene.
On September 04 2007 06:37 lamarine wrote: i don't like MBS, but there is one issue - it would be hard to purchse units from warp gates without it.... (u have 20 gates, can't bind them all, so u have to click one, then press key then click on location and so on for 20 times o_O, although may be warp gates won't be that popular, who knows)
So far as we know the Protoss has a special hotkey to select all of his warpgates instantly. Just keep this and remove MBS and it'll be fine. Or put a limit to how many buildings you can bind with MBS?
If it's really true that someone could beat you while being inferior in other aspects of the game simply because something like 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z becoming 4z for both of you, then SC really does deserve the moniker of a "clickfest". I don't believe that's the case, even without the new features Blizzard is adding. On the other hand, if the game feels "too slow", I have faith that either the new features will fill the gap or increase macro in other ways (like the warpgates), or the game speed will be increased again. If we go into closed beta and even after all of this it feels that MBS/auto-mine is killing SC2, then I'll be the first to advocate taking it out. But until then, even though TL experiences with the early alpha version of the game were not optimistic (though I'd like to hear whether the game was still boring when the players were of equal skill), I think we should wait until closed beta and play the game before we publicly render judgement upon MBS or automine.
EDIT: Limiting MBS to say, three per group, was my original solution, but upon further reflection I realized that it was a rather arbitrary limitation; people would look at it and wonder why they couldn't select more per group, just like they did with SC's 12-per-group unit limitation. Perhaps tabbing through groups of three buildings, or tabbing through buildings at different areas of the map (determined by a certain radius) would be a good alternate solution to throwing MBS out entirely, but again I'd advocate us playing it for ourselves before we stamp it out.
This is maybe a little off topic, but ... I think a great idea would be to put the TAB key to a better use, and say that if you select a building, pressing tab will cycle to the next building of that type, and so on. So I could just press 1zTzTzTgTg etc... No need to select multiple buildings at once, no need to use up your whole mess of hotkeys just for macro.
This is maybe a little off topic, but ... I think a great idea would be to put the TAB key to a better use, and say that if you select a building, pressing tab will cycle to the next building of that type, and so on. So I could just press 1zTzTzTgTg etc... No need to select multiple buildings at once, no need to use up your whole mess of hotkeys just for macro.
I think tab is too far over to the left hand side of the keyboard to make it logically accessible. look at the tab key now, you can't spread your fingers across to hit a hotkey at distance, your fingers should always have a steady bouncing motion while playing sc. instead you'll be moving your hand back and fourth from hotkey 'x' and the tab button, the result is that the 4d5d6d7d8d9d0 method will still be more logical because it would be faster than using the tab key.
even then, tabbing seems rather redundant and overly repetitive. one thing that i love about starcraft is the fact my left hand is gliding all over the keyboard and shifting positions constantly. I want that feel in sc2.
for those of you such as esu1 who keep arguing that blizzard will have other features that will occupy us competitive gamers... i think your wrong. I can't imagine what other features that aren't micro oriented blizzard can come up with. I started another thread you can find here:
which discusses the idea of multiple key combinations to occupy the players left hand since MBS has made this part much easier. While some supported this, others seemed greatly disappointed with it. I think it would be wiser to keep the identical interface and the identical pace... otherwise blizzard should have made this RTS under another title.
On September 06 2007 04:41 MyLostTemple wrote: I've just read through this entire thread. A lot of interesting points brought up. Let me remind everyone that this discussion is not JUST about MBS and automining. It's about making these features a setting that can only be used in public games. Thus keeping the good people still able to compete in the manner they did in the original SC
You can break all sports into two basic parts: The strategic element and the physical aspect
there is incredible strategy weaved within all sports: baseball, soccer, football, tennis, racket ball, boxing, wrestling, starcraft etc
SC2 has less of a physical aspect than SC. They've turned baseball into tee ball. That ball is a lot easier to hit when it isn't moving huh? Well maybe one fun part of the game was the challenge of hitting a moving ball. As we all know, baseball > tee ball as far as skill and competition goes. But making a game that requires less dexterity (lower apm) they are reducing physical aspect which made the original starcraft so fucking awsome.
Let me use another sport, this time with pictures:
Starcraft as golf
Starcraft 2 turned into minature golf due to MBS and auto mining.
Before you respond to this, look at your keyboard. Does it have missing keys?... like the windows ones? You might not even be playing starcraft correctly... This is what mine looks like:
At the bare minimum do you have your windows keys missing? are you using your entire keyboard when you play (i'm talking about the keys that actually work in sc)? Do you bind all the number keys when you play?... from 1 to 0? do you know every hotkey for your race? I mean everything--from special upgrades to unit hot keys. Do you use all five fingers? Do you know which fingers to use on which keys? Most starcraft players don't. Even the die hard ones. They spend too much time looking at the screen and less time looking at their hands. There's a reason why those koreans have such high apm. I just want that same feel in the new starcraft. I'll be sad if new players pick up starcraft 2 and start laddering with the computer playing the game for them. This is essentially the autocast of macroing.
Again, i only care about this for ladder/competitive play. If you want your buildings all bound to one key and your probes going to minerals the second they get out--fine, but don't expect to be a progamer. Don't expect to be the best. MBS and auto mining deter from the very elements that make the game competitive.
What about all these progamers, people who devoted their lives to starcraft, mastering these skills and falling in love with them. MBS and automining is a spit in the face for these people, the ones who know the game far better than Blizzard does. Blizzard should be building off what made the game successful, not "fixing" it. I can only assume that Blizzard wants MBS to bring a new type of macro into starcraft. However that macro type seems to be a much slower, much easier one. One that involves less apm and less concentration. One that is centered around memorizing when different unit combos are coming up and then rebinding gateways accordingly. Hmm... Should be quite easy to master with the computer making sure my probes mine for me when they pop out.
Again, if you don't like the difficulty and demanding dexterity of starcraft then that's fine. But don't fuck up Starcraft because this game was too hard for you. Play another game. Keep MBS and automining as a setting and keep it out of the esports scene.
fucking a tasteless, you took the words right out of my mouth. all these arguements for dumbing down starcraft and taking away the awesome balance reached with the current series is bullshit. reading through the whole thread, and i am full of fear that blizzard might listen to these fools who don't understand the competetive nature of starccraft and make some hybrid version of bw and c&c. PEOPLE MACRO IS A MANDATORY PART OF THE GAME! without it starcraft wouldn't have reached the spectacular level where you need skill in all aspects of the game. pure micro and no macro, you are essentially taking out 1/2 of the game. you all complain about how the interface is shitty, but do u guys even still play? when i first started this game, i fell in love with almost every aspect of it (albeit i hated siege tanks like no other), whether it be the need to focus on your base while watching over your army, one mistake resulting in win or loss due to not paying attention. all was necessary to create the perfect RTS game. I actually started from the original Red alert series, and moved on to sc. bringing the macro down to the level of war3 or c&c wouldn't promote the game at all, it would end up being another rts game where people play it for 6-12 months and move on for the next best thing. starcraft has created a loyal fan base and dedicated players due to the fact that no matter how mnay times you play it, you can always improve, new things to test and you wont master the game even after 5 years of playing. i dunno i am ranting but seriously, all i can say is mbs and auto mining should not be allowed in ladder/melee/tvb play in sc2. keep it in for ums or whatever else people play non competitively, but forcing this feature across the board would ruin the competitive nature of sc due to the dumbing down of the game and allowing every goddamn player to be able to micro like boxer while building up an army like oov. -_-;; stop this madness
I'm against the suggestion to make MBS and automining (and whatever else that could make newbs play easier) a turn-on/off setting. It's a very bad idea IMO because:
- At first how could you concretely define different levels of play? Most of us are somewhere at the middle between the lowest level i.e total new beginners and the highest level i.e progamers. Should it only applicable at pro levels or competitive ladders? How about normal Battle.NET games? Small, fun tournaments? It will cause confusions or even unnecessarily divide SC2 into two totally different schools.
- Once the newbs get deeper into the games and familiar with everything, will they be happy to turn off MBS and other "newb" settings? Probably not. They are used to it, and there is nothing fun or rewarding in turning it off, and if it's optional at Battle.NET then there is no reason for them to play without it. Again this will virtually divide us - people that still play SC1 and love its challenging gameplay - and the rest of the world.
- MBS and automining do not simply make the game easier but also obviously change the gameplay and style a lot. Generally speaking this is bad, a game should always be the way like it is at any level of play.(I'm talking about great games like sport games or chess etc.).
- One important success of Starcraft 1 is that it is both very friendly to newbs yet still challenging to hardcore gamers after years of playing it. Shouldn't Blizzard just try to achieve it again with Starcraft 2 instead of "going around" it like this?
- And put it this way, if you think having MBS and automing as "newb settings" could make the game friendlier to newbs, why not adding even more switchable settings to make it friendlier to newbs and harder to pros? How about more auto-cast spells? Smart attacking? Or even an in-game helper? Or making everything absolutely manual as a pro-only mode?
I believe it's just fine to make SC2 a bit harder than other regular RTSs. I don't think it will scare people away, as long as their efforts spent on the game are well deserved (by rewarding them an exciting gameplay, providing them places for improvement, reasons to practice and so on)
Well Im sure blizzard would be capable of running 2 ladders with different skill sets. When you go to your AMM, you select which rule set you want to play. However this means that less people get matched up. Still its better than having MBS and Automine on across the board. People looking for a challenge will play on the tough rule set while casual gamers can play on their rule set.
1)people go see the micro and not them macroing off 8 gateways bla bla bla building probes
but the point is that the macroing is a -prerequisit- to awesome micro. you wouldnt have shit to micro if you didnt macro so fucking hard you set fire to the table under your computer. that game Iris vs Savior holy shit Iris was fucking scorching macro and microing. a lot of people can micro and end up playing V-tec i guess but the macro is an -essential- part of the game.
2) macro is tedious
no it is not asshole it is a part of the game and players that actually get off their asses and actually do something are rightfully rewarded with a great fucking army. end of discussion. if you keep on saying that macro is tedious then all i can conclude is that youve been playing NeXuS dEsTrOyErS all day.
3) lets try something new
its not new. people have tried SC2 already and given feedback. I have tried wc3 and it sucks.
4) it will get noobs interested
no the noobs (and trust me there are a lot of them) are already playing dota, wow or just watching cinematics from games they bought. why cater to a market thats already saturated with 20apm games when theres a niche of competitive players totally ready to take on a real game? and by the way blizzard already has "competitive play" as one of SC2's top priorities.
to conclude, if automine and MBS is an option then fine but just dont make it standard. it will be like bgh and money maps. the people using them live in denial while everyone else laughs at them.
Make AMM + MBS possible in the UMS editor - so if people want they can create maps with these things in them
however
i think you'll find nobody does 1) The real competitors will come from SC anyway (and it seems like most of the true SC players are against it) 2) I'm sure most of the "noob" crowd will disappear away to the next 'title' game released after SC2 3) I really wonder how many of the lobbyists for AMM/MBS will end up playing a majority of UMS games anyway?
You know if we are going to use sport analogy I got one of my own. You guys say we have artificial limitation in sports to increase skill gaps and such and you are right. Such as dribbling in basketball. But with the old SC UI it'll be like playing basketball with a weight vest, ankle and wrist bracelet. This will make it difficult to jump, run and handle the ball. You'll still have the core rules such as dribbling and not fouling but we'll constrain the players a bit to make the game even more competitive! It'll reward players with better strength and conditioning even more.
With a new UI the core of the game will still be the same. We'll still have our opening bo, unit counters, macro micro wars, we'll still have to do recon, flank and all that good stuff. On the macro side there's even less room for errors, cause you can't use the interface as an excuse anymore. You need perfect timing, perfect unit distribution, proper building placement, constant worker production etc. Even the best player get some surplus money and build extra gateways and expansion etc. Now there will be no surplus your mineral count should be below 400 majority of the time. And now you have the ability to do all of this cause you are not constrait to a arbitrary limitation like starcraft. There'll still be a huge skill gap between players and a more skill player will have much more efficient macro than a weaker player.
Now personally MBS/Auto mining don't matter to me a bit. I would be satisfy either way it being put in or taken out. But I see all the benefits of new modern UI changes and I think we should get a few more play test in before acting like zealots and calling the game off right? If after beta testing it does hamper gameplay then maybe we can utter cries of doom.
On September 06 2007 17:03 Plexa wrote: Make AMM + MBS possible in the UMS editor - so if people want they can create maps with these things in them
however
i think you'll find nobody does 1) The real competitors will come from SC anyway (and it seems like most of the true SC players are against it) 2) I'm sure most of the "noob" crowd will disappear away to the next 'title' game released after SC2 3) I really wonder how many of the lobbyists for AMM/MBS will end up playing a majority of UMS games anyway?
x2
That's the solution ; i think some people will do though, and that's great for them, but it'll stay marginal, as it should.
However, as FA already stated, a multi selection to set the rally point would not change the balance micro/macro and avoid some annoyance This can be considered as an UI 'improvment' in my mind (since you like this term), once again cause it doesnt meddle with the very basis of the game.
I'm still against a 'peon idle button' though, a cautious and ordered style of play should be rewarded somehow.
On September 06 2007 17:44 YinYang69 wrote: You know if we are going to use sport analogy I got one of my own. You guys say we have artificial limitation in sports to increase skill gaps and such and you are right. Such as dribbling in basketball. But with the old SC UI it'll be like playing basketball with a weight vest, ankle and wrist bracelet. This will make it difficult to jump, run and handle the ball. You'll still have the core rules such as dribbling and not fouling but we'll constrain the players a bit to make the game even more competitive! It'll reward players with better strength and conditioning even more.
With a new UI the core of the game will still be the same. We'll still have our opening bo, unit counters, macro micro wars, we'll still have to do recon, flank and all that good stuff. On the macro side there's even less room for errors, cause you can't use the interface as an excuse anymore. You need perfect timing, perfect unit distribution, proper building placement, constant worker production etc. Even the best player get some surplus money and build extra gateways and expansion etc. Now there will be no surplus your mineral count should be below 400 majority of the time. And now you have the ability to do all of this cause you are not constrait to a arbitrary limitation like starcraft. There'll still be a huge skill gap between players and a more skill player will have much more efficient macro than a weaker player.
Now personally MBS/Auto mining don't matter to me a bit. I would be satisfy either way it being put in or taken out. But I see all the benefits of new modern UI changes and I think we should get a few more play test in before acting like zealots and calling the game off right? If after beta testing it does hamper gameplay then maybe we can utter cries of doom.
First off your going to piss off all the people who played Basketball when you come out with "Basket Ball 2" and show in on TV everywhere around the world. You didn't just make basket ball more competitive, you turned it into warcraft 3. I don't want to watch a bunch of beefy basket ball players move around like they're underwater. Why don't you give all the players plastic wiffel baseball bats, that way we can just auto cast their basketballs into the hoops because they'll be too busy hitting each other playing basket ball 2 while brining a disgrace to the original name: basket ball.
Actually your sport COULD be interesting, i just don't want to see it called Basket ball 2 since it's just basketball with a bunch of handicaps. For a competitive player Starcrafts interface is ideal, sure we can improve on it, but making it slower isn't improvement, blizzard should be organizing the hotkeys to make more interesting finger combinations and making each races hotkey setup intentionally unique. This is an embarrassing solution to competitive play. But as a non competitive feature, it's fine.
its not new. people have tried SC2 already and given feedback. I have tried wc3 and it sucks.
.
and yet the game is not even alpha or in beta with blizzards promise of "other ways to occupy a players skill".
seeing as how the guy doing the demo keeps on droning "this is how very skilled players can micro..." i seriously hope that they come up with something that will -really- be requiring skill
but still. macro is a very very central part of sc. i spend a lot of time training my macro and whenever i try to teach someone to play sc they -always- lagg behind on macro so so so much and are always like "wtf how did you get so many units so fast"?
its what seperates the good players from the great, so dont kill it.
everything should be on MANUAL MODE in SC2 . WHY? because its just like formula 1 racing..all formula one racing cars are manual transmission..u need to train to become a good driver..shifting gears smoothly..and using what gears etc,, not some easy shit AUTO transmission..know what i mean? its more competitive that way.its all about driving skillszz and sc is all about macro, micro skills .dont take any of it away.
sc broodwar = manual gear sc2= auto gear (automining , MBS etc etc) pls make sc2 = manual gear
While I understand your point lingwu, the analogy youve used is wrong. F1 racers have manual mode because they need the level of control over their gears not becuase its just harder.
Yes the lack of MBS does not give any extra control that players need, what it does is takes out a part of the game that should have to be mastered and not simplified. If you were using the F1 analogy, maybe you could say that the car would control the speed while all the player does is steer. Yes those who are better at steering would still have an advantage, but it would make the whole sport a hell of a lot more stupider.
Mastering many aspects of the game is very important, the game shouldnt be just about whos the best microer, it should be who is overall the best at macro, micro, and strategical decisions. Someone that lacks in one department should be able to make up for it to an extent by being better in another department. Currently in starcraft you have your macro gods and your micro gods, both of which have pretty much perfect strategy. If you remove the difficulty of macro, your left with just micro gods. BORING
i didnt say F1 racers have manual gears because its hard. i said..with manual, theyneed to know how to shift gears smoothly and know what gears to use . and driving skills
same with scbw,, we need to know how to macro and micro sc2,, easy mode auto gear.
