|
Actually, MBS increases the reward put on macro. You spend very little time on macro and you get a lot of reward for the time spend.
In SC spending time on macro was already better in many cases. Now it's humongous. In SC2 almost never will it be rewarding to sacrifice macro for micro because macro is so easy and still that powerful.
You're ignoring diminishing returns. Just because little time spent on macro leads to big gains, does not automatically mean that spending tremendous amounts of time on macro leads to tremendously big gains. Of course once you introduce a skill ceiling (assuming that at some point you're essentially playing with perfect macro) then it all comes down to micro wars, but if players aren't playing at the skill ceiling then there's room for macro-micro tradeoff. On a technicality this makes your early-game analysis (never trade macro for micro) somewhat questionable as it assumes that the gains from macro rise linearly until you hit the skill ceiling and then the gain drops to zero. It's more likely that at some point (and if MBS easifys macro it will be very low) the returns on macro drop off, perhaps rather quickly.
|
On March 26 2008 10:17 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Ok I'll reply to the rest, although it doesn't make much sense what you wrote. There's almost nothing worth replying to, but I'll try.
lol, nice troll.
So? What would be different with SBS? They'd be even worse.
That's not what this is about. Sure, with SBS they both have terrible macro and micro. Now they will have decent macro and still terrible micro. But trying to micro is a waste of time. Learning to macro pays off a lot more. It already does now.
I don't care what they should do. They should primarily get faster so they can get more important things done.
We are adding MBS for these people and you don't care? Lol?
This is independent of SBS or MBS, as the problem will always persist. You can't do shit with 40 APM, so you have to choose what seems to be the most important thing at each time.
But in the end you'll lose anyway.
I don't see a point here, it's unrelated.
You don't see the point? Are you even trying. They are both 40 APM people. So how do they always lose? If one loses, the other wins.
And they will spend their little time on macro because now instead of building one unit with 3 actions, now it may be 8 units with 3 actions. How many units can you save with 3 actions? If they even try to micro they will lose the game.
Makes absolutely zero sense. I don't even know what to answer there because it's so useless.
Newbies are even worse with SBS because macro is actually harder to execute. Give them more time for micro (by adding MBS) and they'll use more micro.
Uuh, they don't have the time to micro. They either macro or micro. And macro>>>>micro with MBS. Micro gains them nothing. You only micro if you have nothing better to do.
Same: no sense.
With SBS, they'll have even less units, and having a balanced army (or rather: a unit mix that's useful for the current situation) is always rewarding.
lol, only think you want is to level the playing fiend between you and decent players? Because that's all you can relate to. I am talking about how MBS will change the game. You utterly fail to understand anything I am talking about. Why?
That's exactly the same in SC1. In SC1, macro is usually more rewarding than micro,
That's the point. The and in SC2 this is even more so because macro is just easier to do.
The only way to solve this imbalance is to reward the use of micro more. And how do you reward the use of micro more? Either by making unit production slower so that you can't just pump units and forget about the rest because you'll have a new army in 30 seconds, or by giving the players slightly more time to focus on micro. The latter would be the effect of MBS.
Lol, no. If you give them MBS they will first get perfect macro and the time they have left over they can spend on micro. Point is that the people we are adding MBS for often don't have this left over time in the first place. Why ever skip a production cycle because of MBS? You won't. MBS will never make you sacrifice production for unit control.
And outmacroing will always be possible, whether there is MBS or SBS. Because you seem to forget that macro is not only about mechanical multitasking skill. It's also about expanding at the right times, building upon your advantage, and for Zerg there's also the aspect of building drones at the right times, when you don't need the larvae for units.
How does MBS change any of that. MBS only changes the mechanics. That's why we discuss mechanics. Pretty obvious.
|
On March 26 2008 10:37 EmeraldSparks wrote:
You're ignoring diminishing returns.
No. You also didn't read my post. I said players will always spend all the time on macro they need for near perfect macro and only then move on to micro.
|
It doesnt take much time for perfect macro with MBS. Maybe a few clicks every 30 seconds.
|
Ah, I interpreted
In SC2 almost never will it be rewarding to sacrifice macro for micro because macro is so easy and still that powerful.
to mean that for all but the highest levels of players everybody would be macroing all the time.
