|
On March 27 2008 01:36 mahnini wrote:
The MBS thread carries a very dangerous stigma, "express your opinions here", it's where people go to fling shit. Not only that, there are five different convos going on at the same time. As well as making an MBS argument I'm outlining the anti-MBS definition of macro, and attempting to explain rather than fling shit with people. Do I think my opinion of MBS matters more than others? No. I think my explanation of what macro is substantial in and of itself.
Weak.
You get to fling the first volley of shit is all. You do it under the guise of "explaining". We're all trying to explain our positions, to define terms, to establish the guidelines of the argument. It just so happens your "brilliant' "explanation" is above shit flinging.
Weak.
I think your explanation of Macro is decent, but giving yourself a whole thread is wholly and completely self-centered.
As far as your argument goes, it adds nothing to the debate. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said already, and collating a few points into a single argument is hardly grounds for a whole new thread.
Your points are weak anyway. You've failed to address the main Pro-MBS argument. You've made all sorts of examples about choosing to upgrade or expand or produce, without acknowledging that MBS DOES NOT impact those decisions.
MBS has no impact on substantive decision making of macro insofar as when to produce vs expand is concerned. It eliminates the split of a decision to create a unit wave into multiple parts.
The impact of this elimination is one that you've only briefly touched upon.
The UI is not a limitation. - this whole section is bunk. Casting 8 Psi Storms is 10X more difficult than producing 8 units. The consideration of outguessing the Zerg's army positioning with timing it isn't even close to 16 reptative clicks.
You've failed to defend why those reptative clicks are as important as ones involving timing, strategy and decision making.
|
On March 27 2008 02:12 mahnini wrote:
Alright guys, this isn't the MBS thread, let's get back to the intriguing topic of macro shall we?
What?!
It's not about MBS??
Then why the bloody hell does it say MBS right in the title?
|
Why is this thread still open? The SCII section is bad as it is without TWO threads on MBS...
|
I should make a game for all of the old Starcraft die-hards to play after Blizzard ruins all of their fun. It would be a clockwork RTS, where all of the units and buildings need to be wound up with mouse clicks, and they wind down after a few seconds, so you have to spend all of your time zipping around the map, frantically winding all of their springs.
|
On March 27 2008 03:14 Funchucks wrote:
I should make a game for all of the old Starcraft die-hards to play after Blizzard ruins all of their fun. It would be a clockwork RTS, where all of the units and buildings need to be wound up with mouse clicks, and they wind down after a few seconds, so you have to spend all of your time zipping around the map, frantically winding all of their springs.
AWESOME!
|
On March 27 2008 03:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is this thread still open? The SCII section is bad as it is without TWO threads on MBS...
What about when it had 5 in the beggining?
|
On March 27 2008 03:14 Funchucks wrote:
I should make a game for all of the old Starcraft die-hards to play after Blizzard ruins all of their fun. It would be a clockwork RTS, where all of the units and buildings need to be wound up with mouse clicks, and they wind down after a few seconds, so you have to spend all of your time zipping around the map, frantically winding all of their springs.
It's a good idea and all, I'm just not sure requires quite enough clicking.
|
I endorse this message.
At first I was a little disgruntled like the rest and said to myself, "Oh no, not again!", but I was pleasantly surprised by your work. With all the clutter of utter crap in the other MBS threads I think this one does deserve it's own thread for that reason alone.
No one and I mean no one wants to follow the crap many of you spew in the those other threads!! Could you not tell!?!?! Why do you think it is always the same boneheads posting the same old arguments and other BS?!?!
No one follows the rules and no one wants to deal with those who cannot look at both sides of the coin. There is no point in arguing with some of you because you simply don't understand the material or attempt to.
I'm glad many of our old vets are posting again, but it's time to give up. These guys simply don't understand and most likely will never understand your sound arguments.
What mahnini wrote is right to the point and it should be simple for most people to understand. Look for all the loop holes you want.
