EPTThe Logic of MBS: As I See It. - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tinithor
United States1552 Posts
| ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
| ||
|
Tinithor
United States1552 Posts
| ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 29 2008 08:45 GinNtoniC wrote: It is a very aggressive, insulting, demeaning way to say it, but the man actually sumarized (although in a slightly exaggurated and harsh way) how a lot of people feel about where SC2 is headed atm. I sort of shuckled while I read it. Again, very harsh, but partly very true. It's not that I personally care, it's just that I dislike banning people and therefor prefer if flamebait material is kept to a minimum  On March 29 2008 09:31 0xDEADBEEF wrote: SC1 is a noob game because WC2ers said so, SC2 will be a noob game because SC1ers currently say so. Same with Quake 1->2->3->4. And with many other games probably too. It's always the same. Sequels usually change gameplay, whether significantly or not so significantly, and this change is almost never welcome by a big part of the community, it'll always be considered bad for the game, always considered to be a dumbed down version for the newbie masses only. Thankfully, in the past they've almost always been proven wrong and the games turned out to be very competitive AND appealed to new players (SC1 followed the same formula in 1998). I predict no difference here. There'll come a point tho, when things start degenerating. I'm not sure that point is now, but you can't just blindly ignore something because similiar concerns were raised in the past but proved to be untrue. I don't know much about what changes were made between Q4 and Q3, but as I understand it Q4 was a massive failure compared to Q3 (all I know about Q4 is that people said it was almost identical to Q3, just worse or something). The new Super Smash game seems to have recieved a fair bit of criticism (I have no way of judging how well founded it is tho) for being less deep than its prequel.. I mean, yeah, it was originally meant to be a for fun game (something I think the original two games accomplished pretty well, no need to add in random trip %ages), but things aren't always better because they are new. Oh well, I have a hard time really arguing here as I don't play many games aside from SC, not seriously anyhow. And after playing some WC2 online today (having previously played it online only once or twice) I must say I wasn't even that bothered by the less fancy interface (no rally points, no queues). I guess I'm just happy with how things are now  MBS didn't particularly bother me in Armies of Exigo (it's essentially SC with MBS and in a fantasy setting, good game) but I never played it much online, and it's hard to judge from single player. Felt a little lazy to just mass produce with the click of 1 key I guess, 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is fun to me.This was allover the place, time to sleep. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
I played it in single player, and watched maybe 2 or 3 matches from some kind of tournament, but what I've seen was neither bad nor good: just more of the same. That's probably the real problem with Q4: it doesn't add enough new things. It's basically Q3 with better graphics. And why start playing it then? Q3 also has much lower hardware requirements (always a good thing if you want your game to be more popular). I think the classic death match style FPS games are in some kind of creativity crisis right now.  When Q3 came out, it basically did everything right... crisp controls, good weapon balance, good maps, high speed, fun... so except for graphics there's not really anything that can be improved. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
eat
United Kingdom88 Posts
1. Transport units were far too small. I couldnt believe a P shuttle could carry only 2 goons. 2. You could only select 12 units at once. I thought it made moving large armies very cumbersome. 3. Building multiple units was boring and slow. I make no attempt to argue proMBS but these were my thoughts as a newbie so it is hardly surprising Blizzard have tried to address all three. | ||
|
UmmTheHobo
United States650 Posts
 On a more serious note, say it takes an extra 1 second to make units without MBS, that one second could of been used to micro better. From a spectators stand point, they would obviously want to see cooler battles and advanced tactics. Starcraft has survived so long because A: It is fun (I don't see how MBS can change this) B: It is balanced (I don't see how MBS can change this) and C: It is fun to watch (MBS will only slightly increase the joy of watching starcraft battles!)The only point that has broken through my head is the balance of micro¯o. Right now in Starcraft:BroodWar, it is nearly perfect, MBS would slightly tip the balance in micro's favor. Solution??? Add something new to macro! I believe blizzard is already doing this (Warp Gates, Reactor add-ons, and maybe more stuff we don't know about!) Could an anti MBS person please explain why MBS is bad?? | ||
LosingID8
CA10829 Posts