I disagree with the idea that automine or MBS destroy the "macro", "one side of the game".
I think it's a lack of confidence and respect on the developers and the players. What is macro in SC? If it's the ability to click on ten buildings in a second, or to send mining your peons while microing somewhere else, macro in SC is just a boring but speedy harassment which forbid you to do more interesting things, just as achieving some brilliant micro moves, or thinking an additional second to the strategic issue of the game. But macro in SC is a lot more than that, even if it's not the richest part of the gameplay: deciding when you have to expand, to mass units, on the ground of your strategic feeling of the match.
On the other hand, it's obvious that when the number of controls, and expands, increases during the game the average quality of micro "per control" decreases at the same time, even in pro-games.
So it's likely to think that the simplification of the most repetitive part of the macro in SC2 will lead to an improvement of the game. Perhaps the mid-game will reach this kind of pure beauty of the early game in pro-match, with individualized micro for units, and build-order's or expansion's decisions taken with a perfect timing and anticipation.
It's true that such a shift in the equilibrium of the gameplay requires a finer (if possible!) balance and a bigger (idem) variety of micro and macro issues of units, maps and build orders to preserve the intensity of the game. But if we are confident in developpers and players, we could hope that this progress will be made, and that the general interest of the game will so be improved.
I just want to add a comment on the "learning curve" of SC and SC2. Perhaps (but I'm not sure) will automine ant MBS reduce the difference of level between a bad and an average player. But I think they will widen the gap between this two kind of players and the very good or pro gamers. To click five times in a second on gateways is not an easy thing to deal with, and it takes months or even years to be able to do it without to focus on that part of the gameplay. But it's an easier challenge that micro your 100 controls in order to attack, and defend, and scout all the map, and climb the tech tree, and prepare the coming of the 100 further controls... A pro produces his units and manages his peons a lot better and faster than me. But it's probably the part of the gameplay where the difference is the smallest.
i like to see the first person VOD of the progamer where he switches his screen quickly to his base and click each of his building and build unitvery fast...rather than see his FPVOD press "1 T",,,, all done.
On September 06 2007 22:32 lingwu wrote: i like to see the first person VOD of the progamer where he switches his screen quickly to his base and click each of his building and build unitvery fast...rather than see his FPVOD press "1 T",,,, all done.
I'd rather see them play the game in FPVODs instead of watching them doing macro / going through hotkeys (with lightning speed of course, but still...) 80% of all the time.
Ah yes watching someone press F2 to go to their factories and click and press T T T T T T is so exciting. They still need to properly balance their units they can't just build pure tanks. So now we can drag 4 facts press V and 2 and press T. There is still manual exertion for that part just far less tedious. Add to that since that part is made relatively easier we'll have more time to deal with proper building placement, money surpluses, constant worker production, etc. so the macro itself is not long gone.
What blizzard should do is add more macro oriented stuff into the game not keep the SC1 interface. I doubt they can bill the old interface as a selling point on the back of the box. I know some hated the Warcraft analogy but it can be apply here. If we are going to artificially hamper our self why stop at twelve unit selection, why not make it six or even one? Carriers shouldn't be able to queue interceptors, we should have to manually build them one by one every time they're done. No shift queing either when that peon is finish building that depot you have to manually tell him to go back to a mineral patch. And heal shouldn't be auto cast god damn it micro those medics so they heal the marines just like the paladins had to do in Warcraft 2! Why are we allow to select multiple siege tanks and tell them all to siege at once? It should be done on a per unit basis. Why does my unit automatically attack a hostile enemy when standing idle? We should have to manually order it to attack other units etc etc.
On September 06 2007 22:52 YinYang69 wrote: Ah yes watching someone press F2 to go to their factories and click and press T T T T T T is so exciting. They still need to properly balance their units they can't just build pure tanks. So now we can drag 4 facts press V and 2 and press T. There is still manual exertion for that part just far less tedious. Add to that since that part is made relatively easier we'll have more time to deal with proper building placement, money surpluses, constant worker production, etc. so the macro itself is not long gone.
What blizzard should do is add more macro oriented stuff into the game not keep the SC1 interface. I doubt they can bill the old interface as a selling point on the back of the box. I know some hated the Warcraft analogy but it can be apply here. If we are going to artificially hamper our self why stop at twelve unit selection, why not make it six or even one? Carriers shouldn't be able to queue interceptors, we should have to manually build them one by one every time they're done. No shift queing either when that peon is finish building that depot you have to manually tell him to go back to a mineral patch. And heal shouldn't be auto cast god damn it micro those medics so they heal the marines just like the paladins had to do in Warcraft 2! Why are we allow to select multiple siege tanks and tell them all to siege at once? It should be done on a per unit basis. Why does my unit automatically attack a hostile enemy when standing idle? We should have to manually order it to attack other units etc etc.
i totally agree...and also rally,,should not be just right click..the new right click rallying is for teh newbie user friendly. press R and click is the way to go.
On September 06 2007 22:52 YinYang69 wrote: Ah yes watching someone press F2 to go to their factories and click and press T T T T T T is so exciting. They still need to properly balance their units they can't just build pure tanks. So now we can drag 4 facts press V and 2 and press T. There is still manual exertion for that part just far less tedious. Add to that since that part is made relatively easier we'll have more time to deal with proper building placement, money surpluses, constant worker production, etc. so the macro itself is not long gone.
What blizzard should do is add more macro oriented stuff into the game not keep the SC1 interface. I doubt they can bill the old interface as a selling point on the back of the box. I know some hated the Warcraft analogy but it can be apply here. If we are going to artificially hamper our self why stop at twelve unit selection, why not make it six or even one? Carriers shouldn't be able to queue interceptors, we should have to manually build them one by one every time they're done. No shift queing either when that peon is finish building that depot you have to manually tell him to go back to a mineral patch. And heal shouldn't be auto cast god damn it micro those medics so they heal the marines just like the paladins had to do in Warcraft 2! Why are we allow to select multiple siege tanks and tell them all to siege at once? It should be done on a per unit basis. Why does my unit automatically attack a hostile enemy when standing idle? We should have to manually order it to attack other units etc etc.
WHy is it that peolpe who want to argue for newbifying macroing want to use the most retarded analogies to back their views?
On September 06 2007 22:52 YinYang69 wrote: I doubt they can bill the old interface as a selling point on the back of the box. I know some hated the Warcraft analogy but it can be apply here. If we are going to artificially hamper our self why stop at twelve unit selection, why not make it six or even one? Carriers shouldn't be able to queue interceptors, we should have to manually build them one by one every time they're done. No shift queing either when that peon is finish building that depot you have to manually tell him to go back to a mineral patch. And heal shouldn't be auto cast god damn it micro those medics so they heal the marines just like the paladins had to do in Warcraft 2! Why are we allow to select multiple siege tanks and tell them all to siege at once? It should be done on a per unit basis. Why does my unit automatically attack a hostile enemy when standing idle? We should have to manually order it to attack other units etc etc.
Sigh, I hope you know that anolgies such as this do no support your argument, all they do is show that you are crap at arguing.
I could say "Why dont you all go play a game that does everything for you, why dont we let the game mange your economy for you and you select a build order at the start of the game...etc". Is it a fair assumption that this is the game you want to play? No. Does it support my argument in any way? No. Does it make me look smart? Absolutly not. So if your going to post, dont post crap. I feel sorry for the blizzard guy whos going through threads and seeing that bloody analogy over and over.
Btw if there is a blizzard employee reading this, make sure you try the finger trick. Itll blow your mind
How is it retarded? The old warcraft games require more manual exertion and less automation. Isn't that what we want? At least write a well written reply back instead of a two sentence bash.
On September 06 2007 23:37 Hawk wrote: WHy is it that peolpe who want to argue for newbifying macroing want to use the most retarded analogies to back their views?
Maybe cause those who against UI improvements are saying even more retarted: "with mbs and auto-mining macro, competition and all great things that made starcraft popular will die"?
The newb -> Player progression should be as smooth and fast as possible, while Modest Player -> Perfection should only be possible theoretically.
Player meaning someone who can actually play like it´s "intended" even if not as fast or refined as proffessionals. Somewhat like Pre-test - drivers license - Racer. Getting the "drivers license" of SC 2 has to be as easy as possible.
On September 06 2007 12:44 1esu wrote: If it's really true that someone could beat you while being inferior in other aspects of the game simply because something like 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z becoming 4z for both of you, then SC really does deserve the moniker of a "clickfest". I don't believe that's the case, even without the new features Blizzard is adding. On the other hand, if the game feels "too slow", I have faith that either the new features will fill the gap or increase macro in other ways (like the warpgates), or the game speed will be increased again. If we go into closed beta and even after all of this it feels that MBS/auto-mine is killing SC2, then I'll be the first to advocate taking it out. But until then, even though TL experiences with the early alpha version of the game were not optimistic (though I'd like to hear whether the game was still boring when the players were of equal skill), I think we should wait until closed beta and play the game before we publicly render judgement upon MBS or automine.
EDIT: Limiting MBS to say, three per group, was my original solution, but upon further reflection I realized that it was a rather arbitrary limitation; people would look at it and wonder why they couldn't select more per group, just like they did with SC's 12-per-group unit limitation. Perhaps tabbing through groups of three buildings, or tabbing through buildings at different areas of the map (determined by a certain radius) would be a good alternate solution to throwing MBS out entirely, but again I'd advocate us playing it for ourselves before we stamp it out.
No, I said without being significantly superior in the other aspects.
IE: I don't want someone who is as good at the game as me theoetically and microwise to be able to beat me when he can't macro worth shit, just because the importance of the physical aspect of macro has been trivialized.
I've just read through this entire thread. A lot of interesting points brought up. Let me remind everyone that this discussion is not JUST about MBS and automining. It's about making these features a setting that can only be used in public games. Thus keeping the good people still able to compete in the manner they did in the original SC
You can break all sports into two basic parts: The strategic element and the physical aspect
there is incredible strategy weaved within all sports: baseball, soccer, football, tennis, racket ball, boxing, wrestling, starcraft etc
SC2 has less of a physical aspect than SC. They've turned baseball into tee ball. That ball is a lot easier to hit when it isn't moving huh? Well maybe one fun part of the game was the challenge of hitting a moving ball. As we all know, baseball > tee ball as far as skill and competition goes. But making a game that requires less dexterity (lower apm) they are reducing physical aspect which made the original starcraft so fucking awsome.
Let me use another sport, this time with pictures:
Starcraft as golf
Starcraft 2 turned into minature golf due to MBS and auto mining.
Before you respond to this, look at your keyboard. Does it have missing keys?... like the windows ones? You might not even be playing starcraft correctly... This is what mine looks like:
At the bare minimum do you have your windows keys missing? are you using your entire keyboard when you play (i'm talking about the keys that actually work in sc)? Do you bind all the number keys when you play?... from 1 to 0? do you know every hotkey for your race? I mean everything--from special upgrades to unit hot keys. Do you use all five fingers? Do you know which fingers to use on which keys? Most starcraft players don't. Even the die hard ones. They spend too much time looking at the screen and less time looking at their hands. There's a reason why those koreans have such high apm. I just want that same feel in the new starcraft. I'll be sad if new players pick up starcraft 2 and start laddering with the computer playing the game for them. This is essentially the autocast of macroing.
Again, i only care about this for ladder/competitive play. If you want your buildings all bound to one key and your probes going to minerals the second they get out--fine, but don't expect to be a progamer. Don't expect to be the best. MBS and auto mining deter from the very elements that make the game competitive.
What about all these progamers, people who devoted their lives to starcraft, mastering these skills and falling in love with them. MBS and automining is a spit in the face for these people, the ones who know the game far better than Blizzard does. Blizzard should be building off what made the game successful, not "fixing" it. I can only assume that Blizzard wants MBS to bring a new type of macro into starcraft. However that macro type seems to be a much slower, much easier one. One that involves less apm and less concentration. One that is centered around memorizing when different unit combos are coming up and then rebinding gateways accordingly. Hmm... Should be quite easy to master with the computer making sure my probes mine for me when they pop out.
Again, if you don't like the difficulty and demanding dexterity of starcraft then that's fine. But don't fuck up Starcraft because this game was too hard for you. Play another game. Keep MBS and automining as a setting and keep it out of the esports scene.
That's how I roll already tho, I'd need a second television if the game got slower!
On September 06 2007 23:37 Hawk wrote: WHy is it that peolpe who want to argue for newbifying macroing want to use the most retarded analogies to back their views?
Maybe cause those who against UI improvements are saying even more retarted: "with mbs and auto-mining macro, competition and all great things that made starcraft popular will die"?
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MADE STARCRAFT POPULAR WILL DIE.
ONE
It just happens to be pretty important.
On September 07 2007 00:17 YinYang69 wrote: How is it retarded? The old warcraft games require more manual exertion and less automation. Isn't that what we want? At least write a well written reply back instead of a two sentence bash.
On September 06 2007 23:37 Hawk wrote: WHy is it that peolpe who want to argue for newbifying macroing want to use the most retarded analogies to back their views?
Maybe cause those who against UI improvements are saying even more retarted: "with mbs and auto-mining macro, competition and all great things that made starcraft popular will die"?
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MADE STARCRAFT POPULAR WILL DIE.
On September 07 2007 00:17 YinYang69 wrote: How is it retarded? The old warcraft games require more manual exertion and less automation. Isn't that what we want? At least write a well written reply back instead of a two sentence bash.
So you're just afraid someone with better micro will beat you since you can't rely on your macro? lol... SBS made SC popular, lol... this should be advertised on the box at the least, rofl.
.. The pace created by SBS is one of the things that contributed to making SC popular, yes. And you are purposefully trying to not understand what I'm saying.
On September 07 2007 01:25 lololol wrote: So you're just afraid someone with better micro will beat you since you can't rely on your macro? lol... SBS made SC popular, lol... this should be advertised on the box at the least, rofl.
Or maybe I don't really want to see starcraft become a one-dimensional game?
Player A's skillset, graded on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the best:
Theorycraft (IE, knowing what to do) - 5 Micro-application (ie his mechanical micro skill) - 5 Macro-theory (expansion timing, building timing) - 5 Macro-application - (ie his technique, his 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z, whatever) - 5
I don't want to see this player lose his edge in macro application vs Player B
Player B Theorycraft (IE, knowing what to do) - 5 Micro-application (ie his mechanical micro skill) - 5 Macro-theory (expansion timing, building timing) - 5 Macro-application - (ie his technique, his 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z, whatever) - 3
Do you see what I mean? If macro-technique is made easier player A loses some of his edge, let's say MBS makes Player B a 4 or a 4.5, it's just ridiculous.
+ I honestly think I'll miss the 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z a lot :[
If it makes player B 4, then it will make player A 6 ^_^ Also, just pumping units from several buildings one after the other requires mostly mouse/keyboard speed/coordination, which is also needed when grouping your army, placing buildings, practically everything, including micro, so there's enough things that use the very same type of "skill".
P.S. I definitely won't miss my fingers hurting after a long and intense games, from pumping so many units individually.
The 'pro-MBS/improvements-whatever' crowd seems to forget, that many people enjoy the macro aspect of BW. Macro is in no way inferior to micro, heck it's one of the most fun parts of the game. Being able to vastly outnumber your opponent simply because you practiced macro more. It's one of the reasons BW became what it is.
On September 07 2007 02:28 Aphelion wrote: No it doesn't. Speed will have diminishing returns where there is less things to do.
No pro is able to do everything, they have to prioritize and delay or don't do some things at all, just because it's very far from humanly possible to play a perfect game, a little help in that direction will still leave the game far from achievable perfection and higher speed will always be rewarded. Even the much slower WC3 still has distinguishable skill and a few dominating pro players.
But the macro aspect of broodwar will be a miniscule prioritization because it takes so little. If you have MBS you could easily have perfect macro with 70-80 apm. That leaves 200+ apm for pure micro. Thats not balance in my book.
On September 07 2007 02:29 Stegosaur wrote: The 'pro-MBS/improvements-whatever' crowd seems to forget, that many people enjoy the macro aspect of BW. Macro is in no way inferior to micro, heck it's one of the most fun parts of the game. Being able to vastly outnumber your opponent simply because you practiced macro more. It's one of the reasons BW became what it is.
Don't try to trivialize it.
You will still be able to do that. For example: Oov, widely considered to be a macro whore (although other players have since appeared who have even better macro IMHO, but that's irrelevant now), isn't good at macro because he's faster than his opponents. Most pros have similar speed/APM (around 250+). That hand speed is actually one of the primary requirements to become a progamer (some coach or team boss once said that). So why is Oov's macro better? Mainly because he has better builds, better timing, he knows when it's best to build units/factories/barracks/workers, when to expand, and how to cripple his enemy's economy. Because of all the other macro aspects except speed. And all these aspects are still there with MBS.