|
On March 27 2008 02:33 GeneralStan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 27 2008 01:36 mahnini wrote:
The MBS thread carries a very dangerous stigma, "express your opinions here", it's where people go to fling shit. Not only that, there are five different convos going on at the same time. As well as making an MBS argument I'm outlining the anti-MBS definition of macro, and attempting to explain rather than fling shit with people. Do I think my opinion of MBS matters more than others? No. I think my explanation of what macro is substantial in and of itself. Weak. You get to fling the first volley of shit is all. You do it under the guise of "explaining". We're all trying to explain our positions, to define terms, to establish the guidelines of the argument. It just so happens your "brilliant' "explanation" is above shit flinging. Weak. I think your explanation of Macro is decent, but giving yourself a whole thread is wholly and completely self-centered. As far as your argument goes, it adds nothing to the debate. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said already, and collating a few points into a single argument is hardly grounds for a whole new thread. Your points are weak anyway. You've failed to address the main Pro-MBS argument. You've made all sorts of examples about choosing to upgrade or expand or produce, without acknowledging that MBS DOES NOT impact those decisions. MBS has no impact on substantive decision making of macro insofar as when to produce vs expand is concerned. It eliminates the split of a decision to create a unit wave into multiple parts. The impact of this elimination is one that you've only briefly touched upon. The UI is not a limitation. - this whole section is bunk. Casting 8 Psi Storms is 10X more difficult than producing 8 units. The consideration of outguessing the Zerg's army positioning with timing it isn't even close to 16 reptative clicks. You've failed to defend why those reptative clicks are as important as ones involving timing, strategy and decision making.
I don't care, seriously. If people don't think this thread is substantial enough then they will let it die, and that's that.
From your points though, it's pretty fucking obvious you haven't read my post at all.
1. Fine, can some mod please change it to Macro: As I See it.
2. I don't really want this to turn into an MBS debate, even though I've sort of led to it. I want to discuss / inform what macro is, with a side order of MBS opinion that goes well with my explanation.
3. I never said MBS had an impact on expanding. It might have an impact on running expansion but not the act of expanding in and of itself.
4. How does telling me "storming is difficult" prove that the UI is skill limitation on unit production. If anything, storming is harder because there is more payoff. Does this somehow mean requiring a player to stop storming and start making units is null and void? If anything this complements the storm ability by compounding your advantage if a player does not choose to replenish his units.
5. Timing does not involve repetitive clicks, neither does strategy, and neither does decision making. Unit production, choosing to ignore micro or vice versa, involves strategy / decision making and timing.
What I'm trying to explain is what macro, more specifically, unit production is and how it DOES impact the game. My conclusions are just a small portion of my post, I don't see anyone arguing my main points, just the fact I disagree with MBS. Guess what, my entire post is both reason and explanation which is why the conclusion is there in the first place.
|
On March 27 2008 03:29 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2008 03:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is this thread still open? The SCII section is bad as it is without TWO threads on MBS... What about when it had 5 in the beggining?
I think most senior posters thougth it was "unreadable". I don't think it was that bad but it certainly made your eyes bleed a bit.
I go to the SCII section to find whats new about SCII and to find threads on different aspects of the development. If I want to find the MBS discussion I know where to find it. Most of the time I don't want to find it.
For all the OP's huffing and puffing this is just a recycled pro-MBS post which everyone who has waded through the last 5 threads instantly recognize. Furthermore it completly disregards the most important pro-MBS points that are there and catergorises the entire pro-MBS side as noobs, something that the real thread had pretty much gotten over by now.
There's no real reason to keep this thread open, just repost the OP into MBS IV and close it. The consensus seems to be "wait for the beta" and "trust in Blizzard" rigth now either way, having multiple threads with the same shit in them is not going to change that.
|
Another widely accepted option is MBS, but 1 building per hotkey limit.
|
|
|
AWESOME op.
as to the MBSers...they mostly come at night...mostly.
|
On March 26 2008 17:45 mahnini wrote:
The problem with MBS.
I guess this is what it all comes down to right?
MBS takes away the need to multitask both mentally and physically. It takes away the tactical strategy of macroing over micro or microing over macro. The need to make this decision on a frequent basis and, more often than not, in a frantic frenzy makes it the connection between the mental and physical aspects of the game. With MBS the balance between mental and physical, grand strategy and mechanics, strategy and tactics, and macro and micro are all completely thrown off and pro-MBSers seem to not care or not understand.
I've posted this elsewhere, but as you summarized, MBS takes away the rhythmic feel of macro cycles by allowing you to just spam hotkeys without taking your screen away from your units. If you remove the hotkeys from the MBS, then does that not solve the problem?
-Allow multiple buildings to be selected at the same time only by double-click or ctrl-click on a single building (i.e. select all visible buildings) OR by shift clicking multiple buildings to add to your selection.
