I didn't put this in the MBS thread because quite frankly, I don't think it belongs there. If a mod disagrees feel free to close it.
Warning: This shit is pretty fucking long. With the recent news article posted by TL staffer and SC2 progamer LastRomantic, my passion for defeating pro-MBSers everywhere has been rekindled. This is a crash course on why macro is a fundamental pillar of BW and consequently SC2.
Understanding and appreciating macro. There are two general aspects of BW: mental and physical, better generalized as grand strategy and mechanics. Grand strategy (path to winning) as a generalized catagory can be separated into two subcatagories: strategy(decision making) and tactics(the art of engagement), mechanics also can be separated into two subcatagories: macro(resource management) and micro(unit control). Mechanics are a way to execute your grand strategy. Even at it's most fundamental level, you can see what makes BW BW. The yin and yang, the give and take, the balance. You can be the world's greatest tactician but in BW that means nothing if you cannot execute your tactics, likewise, you can be the greatest strategist and it will mean nothing if you cannot carry your strategies out.
Before we get confused here let me explain what strategy and tactics are. Tactics is the simpler of the two, it's the art of engagement, or how you seek to break your opponent by physically overpowering him. Strategy is much harder to define because it is a much more abstract concept.
Consider this example: you are playing a straight up player, you know that when he plays straight up he is a solid player so you decide to play more unconventionally by relying on drops / harassment to slowly wither him down.
In this case, your decision to play a certain style would be what is considered a strategy, because you know it will give you an inherent advantage. The style of play, however, would be considered a tactic. Strategy is the reasoning behind every move you make, tactics are a way to achieve the move.
Now, here's the hard part, let's explain macro and micro. Micro is the simpler of the two, which means, in essence, the ability to make your units do what you want them to, physically outplay you opponent. Macro, in this case, is the more abstract concept.
Consider this example: You've just won a small but important battle by flanking your opponent and instead of making taking an expansion and playing for a longer game, you decide to upgrade to prepare for a timing push.
In this case, the action of upgrading instead of expanding to prepare for a timing push is a strategic macro decision and winning the battle by flanking was a tactical micro victory. There's a reason I mirrored these paragraphs, it's because, as you can see, macro is intertwined with strategy and micro with tactics.
Unit production and macro, as it stands. Now that I've discussed how the mental and physical coexist on a more abstract level. Let's bring it down to what we can call "tangible": unit production. Unit production is the most important aspect of both macro AND micro, but because we physically see it as resource management, we simplify it to macro. For clarification purposes, I will refer to it as unit production and macro will be used as above. Unit production is the knot that ties strategy together with tactics and macro together with micro.
Consider this example: As a Protoss you are playing a Zerg that is well known for a strong 3 hatch muta opening, in an effort to nullify his advantage over your weaker standard play, you open with 2 stargates after fast expanding and proceed to lay down two well timed robo's and begin to break down you opponent with harassment.
Your decision of opening with a certain playstyle that will give you an advantage is the strategy, the unit combination itself is the tactic. The action(s) of going FE, two gate sair, two robo to gain an advantage is the macro, using these units to break down your opponent is the micro.
As you can see, without unit production, strategy cannot translate into tactics and macro cannot translate to micro, there is no connection. Again, there is a much more "tangible" level of understanding to this. Unit production is a both a tactical strategy and a micro of macro. Again, I must point to the give and take that is so very important in BW. In each and every single game we play – tens, maybe hundreds of times a game – we make a decision whether to expand / produce units / upgrade or micro. Expanding or upgrading is done relatively few times during a game, but unit production is done thoroughly without, and is therefore the majority of strategic macro. This is then, the eternal debate of whether to micro or macro. This is the most prevalent tactical strategy - the micro of macro in BW. Microing takes strategy, tactics, and speed. Macro takes strategy, tactics, and speed. Yet somehow, some people consider one to be more relevant than the other.
Why people consider MBS to be redundant: macro is against human nature. When we play BW we enter a certain state of mind. The computer is no longer a computer, but an extension of yourself from which you can execute strategies. We are the Protoss Executor, the Terran Magistrate, or the Zerg Cerebrate, but we are still human. As humans we are hard-wired to deal with the most immediate threat first. What is more immediate, units dying or losing due to delayed unit production? The answer is obvious. By eliminating the need to tear yourself from instinct and multitask, you are eliminating a strategic decision and therefore a key strategic element of the game.
The UI is not a limitation. As far as the average player goes, the UI is NOT a limitation in terms of macro. The average number of late-game production buildings is not extraordinarily great in comparison with the total number of actions required in BW. Let's say you have 8 buildings, click each one and press a letter on the keyboard. Was it really that hard? Did it require lightening speed? Of course it didn't, it doesn't require you to be faster than say, setting off 8 storms during a massive PvZ battle. Yet people argue that one is redundant and one is not. It's understandable that certain people enjoy micro more than macro and that they don't want SC2 to be a carbon copy of BW. The latter has already been proven false. Addressing the former stipulation, let me just say, thinking this way is not the BW or competitive mindset. I don't enjoy something, therefore I want it out. The reason you don't enjoy or appreciate something like macro is because either you are bad at it and/or you don't understand it. Of course you don't get the immediate satisfaction of saving your units and killing your opponents, but does that mean unit production should a core element of the game taken out and diluted?
The problem with MBS. I guess this is what it all comes down to right? MBS takes away the need to multitask both mentally and physically. It takes away the tactical strategy of macroing over micro or microing over macro. The need to make this decision on a frequent basis and, more often than not, in a frantic frenzy makes it the connection between the mental and physical aspects of the game. With MBS the balance between mental and physical, grand strategy and mechanics, strategy and tactics, and macro and micro are all completely thrown off and pro-MBSers seem to not care or not understand.
I belive that Blizzard will solve this somehow though. Remember we're still in Alpha, and BETA will hopefully make this game into a competitive well worthy followup to BW. What will happen after X patches is that it'll be fine tuned and hopefully we'll see some really great balance, and divinity that we see in BW right now.
- first, nothing prove that the actual balance between macro and micro is good. Even above that, nothing prove that the balance between all the strategic decisions you can make is good. As it stands now, I think it's not. As it stands now, macro is not anymore a strategic decision, macro has become a pure click fest and that's the real issue: you don't need to think anymore: a protoss that has trained himself to mechanically click 1z2d3z4d5z etc is more efficient that a protoss that really take the time to think what he is going to do. Speed clicking is way more efficient that thinking; I can't count the number of games I have seen where the guy who was takiing smart and advanced strategic decision lost to the guy who concentrates on the most basic strategic decision: clicking to make more units. So MBS is not a way to decrease the importance of strategic decision, it's a way to increase the value of the most interesting ones.
-Secondly, how could you make a post on MBS and then say that "the UI is NOT a limitation in terms of macro". If the UI is not a limitation then changing it should have no real impact. There is obviously an issue of speed here. People doesn't want the strategic aspect of macro to be taken out; they complain that they don't have the time to macro to a point they have to renounce to macro strategy. I like the strategic aspect of the game: when the player decide to cut worker production, why and when he decide to push or to expand, what unit did he decide to use and what decision and sacrifice has he made so that those units are avalaible. I don't like to see all those subtle decisions shadowed by how fast you can click on building. When I go on chessbase.com and look at a game of Fischer, I'm amazed; I know i would never come close to his level but I found it amazing. when I look at a game of a 400 apm progamer i'm rarely amazed, and I still know i would never come close to his level. The two are highly skilled, but the skills required in the first case are more interesting; if MBS allow SC2 to favour this kind of skills, I'm all for it.
Some says that broodwar is still evolving and that a good sign. On the contrary I find that broodwar evolved extremly slowly. How many years does it take to play defiler in zvt? Maybe because progamers had to train X hours a day to get used to click click click rather than to think. How can you look at progamer who have to do a lot a useless spamming just to "keep" the rythm so that they are able to click when necessary and say there are not a UI problem? How can you say that there are not a UI issue when some people trains 10 hours a day and are still not able to use efficiently spell such as feedback, by lack of time, even though it quite cost effective?
Units production has it stands now is too time consuming; and it detracts to much to both the strategic and the tactic decisions you can make in this game. Less robots, more thinker, thanks in advance.
I thought this was going to be long? Anyway, I agree with it. MBS actually makes SC2 2.5D in terms of gameplay while at the same time leveling the playing field in terms of macro skill. Both bad. Only argument in favour is that people expect an easy convenient UI just because other games have it as well. And that the players want to feel powerful and skilled, even when they are not; the game should make them skilled. But that is bad for a competitive game while good for a single player game; not everyone can be the hero in multiplayer like you can in single player.
Anyway, MBS is supposed to be added for the least skilled SC, or SC2 players. Very low level games are boring. If there is a difference in skill the lesser player will always get outmacroed, not outmicroed. If the players are equal in skill it will often be a very long passive game.
Maybe I should just post a replay because it seems you people forgot how total beginners actually play. MBS will not make their games more interesting and strategic.
Amen. I hate seeing people argue pro-MBS. It is so annoying. Some people can argue it well, and I understand what they are saying... but if I see one more person go "OMG U JUST WANT LOTZ OF CLICKING IN SC2. STOP BEING HARDCORE" I will kill myself
This thread delivers, on a side note, Blizzard should state that this game is made for clicking and those WoW and DotA slowpokes can take a dive to hell. Even if it is or not true at least it will make them shut the fuck up.
Good post. By taking a step back, analyzing the problem from a broader perspective and presenting it in a thorough and coherent post, you've managed to make more sense than most.
However, while your aim seems to be to communicate why MBS is wrong and why we all should think so, your lack of nuance certainly hurts your cause. I will not bother commenting on every facet of your wonderful post. Instead, I will quote just this sentence [feel free to criticize me for quoting out of context].
On March 26 2008 17:45 mahnini wrote: The reason you don't enjoy or appreciate something like macro is because either you are bad at it and/or you don't understand it.
It could be argued that this sentence alone demonstrates your ignorance towards the "pro MBS"-side, to the point where everything else you write can be invalidated simply by appealing to your ignorance. After all, what would be the point of arguing with someone who is convinced that there is only one singular solution to a specific issue, and that everyone who thinks otherwise lack understanding of the issue.
To further strengthen this argument, let's take your sentence and replace "macro" with something else. Let's take take something which might be hard to understand, hard to perform and is just as manly as macroing in BW. Let's take figure skating.
The reason you don't enjoy or appreciate something like figure skating is because either you are bad at it and/o you don't understand it.
Surely, there are some things that I do not appreciate, nor do I enjoy all things. But to say that this is due to my lack of understanding, or my inability perform, would be to simplify it too much.
Now, I wouldn't argue this point quite as aggressively. There are redeeming factors, which would make the argument presented above seem too harsh. One such factor is "the StarCraft feel". We could go on for ages discussing game mechanics and UI-improvements, talk about how the inclusion or exclusion of this or that feature would make the game so much worse or better, but were all the arguments fail is in not addressing the underlying issue - "the StarCraft feel".
All StarCraft players have their own perception of what StarCraft is (this is what I call "the StarCraft feel") and we want the sequel to recapture that feeling. For some, the act of physically carrying out your macro decisions was a very important feeling to the game play, for others it wasn't. The problem when discussing issues like MBS is that we're not really arguing about which features we want to be added to make benefit the glorious game of starcraft. We're discussing which features must or cannot be added in order for StarCraft II to capture our personal "feel" of StarCraft. Since that feeling if personal, this is an argument which will be hard to win for either "side".
That was a very well written post. I couldn't possibly disagree with most of the OP, but thats partially because you've said said very little to disagree with. You spent far more time prefacing and defining than you did explaining just how MBS would do what you claim it would do. The only real point of contention is the final paragraph (as far as I'm concerned, but thats because I agree with your words on UI limitation). Also you really do classify the pro-MBS position in such a negative light; not all MBS supporters care only for their personal wants and not for the future of the game. Many do care - they simply disagree fundamentally with what makes Starcraft such a good game.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really disagree with you overall anyways. I'm certainly not any more pro-MBS than I am anti-MBS. You could say I'm reserving judgement, but that would paint me as an escapist. In reality, I don't believe anyone should be able to so concretely make such heavy claims.
I do think the issue is more complex than you are making it at times. First of all, I believe the real problem area is not the core MBS system, but instead MBS with hotkeys. That is a somewhat important distinction to make if you are trying to really isolate, or "boil down" the problem. Your post would be somewhat contradictory if you felt MBS without hotkeys to be damaging, due largely in part to your views on the level of limitation in the UI; if 8 clicks is really not especially important in a game between 400APM players and 5z6d7t0p is 8 clicks, then is that the real problem with MBS? Not really. And even if it did require fewer clicks (I prefer the term actions), they should still be insignificant if 8 are (except of course the difference between 0 and 1, which is a matter of decision making and not mechanics) What is important is the amount of attention those 8 actions draw; if the player can perform the 8 (or fewer) without moving their screen from their army, they will not only be able to achieve the same macro result as full base attention, but they will do so with significantly stronger micro response.
And so, the real problem is in fact being able to macro while watching your army (not necessarily managing - people do seem to forget that if you want to micro your army, you will still need to either sacrifice unit production actions or wait until you finish a round). If you are able to watch your army, you will be better informed about when is important enough to sacrifice macro for micro. You will also have more time to decide exactly how to respond to current threats because the actual actions of macro will be reflex and muscle memory in high level play. This is significantly less sacrifice than was necessary for macro in SC1 which means a different feeling game; a different micro to macro balance if you will. This is of course only bad if people are striving for a game with the exact same balance as Starcraft - which I will go ahead and assume (and agree with while I'm at it).
Another important distinction to make, especially when considering non tournament/league play, is that multitasking is still required with MBS. Players will need to decide when to stop moving their army, to stop dancing their marines, dragoonsstalkers, and mutalisks, and when to macro. This is a mental aspect of macro that seems to often be ignored, but is especially important with low to mid skill players. Remembering to macro, or more likely, deciding its worth your time to macro, is a learned skill. Noobies picking up SC2 will most certainly not have it and thus not have perfect macro by far. This mental obstacle of deciding to build units instead of control units is still there with MBS; just because you can macro up with a few hotkey presses does not mean it is always wise to do so at a specific moment. People will therefore still have to make that decision - to control the army or to macro. Noobies will undoubtedly always decide to control the army because most will forget about macro like they did with SC1. Mid level players can still make poor decisions about when to macro - occasionally controlling their army when doing so was fairly fruitless or deciding to macro when micro could have saved them the game.
So from this I'll go ahead and make the (probably controversial) claim that MBS will not be nearly as significant a factor in the average game as it might be in high-level play (assuming it is game-changing in high level play of course). High skilled players will not find themselves up against noobies with the similar army size; just like in Starcraft 1 they will find their opponent with a few units in their base after they roll over the main army. Its really the professional level that we should all be interested in anyways; this is in fact primarily a progaming site. For this reason, I do not think MBS supporters should be bringing up the argument of "an easier game for noobs", but at the same time, I don't believe anti-MBS should be bringing up the "noob with perfect macro."
In the end, I am still somewhat concerned with MBS, if only for how it will affect the micro to macro balance in SC2. I'm not convinced it will ruin the game, nor am I convinced it will even make a bad game. I'm more concerned with how the game will view as a spectator. I don't believe a micro heavy game makes for great spectating, simply because high skill players will almost always be able to do more than the observer can watch, at least in a game with a unit cap as high as Starcraft. In SC1, the importance of macro gave the observer plenty of time to watch an entertaining, but not overflowing game. Also important in Starcraft were the roles of mind games in each match: feints, baiting, etc. But they were reasonable enough both in complexity and in quantity for the observer to pick up on; I'm sure few people watching their first game of Warcraft 3 will catch more than a fraction of the back and forth between the players. While mind games can be entertaining, I believe there is a certainly a limit for good entertainment.