So let's face it, the contra-MBS crowd is vastly exaggerating by saying that it would totally newbify macro or remove it or destroy the game or make it useless for progaming. MBS won't have such a big impact. It will be helpful, especially for newbies, but less so for good players. It will feel awkward at first for the hardcore SC players, but that will almost definately change over time.
On September 07 2007 02:21 lololol wrote: If it makes player B 4, then it will make player A 6 ^_^ Also, just pumping units from several buildings one after the other requires mostly mouse/keyboard speed/coordination, which is also needed when grouping your army, placing buildings, practically everything, including micro, so there's enough things that use the very same type of "skill".
P.S. I definitely won't miss my fingers hurting after a long and intense games, from pumping so many units individually.
you should have learned how to play this game. seriously. your fingers hurt after a starcraft game? your using your mouse and your keyboard to macro? what the fuck? 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d man, not click d click d click d and so on. i taught my girl friend how to macro like a korean in two hours. she can 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d across the keyboard with her hands which are only half the size of mine. obviously she's not as fast as me, but the point is that learning the beginning patterns to macro shouldn't be so hard that they need to be removed.
How about this, why don't you post a FPvod of yourself. Show us how great your building placement is, your micro, your very grasp on the strategy behind starcraft. Lets see if that isn't just as sloppy as your macro is. I find it hard to believe your good at all these things but your weak baby hands hold you back from fully enjoying this game.
In fact, i bet if i sat behind you and watched you play, i'd see you not using all your fingers, holding your hands funny and hotkeying incorrectly.
Would you like to know a little secret? mastering the keyboard in starcraft is quite easy, you just need some discipline and some ambition. Go into single player and type in Operation Cwal and show me the money. make 7 gates and start practicing 4d5d6d7d890d with the pinky finger on 'd' and the other fingers on the keys that feel most comfortable. Practice makes perfect. Don't argue these qualities out of the game because you never learned them.
How about instead of arguing about the new UI changes we try to come up with ideas on how to add more macro oriented task in the game? I doubt blizzard is not going to implement the UI upgrades cause they are kind of mandatory in these days and age.
everyone, if your clicking to make units then you never even learned how to hotkey buildings and macro while watching the minimap and microing.
macro is not a cluster fuck of too many clicks, there should be hardly any clicking when you macro. It's ALL done with your left hand. In other words if you click on your gateways or hatcheries and then hit the hotkey to produce... your playing the game incorrectly and there is actually an easier and superior method to playing sc. Surprisingly there are people all over this forum who haven't learned this and seem unaware of this alternate method of playing sc. If that's the case, i suggest you learn how to correctly play the game before you start vouching for a new method. You may find hotkey combing as fun as micro. I know i do.
On September 07 2007 04:26 YinYang69 wrote: How about instead of arguing about the new UI changes we try to come up with ideas on how to add more macro oriented task in the game? I doubt blizzard is not going to implement the UI upgrades cause they are kind of mandatory in these days and age.
indeed they are mandatory, but not for competitive play.
Tasteless I know you've posted this before, but if you could make a detailed post / thread about how to train keyboard usage, hand positioning, exact fingering corresponding to keys while macroing that might be the single greatest strategy post ever.
On September 07 2007 04:32 YinYang69 wrote: We can't just segregate the community and have two modes of play. Everyone will just migrate to one mode and the other one will just die out.
yes we can because that already happened. BGH and low money maps. Have either of those died out? Apparently not because every time i look at public games i see lists of BGH maps and every time i get on ICCUP i see a group of passionate competitive gamers. The point is that this game has to be an esport that can compare to the original starcraft. Do you really want to butcher the idea of making this game as difficult as the first one? You speak about Starcraft like it FAILED as an esport because of these features when in fact it succeeded because of it. Some people like intensity and challenge, others like BGH. I don't condemn bgh players because they play an easier game, i just accept the fact they don't want to master everything. I don't condemn MBS players because they want to play an easier game either, i just accept that they don't want to master macro. Just keep them off ladders and in public games and let the pros play in professional mode (non mbs and non automining).
On September 07 2007 04:34 Aphelion wrote: Tasteless I know you've posted this before, but if you could make a detailed post / thread about how to train keyboard usage, hand positioning, exact fingering corresponding to keys while macroing that might be the single greatest strategy post ever.
i'll start making one. maybe a video or something.
On September 07 2007 04:32 YinYang69 wrote: We can't just segregate the community and have two modes of play. Everyone will just migrate to one mode and the other one will just die out.
yes we can because that already happened. BGH and low money maps. Have either of those died out? Apparently not because every time i look at public games i see lists of BGH maps and every time i get on ICCUP i see a group of passionate competitive gamers. The point is that this game has to be an esport that can compare to the original starcraft. Do you really want to butcher the idea of making this game as difficult as the first one? You speak about Starcraft like it FAILED as an esport because of these features when in fact it succeeded because of it. Some people like intensity and challenge, others like BGH. I don't condemn bgh players because they play an easier game, i just accept the fact they don't want to master everything. I don't condemn MBS players because they want to play an easier game either, i just accept that they don't want to master macro. Just keep them off ladders and in public games and let the pros play in professional mode (non mbs and non automining).
I don't know. I don't think fastest map player/competitive ladder players can be compare to having two different modes of play. I think a fairer comparison is team melee/melee. No one plays team melee, everyone just sticks to melee. And can we really keep MBS/auto mining off the ladder without a huge backlash from the starcraft 2 community that will eventually form? If everyone is playing with their friend the new hunters map with all the UI changes and step up to plate on blizzard ladder and find out the UI is completely different there is going to be a rather large angry fanbase. So then we get pro mode/normal mode and I'm just haphazardly guessing that pro mode is going to have a niche fanbase and eventually die cause everyone and their mother is playing normal mode.
On September 07 2007 04:28 MyLostTemple wrote: everyone, if your clicking to make units then you never even learned how to hotkey buildings and macro while watching the minimap and microing.
macro is not a cluster fuck of too many clicks, there should be hardly any clicking when you macro. It's ALL done with your left hand. In other words if you click on your gateways or hatcheries and then hit the hotkey to produce... your playing the game incorrectly and there is actually an easier and superior method to playing sc. Surprisingly there are people all over this forum who haven't learned this and seem unaware of this alternate method of playing sc. If that's the case, i suggest you learn how to correctly play the game before you start vouching for a new method. You may find hotkey combing as fun as micro. I know i do.
On September 07 2007 04:26 YinYang69 wrote: How about instead of arguing about the new UI changes we try to come up with ideas on how to add more macro oriented task in the game? I doubt blizzard is not going to implement the UI upgrades cause they are kind of mandatory in these days and age.
indeed they are mandatory, but not for competitive play.
That's incorrect, really, I'm almost 100% certain iloveoov clicks through his 15 raxes with his mouse, only some of them are hotkeyed.
And there's simply not enough hotkeys to not have to use your mouse, I don't use my mouse for macro until I run out of hotkeys but after that, in the late game, you have to.
On September 07 2007 02:21 lololol wrote: If it makes player B 4, then it will make player A 6 ^_^ Also, just pumping units from several buildings one after the other requires mostly mouse/keyboard speed/coordination, which is also needed when grouping your army, placing buildings, practically everything, including micro, so there's enough things that use the very same type of "skill".
P.S. I definitely won't miss my fingers hurting after a long and intense games, from pumping so many units individually.
you should have learned how to play this game. seriously. your fingers hurt after a starcraft game? your using your mouse and your keyboard to macro? what the fuck? 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d man, not click d click d click d and so on. i taught my girl friend how to macro like a korean in two hours. she can 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d across the keyboard with her hands which are only half the size of mine. obviously she's not as fast as me, but the point is that learning the beginning patterns to macro shouldn't be so hard that they need to be removed.
How about this, why don't you post a FPvod of yourself. Show us how great your building placement is, your micro, your very grasp on the strategy behind starcraft. Lets see if that isn't just as sloppy as your macro is. I find it hard to believe your good at all these things but your weak baby hands hold you back from fully enjoying this game.
In fact, i bet if i sat behind you and watched you play, i'd see you not using all your fingers, holding your hands funny and hotkeying incorrectly.
Would you like to know a little secret? mastering the keyboard in starcraft is quite easy, you just need some discipline and some ambition. Go into single player and type in Operation Cwal and show me the money. make 7 gates and start practicing 4d5d6d7d890d with the pinky finger on 'd' and the other fingers on the keys that feel most comfortable. Practice makes perfect. Don't argue these qualities out of the game because you never learned them.
Well, I play 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z etc, but your fingers WILL be sore after you've played for 30 games straight.
Not always obv. but if it's cold, or if you've done it for a long time it's natural they'll get tired
On September 07 2007 04:28 MyLostTemple wrote: everyone, if your clicking to make units then you never even learned how to hotkey buildings and macro while watching the minimap and microing.
macro is not a cluster fuck of too many clicks, there should be hardly any clicking when you macro. It's ALL done with your left hand. In other words if you click on your gateways or hatcheries and then hit the hotkey to produce... your playing the game incorrectly and there is actually an easier and superior method to playing sc. Surprisingly there are people all over this forum who haven't learned this and seem unaware of this alternate method of playing sc. If that's the case, i suggest you learn how to correctly play the game before you start vouching for a new method. You may find hotkey combing as fun as micro. I know i do.
On September 07 2007 04:26 YinYang69 wrote: How about instead of arguing about the new UI changes we try to come up with ideas on how to add more macro oriented task in the game? I doubt blizzard is not going to implement the UI upgrades cause they are kind of mandatory in these days and age.
indeed they are mandatory, but not for competitive play.
That's incorrect, really, I'm almost 100% certain iloveoov clicks through his 15 raxes with his mouse, only some of them are hotkeyed.
And there's simply not enough hotkeys to not have to use your mouse, I don't use my mouse for macro until I run out of hotkeys but after that, in the late game, you have to.
On September 07 2007 02:21 lololol wrote: If it makes player B 4, then it will make player A 6 ^_^ Also, just pumping units from several buildings one after the other requires mostly mouse/keyboard speed/coordination, which is also needed when grouping your army, placing buildings, practically everything, including micro, so there's enough things that use the very same type of "skill".
P.S. I definitely won't miss my fingers hurting after a long and intense games, from pumping so many units individually.
you should have learned how to play this game. seriously. your fingers hurt after a starcraft game? your using your mouse and your keyboard to macro? what the fuck? 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d man, not click d click d click d and so on. i taught my girl friend how to macro like a korean in two hours. she can 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d across the keyboard with her hands which are only half the size of mine. obviously she's not as fast as me, but the point is that learning the beginning patterns to macro shouldn't be so hard that they need to be removed.
How about this, why don't you post a FPvod of yourself. Show us how great your building placement is, your micro, your very grasp on the strategy behind starcraft. Lets see if that isn't just as sloppy as your macro is. I find it hard to believe your good at all these things but your weak baby hands hold you back from fully enjoying this game.
In fact, i bet if i sat behind you and watched you play, i'd see you not using all your fingers, holding your hands funny and hotkeying incorrectly.
Would you like to know a little secret? mastering the keyboard in starcraft is quite easy, you just need some discipline and some ambition. Go into single player and type in Operation Cwal and show me the money. make 7 gates and start practicing 4d5d6d7d890d with the pinky finger on 'd' and the other fingers on the keys that feel most comfortable. Practice makes perfect. Don't argue these qualities out of the game because you never learned them.
Well, I play 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z etc, but your fingers WILL be sore after you've played for 30 games straight.
Not always obv. but if it's cold, or if you've done it for a long time it's natural they'll get tired
I don't mean to detract from the valid points made earlier (you guys actually managed to scare me into thinking MBS and auto-mining really are bad for SCII), but aren't those reasons to implement the new UI after all?
On September 07 2007 04:28 MyLostTemple wrote: everyone, if your clicking to make units then you never even learned how to hotkey buildings and macro while watching the minimap and microing.
macro is not a cluster fuck of too many clicks, there should be hardly any clicking when you macro. It's ALL done with your left hand. In other words if you click on your gateways or hatcheries and then hit the hotkey to produce... your playing the game incorrectly and there is actually an easier and superior method to playing sc. Surprisingly there are people all over this forum who haven't learned this and seem unaware of this alternate method of playing sc. If that's the case, i suggest you learn how to correctly play the game before you start vouching for a new method. You may find hotkey combing as fun as micro. I know i do.
On September 07 2007 04:26 YinYang69 wrote: How about instead of arguing about the new UI changes we try to come up with ideas on how to add more macro oriented task in the game? I doubt blizzard is not going to implement the UI upgrades cause they are kind of mandatory in these days and age.
indeed they are mandatory, but not for competitive play.
That's incorrect, really, I'm almost 100% certain iloveoov clicks through his 15 raxes with his mouse, only some of them are hotkeyed.
And there's simply not enough hotkeys to not have to use your mouse, I don't use my mouse for macro until I run out of hotkeys but after that, in the late game, you have to.
On September 07 2007 04:06 MyLostTemple wrote:
On September 07 2007 02:21 lololol wrote: If it makes player B 4, then it will make player A 6 ^_^ Also, just pumping units from several buildings one after the other requires mostly mouse/keyboard speed/coordination, which is also needed when grouping your army, placing buildings, practically everything, including micro, so there's enough things that use the very same type of "skill".
P.S. I definitely won't miss my fingers hurting after a long and intense games, from pumping so many units individually.
you should have learned how to play this game. seriously. your fingers hurt after a starcraft game? your using your mouse and your keyboard to macro? what the fuck? 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d man, not click d click d click d and so on. i taught my girl friend how to macro like a korean in two hours. she can 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d across the keyboard with her hands which are only half the size of mine. obviously she's not as fast as me, but the point is that learning the beginning patterns to macro shouldn't be so hard that they need to be removed.
How about this, why don't you post a FPvod of yourself. Show us how great your building placement is, your micro, your very grasp on the strategy behind starcraft. Lets see if that isn't just as sloppy as your macro is. I find it hard to believe your good at all these things but your weak baby hands hold you back from fully enjoying this game.
In fact, i bet if i sat behind you and watched you play, i'd see you not using all your fingers, holding your hands funny and hotkeying incorrectly.
Would you like to know a little secret? mastering the keyboard in starcraft is quite easy, you just need some discipline and some ambition. Go into single player and type in Operation Cwal and show me the money. make 7 gates and start practicing 4d5d6d7d890d with the pinky finger on 'd' and the other fingers on the keys that feel most comfortable. Practice makes perfect. Don't argue these qualities out of the game because you never learned them.
Well, I play 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z etc, but your fingers WILL be sore after you've played for 30 games straight.
Not always obv. but if it's cold, or if you've done it for a long time it's natural they'll get tired
I don't mean to detract from the valid points made earlier (you guys actually managed to scare me into thinking MBS and auto-mining really are bad for SCII), but aren't those reasons to implement the new UI after all?
I think there's a huge point that hasn't even been made yet. It's assuming that the kind of people that want MBS, automine, etc. are generally the below 100 apm, play 3v3 BGH, and the occasional 1v1 LT type of player (and everyone worse), and that the vast majority of people better than that (120+ APM, mostly 1v1s, sometimes does 2v2 on non-money pro maps) are very much against MBS. I make this assumption because I'm often only around 120 APM (near the BOTTOM of the group) and I'm avidly against MBS. I base this on the people that support it on other forums, like battle.net forums, etc. They generally play BGH and fastest, and haven't a clue about real builds or the competitive scene. If this is a bad generalization, my point is weakened, but...
MY POINT IS, the vast majority of the weaker player type (most of the pro-MBS crowd) DOESN'T EVEN USE HOTKEYS. This means they shouldn't even be considered when making the decision whether or not to implement it, because they will not benefit from it at all. It's something I guess a lot of people don't think about or don't realize, but it's true. Play a game on BGH or worse yet, fastest. Then go to BWChart. Less than half the BGHers will have used a single hotkey, and almost no fastest players will have. Even if they do, you can see by the 1% hotkey usage that they never went back and used it after hotkeying something. There's absolutely no point in putting in a feature designed to help slower players when they won't benefit from it at all. It will actually make them slip FARTHER behind (increasing the skill gap where it doesn't matter), while narrowing the skill gap where MBS would be used (top-tier competitive players - exactly where you NEED a skill gap in order for a successful esport).
If I'm missing something, and there's some huge group of people that play ICCUP that are supporting MBS, then maybe my point is invalid. But even in THIS forum, where we do have decent players supporting MBS, none of them can present a good reason as to how it will improve the game. They just say that it will help newbs (which I've shown is false), and that it's necessary for initial sales (which is also unlikely, or at least negligible). They've already said that you won't be able to group select buildings with the selection box, and this is really the only way newbs would use MBS. I don't see how a newbie game reviewer is going to make some huge deal-breaking point about the lack of a feature that he's unlikely to be good enough to even use.
On September 07 2007 04:28 MyLostTemple wrote: everyone, if your clicking to make units then you never even learned how to hotkey buildings and macro while watching the minimap and microing.
macro is not a cluster fuck of too many clicks, there should be hardly any clicking when you macro. It's ALL done with your left hand. In other words if you click on your gateways or hatcheries and then hit the hotkey to produce... your playing the game incorrectly and there is actually an easier and superior method to playing sc. Surprisingly there are people all over this forum who haven't learned this and seem unaware of this alternate method of playing sc. If that's the case, i suggest you learn how to correctly play the game before you start vouching for a new method. You may find hotkey combing as fun as micro. I know i do.
