|
On March 28 2008 05:42 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +The issue is whether the MBS feature turns SC2 into "Tic-Tac-Toe" or not. Thats what the million words/hundreds of pages of argument is over.. to put it simply. IMO, the game will hardly be "easy to master." Its probally even mathematically impossible for it to be humanly masterable considering the fact that there are just many more variables in the game than in SC1. What other, new, variables? -_- Also, this is a little off-topc, but I remember there was an argument way back that sports shouldn't have unintuitive rules and that other sports don't etc.. Well, what about the 3-step rule in basketball (maybe it's not called that, but the rules regarding how many steps you can take before you have to bounce the ball)? Isn't that totally un-intuitive?
Tons of new variables.. units/more abilities/new resources/more terrain manauvering.. etc. Arn't we following what they're releasing? Anyways, beta is comming up. But really, my point still stands.. SC2 will hardly be a simple easily masterable game if it has MBS. For me, the emphasis will shift, in proportion to MBS impact, towards strategy etc. And well thats where the debate stands on that anyways.
And the 3 step rule in basketball is to prevent "travelling." Actually I believe its the 2 step rule, lol. Other sports have 3 steps etc. So it is intuitive.
|
The main point I want to make isn't that trying to emulate the feel of Brood War isn't about cloning the original game.
The point I want to make is that the combination of battle and production is a unique form of RTS, and I would be happy if Starcraft II was within the same subgenre of RTS as the original.
MBS threatens to completely undermine the importance of production, leading to game entirely focused on battle. While it would retain other aspects of Starcraft's feel - sci-fi, outlandish, big armies, big spells, etc., I think that the multi-tasking / economic aspect of Starcraft is one of the biggest components of its unique "feel", and to trade that for a UI improvement and increased focus on battle isn't something I feel very good about.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 28 2008 06:06 teamsolid wrote:Here's one of the biggest reasons why it's important for SC2 to appeal to a new generation that has grown up on newer UI-friendly RTS's, FPS's and so on. The truth is that most of the SC veteran community is old. According to this poll, about 93% of TL.net are over the age of 16 and more than 2/3 is over 19. Most of these people are going into college, are in college, or have already graduated. Chances are that they will never become SC2 pro-gamers in the future. It's the next wave of younger kids that will be the foundation of the SC2 E-Sports scene and can't just be ignored. There has to be a compromise to please both sides and and IMO MBS without hotkeys sounds like a good start, because it preserves the rhythmic nature of SC macro will toning down a bit of the repeated building clicking (unless you want a unit-mix, which forces you to SBS anyways).
Many of them have never played any RTS games before.
|
On March 28 2008 06:23 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2008 06:06 teamsolid wrote:On March 28 2008 00:30 f0rgiv3n wrote:Poll: How Old are you?( Vote): 10-12 ( Vote): 13-15 ( Vote): 16-18 ( Vote): 19-21 ( Vote): 22-24 ( Vote): 25-27 ( Vote): 28-30 ( Vote): Older than dirt (>30) Here's one of the biggest reasons why it's important for SC2 to appeal to a new generation that has grown up on newer UI-friendly RTS's, FPS's and so on. The truth is that most of the SC veteran community is old. According to this poll, about 93% of TL.net are over the age of 16 and more than 2/3 is over 19. Most of these people are going into college, are in college, or have already graduated. Chances are that they will never become SC2 pro-gamers in the future. It's the next wave of younger kids that will be the foundation of the SC2 E-Sports scene and can't just be ignored. There has to be a compromise to please both sides and and IMO MBS without hotkeys sounds like a good start, because it preserves the rhythmic nature of SC macro will toning down a bit of the repeated building clicking (unless you want a unit-mix, which forces you to SBS anyways). Many of them have never played any RTS games before.
