|
I think the divide is physical vs. mental.
There are people who want an equal physical/mental game.
There are people who want a less physical (they would say redundant/repetitive part of the game) and more emphasis on mental part of the game. Other would say its "impossible" to make it more mental.. etc.
Some want more physical than mental emphasis on the game.
So I still think, as was mentioned many times before, split the ladder on the bases of UI.
Hardcore vs. normal ladder! Simple as that 
And worries over community splitting are negligable. Theres gonna at least 2x more people playing SC2 than WC3.. for many reasons, but most of all its Starcraft and its a NEW Blizzard game!
Besides the community naturally splits.. between gametypes.. UMS/ladder/teamladder/sololadder/singleplayers. If MBS really becomes a huge issue even after the game is released, if there is no split ladder.. I'd imagine that a community will mod the game to be more "korean pro scene fitting" and organize a 3rd party ladder system based on that! So just split the ladder.. seriously.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 27 2008 06:13 ClockworkBlues wrote:
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.
You could take out MBS and it would barely affect WC3, the impact of MBS when you have 4 buildings is vastly different from the impact of MBS when you have 20.
|
Uh but for the people that says have faith in blizzard and dont say stuff, what to you think will make blizzard change to what the fans want? Imo blizzard's best actions is that they listen to the fans. I think in order to get a awesom game we should all contribuite our ideas, instead of saying have faith in blizzard. (I'm not saying I dont have faith, its just something on my mind.)
|
|
|
Definetly doesn't deserve it's own thread. I personally, didn't even read most of the arguments in other threads but I have seen more than enough people saying the exact same things mahnini did. The points you go through on this thread have been argued over and over thousands of times, you'd know it if you had read just a little bit of the other threads.
Mahnini, I learned in the other threads that after pages and pages of debating, it always comes down to finding a balance between [macro tactics] vs [micro tactics + strategy]. Anti-MBS people wants the game to be more focused on hand speed specified for unit production. Pro-MBS people wants the game to be more focused on hand speed specified for microing PLUS more focused on strategical decisions than what it currently is in SC1.
Then, what is more important? What is better for the game? More [macro tactics] or more [micro tactics + strategy]? There has been many good arguments on both sides on other threads, I ask you to read those. But some points that you have clearly gotten wrong in your original post, that I wanted to clarify:
On March 26 2008 17:45 mahnini wrote:
MBS takes away the need to multitask This is the first HUGE mistake many people assume in this conversation. MBS does not "takes away" multitask. It SHIFTS multitask in another direction. Macro is not only "clicking on buildings". You still need the strategical decisions involved in macro, like you said yourself. You still need to multi-task between bases to order workers to build. You still need multi-tasking between different armies to micro them separately in different spots. YOU are the one not understanding macro here.
Clicking on building = repetitive part of macro
Strategy and tactics on base building/exping = creative part of macro
MBS shifts the workload you had to constantly keep on the repetitive part of macro, so you have room to invest in the creative part of macro. Not only that, but also leaves room to more micro tactics. In your own example, you could have had got 8 psi storms well placed INSTEAD of clicking on 8 buildings for production.
Trust me, your apm will not go down with MBS, that wouldn't make sense. Your actions wouldn't disappear they would be shifted to another part of the game. Less building clicking = more... everything else in the game. Not ONLY more microing. We all have seen 400apm korean pros lose units carelessly because they were busy clicking buildings. That's what would change.
I will agree with another guy in this thread who said strategy takes too long to evolve in these years of BW. And I blame it mostly in the interface. In short, we don't want to reduce tactics or strategy. What we want with MBS is to SHIFT from the repetitive part of tactics to the more creative part of tactics.
|
But a micro based game is not as fun to watch as a macro based game. Just go watch a pro WC3 game. Its not as fun because its all micro and most people dont quite understand whats going on.
|
I agree entirely with VIB. The only thing being removed is additional "actions". Giving a person MBS won't make them know how or when to make units or how much...it won't change skill levels. But it does provide the opportunity to every player to spend less time executing multiple "actions" and more time to do other things (harass, expand, strategize?...scout, think, position, check, evaluate, list goes on forever).