On September 07 2007 04:26 YinYang69 wrote: How about instead of arguing about the new UI changes we try to come up with ideas on how to add more macro oriented task in the game? I doubt blizzard is not going to implement the UI upgrades cause they are kind of mandatory in these days and age.
indeed they are mandatory, but not for competitive play.
That's incorrect, really, I'm almost 100% certain iloveoov clicks through his 15 raxes with his mouse, only some of them are hotkeyed.
And there's simply not enough hotkeys to not have to use your mouse, I don't use my mouse for macro until I run out of hotkeys but after that, in the late game, you have to.
On September 07 2007 04:06 MyLostTemple wrote:
On September 07 2007 02:21 lololol wrote: If it makes player B 4, then it will make player A 6 ^_^ Also, just pumping units from several buildings one after the other requires mostly mouse/keyboard speed/coordination, which is also needed when grouping your army, placing buildings, practically everything, including micro, so there's enough things that use the very same type of "skill".
P.S. I definitely won't miss my fingers hurting after a long and intense games, from pumping so many units individually.
you should have learned how to play this game. seriously. your fingers hurt after a starcraft game? your using your mouse and your keyboard to macro? what the fuck? 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d man, not click d click d click d and so on. i taught my girl friend how to macro like a korean in two hours. she can 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d across the keyboard with her hands which are only half the size of mine. obviously she's not as fast as me, but the point is that learning the beginning patterns to macro shouldn't be so hard that they need to be removed.
How about this, why don't you post a FPvod of yourself. Show us how great your building placement is, your micro, your very grasp on the strategy behind starcraft. Lets see if that isn't just as sloppy as your macro is. I find it hard to believe your good at all these things but your weak baby hands hold you back from fully enjoying this game.
In fact, i bet if i sat behind you and watched you play, i'd see you not using all your fingers, holding your hands funny and hotkeying incorrectly.
Would you like to know a little secret? mastering the keyboard in starcraft is quite easy, you just need some discipline and some ambition. Go into single player and type in Operation Cwal and show me the money. make 7 gates and start practicing 4d5d6d7d890d with the pinky finger on 'd' and the other fingers on the keys that feel most comfortable. Practice makes perfect. Don't argue these qualities out of the game because you never learned them.
Well, I play 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z etc, but your fingers WILL be sore after you've played for 30 games straight.
Not always obv. but if it's cold, or if you've done it for a long time it's natural they'll get tired
I don't mean to detract from the valid points made earlier (you guys actually managed to scare me into thinking MBS and auto-mining really are bad for SCII), but aren't those reasons to implement the new UI after all?
My body would hurt if I played football for 15 hours straight. Or the piano. Or poker.
As for the iloveoov example, can you imagine how much easier tvz would get if you could just press 4m and have 15 raxes instantly make marines?
I agree with the OP. MBS and auto-mine were those options I craved when I was a total newb and didn't appreciate the speed and power of the game when you have to control everything. MBS will be a huge detriment to long games where people can get multiple gates in multiple bases, multiples nexuses, etc. A player using those options and playing against a player who turns them off would have an infinitely large advantage - that alone is proof that MBS and auto-mine are "nerfing" the game.
I'm fine with what others said - have it as an option. I'd think of something like having 2 seperate game super-classes, like "New" and "Classic" mode games, and then FFA, One on One, Melee, UMS, etc., as sub-classes. That way people who don't want to play the nerfed game would just set the "Classic" filter on (assuming there are filters, which would be a great idea) and would play with other fans of the system in the first game - they won't even have to deal with those "new"-style no0blarz.
On September 07 2007 04:32 YinYang69 wrote: We can't just segregate the community and have two modes of play. Everyone will just migrate to one mode and the other one will just die out.
To the bottom poster nah I wasn't replying to you. Your message didn't even show up when I was typing.
I disagree. UMS vs Fastest vs BGH vs low-money maps = current division.
@LonelyMargarita: I don't think you can and should generalize that ("only noobs want MBS, pros don't"). This is a) insulting and b) probably untrue anyway. I for example am an average player with 150-160 APM who can definately macro (I'm actually even called a macro whore sometimes because my style has changed so much over the past few years (but I guess it's just normal that you adapt to the common style as time goes on)). So that means I beat noobs, I can easily beat them by using pure macro, because they are slower. But that doesn't mean that I think that this is a great thing. I see it as a "necessary evil", something "tedious" that must be done in order to play correctly. Yes it took me a while to learn it and so on, and I'm perfectly used to it, but I think this skill is so dumb. I'd much rather have that simplified so I can use more of my APM/attention to the fights. Also, the limited hotkeys are a problem for a Zerg player in late game. I don't understand how anyone thinks that there is nothing to do once macro is easier... are we even playing the same game? There's always something to do.
On September 07 2007 02:21 lololol wrote: If it makes player B 4, then it will make player A 6 ^_^ Also, just pumping units from several buildings one after the other requires mostly mouse/keyboard speed/coordination, which is also needed when grouping your army, placing buildings, practically everything, including micro, so there's enough things that use the very same type of "skill".
P.S. I definitely won't miss my fingers hurting after a long and intense games, from pumping so many units individually.
you should have learned how to play this game. seriously. your fingers hurt after a starcraft game? your using your mouse and your keyboard to macro? what the fuck? 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d man, not click d click d click d and so on. i taught my girl friend how to macro like a korean in two hours. she can 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d across the keyboard with her hands which are only half the size of mine. obviously she's not as fast as me, but the point is that learning the beginning patterns to macro shouldn't be so hard that they need to be removed.
How about this, why don't you post a FPvod of yourself. Show us how great your building placement is, your micro, your very grasp on the strategy behind starcraft. Lets see if that isn't just as sloppy as your macro is. I find it hard to believe your good at all these things but your weak baby hands hold you back from fully enjoying this game.
In fact, i bet if i sat behind you and watched you play, i'd see you not using all your fingers, holding your hands funny and hotkeying incorrectly.
Would you like to know a little secret? mastering the keyboard in starcraft is quite easy, you just need some discipline and some ambition. Go into single player and type in Operation Cwal and show me the money. make 7 gates and start practicing 4d5d6d7d890d with the pinky finger on 'd' and the other fingers on the keys that feel most comfortable. Practice makes perfect. Don't argue these qualities out of the game because you never learned them.
You did nothing, but offended him. You didn't add any point or argument, but insulted him assuming if he's supporting UI improvements or if he's clicking at buildings he gotta suck at the game. You know, bringing that isn't good for the discussion, especially when you yourself is nowhere near perfect macro, when everybody can get your replays and see idle buildings, missing rally-points, overflowing resources and overqueuing. Stop acting like you're god of macro cause you can 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d in less than one seconds - I'm still searching decent starcrafter who can't - and wait at least till the Beta to see whether there'll be better macro players than you or not.
On September 07 2007 05:46 LonelyMargarita wrote: But even in THIS forum, where we do have decent players supporting MBS, none of them can present a good reason as to how it will improve the game.
This discussion is even more pointless than I thought. Just a big flamefest where none cares to understand other and one side tends to throw "noobs" when they aren't better themselves. Btw, part when you called those who supporting UI improvements "BGHers" almost convinced me how bad are these improvements. Thanks a lot!
On September 07 2007 06:26 fanatacist wrote: A player using those options and playing against a player who turns them off would have an infinitely large advantage - that alone is proof that MBS and auto-mine are "nerfing" the game.
O_o Player with two hands has infinitely large advantage over player with one hand. Does it mean everybody should play with one hand? Player who can select all units of the same type with "ctrl-click" has advantage over one who can't. And would you please tell me what kind of "infinitely large advantage" will have player with MBS over one without? You exaggerating and mixing things up to support your opinion, don't you understand?
On September 07 2007 06:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: As for the iloveoov example, can you imagine how much easier tvz would get if you could just press 4m and have 15 raxes instantly make marines?
Firstly, 15 raxes is exaggeration, secondly, they will simultaneously produce marines only if you have no less than 750 minerals and thirdly, clicking at barracks isn't hard at all and doesn't have a bit of impact at the defining of the winner. MBS doesn't make game easier, it **looks** easier and that's the definition of good interface. In the first place starcraft become popular cause it's balanced, spectacular and tends to lay at principle "easy to learn, hard to master" in every possible aspect. But today partly archaic and unintuitive UI doesn't fit this concept.
FA's post about oov is true, he doesnt use mainly hotkeys on his buildings (+ it wouldnt be practical anyway)
He clicks mostly, IMO when you click it helps your macro greatly if you have enough speed and accuracy with your mouse because you dont have 3-4 thigns building in one fact/gateway etc...
Pretending that sc2 would get just as many new players and sell just as well and be just as appealing with the old interface, why else do so many people want mbs and automining? Isn't the game about balance? Not extremes? Playing with one hand or one unit select at a time or no queues is one extreme, MBS and automing pull it towards another one.
I feel sc is a game that requires a pretty balanced set of skills. It's rarely tedious for me to play and I have a lot of fun playing it. Do a lot of advocates for MBS and automining find sc1 (specifically the macro aspect) tedious, boring, far from perfect, and wish that it needed less speed and multitasking to play? If that is the case for some (obviously not all, but its seems that way for some based on the posts I have read) then obviously your views are going to be fundamentally different than a lot of posters in this thread who immensely enjoy the playstyle of sc1 and see no reason to drastically change this in sc2.
On September 07 2007 06:42 Brutalisk wrote: @LonelyMargarita: I don't think you can and should generalize that ("only noobs want MBS, pros don't"). This is a) insulting and b) probably untrue anyway. I for example am an average player with 150-160 APM who can definately macro (I'm actually even called a macro whore sometimes because my style has changed so much over the past few years (but I guess it's just normal that you adapt to the common style as time goes on)). So that means I beat noobs, I can easily beat them by using pure macro, because they are slower. But that doesn't mean that I think that this is a great thing. I see it as a "necessary evil", something "tedious" that must be done in order to play correctly. Yes it took me a while to learn it and so on, and I'm perfectly used to it, but I think this skill is so dumb. I'd much rather have that simplified so I can use more of my APM/attention to the fights. Also, the limited hotkeys are a problem for a Zerg player in late game. I don't understand how anyone thinks that there is nothing to do once macro is easier... are we even playing the same game? There's always something to do.
Please don't say I said things I didn't. If you want to quote me, quote me; if you want to lie, don't bother posting.
You said exactly that (players who can't macro correctly (noobs) want MBS, the other ones don't) in your first paragraph... *sigh* You weakened your generalization by saying that you are maybe overgeneralizing, but still... I used myself as a counter example.
And this whole discussion is really getting nowhere.
as there is obviously no way to convince the pro side, i think the best way is indeed to let the choice.
When people will start playing, the community will be splited in two parts unfortunately It seems to be the last solution to prevent a massive noobification of the title, which will occur in all the cases by the way (on a lesser degree). Obviously, the progaming scene choice will be without these shits ; some MBS /on players will cry about this, but at least they'll realize.
There is NO improvement in these features ! i'm still fucking waiting you give me one reason to call them improvements. The fact they've been implemented in ALL the RTS failures since sc doesn't mean that it's an improvement.
On September 07 2007 06:42 Brutalisk wrote: @LonelyMargarita: I don't think you can and should generalize that ("only noobs want MBS, pros don't"). This is a) insulting and b) probably untrue anyway. I for example am an average player with 150-160 APM who can definately macro (I'm actually even called a macro whore sometimes because my style has changed so much over the past few years (but I guess it's just normal that you adapt to the common style as time goes on)). So that means I beat noobs, I can easily beat them by using pure macro, because they are slower. But that doesn't mean that I think that this is a great thing. I see it as a "necessary evil", something "tedious" that must be done in order to play correctly. Yes it took me a while to learn it and so on, and I'm perfectly used to it, but I think this skill is so dumb. I'd much rather have that simplified so I can use more of my APM/attention to the fights. Also, the limited hotkeys are a problem for a Zerg player in late game. I don't understand how anyone thinks that there is nothing to do once macro is easier... are we even playing the same game? There's always something to do.
Please don't say I said things I didn't. If you want to quote me, quote me; if you want to lie, don't bother posting.
You sound like Bill O'Reilly. He doesn't need to quote you, you've said the same thing for 20+ pages. Name calling is basically a logical fallacy, you should take a college level writing class sometime. At this point I honestly don't care if it's in or not, people just seem to eager to look at this feature and that, and fail to see the big picture. Warp gates, interchangeable terran addons, Thors... people don't take in the new macro gameplay features when talking about these things.
And basically you need to take a chill pill dude. It's a game.
How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
I'm pretty much certain the interchangeable addons will mostly be used to get tech very quickly, not for mass production (ie you wont be using your time migrating buildings between addons).
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once.
2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking.
Firstly, 15 raxes is exaggeration, secondly, they will simultaneously produce marines only if you have no less than 750 minerals and thirdly, clicking at barracks isn't hard at all and doesn't have a bit of impact at the defining of the winner. MBS doesn't make game easier, it **looks** easier and that's the definition of good interface. In the first place starcraft become popular cause it's balanced, spectacular and tends to lay at principle "easy to learn, hard to master" in every possible aspect. But today partly archaic and unintuitive UI doesn't fit this concept.
15 raxes is at most a slight exaggeration.
You've seen Oov's and nada's super late game bases when they go marine/medic/vessel right? Fuuuuuuuuuull of raxes.
And if you don't see why it would make playing terran ridiculously much easier then I don't think you are trying.
Consider this:
I have 5 groups of marines, medics and science vessels, I'm moving about the middle of the map.
Which takes most effort: 4m or f2 m mm mm mm m m m m m m mm on all my raxes (or double tapping a key to get back to main, or whatever)? Obviously MBS is going to have an impact here.
I'm arguing against MBS, but I'm not completely 100% dead set against it, as some people have said, it's probably best to wait until the beta before making the final decision, but it is an addition to the game which ramifications worry me.
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once.
2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking.
True, I didn't think through what you meant when you said Thors - I assumed you meant something else. Just thought "Wtf thor's a unit, must be a typo !". Still, you'll be able to select 12 scvs and just place out 12 thors without cloning or microing very much since that part of the interface has been changed as well (and I'm not really complaining, I think it's a minor change compared to MBS).
On September 07 2007 10:53 Brutalisk wrote: But it also doesn't mean that it is a bad thing just because it was in other RTS which didn't have the success of Starcraft.
But it's not even the point here : why take the risk to mess up everything when it's not even a damn improvement !
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once.
2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking.
What?
It's good that thors can't be made all at once, it's bad that that's the only unit in the whole game with a feature like that. This is whole problem, and pointing out one unit that doesn't utilize MBS doesn't save us from the fact that the entire macro system in starcraft has been given training wheels.
Different add ons doesn't have anything to do with macroing, that just means they've given the terran a more sexy tech tree to work with. That doesn't save us from the fact that producing units is easy and feels slower.
Let me clairify that when we're discussing macro in this thread we're talking about the method of production for units, not the tech tree that they are produced from or the different types of buildings that will be utilized in sc 2. I think we can have another thread about that entire topic.
in regards to ILoveOOv clicking on his barrax's... terrans are forced to click on the barrax's because the 'm' key is in an odd location on the keyboard. Unlike with the 'd' key you can't adjust your hand in a simple position to macro with multiple fingers from the 'm' key unless your using your 'thumb on 'm and your other four fingers on the 1 to 8 keys. The problem there is that your overlapping the keys you would probably be binding to your army with. If 'm' was at where the 'r' key was, iloveoov would be macroing his marines off his keyboard with ease until he ran out of keys to bind. Instead, in this rare case, clicking becomes faster. IF they keyboard can be utilized in an effective manner... it always should be.
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once.
2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking.
What?
It's good that thors can't be made all at once, it's bad that that's the only unit in the whole game with a feature like that. This is whole problem, and pointing out one unit that doesn't utilize MBS doesn't save us from the fact that the entire macro system in starcraft has been given training wheels.
Different add ons doesn't have anything to do with macroing, that just means they've given the terran a more sexy tech tree to work with. That doesn't save us from the fact that producing units is easy and feels slower.
Let me clairify that when we're discussing macro in this thread we're talking about the method of production for units, not the tech tree that they are produced from or the different types of buildings that will be utilized in sc 2. I think we can have another thread about that entire topic.
in regards to ILoveOOv clicking on his barrax's... terrans are forced to click on the barrax's because the 'm' key is in an odd location on the keyboard. Unlike with the 'd' key you can't adjust your hand in a simple position to macro with multiple fingers from the 'm' key unless your using your 'thumb on 'm and your other four fingers on the 1 to 8 keys. The problem there is that your overlapping the keys you would probably be binding to your army with. If 'm' was at where the 'r' key was, iloveoov would be macroing his marines off his keyboard with ease until he ran out of keys to bind. Instead, in this rare case, clicking becomes faster. IF they keyboard can be utilized in an effective manner... it always should be.