And... when did we ourselves begin playing any RTS game? Yeah, we were once young kiddies too lol, don't forget.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 28 2008 06:19 yangstuh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2008 05:42 FrozenArbiter wrote:The issue is whether the MBS feature turns SC2 into "Tic-Tac-Toe" or not. Thats what the million words/hundreds of pages of argument is over.. to put it simply. IMO, the game will hardly be "easy to master." Its probally even mathematically impossible for it to be humanly masterable considering the fact that there are just many more variables in the game than in SC1. What other, new, variables? -_- Also, this is a little off-topc, but I remember there was an argument way back that sports shouldn't have unintuitive rules and that other sports don't etc.. Well, what about the 3-step rule in basketball (maybe it's not called that, but the rules regarding how many steps you can take before you have to bounce the ball)? Isn't that totally un-intuitive? Tons of new variables.. units/more abilities/new resources/more terrain manauvering.. etc. Arn't we following what they're releasing? Anyways, beta is comming up. But really, my point still stands.. SC2 will hardly be a simple easily masterable game if it has MBS. For me, the emphasis will shift, in proportion to MBS impact, towards strategy etc. And well thats where the debate stands on that anyways. And the 3 step rule in basketball is to prevent "travelling." Actually I believe its the 2 step rule, lol. Other sports have 3 steps etc. So it is intuitive.
Yes but new abilities just mean the game will be different, new units but also removed old units. Are the new terrain and resource mechanics really going to bring that much new?
Yes there are new things but not a ton, certainly not enough to say that because of this the game will be any more unmasterable than SC is.
On March 28 2008 06:24 yangstuh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2008 06:23 FrozenArbiter wrote:On March 28 2008 06:06 teamsolid wrote:On March 28 2008 00:30 f0rgiv3n wrote:Poll: How Old are you?( Vote): 10-12 ( Vote): 13-15 ( Vote): 16-18 ( Vote): 19-21 ( Vote): 22-24 ( Vote): 25-27 ( Vote): 28-30 ( Vote): Older than dirt (>30) Here's one of the biggest reasons why it's important for SC2 to appeal to a new generation that has grown up on newer UI-friendly RTS's, FPS's and so on. The truth is that most of the SC veteran community is old. According to this poll, about 93% of TL.net are over the age of 16 and more than 2/3 is over 19. Most of these people are going into college, are in college, or have already graduated. Chances are that they will never become SC2 pro-gamers in the future. It's the next wave of younger kids that will be the foundation of the SC2 E-Sports scene and can't just be ignored. There has to be a compromise to please both sides and and IMO MBS without hotkeys sounds like a good start, because it preserves the rhythmic nature of SC macro will toning down a bit of the repeated building clicking (unless you want a unit-mix, which forces you to SBS anyways). Many of them have never played any RTS games before. And... when did we ourselves begin playing any RTS game? Yeah, we were once young kiddies too lol, don't forget.
Ya but my point is many of them will come into this whole RTS thing with a clean slate as far as pre-concieved notions about what an RTS is supposed to be, are concerned.
|
On March 28 2008 05:57 FrozenArbiter wrote:
This will still happen. Only difference is he'll be busy setting up an expansion or moving some units from a rally point instead. But will happen much less than what it does today! You already have to move units from rally points. With MBS you will have that minus clicking on building = more free time = more time to micro.
Why can't you do this while still having to click some buildings..? You just need to put the building on ice for a short short time, ie boxer vs chojja 3 way drop.
[...]
Also, constantly harassing him with ranged units uh.. You mean like every pro zerg does now with mutalisks WHILE producing from all his hatcheries? You can! But with MBS you have MORE room to do it, because you're free from a previous task you had in sc1! So you will still do the same things BUT you will micro MORE EFFECTIVELY because part of the apm you were wasting clicking on buildings will be used to micro. You will still macro, you will still micro. But with MBS you have more room to micro -> better micro -> less units loss while attention was elsewhere. It won't eliminate macro or eliminate micro, or it will just shift part of the macroing to other stuff (often even macro again, but different parts of macros other than building clicking).
And no, 400 apm with no buildings to click would probably be pretty boring.. You still can't split your attention too much (cause when microing, you actually have to be where your units are), and you can't split your units too much or they will do nothing. [...] Yes, some will, but I think it will lead to some 'dead' actions/time. Guess we'll only come to a consensus here when we play it ^^
Maybe there'll be a slight increase, but given that SC2 will immediately start at an extremely high level of dedication, with proteams already in place, do we REALLY want the game to reach full maturity as fast as possible? Don't we want the game to evolve slowly? The defiler was just one example of out thousands. PvZ evolved a lot also in the last few months, like you said it yourself. Did you hear that? "in the last few months". This game is out for about 10 years and "in the last few months" is has still been changing. and I'm sure it will still change more in the NEXT few months. I don't think "full maturity" will ever be reach honestly. So the faster it evolves = the more strats we see = more fun = better. imho. It's not like we're going so quick that we're coming to a point where there is nothing more to invent. C'mon! "in the last few months"!!!