The only thing changing is the amount of "actions" performed, which just allows time for more things. The pros will have even more time to do other things...and, to tell you the truth, the only people pros have to fear getting MBS is the other pros. Lower level players will still be slower/indecisive/not as refined at the macro decisions.
But it does save us lower level zerg from 1sz2sh3sz4sz5sh5sh..I'll still forget about good macroing though and leave my larvae unused...
|
On March 27 2008 11:24 Tinithor wrote:
But a micro based game is not as fun to watch as a macro based game. Just go watch a pro WC3 game. Its not as fun because its all micro and most people dont quite understand whats going on.
Please... don't ruin great argument from post above by talking about WC3 which requires about 1/10th Starcrafts' speed and multitasking.
|
I dont know I think it would take away from the multitasking. Didn't last romantic say it was really easy to macro without even taking the screen off of his units?
|
At first I was worried about MBS, but when playing SC2, Korean pros didn't complain about it so neither should I.
|
On March 27 2008 11:59 Jusciax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2008 11:24 Tinithor wrote:
But a micro based game is not as fun to watch as a macro based game. Just go watch a pro WC3 game. Its not as fun because its all micro and most people dont quite understand whats going on. Please... don't ruin great argument from post above by talking about WC3 which requires about 1/10th Starcrafts' speed and multitasking.
Im just interested on keeping the pro scene alive ....
|
this was a great post. I have to agree 100% that macro add's so much to the game.. blizzard NO EASY BUTTONS <3!! ^_^
|
I think the real point of this thread, the definition of macro, is helpful as many definitions seem to be thrown around nowadays and they aren't necessarily the same. For example, how I see macro differs from what the OP wrote:
Pretty much every skill in SC can be boiled down into three categories: macro, micro, and multitasking. Both macro and micro have two components: strategy/theory (I'll use strategy, since that's how the OP termed it) and mechanics. The strategic component determines the goals, and the mechanical component executes those goals.
For example, macro strategy includes such actions as expansion timing, supply timing, building timing (including build orders), upgrade choice/timing, unit choice, unit ratios, presence of mind (remembering to go back and order workers/buildings) etc., while macro mechanics include the actual acts of ordering workers to mine/build or buildings to produce/research.
On the other hand, micro strategy includes actions like positioning, timing attacks, drops, etc., while micro mechanics consist of the actual ordering of the units in battle to maximize their effectiveness.
Therefore, I don't think that the mechanical production of units is the majority of strategic macro, but rather unit choice and ratios. This isn't to say that the mechanical portion of producing units isn't a significant skill; the faster you can order your buildings to produce units, the easier it is to prioritize macro. If you are able to produce a wave of units in 0.5 seconds, it's easier to find a window for unit production than if you need 2 seconds to produce a wave of units. Since prioritization is a huge part of multitasking, the mechanics of unit production are definitely important for a SC player to master.
That explains how vanilla MBS reduces the importance of multitasking; if the average player can now produce a wave of units much faster, then prioritization becomes a much less important skill. It also harms rhythm, as vanilla MBS significantly reduces the frequency that the player is required to move their attention around the map.