On April 30 2008 06:18 UmmTheHobo wrote: I have never gotten why people didn't like MBS, if you don't like it don't use it On a more serious note, say it takes an extra 1 second to make units without MBS, that one second could of been used to micro better. From a spectators stand point, they would obviously want to see cooler battles and advanced tactics. Starcraft has survived so long because A: It is fun (I don't see how MBS can change this) B: It is balanced (I don't see how MBS can change this) and C: It is fun to watch (MBS will only slightly increase the joy of watching starcraft battles!)The only point that has broken through my head is the balance of micro¯o. Right now in Starcraft:BroodWar, it is nearly perfect, MBS would slightly tip the balance in micro's favor. Solution??? Add something new to macro! I believe blizzard is already doing this (Warp Gates, Reactor add-ons, and maybe more stuff we don't know about!) Could an anti MBS person please explain why MBS is bad?? read MBS thread 1 2 and 3 and then come back. | ||
|
x89titan
Philippines1130 Posts
| ||
|
SlickR12345
Macedonia408 Posts
A great real time strategy game is a game that has a balance of all elements that make it be considered under that genre. Starcraft is arguably the best as finding a mid balance between all the gameplay concept as they are reffered to as strategy, tactics, micro and macro. Anyways the physical aspect of tuyping fast on the keyboard has no strategic mean or is actually necesary in a way but it adds another gameplay element that needs to be fited in the overall balance. I my self do not like MBS because you can't have a great RTS game that playes for you, while you only need to build strong counters... If any1 that is found of MBS wants deep strategic game try chess. If you compare it to older kinda of games now being sports you can see that the physical factor is always very important. For example: can a 160cm tall man play basketball and be really good at it? - Well mauby Alan Iverson but his still a lot taller than that and a rare exception. Example 2: can a soccer player have low stamina and be good? - Yes for the first 10 minutes and then you need to take him out. So with all this said: A)MBS should be incorporated but somehow marginalized to the point of fiting the overall balance of the game! OR B)MBS should be removed and overall balance should not be altered with new mechanics like this. Other claims to turn on/off MBS by preference is plain stupid and will not create an equal balance for all players! | ||
|
UmmTheHobo
United States650 Posts
). Without MBS Pros won't have to worry about 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z, and they will focus on awesome baneling rushes, blinking stalkers to high ground, swarming with zerglings, Doom Drops, reaper raids, and a million other things that will be in starcraft 2. Trust me Starcraft 2 will definitely be a major clickfest (I'm not saying it as a bad thing :D). The 10 buttons or so you press to make 5 marines will then be used to dance 5 groups of 5 marines. | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
XCetron
5226 Posts
On March 29 2008 12:22 geno wrote: Your first assumption is not correct assuming a game with an unreachable skill cap. That means there is more room to improve than humanly possible. And an easier game does not a single change make. We need to know the aggregate of changes and alterations, and even then will we only catch a glimpse of its ultimate difficulty, which would be extremely difficult to quantify. Best off not making such assumptions until the game is playable (beta). the starcraft level now would have been deemed humanly impossible in 2000, now it isnt. Its not bad to have an unreachable skill cap, its bad to have a low skill cap. Lowering it at all risk making it too low since we do not know what is humanly possible and what isnt. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
@XCetron: It's hard to say if lowering the absolute skill ceiling is always a bad idea. It can turn out to be a good idea if the "relative skill ceiling" isn't lowered. Using an old example: ZvT muta harass with two separate groups (on a map which is muta friendly like Blue Storm, i.e. if you aren't automatically at a disadvantage if you stay with mutas for too long). This might very well be possible with MBS, but it can be considered "impossible" with the current UI. After 10 years, no one can do it decently. You can try, but you will suck at it. It's extremely unlikely that this will change, although it could be very useful (T has to spread his M&M force, and you could pick off workers at one place and depots at the other). So if players get a crutch that helps them to do such things (MBS), it could as a result be a good thing for the gameplay and the spectators, and it would be just as challenging for the player as it was before. Because such things would then become standardized, if you don't do them you'd put yourself at a disadvantage. Great displays of skill in SC1 would become more common in SC2, but at the same time totally insane displays of skill never seen before in SC1 would replace these because they suddenly become doable (by the very best players only, of course). Your perception of "what is skill" in SC1 will not be the same for SC2 with MBS. You'll get to have higher standards, expect crazier things. Well... old stuff mostly. I'm not going to discuss this any further. Just felt like answering to that post. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 30 2008 09:36 mahnini wrote: And we (at least myself) was trying to tell you macro was more complex that you think, MBS would only affect one part of macro (repetitive part) but not another (creative part).Oh wow my thread was bumped. The thing that I tried to do to distinguish this from any other MBS thread was to actually focus on macro. Not mechanics, skill gaps, or whatever. Just macro. Didn't seem to work out too well! | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
| ||
| ||