I like the 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z skill-set. I like 1a2a3a4a!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
But will happen much less than what it does today! You already have to move units from rally points. With MBS you will have that minus clicking on building = more free time = more time to micro.
But if we are so busy doing new micro things it's gonna happen while we do those. Either that or the new micro things will be boring stuff like making sure workers don't run into ambushes 
The defiler was just one example of out thousands. PvZ evolved a lot also in the last few months, like you said it yourself. Did you hear that? "in the last few months". This game is out for about 10 years and "in the last few months" is has still been changing. and I'm sure it will still change more in the NEXT few months. I don't think "full maturity" will ever be reach honestly. So the faster it evolves = the more strats we see = more fun = better. imho. It's not like we're going so quick that we're coming to a point where there is nothing more to invent. C'mon! "in the last few months"!!!
That was like what, the first new revolution in PvZ since sair reaver?  I dunno, I don't see a need for a higher pace, I think the pace will already be significantly higher than it was in SC because of external factors (bigger outside korea meaning a larger talent pool and more people trying to get better, immediate pro-team support).
|
In my mind, unfettered MBS reduces the effectiveness of micro because optimal play is suddenly babysitting your army, and so your opponent is likely always doing the same and it's difficult to gain any sort of advantage in either micro or macro because both players macro without much time investment and micro as well as they're able.
|
On March 28 2008 06:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +But will happen much less than what it does today! You already have to move units from rally points. With MBS you will have that minus clicking on building = more free time = more time to micro. But if we are so busy doing new micro things it's gonna happen while we do those. Either that or the new micro things will be boring stuff like making sure workers don't run into ambushes Show nested quote +The defiler was just one example of out thousands. PvZ evolved a lot also in the last few months, like you said it yourself. Did you hear that? "in the last few months". This game is out for about 10 years and "in the last few months" is has still been changing. and I'm sure it will still change more in the NEXT few months. I don't think "full maturity" will ever be reach honestly. So the faster it evolves = the more strats we see = more fun = better. imho. It's not like we're going so quick that we're coming to a point where there is nothing more to invent. C'mon! "in the last few months"!!!
That was like what, the first new revolution in PvZ since sair reaver? I dunno, I don't see a need for a higher pace, I think the pace will already be significantly higher than it was in SC because of external factors (bigger outside korea meaning a larger talent pool and more people trying to get better, immediate pro-team support).
Good to see you participating FA! At least a lot more than in previous threads, well since I've been following this. I think VIB's point is that mistakes are fine to make, but should shift more towards that of multitasking issues, beyond the realm of mechanical restraints.
Honestly I didn't follow the early korean proscene, but it would seem imho that 4 years to start effectively using the defiler seems a little slow :p. I'd like to see evolving strategies sooner than that!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 28 2008 06:52 yangstuh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2008 06:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:But will happen much less than what it does today! You already have to move units from rally points. With MBS you will have that minus clicking on building = more free time = more time to micro. But if we are so busy doing new micro things it's gonna happen while we do those. Either that or the new micro things will be boring stuff like making sure workers don't run into ambushes The defiler was just one example of out thousands. PvZ evolved a lot also in the last few months, like you said it yourself. Did you hear that? "in the last few months". This game is out for about 10 years and "in the last few months" is has still been changing. and I'm sure it will still change more in the NEXT few months. I don't think "full maturity" will ever be reach honestly. So the faster it evolves = the more strats we see = more fun = better. imho. It's not like we're going so quick that we're coming to a point where there is nothing more to invent. C'mon! "in the last few months"!!!
That was like what, the first new revolution in PvZ since sair reaver? I dunno, I don't see a need for a higher pace, I think the pace will already be significantly higher than it was in SC because of external factors (bigger outside korea meaning a larger talent pool and more people trying to get better, immediate pro-team support). Good to see you participating FA! At least a lot more than in previous threads, well since I've been following this. I think VIB's point is that mistakes are fine to make, but should shift more towards that of multitasking issues, beyond the realm of mechanical restraints. Honestly I didn't follow the early korean proscene, but it would seem imho that 4 years to start effectively using the defiler seems a little slow :p. I'd like to see evolving strategies sooner than that!
