|
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.
On March 28 2008 08:55 Geno wrote: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.
What GeneralStan pointed out fits directly into this 'different' game feeling. The reason its so often ignored or rarely argued is that it contains an element of opinion. While its true that most people want the game to be very much like Starcraft 1, most will draw the line at different points, making it very hard to effectively argue for or against.
On March 28 2008 06:22 GeneralStan wrote: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.
While its a useful tool in argument to take an example to the extreme, its important to remember that we aren't looking at the extreme in the actual game. MBS isn't going to completely undermine the importance of production; its just going to make it a bit quicker. Players are likely still going to be put in to a situation where they must decide whether to micro or to macro. Players are still going to have to decide when they should stop controlling their army and when they should macro. Being able to see your units only gives you the advantage of knowing what to do, not the ability to do it. This is because actually clicking 6z7d8t0p is detracting from the battle, just as clicking each gateway was detracting in SC1.
Your second point is also a bit extreme. With MBS, players best move is not going to be always babysitting their army. MBS is still just a part of macro; there are going to be times when the player needs to expand, needs to upgrade, or needs to construct more buildings. At the same time, the harassment element has not been removed from the game, so both defending against and committing to harassment are also going to draw the players attention away from their main army.
But still, like I said earlier, everyone draws the line at different points. Because even though the player won't always be able to babysit their army in SC2, they are likely to be able to do it more than SC1. For some people, this is intolerable, and others, excusable. I think actually experiencing the difference in gameplay is the only real way of knowing just how much its going to affect any of us though, which is why beta is going to be so important.
|
SC2 won't be that good. It's won't be because of MBS. Whatever the interface, people will adapt. SC2's problem will be far worse. SC1 had so many revolution and evolution in strategies and that's without any balance change. SC2 will end up similar to WC3 where everybody and their mom will complain about imbalances and Blizzard will nerf then potential of the game will be lowered.
A thread complaining about MBS is pointless because when the product is release, it will have MBS. If MBS was harder then I think that would be okay, but it is unlikey.
|
Ok.. what is SC2's problem that is "far worst?"
As I recall, SC1 was imbalanced at least at a pro level in its early stages especially being one of the first games to voyage the frontier of 3 asymetrical races.
|
On March 28 2008 11:44 [X]Ken_D wrote:
SC1 had so many revolution and evolution in strategies and that's without any balance change.
No balance changes? Check the patch log in your copy of Brood War. There are balance changes up to version 1.08 which, IIRC, came out in 2001. That's 3 years of balance changes (which came in 4 patches. 1.01, 1.03, 1.06, and 1.07 don't change balance).
|
WC3 has 4 races though, making it MUCH harder to balance.
They'll be able to balance 3 races relatively quick, probably quicker than SC1, as they have much more experience now and better/more employees as well.
|
On March 26 2008 21:56 garmule2 wrote:
got to 'this post is very long' and stopped reading
mbs is going to be in, no matter what we do
hahaha, me 2.
Well I think that they are thinking in this as a way to make the game more easy for all those noobs that don't know about SC because its been almost 10 years since it came out, and don't really understand about the skill that it takes to play it effectively. So they are using MBS to lower the standards for all those shitty noobs that play SupCom and C&C and AoE(no offense), so that they can achieve a bigger newbie audience that is to come.
So in the end, they are making it easier so that in turn, there will be a bigger popularity that won't have trouble playing, adding to 10 billion sales.
|
On March 28 2008 13:37 The_Yango wrote:
No balance changes? Check the patch log in your copy of Brood War. There are balance changes up to version 1.08 which, IIRC, came out in 2001. That's 3 years of balance changes (which came in 4 patches. 1.01, 1.03, 1.06, and 1.07 don't change balance).
I'm talking about after the last balance change. So much has change in strategy which some can falsely assume imbalance such as ultralisk, vulture mines, FD Terran, stacked mutalisk. In the post-SC1 era & WC3 era, those will get nerfed. I fear SC2 will be like that 
|
On March 28 2008 06:59 yangstuh wrote: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. Show nested quote +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."
