EPTin fact, one could argue that cnc3 ui was almost as hard as sc1 if not harder. yet it still got succesfful reviews(9.0 from gamespot). im not saying its a good game, i think that its terrible. but it did good with reviews, and brought a lot of newbies in. it didnt develop a competitive scene. but thats cuz of the balance IMO
[D] MBS Discussion IV - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
killanator
United States549 Posts
in fact, one could argue that cnc3 ui was almost as hard as sc1 if not harder. yet it still got succesfful reviews(9.0 from gamespot). im not saying its a good game, i think that its terrible. but it did good with reviews, and brought a lot of newbies in. it didnt develop a competitive scene. but thats cuz of the balance IMO | ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
("defensive structures" are sunken/spore colonies, photon cannon's replacement, and missile turrets+bunkers, supply depots for raising and lowering is partially included) I personally feel that as long as the devs know that it will be in and balance for it (MBS on defensive structures), SC2 will be fine. edit: just relized this almost sounds like trolling, even though I was just trying to get the last subject addressed. | ||
|
yangstuh
United States120 Posts
Yes this was mentioned before, but I think we should revisit this as a valid solution. There is this solution, mentioned a few times before, of splitting the ladder between MBS/nonMBS. I think its interesting to think about. For example, in Call of Duty 4 they have this "hardcore" mode where you have virtually no UI and very low HP/higher damage. Its sort of a realism mode. I'm wondering if its a decent idea to implement a "hardcore" mode in ladderplay. The hardcore mode would simply utilize pretty much the EXACT same interface that SC1. I would say that there would be much more people playing normal ladder than hardcore ladder, but then of course, the anti-MBS people don't care about population/popularity right? Also, Diablo2 had a hardcore ladder mode where your heroes only have 1 life, no respawn.. which was actually popular, not as much as normal play though. I think the only issue with that is possible balancing issues. It'd take a different balancing team to balance hardcore mode vs. normal ladder mode. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
1)esports games will have separate special game modes specifically for esports. 2)esports games will be specific titles, a kind of a subgenre. Either a game is either only an esports title or it's only a conventional game. 3)esports will remain as it is at WCG now. Just a bunch of the most popular games played just for fun and giggles by people who ended up with the luck of being invited. And the next year different games will be popular and different games will be at WCG. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On March 22 2008 07:54 geno wrote: I think the most positive direction that the MBS discussion could take at this point is alternative macro discussion. By that I mean, alternative attention-requiring tasks that would make up for MBS or an alternative MBS system that still requires attention. I agree with this. No more general discussion about MBS should be allowed until beta, unless you have a NEW idea to propose (besides splitting game types, because that's been discussed 100 times over too). Every other argument just goes in circles. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On March 22 2008 10:30 BlackStar wrote: There are three options for the future. 1)esports games will have separate special game modes specifically for esports. 2)esports games will be specific titles, a kind of a subgenre. Either a game is either only an esports title or it's only a conventional game. 3)esports will remain as it is at WCG now. Just a bunch of the most popular games played just for fun and giggles by people who ended up with the luck of being invited. And the next year different games will be popular and different games will be at WCG. That list is obviously born from the idea that games are either fun or competative. Your arguments also make A LOT more sense from that viewpoint. I don´t see a point though in debating about that, it will just end in drama (again). My opinion on that should be clear by now. I would though, like to see your idea for a special esports gamemode out of curiosity. Why don´t you invent a hypothetical esportsmode for Starcraft. Or a "casualmode" if you´d rather do that. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
If I couldn't improve at chess it would be extremely boring. Esport mode, kind of obvious. All the stuff that doesn't fit in as well in single player and whatnot. Like coloured psi to give an example besides the UI. And intricate death animations. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
No one would bother to compete in chess if it wasn´t fun. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
It's just not fun with MBS. See the Testie interview. First thing he said after playing SC2 was 'macro is too easy. They ruined it, why?. It's no fun this way. The intensity, the defining factor of Starcraft, it's gone." (pseudo quote) The point is that SC2 will be a game based on the idea to test the skill of two players. So selling out by appealing to the McDonalds generation who have no interest in that anyway is the wrong choice if we talk about game quality. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
On March 22 2008 08:06 Famehunter wrote: By all means please do. This debate is not going anywhere... Agreed. No fun anymore in reformulating old arguments. @BlackStar: almost every pro started primarily because the game was fun. First comes fun, next comes competition. Fun has to be there first or else there won't be anyone competing. And the idea of "what is fun" changes over time. When I was very young and Dune 2 or Warcraft 1 came out, it was really fun for me. These games have a much harder UI than Starcraft. But today I simply wouldn't play a game like this anymore if it had the same kind of UI. It's just bad and every younger game plays much more natural, fluent and efficient. With SBS it's basically the same: it's annoying, and almost all other games pwn SC in that aspect. If you want/need to make macro hard, then just add a new aspect to macro, but don't add SBS again, which would be a step backwards, an inelegant solution. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
If you replace all the macro so the game is just as difficult the people that complain now will complain then. It's still a clickfest to them. And you keep talking about adding new macro. Nether you nur Blizzard has shown any new significant macro gameplay. The economy works exactly the same in SC2 as in SC. I thought we weren't going to repeat stuff? | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
And the only thing the antis really want is to preserve the necessity to have to switch to your base from time to time. This could be done in other ways too. SBS might be the obvious choice because it works in SC1, but it's annoying. I know there is currently nothing like this in the game, but Blizzard often does radical changes from alpha to beta to release version. It would be no problem to add something like this if "MBS only" shouldn't work out. And it would be the best thing to do in that case, IMHO. Although currently Blizzard seems to think that there will be enough to do to show off your skill, even without new macro aspects. And I tend to believe them with that.  More than I would believe some SC1 players who hate the new change. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5860 Posts