I honestly don't even know why it matters. If you don't need the feature then don't utilize it. I mean, are you guys even keeping things in perspective? You can selective multiple buildings. Will everyone in the world all of a sudden become oov because they can do so? Like I said I don't necessarily want the features, however if they're in the game I definitely don't think it's the end of the world.
When I tried WarCraft 3 I started off very terrible, and didn't build units during micro (which we all know is a big part of the game, being able to multitask and train units/macro constantly.) Whether I had one barracks, or two, made NO difference. I was a noob and didn't pay attention to my macro while fighting, PERIOD. Basically I had the same problem as I did in StarCraft, MBS did NOT change anything.
Then I returned to StarCraft and began to play more serious, and trust me: I did not miss MBS. It made no difference, and I could care less whether it's in or not. The skill levels will remain the same, those who can multitask effectively will still be on top. I've trained very hard to be able to multitask better during fights, and I don't think that training will be for nothing when SC2 comes out.
Will everyone in the world all of a sudden become oov because they can do so?
Nobody is arguing that people will suddenly parallel oov in talent. What we're saying is that (and this is a fact) macro is being made much easier. TvZ is pretty much the best example here, because you can hotkey groups of barracks together and just hit M or C - you don't even need to tab back to your base to pump from 8-12 barracks during the middle of a fight. It's removing a large element of base management, which is a core part of gameplay.
On September 07 2007 12:44 Oc wrote:
Then I returned to StarCraft and began to play more serious, and trust me: I did not miss MBS. It made no difference, and I could care less whether it's in or not. The skill levels will remain the same, those who can multitask effectively will still be on top. I've trained very hard to be able to multitask better during fights, and I don't think that training will be for nothing when SC2 comes out.
So, you didn't miss it when you returned from WC3 to SC, why would you miss it going from SC to SC2?
On September 07 2007 12:44 Oc wrote: Then I returned to StarCraft and began to play more serious, and trust me: I did not miss MBS. It made no difference, and I could care less whether it's in or not. The skill levels will remain the same, those who can multitask effectively will still be on top. I've trained very hard to be able to multitask better during fights, and I don't think that training will be for nothing when SC2 comes out.
Thats why it is useless to continue to speak with you : if you think MBS (especially coupled with auto mining) will make NO difference and won't change skill gap, some people will never agree. Even if you still have to get this sense of macro (stop arguing on this ffs), the attention part you have to give to it is HUGELY decreased. Thus, you put out an essential part of the game, closing the skill gap generated by at least this component (which is major).
In war3 you usually dont have more than 5 or something buildings anyway, so it's kinda hard to see how MBS would affect SC having only experienced MBS in War3.
On September 07 2007 10:36 Brutalisk wrote: You said exactly that (players who can't macro correctly (noobs) want MBS, the other ones don't) in your first paragraph... *sigh* You weakened your generalization by saying that you are maybe overgeneralizing, but still... I used myself as a counter example.
And this whole discussion is really getting nowhere.
Wow, lie more. Go read what I typed, and instead of making shit up, PASTE IT. That way you get it right. Seriously, go read it. Because that's not what I said, liar.
Then go look up STRAW MAN, and learn how to debate. You CANNOT debate, so all you do is strawman. It's a weak, fallacious move people do when they've already lost.
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once.
2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking.
What?
It's good that thors can't be made all at once, it's bad that that's the only unit in the whole game with a feature like that. This is whole problem, and pointing out one unit that doesn't utilize MBS doesn't save us from the fact that the entire macro system in starcraft has been given training wheels.
Different add ons doesn't have anything to do with macroing, that just means they've given the terran a more sexy tech tree to work with. That doesn't save us from the fact that producing units is easy and feels slower.
Let me clairify that when we're discussing macro in this thread we're talking about the method of production for units, not the tech tree that they are produced from or the different types of buildings that will be utilized in sc 2. I think we can have another thread about that entire topic.
in regards to ILoveOOv clicking on his barrax's... terrans are forced to click on the barrax's because the 'm' key is in an odd location on the keyboard. Unlike with the 'd' key you can't adjust your hand in a simple position to macro with multiple fingers from the 'm' key unless your using your 'thumb on 'm and your other four fingers on the 1 to 8 keys. The problem there is that your overlapping the keys you would probably be binding to your army with. If 'm' was at where the 'r' key was, iloveoov would be macroing his marines off his keyboard with ease until he ran out of keys to bind. Instead, in this rare case, clicking becomes faster. IF they keyboard can be utilized in an effective manner... it always should be.
I honestly don't even know why it matters. If you don't need the feature then don't utilize it. I mean, are you guys even keeping things in perspective? You can selective multiple buildings. Will everyone in the world all of a sudden become oov because they can do so? Like I said I don't necessarily want the features, however if they're in the game I definitely don't think it's the end of the world.
When I tried WarCraft 3 I started off very terrible, and didn't build units during micro (which we all know is a big part of the game, being able to multitask and train units/macro constantly.) Whether I had one barracks, or two, made NO difference. I was a noob and didn't pay attention to my macro while fighting, PERIOD. Basically I had the same problem as I did in StarCraft, MBS did NOT change anything.
Then I returned to StarCraft and began to play more serious, and trust me: I did not miss MBS. It made no difference, and I could care less whether it's in or not. The skill levels will remain the same, those who can multitask effectively will still be on top. I've trained very hard to be able to multitask better during fights, and I don't think that training will be for nothing when SC2 comes out.
Here's a question for you: Why do we need MBS? What was so horrible about BroodWar that MBS is absolutely necessary at all levels of play?
I think those who want MBS don't like the artificial limitation. I think when I first play starcraft I had multiple barracks and I drag click them and only one was chosen it was a wtf moment. Just cause I bypass it now by having 170+ APM and getting use to the archaic interface doesn't mean it should be the norm in a modern game.
I think the problem is a lot of you guys are assuming this will play or be exactly like SC1. It's not just the UI going through change other part of the game is changing to and they are going to interchange and create something balance and easy to play yet impossible to master like SC1 at least that's my hope.
Thats why it is useless to continue to speak with you : if you think MBS (especially coupled with auto mining) will make NO difference and won't change skill gap, some people will never agree. Even if you still have to get this sense of macro (stop arguing on this ffs), the attention part you have to give to it is HUGELY decreased. Thus, you put out an essential part of the game, closing the skill gap generated by at least this component (which is major).
Oh it'll make a difference in skill gap, but not at the pro level, which is where I'm pointing out the ridiculousness. People who are saying "there will be no more Saviors or iloveoovs." It'll affect those in mid-range skill range and below. Basically, in 95% of all instances, if you could beat someone before MBS you will be able to beat them with MBS. Are you really beating some people now ONLY because you can click through 10 gateways faster?
Like I said, the hard part of macro isn't the actual clicking, it's remembering when to and incorporating that clicking into your game. When I'm attacking an enemy base, it doesn't matter if I could select 100 factories if I don't even remember to, and that's is the true separation of skill difference.
On September 07 2007 13:06 FrozenArbiter wrote: In war3 you usually dont have more than 5 or something buildings anyway, so it's kinda hard to see how MBS would affect SC having only experienced MBS in War3.
My point with bringing up my War3 experience was that I had the same problem across both games as an RTS noob, which was that I wasn't building units during battles, and multitasking efficiently. So yes, WarCraft 3 has smaller scale battles but the point is after a battle I'd have 1000 gold and lumber like a noob. When first starting out playing SC, isn't that the same thing what we all do? What we're trying to overcome is the ability to macro, not the ability to click 7 factories faster.
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once.
2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking.
What?
It's good that thors can't be made all at once, it's bad that that's the only unit in the whole game with a feature like that. This is whole problem, and pointing out one unit that doesn't utilize MBS doesn't save us from the fact that the entire macro system in starcraft has been given training wheels.
Different add ons doesn't have anything to do with macroing, that just means they've given the terran a more sexy tech tree to work with. That doesn't save us from the fact that producing units is easy and feels slower.
Let me clairify that when we're discussing macro in this thread we're talking about the method of production for units, not the tech tree that they are produced from or the different types of buildings that will be utilized in sc 2. I think we can have another thread about that entire topic.
in regards to ILoveOOv clicking on his barrax's... terrans are forced to click on the barrax's because the 'm' key is in an odd location on the keyboard. Unlike with the 'd' key you can't adjust your hand in a simple position to macro with multiple fingers from the 'm' key unless your using your 'thumb on 'm and your other four fingers on the 1 to 8 keys. The problem there is that your overlapping the keys you would probably be binding to your army with. If 'm' was at where the 'r' key was, iloveoov would be macroing his marines off his keyboard with ease until he ran out of keys to bind. Instead, in this rare case, clicking becomes faster. IF they keyboard can be utilized in an effective manner... it always should be.
I honestly don't even know why it matters. If you don't need the feature then don't utilize it. I mean, are you guys even keeping things in perspective? You can selective multiple buildings. Will everyone in the world all of a sudden become oov because they can do so? Like I said I don't necessarily want the features, however if they're in the game I definitely don't think it's the end of the world.
When I tried WarCraft 3 I started off very terrible, and didn't build units during micro (which we all know is a big part of the game, being able to multitask and train units/macro constantly.) Whether I had one barracks, or two, made NO difference. I was a noob and didn't pay attention to my macro while fighting, PERIOD. Basically I had the same problem as I did in StarCraft, MBS did NOT change anything.
Then I returned to StarCraft and began to play more serious, and trust me: I did not miss MBS. It made no difference, and I could care less whether it's in or not. The skill levels will remain the same, those who can multitask effectively will still be on top. I've trained very hard to be able to multitask better during fights, and I don't think that training will be for nothing when SC2 comes out.
Here's a question for you: Why do we need MBS? What was so horrible about BroodWar that MBS is absolutely necessary at all levels of play?
I'm not saying it's absolutely necessary. I do feel it's a logical thing to add in to an RTS UI in the year 2007/08, and that macro difficulty should come from GAMEPLAY not the UI. However, I wouldn't care at all if it wasn't in the game, but there's a lot of things in SC2 that I don't care about and I feel it's pointless to fight over such trivial things.
I mean, I really hate auto-mine rally a lot, because I've gotten use to spam click fest in the beginning and have noticed many low level players who have idle workers even before a single structure is built. But really... is it going to RUIN the game if it's in there? Are those terrible players who have idle SCV's at 9/10 going to become my EQUALS because of the feature? Nope. It's just there, and I'm not going to really fight it, even though I would much prefer the game be without it.
You guys need to stop trying to treat this as win or lose, wrong or right. We all want SC2 to be a good game. My main message is just to keep everything in perspective, and really think about how '(un)drastic' these changes are.
On September 07 2007 05:46 LonelyMargarita wrote: I think there's a huge point that hasn't even been made yet. It's assuming that the kind of people that want MBS, automine, etc. are generally the below 100 apm, play 3v3 BGH, and the occasional 1v1 LT type of player (and everyone worse), and that the vast majority of people better than that (120+ APM, mostly 1v1s, sometimes does 2v2 on non-money pro maps) are very much against MBS.
There, pasted. Now stop accusing others of lying. You have nothing to back up your assumptions, and fyi I also fall into the latter category yet I'm not opposed to the idea of MBS. As does nearly everyone who visits this site, since a BGH/money player would have no interest whatsoever in a site focused on SC PRO-gaming.
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once.
2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking.
What?
It's good that thors can't be made all at once, it's bad that that's the only unit in the whole game with a feature like that. This is whole problem, and pointing out one unit that doesn't utilize MBS doesn't save us from the fact that the entire macro system in starcraft has been given training wheels.
Different add ons doesn't have anything to do with macroing, that just means they've given the terran a more sexy tech tree to work with. That doesn't save us from the fact that producing units is easy and feels slower.
Let me clairify that when we're discussing macro in this thread we're talking about the method of production for units, not the tech tree that they are produced from or the different types of buildings that will be utilized in sc 2. I think we can have another thread about that entire topic.
in regards to ILoveOOv clicking on his barrax's... terrans are forced to click on the barrax's because the 'm' key is in an odd location on the keyboard. Unlike with the 'd' key you can't adjust your hand in a simple position to macro with multiple fingers from the 'm' key unless your using your 'thumb on 'm and your other four fingers on the 1 to 8 keys. The problem there is that your overlapping the keys you would probably be binding to your army with. If 'm' was at where the 'r' key was, iloveoov would be macroing his marines off his keyboard with ease until he ran out of keys to bind. Instead, in this rare case, clicking becomes faster. IF they keyboard can be utilized in an effective manner... it always should be.
I honestly don't even know why it matters.
orc, if you don't see why it matters, don't argue with people who do.
Someone from Blizz said about 3 years ago they felt like not starting making SC2 yet ´cause they thought most hardcore fans wanted nothing different than the original one and thus it was impossible to please them making a game with improvements (which means change).
Now I see how far sighted he was.
The fact is they seem to have gotten over it: there IS going to be MBS+automining and it is going to be sweet for 98% of SC2 players.
For the remaining 2%, there will always be the old and good SC1.
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once.
2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking.
What?
It's good that thors can't be made all at once, it's bad that that's the only unit in the whole game with a feature like that. This is whole problem, and pointing out one unit that doesn't utilize MBS doesn't save us from the fact that the entire macro system in starcraft has been given training wheels.
Different add ons doesn't have anything to do with macroing, that just means they've given the terran a more sexy tech tree to work with. That doesn't save us from the fact that producing units is easy and feels slower.
Let me clairify that when we're discussing macro in this thread we're talking about the method of production for units, not the tech tree that they are produced from or the different types of buildings that will be utilized in sc 2. I think we can have another thread about that entire topic.
in regards to ILoveOOv clicking on his barrax's... terrans are forced to click on the barrax's because the 'm' key is in an odd location on the keyboard. Unlike with the 'd' key you can't adjust your hand in a simple position to macro with multiple fingers from the 'm' key unless your using your 'thumb on 'm and your other four fingers on the 1 to 8 keys. The problem there is that your overlapping the keys you would probably be binding to your army with. If 'm' was at where the 'r' key was, iloveoov would be macroing his marines off his keyboard with ease until he ran out of keys to bind. Instead, in this rare case, clicking becomes faster. IF they keyboard can be utilized in an effective manner... it always should be.
I honestly don't even know why it matters.
orc, if you don't see why it matters, don't argue with people who do.
See, there you go with that mentality of win or lose with arguing. If you had actually read the rest of my post, you would see that I made valid points in regards to why it shouldn't matter, but of course you didn't address them because you're only here to win on the internet, and you'll use my wording to try and "win" this argument.
My point with bringing up my War3 experience was that I had the same problem across both games as an RTS noob, which was that I wasn't building units during battles, and multitasking efficiently. So yes, WarCraft 3 has smaller scale battles but the point is after a battle I'd have 1000 gold and lumber like a noob. When first starting out playing SC, isn't that the same thing what we all do? What we're trying to overcome is the ability to macro, not the ability to click 7 factories faster.
My point was that the effect of MBS is much less pronounced in War3 than it would be in a starcraft type game. So.. yes, it's the same problem but much less noticeable in war3 than it would be in BW.
IE, it has much less of an effect on the game as a whole.. Bleh, it's 7 am I'll just sleep, I might be missing your point.
On September 07 2007 05:46 LonelyMargarita wrote: I think there's a huge point that hasn't even been made yet. It's assuming that the kind of people that want MBS, automine, etc. are generally the below 100 apm, play 3v3 BGH, and the occasional 1v1 LT type of player (and everyone worse), and that the vast majority of people better than that (120+ APM, mostly 1v1s, sometimes does 2v2 on non-money pro maps) are very much against MBS.
There, pasted. Now stop accusing others of lying. You have nothing to back up your assumptions, and fyi I also fall into the latter category yet I'm not opposed to the idea of MBS. As does nearly everyone who visits this site, since a BGH/money player would have no interest whatsoever in a site focused on SC PRO-gaming.
He did lie. He claims I said things I did not. He used a strawman because he could not argue against the actual claim I made, because my claim was true. So instead he modified my claim to make it false. I could modify all your claims to the extreme, saying you want to just program in build orders and have the computer play everything out for you, but I don't do that. Why? Because my side is already right...I don't need to change your claims to refute them.
On September 07 2007 14:02 Tupan wrote: Someone from Blizz said about 3 years ago they felt like not starting making SC2 yet ´cause they thought most hardcore fans wanted nothing different than the original one and thus it was impossible to please them making a game with improvements (which means change).
Now I see how far sighted he was.
The fact is they seem to have gotten over it: there IS going to be MBS+automining and it is going to be sweet for 98% of SC2 players.
For the remaining 2%, there will always be the old and good SC1.
A LOT fewer than 98% of people even know HOW to hotkey, let alone use them, let alone use them effectively. This will not be used by the people who would benefit most from it, so why put it in? Has anyone answered that simple question: WHY PUT IT IN?
I still wonder also, no one has been able to answer this question yet (i am of course ignoring the comment saying people dont like 'artificial limitation', there's of course limitation everywhere, the point is to put the line at the right balance). Don't tell me it's better to do other things because : 1. its not true its better, too subjective / 2. there wont be any other major game component.