Unlike you, I come out of my post without a concrete statement about MBS. I cannot say that MBS is game-ruining, but I cannot say it will not be an important change either. There are two things that I can conclude though.
The first is a resounding: Wait for beta!. Any conjecture we make back and forth are largely based on theory. There is of course some anecdotal evidence to be heard from the testimonies of LR and semioldguy, but its far from conclusive as I'm sure anyone should agree. In practice, things are often quite different than our thought experiments dictate them to be. In addition to this, high level play has yet to be examined by the community, which I think should be especially important to the minds of progaming addicts like myself. Even when beta does roll around, it will be quite some time before the game has been analyzed to a point even nearly resembling what progaming is today. So theory is of course still important, but I don't believe its enough to condemn MBS before its been given its chance.
My second conclusion has been said many times: have some faith in Blizzard. This issue is likely just as, if not more important to them than it is to us. As I've said in a previous post, Blizzard is known for not being afraid to make very fundamental changes during a Beta, and I wouldn't be the least surprised if methods of unit production was one such change. I'm sure they will make a fantastic game when all is said and done, and in general, people need to not worry as much.
edit: To the poster above me: Certainly he used a bit of bit of a straw man fallacy, but its no reason to discredit the entirety of his post. Few people would have bothered to put as much effort in to a post, and I think that such action should be encouraged. One can overlook fairly minor statements like that when they are not crucial to his argument.
On March 26 2008 18:48 Agone wrote: Well there are two issues with your opinion:
- first, nothing prove that the actual balance between macro and micro is good. Even above that, nothing prove that the balance between all the strategic decisions you can make is good. As it stands now, I think it's not. As it stands now, macro is not anymore a strategic decision, macro has become a pure click fest and that's the real issue: you don't need to think anymore: a protoss that has trained himself to mechanically click 1z2d3z4d5z etc is more efficient that a protoss that really take the time to think what he is going to do. Speed clicking is way more efficient that thinking; I can't count the number of games I have seen where the guy who was takiing smart and advanced strategic decision lost to the guy who concentrates on the most basic strategic decision: clicking to make more units. So MBS is not a way to decrease the importance of strategic decision, it's a way to increase the value of the most interesting ones.
-Secondly, how could you make a post on MBS and then say that "the UI is NOT a limitation in terms of macro". If the UI is not a limitation then changing it should have no real impact. There is obviously an issue of speed here. People doesn't want the strategic aspect of macro to be taken out; they complain that they don't have the time to macro to a point they have to renounce to macro strategy. I like the strategic aspect of the game: when the player decide to cut worker production, why and when he decide to push or to expand, what unit did he decide to use and what decision and sacrifice has he made so that those units are avalaible. I don't like to see all those subtle decisions shadowed by how fast you can click on building. When I go on chessbase.com and look at a game of Fischer, I'm amazed; I know i would never come close to his level but I found it amazing. when I look at a game of a 400 apm progamer i'm rarely amazed, and I still know i would never come close to his level. The two are highly skilled, but the skills required in the first case are more interesting; if MBS allow SC2 to favour this kind of skills, I'm all for it.
Some says that broodwar is still evolving and that a good sign. On the contrary I find that broodwar evolved extremly slowly. How many years does it take to play defiler in zvt? Maybe because progamers had to train X hours a day to get used to click click click rather than to think. How can you look at progamer who have to do a lot a useless spamming just to "keep" the rythm so that they are able to click when necessary and say there are not a UI problem? How can you say that there are not a UI issue when some people trains 10 hours a day and are still not able to use efficiently spell such as feedback, by lack of time, even though it quite cost effective?
Units production has it stands now is too time consuming; and it detracts to much to both the strategic and the tactic decisions you can make in this game. Less robots, more thinker, thanks in advance.
every aspect of your post is just wrong, im not even going to expound on why because I felt i was losing intelligence as i read this post, but all I can is almost every example you give has nothing to do with if there is MBS in the game or not
i am a D- player but i am still anti-mbs please don't generalise all newbs to be pro mbs
Hi sam, the argument is that all pro-MBS are noobs, not that all noobs are pro-MBS. You are anti-MBS because you understand and enjoy the effect that SBS has on the game.
To be fair, 99% of all Pro-MBS people are noobs. There is nothing wrong with being a noob, dont take it as a putdown. But that being said, you are trying to change something that you do not fully understand. There is a reason why all the good players (Im not a good player btw) are anti-MBS and its not because they are scared of losing their skill when they transition over to SC2.
The reason why most of the Pro-MBS people want it in the game is because they find Starcraft too hard. You might make arguments stating how it will better gameplay by adding strategy, change focus etc. but the bottom line is generally, frustration at the fact that you cannot achieve what you want to achieve and therefore you wish it to be easier. This is a normal human reaction. We wouldnt have caculators if someone hadn't turned around and wanted an easier way to do maths. However this mindset should be supressed if you wish to create a competative medium.
If something IS too hard, then the best should point it out. If boxer turned around tommorow and stated that SBS is too hard, then maybe making the game easier would be considered the best option. However it seems to be only the lesser players that are arguing for MBS.
Also remember, that doing something that no-one else can do is impressive. It impresses the masses and is the BEST thing for spectator sports. For example
The solo at 4 mins. I got the sheet music and tried to learn it on piano. I gave up after a couple of hours. Its just too hard for me. I wouldnt advocate making it easier, however. You should hear the crowds reaction when its done. If anyone could play that solo, it wouldnt be an impressive piece would it?
I wished you guys would quit freaking kissing the ass of korean pro gamers and stop all this argueing over something so mundane as MBS while none of you has any idea what the game really is. SC2 looks awesome and its in the hands of Blizzard, yes the guys who never failed a game release. You think they re too stupid to realize the effect of what MBS and other things that are different to BW will make to SC2?
Seriously lots of you need to GET A LIFE. Starcraft2 will NOT be Broodwar in 3D, get that in your brain.
On March 26 2008 22:38 Famehunter wrote: I wished you guys would quit freaking kissing the ass of korean pro gamers and stop all this argueing over something so mundane as MBS while none of you has any idea what the game really is. SC2 looks awesome and its in the hands of Blizzard, yes the guys who never failed a game release. You think they re too stupid to realize the effect of what MBS and other things that are different to BW will make to SC2?
Seriously lots of you need to GET A LIFE. Starcraft2 will NOT be Broodwar in 3D, get that in your brain.
I dont see how not wanting MBS in the game makes us want broodwar in 3D... but yeah w/e
On March 26 2008 20:18 geno wrote: My second conclusion has been said many times: have some faith in Blizzard. This issue is likely just as, if not more important to them than it is to us. As I've said in a previous post, Blizzard is known for not being afraid to make very fundamental changes during a Beta, and I wouldn't be the least surprised if methods of unit production was one such change. I'm sure they will make a fantastic game when all is said and done, and in general, people need to not worry as much.
Thats exactly what we should NOT do. Dont pray for something to happen MAKE it happen. Warcraft 3 is a "fantastic" game and Blizzard wasnt afraid to make "fundamental" changes. AWESOME! Good that we all had faith in Blizzard now they made the new best RTS ... oh wait..
Now is the chance to voice our opinions and we should do that and not "have faith in Blizzard" that failed to deliver already. We´re talking about Starcraft 2 here not Pokemon Alpha 2B.
This MBS issue will be a big one. Either Blizzard will go with the mainstream and use MBS or not and that will certainly have consequences on future RTS games when SC2 is successful.
In this post I'll try to elaborate only on factual (in my opinion) errors from your post, if you interested of course.
On March 26 2008 17:45 mahnini wrote: Microing takes strategy, tactics, and speed. Macro takes strategy, tactics, and speed. Yet somehow, some people consider one to be more relevant than the other.
There is two reasons why people do this, and both reasons are left outside of your post:
1. Both micro and unit production play their role throughout the game. But there is one important difference - unit production appears only periodically. With micro you can increase or decrease intensity, you can be forced by your opponent or you can force your opponent to micro. Unit production takes it place only once in XX seconds and completely fades away till another wave. Сontrary, micro phases often lead to non-stop action.
Partly, as a result, appears another important point - players can spend additional 10, 20 or much more seconds increasing effectiveness of their armies (using spells more accurately, focus-firing with groups of units, saving wounded units or scouting, etc). This is not true for unit production, spending more time on unit production rather decreases effectiveness. Although, player can improve his timing, thus improving unit production (once in XX seconds), but that's rather mental task, which almost isn't affected with mbs. As for micro, each additional second has huge potential to increase results.
2. Micro has more depth. It not just requires more complicated skills from player (as mouse precision). Micro can tear apart player attention - it can, and usually does, produce additional multitasking layers (harassing and leading your army at the same time; attacking in different directions, etc), while unit production itself is such layer and different branches of unit production are usually connected by "unit production periods" and doesn't form real multitasking subdivisions
On March 26 2008 22:29 Fen wrote:
Hi sam, the argument is that all pro-MBS are noobs, not that all noobs are pro-MBS. .... EDIT: Could a mod please ban me
fixed for you oh, and If you can't keep away personal attacks, please, shut the fuck up.
On March 26 2008 23:38 Senix wrote: Thats exactly what we should NOT do. Dont pray for something to happen MAKE it happen. Warcraft 3 is a "fantastic" game and Blizzard wasnt afraid to make "fundamental" changes. AWESOME! Good that we all had faith in Blizzard now they made the new best RTS ... oh wait..
If you don't like it, that doesn't mean it's bad. And WC3 is RTS/RPG. First and only successful RTS/RPG on such level.
On March 26 2008 23:38 Senix wrote: Thats exactly what we should NOT do. Dont pray for something to happen MAKE it happen. Warcraft 3 is a "fantastic" game and Blizzard wasnt afraid to make "fundamental" changes. AWESOME! Good that we all had faith in Blizzard now they made the new best RTS ... oh wait..
Now is the chance to voice our opinions and we should do that and not "have faith in Blizzard" that failed to deliver already. We´re talking about Starcraft 2 here not Pokemon Alpha 2B.
This MBS issue will be a big one. Either Blizzard will go with the mainstream and use MBS or not and that will certainly have consequences on future RTS games when SC2 is successful.
You are correct. Because with Warcraft III, they certainly wanted to recapture the feeling of Warcraft 2 and not make any fundamental changes, yet they did. And because of this, the game didn't become great - no one played it and no professional scene ever evolved. The game wasn't even allowed into the WSG.
The scary thing is, with Starcraft 2, they've said that they want to make fundamental changes to the gameplay. They don't want the Koreans to continue dominating, so they will be adding tons of new features to the game to make it feel like a completely new game. No refinement here, it's almost as if they looked at BW and tried to diverge the design as much as possible from it in order to make the game look "cool" for newbs.
Blizzard has failed us, time and again. Remember the crazy larval respawnrate? Who nerfed that? Blizzard did! Remember that clickycklickycklicky game called Diablo II? Blizzard's fault. The abomination Warcraft III? World of Warcraft? Somehow Blizzard's lost touch with reality. Who would want to play *as* a character from Warcraft III? That game sucked.
StarCraft II is bound to fail if they implement MBS.
I think we need to update Moltke's list of things you need to know about a woman before you can decide if you are attracted to her or not with "is she pro or anti-MBS".
This is ridiculous. There exists an MBS thread already and your thoughts hardly deserve their own post. "ME ME ME" is what you're saying by thinking your thoughts on MBS are so much more important than EVERYBODY elses that they should read THIS and nothing else. It's absurd.
I made a much better anti-MBS argument in the last debate thread. Did you read it? I would have to assume not, which means you're even less qualified to represent the whole of MBS argument because you haven't even been following it!
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really disagree with you overall anyways. I'm certainly not any more pro-MBS than I am anti-MBS. You could say I'm reserving judgement, but that would paint me as an escapist. In reality, I don't believe anyone should be able to so concretely make such heavy claims.
I do think the issue is more complex than you are making it at times. First of all, I believe the real problem area is not the core MBS system, but instead MBS with hotkeys. That is a somewhat important distinction to make if you are trying to really isolate, or "boil down" the problem. Your post would be somewhat contradictory if you felt MBS without hotkeys to be damaging, due largely in part to your views on the level of limitation in the UI; if 8 clicks is really not especially important in a game between 400APM players and 5z6d7t0p is 8 clicks, then is that the real problem with MBS? Not really. And even if it did require fewer clicks (I prefer the term actions), they should still be insignificant if 8 are (except of course the difference between 0 and 1, which is a matter of decision making and not mechanics) What is important is the amount of attention those 8 actions draw; if the player can perform the 8 (or fewer) without moving their screen from their army, they will not only be able to achieve the same macro result as full base attention, but they will do so with significantly stronger micro response.
And so, the real problem is in fact being able to macro while watching your army (not necessarily managing - people do seem to forget that if you want to micro your army, you will still need to either sacrifice unit production actions or wait until you finish a round). If you are able to watch your army, you will be better informed about when is important enough to sacrifice macro for micro. You will also have more time to decide exactly how to respond to current threats because the actual actions of macro will be reflex and muscle memory in high level play. This is significantly less sacrifice than was necessary for macro in SC1 which means a different feeling game; a different micro to macro balance if you will. This is of course only bad if people are striving for a game with the exact same balance as Starcraft - which I will go ahead and assume (and agree with while I'm at it).
Another important distinction to make, especially when considering non tournament/league play, is that multitasking is still required with MBS. Players will need to decide when to stop moving their army, to stop dancing their marines, dragoonsstalkers, and mutalisks, and when to macro. This is a mental aspect of macro that seems to often be ignored, but is especially important with low to mid skill players. Remembering to macro, or more likely, deciding its worth your time to macro, is a learned skill. Noobies picking up SC2 will most certainly not have it and thus not have perfect macro by far. This mental obstacle of deciding to build units instead of control units is still there with MBS; just because you can macro up with a few hotkey presses does not mean it is always wise to do so at a specific moment. People will therefore still have to make that decision - to control the army or to macro. Noobies will undoubtedly always decide to control the army because most will forget about macro like they did with SC1. Mid level players can still make poor decisions about when to macro - occasionally controlling their army when doing so was fairly fruitless or deciding to macro when micro could have saved them the game
I will have to agree that it's MBS with hotkeys that I, and a majority of others are against. I brought up the UI limitation issue because of the people who consider it a "click fest", so while the UI is technically a limitation, as is every other aspect of every other game ever, it does not limit your abilities. The fast will be faster, the slow will be slower, the only limit is you.
It's true that MBS still forces people to macro, the question is, is it the same kind of macro? I don't want to say MBS makes it too easy, therefore I don't like it. It's about WHY it makes it too easy. Let's take for an example Zerg macro in BW. ZvT early game, your mutas just hatched and you begin harassing. Every two volleys you tell yourself to 5sd6sd7sh, this is fine. The difference is, in order for your 7sh to be truly effective, you must morph lurkers. In this sense, I think Zerg macro is the closest to an effective MBS right now, Zerg can compete with relatively fewer keys because they require relatively fewer buildings. BUT this is canceled by the need to go back and physically morph lurkers (as well as larva management), if this can be done with every race without it feeling like it was included just to cater to MBS, that's fine. Though this dilutes the unique aspect of the races.
On March 27 2008 01:10 Doctorasul wrote: I think we need to update Moltke's list of things you need to know about a woman before you can decide if you are attracted to her or not with "is she pro or anti-MBS".
On March 26 2008 18:56 Vasoline73 wrote: Amen. I hate seeing people argue pro-MBS. It is so annoying. Some people can argue it well, and I understand what they are saying... but if I see one more person go "OMG U JUST WANT LOTZ OF CLICKING IN SC2. STOP BEING HARDCORE" I will kill myself
Likewise man. Good type up mahni I've got to agree with it all the way 8]
On March 27 2008 01:25 GeneralStan wrote: This is ridiculous. There exists an MBS thread already and your thoughts hardly deserve their own post. "ME ME ME" is what you're saying by thinking your thoughts on MBS are so much more important than EVERYBODY elses that they should read THIS and nothing else. It's absurd.