-NO drag selection for buildings to make diverse unit production impossible without using SBS
-Allow either hotkey of max one building at a time OR remove hotkeys for buildings altogether (to keep the UI consistent)
MBS
PROS:
- More user-friendly; better suited to both new and casual players; shorter learning curve
- The UI standard in RTS today; won't feel outdated
- Makes rally points and warp gate usage much more practical
CONS:
- Reduces multitasking requirement (both mental and physical)
- Shifts the macro-micro balance away from the macro side of the scale (could also be a pro depending on point of view)
- Amplifies the effect of auto-mining by allowing all nexus to be selected together
MBS (hotkey max 1 building at a time)
PROS:
- Retains multitasking requirement
- Inflexible system for producing a specific mix of desired units from a single building type once you have more than 5 production buildings --> must click individually when fine-tuning is required
- Will not necessarily feel out of place for new or casual players, because vast majority of players people who are new to RTS do not use hotkeys for buildings. (i.e. Dustin Browder's interview of how he selects all of his buildings each time he had to build)
- Similar to SC for first ~8 mins of game (while # of hotkeys are still sufficient for unit production buildings)
- Will never allow you to select more than one nexus at a time --> no amplification of auto-mining
- Makes rally points and warp gate usage much more practical
- Invalidates the "repetitive clicking as primary skill" criticism of the UI from most uninformed players
CONS:
- UI may feel unintuitive (However, the people who would complain about it, would actually dislike SBS far more, even if it is more intuitive).
IMO, unhotkeyable MBS is a good compromise of the UI for both the casual and the competitive scene. It retains the multitasking (forcing you to return to your base), while removing the "cloning" of the repeated building clicks that is the primary criticism of SBS by uninformed players.
Both mental and physical requirements are still in the game, it's just that instead of taking about 1 second to produce 8 zealots from 8 gateways, it now takes 0.2 seconds. If you need a mix of say 5 stalkers and 3 zealots, you STILL NEED TO USE SBS to take 1 second to click through all your buildings.
Now explain to me what the problem is with this solution. Don't just knock down the obviously uninformed pro-MBS posts and make yourself look superior that way (look how everyone sprung up to counter Agone's post). Plus, you can't always have it your way in this world no matter how justified you think you are, sometimes there has to be compromise. That's life.
|
MBS is in WC3 and the pros barely ever use it. While SC and WC3 are very different games, it just goes to show that the better players will always emerge on top. The difference between a chobo and a gosu might not be as big in SC2 as it was in SC, but their will always be a skill gape.
That being said, I am anti-MBS for a variety of reasons. But thinking that the difference between player skill will become less just because of MBS is not one of them. Blizzard will work it out. I have faith.
|
As a Zerg player, I am really tired of having all of my hotkeys caught up in hatcheries instead of unit groups. I hate having to decide whether to put a new expo on a hotkey or keep a unit group or whatever...and MBS would be extremely handy. I could have certain sets of hatcheries (main, expos, etc) hotkeyed together and...it would be easier. And I could focus more on selecting my units and hotkeying them.
Because it takes a lot of hotkeys to control 40+ zerglings...which brings me to the topic of unlimited unit selection...wait, nvm, I'll keep that pandora's box closed.
|
Live2Win
United States6657 Posts
MBS discussion is almost worst than politics
|
On March 26 2008 23:38 Senix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2008 20:18 geno wrote:
My second conclusion has been said many times: have some faith in Blizzard. This issue is likely just as, if not more important to them than it is to us. As I've said in a previous post, Blizzard is known for not being afraid to make very fundamental changes during a Beta, and I wouldn't be the least surprised if methods of unit production was one such change. I'm sure they will make a fantastic game when all is said and done, and in general, people need to not worry as much.
Thats exactly what we should NOT do. Dont pray for something to happen MAKE it happen. Warcraft 3 is a "fantastic" game and Blizzard wasnt afraid to make "fundamental" changes. AWESOME! Good that we all had faith in Blizzard now they made the new best RTS ... oh wait.. Now is the chance to voice our opinions and we should do that and not "have faith in Blizzard" that failed to deliver already. We´re talking about Starcraft 2 here not Pokemon Alpha 2B. This MBS issue will be a big one. Either Blizzard will go with the mainstream and use MBS or not and that will certainly have consequences on future RTS games when SC2 is successful.
I sort of responded to this here so I'm not going to elaborate much. I do think you misunderstand me though. Also: You are far too critical of WC3. The game was definitely successful, which is all the more impressive if one feels that no RTS can be competitive with heroes, items, upkeep, and MBS. Features like heroes and items weren't going to be removed simply because people wanted another Starcraft level competitive game. You should be impressed that they managed to make the game as competitive as it is without having to revert to basic Starcraft idealogy in a Warcraft game.