Nah, MBS allows them both to have a large amount of free time by lowering the required APM for macro. So, the weaker player can achieve the same amount of macro in about the same time. SBS means that you have to have X amount of your Y APM restricted to macro, and the player that can macro faster, more efficiently, and overall better will have more APM open for micro, and given the advantage.
|
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 haven't seen much choosing from progamers recent years. Macro is everything now. Every damn build and every map focuses on macro. The only time progamer chooses micro instead of macro is when he chooses to cheese. I think people are way exaggerating this choice that isnt even possible in current progaming. Boxer days are long over when you could win thought strategy and micro. All strategies now rely heavily on macro and map control.
I think the big question is what is more fun for observers to watch: poorly controlled battles with constant reinforcements, masses of units and map control plays or effective fight micromanagement, constant harassment, pimpest plays and innovation (pretty sure macro style kills major part of it). EDIT: In short: Boxer or Oov, your call! (in Stalones voice)
|
On March 28 2008 15:38 Jusciax wrote:Show nested quote +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 haven't seen much choosing from progamers recent years. Macro is everything now. Every damn build and every map focuses on macro. The only time progamer chooses micro instead of macro is when he chooses to cheese. I think people are way exaggerating this choice that isnt even possible in current progaming. Boxer days are long over when you could win thought strategy and micro. All strategies now rely heavily on macro and map control. I think the big question is what is more fun for observers to watch: poorly controlled battles with constant reinforcements, masses of units and map control plays or effective fight micromanagement, constant harassment, pimpest plays and innovation (pretty sure macro style kills major part of it).
So 60/40 Macro/Micro should be replaced with 1/99 Macro/Micro?
The problem with this is that micro has limitations: anyone can get good at efficiently using units, so that 1% macro hardly determines which player is better when everyone peaks at micromanagement, which totally destroys any bo# no matter how many matches you play because everyone will be the same at the top. You might as well have tic-tac-toe tournaments in lieu of SC2.
|
On March 28 2008 14:30 [X]Ken_D wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2008 13:37 The_Yango wrote:
No balance changes? Check the patch log in your copy of Brood War. There are balance changes up to version 1.08 which, IIRC, came out in 2001. That's 3 years of balance changes (which came in 4 patches. 1.01, 1.03, 1.06, and 1.07 don't change balance). I'm talking about after the last balance change. So much has change in strategy which some can falsely assume imbalance such as ultralisk, vulture mines, FD Terran, stacked mutalisk. In the post-SC1 era & WC3 era, those will get nerfed. I fear SC2 will be like that
If you've played WoW (or really, any MMO) you will quickly learn how often someone cries "imba!" By this point I'm sure Blizzard knows that most people don't understand balance in multiplayer games. They'll much more likely decide balance changes based on larger statistical trends in the entire scene (or later on, hopefully, from progamer testing).
|
Well, what about this, you guys think that the main pillar that crushes MBS as possible is the fact that it takes the distraction factor away from the game, gives you less juggling, and therefore, eases the game at its highes skill level, leading to not so good game in terms of long term e-sport longevity.
Well, i think, one of the main focus, "if" MBS is implemented, will be distracting your oponent, if you harass his expansion, he will defend it at the best of his skills.
If you harass two expansions, at pro level, he skill can defend it to the top of his skills.
Now if you harass him in 4 places at the same time things start to get to fast to follow even for a pro.
Not only it would be extremely fucking hard to effectively harass him at all those places at the same time and not just utterly sacrifice troops for a minor win, but it would be even harder to defend against it the better the attacker is, and MBS is only giving more room for this.
Now i know that there are complicated mechanics that makes this utopia harder (such as spectators not being able to watch all fights at the same time) but its not impossible to follow, and it isn't real hard to demonstrate that theres a fight in more than one place at a time, since its not like there will be 4 fights at the same time for 20 mins, that will be the biggest momentum of the game, and the outcoming results of the attacks will speak for the skills involved alone.
Plus, theres lots of ways the devs can (and i believe thats theyr plan) reward fighting in more than one place at a time, juggling between army and base will be less important that juggling between your different groups at different points of the map.
|
On March 28 2008 16:33 D10 wrote:
Well, what about this, you guys think that the main pillar that crushes MBS as possible is the fact that it takes the distraction factor away from the game, gives you less juggling, and therefore, eases the game at its highes skill level, leading to not so good game in terms of long term e-sport longevity.