The only valuable reason (from Blizzard side) is to avoid bad reviews from test magazines, which for sure will give the type of comments we can see in this thread (old interface, we jumped 10 years back etc...), cause it's written by complete RTS newbs.
Thats the only fucking pro reason i see in the entire 16 pages ! and it's of course far too weak argument to justify it in, especially from a gamer side.
On September 07 2007 02:21 lololol wrote: If it makes player B 4, then it will make player A 6 ^_^ Also, just pumping units from several buildings one after the other requires mostly mouse/keyboard speed/coordination, which is also needed when grouping your army, placing buildings, practically everything, including micro, so there's enough things that use the very same type of "skill".
P.S. I definitely won't miss my fingers hurting after a long and intense games, from pumping so many units individually.
you should have learned how to play this game. seriously. your fingers hurt after a starcraft game? your using your mouse and your keyboard to macro? what the fuck? 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d man, not click d click d click d and so on. i taught my girl friend how to macro like a korean in two hours. she can 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d across the keyboard with her hands which are only half the size of mine. obviously she's not as fast as me, but the point is that learning the beginning patterns to macro shouldn't be so hard that they need to be removed.
How about this, why don't you post a FPvod of yourself. Show us how great your building placement is, your micro, your very grasp on the strategy behind starcraft. Lets see if that isn't just as sloppy as your macro is. I find it hard to believe your good at all these things but your weak baby hands hold you back from fully enjoying this game.
In fact, i bet if i sat behind you and watched you play, i'd see you not using all your fingers, holding your hands funny and hotkeying incorrectly.
Would you like to know a little secret? mastering the keyboard in starcraft is quite easy, you just need some discipline and some ambition. Go into single player and type in Operation Cwal and show me the money. make 7 gates and start practicing 4d5d6d7d890d with the pinky finger on 'd' and the other fingers on the keys that feel most comfortable. Practice makes perfect. Don't argue these qualities out of the game because you never learned them.
Who told you I play Protoss and only Protoss at that? How are you supposed to macro with keyboard only when you don't have 15 conveniently placed keys for all your production buildings and army? You're just acting like a prick and some kind of BW god, which you're not. Not to mention there isn't a single argument in there, just dumb flaming.
You also said it's easy, then why would something easy make so much difference and suddenly the game will become much more easier, because you're removing something easy and not what really matters, which is the thing that separaes the pros, because all of them can spam build units with no trouble? If anything you showed why it doesn't make a difference and can just be removed, because if it was hard it would be good for defining player skill, but IT'S NOT.
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once.
2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking.
What?
It's good that thors can't be made all at once, it's bad that that's the only unit in the whole game with a feature like that. This is whole problem, and pointing out one unit that doesn't utilize MBS doesn't save us from the fact that the entire macro system in starcraft has been given training wheels.
Different add ons doesn't have anything to do with macroing, that just means they've given the terran a more sexy tech tree to work with. That doesn't save us from the fact that producing units is easy and feels slower.
Let me clairify that when we're discussing macro in this thread we're talking about the method of production for units, not the tech tree that they are produced from or the different types of buildings that will be utilized in sc 2. I think we can have another thread about that entire topic.
in regards to ILoveOOv clicking on his barrax's... terrans are forced to click on the barrax's because the 'm' key is in an odd location on the keyboard. Unlike with the 'd' key you can't adjust your hand in a simple position to macro with multiple fingers from the 'm' key unless your using your 'thumb on 'm and your other four fingers on the 1 to 8 keys. The problem there is that your overlapping the keys you would probably be binding to your army with. If 'm' was at where the 'r' key was, iloveoov would be macroing his marines off his keyboard with ease until he ran out of keys to bind. Instead, in this rare case, clicking becomes faster. IF they keyboard can be utilized in an effective manner... it always should be.
I honestly don't even know why it matters.
orc, if you don't see why it matters, don't argue with people who do.
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise?
1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once.
2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking.
What?
It's good that thors can't be made all at once, it's bad that that's the only unit in the whole game with a feature like that. This is whole problem, and pointing out one unit that doesn't utilize MBS doesn't save us from the fact that the entire macro system in starcraft has been given training wheels.
Different add ons doesn't have anything to do with macroing, that just means they've given the terran a more sexy tech tree to work with. That doesn't save us from the fact that producing units is easy and feels slower.
Let me clairify that when we're discussing macro in this thread we're talking about the method of production for units, not the tech tree that they are produced from or the different types of buildings that will be utilized in sc 2. I think we can have another thread about that entire topic.
in regards to ILoveOOv clicking on his barrax's... terrans are forced to click on the barrax's because the 'm' key is in an odd location on the keyboard. Unlike with the 'd' key you can't adjust your hand in a simple position to macro with multiple fingers from the 'm' key unless your using your 'thumb on 'm and your other four fingers on the 1 to 8 keys. The problem there is that your overlapping the keys you would probably be binding to your army with. If 'm' was at where the 'r' key was, iloveoov would be macroing his marines off his keyboard with ease until he ran out of keys to bind. Instead, in this rare case, clicking becomes faster. IF they keyboard can be utilized in an effective manner... it always should be.
I honestly don't even know why it matters.
orc, if you don't see why it matters, don't argue with people who do.
Oh, you got me. You're right, you win the internet argument.
I used to be not bothered with this issue as it felt like SC2 was in alpha and may bring the game to better games. Therefore, I was pro-MBS. But after playing more SC again lately... I'm now anti-MBS. It feels fun to select, build, select, build, select, build. And I agree with OP, maybe only allow it at lower level or for handicap games.
Ok I didnt check on this thread for 1 day and now after reading through 6 pages of replies, this is getting pretty nasty.
Time to stop the agro people.
Lets face facts. Both sides are very set in their ways. Neither wants to back down and allow the other side to win. The original argument by tasteless was that there should be a choice. This thread has proved that choice is definately the way to go, its the only way that both sides of this argument will be happy. From what we can see from this thread, there are many people on both sides of the fence, so Im sure there would be no problems creating 2 ladders with different rule sets. Both ladders will be populated, and while there will be a huge rivalry between people of both ladders, the ultimate debate really will be able to be settled when the two sides take each other on in the opposite sides ruleset.
choice is definately the way to go, its the only way that both sides of this argument will be happy
I don't like repeating myself, although I found out it's an effective marketing strategy. So, to make sure my message doesn't die in the sea of flames, I would like to again point out these 2 alternatives:
- implementing MBS but coming up with new useful macro tasks to regain that "macro-feeling" - having MBS on only one of the 3 races or having only one race not have MBS (it makes perfect sense to have differences in interface between races)
On September 07 2007 20:59 Doctorasul wrote: - implementing MBS but coming up with new useful macro tasks to regain that "macro-feeling" - having MBS on only one of the 3 races or having only one race not have MBS (it makes perfect sense to have differences in interface between races)
Saying "come up with something" doesnt really help anyone. What we need are actual ideas that could be implemented.
The MBS on 1 I think would cause one race to be become the 'easy' race. The shear amount of actions that the other 2 races would have to do compared to the race that doesnt have MBS is just too high to be able to be fair.
I actually wouldn't care so much if MBS is in or out if the following is at least guaranteed: - > 10 group hotkeys - customizeable hotkeys for building units and so on This would make macro less tedious (for those players who think it is. If you like it, then you can set up your hotkeys on the most awkward positions ), and with decent speed it's easy enough to macro then.
@LonelyMargarita: I guess you meant something different than you wrote. You should clarify what you mean then. Learn to express yourself better. I didn't lie. Why should I? I just replied to what I've read.
On September 07 2007 20:59 Doctorasul wrote: - implementing MBS but coming up with new useful macro tasks to regain that "macro-feeling" - having MBS on only one of the 3 races or having only one race not have MBS (it makes perfect sense to have differences in interface between races)
Saying "come up with something" doesnt really help anyone. What we need are actual ideas that could be implemented.
The MBS on 1 I think would cause one race to be become the 'easy' race. The shear amount of actions that the other 2 races would have to do compared to the race that doesnt have MBS is just too high to be able to be fair.
We aren't game designers so it's not expected of us to come up with the solution. If we know what our needs are it is in the interest of certain game producers to fulfill those needs. So what I said is only helpful if Blizz has some leftover creative energy and isn't sure in which direction to use it.
About the one race with MBS being the "easy" race, it can be argued that the different way Z produces units in BW makes it the "easy" race in lategame. That doesn't stop the developers from making the game balanced. That is, whatever advantage MBS will give, it can be compensated by balancing other parts of the game (lategame units, for example).
On September 07 2007 22:00 Doctorasul wrote: We aren't game designers so it's not expected of us to come up with the solution. If we know what our needs are it is in the interest of certain game producers to fulfill those needs. So what I said is only helpful if Blizz has some leftover creative energy and isn't sure in which direction to use it.
Its everyones responsibility to come up with ideas. Its the game designers job to implement them. Why leave the brainstorming to a group of 50 people when you can utilise the thousands and thousands of starcraft fans who are looking for the perfect next game, and have ideas on what can be implemented? Look folks, if you have an idea, post it. You might get flamed, but as long as you dont take it personally, its the best way for new ideas to surface. You might have a crap idea and someone else might build on it, making a revolutionary style in gaming. You never know.
On September 07 2007 22:00 Doctorasul wrote: We aren't game designers so it's not expected of us to come up with the solution. If we know what our needs are it is in the interest of certain game producers to fulfill those needs. So what I said is only helpful if Blizz has some leftover creative energy and isn't sure in which direction to use it.
Its everyones responsibility to come up with ideas. Its the game designers job to implement them. Why leave the brainstorming to a group of 50 people when you can utilise the thousands and thousands of starcraft fans who are looking for the perfect next game, and have ideas on what can be implemented? Look folks, if you have an idea, post it. You might get flamed, but as long as you dont take it personally, its the best way for new ideas to surface. You might have a crap idea and someone else might build on it, making a revolutionary style in gaming. You never know.
Very well.
I'm not sure auto-mining is as inherently evil as some think it is, but here's my suggestion for MBS: put a limit on the maximum number of buildings selected. After all, nobody complains about the twelve-unit group format in BW. So make it possible to only select four buildings at a time. This way, you get to directly control up to 40 production buildings. Seeing as 50 Gates is the record, this should be more than enough to accomodate most games and still leave enough hotkeys for commanding armies/using comsats. Of course, one could still argue that no, BW was completely perfect and changing anything at all is lethal to gameplay. In that case, let's hope there are two modes of play, lest the minority who care most about SCII are let down.
P.S. This isn't really my suggestion, I've seen it elsewhere. I'm just bringing it up again, for the sake of the discussion.
It's not the solution, it doesn't make anything "better" to be able to select 4 instead of 1, and still pose a huge problem when you speak about nexus, cc or hatches, especially if its linked with auto mining.
Alright, my argument is this : although I agree with almost everything said by the anti-MBS crowd, splitting the game is terrible for both SC2 and progaming as a split community will never agree on what to play. It would make the accomplishments of the progamers seem much less impressive, and discourage noobs from switching to the pro scene. A successful E-Sport depends upon the noobs playing the exact same game as the pros, the popularity of any sport stems greatly from unskilled people being impressed at and imitating the pros. That happens in almost every sport: people want to be their Airness, bend it like Beckham, etc. Splitting the community would be TERRIBLE for e-sports, and would only alienate the hardcore community and give them the label of pure mass-clickers.
But we can't just not implement MBS or automining either, as both are critical to 1.) SC2 getting good reviews and word of mouth among noobs and 2.) Noobs actually enjoying the game. The former is a lot more important than we think. Although SC2 will be a tremendous best seller even if its a complete piece of shit, its longevity and popularity among casual players will depend greatly depend on such reviews. They also need to enjoy the game too, and as one poster said, the opposite of fun is frustration. Even thoughI disagree with almost everything the pro-MBS people said, I find that to be a very powerful argument.
So whats the solution? It seems apparent to me that MBS and automining need to be implemented in some form, yet there also must be a huge incentive to master non-MBS and automining playing to be decent at the game. Here's my suggestion: make it such that MBS and automining are possible, but with drawbacks. So a player being able to go 5d6d7d8d9d0d would have a huge advantage over those who just go mass-blind-5-d. I have the following suggestions:
-For automining, let the probe idle for 5-10s before going directly to the patch. So in early game manual control is almost essential, and it is still quite a huge advantage until the absolute late game. Yet noobs can still rely on them to at least mine eventually when overwhelmed by the amount of actions past early game.
-I have 2 different ideas for MBS:
1.) Allow unlimited MBS, but the gates will only build if ALL of them have money for it. So 20gates will only produce zealots if you have 2000 minerals. Obviously, the player who doesn't bind / binds very small amount of gates to one hotkey would still have much better macro. But noobs who will have mass resource counts anyways would reduce their required actions by a huge amount without any increase in skill. It can even be used by weak medium players as a crutch in late game. But to improve in skill, you would still need to macro in the conventional manner.
2.)If you select 20 gates to build a zealot each and only have say, 1000 minerals, ALL your gates get the cooldown. So the 10 idle gates are forced to idle for the entire duration of the zealot build. This also means you have to lower to amount of gates binded, and that you would have easier macro but an enforced penalty for doing so. You would need to wait until you have a decent amount of money to efficiently use your gates, but you can get your units now if you absolutely need them. The drawback is that a misclick could be disastrous, say accidentally asking 20 gates to build when you have only money for 1 zealot.
The basic premise is that you can still use MBS and automining if you had to, but thats like the difference between a-click and microing. The later is still needed if you are going to play at a passable level, yet noobs can enjoy the game without it. If anyone has any better ideas, please let me know. I've been racking my brains and these are the only solutions I came up with.
On September 07 2007 23:23 Aphelion wrote: OMFG I just lost my post for the second time.
Alright, my argument is this : although I agree with almost everything said by the anti-MBS crowd, splitting the game is terrible for both SC2 and progaming as a split community will never agree on what to play. It would make the accomplishments of the progamers seem much less impressive, and discourage noobs from switching to the pro scene. A successful E-Sport depends upon the noobs playing the exact same game as the pros, the popularity of any sport stems greatly from unskilled people being impressed at and imitating the pros. That happens in almost every sport: people want to be their Airness, bend it like Beckham, etc. Splitting the community would be TERRIBLE for e-sports, and would only alienate the hardcore community and give them the label of pure mass-clickers.
But we can't just not implement MBS or automining either, as both are critical to 1.) SC2 getting good reviews and word of mouth among noobs and 2.) Noobs actually enjoying the game. The former is a lot more important than we think. Although SC2 will be a tremendous best seller even if its a complete piece of shit, its longevity and popularity among casual players will depend greatly depend on such reviews. They also need to enjoy the game too, and as one poster said, the opposite of fun is frustration. Even thoughI disagree with almost everything the pro-MBS people said, I find that to be a very powerful argument.
So whats the solution? It seems apparent to me that MBS and automining need to be implemented in some form, yet there also must be a huge incentive to master non-MBS and automining playing to be decent at the game. Here's my suggestion: make it such that MBS and automining are possible, but with drawbacks. So a player being able to go 5d6d7d8d9d0d would have a huge advantage over those who just go mass-blind-5-d. I have the following suggestions:
-For automining, let the probe idle for 5-10s before going directly to the patch. So in early game manual control is almost essential, and it is still quite a huge advantage until the absolute late game. Yet noobs can still rely on them to at least mine eventually when overwhelmed by the amount of actions past early game.
-I have 2 different ideas for MBS:
1.) Allow unlimited MBS, but the gates will only build if ALL of them have money for it. So 20gates will only produce zealots if you have 2000 minerals. Obviously, the player who doesn't bind / binds very small amount of gates to one hotkey would still have much better macro. But noobs who will have mass resource counts anyways would reduce their required actions by a huge amount without any increase in skill. It can even be used by weak medium players as a crutch in late game. But to improve in skill, you would still need to macro in the conventional manner.
2.)If you select 20 gates to build a zealot each and only have say, 1000 minerals, ALL your gates get the cooldown. So the 10 idle gates are forced to idle for the entire duration of the zealot build. This also means you have to lower to amount of gates binded, and that you would have easier macro but an enforced penalty for doing so. You would need to wait until you have a decent amount of money to efficiently use your gates, but you can get your units now if you absolutely need them. The drawback is that a misclick could be disastrous, say accidentally asking 20 gates to build when you have only money for 1 zealot.
The basic premise is that you can still use MBS and automining if you had to, but thats like the difference between a-click and microing. The later is still needed if you are going to play at a passable level, yet noobs can enjoy the game without it. If anyone has any better ideas, please let me know. I've been racking my brains and these are the only solutions I came up with.
Awesome post. I agree with the auto-mining thing 100% and I agree with MBS option 1, cuz the second would fuck you too hard for a screw up. Both these options allow newbs to play like newbs but nudge them into playing the game the way it should be played. It's training wheels.
I agree, the game should not be split. The game should be as similar as possible for everyone who plays, and let the maps be there to split serious vs non-serious gamers.
I can empathize with a fair bit of the anti-MBS arguments, but after I started to hear and think on the long term arguments for MBS, I side more heavily for pro MBS. The gist of my feelings are:
Yes, I will miss some of the hectic macro aspects... just like I'm going to miss certain units and micro that is going away.