But even if you're not at the absolute skill ceiling this isn't true. Taking the time to properly lay your mines (SC1 example, k) or picking off workers with speedlings / mutas can still be worthwhile even if it means that your next batch of units will be slightly slower, because while you could be ensuring that your larvae are never wasted you could also be microing to more effect. At lower-level games it might lead to more macro-heavy play, but not to the degree that you say that it is because even at a level moderately far from perfect the returns have already diminished.
|
On March 26 2008 13:19 Tinithor wrote:
It doesnt take much time for perfect macro with MBS. Maybe a few clicks every 30 seconds.
Haha, guess we'll see in beta.
|
I do echo the thought that many of you sound a bit elitist in your arguments here. Anyways I have a couple things I’d like to point out, and a suggestion to put forth.
It’s almost like some people on here are asking for "busy work" to be added to the game. The SBS was just that, it was busy work. A compromise I would put forth is to not have “unlimited” building selection. I would suggest that you just cap the number of buildings in a group to something like three or five. Therefore macro is no longer tedious, but is no longer as simple. Returning to your base will be mandatory when playing at a high level regardless, as harassment will be had, and buildings will be built.
I do believe you are all missing one crucial thing; Blizzard is a business. They are in the market to make money, not to cater to a cult following. I say this because, as much as people may not like it, the noobs outnumber the pros 100,000 to 1. You have to consider this when you look for reasoning behind the MBS decision. They are trying to sell games, and it’s a good bet that an up to date UI will sell more games than an old UI.
And finally I believe you guys are forgetting something. Warcraft 3 has a very competitive community, and also has a pro gaming community that stretches across multiple continents (it’s not just Korea). Granted it’s a different game, but to marginalize its success is foolish. Warcraft 3's pro scene is, as far as I can tell, also much more global, with many of the best players in the world not being from Korea. They, too, have APMs over the 250 mark, and they, too, are far better than any noob.
I like a lot of RTS games. Some have MBS, some don’t. I like them for the strategy they require and the fun they provide. If Starcraft II is fun, I could care less about the MBS. I do think that the better strategy should win the games, not the higher APM.
|
just wondering, but could you mass lift buildings (terran)? or mass addon. i guess mass addon is less likely due to having to choose positioning (unless they auto did it where they were, if they could). just saying that MBS can affect more than just unit production, although that is of course the main problem.
and @ blackstar: first, i did indeed read your post. second: you have it wrong. in SC1 it was either macro or micro, because both required your attention, and both required dexterity, handspeed, etc. pros were pros because they could multitask; macro and micro alternatitavely at extremely high speeds (and well). the whole idea is that MBS gets RID of that. it makes macro EASY (at least, unit production), which means the person DOESN'T need to concentrate on macro OR micro, as they can just hit a few buttons for macro, and concentrate basically entirely on their micro. you're imagining it as if using MBS will require the user's attention enough so as to not allow them to micro at the same time, but that is simply wrong (from the info we have now). and it's not as if spending more time on your macro will make it EVEN better, because the whole point with MBS (and the basis of this argument) is that it DOESN'T require very much time or effort.
|
No. You describe exactly what would be my point. MBS was added because SC was too much of a macro fest or click fest. At least that's what's claimed. But for those very lowly skilled players, macro oriented play will just pay off more than micro oriented play. Sure, good players can do both as macro is so easy. But just go unto USwest and play some random 3v3 Hunters. Look at those players with sometimes even 20 APM. Not many go beyond 80. Who knows how bad the '3v3 FMP noobs' players are.
Load some beginner 1v1 games. Both will have awful macro. Macro is so hard in SC, they don't even try. In SC2 it will be different. Macro will still be more powerful than micro in many cases. But at the same time, it's a lot easier because it requires less AMP and less multitasking. This means those players and their games will all become more macro oriented.
Total beginner games often are very long and very passive with lots of turtling in SC; they play like they played in single player. With MBS they will just be able to spam units from 12 factories without much effort.
And if we climb up the ladder of skill we will see near perfect macro at some point. And of course from the good level to the progaming level there will be more and more micro.
Noob games will be macro fests and then just attack move your whole army all because of MBS.
