|
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)
Any starcraft player above 100 APM, and pros more than anyone else will spend more time microing than producing units and yes that goes for oov too. Micro is already perhaps the single most important skill in bw, why make it even more so?
|
On March 28 2008 19:21 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +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.
ehhh,
I was trying to imply that 99% of any aspect will detract from SC2 by lowering the entire skill ceiling tremendously. That's why SC2's MBS is retarded, and multitasking is king. I mean, it is an RTS, right? If I can win by playing an a TBS pace, Blizzard is just reinventing chess.
|
On March 28 2008 07:57 yangstuh wrote:Show nested quote +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.
WC3 example is perfectly fine... I've never said MBS was the reason it lacked macro. The point is that more focus on micro in SC2 (like it is in WC3) won't result in gameplay/strategies evolving faster than in SC1. Got it now?
|
The same people now that say no MBS are the same people that caused the dark ages to last over 1000 years. Honestly if you want the game to be about who can do repetitive task the fastest instead of strategy and micro skill, maybe you should get a job at one of those forced child labor camps.
Besides if fast clicking is your thing, why stop at bad UI, why not make it so to make a zealot you have to type "z","e","a","l","o","t" and then click the top left top right bottom right and finally bottom left of the screen. That would certainly make it require more speed and multi tasking, maybe they should make it so the zealot stops building halfway through, so you have to come back and click continue, that would require even more multi tasking.
The game should have as good as controls as possible, if it is a good game skill will prevail in ways that we can't expect yet. For instance before SC came out, I would have never imagined how much skill is required to micro a simple army of just melee units versus an identical group.
On March 26 2008 17:45 mahnini wrote:
The UI is not a limitation.
If the UI is not a limitation then the rest of your points are moot because adding MBS won't make it that much easier. Besides just because there is MBS doesn't mean you have to use it.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 28 2008 14:29 thoraxe wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Neither of you should be posting in this thread if you can't even take 2 minuets and read through his post.
|
Sweden33719 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.
You can't be at 4 places at once, no matter how much you want to be. So what this will lead to is 4 way attacks being handled in the same way as they are now.
You set them up from a distance, and micromanage the one that needs it. This can be done now, this will be done in SC2. All MBS will bring to the table is perfect production while doing all this.
|
On March 28 2008 23:58 flag wrote:The same people now that say no MBS are the same people that caused the dark ages to last over 1000 years. Honestly if you want the game to be about who can do repetitive task the fastest instead of strategy and micro skill, maybe you should get a job at one of those forced child labor camps. Besides if fast clicking is your thing, why stop at bad UI, why not make it so to make a zealot you have to type "z","e","a","l","o","t" and then click the top left top right bottom right and finally bottom left of the screen. That would certainly make it require more speed and multi tasking, maybe they should make it so the zealot stops building halfway through, so you have to come back and click continue, that would require even more multi tasking. The game should have as good as controls as possible, if it is a good game skill will prevail in ways that we can't expect yet. For instance before SC came out, I would have never imagined how much skill is required to micro a simple army of just melee units versus an identical group. If the UI is not a limitation then the rest of your points are moot because adding MBS won't make it that much easier. Besides just because there is MBS doesn't mean you have to use it.
Perhaps you should read other threads regarding MBS instead of making uneducated and useless posts...
First of all, no one's arguing for macro to require as many "clicking". Have you heard of the drag-selection suggestion for buildings?
If we're going into extremes, why not make this game a MOVIE where everything in AUTOMATED? See my point? Going into either of the extremes has been refuted like a hundred times...
Yeah, it's better to hope that skill will somehow show through instead of trying to make the best possible game, right? Then we'll end up with rubbish like CNC 3 or SupCom. ;;
Not being forced to use MBS is the worst piece of crap of an argument I've ever seen, honestly. Why would one not use something that's so optimal?
|
On March 29 2008 00:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +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. You can't be at 4 places at once, no matter how much you want to be. So what this will lead to is 4 way attacks being handled in the same way as they are now. You set them up from a distance, and micromanage the one that needs it. This can be done now, this will be done in SC2. All MBS will bring to the table is perfect production while doing all this.
Witch would means that its less sacrificing to do such act since you will still be producing while microing with your mad skills, the unit flow will never stop, you(not u frozen arbiter) say that a multifront harasser will have a greater chance of losing because he will lose the big battle in the middle.
Well im not suggesting he gets some mutas and tell tem to attack 4 places at once in a point of the game where you happen to have a HUGE army ready to roll everything in theyr way
you need to harass your way thro the game, use the enemies distraction to build expos, gain map control, build defenses, you can harass his troops to keep him at bay and force him to come back to his base a lot or lose key buildings and such.