No, I will not miss not having enough time to do half of my actions very accurately. The argument for "having to choose what to do" is fine, but not to the point when someone with 200 APM can't do half of his attacks or micro perfectly. This is where MBS is going to clean up the game, I think.
But yes, despite things going away I plan to enjoy this game... and I think there are tons of areas to improve on that MBS will allow room for. The game will be more EXACT and less forgiving, because you will have more time to do things more closely to perfect than before. It is well accepted that pro-gamers don't have time to put workers on minerals or perfectly macro and micro at the same time. Ok, so we ease up some of those headaches. Now what? Now the gamer who psi storms Perfectly will beat the guy who psi storms OK. Now the guy who expands at the exact perfect time has a greater advantage over the guy who is trying for the same thing but expanded 1 minute later. Now the guy who throws away his MnM force without doing damage at the zerg expansion may actually regret it because suddenly the game is "tighter" and you just have to be more exact.
Obviously there will still be room for throwing away units, but probably not to the extent of BW. There will still be an advantage to macroing better than the other guy, but it will just feel a little different. You still will have to do something like 5z6z7d8t, but you will obviously have more leeway for keeping 1-4 for army and special units. I think that is GREAT! I hate not ever having enough hotkeys to make units and keep my army organized as I want it. I still will go back to base when I'm not busy to queue units perfectly and to perfect ratios.
Honestly, MBS looks devilishly evil, but I really think in the long run it's going to be fine. I've said it before... as long as building all of two units isn't the answer to winning the game, MBS isn't as bad as it first sounds.
1. Siege your tanks in a formation, instead of just sieging where you stand b/c you don't have time to arrange them. 2. Drawing siege fire more carefully with immortals or zealots as opposed to attack move every other engagement. The more units you have, the more you need to do this. 3. Getting casters out of the fray after they cast instead of just letting them die. I see pros sacrifice high templar all the time. 4. Researching attack/armor upgrades at the exact right time instead of 30 seconds later. 5. Distracting with a zergling or two to unburrow and run away lurkers (or equivalent). I've seen so many pro games where they get 90% of their lurkers out and just give up on the 1 or 2 left over that they missed and are now under siege fire. 6. Repair the plagued (or equivalent) expensive terran units. 7. Scout expansions more, even if you first scout dies.
I dunno. I see almost every area get neglected at high level. I think it's obvious that even with 400 APM, you can't do everything close to perfect.
There are so many people that refuse to play SC, WC3 or SCII competitively. They want an easier interface. They want to play money maps. They want to play against a few computers with friends. They don't want to put a lot of time in this game.
The community is already inherently split. I don't think two playing modes will artificially split the community. Some may wish that everyone plays 'pure Starcraft', but they won't.
Surely, Blizzard will be very pragmatic, whatever they end up deciding.
And if they go with auto-mine and MBS I am sure the first mod for SCII released will be one that allows competitive play. And everyone will use that.
Maybe kespa is worried about this too. If so they will also lobby with Blizzard. And does anyone know how much royalties kespa/OGN/MBC had to play Blizzard to broadcast live Starcraft?
Maybe one should read some of the reviews of Starcraft that were written just after it was released. Many negative points raised are now points we know are SC best features.
Same will happen with SCII. If they put in a competitive interface, game magazines and sites will smack SCII for it, lowering the gameplay score.
The solo player also has the option of skirmish missions, though the computer opponents have the annoying ability to see everything you are doing and defend accordingly, making the dreaded "rush" tactic one of the only viable means of emerging victorious.
[...]
Only a heavily defended base will survive an early rush of Terran Marines or Protoss Zealots. Starcraft has a built-in safeguard to discourage rushing, but it's one of the game's most problematic areas.
This safeguard is in the interface, which only allows you to select 12 units at a time. This isn't especially effective, considering six Zealots will smoke a base early in the game. The selectable unit cap does make rushing more difficult, but it also becomes frustrating at times, especially for those used to the ability to select unlimited units at once. Often, selecting the chosen units from a large group becomes a time-consuming effort. During battle, it can be an exercise in frustration. You can assign groups to hotkeys quite easily, however, lessening the frustration of the selectable unit cap - but this system isn't nearly as good as in Total Annihilation or Dark Reign, and units aren't marked by their group number like in said games. Multiplayer battles can often be decided by who has the best manual dexterity and can overcome the built-in limitations of the interface the most quickly.
Recent real-time innovations regarding unit control are included, with mixed results. Each production facility can have up to five units queued at once. There's a waypoint system, patrolling, and the like - but many of these options aren't particularly well implemented, and some of the options seem tacked on. On the other hand, pathing is great, with only occasional glitches (where a unit will run around in cute little circles). Starcraft most notably lacks the ability to define unit behavior (as in Dark Reign or Total Annihilation), leading to much micromanagement.
As a result Starcraft only scored an 8 for gameplay. And that's by a professional game journalist.
On September 07 2007 21:29 Brutalisk wrote: I actually wouldn't care so much if MBS is in or out if the following is at least guaranteed: - > 10 group hotkeys - customizeable hotkeys for building units and so on This would make macro less tedious (for those players who think it is. If you like it, then you can set up your hotkeys on the most awkward positions ), and with decent speed it's easy enough to macro then.
@LonelyMargarita: I guess you meant something different than you wrote. You should clarify what you mean then. Learn to express yourself better. I didn't lie. Why should I? I just replied to what I've read.
What does 10 group hotkeys mean? 1 to 0? Isn't that like in BW already? Maybe I'm confused.
Anyway, I'm obv. in 100% support of customizeable hotkeys.
On September 07 2007 23:52 Blacklizard wrote: I agree, the game should not be split. The game should be as similar as possible for everyone who plays, and let the maps be there to split serious vs non-serious gamers.
I can empathize with a fair bit of the anti-MBS arguments, but after I started to hear and think on the long term arguments for MBS, I side more heavily for pro MBS. The gist of my feelings are:
Yes, I will miss some of the hectic macro aspects... just like I'm going to miss certain units and micro that is going away.
No, I will not miss not having enough time to do half of my actions very accurately. The argument for "having to choose what to do" is fine, but not to the point when someone with 200 APM can't do half of his attacks or micro perfectly. This is where MBS is going to clean up the game, I think.
I think the 'mess' is an important part of SC :[
But yes, despite things going away I plan to enjoy this game... and I think there are tons of areas to improve on that MBS will allow room for. The game will be more EXACT and less forgiving, because you will have more time to do things more closely to perfect than before. It is well accepted that pro-gamers don't have time to put workers on minerals or perfectly macro and micro at the same time. Ok, so we ease up some of those headaches. Now what? Now the gamer who psi storms Perfectly will beat the guy who psi storms OK. Now the guy who expands at the exact perfect time has a greater advantage over the guy who is trying for the same thing but expanded 1 minute later. Now the guy who throws away his MnM force without doing damage at the zerg expansion may actually regret it because suddenly the game is "tighter" and you just have to be more exact.
Obviously there will still be room for throwing away units, but probably not to the extent of BW. There will still be an advantage to macroing better than the other guy, but it will just feel a little different. You still will have to do something like 5z6z7d8t, but you will obviously have more leeway for keeping 1-4 for army and special units. I think that is GREAT! I hate not ever having enough hotkeys to make units and keep my army organized as I want it. I still will go back to base when I'm not busy to queue units perfectly and to perfect ratios.
Honestly, MBS looks devilishly evil, but I really think in the long run it's going to be fine. I've said it before... as long as building all of two units isn't the answer to winning the game, MBS isn't as bad as it first sounds.
Well, first of all, all of this is already true. Second, if mistakes are punished harder, I think it will lead to a less exciting game as people will be overly careful..
On September 08 2007 00:02 Blacklizard wrote: More things to do more perfectly with more time:
1. Siege your tanks in a formation, instead of just sieging where you stand b/c you don't have time to arrange them.
I already do this except when ambushed :x
2. Drawing siege fire more carefully with immortals or zealots as opposed to attack move every other engagement. The more units you have, the more you need to do this.
Again already do this.
3. Getting casters out of the fray after they cast instead of just letting them die. I see pros sacrifice high templar all the time.
Meh, usually they get targetted by enemy units as soon as they come to the front.
4. Researching attack/armor upgrades at the exact right time instead of 30 seconds later.
Don't see the point of making this easier to achieve.
5. Distracting with a zergling or two to unburrow and run away lurkers (or equivalent). I've seen so many pro games where they get 90% of their lurkers out and just give up on the 1 or 2 left over that they missed and are now under siege fire.
People use zerglings to distract all the time, but using them to distract when unburrowing sounds hopeless, if you get 2 of them stuck they are goners + it means he can't just run his marines after you.
6. Repair the plagued (or equivalent) expensive terran units. 7. Scout expansions more, even if you first scout dies.
They do somtimes repair, it's just that it means not moving anywhere with their army which they often can't afford (that's my guess at least).
And the new generation of terrans have sick scouting, they never miss anything, ever -.-
I dunno. I see almost every area get neglected at high level. I think it's obvious that even with 400 APM, you can't do everything close to perfect.
I think the fact that you can't do everything perfectly is part of what makes it cool :[
On September 08 2007 00:16 BlackStar wrote: Just an example from gamespot:
The solo player also has the option of skirmish missions, though the computer opponents have the annoying ability to see everything you are doing and defend accordingly, making the dreaded "rush" tactic one of the only viable means of emerging victorious.
[...]
Only a heavily defended base will survive an early rush of Terran Marines or Protoss Zealots. Starcraft has a built-in safeguard to discourage rushing, but it's one of the game's most problematic areas.
This safeguard is in the interface, which only allows you to select 12 units at a time. This isn't especially effective, considering six Zealots will smoke a base early in the game. The selectable unit cap does make rushing more difficult, but it also becomes frustrating at times, especially for those used to the ability to select unlimited units at once. Often, selecting the chosen units from a large group becomes a time-consuming effort. During battle, it can be an exercise in frustration. You can assign groups to hotkeys quite easily, however, lessening the frustration of the selectable unit cap - but this system isn't nearly as good as in Total Annihilation or Dark Reign, and units aren't marked by their group number like in said games. Multiplayer battles can often be decided by who has the best manual dexterity and can overcome the built-in limitations of the interface the most quickly.
Recent real-time innovations regarding unit control are included, with mixed results. Each production facility can have up to five units queued at once. There's a waypoint system, patrolling, and the like - but many of these options aren't particularly well implemented, and some of the options seem tacked on. On the other hand, pathing is great, with only occasional glitches (where a unit will run around in cute little circles). Starcraft most notably lacks the ability to define unit behavior (as in Dark Reign or Total Annihilation), leading to much micromanagement.
As a result Starcraft only scored an 8 for gameplay. And that's by a professional game journalist.
A professional moron. (and I'm gonna add in a no offense claus here, cause he's probably not a moron, he just didn't know any better)
Anyway, the overall game still scored like 9.X IIRC?
On September 08 2007 00:16 BlackStar wrote: Just an example from gamespot:
[useless article here]
As a result Starcraft only scored an 8 for gameplay. And that's by a professional game journalist.
Why did you even quote that? That was horrendous.
Also, many people consider BWs success to be a fluke, I happen to agree partly because a lot of the things that balance the game were discovered along the way and probably weren't meant to be.
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.
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?
So whats the solution? It seems apparent to me that MBS and automining need to be implemented in some form, yet there also must be a huge incentive to master non-MBS and automining playing to be decent at the game. Here's my suggestion: make it such that MBS and automining are possible, but with drawbacks. So a player being able to go 5d6d7d8d9d0d would have a huge advantage over those who just go mass-blind-5-d. I have the following suggestions:
-For automining, let the probe idle for 5-10s before going directly to the patch. So in early game manual control is almost essential, and it is still quite a huge advantage until the absolute late game. Yet noobs can still rely on them to at least mine eventually when overwhelmed by the amount of actions past early game.
-I have 2 different ideas for MBS:
1.) Allow unlimited MBS, but the gates will only build if ALL of them have money for it. So 20gates will only produce zealots if you have 2000 minerals. Obviously, the player who doesn't bind / binds very small amount of gates to one hotkey would still have much better macro. But noobs who will have mass resource counts anyways would reduce their required actions by a huge amount without any increase in skill. It can even be used by weak medium players as a crutch in late game. But to improve in skill, you would still need to macro in the conventional manner.
2.)If you select 20 gates to build a zealot each and only have say, 1000 minerals, ALL your gates get the cooldown. So the 10 idle gates are forced to idle for the entire duration of the zealot build. This also means you have to lower to amount of gates binded, and that you would have easier macro but an enforced penalty for doing so. You would need to wait until you have a decent amount of money to efficiently use your gates, but you can get your units now if you absolutely need them. The drawback is that a misclick could be disastrous, say accidentally asking 20 gates to build when you have only money for 1 zealot.
The basic premise is that you can still use MBS and automining if you had to, but thats like the difference between a-click and microing. The later is still needed if you are going to play at a passable level, yet noobs can enjoy the game without it. If anyone has any better ideas, please let me know. I've been racking my brains and these are the only solutions I came up with.
Hey I really like this idea a lot. Allows super noob players to have their interface (their macro probably so bad they probably don't even realize the penalties) and essentailly force good players to play without mbs and automine a lot of the time. Of course the penalties can be refined as necessary, but I think this is a pretty good solution.
So whats the solution? It seems apparent to me that MBS and automining need to be implemented in some form, yet there also must be a huge incentive to master non-MBS and automining playing to be decent at the game. Here's my suggestion: make it such that MBS and automining are possible, but with drawbacks. So a player being able to go 5d6d7d8d9d0d would have a huge advantage over those who just go mass-blind-5-d. I have the following suggestions:
-For automining, let the probe idle for 5-10s before going directly to the patch. So in early game manual control is almost essential, and it is still quite a huge advantage until the absolute late game. Yet noobs can still rely on them to at least mine eventually when overwhelmed by the amount of actions past early game.
-I have 2 different ideas for MBS:
1.) Allow unlimited MBS, but the gates will only build if ALL of them have money for it. So 20gates will only produce zealots if you have 2000 minerals. Obviously, the player who doesn't bind / binds very small amount of gates to one hotkey would still have much better macro. But noobs who will have mass resource counts anyways would reduce their required actions by a huge amount without any increase in skill. It can even be used by weak medium players as a crutch in late game. But to improve in skill, you would still need to macro in the conventional manner.
2.)If you select 20 gates to build a zealot each and only have say, 1000 minerals, ALL your gates get the cooldown. So the 10 idle gates are forced to idle for the entire duration of the zealot build. This also means you have to lower to amount of gates binded, and that you would have easier macro but an enforced penalty for doing so. You would need to wait until you have a decent amount of money to efficiently use your gates, but you can get your units now if you absolutely need them. The drawback is that a misclick could be disastrous, say accidentally asking 20 gates to build when you have only money for 1 zealot.
The basic premise is that you can still use MBS and automining if you had to, but thats like the difference between a-click and microing. The later is still needed if you are going to play at a passable level, yet noobs can enjoy the game without it. If anyone has any better ideas, please let me know. I've been racking my brains and these are the only solutions I came up with.
Hey I really like this idea a lot. Allows super noob players to have their interface (their macro probably so bad they probably don't even realize the penalties) and essentailly force good players to play without mbs and automine a lot of the time. Of course the penalties can be refined as necessary, but I think this is a pretty good solution.
I think the problem with this is that the penalty is way too harsh compared to the mistake, sort of like how the penalty for accidently ordering 12 ghosts to lockdown 1 bc is too high (which is one reason I'm not complaining much about smart casting, even though I still wish you had to clone ;p).
On September 08 2007 04:27 FrozenArbiter wrote: .......................... Nice song at least, if anyone has Kempi - Ik Heb Mun Vrouw please send it my way =]!
So whats the solution? It seems apparent to me that MBS and automining need to be implemented in some form, yet there also must be a huge incentive to master non-MBS and automining playing to be decent at the game. Here's my suggestion: make it such that MBS and automining are possible, but with drawbacks. So a player being able to go 5d6d7d8d9d0d would have a huge advantage over those who just go mass-blind-5-d. I have the following suggestions:
-For automining, let the probe idle for 5-10s before going directly to the patch. So in early game manual control is almost essential, and it is still quite a huge advantage until the absolute late game. Yet noobs can still rely on them to at least mine eventually when overwhelmed by the amount of actions past early game.
-I have 2 different ideas for MBS:
1.) Allow unlimited MBS, but the gates will only build if ALL of them have money for it. So 20gates will only produce zealots if you have 2000 minerals. Obviously, the player who doesn't bind / binds very small amount of gates to one hotkey would still have much better macro. But noobs who will have mass resource counts anyways would reduce their required actions by a huge amount without any increase in skill. It can even be used by weak medium players as a crutch in late game. But to improve in skill, you would still need to macro in the conventional manner.
2.)If you select 20 gates to build a zealot each and only have say, 1000 minerals, ALL your gates get the cooldown. So the 10 idle gates are forced to idle for the entire duration of the zealot build. This also means you have to lower to amount of gates binded, and that you would have easier macro but an enforced penalty for doing so. You would need to wait until you have a decent amount of money to efficiently use your gates, but you can get your units now if you absolutely need them. The drawback is that a misclick could be disastrous, say accidentally asking 20 gates to build when you have only money for 1 zealot.