And no. The somewhat casual semi-decent players who are D or D- on iccup, watch progames sometimes, have 80-120 APM, use hotkeys somewhat. Those are maybe the biggest minority of all. And those are the people, together with the WC3 people, that support MBS the most. Noobs don't know what MBS is. Only 1/4th of the people will actually log on unto battle.net at least once.
And let's not forget that for every foreign SC player there are many more than 50 Korean ones. And then many many people who watch progamers who aren't korean. Progamers are in the minority? Why not count their fans and viewers as well?
We have progaming, both the players and the fans, on the one side. And we have single player people who think about playing multiplayer a little more on the other side. Then we have a very small group of people who still play, aren't completely horrible, but don't watch progaming.
If we want to make SC2 more accessable to the group of people who are new to SC2, who never played RTS games in multiplayer, will MBS really help them? No. It won't. They either don't use hotkeys, use hotkeys but not for buildings, or they exploit MBS to the fullest but their games are just boring macro fests because they don't have AMP to do much more than just attack move their army.
If they try to micro or harass like good players their macro will suffer and they will usually get outmacroed and walked over. And they will be just as frustrated with the game as they are now; SC2 clickfest, macrofest, whatever. They will still view the game that way.
|
I really doubt most of the pro mbs ppl that say sbs is too hard will even manage with mbs... if they cant remember to go 4z5z6z7z once in a while on a basic level how are they goona remember 4z, i cant understand the unlimited unit selection though, none of the blizz games in the past had it and theyve always been critisized about it and it never hurt sales then , why change .... 
|
This "MBS turns the game into more of a macrofest for low APM players" is not true. There's no change from SBS. In both cases, they're so slow that they have to concentrate on one thing, and that is usually macro. In both cases they'll macro 80-100% of the time, with SBS it's even more (i.e. 90-100%) because more APM are required for macro.
|
not only that, but (@ blackstar) even if youre right that AGAIN reiterates my point. yes it will just make it a spam fest for units. thats the point. it totally takes out a HUGE facet of the game, even if that particular group of players didnt use it before. when people talk about accessibility to different groups, they forget that though yes, MBS might be attractive to those players who really DO want to just spam units and mass attack, it will also probably piss off or at the very least annoy the hell out of a lot of players who CAN manage. theres a really big group of users who are casual or semipro or pro who will be (and show it in these kinds of threads) turned off by a simple few hotkeys as their macro. the game should be CHALLENGING, at ALL levels. SBS offers this, as a noob will have a hard time using SBS with 1 or 2 or 3 buildings, and even pros have a hard time macroing as they simply make more buildings to control. however, with MBS, you dont just simply "make more buildings" and it makes it more challenging, because you can select ALL the buildings, no matter how many you make. many users have, do, and will recognize this (even new players can and will think just pressing 3-4 buttons occasionally is boring); being able to spam units at low levels isn't really much of an addition to the game as a whole at all. what happens when the new users get tired of it? it makes the game single-faceted; if you eliminate macro (and no matter what people say about macro-based alternatives, automining+massunitproduction really in my opinion cannot be simply replaced, they are just too important) it means the game is focused all the much more on micro. the whole reason people loved sc1 is because it was balanced AND because there was just so much to it. even simple things, people MADE so much out of it. what is there to make out of MBS? different orders of spamming keys?
|
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, GS.
On March 25 2008 04:03 GeneralStan wrote:
"- A way of selecting buildings and not units needs to be implemented; a good idea from battle.net (ha!) is to have drag-select to the right select units, and drag-select to the left select buildings."
I find this unintuitive. I think maybenexttime's idea of using CTRL to get only buildings is better.
Yeah, I was just giving an example. CTRL-drag might be confusing because CTRL-click does something completely different, though.
"- It makes MBS totally unusable once any flexibility within a single building type is desired, thus requiring the player to use SBS past the low skill levels. If SC2 meets the goal we discussed earlier of every MU using the same number of units as PvZ, then there's almost no reason to have MBS anymore."
4z5d6t7o8r0p ftw? Every unit can be fit in the current number of hotkeys, making MBS very useful indeed.
That was my point, if you don't have hotkeys, you can't do 4z5d6t7o8r0p with MBS. In fact, unless you come up with a method of quickly selecting a portion of your gateways (for example), MBS becomes almost useless as soon as the player wants to produce more than one unit type out of their gateways. My particular argument was against ctrl-click, as it requires SBS for producing lots and goons simultaneously and just gets worse from there, and shift-click would be very similar to SBS. I will admit that if a drag-select method is implemented, it's likely that the transition from MBS to SBS won't be too abrupt.