Incidentally, it also explains why most pro-MBSers tend to devalue unit production as a skill and refer to it as "fighting against the UI". While unit choice and ratios may change depending on your opponent's actions, the mechanics of unit production, whether using hotkeys or clicking on buildings, will always happen in the same way and at the same times regardless of whether you have an opponent or not. It's very much like circle-jumping and strafe-jumping in the Quake engine; you're going to circle-jump and strafe-jump in the same way regardless of whether you have an opponent or not, and you'll be at a huge disadvantage regardless of your skill in other areas unless you learn these skills first.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 27 2008 11:10 VIB wrote:Definetly doesn't deserve it's own thread. I personally, didn't even read most of the arguments in other threads but I have seen more than enough people saying the exact same things mahnini did. The points you go through on this thread have been argued over and over thousands of times, you'd know it if you had read just a little bit of the other threads. Mahnini, I learned in the other threads that after pages and pages of debating, it always comes down to finding a balance between [macro tactics] vs [micro tactics + strategy]. Anti-MBS people wants the game to be more focused on hand speed specified for unit production. Pro-MBS people wants the game to be more focused on hand speed specified for microing PLUS more focused on strategical decisions than what it currently is in SC1. Then, what is more important? What is better for the game? More [macro tactics] or more [micro tactics + strategy]? There has been many good arguments on both sides on other threads, I ask you to read those. But some points that you have clearly gotten wrong in your original post, that I wanted to clarify: This is the first HUGE mistake many people assume in this conversation. MBS does not "takes away" multitask. It SHIFTS multitask in another direction. Macro is not only "clicking on buildings". You still need the strategical decisions involved in macro, like you said yourself. You still need to multi-task between bases to order workers to build. You still need multi-tasking between different armies to micro them separately in different spots. YOU are the one not understanding macro here. Clicking on building = repetitive part of macro Strategy and tactics on base building/exping = creative part of macro MBS shifts the workload you had to constantly keep on the repetitive part of macro, so you have room to invest in the creative part of macro. Not only that, but also leaves room to more micro tactics. In your own example, you could have had got 8 psi storms well placed INSTEAD of clicking on 8 buildings for production. Trust me, your apm will not go down with MBS, that wouldn't make sense. Your actions wouldn't disappear they would be shifted to another part of the game. Less building clicking = more... everything else in the game. Not ONLY more microing. We all have seen 400apm korean pros lose units carelessly because they were busy clicking buildings. That's what would change. I will agree with another guy in this thread who said strategy takes too long to evolve in these years of BW. And I blame it mostly in the interface. In short, we don't want to reduce tactics or strategy. What we want with MBS is to SHIFT from the repetitive part of tactics to the more creative part of tactics.
The thing is, all these things you talk about, you STILL have to do those in BW, only you have less time to do them. MBS WILL reduce multitasking. There's just no two ways about it.
People do multi-way attacks even now, and I doubt very much that you'll be able to do more of them with MBS, there's simply no way for you to be at two places at once, so you'd have to do them the same way as you do now.
People expand and build new bases now as well, where's the change? You have to order workers to mine now as well, but in SC2 they will automatically mine so you don't even have to do that.
The psi-storm example is silly, you place your storms - well - then you click the buildings. In SC2 you'll place your storms well (and it will be super easy because you have smartcast) then you'll click 1 or 2 keys and all your production buildings will light up. It doesn't sound very fun to me to be honest (I really enjoy the frantic 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z as you regroup your army after/during battle).
Also, you haven't explained to me why Pro-MBS = [micro+strategy]. Micro I can see, strategy, not so much? MBS is not magically gonna allow for more strategy.. And in this vein, it's also not magically going to lead to 30 way attacks, this - as is the importance of strategy - hinges much more on the balance of the game and what the different matchups will allow.
For instance, no matter how many MBS-esque features you have, you are not going to be able to launch 5 way attacks in the vast majority of your PvZs (bah this example would be much more true in the past, when PvZ was a containment game :D but still!). And even without all the MBS features you can still see moves like boxer's simultaneous 3 drops vs Chojja, because the matchup allows you to play that way.
MBS might not ruin the game, and it's possible it can be implemented well etc, but it WILL make the game easier, 100% no doubt about it. If it didn't, there wouldn't even be any point in implementing it..
Maybe it won't make the game too easy, maybe they will find a way, we'll know this by beta time.
Also, I agree with your first statement. This should not have been its own thread, it's too late to close now because there's been 4 pages of civil discussion, but in the future - this goes in the MBS thread.
|
The solution is to not allow the player to hotkey more than 1 build.