I made a much better anti-MBS argument in the last debate thread. Did you read it? I would have to assume not, which means you're even less qualified to represent the whole of MBS argument because you haven't even been following it!
If I'm making unfounded assumptions I apologize.
The MBS thread carries a very dangerous stigma, "express your opinions here", it's where people go to fling shit. Not only that, there are five different convos going on at the same time. As well as making an MBS argument I'm outlining the anti-MBS definition of macro, and attempting to explain rather than fling shit with people. Do I think my opinion of MBS matters more than others? No. I think my explanation of what macro is substantial in and of itself.
On March 26 2008 22:38 fusionsdf wrote: poor mahnini
They wore out idra, they wore out nony (I think), they wore out tasteless. No well-written post is going to change these people's minds.
But this was a well-written post.
The problem with that trio is that they believed that an appeal to authority (in this instance, themselves) was enough to establish their premises.
That is to say their skill and experience was enough ground to assert how MBS would impact gameplay, which led to a lot of useless flaming and counter charges that SC2 is a different game. Useless, I know
On March 26 2008 18:48 Agone wrote: Well there are two issues with your opinion:
- first, nothing prove that the actual balance between macro and micro is good.
The balance between the two adds complexity to the game. If one was always more important than the other, then there'd never be a reason to do the less important one. The style of every top player would be geared toward the more important one and competitive play would become much less dynamic. As it is now in BW, there are a wide variety of styles at the top, even more than just micro style and macro style, and you can trace the differences in style to how the players manage their time on the UI. When every player manages the UI the same way, and spends the same percentages of time doing the same things, style will disappear and everyone will play the same, optimal way.
On March 26 2008 18:48 Agone wrote: Even above that, nothing prove that the balance between all the strategic decisions you can make is good. As it stands now, I think it's not.
So you like micro-oriented play more than macro-oriented play. Join the line behind the 1,000,000 other people who loved Boxer and hated iloveoov. But to say that the kind of playing you don't like should be eliminated from the game is nonsense.
On March 26 2008 18:48 Agone wrote: As it stands now, macro is not anymore a strategic decision, macro has become a pure click fest and that's the real issue: you don't need to think anymore: a protoss that has trained himself to mechanically click 1z2d3z4d5z etc is more efficient that a protoss that really take the time to think what he is going to do.
Of course macro is a strategic decision. Either you are ignoring the strategic part of macro or you are damning the parts of macro that have exact micro equivalents without also damning those micro equivalents. In the first case, I'll point out the strategic parts of macro. The timing of expansions, the timing of building probes, the timing of adding gateways and the unit ratios are all important strategical parts of macro. A mindless player whose best move is to hit 1z2d3z4d5z is absolutely guaranteed to produce a worse army than the player who intelligently starts and stops probe production, who expands at the absolutely earliest times possible, who always uses the gates he has and never builds too many and who builds perfect unit ratios. In the second case, you must think of macro in terms of micro to see their equivalents. A player who goes back to his gateways, builds new units from each, selects a probe to build 2 more gateways, selects another probe to start another nexus, and builds new probes from his nexii while telling the newly built ones to collect, is no different from a player who goes back to his units, adjusts each one into optimal positions, tells his HT's to cast their storms, drops his reavers from his shuttles, and goes to fetch his reinforcements to clean up the end of the battle. Both sets of actions are equally mundane and exciting, both can be done skillfully or idiotically, both can be done quickly or slowly, both can yield great results or spell defeat. If you think that the macro actions are so boring and mindless, then that is simply your preference.
On March 26 2008 18:48 Agone wrote: Speed clicking is way more efficient that thinking; I can't count the number of games I have seen where the guy who was takiing smart and advanced strategic decision lost to the guy who concentrates on the most basic strategic decision: clicking to make more units. So MBS is not a way to decrease the importance of strategic decision, it's a way to increase the value of the most interesting ones.
Speed clicking and thinking are not mutually exclusive. That is the key to an RTS as an e-sport. Perhaps you've seen a smarter player lose to a faster player but smarter players can also beat faster players. Maybe you don't know these players, but Artosis can rape IdrA in TvT and IdrA absolutely has better mechanics. IdrA can build more units, micro them better and multitask better, but Artosis is very experienced and good at TvT and can win with better build orders, timing and overall strategy. There have always been players even at the professional level who clearly have worse handspeed than their opponents and yet they win. To say that speed clicking is way more efficient is a huge exaggeration to me. How are you even sure the slower person is that much smarter? It seems difficult to prove whereas my counter examples are easy to prove. That is, it's easy to see who is slower so when the slower person wins, it's a solid example. But when the slower person loses, like you are saying, it's difficult to prove that they were smarter.
As far as "increase the value of the most interesting ones" you are obviously back to your own personal preference again. And like I said earlier, increasing the value of certain strategical aspects of the game is a sure way to immediately simplify the game as all players are forced into one optimal style.
On March 26 2008 18:48 Agone wrote: People doesn't want the strategic aspect of macro to be taken out; they complain that they don't have the time to macro to a point they have to renounce to macro strategy. I like the strategic aspect of the game: when the player decide to cut worker production, why and when he decide to push or to expand, what unit did he decide to use and what decision and sacrifice has he made so that those units are avalaible. I don't like to see all those subtle decisions shadowed by how fast you can click on building. When I go on chessbase.com and look at a game of Fischer, I'm amazed; I know i would never come close to his level but I found it amazing. when I look at a game of a 400 apm progamer i'm rarely amazed, and I still know i would never come close to his level. The two are highly skilled, but the skills required in the first case are more interesting; if MBS allow SC2 to favour this kind of skills, I'm all for it.
At this point, I think you are quite confused about what SC:BW and SC2 and any RTS meant for competition as an e-sport are supposed to be. Chess is a turn-based strategy game. There is no physical aspect to it. A paralyzed person could play chess just as well as anyone. That is absolutely not what SC:BW or SC2 is supposed to be. The strategical part of an RTS can strive to be as deep and complex as chess, and it can easily be deep and complex enough that nobody can "solve" it, like we see now with SC:BW, but in the end, the strategical part is only a part. The actual user input via keyboard and mouse is supposed to be part of the game. If technology improved and the computer could take input directly from our thoughts, that technology would not be good for SC:BW nor SC2. Think of SC2 in terms of a sport, not a turn-based board game. Sports have immense strategical depth and yet the execution of strategy is limited and defined by the physical abilities of the players.
On March 26 2008 18:48 Agone wrote: Some says that broodwar is still evolving and that a good sign. On the contrary I find that broodwar evolved extremly slowly. How many years does it take to play defiler in zvt? Maybe because progamers had to train X hours a day to get used to click click click rather than to think. How can you look at progamer who have to do a lot a useless spamming just to "keep" the rythm so that they are able to click when necessary and say there are not a UI problem? How can you say that there are not a UI issue when some people trains 10 hours a day and are still not able to use efficiently spell such as feedback, by lack of time, even though it quite cost effective?
Again, think of SC:BW and SC2 in terms of a sport. The optimal move, assuming that every move has a 100% success rate, is often very difficult to execute and has, in reality, a very low success rate. You don't expect a tennis player to aim his ball to hit 1mm of paint at the far corner of the court on every single shot. Would you prefer that the tennis court was like a chess board and the player says "on this move, I put the ball in the corner" and he just places the ball there? That's an extremely difficult shot but it'd often be the best strategical move if you have a 100% success rate. Do you feel entitled to be able to do the best move just because you thought of it and see that it's good? 100% success rates are for board games. That is not what an RTS game is. That is not what a sport is nor an e-sport.
Progamers have barely trained for SC:BW when you put things into perspective. When you watch professional soccer, basketball, football, baseball or any sport in the Olympics, or anything else, how much time have the best players committed? A lifetime. A good game requires a person to commit their lives to it and still come up short of perfection. A casual, newbie player is absolutely not entitled to the ability to do what the best players in the world do.
It is absolutely disgusting to think of the NBA saying, "Well, the majority of basketball players in the world, who mostly are comprised of casual players spending under 5 hours a week playing, think that ball handling and dribbling is a mundane task and an artificial block that prohibits players from getting straight to the exciting things in the game. From now on, basketball players no longer need to dribble the ball." But that is how you want to simplify SC2. You want to eliminate the physical obstacles that prevent you from doing moves you feel entitled to do. So sorry, but that is not what an RTS is. Look to board games and turn-based strategy games and "RTS" games that are so slow that you could make them turn-based without anyone noticing.
In this post I'll try to elaborate only on factual (in my opinion) errors from your post, if you interested of course.
On March 26 2008 17:45 mahnini wrote: Microing takes strategy, tactics, and speed. Macro takes strategy, tactics, and speed. Yet somehow, some people consider one to be more relevant than the other.
There is two reasons why people do this, and both reasons are left outside of your post:
1. Both micro and unit production play their role throughout the game. But there is one important difference - unit production appears only periodically. With micro you can increase or decrease intensity, you can be forced by your opponent or you can force your opponent to micro. Unit production takes it place only once in XX seconds and completely fades away till another wave. Сontrary, micro phases often lead to non-stop action.
Partly, as a result, appears another important point - players can spend additional 10, 20 or much more seconds increasing effectiveness of their armies (using spells more accurately, focus-firing with groups of units, saving wounded units or scouting, etc). This is not true for unit production, spending more time on unit production rather decreases effectiveness. Although, player can improve his timing, thus improving unit production (once in XX seconds), but that's rather mental task, which almost isn't affected with mbs. As for micro, each additional second has huge potential to increase results.
2. Micro has more depth. It not just requires more complicated skills from player (as mouse precision). Micro can tear apart player attention - it can, and usually does, produce additional multitasking layers (harassing and leading your army at the same time; attacking in different directions, etc), while unit production itself is such layer and different branches of unit production are usually connected by "unit production periods" and doesn't form real multitasking subdivisions
On March 27 2008 02:00 NonY[rC] wrote: Of course macro is a strategic decision. Either you are ignoring the strategic part of macro or you are damning the parts of macro that have exact micro equivalents without also damning those micro equivalents. In the first case, I'll point out the strategic parts of macro. The timing of expansions, the timing of building probes, the timing of adding gateways and the unit ratios are all important strategical parts of macro. A mindless player whose best move is to hit 1z2d3z4d5z is absolutely guaranteed to produce a worse army than the player who intelligently starts and stops probe production, who expands at the absolutely earliest times possible, who always uses the gates he has and never builds too many and who builds perfect unit ratios. In the second case, you must think of macro in terms of micro to see their equivalents. A player who goes back to his gateways, builds new units from each, selects a probe to build 2 more gateways, selects another probe to start another nexus, and builds new probes from his nexii while telling the newly built ones to collect, is no different from a player who goes back to his units, adjusts each one into optimal positions, tells his HT's to cast their storms, drops his reavers from his shuttles, and goes to fetch his reinforcements to clean up the end of the battle. Both sets of actions are equally mundane and exciting, both can be done skillfully or idiotically, both can be done quickly or slowly, both can yield great results or spell defeat. If you think that the macro actions are so boring and mindless, then that is simply your preference.
On March 26 2008 18:48 Agone wrote: Well there are two issues with your opinion:
- first, nothing prove that the actual balance between macro and micro is good. Even above that, nothing prove that the balance between all the strategic decisions you can make is good. As it stands now, I think it's not. As it stands now, macro is not anymore a strategic decision, macro has become a pure click fest and that's the real issue: you don't need to think anymore: a protoss that has trained himself to mechanically click 1z2d3z4d5z etc is more efficient that a protoss that really take the time to think what he is going to do. Speed clicking is way more efficient that thinking; I can't count the number of games I have seen where the guy who was takiing smart and advanced strategic decision lost to the guy who concentrates on the most basic strategic decision: clicking to make more units. So MBS is not a way to decrease the importance of strategic decision, it's a way to increase the value of the most interesting ones.
The GOOD 400 apm players think at 400 apm as well as click at that speed. They've played sooooooo much that they make their decisions extremely quickly. Also, if you watch the top BW players, most of them are very smart/strategical players.
Yes, at the mid-level you have copycats but I'd be shocked if this wasn't the case in chess as well (ie people who've only memorized an opening). I don't follow chess tho, maybe I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure WC3 has this problem tho, and they have MBS and no macro to speak of (so mbs doesnt really matter).
-Secondly, how could you make a post on MBS and then say that "the UI is NOT a limitation in terms of macro". If the UI is not a limitation then changing it should have no real impact. There is obviously an issue of speed here. People doesn't want the strategic aspect of macro to be taken out; they complain that they don't have the time to macro to a point they have to renounce to macro strategy. I like the strategic aspect of the game: when the player decide to cut worker production, why and when he decide to push or to expand, what unit did he decide to use and what decision and sacrifice has he made so that those units are avalaible. I don't like to see all those subtle decisions shadowed by how fast you can click on building. When I go on chessbase.com and look at a game of Fischer, I'm amazed; I know i would never come close to his level but I found it amazing. when I look at a game of a 400 apm progamer i'm rarely amazed, and I still know i would never come close to his level. The two are highly skilled, but the skills required in the first case are more interesting; if MBS allow SC2 to favour this kind of skills, I'm all for it.
Difference between chess and SC is that SC is a physical AND mental game - a Real Time Strategy game. I'm amazed as much by smart play as I am by sheer physical ability because I appreciate the difficulty/brilliance of both.
I want the game to be physical.
Some says that broodwar is still evolving and that a good sign. On the contrary I find that broodwar evolved extremly slowly. How many years does it take to play defiler in zvt? Maybe because progamers had to train X hours a day to get used to click click click rather than to think. How can you look at progamer who have to do a lot a useless spamming just to "keep" the rythm so that they are able to click when necessary and say there are not a UI problem? How can you say that there are not a UI issue when some people trains 10 hours a day and are still not able to use efficiently spell such as feedback, by lack of time, even though it quite cost effective?
Feedback is only really useful PvP and it's not hard to use because of the spell, it's hard because of the circumstances. The reason it's not used in any other matchup, save for rare PvZs, is not because it's time consuming to use it but because the DA is expensive, frail, and has a hard time reaching the spellcasters BEFORE the actual battle, at which point it's probably too late as you're better off storming yourself (PvZ) as the defilers are gonna get their plague or swarm off anyway.
Except for PvP or PvZ /w carriers involved. PvP you have a better chance of getting some HTs before a fight.. I'm sure the DA would be more useful in WC3, or if units such as the arbiter were more prevalent in PvP. It's just that units die quickly in SC, once a HT has gotten a storm off it's done its work.
Also, I don't get your point about defilers in ZvT at all really. Do you think that with MBS zergs would have been defiler rushing right off the bat?
Units production has it stands now is too time consuming; and it detracts to much to both the strategic and the tactic decisions you can make in this game. Less robots, more thinker, thanks in advance.
There are already many other changes made to simplify the UI; unlimited unit selection, smart-cast, auto-mining. And besides, do you really think MBS being added will really change anything?
No, there will still be robots, they just won't be macro-specialized robots (cuz everyone will have perfect production, physical production anyway) - they'll have memorized build orders and perfect micro.
And they will do good. Not great, but good. Same as in BW. Same as in WC3 (from what I understand). The only way to change this would be to massively change the requirements of playing an RTS, making it either silly deep or turning it into a turn-based game.
MBS is not magically going to kill off players who are not creative..
On March 26 2008 23:38 Senix wrote: Thats exactly what we should NOT do. Dont pray for something to happen MAKE it happen. Warcraft 3 is a "fantastic" game and Blizzard wasnt afraid to make "fundamental" changes. AWESOME! Good that we all had faith in Blizzard now they made the new best RTS ... oh wait..