"- It limits the effectiveness of building unit-producing buildings at expansions that MBS makes possible, which is a great strategic addition to SC2."
I don't think pros would have production facilities at expansions much in any case, since it means when you lose an expansion, you've lost a part of your production as well as economy.
I think the reward of having much quicker reinforcements for your attacks would outweigh the risk of losing production as well as economy.
"- It potentially suffers from the same problem that GS brought up for "messy" MBS: if there is only one unit per building type necessary for a specific MU, the player can just go to their base, ctrl-click-z-ctrl-click-z-ctrl-click-z (since customizable hotkeys allow the player to set each unit's hotkey to z), and go back. If the player builds their buildings in the same place every time, the break in attention caused by going back to one's base becomes insignificant at higher levels of skill. Even with multiple units for one building type, the player could just build groups of that building far enough apart so that they can ctrl-click and just select one individual group."
I disagree. The mere fact of returning to base is enough to maintain the rythmic feel of unit production we enjoy.
Ah, I understand what you mean by rhythm now. You could always make the game fast enough so that the game ends shortly after the players max their tech trees. =P But seriously, though the un-hotkeyed solution solves the rhythm issue, my complaint was that players could potentially produce fast enough that prioritization would still be too easy.
|
I think we can agree that unhotkeyable MBS is the best solution.
The only downside I can think of for it is that it is unintuitive, but as I've said before, any player who goes looking to put multiple buildings on a hotkey is a gamer a level who can probably understand that the restriction exists to foster a specific feel for the game of Starcraft.
|
On March 26 2008 16:18 Palek03 wrote:
I do echo the thought that many of you sound a bit elitist in your arguments here. Anyways I have a couple things I’d like to point out, and a suggestion to put forth.
It’s almost like some people on here are asking for "busy work" to be added to the game. The SBS was just that, it was busy work. A compromise I would put forth is to not have “unlimited” building selection. I would suggest that you just cap the number of buildings in a group to something like three or five. Therefore macro is no longer tedious, but is no longer as simple. Returning to your base will be mandatory when playing at a high level regardless, as harassment will be had, and buildings will be built.
I do believe you are all missing one crucial thing; Blizzard is a business. They are in the market to make money, not to cater to a cult following. I say this because, as much as people may not like it, the noobs outnumber the pros 100,000 to 1. You have to consider this when you look for reasoning behind the MBS decision. They are trying to sell games, and it’s a good bet that an up to date UI will sell more games than an old UI.
And finally I believe you guys are forgetting something. Warcraft 3 has a very competitive community, and also has a pro gaming community that stretches across multiple continents (it’s not just Korea). Granted it’s a different game, but to marginalize its success is foolish. Warcraft 3's pro scene is, as far as I can tell, also much more global, with many of the best players in the world not being from Korea. They, too, have APMs over the 250 mark, and they, too, are far better than any noob.
I like a lot of RTS games. Some have MBS, some don’t. I like them for the strategy they require and the fun they provide. If Starcraft II is fun, I could care less about the MBS. I do think that the better strategy should win the games, not the higher APM.
i love how you use the exact same argument 1000 kids have said before, with the same result - failure
|
So while I was watching TL attack (with XiaoZi) I read/heard a comment that the show that the team melee displayed represented a great Starcraft challenge, to be able to multitask insanely.
If one were to attempt to gauge the effect of MBS on the degree of "more micro" the game would entail (somebody kept up bringing up five-dropship winnaring instead of three,) could this be approximated by setting up team melee games with a micro player and a macro player, for the purpose of seeing just what kind of things (if any) open up if the macro aspect is reduced?
|
On March 29 2008 07:59 EmeraldSparks wrote:
So while I was watching TL attack (with XiaoZi) I read/heard a comment that the show that the team melee displayed represented a great Starcraft challenge, to be able to multitask insanely.
If one were to attempt to gauge the effect of MBS on the degree of "more micro" the game would entail (somebody kept up bringing up five-dropship winnaring instead of three,) could this be approximated by setting up team melee games with a micro player and a macro player, for the purpose of seeing just what kind of things (if any) open up if the macro aspect is reduced?