The basic premise is that you can still use MBS and automining if you had to, but thats like the difference between a-click and microing. The later is still needed if you are going to play at a passable level, yet noobs can enjoy the game without it. If anyone has any better ideas, please let me know. I've been racking my brains and these are the only solutions I came up with.
Hey I really like this idea a lot. Allows super noob players to have their interface (their macro probably so bad they probably don't even realize the penalties) and essentailly force good players to play without mbs and automine a lot of the time. Of course the penalties can be refined as necessary, but I think this is a pretty good solution.
I think the problem with this is that the penalty is way too harsh compared to the mistake, sort of like how the penalty for accidently ordering 12 ghosts to lockdown 1 bc is too high (which is one reason I'm not complaining much about smart casting, even though I still wish you had to clone ;p).
Well 1) has no penalties at all, it just means you have to bind less buildings to one hotkey. Or you have to wait until you have 2000min. Or you could do a combination of the two, say, if you have 20 gates building 1 zealot, then it won't build unless you have 1000mins, half the required amount. Then if you do the gates with insufficient mins will simply not build. Either way its the same idea, MBS, but with penalties for using it, so good play can only be achieved by non-MBS style.
Edit: HunterGatherer, I have a huge issue with someone with about 10 one-liners in your 20 or so posts posting that about me.
On September 07 2007 21:29 Brutalisk wrote: I actually wouldn't care so much if MBS is in or out if the following is at least guaranteed: - > 10 group hotkeys - customizeable hotkeys for building units and so on This would make macro less tedious (for those players who think it is. If you like it, then you can set up your hotkeys on the most awkward positions ), and with decent speed it's easy enough to macro then.
@LonelyMargarita: I guess you meant something different than you wrote. You should clarify what you mean then. Learn to express yourself better. I didn't lie. Why should I? I just replied to what I've read.
What does 10 group hotkeys mean? 1 to 0? Isn't that like in BW already? Maybe I'm confused.
Anyway, I'm obv. in 100% support of customizeable hotkeys.
"> 10" = more than 10. Yes I'm talking about the 1-0 keys in SC.
On September 07 2007 21:29 Brutalisk wrote: I actually wouldn't care so much if MBS is in or out if the following is at least guaranteed: - > 10 group hotkeys - customizeable hotkeys for building units and so on This would make macro less tedious (for those players who think it is. If you like it, then you can set up your hotkeys on the most awkward positions ), and with decent speed it's easy enough to macro then.
@LonelyMargarita: I guess you meant something different than you wrote. You should clarify what you mean then. Learn to express yourself better. I didn't lie. Why should I? I just replied to what I've read.
What does 10 group hotkeys mean? 1 to 0? Isn't that like in BW already? Maybe I'm confused.
Anyway, I'm obv. in 100% support of customizeable hotkeys.
"> 10" = more than 10. Yes I'm talking about the 1-0 keys in SC.
Oh I didn't see the >, I thought you meant it as an arrow not as a greater than.
rofl ill mirror my homeboy game's quote out of Hawks profile, since your an emotional egotistical bit that wants to flame "It's your job to be better than a woman in maturity, woman in general never really mature. Their lives are based on ill logic, materials, myths, and temptation" Game[xT]. This brings me to my second point, Blizzard is not going to make a game thats going to separate the men from the woman, because the woman will complain that they not getting any dick. If they make it a MBS game it will be like a wife you been married to, that gained 300 pounds. By this logic SC2 non-MBS is a hardcore surprise butt sechs while SC2 with MBS is soft fat dyke land. I would rather have a ladder full of faggots than what War3 is (a bunch of nobodies).
WTF is your problem. You haven't posted a single worthwhile thing on these boards and I can't even read the hell you just wrote. Could you put some thought into your posts and not piss all over these boards. They are messy enough.
I have a low apm. Think of really low. Automining, multibuiding select, smartcasting (not autocasting) frees up alot of time for me. I played some games with a weird kind of lag. The lag was smooth it did not interrupt giving commands. I had alot more time to issue commands and I didn't spam. I analysed the replay and my apm had doubled in that game though in real time it was the same. The time played in the replayanalysis was half of the time spend playing.
Conclusion. My game will benefit from these features. Maybe more then mechanically skilled players.
I like these features to be optional: decided before the start of the game if automing, multibuilding select, smartcasting is enabled.
Disadvantage: there might be less influx of new players in the hard mode being accustummed to these easy features. I think players with supirior mechanical skills still have an advantage but it will level out the skilldifference somewhat.
Clarification smart casting: Not autocasting. If you select a group of casters and cast a spell only 1 with sufficient mana casts the spell. No mana is wasted and you don't have to look for the caster with enough mana. You can cast for example 2/3 psistorm very fast consecutively. I think this is the reason psistorm got nerfed for now.
Question is there a healthbar and manabar displayed above the units if you select them or press alt like in WC3.
On September 07 2007 21:29 Brutalisk wrote: I actually wouldn't care so much if MBS is in or out if the following is at least guaranteed: - > 10 group hotkeys - customizeable hotkeys for building units and so on This would make macro less tedious (for those players who think it is. If you like it, then you can set up your hotkeys on the most awkward positions ), and with decent speed it's easy enough to macro then.
@LonelyMargarita: I guess you meant something different than you wrote. You should clarify what you mean then. Learn to express yourself better. I didn't lie. Why should I? I just replied to what I've read.
What does 10 group hotkeys mean? 1 to 0? Isn't that like in BW already? Maybe I'm confused.
Anyway, I'm obv. in 100% support of customizeable hotkeys.
"> 10" = more than 10. Yes I'm talking about the 1-0 keys in SC.
Oh I didn't see the >, I thought you meant it as an arrow not as a greater than.
But where would you find more than 10?
I suggested this in another thread:
There could be a key that when pressed it switches between "control group" and "subgroup" mode. When you have a control group set up, you can then press this key and the number keys now become available to make and use subgroups within this control group.
For example: You make a control group of 12 Scourges at "3". While you have this group selected you press, let's say, "f5", switching to "subgroup" mode. Now you can assign your scourges to any number keys that you want. Then you press "f5" again and it switches back to "control group" mode and you can go back to controlling your other units and buildings with the keys that you assigned to them. Now whenever you need to "clone" the Scourges you press 3 then f5 and then 1 attack, 2 attack, 3 attack, etc... And you could do the same for Ghosts, High Templars, Science Vessels, etc, etc...
edit: And it doesn't have to work exactly like this, it was just an example of how it could work. I'm sure Blizzard can make it a more refined system with interesting features.
Though I posted it as an alternative to smart casting.
Does that take too much skill out of the game or is it a good addition for e-sports?
I think its great that blizz is making innovative moves like this to make the units more independant. But you never know what the diehard starcrafters might say about it.
Does that take too much skill out of the game or is it a good addition for e-sports?
I think its great that blizz is making innovative moves like this to make the units more independant. But you never know what the diehard starcrafters might say about it.
no not derail the subject of this thread.
this is a thread about mbs and automining as a setting that will not be allowed for competitive play.
go make a new thread if you wish to discuss something else.
On September 08 2007 06:29 KaasZerg wrote: I have a low apm. Think of really low. Automining, multibuiding select, smartcasting (not autocasting) frees up alot of time for me. I played some games with a weird kind of lag. The lag was smooth it did not interrupt giving commands. I had alot more time to issue commands and I didn't spam. I analysed the replay and my apm had doubled in that game though in real time it was the same. The time played in the replayanalysis was half of the time spend playing.
On September 08 2007 06:03 FrozenArbiter wrote: But where would you find more than 10?
That's where the customizeable hotkeys come into play. A reasonable choice would be to have QWERTY (or even more) as an addition. The home row (ASDF...) would be used to assign your most important units/buildings, and the 3rd row could be used for the lesser important stuff. But that would of course be totally up to the player. By default, it should be all preset just like in SC, but you should be able to assign more control groups if you want to, and where you want to. Maybe also rebind the original 1-0 keys if you're so inclined.
Im in favor of making 1-0+qwertyuiop regular hotkeys while having asdfgh as unit/task hotkeys. Little did the person know who designed the keyboard that atack started with A and stop started with S and that they were both perfectly fitted for starcraft ^_^. Im actually pro auto-mine if this system is implemented because i like to cut workers at certain times to pay for counters. This mite just be because im envisioning a faster/better/stronger starcraft where no other RTS can arise because the genre will be conquered. But this is the developers choice not mine, they can iether choose to listen to the pro side or not. Say no to MBS/MUS, they only hurt whats so great about Starcraft.
I wonder if MBS and Mineral Rally are really that bad for Competative play. I found a interesting site on competative play: http://www.sirlin.net/ Especially
is interesting, both Min Rally and MBS can be categorized under "Technical skill" (clicking fast) wich is the 5th out of 9 traits of a "pro" independant of game. Mineral Rally removes one click per worker, there is no decision involved that was when the worker was ordered at the main building. MBS removes clicks depending on size of your base and expansion plans. It doesn´t tell you what to build when, that is still your decision.
On September 08 2007 07:13 HunterGatherer wrote: Im in favor of making 1-0+qwertyuiop regular hotkeys while having asdfgh as unit/task hotkeys. Little did the person know who designed the keyboard that atack started with A and stop started with S and that they were both perfectly fitted for starcraft ^_^. Im actually pro auto-mine if this system is implemented because i like to cut workers at certain times to pay for counters. This mite just be because im envisioning a faster/better/stronger starcraft where no other RTS can arise because the genre will be conqured. But this is the developers choice not mine, they can iether choose to listen to the pro side or not. Say no to MBS/MUS, they only hurt whats so great about Starcraft.
i really like this idea huntergatherer, adding a whole new row of keys that are bindable could actually increase the possibility of higher apm. i also like the location of the hotkeys.
I'll make a picture and draw out exactly what your saying
The green lines represent keys you can bind to units or buildings The red keys would correspond to units and upgrades.
Notice you can still have the 'A' and 'S' key there for unit control. There also seem to be enough red keys to still have a specific hotkey for every single SC unit that your race has. i would probably end up hotkeying my attacking units at the top: 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a and then i'd hotkey my buildings to the second row so i could still macro while having a giant army: qzwzezrztzyzuzizozpz (assume that z is zealot and q thru p are buildings)
What does everyone think about this as a possibility? This way you spend less time rebinding keys. I don't know if i'm 100 precent about it, i'd need to think about it more. But it seems like a very attractive idea.
that picture+auto mine=gg no re. Now all you got to do is build additional pylons. You wont need to press Z because asdf will be asigned to different units on the UI, so its more like 1aqa2awa3aea4ara5ata6aya but thats if you prefer to use 1 hand to make units instead of 2 when clicking on icon, wich is better imo.zxcvb would be assigned to any given caster you see on your screen so you can quiky cycle threw them, this would solve the auto-cast/multi-cast issue and also add something new. Storm for example would be like zazaza xa BAM STASIS'S BITCH DIDNT EVEN SEE IT COMING! If thats not a updated UI i dont know what is. All i want is a game that is fun and that the reason for it being fun in the first place is because its a challrenge.
A lot of people on this board who support MBS and automining and Scasting talk about how progamers will be able to focus more on micro and "play a perfect game".
Why would you want progamers to be able to play perfect games? Isn't it more fun to watch a progamer make a mistake now and then, and having the opponent taking complete advantage of that mistake to drive himself to victory?
On September 08 2007 07:13 HunterGatherer wrote: Im in favor of making 1-0+qwertyuiop regular hotkeys while having asdfgh as unit/task hotkeys. Little did the person know who designed the keyboard that atack started with A and stop started with S and that they were both perfectly fitted for starcraft ^_^. Im actually pro auto-mine if this system is implemented because i like to cut workers at certain times to pay for counters. This mite just be because im envisioning a faster/better/stronger starcraft where no other RTS can arise because the genre will be conqured. But this is the developers choice not mine, they can iether choose to listen to the pro side or not. Say no to MBS/MUS, they only hurt whats so great about Starcraft.
i really like this idea huntergatherer, adding a whole new row of keys that are bindable could actually increase the possibility of higher apm. i also like the location of the hotkeys.
I'll make a picture and draw out exactly what your saying
The green lines represent keys you can bind to units or buildings The red keys would correspond to units and upgrades.
Notice you can still have the 'A' and 'S' key there for unit control. There also seem to be enough red keys to still have a specific hotkey for every single SC unit that your race has. i would probably end up hotkeying my attacking units at the top: 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a and then i'd hotkey my buildings to the second row so i could still macro while having a giant army: qzwzezrztzyzuzizozpz (assume that z is zealot and q thru p are buildings)
What does everyone think about this as a possibility? This way you spend less time rebinding keys. I don't know if i'm 100 precent about it, i'd need to think about it more. But it seems like a very attractive idea.
I'd like that as long as it were customizable. Not everyone types on QWERTY, and to have hotkeys in the middle and all over the keyboard would seriously disadvantage other layouts. For me, there'd be hotkeys where your X < D O K T F G S and R are (QWERTYUIOP's location on dvorak).
On September 07 2007 23:23 Aphelion wrote: For automining, let the probe idle for 5-10s before going directly to the patch. So in early game manual control is almost essential, and it is still quite a huge advantage until the absolute late game. Yet noobs can still rely on them to at least mine eventually when overwhelmed by the amount of actions past early game.
1.) Allow unlimited MBS, but the gates will only build if ALL of them have money for it. So 20gates will only produce zealots if you have 2000 minerals. Obviously, the player who doesn't bind / binds very small amount of gates to one hotkey would still have much better macro. But noobs who will have mass resource counts anyways would reduce their required actions by a huge amount without any increase in skill. It can even be used by weak medium players as a crutch in late game. But to improve in skill, you would still need to macro in the conventional manner.
I like both these solution, but i think the automining delay should be 3-5s which would make it significant - but not too significant. If say it was 10, then the idle probe thingy would come up no? And i suppose the noob could simple order the probe to work quite quickly... especially with a 10s delay. If it was a smaller time (e.g. 3) there would be significantly less chance the noob would use the idle worker function anyway... The MBS solution is perfect imo
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 03:00 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.
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...
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ^_^.
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).
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.
For everyone against a choice between 2 options, remember that SC community is split between Money and low-money and the Warcraft 3 community is split between Dota and Ladder play. However having a split community in no way damages the game. Both still games have huge playerbases. There are still plenty of games of BGH and fastest as well as plenty of non-money maps in SC. And likewise, it doesnt take long to find a ladder game on warcraft 3 and there are always dota games goin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. As APM's increase, macro will reach a cap and micro will be all thats left for players to do. Problem with this is that an attack move command is almost as good as someone who is microing. So that extra micro aint gonna mean all that much. As it gets to a pro-level, no-ones going to be motivated to play 10 hours a day due to the fact that all they'll be doing is increasing their ability to micro by a very small amount.
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
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.
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.
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".
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"
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.
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
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
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.
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.
I've spent a good moment reading through this, and I've gotta say, it's really interesting.
But please, oh please, new Generation, this is holy ground. This is 2007, where discussions were much more civil, and it was OK to go off-tangent because there were only about 700 community members MAX. So please, take the time, read through more than the first 5 pages, and listen to the wise words of those who ended up becoming SC2 superstars.
I really do find Tasteless' comments ironic in retrospect
This pretty much all became true. Unfortunately, many new players don't really recognize or understand the significance of the change, while old players (many who posted in this thread) eventually accepted the change as SC2 pushed BW aside and all of their livelihoods depended on it. I would love to see a renewed discussion of the topic by prominent members of the community (like the OP ) with all bias set to the side, but it's just about impossible at this point.
On September 04 2007 07:17 MyLostTemple wrote: and for the record, those of you who think this can't/wont be implemented are wrong. I spoke with blizzard employees while at blizzcon and the MBS issue is up in the air still. As are many other interface features. They care about what the community has to say, especially tl.net. Stop assuming your voice has no impact or that your opinions have no weight. This is a more than feasible solution to a very vexing issue for starcraft2. Don't assume it's set in stone.
Weird that this came up in the top Starcraft 2 topics if it is mostly old comments, but I'd love to hear what Tastless would say about MBS and auto-mining now. I have hardly watched any SC:BW, but I think that the SC2 competitive scene has been fine without it. Instead of making the game worse it just seems to have made it different. For people who care deeply about something different can seem like worse, but it is not always the case.
But please, oh please, new Generation, this is holy ground. This is 2007, where discussions wer much more civil, and it was OK to go off-tangent because there wer only about 700 community members MAX
I am obviously fairly new, but I've always wondered if discussion were always as disrespectful and off topic as most seem to be now. I would love to have seen this place a few years ago.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/tasteless9/golf1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/tasteless9/minigolf_main-1.jpg)
I'm arguing for their inclusion because I feel that it would hurt SC2 and BW in the long run, particularly in the non-Korean community that desires a professional community of its own, to not include them.
![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/tasteless9/keyboard1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6013/sc2bk1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/tasteless9/keyboardnewhotkeys.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2878/dvorakhotkeysip9.jpg)