Its not about "you cant do this" or "this is utterly bad" its about who can get theyr hands on the damn game and make magic with it.
And theres nothing in MBS that kills that, only way magic is gonna happen is changing, those who like old school magic will stick with BW i guess, because they will never be happy with most of the significant gameplay changes.
|
On March 29 2008 00:30 D10 wrote:
Witch would means that its less sacrificing to do such act since you will still be producing while microing with your mad skills, the unit flow will never stop, you(not u frozen arbiter) say that a multifront harasser will have a greater chance of losing because he will lose the big battle in the middle.
Except your enemy has perfect macro too, which means that harassment is just as, if not more risky than it is now. Right now, failed harassment at least has the effect of dragging your enemy's attention away from his unit production. If he has perfect unit production with minimal effort, it won't even do that.
Well im not suggesting he gets some mutas and tell tem to attack 4 places at once in a point of the game where you happen to have a HUGE army ready to roll everything in theyr way
you need to harass your way thro the game, use the enemies distraction to build expos, gain map control, build defenses, you can harass his troops to keep him at bay and force him to come back to his base a lot or lose key buildings and such.
If you're at the point in the game where you have the appropriate number of units to effectively harass in four places at once, your opponent most likely has an army that can steamroll whats left, particularly if you both have fairly constant unit production.
Its not about "you cant do this" or "this is utterly bad" its about who can get theyr hands on the damn game and make magic with it.
And theres nothing in MBS that kills that, only way magic is gonna happen is changing, those who like old school magic will stick with BW i guess, because they will never be happy with most of the significant gameplay changes.
It's been said that the "stick with BW if you don't like the changes" argument is a rather poor one. Starcraft 2 is likely to end, or at the very least splinter, the competitive BW community. If Starcraft 2 doesn't appeal to the competitive BW community, its not guaranteed that there will be BW to come back to.
|
On a side note, i expect that you have been doing harasses and fights all over the game, and i dont expect, with all mobility the game has added that harassing and repositioning to be that hard
i think it will be something that grows within each match, the harassement will get greater and greater until the enemy cracks, or you fail to penetrate him at all and is forced to fall back
and its not like its going to be the only thing to do, in some MUs a race will be harassing like mad, in another defending like mad to get that tech and expo done.
All im saying is that, the fights can evolve more than little safe harass group and huge armies without causing strategical and mechanical defeat.
Edit: and yea i agree thats a horrible point, but the more i see SC2 more i believe it, because i simply cant believe they can keep MBS and please the SBSers, there will be a split, unless they have some secret balancing miracle they aren't showing us.
|
On March 29 2008 00:50 The_Yango wrote:
It's been said that the "stick with BW if you don't like the changes" argument is a rather poor one. Starcraft 2 is likely to end, or at the very least splinter, the competitive BW community. If Starcraft 2 doesn't appeal to the competitive BW community, its not guaranteed that there will be BW to come back to.
If that happens mbs is such a success that there will only be a few players that do¨n't like it, If it have the dramatic effects some anti-mbs are prolaiming atleast half the community should stay and thats well enough.
|
On March 28 2008 23:58 flag wrote:
The same people now that say no MBS are the same people that caused the dark ages to last over 1000 years. Honestly if you want the game to be about who can do repetitive task the fastest instead of strategy and micro skill, maybe you should get a job at one of those forced child labor camps.
And the people that are arguing for MBS are the same people who wanted the atomic bomb. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS. SHAME ON YOU PRO-MBS PEOPLE.
Besides if fast clicking is your thing, why stop at bad UI, why not make it so to make a zealot you have to type "z","e","a","l","o","t" and then click the top left top right bottom right and finally bottom left of the screen. That would certainly make it require more speed and multi tasking, maybe they should make it so the zealot stops building halfway through, so you have to come back and click continue, that would require even more multi tasking.
wow, youve opened my eyes. I had no idea that if we exagerrated our point to infinity that we might not get a favourable result.
The game should have as good as controls as possible, if it is a good game skill will prevail in ways that we can't expect yet. For instance before SC came out, I would have never imagined how much skill is required to micro a simple army of just melee units versus an identical group.