That's an interesting concept. I'd try it out with you.
|
Scaled MBS
By way of an example, with eight gateways hotkeyed to 5, you have three options:
5,z,z,z,z,d,d,d,d ..... to make 4 zealots, 4 dragoons -- (allows unit diversity)
5,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z ..... to make 8 zealots
hold5,z ..... to make 8 zealots -- (screen centers on your eight gateways for 2 seconds total) + Show Spoiler +Holding 5 centers screen to hotkeyed buildings forcing your attention away from the battlefield. If each building gets highlighted for 0.25 seconds, then with 8 buildings, that would be 0.25s x 8 = 2.0 seconds of animation time. The more buildings, the longer the animation cycle. Making 8 units takes more time than making 1, right?)
+ Show Spoiler +
Repercussions:
Inclusive: No need for dividing players further; we already have Fastest Players, BGH, low-money, Bound, RPG, Pro, and other communities.
Intuitive: If you can select multiple units, now you can for buildings. The tedium of massproducing a unit reduced to pressing two buttons. It would be counter-intuitive to remove the time/attention cost, however.
Logical: Unscaled MBS reduces attention/time cost to almost zero, whether you have 10 buildings or 1. But with scaled MBS, it should take you longer to build 10 units than to build 1! Why should Player A with 10 gateways have the additional advantage of having the same time/attention cost as Player B with 1 gateway? Yes, Player A already has a +9 unit advantage, but this is logically the reward for the inherent higher mineral cost.
Balanced: Pros will almost never use option 3, but it's there for newbs.
Pro-variety: If this scaled MBS is applied to SC1, it could make using ghosts a viable micro counter versus carriers, as opposed to just macro counters, goliaths and wraiths. (Note: this is Blizzard's goal with SC2, move from macro to micro slightly. Unscaled MBS is extreme; scaled MBS is middleground and actually a good solution!).
Simple: Not a lot of alternative "macro" tasks to compensate. Warping, upkeep, a third resource... anything else? Holding the hotkey already operates on the existing function of pressing it twice to center screen on the hotkeyed unit/building. There were other ideas on ways to moderate MBS such as increased build times or higher resource costs, but it's simpler to just preserve the crucial element of time/attention cost.
(I got replies back from pro-MBS players, calling the scaling down of MBS a "weird compromise", "illogical", and "gimped". What if I say unscaled MBS is overpowered? Though, I've got even fewer replies from those who understand the competitive side of Starcraft, the anti-MBS people. I'd like to submit this idea on behalf of TeamLiquid, and get TL recognized, just like "Operation AWOL".)
|
On March 28 2008 05:12 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
i love how you use the exact same argument 1000 kids have said before, with the same result - failure
No, with all due respect, I made no arguement.
I only pointed out what I thought were somethings the community hasnt pointed out on this thread -- the facts that Blizzard is in it to sell games, and that Warcraft 3 has a thriving pro scene with MBS. These were not arguements, these are part of reality. I also stated my opinion on what could be a compremise, and on what I see as important to an RTS. None are arguements, nor were they intended as such.
You are trying to frame me as some "noob" who has no credibility. The problem is that my post count (2, after this post) is not representative of my level of play, or knowledge of the game. Also I never claimed to be an expert I just decided to throw my thoughts out there. You also insinuated that all the poeple who disagree are "kids." I can't see any good coming from such an attitude.
FInally, whether the arguement is a failure to you or not is irrelavent. It makes no difference if you think its a good arguement or not. Blizzard will include MBS because it will sell more games. It matters none what I think, it matters none what you think. MBS will be included in the game because "kids" are the majority of the market.
In reality your arguement will be the one thats a failure because you won't get the result you wanted. Have fun insulting and disregarding "kids" and their "failing" arguements.
|
On March 28 2008 05:00 GeneralStan wrote:
I think we can agree that unhotkeyable MBS is the best solution.
The only downside I can think of for it is that it is unintuitive, but as I've said before, any player who goes looking to put multiple buildings on a hotkey is a gamer a level who can probably understand that the restriction exists to foster a specific feel for the game of Starcraft.
I disagree. There's a better solution: scaled MBS. It solves the 'untintuitiveness' while maintaing your and Deadbeef's idea of going back to base as essential. Read my post above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