 Keeping one of the pillars of SC is important on its own anyway... | ||
|
Vin{MBL}
5185 Posts
| ||
|
ATeddyBear
Canada2843 Posts
| ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
On March 23 2008 06:37 Vin{MBL} wrote: If you think not having MBS will make the game so "pro" then why don't we switch to an interface where you can only select 1 unit at a time? Same philosophy, it makes the game more "pro" and "1337" , no? You should read some of the other threads. That is not a very good argument and it has been shot down many times before. There are plenty of better ways to defend MBS than something as baseless as that. This is why this thread is no longer productive I bet I could quote almost the exact same thing 20+ times from different people over these MBS threads. | ||
|
Mowse
South Africa56 Posts
| ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
I would like to approach the argument with the goal of pleasing both sides. We make the assumption that we have unadulterated MBS (I.E. no limitations, including my favored limitation of disallowing multiple selected buildings to be hotkeyed). I make an assumption about MBS: that it will allow a suffiently skilled player to take care of the production side of macro without returning to his base. This stems from two considerations 1. Blizzard is aiming for the same number of units per faction 2. A unit ordered is added to the next available queue. So spamming 4z4d4t etc with all gateways in one binding will have each unit added to queue as money is available. I think we can all agree that this is a bad outcome, since it favors mindless spamming and is extremely easy (especially with customizable hotkeys 4r4t4y for everything you could want). The other option is that MBS is messy, and puts the unit into the first queue everytime. The way around that is three bindings of gateways, with a number in each equal to your unit mix. In just about every match-up, having say 6 zealot gateways, 5 goon gateways and 2 templar gateways is enough diversity. Sure there is some skill in successful binding, but as you add gateways, you simply add them to your existing control groups in a ratio and have perfect control, needing to return to base only when you construct new gateways. If your unit control needs to change drastically (I.e. you scout mass vults from terran) then you will have to return to base to rebind, but you won't have to rebind more than once every four or five unit cycles. A pie in the sky solution is to have fluidly changing unit composition be a requirement in high level play, such that a player can only rely on his bindings for two or three cycles, but I see no way to make that feasible. Every army is going to have a backbone unit that benefits tremendously from MBS control with the effect of making return to base unnecessary. Babysitting your army while having perfect macro is DEFINITELY DEFINITELY better than returning to base to have "Perfect unit mix". 12 goons perfectly microed is better than 5 goons 6 lots 2 templar sloppily thrown in while you get your perfect unit mix. It comes down to perfect micro and macro with a slightly off-skew unit mix. I've heard the argument that pros will return to base to macro, but I find it entirely unconvincing. Basically, the point I'm making is MBS makes babysitting your army optimal play. This leads naturally to the downfall of MBS: rythm, multitasking, negative feedback curve. 1) While playing Brood War, it is necessary to establish a rythm of playing: produce, reinforce, attack, produce, reinforce, scout, upgrade, defend . . . etc. With MBS allowing a skilled player to babysit his army (and mass rally troops to the front line), instead of a rythm of playing, you have a player statically fighting at the front line 2) This reduces the need to multi-task, making micro LESS exciting, since a player isn't going to make a disastrous mistake while he's macroing back at home. Micro will be more skillful on both sides, which I actually consider a plus, but lets face it, Korean pros micro pretty damn well as it is. I think unlimited unit selection is more than enough of a buff to good micro (lets face it, watching pros units trip all over themselves was pretty lame) 3) Negative feedback curve - A player who is ahead with a bigger economy and more production facilities will be able to produce more units with the same amount of effort as a player that is behind. In Brood War, a player ahead has to spend more time macroing and economy watching so the behind player is more likely A) to make some great micro play to get even or B) harass his distracted opponent. With MBS, the ahead player can micro just as well and be vigilant against harassment, making a comeback less likely than in BW, and especially our favorite sort of comeback, that of the pure multitasking variety. In short, SBS is critical to the feel of Brood War on the whole. It establishes the requirement to spend time in your base, makes building an economy a difficult task that a spectator can appreciate, while also requiring sheer speed and a graceful rythm to play. Frankly, what bothers me the most is the unholy union of automine and mbs. Instead of economy, you have 0p to establish a perfect economy, and that directly undermines the feel of Brood War. As I said earlier, I think the ideal solution is to not allow multiply selected buildings to be hotkeyed. Then return to base is still required, it's just that you can more quickly selected and produce at the base, as well as actually being able to change your rally point. Noobs will macro happily from their 20 gates, and pros will quickly and skillfully get an optimal unit mix. Frankly, the gross skill of clicking gateways isn't important (multitasking and establishing a rythm of production and micro IS). So, as I said at the beginning of my post, there should be a way with no limitations to make MBS work. What would be required is meaningful macro actions in the base. Supply depots can be queued, so that's not even an issue, upgrades are only once every few minutes, and building tech buildings isn't too difficult. The only real macro action left is buildings production facilities, which is also not enough to establish the rythm of return to base that we want. What we need then is articifical actions that require constant attention in the base. The problem is creating macro actions that are more than annoying gimmicks. We could make SCVS foolishly pile up on a single mineral patch. We could make it so doing a rain dance with your SCV in a power circle will yield extra resources or speed up production. We could make it so winning a game of tic-tac-toe against the computer will make all your units finish instantly! Obviously, these are all silly. So does anybody have any idea how to make this happen? (more to come) | ||
|
LeLe
8 Posts
| ||
|
aokces
United States309 Posts
I don't want to start a discussion on this HERE since it doesn't really seem to be the right thread, but if this has been discussed could someone post a link? | ||
| ||