I used to be in every single thread until MBS discussion version 5 million I got a little bit worn out.... (Since I'd been arguing about it since the day the game was announced).
Anyway, you have to consider the game was released in 1998, then there were balance patches until what, 2001? And there were no replays before 2001 (meaning the game evolved very slowly) I think.
The Korean pro-scene existed very early, but it was in its infant stages, and the maps were often really imbalanced by todays standards (ie defiler rushing is hardly going to be a viable tactic on Blaze).
Defilers were used when I started watching, in 2002, but not modern style (since both sides played very differently).
|
Well then, welcome back into the fray FA . I hope this thread doesn't get tainted by trolls either 
I think though, that we should consider more strongly to split the ladder. Yeah its been mentioned before, but I'm a believer in it.
On March 28 2008 06:42 GeneralStan wrote:
In my mind, unfettered MBS reduces the effectiveness of micro because optimal play is suddenly babysitting your army, and so your opponent is likely always doing the same and it's difficult to gain any sort of advantage in either micro or macro because both players macro without much time investment and micro as well as they're able.
Well in your logic, it would work the same if you back track it to SBS.
"..your opponent is likely always doing the same and its difficult to gain any sort of advantage in either micro or macro because both players are restrained by SBS/other "classic" UI controls without much time investment in strategy and macro as well as they're able."
|
Sweden33719 Posts
But SBS you get a choice - focus on micro or focus on macro, with MBS it's basically gonna be focus on micro, have equal macro. There'll still be micro and macro builds of course, just a little less diversity imo.
|
Less diversity in a mid to late game setting, since instead of making a decision whether to macro or micro, you get both.
|
I don't think that the game will evolve faster thanks to MBS in any way. Just look at WC3 - this game is basically focused on fighting battles, which, according to VIB (MBS = more focus on battles = faster evolution of strategies), would lead to faster evolution of gameplay. This is, however, not the case even though the game obviously lacks a macro aspect. It took several years for Human players to start using something else than riflecaster in most match-ups.
More spare APM =/= more creativity or faster evolution of strategies.
|
On March 28 2008 07:08 maybenexttime wrote:
I don't think that the game will evolve faster thanks to MBS in any way. Just look at WC3 - this game is basically focused on fighting battles, which, according to VIB (MBS = more focus on battles = faster evolution of strategies), would lead to faster evolution of gameplay. This is, however, not the case even though the game obviously lacks a macro aspect. It took several years for Human players to start using something else than riflecaster in most match-ups.
More spare APM =/= more creativity or faster evolution of strategies.
I'd have to disagree, and I'd also have to say that WC3 is a bad example, both sides acknowledge this. Anyways WC3 didn't have emphasis on macro because of many other factors.
I call for split ladder, done.
|
On March 28 2008 06:23 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2008 06:24 yangstuh wrote:On March 28 2008 06:23 FrozenArbiter wrote:On March 28 2008 06:06 teamsolid wrote:On March 28 2008 00:30 f0rgiv3n wrote:Poll: How Old are you?( Vote): 10-12 ( Vote): 13-15 ( Vote): 16-18 ( Vote): 19-21 ( Vote): 22-24 ( Vote): 25-27 ( Vote): 28-30 ( Vote): Older than dirt (>30) Here's one of the biggest reasons why it's important for SC2 to appeal to a new generation that has grown up on newer UI-friendly RTS's, FPS's and so on. The truth is that most of the SC veteran community is old. According to this poll, about 93% of TL.net are over the age of 16 and more than 2/3 is over 19. Most of these people are going into college, are in college, or have already graduated. Chances are that they will never become SC2 pro-gamers in the future. It's the next wave of younger kids that will be the foundation of the SC2 E-Sports scene and can't just be ignored. There has to be a compromise to please both sides and and IMO MBS without hotkeys sounds like a good start, because it preserves the rhythmic nature of SC macro will toning down a bit of the repeated building clicking (unless you want a unit-mix, which forces you to SBS anyways). Many of them have never played any RTS games before. And... when did we ourselves begin playing any RTS game? Yeah, we were once young kiddies too lol, don't forget. Ya but my point is many of them will come into this whole RTS thing with a clean slate as far as pre-concieved notions about what an RTS is supposed to be, are concerned.