A good game allows many avenues for people to use to gain advantage over enemies. MBS lowers the number of avenues. How is this good again?
|
On March 29 2008 01:30 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2008 23:58 flag wrote:
The same people now that say no MBS are the same people that caused the dark ages to last over 1000 years. Honestly if you want the game to be about who can do repetitive task the fastest instead of strategy and micro skill, maybe you should get a job at one of those forced child labor camps. And the people that are arguing for MBS are the same people who wanted the atomic bomb. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS. SHAME ON YOU PRO-MBS PEOPLE. Show nested quote +eBesides if fast clicking is your thing, why stop at bad UI, why not make it so to make a zealot you have to type "z","e","a","l","o","t" and then click the top left top right bottom right and finally bottom left of the screen. That would certainly make it require more speed and multi tasking, maybe they should make it so the zealot stops building halfway through, so you have to come back and click continue, that would require even more multi tasking. wow, youve opened my eyes. I had no idea that if we exagerrated our point to infinity that we might not get a favourable result. Show nested quote +The game should have as good as controls as possible, if it is a good game skill will prevail in ways that we can't expect yet. For instance before SC came out, I would have never imagined how much skill is required to micro a simple army of just melee units versus an identical group. A good game allows many avenues for people to use to gain advantage over enemies. MBS lowers the number of avenues. How is this good again?
By forcing people to trip each other instead of running around corners.
|
On March 28 2008 23:58 flag wrote:
The same people now that say no MBS are the same people that caused the dark ages to last over 1000 years. Honestly if you want the game to be about who can do repetitive task the fastest instead of strategy and micro skill, maybe you should get a job at one of those forced child labor camps.
No comment
Besides if fast clicking is your thing, why stop at bad UI, why not make it so to make a zealot you have to type "z","e","a","l","o","t" and then click the top left top right bottom right and finally bottom left of the screen. That would certainly make it require more speed and multi tasking, maybe they should make it so the zealot stops building halfway through, so you have to come back and click continue, that would require even more multi tasking.
And why not program your attacks!!? WE CAN COORDINATE BATTLE PLANS AND HAVE THE COMPUTER DO EVERYTHING. WOULDN'T THAT BE FUN!?!?
LOOK I CAN EXAGGERATE TOO LOL
The game should have as good as controls as possible, if it is a good game skill will prevail in ways that we can't expect yet. For instance before SC came out, I would have never imagined how much skill is required to micro a simple army of just melee units versus an identical group.
So, in 10 years, when we make further advances that allow you to program a script and tell how the computer to micro, that should be implemented?
If the UI is not a limitation then the rest of your points are moot because adding MBS won't make it that much easier. Besides just because there is MBS doesn't mean you have to use it.
K, so let's willingly handicap ourselves. That's like crawling instead of walking even though you can.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 29 2008 00:30 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2008 00:04 FrozenArbiter wrote: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. You can't be at 4 places at once, no matter how much you want to be. So what this will lead to is 4 way attacks being handled in the same way as they are now. You set them up from a distance, and micromanage the one that needs it. This can be done now, this will be done in SC2. All MBS will bring to the table is perfect production while doing all this. Witch would means that its less sacrificing to do such act since you will still be producing while microing with your mad skills, the unit flow will never stop, you(not u frozen arbiter) say that a multifront harasser will have a greater chance of losing because he will lose the big battle in the middle. Well im not suggesting he gets some mutas and tell tem to attack 4 places at once in a point of the game where you happen to have a HUGE army ready to roll everything in theyr way you need to harass your way thro the game, use the enemies distraction to build expos, gain map control, build defenses, you can harass his troops to keep him at bay and force him to come back to his base a lot or lose key buildings and such. Its not about "you cant do this" or "this is utterly bad" its about who can get theyr hands on the damn game and make magic with it. And theres nothing in MBS that kills that, only way magic is gonna happen is changing, those who like old school magic will stick with BW i guess, because they will never be happy with most of the significant gameplay changes.
Yeah but if you look at a ZvT, ZvP or even a PvZ this is already happening in BW. You have mutas harassing everywhere, sometimes even 2 groups at 2 different places (Jaedong).
I think when we make macro easier here, we'll allow more people to do this, and there'll be less of a difference between Jaedong doing it and "insert top amateur". Also, since it will be so much easier to produce, the defender will suffer less too, as he'll have an easier time keeping up production while defending.
Finally, as you said, it's less of a sacrifice (it's not that much to begin with) and I don't see this as a positive. I kind of like that you need to decide what you want to do. I dunno, I don't see any of the positives you see.
Doesn't really mean I'm saying 'oh you're wrong', just that we seem to have a different outlook. What you see as positive I see as a step back from BW since it will be easier to do. I dunno.