Now is the chance to voice our opinions and we should do that and not "have faith in Blizzard" that failed to deliver already. We´re talking about Starcraft 2 here not Pokemon Alpha 2B.
This MBS issue will be a big one. Either Blizzard will go with the mainstream and use MBS or not and that will certainly have consequences on future RTS games when SC2 is successful.
You are correct. Because with Warcraft III, they certainly wanted to recapture the feeling of Warcraft 2 and not make any fundamental changes, yet they did. And because of this, the game didn't become great - no one played it and no professional scene ever evolved. The game wasn't even allowed into the WSG.
The scary thing is, with Starcraft 2, they've said that they want to make fundamental changes to the gameplay. They don't want the Koreans to continue dominating, so they will be adding tons of new features to the game to make it feel like a completely new game. No refinement here, it's almost as if they looked at BW and tried to diverge the design as much as possible from it in order to make the game look "cool" for newbs.
Blizzard has failed us, time and again. Remember the crazy larval respawnrate? Who nerfed that? Blizzard did! Remember that clickycklickycklicky game called Diablo II? Blizzard's fault. The abomination Warcraft III? World of Warcraft? Somehow Blizzard's lost touch with reality. Who would want to play *as* a character from Warcraft III? That game sucked.
StarCraft II is bound to fail if they implement MBS.
Here's one thing I dont think people appreciate enough.
Modern BW is way too macro focused.
FE builds absolutely dominate. Low econ builds are all but dead in modern BW. Now this may not be because of SBS and having to build depots/workers/sendworkerstomins, but consider another thing about what it means to be too "macro focused":
A lot of unit micro and potential is lost simply because they are too "micro-intensive" to be worth it. That is, they require an investment of concentration that is not worth it considering how much attention you are REQUIRED to always devote to babysitting your base. For example, queens. Ensnare should really be so useful in ZvT and to a lesser extent parasite, and its a cheap unit whose tech building is required. The primary knock against it? Its too micro intensive. Same with ghosts. Same with a lot of maneuevers that simply aren't done because it takes away time that you should be spamming 5t6t7t8t9t0t to make tanks- e.g. optimal spreading of tank formations, optimal positioning of armies. To me that seems like a more interesting development to work on than losing things like that due to the need to devote so much time and concentration on the base doing purely mechanical, entirely uninteresting macro clicking.
Progamers often WON'T optimally manage battles or even try to because the attention to that doesn't pay off as much as pouring attention into your base. Imagine if you could multitask in such a way as to manage 3-4 different armies at once across the map in a very interesting fashion? To me that would be a great development, one that would be just as multitask intensive as managing 1-2 armies and going back to your base, but a lot more interesting because its not just purely mechanical.
On March 26 2008 23:38 Senix wrote: Thats exactly what we should NOT do. Dont pray for something to happen MAKE it happen. Warcraft 3 is a "fantastic" game and Blizzard wasnt afraid to make "fundamental" changes. AWESOME! Good that we all had faith in Blizzard now they made the new best RTS ... oh wait..
If you don't like it, that doesn't mean it's bad. And WC3 is RTS/RPG. First and only successful RTS/RPG on such level.
I´m rating "successful" in comparison to Starcraft not other RTS games. C&C TW is probably successful in some ways too you know but nothing compared to Starcraft. Warcraft 3 isnt BAD. Starcraft 2 wont be BAD. But I want Starcraft 2 to be the next BEST RTS. I dont want second place. I want a game that´s worthy of the Starcraft brand.
I think by now everybody should know what people mean when they say "no Warcraft 3 plz". I mean you´re saying that Warcraft3 isn´t bad but you´re still playing Starcraft aren´t you?
The MBS thread carries a very dangerous stigma, "express your opinions here", it's where people go to fling shit. Not only that, there are five different convos going on at the same time. As well as making an MBS argument I'm outlining the anti-MBS definition of macro, and attempting to explain rather than fling shit with people. Do I think my opinion of MBS matters more than others? No. I think my explanation of what macro is substantial in and of itself.
Weak.
You get to fling the first volley of shit is all. You do it under the guise of "explaining". We're all trying to explain our positions, to define terms, to establish the guidelines of the argument. It just so happens your "brilliant' "explanation" is above shit flinging.
Weak.
I think your explanation of Macro is decent, but giving yourself a whole thread is wholly and completely self-centered.
As far as your argument goes, it adds nothing to the debate. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said already, and collating a few points into a single argument is hardly grounds for a whole new thread.
Your points are weak anyway. You've failed to address the main Pro-MBS argument. You've made all sorts of examples about choosing to upgrade or expand or produce, without acknowledging that MBS DOES NOT impact those decisions.
MBS has no impact on substantive decision making of macro insofar as when to produce vs expand is concerned. It eliminates the split of a decision to create a unit wave into multiple parts.
The impact of this elimination is one that you've only briefly touched upon.
The UI is not a limitation. - this whole section is bunk. Casting 8 Psi Storms is 10X more difficult than producing 8 units. The consideration of outguessing the Zerg's army positioning with timing it isn't even close to 16 reptative clicks.
You've failed to defend why those reptative clicks are as important as ones involving timing, strategy and decision making.
I should make a game for all of the old Starcraft die-hards to play after Blizzard ruins all of their fun. It would be a clockwork RTS, where all of the units and buildings need to be wound up with mouse clicks, and they wind down after a few seconds, so you have to spend all of your time zipping around the map, frantically winding all of their springs.
On March 27 2008 03:14 Funchucks wrote: I should make a game for all of the old Starcraft die-hards to play after Blizzard ruins all of their fun. It would be a clockwork RTS, where all of the units and buildings need to be wound up with mouse clicks, and they wind down after a few seconds, so you have to spend all of your time zipping around the map, frantically winding all of their springs.
On March 27 2008 03:14 Funchucks wrote: I should make a game for all of the old Starcraft die-hards to play after Blizzard ruins all of their fun. It would be a clockwork RTS, where all of the units and buildings need to be wound up with mouse clicks, and they wind down after a few seconds, so you have to spend all of your time zipping around the map, frantically winding all of their springs.
It's a good idea and all, I'm just not sure requires quite enough clicking.
At first I was a little disgruntled like the rest and said to myself, "Oh no, not again!", but I was pleasantly surprised by your work. With all the clutter of utter crap in the other MBS threads I think this one does deserve it's own thread for that reason alone.
No one and I mean no one wants to follow the crap many of you spew in the those other threads!! Could you not tell!?!?! Why do you think it is always the same boneheads posting the same old arguments and other BS?!?!
No one follows the rules and no one wants to deal with those who cannot look at both sides of the coin. There is no point in arguing with some of you because you simply don't understand the material or attempt to.
I'm glad many of our old vets are posting again, but it's time to give up. These guys simply don't understand and most likely will never understand your sound arguments.
What mahnini wrote is right to the point and it should be simple for most people to understand. Look for all the loop holes you want.
The MBS thread carries a very dangerous stigma, "express your opinions here", it's where people go to fling shit. Not only that, there are five different convos going on at the same time. As well as making an MBS argument I'm outlining the anti-MBS definition of macro, and attempting to explain rather than fling shit with people. Do I think my opinion of MBS matters more than others? No. I think my explanation of what macro is substantial in and of itself.
Weak.
You get to fling the first volley of shit is all. You do it under the guise of "explaining". We're all trying to explain our positions, to define terms, to establish the guidelines of the argument. It just so happens your "brilliant' "explanation" is above shit flinging.
Weak.
I think your explanation of Macro is decent, but giving yourself a whole thread is wholly and completely self-centered.
As far as your argument goes, it adds nothing to the debate. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said already, and collating a few points into a single argument is hardly grounds for a whole new thread.
Your points are weak anyway. You've failed to address the main Pro-MBS argument. You've made all sorts of examples about choosing to upgrade or expand or produce, without acknowledging that MBS DOES NOT impact those decisions.
MBS has no impact on substantive decision making of macro insofar as when to produce vs expand is concerned. It eliminates the split of a decision to create a unit wave into multiple parts.
The impact of this elimination is one that you've only briefly touched upon.
The UI is not a limitation. - this whole section is bunk. Casting 8 Psi Storms is 10X more difficult than producing 8 units. The consideration of outguessing the Zerg's army positioning with timing it isn't even close to 16 reptative clicks.
You've failed to defend why those reptative clicks are as important as ones involving timing, strategy and decision making.
I don't care, seriously. If people don't think this thread is substantial enough then they will let it die, and that's that.
From your points though, it's pretty fucking obvious you haven't read my post at all.
1. Fine, can some mod please change it to Macro: As I See it.
2. I don't really want this to turn into an MBS debate, even though I've sort of led to it. I want to discuss / inform what macro is, with a side order of MBS opinion that goes well with my explanation.
3. I never said MBS had an impact on expanding. It might have an impact on running expansion but not the act of expanding in and of itself.
4. How does telling me "storming is difficult" prove that the UI is skill limitation on unit production. If anything, storming is harder because there is more payoff. Does this somehow mean requiring a player to stop storming and start making units is null and void? If anything this complements the storm ability by compounding your advantage if a player does not choose to replenish his units.
5. Timing does not involve repetitive clicks, neither does strategy, and neither does decision making. Unit production, choosing to ignore micro or vice versa, involves strategy / decision making and timing.
What I'm trying to explain is what macro, more specifically, unit production is and how it DOES impact the game. My conclusions are just a small portion of my post, I don't see anyone arguing my main points, just the fact I disagree with MBS. Guess what, my entire post is both reason and explanation which is why the conclusion is there in the first place.
On March 27 2008 03:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Why is this thread still open? The SCII section is bad as it is without TWO threads on MBS...
What about when it had 5 in the beggining?
I think most senior posters thougth it was "unreadable". I don't think it was that bad but it certainly made your eyes bleed a bit.
I go to the SCII section to find whats new about SCII and to find threads on different aspects of the development. If I want to find the MBS discussion I know where to find it. Most of the time I don't want to find it.
For all the OP's huffing and puffing this is just a recycled pro-MBS post which everyone who has waded through the last 5 threads instantly recognize. Furthermore it completly disregards the most important pro-MBS points that are there and catergorises the entire pro-MBS side as noobs, something that the real thread had pretty much gotten over by now.
There's no real reason to keep this thread open, just repost the OP into MBS IV and close it. The consensus seems to be "wait for the beta" and "trust in Blizzard" rigth now either way, having multiple threads with the same shit in them is not going to change that.
On March 26 2008 17:45 mahnini wrote: The problem with MBS. I guess this is what it all comes down to right? MBS takes away the need to multitask both mentally and physically. It takes away the tactical strategy of macroing over micro or microing over macro. The need to make this decision on a frequent basis and, more often than not, in a frantic frenzy makes it the connection between the mental and physical aspects of the game. With MBS the balance between mental and physical, grand strategy and mechanics, strategy and tactics, and macro and micro are all completely thrown off and pro-MBSers seem to not care or not understand.
I've posted this elsewhere, but as you summarized, MBS takes away the rhythmic feel of macro cycles by allowing you to just spam hotkeys without taking your screen away from your units. If you remove the hotkeys from the MBS, then does that not solve the problem?
-Allow multiple buildings to be selected at the same time only by double-click or ctrl-click on a single building (i.e. select all visible buildings) OR by shift clicking multiple buildings to add to your selection.
-NO drag selection for buildings to make diverse unit production impossible without using SBS
-Allow either hotkey of max one building at a time OR remove hotkeys for buildings altogether (to keep the UI consistent)
MBS PROS: - More user-friendly; better suited to both new and casual players; shorter learning curve - The UI standard in RTS today; won't feel outdated - Makes rally points and warp gate usage much more practical
CONS: - Reduces multitasking requirement (both mental and physical) - Shifts the macro-micro balance away from the macro side of the scale (could also be a pro depending on point of view) - Amplifies the effect of auto-mining by allowing all nexus to be selected together
MBS (hotkey max 1 building at a time) PROS: - Retains multitasking requirement - Inflexible system for producing a specific mix of desired units from a single building type once you have more than 5 production buildings --> must click individually when fine-tuning is required - Will not necessarily feel out of place for new or casual players, because vast majority of players people who are new to RTS do not use hotkeys for buildings. (i.e. Dustin Browder's interview of how he selects all of his buildings each time he had to build) - Similar to SC for first ~8 mins of game (while # of hotkeys are still sufficient for unit production buildings) - Will never allow you to select more than one nexus at a time --> no amplification of auto-mining - Makes rally points and warp gate usage much more practical - Invalidates the "repetitive clicking as primary skill" criticism of the UI from most uninformed players
CONS: - UI may feel unintuitive (However, the people who would complain about it, would actually dislike SBS far more, even if it is more intuitive).
IMO, unhotkeyable MBS is a good compromise of the UI for both the casual and the competitive scene. It retains the multitasking (forcing you to return to your base), while removing the "cloning" of the repeated building clicks that is the primary criticism of SBS by uninformed players.
Both mental and physical requirements are still in the game, it's just that instead of taking about 1 second to produce 8 zealots from 8 gateways, it now takes 0.2 seconds. If you need a mix of say 5 stalkers and 3 zealots, you STILL NEED TO USE SBS to take 1 second to click through all your buildings.
Now explain to me what the problem is with this solution. Don't just knock down the obviously uninformed pro-MBS posts and make yourself look superior that way (look how everyone sprung up to counter Agone's post). Plus, you can't always have it your way in this world no matter how justified you think you are, sometimes there has to be compromise. That's life.
MBS is in WC3 and the pros barely ever use it. While SC and WC3 are very different games, it just goes to show that the better players will always emerge on top. The difference between a chobo and a gosu might not be as big in SC2 as it was in SC, but their will always be a skill gape.
That being said, I am anti-MBS for a variety of reasons. But thinking that the difference between player skill will become less just because of MBS is not one of them. Blizzard will work it out. I have faith.
As a Zerg player, I am really tired of having all of my hotkeys caught up in hatcheries instead of unit groups. I hate having to decide whether to put a new expo on a hotkey or keep a unit group or whatever...and MBS would be extremely handy. I could have certain sets of hatcheries (main, expos, etc) hotkeyed together and...it would be easier. And I could focus more on selecting my units and hotkeying them.
Because it takes a lot of hotkeys to control 40+ zerglings...which brings me to the topic of unlimited unit selection...wait, nvm, I'll keep that pandora's box closed.
On March 26 2008 20:18 geno wrote: My second conclusion has been said many times: have some faith in Blizzard. This issue is likely just as, if not more important to them than it is to us. As I've said in a previous post, Blizzard is known for not being afraid to make very fundamental changes during a Beta, and I wouldn't be the least surprised if methods of unit production was one such change. I'm sure they will make a fantastic game when all is said and done, and in general, people need to not worry as much.
Thats exactly what we should NOT do. Dont pray for something to happen MAKE it happen. Warcraft 3 is a "fantastic" game and Blizzard wasnt afraid to make "fundamental" changes. AWESOME! Good that we all had faith in Blizzard now they made the new best RTS ... oh wait..
Now is the chance to voice our opinions and we should do that and not "have faith in Blizzard" that failed to deliver already. We´re talking about Starcraft 2 here not Pokemon Alpha 2B.
This MBS issue will be a big one. Either Blizzard will go with the mainstream and use MBS or not and that will certainly have consequences on future RTS games when SC2 is successful.
I sort of responded to this here so I'm not going to elaborate much. I do think you misunderstand me though. Also: You are far too critical of WC3. The game was definitely successful, which is all the more impressive if one feels that no RTS can be competitive with heroes, items, upkeep, and MBS. Features like heroes and items weren't going to be removed simply because people wanted another Starcraft level competitive game. You should be impressed that they managed to make the game as competitive as it is without having to revert to basic Starcraft idealogy in a Warcraft game.