Well, i think, one of the main focus, "if" MBS is implemented, will be distracting your oponent, if you harass his expansion, he will defend it at the best of his skills.
If you harass two expansions, at pro level, he skill can defend it to the top of his skills.
Now if you harass him in 4 places at the same time things start to get to fast to follow even for a pro.
Not only it would be extremely fucking hard to effectively harass him at all those places at the same time and not just utterly sacrifice troops for a minor win, but it would be even harder to defend against it the better the attacker is, and MBS is only giving more room for this.
Now i know that there are complicated mechanics that makes this utopia harder (such as spectators not being able to watch all fights at the same time) but its not impossible to follow, and it isn't real hard to demonstrate that theres a fight in more than one place at a time, since its not like there will be 4 fights at the same time for 20 mins, that will be the biggest momentum of the game, and the outcoming results of the attacks will speak for the skills involved alone.
Plus, theres lots of ways the devs can (and i believe thats theyr plan) reward fighting in more than one place at a time, juggling between army and base will be less important that juggling between your different groups at different points of the map.
Good point made for explaining how MBS allows more creativity and multitasking in other areas.
|
Its sort of been implied in most of the good posts, even those that don't even praise MBS too. What a multiple harassment situation means is replacing macro tasks (unit production) with micro tasks (harassment). This also means a different macro:micro balance, which some people do not like. In addition it can lead to (like you mentioned) harder observing.
That example does illustrate the point I was making earlier; adding MBS to the game will not make the game easier (at least, significantly) or even require less multitasking, it will simply make it different. It would have different multitasking elements, a different balance of micro to macro, and, potentially, a different feel than Starcraft 1. How significant this difference will be is subjective, and would likely require extended game play to quantify.
|
On March 28 2008 15:38 Jusciax wrote:Show nested quote +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 haven't seen much choosing from progamers recent years. Macro is everything now. Every damn build and every map focuses on macro. The only time progamer chooses micro instead of macro is when he chooses to cheese. I think people are way exaggerating this choice that isnt even possible in current progaming. Boxer days are long over when you could win thought strategy and micro. All strategies now rely heavily on macro and map control. I think the big question is what is more fun for observers to watch: poorly controlled battles with constant reinforcements, masses of units and map control plays or effective fight micromanagement, constant harassment, pimpest plays and innovation (pretty sure macro style kills major part of it). EDIT: In short: Boxer or Oov, your call! (in Stalones voice)
I wouldn't call them poorly controlled. You are severely underestimating the micro that goes on during a battle. Just because it doesn't look as flashy as BoxeR killing 10 lurkers with 3 rines doesn't mean it's not micro. In the long end, macro wins because, of the attitude:
"sure your 2 goons can kill my 3, but micro against 6, bitch"
@above: Why change fundamentals? For some horrible examples; the Halo series (EEEK), Guitar Heroes, and Civilization series. Why fuck with perfection?
|
On March 28 2008 16:33 D10 wrote:
Well, what about this, you guys think that the main pillar that crushes MBS as possible is the fact that it takes the distraction factor away from the game, gives you less juggling, and therefore, eases the game at its highes skill level, leading to not so good game in terms of long term e-sport longevity.
Well, i think, one of the main focus, "if" MBS is implemented, will be distracting your oponent, if you harass his expansion, he will defend it at the best of his skills.
If you harass two expansions, at pro level, he skill can defend it to the top of his skills.
Now if you harass him in 4 places at the same time things start to get to fast to follow even for a pro.
Not only it would be extremely fucking hard to effectively harass him at all those places at the same time and not just utterly sacrifice troops for a minor win, but it would be even harder to defend against it the better the attacker is, and MBS is only giving more room for this.
Now i know that there are complicated mechanics that makes this utopia harder (such as spectators not being able to watch all fights at the same time) but its not impossible to follow, and it isn't real hard to demonstrate that theres a fight in more than one place at a time, since its not like there will be 4 fights at the same time for 20 mins, that will be the biggest momentum of the game, and the outcoming results of the attacks will speak for the skills involved alone.
