|
On July 04 2008 06:22 maybenexttime wrote:
"Wait, so some of you actually disagree that MBS -> easier game -> more newbies -> more popularity/watchers -> more sponsors -> better money tournaments? :S"
I actually do disagree with this. People who do care about MBS and wouldn't buy the game otherwise are NOT future watchers - they do NOT care about e-sports. Read Klockan's posts. So you're basically saying that I do not exist. I am just imagining things and everything I see are dreams implanted in my mind by a superior being whose only purpose in life is make me believe I would play more starcraft if it had MBS, but I still watch vods every night.
I don't know what planet you are from, but in Earth we don't call that a reasonable argument.
|
So you're not going to buy SC2 if MBS is not implemented?
|
Then you ask me if I exist? Do you?
|
On July 04 2008 05:58 exo6yte wrote:
And who are the people that find RTSes without MBS to be frustrating? People of low skill.
You missed the point. What kind of masochist would become good at a game that frustrates him? I really hate this tinily veiled "we don´t need MBS supporters" aproach.
Ok so let´s assume the game gets shipped with features that create competative gameplay but also frustrate a whole lot of people. The Blizzard brand means it gets sold well, but as mentioned it frustrates people.
Would they buy the expansion? Would they value the Blizzard label as much as previously?
|
On July 04 2008 05:58 exo6yte wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2008 14:53 Klockan3 wrote:On July 03 2008 12:13 exo6yte wrote:On July 02 2008 05:00 Pillars wrote:On July 02 2008 01:40 Plexa wrote:
Let's take a look at WWI shall we?
our good friend Naruto, arguably the best player at SC2 in the world, defeated everyone without using any of the MBS features. If you dont already know, Naruto beat one of the best SC2 players from Blizzard in the show matches (TvZ game) and without using any of the MBS/automine features. In addition to that, in the 2v2 tournament; he virtually played three 1v2's in the finals (as his partner kept getting killed) and went 2-1; winning the 2v2 tournament. Once again, he didn't use MBS features
What does this tell you about people wanting MBS and the skill difference between those using MBS and the traditionalists who don't use MBS featuers? Unfortunately, all it says is that Naruto was much, much better than any of the other players he faced. A better test would be to pit two equally matched opponents against one another in an eleven game series and allow one to use SBS and one to use MBS. This whole charade also implies that MBS might as well not be in the game, since it's not actually helping people suck any less. Even with MBS everyone got their asses kicked. MBS isn't going to lower the skill barrier, it's only going to help the pro players own more (imagine how more humiliating it would've been for Naruto's opponents if he HAD used MBS!), just like how Parries in SF3 make the game more difficult for new players to get into because only the top players know how to exploit the system. People do not want MBS because it lowers the skill barrier, they want MBS because it makes their game less frustrating to play for them... And who are the people that find RTSes without MBS to be frustrating? People of low skill. And who will benefit the most from MBS? People of med-high skill. So is MBS beneficial at all? Maybe. People of low skill who wouldn't have bought it before will buy it now, but what impact will MBS have on the highest levels of play? Will it make the game more or less interesting? We're not gonna know until they start publicly testing.
After reading this OSL MSL question where many people agreed that OSL seem to be more interesting because almost every time different person wins... I think it might make game more interesting.
Don't new abilities and much more increased mobility on any map create enough strategies and timings to increase skill ceiling as much as mastering macro?
This thread is more about ideas to keep players busy as SBS keeps them (us) in Brood War, so here is one from me:
Units much more heavy in gas cost, lower income of gas and lower amount of gas in geysers + mechanic making gas renewable give SC2 more depth...
My (or not only my?) idea maybe isn't the best >< but what if gas (and maybe small amount of minerals too) could be harvested not only by geysers?
Every race uses raw resources and refines them to make buildings and units.
Terran do this probably not far from what we, humans on Earth, do today.
Zerg use whole lot of enzymes.
Protoss use whatever high technology they have.
If all 3 of them can transform raw resources into something more usable, then why don't do this with something even more accessible?