That is true, but these people who come in with a clean slate will also not be able to sympathize with the SC veterans who talk about "preserving the macro of SC". These 12 yr-old kids will just look at us and think "you guys are stuck in the past". If they find out that Blizzard removed MBS to satisfy the "elitists", they will be pissed. Just look at the Battle.net forums, for example, which is overwhelmingly stacked against SBS. That's already a tiny subset of people who are hardcore enough to be willing to take their time and post on the forums for a video game. 95% of SC players have not even heard of these forums.
And you have to realize that the design of all games, not just RTS's, are constantly progressing towards more and more user-friendly designs. Just look at BioShock, for example. You can't even die in that game if you wanted to. FPS's like CoD4 have a "grenade-warning" indicator and regenerate your health to max automatically when you're not getting shot at. Unless the very first game they ever pick up in their life is SC2 it won't truly be a clean slate.
|
On March 28 2008 07:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:
But SBS you get a choice - focus on micro or focus on macro, with MBS it's basically gonna be focus on micro, have equal macro. There'll still be micro and macro builds of course, just a little less diversity imo.
I think that choice is still there. Still takes time away from controlling your army to build units even with hotkeys. The later in the game, the more time it takes (need for a more diverse army = more hotkeys of unit production). Its possible though that under this system, the answer to the question "micro or macro?" at any one point will always be "macro" because it will take half the time it did in SC1, meaning you are sacrificing less to do so. This will take away a strategic choice the player had to make. I don't think this will be the case though; there are always moments when the sacrifice will be worth it.
I don't think anyone should be arguing the game will be too easy. The better argument is that the game will be different. A different micro to macro balance, different strategies, etc. may end up doing harm to the game as an e-sport, but thats up for debate. The games difficulty is not. There is no way in hell everyone is going to master the game. Every player, pro or not, has had room for improvement in their SC1 games. As average APM keeps increasing over time, the players have more options on what they can do, because there is a virtually unlimited amount of potential actions. The maximum level of skill at any one point is based on the human element and not the game element. Blizzard has already announced many of the things that will keep this the same in SC2: 200 unit cap, plenty of harassment techniques, the usefulness of expansion-centric play, etc.
In the scheme of things, how many actions does MBS remove? Well, with 8 buildings and a 4unit mix, 2 actions (clicking into your base, and clicking out). This number decreases or increases in certain scenarios of course, but overall it will ALWAYS be less than 20. The fact that we see players with an APM variance of far more than 20 between them in current SC games, often times with a lower APM player as the victor, should tell you that the players are not losing so many potential actions that they will run out of things to do. This is a very technical argument. Many people "feel" that MBS will take away so much of the game as to make it easy to master; that is just not the case. In combination with all other simplification changes, MBS could make a dent in the potential action curve, making the game "fully manageable" for longer than it was in SC (aka, the beginning of the game). But because the "potential action curve" as I'll call it, is likely far more exponential than linear, I don't think this will even be the case. In the mid to late game, there will always be more actions that the player wants to do than that they can do.
|
well put
I doubt blizzard will take out mbs entirely , but you know them and their balancing teams will povably think something up
but on the bright side more micro time i suppose
|
On March 28 2008 06:22 GeneralStan wrote:
The main point I want to make isn't that trying to emulate the feel of Brood War isn't about cloning the original game.
The point I want to make is that the combination of battle and production is a unique form of RTS, and I would be happy if Starcraft II was within the same subgenre of RTS as the original.
MBS threatens to completely undermine the importance of production, leading to game entirely focused on battle. While it would retain other aspects of Starcraft's feel - sci-fi, outlandish, big armies, big spells, etc., I think that the multi-tasking / economic aspect of Starcraft is one of the biggest components of its unique "feel", and to trade that for a UI improvement and increased focus on battle isn't something I feel very good about.
On March 28 2008 06:42 GeneralStan wrote:
In my mind, unfettered MBS reduces the effectiveness of micro because optimal play is suddenly babysitting your army, and so your opponent is likely always doing the same and it's difficult to gain any sort of advantage in either micro or macro because both players macro without much time investment and micro as well as they're able.
great ponts and they are being ignored
poor you 
|
On March 28 2008 09:06 fusionsdf wrote:great ponts and they are being ignored poor you
It's my MO too.
If you can't counter an argument, ignore it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