On March 28 2008 23:58 flag wrote:The same people now that say no MBS are the same people that caused the dark ages to last over 1000 years. Honestly if you want the game to be about who can do repetitive task the fastest instead of strategy and micro skill, maybe you should get a job at one of those forced child labor camps. Besides if fast clicking is your thing, why stop at bad UI, why not make it so to make a zealot you have to type "z","e","a","l","o","t" and then click the top left top right bottom right and finally bottom left of the screen. That would certainly make it require more speed and multi tasking, maybe they should make it so the zealot stops building halfway through, so you have to come back and click continue, that would require even more multi tasking. The game should have as good as controls as possible, if it is a good game skill will prevail in ways that we can't expect yet. For instance before SC came out, I would have never imagined how much skill is required to micro a simple army of just melee units versus an identical group. If the UI is not a limitation then the rest of your points are moot because adding MBS won't make it that much easier. Besides just because there is MBS doesn't mean you have to use it.
Ok, I'm gonna make a new rule: If anyone uses the exaggeration argument ever again, they are banned. No warnings. I'll update the rules thread shortly.
Anyway, here's why:
You say why not go hardcore and turn it into Dune 2008. The response to this is simple:
Why not go hardcore and turn the game into an interactive (used loosely!) movie?
This leads us nowhere, it's all about the balance between difficulty and ease of use.
Finally, your comment about how much skill goes into micro - yes, but all this skill goes into micro in SC too. It's just harder cause you have to do different things as well, I like that.
Others don't, maybe they will find WC3 more to their liking (maybe, this is not a diss at WC3 at all btw, just that it's a game where macro is not important but micro is very very very very important).
|
Both, Dune and WC3 arguments are same exaggeration. So is saying that with mbs anybody will have perfect macro or starcraft will have "TBS pace".
and according to the rules this thread shouldn't exist, no?
|
The problem with WC3 macro isn't MBS, it's the extremely supply limit and high unit supplies. However, MBS would effect a game like SC with more units and turn it into more of a Supreme Commander where you can micro units.
|
On March 29 2008 00:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +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. You can't be at 4 places at once, no matter how much you want to be. So what this will lead to is 4 way attacks being handled in the same way as they are now. You set them up from a distance, and micromanage the one that needs it. This can be done now, this will be done in SC2. All MBS will bring to the table is perfect production while doing all this.
I think that the point is that MBS allows you to split up attacks and coordinate more attacks. So you have a potential emphasis on a multipronged assaults. Its like a release valve that lets you do more things in macro management, thats how I see it anyways. Basically for example sake, you could only effectively, generally speaking, manage 2 attacks effectively between macroing/microing. Now you can manage 3-4 attacks. So it potentially adds a layer of complexity, that leads to a hopefully more entertaining gameplay/spectator experience.
What say you FA? 
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 29 2008 02:43 InRaged wrote:
Both, Dune and WC3 arguments are same exaggeration. So is saying that with mbs anybody will have perfect macro or starcraft will have "TBS pace".
and according to the rules this thread shouldn't exist, no?
If you check the rule update I made, both are banned.
IE: "WHY NOT TURN IT INTO AN INTERACTIVE MOVIE" will get you just as banned as "WHY NOT MAKE IT LIKE DUNE?"
Oh and as I said a few pages back, yes, this should be in the MBS thread, but by that time it had already gotten several pages of civil discussion so I elected to keep it open.
@Yangstuh, that's what I've been trying to say - I don't think MBS is going to enable you to do that much more in terms of multiway attacks, simply because MBS removes different actions than those required to handle multiple assaults.
It's not like you'll be able to micro two attacks at once, you'll still have to set the attacks up, send them in, then micro the one that needs it the most.
|
On March 29 2008 02:52 yangstuh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2008 00:04 FrozenArbiter wrote: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. You can't be at 4 places at once, no matter how much you want to be. So what this will lead to is 4 way attacks being handled in the same way as they are now. You set them up from a distance, and micromanage the one that needs it. This can be done now, this will be done in SC2. All MBS will bring to the table is perfect production while doing all this. I think that the point is that MBS allows you to split up attacks and coordinate more attacks. So you have a potential emphasis on a multipronged assaults. Its like a release valve that lets you do more things in macro management, thats how I see it anyways. Basically for example sake, you could only effectively, generally speaking, manage 2 attacks effectively between macroing/microing. Now you can manage 3-4 attacks. So it potentially adds a layer of complexity, that leads to a hopefully more entertaining gameplay/spectator experience. What say you FA?
Humans have limits. There's no way in hell you can manage 3-4 attacks effectively and make it cost effective. Honestly, more potential for gosu harasses, just makes people mass more static.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