Also just to note, the "fundamental" changes during beta that I am referencing are to their more recent WoW expansions. I don't actually play WoW, but I've heard anecdotal evidence to support that claim (and having played a different MMO for awhile, I'm fairly aware as to how fundamental certain types of changes can be in a game like that).
On March 27 2008 03:41 mahnini wrote: I don't care, seriously. If people don't think this thread is substantial enough then they will let it die, and that's that.
From your points though, it's pretty fucking obvious you haven't read my post at all.
1. Fine, can some mod please change it to Macro: As I See it.
2. I don't really want this to turn into an MBS debate, even though I've sort of led to it. I want to discuss / inform what macro is, with a side order of MBS opinion that goes well with my explanation.
...
What I'm trying to explain is what macro, more specifically, unit production is and how it DOES impact the game. My conclusions are just a small portion of my post, I don't see anyone arguing my main points, just the fact I disagree with MBS. Guess what, my entire post is both reason and explanation which is why the conclusion is there in the first place.
That thread was very much like this one, an attempt to define macro and explain why it will be important in SC2, and how MBS relates to it. Whats more, the OPs posts were from a pro-MBS stance, creating a perfect opportunity for an in-depth anti-MBS response to the claims on macro.
On March 27 2008 06:42 TheOvermind77 wrote: As a Zerg player, I am really tired of having all of my hotkeys caught up in hatcheries instead of unit groups. I hate having to decide whether to put a new expo on a hotkey or keep a unit group or whatever...and MBS would be extremely handy. I could have certain sets of hatcheries (main, expos, etc) hotkeyed together and...it would be easier. And I could focus more on selecting my units and hotkeying them.
Because it takes a lot of hotkeys to control 40+ zerglings...which brings me to the topic of unlimited unit selection...wait, nvm, I'll keep that pandora's box closed.
I'm actually surprised MBS has drawn so much more criticism than both UUS and Automine. I mean, surely being able to move your army out and get them into hotkeys right after they are produced is an extremely demanding skill (I know I can't do it efficiently). Its strange that people do not complain about a noob being able to have his whole army moving the same way a noob would be able to macro. (I know that my first post disagrees with these arguments. I'm just saying that I'm surprised I don't hear the arguments in the first place)
On March 27 2008 03:41 mahnini wrote: I don't care, seriously. If people don't think this thread is substantial enough then they will let it die, and that's that.
From your points though, it's pretty fucking obvious you haven't read my post at all.
1. Fine, can some mod please change it to Macro: As I See it.
2. I don't really want this to turn into an MBS debate, even though I've sort of led to it. I want to discuss / inform what macro is, with a side order of MBS opinion that goes well with my explanation.
...
What I'm trying to explain is what macro, more specifically, unit production is and how it DOES impact the game. My conclusions are just a small portion of my post, I don't see anyone arguing my main points, just the fact I disagree with MBS. Guess what, my entire post is both reason and explanation which is why the conclusion is there in the first place.
That thread was very much like this one, an attempt to define macro and explain why it will be important in SC2, and how MBS relates to it. Whats more, the OPs posts were from a pro-MBS stance, creating a perfect opportunity for an in-depth anti-MBS response to the claims on macro.
I haven't seen that before or maybe I just don't remember. The format is pretty similar but the content included is extremely different.
I don't think this thread is going anywhere, feel free to close, etc.
i basically agree with the OP, but most of the BW players will blindly be against MBS because with it, a huge part of BW is taken away. See thats the problem, they/we think of SC2 as BW. What if blizzard manages to incorporate a whole new dimension? ...one that could make SC2 as hard to master as BW... Coz, it seems to me that the main worry is that the game will have less things to master with MBS in place. It doesnt have to be that way, new things can be added.
You see, BW is not the only way to make a good game. Just because this game is so awesome doesnt mean Blizzard shouldnt try to make a game as unique and as awesome as BW, but in a different way. It'd be lame if an artist would simply polish the same old hitsong melody all the time. Sometimes you have to make a change. Personally, i'd be happiest if SC2's gameplay turns out to be different from that of BW. But equally good.
We now have 10yr old Gold in our hands. You take some protons and electrons, you get Carbon. You play with it a bit more, you might get Diamond.
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.
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?
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 ....
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
don't get me wrong though, i read it. on MBS i don't really care how it goes down. MBS would be a nice new feature that would help me play much better. But even if it doesn't, the same challenge of BW, and the goal to reach uber frantic strategy/tactic control will be there too. i never got into fast APM, so i probably don't appreciate it to the depth people who have do.
I'd rather see the thor become a thor again, and get individual upgrades like the BC... and know how we can get a hold of betas!
I don't follow the MBS discussion, though I appreciate that there's been a long-standing fued of sorts.
I think it comes down to your philosophy about real-time strategy games. I feel that the optimum interface is seamless; being able to move the units with your mind would be ideal. In that sense, MBS makes sense. I see any abstraction from the interface as ideal.
However, if you believe that the athleticism and dexterity required to master current-generation RTS are inherently important, I could understand your revilement of MBS. But then I ask, what is your ideal? How do you decide which granularity of control is the best? Is Starcraft as-is the ideal? Why, other than that you've already mastered them?
We don't need to fight, anti-MBSers; we just disagree on our ideals. I think it would be interesting to see it with a toggle option, personally.
In any game of Brood War, a player must establish a rhythm to his playing. SBS serves to force the player constantly flipping his view from army to base and back again.
The only supposed replacement for this so far is to have multiple front harassment and attacks. But the truth is that players don't do that all the time, and there's no way the game itself can make multi-tasking attacks optimal.
Also, it means every meaningful action undertaken by the player is military, which belies Brood War's beauty is a game of economy, fighting, and strategy, rather than a specific focus on any of them.
Assuming clean macro, keyboard unit production is entirely satisfactory to the demands of macro, a line of supply depots can be queued, and 0s takes care of economy. The only actions left are to upgrade and fight.
Arguments have also been made that pros will return to base to get an optimal unit base, an argument I find absurd.
Optimal macro with optimal micro is far far better than Optimal unit mix. Thus Clean MBS favors a player who hovers over his army, which interrupts the Rhythmic play of Brood War in favor of a static military game.
On March 28 2008 03:55 Tinithor wrote: The game thrives as an e-Sport at the moment because it is difficult. Do not make it easier...
If it becomes too easy, they should add a different macro aspect, but not remove MBS, as it is a real improvement by itself (just like being able to select more than 1 unit was in the past). It also allows for new features not possible with SBS, namely microing cannons and being able to use warp gates, phase prisms and rally points in a useful way (it would take way too long using SBS).
Yes they should add a different macro aspect, but have they? No. Also you only mention stuff for protoss to do. What about the other races. Also i think that defensive buildings should not be relied on so much and dont need to be microed that much....
On March 28 2008 03:52 HeadBangaa wrote: I don't follow the MBS discussion, though I appreciate that there's been a long-standing fued of sorts.
I think it comes down to your philosophy about real-time strategy games. I feel that the optimum interface is seamless; being able to move the units with your mind would be ideal. In that sense, MBS makes sense. I see any abstraction from the interface as ideal.
However, if you believe that the athleticism and dexterity required to master current-generation RTS are inherently important, I could understand your revilement of MBS. But then I ask, what is your ideal? How do you decide which granularity of control is the best? Is Starcraft as-is the ideal? Why, other than that you've already mastered them?
We don't need to fight, anti-MBSers; we just disagree on our ideals. I think it would be interesting to see it with a toggle option, personally.
The toggle would never work. Once a new player begins to play with MBS, and then he falls in love with the game and wishes to be competitive with that game he's fallen in love with (read: every new player and warcraft 3 player), we'd have a split in the competitive community. And since the people who want MBS vastly outnumber those who don't, the anti-MBS competitive community would eventually dwindle and die.
as for the debate itself, i find it really quite interesting. I've not really picked a side.
I know the following as truths: 1) I love Starcraft. I love the pacing, i love the professional scene, i love the depth, i love the physical demands, i love everything about Starcraft. I even love the fact that i can never be truly amazing at it, because my hands will never match the speed of my thoughts. 2) I know that MBS will make the game alot easier. It will shift the balance between physical and mental demands. I think that is scary. 3) I love other games - albeit none as much as Starcraft - and i might love Starcraft 2 for not being Starcraft. I might love it the way i wanted to love Warcraft3 before i realized how incredibly shallow the game was. Maybe Starcraft 2 will be the Chess of RTS.
I'm gonna have to sit tight, and while i probably shouldn't, i'm going to be holding my breath. If they dare to take the Sport out of Starcraft, in order to satisfy me, the game will have to be immeasurably deep and robust. If i can master and execute strategies in but a fraction of the time and effort that i could in Starcraft, i better have an opposite and equal expansion in the other direction of strategical variety. I just don't know how they're going to accomplish that. I don't know if i can imagine that much a deeper game than the original Starcraft.
edit - i just wanted to add that at this point in time, i believe Starcraft 2 will not be the E-Sport that Starcraft is. I'm already mourning the death of Starcraft. I'm hoping to get that out of the way so that when Starcraft 2 finally comes out, i will harbor no resentment, and will be able to love the game for what it is.
On March 28 2008 01:55 Klogon wrote: 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.
Well your point is well made, though your Tic-Tac-Toe analogy is obviously flawed because of its exaggeration, but of course the exaggeration is there to make a point. So I understand that.
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.
I'm still for splitting the ladder, thats where I stand. I'd like more debate to go in this direction.. because I think it makes the most sense even though its been mentioned before.
@Mora, if the anti-MBS community dwindles and dies as a result of the split, isn't that simply to say that, "it was never meant to be?" Isn't MBS, the the eyes of korean pro scene followers, the bane of esports? So shouldn't the anti-MBS community actualy thrive? It may be a niche community, but I could hardly see it dying, for the same reasons why Starcraft1 isn't dead.. or even the really old Total Annihilation community? And if it does die, then again obviously it wasn't very important if people simply outright reject it.
At least in eyes of anti-MBS people, their way is "best" for competitive play. And the people that play ladder tend to be competitive players, maybe newbs to begin with, but with the competitive mentally to defeat their opponents as opposed to UMS people. So if anti-MBS people are correct, based on their logic, the people playing ladder should at least with time gravitate towards the anti-MBS ladder/toggle. And again if they are correct, the competitive playability will be terrible with MBS so people playing normal ladder will "master" the game too easily and it won't be fun.. so they should naturally gravitate to play in anti-MBS mode right?
On March 28 2008 04:34 Tinithor wrote: Yes they should add a different macro aspect, but have they? No. Also you only mention stuff for protoss to do. What about the other races. Also i think that defensive buildings should not be relied on so much and dont need to be microed that much....
Yes, they would have to change that then. I just wanted to say that at least theoretically MBS is a good thing. I am aware that it might not work out in practice, but I hope so.
As for your last sentence, I can imagine P and T using defensive structures slightly more than in SC1. P because of the mobility of the phase cannons (they'll be especially powerful when you can manually select all cannons and focus fire on something, whether you use them for defense or offense (cannon rush)), and T because of the salvageable bunkers (so it's not a big economic impact to spend money on a few bunkers). Z is a different story, they have the upgradeable queen which can teleport between hatcheries, so base defense is radically different from SC1 there anyway. Should not be a disadvantage then, as they are designed to not have sunkens/spores anymore.
On March 28 2008 04:34 Tinithor wrote: Yes they should add a different macro aspect, but have they? No. Also you only mention stuff for protoss to do. What about the other races. Also i think that defensive buildings should not be relied on so much and dont need to be microed that much....
Yes, they would have to change that then. I just wanted to say that at least theoretically MBS is a good thing. I am aware that it might not work out in practice, but I hope so.
As for your last sentence, I can imagine P and T using defensive structures slightly more than in SC1. P because of the mobility of the phase cannons (they'll be especially powerful when you can manually select all cannons and focus fire on something, whether you use them for defense or offense (cannon rush)), and T because of the salvageable bunkers (so it's not a big economic impact to spend money on a few bunkers). Z is a different story, they have the upgradeable queen which can teleport between hatcheries, so base defense is radically different from SC1 there anyway. Should not be a disadvantage then, as they are designed to not have sunkens/spores anymore.
or, you know, players could select each cannon individually and order it to attack
On March 28 2008 04:57 fusionsdf wrote: or, you know, players could select each cannon individually and order it to attack
Yes, but that's one of the controversial aspects of this debate... What is too easy, and what is too hard/uncomfortable to do? Imagine the situation 12 marines vs. 2-4 lurkers in a narrow space (i.e. your marines have to run), you could click each marine and click to move away, and do so for each marine seperately, or you could select them all and move them all at once. Obviously, you'll always choose the latter option because it's easier to do so (and you'll lose less marines in the process). Microing cannons without MBS is, from what I can tell, too "hard" to do, so no one does it. It just takes too many clicks, so you rather concentrate on something else and rely on the cannon's targeting AI (which can be abused by your opponent by sending in a useless unit first).
On March 27 2008 23:27 FrozenArbiter wrote: 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 [...] People expand and build new bases now as well, where's the change?
The thing that you didn't understand, partly because I wasn't clear about it, is that today people do NOT do all these things in BW. At least not as accurately as they would have want. Every now and then you'll watch a game of a 400+ apm korean pro who just 4 science vessels to scourges because he was carelessly clicking on buildings for 3 seconds. Or that other guy who lost half his main force out in the field because they got stormed while he was cycling through all 5 expos making sure no drone was standing. Gosh I remember a month ago Bisu lost over 20 probes running right into jaedong's army. I'm sure you have seen something similar for yourself, I suppose we all agree this is true.
Another thing that I wasn't really clear about. Is that MBS won't change your apm, meaning the number of actions you CAN do per seconds won't change. Today, a huge bunch of the total actions you make are "4z5z6z7z8z9z0z", clicking buildings, cycling through expos telling drones to do the same thing you told his ancestors to do. With MBS, automine and all the easy-mode you would be free of that huge bunch of actions. But you still have your same apm, your speed didn't change, you can do more. What will you do with that spare time? Are you gonna run out of things to do, cross your arms and don't do anything? This is another discussion, I remember in another thread someone mentioned that MBS could lead to reaching the "skill cap". But I personally don't think that makes sense. I believe sc (and sc2 will follow) is such a complex game, where you will never run out of things to do. With or without mbs.
Of course it depends on match up. If your contended your less likely to attack at different fronts. But I honestly don't think you'll ever run out of things to do. If you had 400apm, an army of 30 units and no buildings to click, what would you do? Well I know I would come up with hundreds of things to do. I could constant harass his main containment with ranged hit and runs. I could do some fake drops from behind. Do some real drops on expos. I could try and do all those at the same time. I could try some new bold strat I just came up with. What I would not do would be reduce my apm because I'm out of buildings to click, that I wouldn't do.
Which leads to another point
why Pro-MBS = [micro+strategy]. Micro I can see, strategy, not so much? MBS is not magically gonna allow for more strategy..
I won't magically allow more strategy. It will slowly evolve into new. bold and more dynamic strategies. Because you're not so worried with "I need to perfectly practice my 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z so I don't lose my army to storms while I'm busy clicking buildings for 3 seconds".
One good example was talked about by someone in this same thread. Defilers, a long time ago, was completely underused. And it took a good 3 or 4 years of professional broodwar for the first few defilers to show up. You might think that is a good timing, but imho that is way too late. Defilers are such an obvious counter to Terran late game, why didn't progamers try it? Imo they didn't try it because they were too busy trying to perfect old strats before trying new ones. Why try some new bold strat that could work, when I know that if I just do this same thing I've been doing, but faster, I'll win? First, I'll beat these UI obstacles, then I might try new bold stuff.
Consequently: The harder the interface. The longer it will take for new strategies to arise. MBS will not magically make new strats come up. But it will help. It will help those strats come up faster. Faster than what they would come with too many UI obstacles.