Plus, theres lots of ways the devs can (and i believe thats theyr plan) reward fighting in more than one place at a time, juggling between army and base will be less important that juggling between your different groups at different points of the map.
The solution is called split screen(or picture in picture) and Blizz should implement it in SC2 obs, and now the spectators can follow everything.
|
Yes like, a subscreen that always showed the last place the screen was (or some key that held that screen) and you jumped to another one with a battle in the subscreen
|
On March 28 2008 15:50 paper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2008 15:38 Jusciax wrote: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 haven't seen much choosing from progamers recent years. Macro is everything now. Every damn build and every map focuses on macro. The only time progamer chooses micro instead of macro is when he chooses to cheese. I think people are way exaggerating this choice that isnt even possible in current progaming. Boxer days are long over when you could win thought strategy and micro. All strategies now rely heavily on macro and map control. I think the big question is what is more fun for observers to watch: poorly controlled battles with constant reinforcements, masses of units and map control plays or effective fight micromanagement, constant harassment, pimpest plays and innovation (pretty sure macro style kills major part of it). So 60/40 Macro/Micro should be replaced with 1/99 Macro/Micro? The problem with this is that micro has limitations: anyone can get good at efficiently using units, so that 1% macro hardly determines which player is better when everyone peaks at micromanagement, which totally destroys any bo# no matter how many matches you play because everyone will be the same at the top. You might as well have tic-tac-toe tournaments in lieu of SC2.
You missed the point. Im not saying micro should overrun macro in terms of time spent. All im saying is current amount of macro required at highest level is _not_ normal and is surely not 60/40. Almost everything is macro based now (maps, build orders, game flow etc.). A lot of macro is _required_ in current progaming and there is little to none opportunities to choose "to macro or to micro" at any point in game simply because macro is far superior to micro in terms of gaining advantage, therefore is chosen most of time instead of micro.
|
CA10828 Posts
On March 28 2008 16:33 D10 wrote:
Well, what about this, you guys think that the main pillar that crushes MBS as possible is the fact that it takes the distraction factor away from the game, gives you less juggling, and therefore, eases the game at its highes skill level, leading to not so good game in terms of long term e-sport longevity.
Well, i think, one of the main focus, "if" MBS is implemented, will be distracting your oponent, if you harass his expansion, he will defend it at the best of his skills.
If you harass two expansions, at pro level, he skill can defend it to the top of his skills.
Now if you harass him in 4 places at the same time things start to get to fast to follow even for a pro.
Not only it would be extremely fucking hard to effectively harass him at all those places at the same time and not just utterly sacrifice troops for a minor win, but it would be even harder to defend against it the better the attacker is, and MBS is only giving more room for this.
Now i know that there are complicated mechanics that makes this utopia harder (such as spectators not being able to watch all fights at the same time) but its not impossible to follow, and it isn't real hard to demonstrate that theres a fight in more than one place at a time, since its not like there will be 4 fights at the same time for 20 mins, that will be the biggest momentum of the game, and the outcoming results of the attacks will speak for the skills involved alone.
Plus, theres lots of ways the devs can (and i believe thats theyr plan) reward fighting in more than one place at a time, juggling between army and base will be less important that juggling between your different groups at different points of the map. just because it's theoretically possible to attack multiple fronts at the same time doesn't mean that it's actually feasible during the game. theorycraft is great and all, but there is something called overharassing. you can harass all you want, but if you lose the big fight in the middle because all your units are spread around the map you're going to lose the game. it's more than just "oh they can't do that because SBS is so time-consuming and now MBS will allow them to do that"
|
On March 28 2008 15:50 paper wrote:
The problem with this is that micro has limitations: anyone can get good at efficiently using units
Uh, why do you think that?
Sentences like that make me think that most anti-MBSers think of micro as some kind of static, constant skill, where there's a clear, relatively low skill ceiling so pros will always reach it and only macro/multitasking is the real test of skill. And even if that were the case (which I don't believe at all), wouldn't that beg for a change in gameplay? I don't want micro to be a discriminated, secondary skillset... but that's probably the result of today's SC maps and gameplay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