So you can Micro many turets, MBS is included ( press will not flame it ),noobs are happy,
and anti-MBS too.
|
On March 27 2008 23:27 FrozenArbiter wrote:
MBS might not ruin the game, and it's possible it can be implemented well etc, but it WILL make the game easier, 100% no doubt about it. If it didn't, there wouldn't even be any point in implementing it..
Maybe it won't make the game too easy, maybe they will find a way, we'll know this by beta time.
I´d like to have that as final statement until the beta but we all know that isn´t going to happen.
I´m really surprised how the exactly same arguments are used just the conlculsion is either "and we don´t want that" or "and that is what we want".
Many of thouse that don´t play SC today find SC frustrating/too hard and are therefore "noobs" while thouse that found it challenging stayed and became "pros". That´s why I really dislike the "all pro-mbsers are noobs, all pro-sbsers are pros" "argument" so very weak. It´s true but it´s still a bunch of opinions.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
It depends on what you value in a sport, if we define gaming to be a sport now. It's an "e-sport," so I'll go by this definition.
In any sport, it is a test of certain skills. Golf doesn't test how fast you can run, but that surely matters and factors into football. Soccer doesn't care how accurately you can throw a ball, but that matters in baseball. Ultimately, depending on what sport we are talking about, certain skills are considered "vital" to the integrity to the competition to the game and others are not.
So let's use basketball as an example. What if we wanted to remove the "accurate shot" aspect of the game and made the hoop two times bigger because some people thought it was frustrating and hard for beginners? Or how about lowering the hoop considerably because short people are disadvantaged at a game where speed, dribble, teamwork, and shot accuracy should matter the most? In the former example, people would say how accurate your shot is MATTERS in basketball and if your shot sucks, so be it. To remove that skill set would, in their eyes, defile the sport. In the latter example, people would argue that physical size is also an aspect of the game that matters and is appreciated. Who cares if not everybody is as tall as Shaq - that's what makes the game fun to play and fun to watch. If everybody could dunk a basketball, it wouldn't be so cool anymore.
Now let's apply this to Starcraft. Starcraft is an e-sport with certain skill sets that are valued. Speed just happens to be one of them. Sure, like the basketball example, we could lower the hoop to make it easier for the shorter people (or in the case of starcraft, the slower people), but the pure mechanical, physical limitation that the higher hoop provides is what makes the sport fun. Same with Starcraft. Speed in modern competitive RTSs, espeically ones that have a spectator following, is respected and expected. To remove this is like requiring soccer players to walk at all times, or like mentioned earlier, lower the hoop in basketball. You are removing a skill set from an established, successful sport just to make it easier for beginners. But is that good for the sport? Hardly. In fact, it just makes the sport get old faster. If it is easy to master, nobody wants to play it for long.
Tic-Tac-Toe is very easy to master, so nobody wants to play nor watch it. Sure, it is COMPETITIVE as hell because there's a billion people who are basically masters at it, but competition alone doesn't create interest. Chess is far harder to master, and thus people still play it to this day. So its not about making it competitive or fun for newbies that will make a game a legitimate e-sport, but whether the skill-set required for that game is respected and accepted while being hard to master.
Now you may argue that maybe the speed aspect of RTS's is overrated and shouldn't be there. It's okay to "dumb it down" a little. But then you'll get Tic-Tac-Toe. You'll get a 4 feet tall basketball hoop. You'll get a mediocre, short-lived game because it is too easy to master.
|
Mental speed will always be a skill needed for RTS games.
Making a competitive RTS, meaning a game that takes enough skill to have serious meaning competition (not tic tac tou because everyone would play that perfectly so that every game is a draw) and then leveling the playing field in the 'mental speed'-department just makes no sense.
All meaningful RTS skills should be part of the competition segment of the game. You should be able to outmacro, outmicro, outmultitask and outstrategize your opponent.
|
filter out the part about sc2 and this makes a perfectly fine Final Edit.
|
On March 26 2008 17:57 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2008 17:50 Kennigit wrote:
NOOOO WHAT HAVE YOU DONE...HERE THEY COME!!! ~Dives for Cover~ lolll 6/5 would read again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