"MBS will make the game easier" is actually a reeaaally relative thing to say. It will make the INTERFACE easier. It will game easier to learn. But not necessarily easier to master. At the end it all boils down to finding a balance. A balance between what is fast enough, what is easy enough to learn and hard enough to master. Too easy games lose interest too fast, too hard games are not interesting at all. Like Klogon said in this same thread:
On March 28 2008 01:55 Klogon wrote: It depends on what you value in a sport, if we define gaming to be a sport now. [...] 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. [...] 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. [...] Starcraft is an e-sport with certain skill sets that are valued. Speed just happens to be one of them. [...] 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.
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?
On March 26 2008 18:48 Agone wrote: Well there are two issues with your opinion:
- first, nothing prove that the actual balance between macro and micro is good. Even above that, nothing prove that the balance between all the strategic decisions you can make is good. As it stands now, I think it's not. As it stands now, macro is not anymore a strategic decision, macro has become a pure click fest and that's the real issue: you don't need to think anymore: a protoss that has trained himself to mechanically click 1z2d3z4d5z etc is more efficient that a protoss that really take the time to think what he is going to do. Speed clicking is way more efficient that thinking; I can't count the number of games I have seen where the guy who was takiing smart and advanced strategic decision lost to the guy who concentrates on the most basic strategic decision: clicking to make more units. So MBS is not a way to decrease the importance of strategic decision, it's a way to increase the value of the most interesting ones.
-Secondly, how could you make a post on MBS and then say that "the UI is NOT a limitation in terms of macro". If the UI is not a limitation then changing it should have no real impact. There is obviously an issue of speed here. People doesn't want the strategic aspect of macro to be taken out; they complain that they don't have the time to macro to a point they have to renounce to macro strategy. I like the strategic aspect of the game: when the player decide to cut worker production, why and when he decide to push or to expand, what unit did he decide to use and what decision and sacrifice has he made so that those units are avalaible. I don't like to see all those subtle decisions shadowed by how fast you can click on building. When I go on chessbase.com and look at a game of Fischer, I'm amazed; I know i would never come close to his level but I found it amazing. when I look at a game of a 400 apm progamer i'm rarely amazed, and I still know i would never come close to his level. The two are highly skilled, but the skills required in the first case are more interesting; if MBS allow SC2 to favour this kind of skills, I'm all for it.
Some says that broodwar is still evolving and that a good sign. On the contrary I find that broodwar evolved extremly slowly. How many years does it take to play defiler in zvt? Maybe because progamers had to train X hours a day to get used to click click click rather than to think. How can you look at progamer who have to do a lot a useless spamming just to "keep" the rythm so that they are able to click when necessary and say there are not a UI problem? How can you say that there are not a UI issue when some people trains 10 hours a day and are still not able to use efficiently spell such as feedback, by lack of time, even though it quite cost effective?
Units production has it stands now is too time consuming; and it detracts to much to both the strategic and the tactic decisions you can make in this game. Less robots, more thinker, thanks in advance.
Could we just ban them all or is it a fight eternal in nature?
On March 27 2008 23:27 FrozenArbiter wrote: 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 [...] People expand and build new bases now as well, where's the change?
The thing that you didn't understand, partly because I wasn't clear about it, is that today people do NOT do all these things in BW. At least not as accurately as they would have want. Every now and then you'll watch a game of a 400+ apm korean pro who just 4 science vessels to scourges because he was carelessly clicking on buildings for 3 seconds. Or that other guy who lost half his main force out in the field because they got stormed while he was cycling through all 5 expos making sure no drone was standing. Gosh I remember a month ago Bisu lost over 20 probes running right into jaedong's army. I'm sure you have seen something similar for yourself, I suppose we all agree this is true.
This will still happen. Only difference is he'll be busy setting up an expansion or moving some units from a rally point instead.
Another thing that I wasn't really clear about. Is that MBS won't change your apm, meaning the number of actions you CAN do per seconds won't change. Today, a huge bunch of the total actions you make are "4z5z6z7z8z9z0z", clicking buildings, cycling through expos telling drones to do the same thing you told his ancestors to do. With MBS, automine and all the easy-mode you would be free of that huge bunch of actions. But you still have your same apm, your speed didn't change, you can do more. What will you do with that spare time? Are you gonna run out of things to do, cross your arms and don't do anything? This is another discussion, I remember in another thread someone mentioned that MBS could lead to reaching the "skill cap". But I personally don't think that makes sense. I believe sc (and sc2 will follow) is such a complex game, where you will never run out of things to do. With or without mbs.
Of course it depends on match up. If your contended your less likely to attack at different fronts. But I honestly don't think you'll ever run out of things to do. If you had 400apm, an army of 30 units and no buildings to click, what would you do? Well I know I would come up with hundreds of things to do. I could constant harass his main containment with ranged hit and runs. I could do some fake drops from behind. Do some real drops on expos. I could try and do all those at the same time. I could try some new bold strat I just came up with. What I would not do would be reduce my apm because I'm out of buildings to click, that I wouldn't do.
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. 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.
Also, constantly harassing him with ranged units uh.. You mean like every pro zerg does now with mutalisks WHILE producing from all his hatcheries? Either he doesn't have enough defences and you will be able to harass, or he has too many and no amount of APM is gonna let you harass. I don't think the amount of time MBS will free up will translate into a vastly improved harass etc. Yes, some will, but I think it will lead to some 'dead' actions/time.
why Pro-MBS = [micro+strategy]. Micro I can see, strategy, not so much? MBS is not magically gonna allow for more strategy..
I won't magically allow more strategy. It will slowly evolve into new. bold and more dynamic strategies. Because you're not so worried with "I need to perfectly practice my 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z so I don't lose my army to storms while I'm busy clicking buildings for 3 seconds".
One good example was talked about by someone in this same thread. Defilers, a long time ago, was completely underused. And it took a good 3 or 4 years of professional broodwar for the first few defilers to show up. You might think that is a good timing, but imho that is way too late. Defilers are such an obvious counter to Terran late game, why didn't progamers try it? Imo they didn't try it because they were too busy trying to perfect old strats before trying new ones. Why try some new bold strat that could work, when I know that if I just do this same thing I've been doing, but faster, I'll win? First, I'll beat these UI obstacles, then I might try new bold stuff.
I don't know why it took so long, but the first few years the game was constantly changing because of patches and the expansion, add in the fact that there were no replays and a tiny professional scene and you have a lot of reasons for why the evolution didn't happen overnight.
The old zerg styles worked well enough, the majority of people are not going to be innovators, so you have to wait until someone who is appears. All-in all I don't think it took that long. Defiler rushes took quite some time (have to remember TvZ looked a lot different from the terran side as well) but using defilers late game has been a zerg tactic for much longer.
Consequently: The harder the interface. The longer it will take for new strategies to arise. MBS will not magically make new strats come up. But it will help. It will help those strats come up faster. Faster than what they would come with too many UI obstacles.
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? I dunno, I liked progames 6 years ago just as much/more (cause there were less players, easier to keep up, have favorites, and care) than modern games.
"MBS will make the game easier" is actually a reeaaally relative thing to say. It will make the INTERFACE easier. It will game easier to learn. But not necessarily easier to master. At the end it all boils down to finding a balance. A balance between what is fast enough, what is easy enough to learn and hard enough to master. Too easy games lose interest too fast, too hard games are not interesting at all. Like Klogon said in this same thread:
On March 28 2008 01:55 Klogon wrote: It depends on what you value in a sport, if we define gaming to be a sport now. [...] 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. [...] 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. [...] Starcraft is an e-sport with certain skill sets that are valued. Speed just happens to be one of them. [...] 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.
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).
In any game of Brood War, a player must establish a rhythm to his playing. SBS serves to force the player constantly flipping his view from army to base and back again.
The only supposed replacement for this so far is to have multiple front harassment and attacks. But the truth is that players don't do that all the time, and there's no way the game itself can make multi-tasking attacks optimal.
Also, it means every meaningful action undertaken by the player is military, which belies Brood War's beauty is a game of economy, fighting, and strategy, rather than a specific focus on any of them.
Assuming clean macro, keyboard unit production is entirely satisfactory to the demands of macro, a line of supply depots can be queued, and 0s takes care of economy. The only actions left are to upgrade and fight.
Arguments have also been made that pros will return to base to get an optimal unit base, an argument I find absurd.
Optimal macro with optimal micro is far far better than Optimal unit mix. Thus Clean MBS favors a player who hovers over his army, which interrupts the Rhythmic play of Brood War in favor of a static military game.
I beginn to see a pattern there. The mayority of the SBS Arguments seem to be rooted in "Make it like SC since SC was great". I really doubt that Blizzard intends to REPLACE SC, from a community and (more importantly) economical viewpoint they would be better of to make a game that coexists with SC. You said in another thread:
On March 28 2008 05:00 GeneralStan wrote: I think we can agree that unhotkeyable MBS is the best solution.
The only downside I can think of for it is that it is unintuitive, but as I've said before, any player who goes looking to put multiple buildings on a hotkey is a gamer a level who can probably understand that the restriction exists to foster a specific feel for the game of Starcraft.
wich means that (for you) the MBS mechanic itself is fine as long as the gameplay remains a copy of SC (factors like the rythm and forcing the player to return his view to the base to operate it).
One mayor example what can happen when you copy a game TOO closely would be UFO2. Yes the setting was now underwater but apart from that it was the same game - it flopped. Now of course there is also the opposite case, if the sequel doesn´t resemble the prequel enough it´s also bad, again the UFO series sets the example with titles like Interceptor or UFO3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"!!!
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.
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!
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."
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 06:42 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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 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 07:08 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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.
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 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.
@Frag, FA: Well I didn't say you would manage that many attacks perfectly with perfect micro. Obviously there is going to be a toll on micro to some degree, how much so will depend on the player's skill and speed. I'm sure there are other features like unlimited selection which actually most directly affects your ability to do multipronged assaults, etc. But my point is that it raises the bar in terms of potential multitasking in that regard. I'll then admit its probally more of unlimited selection that helps than MBS. But I think MBS helps in the fact that you'll have less hotkeys assigned to buildings which frees up controls/hotkeys to split up your forces for again.. multipronged assaults/multitasking so that you can do that 3-4 attacks or whatever. Does this make sense? Where am I wrong here?
PS: I'll even give a rebuttle to my own argument. Even if what I said is true.. the problem lays then in the fact that it could ruin the spectator part of the game because there ends up being just too many things going on at once to follow. And the spectator then loses attention and excitement.
That new rule is awesome. Extremist, "Dune" arguments are not only annoying, they are also ineffective. I know it includes the arguments about the simplification of UI being either movie-like or dune-like, but does that rule also include the arguments claiming that MBS allows for everyone to have "perfect macro" as well?
I say so, because I don't believe thats the case. First of all, macro includes a lot more than unit production. Second of all, perfect unit production means a player always has a unit building when he feels it is the best use of his time and resources. That is not going to be the case. It will be easier to do, sure, but by no means will it be easy to the point of perfection for everyone (or even the vast majority of people) to do. Virtually everyone is still going to make bad production decisions; either forgetting to produce, under producing, over producing, or producing an inefficient unit mix. If people want to argue that making unit production slightly easier is harmful to the game, they really need to stop referring to it in the extreme. There are plenty of better ways to argue the point.
Back to the multiple attack fronts idea. I don't think its as unreasonable as people seem to think. MBS is only one aspect that encourages this new dynamic. All of the simplification changes allow the player more time to "babysit" their army, so to speak, but what if this is not the most efficient use of their time? Babysitting is relatively useless when their army is in no immediate danger; they would be better off using the minimap to control the army's movement than be prepared at any instant for some kind of ambush. Another aspect that encourages this type of play is what yangstuh mentioned about the alleviation of hotkeys. Unlimited Unit selection and MBS will likely allow players to have more free hotkeys at any one time, which means easier control over separate armies (or harassment forces). When these things are combined, its not difficult to imagine heavy harassment in the late game, and multiple location harassment in the midgame.
We've seen Jaedong attempt a double mutalisk harass on Blue Storm before, and that was without the ability to control the base with a few hotkeys. If Jaedong had much more time he could devote to his attacks than he did before, do you not think he would be more inclined to try such a daring strategy (probably one of the most badass moves I've seen before by the way) more often? Maybe it would even be feasible for lower APM pros to pull off too? Who knows.
That said, the feasibility of multiple attack fronts is also limited by other factors. In some games, players are going to play very aggressively with their main army and devoting too much to a harass against this type of player may cause you to lose the important battle back at your base. This is more true in the midgame than the late game, because while harassment always requires the same unit count, the relative strength of those many units only diminishes over time. Using an example from Starcraft 1: A single Shuttle + a single Reaver. In midgame, its likely that the first Reaver and Shuttle that come out could be essential tools in holding off a timing push. By the time the late game rolls around though, its unlikely that a single Reaver and Shuttle would have been the major difference in a full scale battle. I don't believe splitting the main army will likely ever become common. Generally speaking, this just puts the player at too much risk. The only exception I can think of is a marine troop to shut down an expansion, but even that may only be considered a slightly larger (and more effective/successful) harass as losing those units, while damaging, is probably not the end of the game for the player.
So there are certainly many factors that play into the feasibility of multiple fronts, especially in terms of harassment. I don't think its wise to discount the likeliness of it at this point though.
We should however consider what effect multiple fronts would have on the game as an e-sport if they were to become common. As yangstuh, and others (including myself) have said, this could hurt the "observability" of the game. This point I think is pretty important, because right now we have no empirical data to support the statement either way. The best correlation I can draw to this type of scenario is that of Counter-Strike, a game in which observing the whole of the match at the same time is virtually impossible in the first place, and observing it has never really caught on like SC or even WC3 and other games. This is obviously not a good example though, as it is an FPS. An RTS inherently has an observers eye, even as a player, on the game as a whole because of an overhead angle of sight.
I remember reading an idea for a picture-in-picture type of deal, which I think could be successful if it turns out that spectators really are not satisfied with only minor glimpses of different battles. This is not a given by the way; the entire idea is relatively untested in the RTS genre because few games have been able to entice multiple battlefronts in high APM play, and still manage to be competitive games (if any). Who knows how viewers will react. We don't even know how polished the observer mode of SC2 will be; maybe it will incorporate features that will help observing on a professional level to become more standardized and supported.
Hardly and game or sport is ever "watched" in it´s raw form. Even sports that "shouldn´t" need commentors have them. If I´m not mistaken there is even a SC commentor of some renown frequenting this site.
On March 29 2008 05:36 Unentschieden wrote: Hardly and game or sport is ever "watched" in it´s raw form. Even sports that "shouldn´t" need commentors have them. If I´m not mistaken there is even a SC commentor of some renown frequenting this site.
What is this a response to? If its me, then its irrelevant. The raw form of the game is certainly not how the game is watched in the end, but its still important. If the observing additions (whatever they may be - commentators, statistics, pictures, those superimposed lines you see on football fields) are not enough to compensate for how hectic the game appears in its raw form, then its probably not going to be well received.
That new rule is awesome. Extremist, "Dune" arguments are not only annoying, they are also ineffective. I know it includes the arguments about the simplification of UI being either movie-like or dune-like, but does that rule also include the arguments claiming that MBS allows for everyone to have "perfect macro" as well?
Meh, not gonna ban that, perfect is a bit of an exaggeration, as is everyone, but I'm not gonna ban everything. Maybe this will change but not for now.
I think if we are talking from a mechanical standpoint, MBS will allow for a lot of people to get very close to perfect macro.
UUS and the freed up hotkeys might help I guess, more so than time freed up IMO. I still think multiway attacks will be very possible without MBS tho, especially with all the new mechanics such as blink, droppods, jetpack troops, nydusworms..
having MBS will simplify the game and will make it alot easier to manage your economy. this is a good thing for the simple fact that it will bring alot more players into the game via CS players, WAR3 players, DOTA players, random kids who never played any game competatively and various other forms of gamers.