Also just to note, the "fundamental" changes during beta that I am referencing are to their more recent WoW expansions. I don't actually play WoW, but I've heard anecdotal evidence to support that claim (and having played a different MMO for awhile, I'm fairly aware as to how fundamental certain types of changes can be in a game like that).
On March 27 2008 03:41 mahnini wrote:
I don't care, seriously. If people don't think this thread is substantial enough then they will let it die, and that's that.
From your points though, it's pretty fucking obvious you haven't read my post at all.
1. Fine, can some mod please change it to Macro: As I See it.
2. I don't really want this to turn into an MBS debate, even though I've sort of led to it. I want to discuss / inform what macro is, with a side order of MBS opinion that goes well with my explanation.
...
What I'm trying to explain is what macro, more specifically, unit production is and how it DOES impact the game. My conclusions are just a small portion of my post, I don't see anyone arguing my main points, just the fact I disagree with MBS. Guess what, my entire post is both reason and explanation which is why the conclusion is there in the first place.
This isn't actually the first thread to attempt to accomplish this task by the way:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=67845
That thread was very much like this one, an attempt to define macro and explain why it will be important in SC2, and how MBS relates to it. Whats more, the OPs posts were from a pro-MBS stance, creating a perfect opportunity for an in-depth anti-MBS response to the claims on macro.
On March 27 2008 06:42 TheOvermind77 wrote:
As a Zerg player, I am really tired of having all of my hotkeys caught up in hatcheries instead of unit groups. I hate having to decide whether to put a new expo on a hotkey or keep a unit group or whatever...and MBS would be extremely handy. I could have certain sets of hatcheries (main, expos, etc) hotkeyed together and...it would be easier. And I could focus more on selecting my units and hotkeying them.
Because it takes a lot of hotkeys to control 40+ zerglings...which brings me to the topic of unlimited unit selection...wait, nvm, I'll keep that pandora's box closed.
I'm actually surprised MBS has drawn so much more criticism than both UUS and Automine. I mean, surely being able to move your army out and get them into hotkeys right after they are produced is an extremely demanding skill (I know I can't do it efficiently). Its strange that people do not complain about a noob being able to have his whole army moving the same way a noob would be able to macro. (I know that my first post disagrees with these arguments. I'm just saying that I'm surprised I don't hear the arguments in the first place)
|
On March 27 2008 07:10 geno wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2008 03:41 mahnini wrote:
I don't care, seriously. If people don't think this thread is substantial enough then they will let it die, and that's that.
From your points though, it's pretty fucking obvious you haven't read my post at all.
1. Fine, can some mod please change it to Macro: As I See it.
2. I don't really want this to turn into an MBS debate, even though I've sort of led to it. I want to discuss / inform what macro is, with a side order of MBS opinion that goes well with my explanation.
...
What I'm trying to explain is what macro, more specifically, unit production is and how it DOES impact the game. My conclusions are just a small portion of my post, I don't see anyone arguing my main points, just the fact I disagree with MBS. Guess what, my entire post is both reason and explanation which is why the conclusion is there in the first place. This isn't actually the first thread to attempt to accomplish this task by the way: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=67845That thread was very much like this one, an attempt to define macro and explain why it will be important in SC2, and how MBS relates to it. Whats more, the OPs posts were from a pro-MBS stance, creating a perfect opportunity for an in-depth anti-MBS response to the claims on macro.
I haven't seen that before or maybe I just don't remember. The format is pretty similar but the content included is extremely different.
I don't think this thread is going anywhere, feel free to close, etc.
|
i basically agree with the OP, but most of the BW players will blindly be against MBS because with it, a huge part of BW is taken away. See thats the problem, they/we think of SC2 as BW.
What if blizzard manages to incorporate a whole new dimension? ...one that could make SC2 as hard to master as BW...
Coz, it seems to me that the main worry is that the game will have less things to master with MBS in place. It doesnt have to be that way, new things can be added.
You see, BW is not the only way to make a good game. Just because this game is so awesome doesnt mean Blizzard shouldnt try to make a game as unique and as awesome as BW, but in a different way. It'd be lame if an artist would simply polish the same old hitsong melody all the time. Sometimes you have to make a change. Personally, i'd be happiest if SC2's gameplay turns out to be different from that of BW. But equally good.
We now have 10yr old Gold in our hands. You take some protons and electrons, you get Carbon. You play with it a bit more, you might get Diamond. 
lets just wait and see, shall we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