Downside? no matter how you look at it, SC2 will never EVER be as legendary or balanced or quite frankly successful as SC1. SC1 is the most perfect RTS gamer ever invented. It has such depth and balance to it along with the "impossible to be perfect" aspect of the game due to the amount of things you must do constantly (which in return makes the game great). I don't expect SC2 to be as good as SC1 and if anyone does expect this, i will tell you right now to stop dreaming. The very best the SC2 designers could do is at least keep the physical difficulty in the game. Otherwise we might as well be playing a slightly faster chess game where thinking is more important then the physical aspect of the game, thus truley making it less of an e-SPORT.
In all, MBS will attract more of the leisurely gamers who will stick to the game for a few months to a year and then move to another game but it will 100% take away from the games potential at being not only a successful sequel to the art that is SC:BW but will make the game loose longevity in its life and will definatively cripple any chances it has at being a legendary / artful game like SC:BW. Lets just hope to god it doesn't turn into a WAR3 where an UMS game has been more successful then the actual game.
!WARNING! R Rated Spoiler which you may be offended by !WARNING!
Small Side Note for the kids who rally for MBS: making the game 3D will also make the game a shit load worst for spectator reasons. From what I am seeing so far, this is a HORRIBLE sequel to SC1. MBS just adds to the shit storm. If you think MBS is a good idea, go play WAR3 because that is obviously your true love and not SC1. Go rally to Blizzard for more sets of Heros in WAR3. Go rally for 5000 Gold and 5000 wood at the beginning of the game. Go rally for more Hit Points so your battles take a good 10 minutes instead of 5. Go screw up your own game and leave ours alone. SC2 should be decided by real SC1 players and not some WAR3 newbies who brag about 120 APM and pose as SC players on forums to help make our sequel more like there crappy game. Just have some god damn patience, wait for WAR4 and fuck off.
It is a very aggressive, insulting, demeaning way to say it, but the man actually sumarized (although in a slightly exaggurated and harsh way) how a lot of people feel about where SC2 is headed atm.
I sort of shuckled while I read it. Again, very harsh, but partly very true.
I found it amusing. And I believe it is completely inaccurate, that kind of thing goes back and forth, like "GO PLAY DUNE1 @#$%ER!" "JUST ALLOW ONE UNIT SELECTION." Right, see it goes both ways which is why those types of comments from anti-MBSers and MBSers should be banned.
anyways, lol
I found an entertaining idea. Why not create a thread in the off-topic forum where people can actually flame all they want to vent their angers at one another so that it stays out of legitimate threads such as this? I can totally understand when people need to vent their anger, just allow them a designated place to do it!
SC1 is a noob game because WC2ers said so, SC2 will be a noob game because SC1ers currently say so. Same with Quake 1->2->3->4. And with many other games probably too. It's always the same. Sequels usually change gameplay, whether significantly or not so significantly, and this change is almost never welcome by a big part of the community, it'll always be considered bad for the game, always considered to be a dumbed down version for the newbie masses only. Thankfully, in the past they've almost always been proven wrong and the games turned out to be very competitive AND appealed to new players (SC1 followed the same formula in 1998). I predict no difference here.
I can already see SC2 being the death of starcraft. Why? Because they will make it less of a game and more of a pretty light show. Just like every other game that is made nowadays. People don't want to be involved any more. They want everything handed to them on a silver platter so they can have fun with no energy input for a month or two and then move on to the next fad. You see this happen with every single game that comes out now. Theres nothing we can do to stop it because the majority of people want this. The majority get what they want because its good for buisness.....
I can't see SC:BW surviving through the failure that SC2 will end up being (as a competetive game i mean, i'm sure it will sell huge and be loved as a casual game). and it makes me very sad....
On March 29 2008 11:44 Tinithor wrote: I can already see SC2 being the death of starcraft. Why? Because they will make it less of a game and more of a pretty light show. Just like every other game that is made nowadays.
What evidence do you have to support that? Or do you just feel it? So damn pessimistic
Making the game easier means less room to improve. Less room to improve means less drive to play. Less drive to play means that people do not play as long. Game dies.
Your first assumption is not correct assuming a game with an unreachable skill cap. That means there is more room to improve than humanly possible. And an easier game does not a single change make. We need to know the aggregate of changes and alterations, and even then will we only catch a glimpse of its ultimate difficulty, which would be extremely difficult to quantify. Best off not making such assumptions until the game is playable (beta).
With focus on micro then there is only so much you can do with that micro. The cutting of multitasking will lower the skill ceiling tremendously i believe. I dont think the skill ceiling will be unreachable any more.
I disagree with you fundamentally then. Regardless, if you aren't going to be constructive, you should at least wait until beta shows us how bad the game is to be pessimistic
On March 29 2008 08:45 GinNtoniC wrote: It is a very aggressive, insulting, demeaning way to say it, but the man actually sumarized (although in a slightly exaggurated and harsh way) how a lot of people feel about where SC2 is headed atm.
I sort of shuckled while I read it. Again, very harsh, but partly very true.
It's not that I personally care, it's just that I dislike banning people and therefor prefer if flamebait material is kept to a minimum
On March 29 2008 09:31 0xDEADBEEF wrote: SC1 is a noob game because WC2ers said so, SC2 will be a noob game because SC1ers currently say so. Same with Quake 1->2->3->4. And with many other games probably too. It's always the same. Sequels usually change gameplay, whether significantly or not so significantly, and this change is almost never welcome by a big part of the community, it'll always be considered bad for the game, always considered to be a dumbed down version for the newbie masses only. Thankfully, in the past they've almost always been proven wrong and the games turned out to be very competitive AND appealed to new players (SC1 followed the same formula in 1998). I predict no difference here.
There'll come a point tho, when things start degenerating. I'm not sure that point is now, but you can't just blindly ignore something because similiar concerns were raised in the past but proved to be untrue.
I don't know much about what changes were made between Q4 and Q3, but as I understand it Q4 was a massive failure compared to Q3 (all I know about Q4 is that people said it was almost identical to Q3, just worse or something).
The new Super Smash game seems to have recieved a fair bit of criticism (I have no way of judging how well founded it is tho) for being less deep than its prequel.. I mean, yeah, it was originally meant to be a for fun game (something I think the original two games accomplished pretty well, no need to add in random trip %ages), but things aren't always better because they are new.
Oh well, I have a hard time really arguing here as I don't play many games aside from SC, not seriously anyhow. And after playing some WC2 online today (having previously played it online only once or twice) I must say I wasn't even that bothered by the less fancy interface (no rally points, no queues).
I guess I'm just happy with how things are now MBS didn't particularly bother me in Armies of Exigo (it's essentially SC with MBS and in a fantasy setting, good game) but I never played it much online, and it's hard to judge from single player. Felt a little lazy to just mass produce with the click of 1 key I guess, 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is fun to me.
I know that Q4 wasn't as popular as Q3. I played it in single player, and watched maybe 2 or 3 matches from some kind of tournament, but what I've seen was neither bad nor good: just more of the same. That's probably the real problem with Q4: it doesn't add enough new things. It's basically Q3 with better graphics. And why start playing it then? Q3 also has much lower hardware requirements (always a good thing if you want your game to be more popular). I think the classic death match style FPS games are in some kind of creativity crisis right now. When Q3 came out, it basically did everything right... crisp controls, good weapon balance, good maps, high speed, fun... so except for graphics there's not really anything that can be improved.
I have never gotten why people didn't like MBS, if you don't like it don't use it On a more serious note, say it takes an extra 1 second to make units without MBS, that one second could of been used to micro better. From a spectators stand point, they would obviously want to see cooler battles and advanced tactics. Starcraft has survived so long because A: It is fun (I don't see how MBS can change this) B: It is balanced (I don't see how MBS can change this) and C: It is fun to watch (MBS will only slightly increase the joy of watching starcraft battles!)
The only point that has broken through my head is the balance of micro¯o. Right now in Starcraft:BroodWar, it is nearly perfect, MBS would slightly tip the balance in micro's favor. Solution??? Add something new to macro! I believe blizzard is already doing this (Warp Gates, Reactor add-ons, and maybe more stuff we don't know about!)
Could an anti MBS person please explain why MBS is bad??
On April 30 2008 06:18 UmmTheHobo wrote: I have never gotten why people didn't like MBS, if you don't like it don't use it On a more serious note, say it takes an extra 1 second to make units without MBS, that one second could of been used to micro better. From a spectators stand point, they would obviously want to see cooler battles and advanced tactics. Starcraft has survived so long because A: It is fun (I don't see how MBS can change this) B: It is balanced (I don't see how MBS can change this) and C: It is fun to watch (MBS will only slightly increase the joy of watching starcraft battles!)
The only point that has broken through my head is the balance of micro¯o. Right now in Starcraft:BroodWar, it is nearly perfect, MBS would slightly tip the balance in micro's favor. Solution??? Add something new to macro! I believe blizzard is already doing this (Warp Gates, Reactor add-ons, and maybe more stuff we don't know about!)
Could an anti MBS person please explain why MBS is bad??
blizzard doesn't care about any of u. theyll add (alpha) and fix (beta) and add on later (patches) to what will attract the most players to their game.
The best way i explain to people is like this: A great real time strategy game is a game that has a balance of all elements that make it be considered under that genre. Starcraft is arguably the best as finding a mid balance between all the gameplay concept as they are reffered to as strategy, tactics, micro and macro.
Anyways the physical aspect of tuyping fast on the keyboard has no strategic mean or is actually necesary in a way but it adds another gameplay element that needs to be fited in the overall balance.
I my self do not like MBS because you can't have a great RTS game that playes for you, while you only need to build strong counters... If any1 that is found of MBS wants deep strategic game try chess. If you compare it to older kinda of games now being sports you can see that the physical factor is always very important. For example: can a 160cm tall man play basketball and be really good at it? - Well mauby Alan Iverson but his still a lot taller than that and a rare exception. Example 2: can a soccer player have low stamina and be good? - Yes for the first 10 minutes and then you need to take him out.
So with all this said: A)MBS should be incorporated but somehow marginalized to the point of fiting the overall balance of the game! OR B)MBS should be removed and overall balance should not be altered with new mechanics like this.
Other claims to turn on/off MBS by preference is plain stupid and will not create an equal balance for all players!
So I read a lot more arguments. One that was interesting that MBS would "dumb down" starcraft, thus making it easy for everyone to play. Then the skill level that seperates Pros and Joe's would shorten. Professional Starcraft players are not Professional because they can go 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Professional Starcraft players are Professional because they are very determined individuals who will practice, practice, practice, practice, and practice to perfect a new technique (They also have skill they are born with IMO ). Without MBS Pros won't have to worry about 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z, and they will focus on awesome baneling rushes, blinking stalkers to high ground, swarming with zerglings, Doom Drops, reaper raids, and a million other things that will be in starcraft 2. Trust me Starcraft 2 will definitely be a major clickfest (I'm not saying it as a bad thing :D). The 10 buttons or so you press to make 5 marines will then be used to dance 5 groups of 5 marines.
Oh wow my thread was bumped. The thing that I tried to do to distinguish this from any other MBS thread was to actually focus on macro. Not mechanics, skill gaps, or whatever. Just macro. Didn't seem to work out too well!
On March 29 2008 12:22 geno wrote: Your first assumption is not correct assuming a game with an unreachable skill cap. That means there is more room to improve than humanly possible. And an easier game does not a single change make. We need to know the aggregate of changes and alterations, and even then will we only catch a glimpse of its ultimate difficulty, which would be extremely difficult to quantify. Best off not making such assumptions until the game is playable (beta).
the starcraft level now would have been deemed humanly impossible in 2000, now it isnt. Its not bad to have an unreachable skill cap, its bad to have a low skill cap. Lowering it at all risk making it too low since we do not know what is humanly possible and what isnt.
@XCetron: It's hard to say if lowering the absolute skill ceiling is always a bad idea. It can turn out to be a good idea if the "relative skill ceiling" isn't lowered. Using an old example: ZvT muta harass with two separate groups (on a map which is muta friendly like Blue Storm, i.e. if you aren't automatically at a disadvantage if you stay with mutas for too long). This might very well be possible with MBS, but it can be considered "impossible" with the current UI. After 10 years, no one can do it decently. You can try, but you will suck at it. It's extremely unlikely that this will change, although it could be very useful (T has to spread his M&M force, and you could pick off workers at one place and depots at the other).
So if players get a crutch that helps them to do such things (MBS), it could as a result be a good thing for the gameplay and the spectators, and it would be just as challenging for the player as it was before. Because such things would then become standardized, if you don't do them you'd put yourself at a disadvantage. Great displays of skill in SC1 would become more common in SC2, but at the same time totally insane displays of skill never seen before in SC1 would replace these because they suddenly become doable (by the very best players only, of course). Your perception of "what is skill" in SC1 will not be the same for SC2 with MBS. You'll get to have higher standards, expect crazier things.
Well... old stuff mostly. I'm not going to discuss this any further. Just felt like answering to that post.
Wow, XCetron and Deadbeef you 100% missed the point Geno was trying to make. He's saying in his opinion (and I agree) that the skill ceiling (point where there is absolutely nothing to improve) is humanly impossible to achieve (when you can micro 20 mutas individually do dodge 20 corsairs and beat them, you'll understand). So it doesn't matter at all if the game is easier or not, it is mathematically proven that it will make no difference: infinite - 1 = infinite; infinite - 1000 = infinite; infinite / 2 = infinite; etc etc etc...
On April 30 2008 09:36 mahnini wrote: Oh wow my thread was bumped. The thing that I tried to do to distinguish this from any other MBS thread was to actually focus on macro. Not mechanics, skill gaps, or whatever. Just macro. Didn't seem to work out too well!
And we (at least myself) was trying to tell you macro was more complex that you think, MBS would only affect one part of macro (repetitive part) but not another (creative part).
On April 30 2008 08:51 x89titan wrote: blizzard doesn't care about any of u. theyll add (alpha) and fix (beta) and add on later (patches) to what will attract the most players to their game.
Blizzard does care about us. You are the minority - casual players who are pro-MBS, and care about the inclusion of MBS. It's pretty easy to satisfy casual players who don't care about MBS (great majority), and even easier to satisfy those who are never going to play online. Competitive players base actually outnumbers the casual players that care about MBS (are pro-MBS) by a large margin - just consider South Koreans and the Chinese (and other non-Koreans).
On April 30 2008 10:11 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Oh my... :>
@XCetron: It's hard to say if lowering the absolute skill ceiling is always a bad idea. It can turn out to be a good idea if the "relative skill ceiling" isn't lowered. Using an old example: ZvT muta harass with two separate groups (on a map which is muta friendly like Blue Storm, i.e. if you aren't automatically at a disadvantage if you stay with mutas for too long). This might very well be possible with MBS, but it can be considered "impossible" with the current UI. After 10 years, no one can do it decently. You can try, but you will suck at it. It's extremely unlikely that this will change, although it could be very useful (T has to spread his M&M force, and you could pick off workers at one place and depots at the other).
So if players get a crutch that helps them to do such things (MBS), it could as a result be a good thing for the gameplay and the spectators, and it would be just as challenging for the player as it was before. Because such things would then become standardized, if you don't do them you'd put yourself at a disadvantage. Great displays of skill in SC1 would become more common in SC2, but at the same time totally insane displays of skill never seen before in SC1 would replace these because they suddenly become doable (by the very best players only, of course). Your perception of "what is skill" in SC1 will not be the same for SC2 with MBS. You'll get to have higher standards, expect crazier things.
Well... old stuff mostly. I'm not going to discuss this any further. Just felt like answering to that post.
You assumption is false, in my opinion:
You'd have to split your attention between those two muta groups regardless of MBS. SBS is not in the way, so to speak. It's the nature of simultaneous micro scenerios themselves.
It´s fine if we have to split our attention between certain tasks. But why does one of them have to be something like SBS, completely trivial and skillfree on it´s own. Any noob could Produce like the pro´s if he didn´t have to deal with combat.
If you were to split our player in 2 and had one person manage the peons and buildings while the other one deals with the units - where is the "skill" in the builders task? It takes time, true, but by itself it´s not something anyone would miss. That´s why I hope that Blizzard will trivialize this part of the game as all it serves to do is to distract the player.
To bad that this very distraction is argued as key gameplay element.
On May 01 2008 02:43 Unentschieden wrote: It´s fine if we have to split our attention between certain tasks. But why does one of them have to be something like SBS, completely trivial and skillfree on it´s own. Any noob could Produce like the pro´s if he didn´t have to deal with combat.
If you were to split our player in 2 and had one person manage the peons and buildings while the other one deals with the units - where is the "skill" in the builders task? It takes time, true, but by itself it´s not something anyone would miss. That´s why I hope that Blizzard will trivialize this part of the game as all it serves to do is to distract the player.
To bad that this very distraction is argued as key gameplay element.
I guess the skill it takes is making snap decisions whether to continue microing and skip a cycle or two, or go back to base.
It takes experience and pretty good game sense, imo.
You can also argue that units acting more efficiently when microed is a distraction, and that the game should be decided by superior strategy/mental skills is the ideal gameplay model. ;]
@GeneralStan: Well since this is about MBS the issue wouldn´t be Macro but purely Production, I should have been clearer on that.
@maybenexttime Read it again. In this context I purpously spoke about the "skill" in a isolated enviroment. My example purpously EXCLUDES the "desicion" because "skipping the cycle" could be a different (hopefully more meaningfull) task. That COULD be a 2nd front but also Harrasment, scouting, Map presence, economy or something Blizzard has yet to come up with.
Before I start I'd like to state that I'm a dota player, I have been trying to learn to play starcraft off and on for a while, but I am in no way an expert on starcraft gameplay - these are speculations from a somewhat neutral perspective.
Realistically, as much as I'd like to see MBS completely out of the picture, so to speak, it's just not going to happen. I started playing Blizzard games since I was around 10 years old, starting with Diablo. With that being said it's fairly safe to say that I've observed and noticed their patterns in gameplay mechanics, releasing games "when they're done" etc. As of recently, recently meaning since wow's popularity skyrocketed, they've seen the power of how they can get their games out through casual play, there's really no way around it - they want casual players. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
I've set this up similarly to pascal's wager (to anyone who is familiar with it), which is basically a small chart. It's a pretty terrible attempt at ms paint because I don't know how to put a chart on here, but you get the idea.
checks are to represent an "optimal" release
X's are obviously "not so optimal", for lack of a better term
Just a quick note before I go any further - this is an extremely superficial look at the "situation", things are simply not as black and white as this.
The point that i was trying to make with this chart is that the MBS "situation" really does not have near the effect on casual play that it would on potential lower skill cap. Obviously this almost goes without saying, as there are roughly thirteen million threads about this.
Let's be honest with ourselves, MBS or not, casuals and competitive players alike are buying this game regardless of the changes that patch into the release build. I'm buying this game, you are buying this game, we are all buying this game period, even if it's to play the single player campaign through once then collect dust thereafter for 10 years until sc3 comes out, or playing competitively on a normal basis. As Nony posted in another thread (I can't find the actual quote but it was something along the lines of) "... names like Blizzard and starcraft 2 sell themselves". This is all too true, and we, as blizzard consumers, know it. So getting more to the point, Blizzard has a similar "delimma" in that they don't want the majority of competitive players going back to sc1 for compete (although some really hardcore players may regardless) - they want to build a strong community of players in one "area".
Realistically speaking, the developers are not going to cater to one side entirely, assuming they want people to continue playing starcraft as an e-sport, which seems to be the case. So then the question arises: How could the developers create a compromise between the 2 major player types?
Getting to the point
Anyone who has played dota has, at one point, played an -EM game. For anyone who hasn't played dota, -EM is an extension of normal play that basically presents much easier ways of obtaining gold and exp (hence the name easy mode) generally resulting in massive amounts of casual play. A lot of my friends claim that they don't want to play for an hour, or spend any time getting good at the game to compete, so as a result they log on b.net maybe once a week to play a 20 min -EM game.
So without further elaboration, the obvious point I'm getting at is an EM mode for sc2. However, as I have seen some similar ideas to this, it can not just be as simple as "ok just add automine/mbs etc to '-em'". It absolutely must have an extra "allure" to casual players that makes the game mode completely out of the question for competitive play in addition to the automine/mbs features. Obviously the first idea that comes to mind is faster mineral gain or maybe an extremely slight reduction in cost to certain units, which are both most likely pretty terrible ideas, I'm mainly trying to stimulate a new form of thought.
If you decided to read this heap of rambling elaborative bullshit, then please do offer your idea as to what could be added to an -em mode. I'm not very good with creative ideas in a situation as so, but I mainly wanted to illustrate the point that people, pro or anti "mbs", can agree to respect what other people want to see in the game. Instead of spending time justifying it for one way or another this issue could be infinitely more productive if both sides of the argument tried to resolve a realistic compromise that would meet the needs of both "sides". Both sides of the argument are equally valued consumer types in the eyes of the developer.
Also sorry if any or all of this has been posted before, I don't mean to be redundant or steal anyones ideas. If it's been posted before this chances are I just haven't read it quite yet because there are a ton of these threads.
MBS is going to be implimented to my understaning but limited to a certian number of buildings w/e that is obviously has certian advnatages to certain builds
The main thing i like about lack of mbs to just 1 building is the break down of players that just get overwhelmed after looseing something imporant and harass to throw off rythum that will be less effective psychology if its just 1 2 keys for the player casual players are less likely to loose their cool i see that as bad others can see that as good
On March 26 2008 17:50 Kennigit wrote: NOOOO WHAT HAVE YOU DONE...HERE THEY COME!!! ~Dives for Cover~
Awesome it's not too late to dive for cover as well ... this thread hasn't reached epic proportions yet haha
i think we have reached epic?
i am also against mbs, I think that it would severely shallow the learning curve of the game, and would make competitive gaming much less fun to watch imo. I have yet to see a good game that has a shallow learning curve (good doesnt = popular as popular games like WoW and other rpgs obv requires very little skill)
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.
boxer's pimpest play? the triple pronged attack and all "prongs" were microed to a high degree, ending up with boxer winning at all 3 bases. I think mbs would allow other players to more easily reach this "godliness" with one large aspect less to manage, making great plays like this much less exciting imo.
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.
boxer's pimpest play? the triple pronged attack and all "prongs" were microed to a high degree, ending up with boxer winning at all 3 bases. I think mbs would allow other players to more easily reach this "godliness" with one large aspect less to manage, making great plays like this much less exciting imo.
So you would rather have a game where you could go: "remember that one time when that player did this.. ..that was so cool!" - than a game in which cool things happen more frequently. Even if you dumbed down the game so that three pronged attacks would be more common, the great players would still be able to shine by dividing their forces even further.
There's a simple "easy mode" to SC2 - Blizzard already included it once with BW: just add BGH.
But with how stupid and pathetic people have gotten these days, they will need something even dumber and easier than dota -em.
It's pretty funny how pub dota and 4v4 BGH$$ bear no resemblance to the competitive versions of either game. Blizzard could simply make it a checkbox - multiple building selection on, for custom games, like BGH. The ladder, however, would be SBS.
I thought it was agreed upon that all arguments have been gone through many, many times, very thoroughly, and that all MBS discussion at this point is moot since we don't have a beta?
None of you are saying anything that hasn't been mentioned before.
MBS will give the player more time to do all the tasks he needs to. This means play becomes even more closer to perfect. It's like comparing rapid chess to normal chess. In normal chess you can just stop and think for 40 minutes, and that happens. You can be sure you play as perfectly as you are capable of.
What does this mean? It means less viable strategies. Think about it. If everyone has to play more perfect then some stranger and daring unusual strategies are easier to refute. Just like in rapid chess you can use dubious openings like the Chigorin or Budapest gambit, so in SC you can do some crazy things. Your opponent won't ever play perfect and he won't refute your strategy as easily.
SC2 will be different. It will narrow down play even more. Just as at the low level you can get away with crazy stuff, so you can now currently in SC because there are so many tasks to juggle.
Why do storm drops work? Why can't good players defend against them with pretty high success rate. It's because of lack of time and attention. There is so much to do; it makes harass possible.
Yes, there will be more time to do harass. Even for lower skilled players. But that means there will be even more time to defend against them.
I dont know, put limited MBS like up 2 or 3 buildings..who knows, but I find it hard to argue on that providing that we dont know the game, we assume based on WC3 and SC1, which probably is pretty accurate, however it is different game so again..who knows in advance..for example units in SC2 seem to have way more abilities than SC1 units, but not as much as in WC3..and what if the pace of the game is even faster than in SC1..
On May 01 2008 17:04 BlackStar wrote: MBS will give the player more time to do all the tasks he needs to. This means play becomes even more closer to perfect. It's like comparing rapid chess to normal chess. In normal chess you can just stop and think for 40 minutes, and that happens. You can be sure you play as perfectly as you are capable of.
What does this mean? It means less viable strategies. Think about it. If everyone has to play more perfect then some stranger and daring unusual strategies are easier to refute. Just like in rapid chess you can use dubious openings like the Chigorin or Budapest gambit, so in SC you can do some crazy things. Your opponent won't ever play perfect and he won't refute your strategy as easily.
SC2 will be different. It will narrow down play even more. Just as at the low level you can get away with crazy stuff, so you can now currently in SC because there are so many tasks to juggle.
Why do storm drops work? Why can't good players defend against them with pretty high success rate. It's because of lack of time and attention. There is so much to do; it makes harass possible.
Yes, there will be more time to do harass. Even for lower skilled players. But that means there will be even more time to defend against them.
i agree with everything you said, i just dont have such low expectations from blizzard and happened to like wc3
I know how to keep MBS in while making all the anti-MBS people happy. Add something new to macro! More upgrades. Upgrades for only one type of unit. Economy upgrades (1 more mineral per trip). Awesome upgrades that fill in the macro that MBS takes out. Argument: The upgrades will be overpowered. I am Pro-MBS, I think it is stupid that you have to select one building at a time too make multiple marines. I also see how MBS could detract from the macro aspect of the game. The simplest solution is ADD MORE MACRO!!! Its a new game, new strategies, new units, why not new upgrades. It doesn't even have to be limited to upgrades, something new, Blizzard is one of the best video game companies ever.
On May 02 2008 06:47 UmmTheHobo wrote: I know how to keep MBS in while making all the anti-MBS people happy. Add something new to macro! More upgrades. Upgrades for only one type of unit. Economy upgrades (1 more mineral per trip). Awesome upgrades that fill in the macro that MBS takes out. Argument: The upgrades will be overpowered. I am Pro-MBS, I think it is stupid that you have to select one building at a time too make multiple marines. I also see how MBS could detract from the macro aspect of the game. The simplest solution is ADD MORE MACRO!!! Its a new game, new strategies, new units, why not new upgrades. It doesn't even have to be limited to upgrades, something new, Blizzard is one of the best video game companies ever.
On May 02 2008 06:47 UmmTheHobo wrote: I know how to keep MBS in while making all the anti-MBS people happy. Add something new to macro! More upgrades. Upgrades for only one type of unit. Economy upgrades (1 more mineral per trip). Awesome upgrades that fill in the macro that MBS takes out. Argument: The upgrades will be overpowered. I am Pro-MBS, I think it is stupid that you have to select one building at a time too make multiple marines. I also see how MBS could detract from the macro aspect of the game. The simplest solution is ADD MORE MACRO!!! Its a new game, new strategies, new units, why not new upgrades. It doesn't even have to be limited to upgrades, something new, Blizzard is one of the best video game companies ever.
complexity =! intensity...
Sorry Im sort of confused. Are you agreeing with me? Are you being sarcastic?
On May 02 2008 06:47 UmmTheHobo wrote: I know how to keep MBS in while making all the anti-MBS people happy. Add something new to macro! More upgrades. Upgrades for only one type of unit. Economy upgrades (1 more mineral per trip). Awesome upgrades that fill in the macro that MBS takes out. Argument: The upgrades will be overpowered. I am Pro-MBS, I think it is stupid that you have to select one building at a time too make multiple marines. I also see how MBS could detract from the macro aspect of the game. The simplest solution is ADD MORE MACRO!!! Its a new game, new strategies, new units, why not new upgrades. It doesn't even have to be limited to upgrades, something new, Blizzard is one of the best video game companies ever.
complexity =! intensity...
Sorry Im sort of confused. Are you agreeing with me? Are you being sarcastic?
Disagreeing. You're basically trying to trade intensity for complexity, which are two totally different things.
If MBS was what made SC great then maybe it's not a great game. Is it a core element to the feel and rhythm of SC? Sure, but SC2 will most likely have its own rhythm. If you really want to be doing the same thing you've been doing for 10 years but in 3D, good for you but some of us would rather embrace a new game.
On May 01 2008 16:03 Centric wrote: I thought it was agreed upon that all arguments have been gone through many, many times, very thoroughly, and that all MBS discussion at this point is moot since we don't have a beta?
None of you are saying anything that hasn't been mentioned before.
true but if I can say MBS sucks and get 1 more person to change there mind to hating MBS I will do it.
On May 01 2008 16:03 Centric wrote: I thought it was agreed upon that all arguments have been gone through many, many times, very thoroughly, and that all MBS discussion at this point is moot since we don't have a beta?
None of you are saying anything that hasn't been mentioned before.
true but if I can say MBS sucks and get 1 more person to change there mind to hating MBS I will do it.
Any more MBS discussion past the 2 official MBS threads is simply mental masturbation. It's analytical nerds with nothing better to do arging with each other, for the sake of arguing. Until we get a beta most of this is pointless
On May 02 2008 06:47 UmmTheHobo wrote: I know how to keep MBS in while making all the anti-MBS people happy. Add something new to macro! More upgrades. Upgrades for only one type of unit. Economy upgrades (1 more mineral per trip). Awesome upgrades that fill in the macro that MBS takes out. Argument: The upgrades will be overpowered. I am Pro-MBS, I think it is stupid that you have to select one building at a time too make multiple marines. I also see how MBS could detract from the macro aspect of the game. The simplest solution is ADD MORE MACRO!!! Its a new game, new strategies, new units, why not new upgrades. It doesn't even have to be limited to upgrades, something new, Blizzard is one of the best video game companies ever.
complexity =! intensity...
Sorry Im sort of confused. Are you agreeing with me? Are you being sarcastic?
Disagreeing. You're basically trying to trade intensity for complexity, which are two totally different things.
But they ARE already adding more macro complexity. And also more multitasking complexity to SC2 to make up. But instead of upgrades like UmmTheHobo suggested they are adding more fun creative elements to multi tasking in general.
- P is getting warp in/phase prism. Do I have to point out all the new multi-tasking opportunity it will open up? + colossi + mothership + better hallucination (all good harass/multi-task tools) - T gets reactor/salvage. May potentially have to macro base lifts/lands/salvages for optimum efficiency. + nomad + reapers + medivac (harass/multi-task) - Z gets this huge second worker to build base defenses, that can port around bases to defend it. Queen will add lots of clicks lot to managing base defense. + invisible harassers (infestors) + invisible drops (nydus worm) + baneling
You see, everyone is getting new macro and/or multi-task tools. Blizzard is clearly aware that they need to create new tools to make up for loss in MBS. And they're working on it already.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/1650/blizzardswagerzg2.png)