Supreme Commander and it's ancestor Total Annihilation already use plants as free source of energy. Breaking old habits and bias why SC2 wouldn't, in less easily accessible (than just sucking energy in) way of course?
As presented on screenshots even lethally harsh environment of Char can sustain some life other than Zerg, even if it isn't big.
Additional pros would be:
1) Even bigger importance of map control as number of potential expo sites would dramatically increase.
2) Even bigger importance of resource managing as it would be not as easy source as normal mineral patches and gas geysers but much more massed and easier to switch than (even now) simple 3/6/etc workers more on gas OR minerals
3) Even bigger importance of scouting your opponent to avoid being surprised by sudden gas heavy units in the battle
- Zerg with potential of Overseer's huge range of sight aren't any exception as both other races through at least Phoenixes and Vikings (+ lack of Scourges) can take care of them!
Please don't misunderstand this as harvesting lumber in W3 as I'm trying to put it far from that.
|
On July 04 2008 06:22 maybenexttime wrote:
"Wait, so some of you actually disagree that MBS -> easier game -> more newbies -> more popularity/watchers -> more sponsors -> better money tournaments? :S"
I actually do disagree with this. People who do care about MBS and wouldn't buy the game otherwise are NOT future watchers - they do NOT care about e-sports. Read Klockan's posts.
They will but will they all enjoy the game enough to keep an eye on any events?
|
I seriously doubt you won't buy the game if MBS is not there... You're just saying that for the sake of your argument.
|
On July 04 2008 00:56 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 00:23 IdrA wrote:On July 03 2008 07:15 Unentschieden wrote:On July 03 2008 01:37 IdrA wrote:On July 02 2008 23:56 Unentschieden wrote:On July 02 2008 18:10 maybenexttime wrote:
VIB, the newbies didn't realize that MBS was lacking in CNC3, what makes you think they will, and especially that they'll care in case of SC2?
I don't really care about MBS and conveniences it brings except for the diminished multi-tasking load. For all I care, they could set it to one building per hotkey, or make your screen center when you tab to different building to make macro require player's attention. The REAL NEWBIES wouldn't even notice that since they go back to their base REGARDLESS of MBS. ;;
The skill gap hard mechanics bring is not just a bit wider than the MBS gap. It's huge. I don't want semi-pros & pros to end up at the same "level" like in WC3, I don't want INACTIVE players winning important events (Creolophus at WCG).
"It's not like you're gonna lose to D- noobs because of MBS."
Nice straw man there. It's about B+ magically becoming A- due to attention management and macro mechanics being far less of a factor.
"Savior wouldn't have beaten FBH if he had MBS."
Yes, because there would be NO SAVIOR AT ALL. In case you didn't notice, his hallmark was touch and go timing and attention management. He did everything at just the right time with perfect mutl-tasking. Lets assume a worst case scenario where all these "skill equalizing" actually happend. The problem then would ba that the majority wouldn´t care! "Noobs" don´t care about professional gameplay but they DO care about gameplay which includes the UI. You know your C&C example doesn´t hold water, C&C is beyond MBS, MBS is already a compromise. So, explain it to me, how would SBS make the game better for ME, a "casual"? Why should a non-professional player support a control sceme that he doesn´t like? it makes it better for you by allowing it to support a professional scene which directly affects you by keeping the game alive with new players coming into the scene and encouraging people to provide new features, programs, and tournaments for you to enjoy. also indirectly affects you by providing the added fun of watching progaming and everything for spectators that follows with the progaming scene, you can claim you dont enjoy that but most people do. do you see spectators arguing that soccer players should be allowed to use their hands? Flawed logic here. So SBS increases the lifespan of a game I don´t like BECAUSE of SBS? It alows me to watch matches In a game I don´t like? You don´t see Football fans arguing about using hands or not. NON-fans don´t know or care if or who can use his hands. You completely missed the point of the argument: How do you explain SBS to a person that just want´s to PLAY the game? Someone who doesn´t care about progamers and never will? Extended lifespan is only then a argument IF you actually want to play that game so long! Do tell one reason why SBS is good for the game WITHOUT mentioning progaming or Korea or anything in that direction. "NON-fans don´t know or care if or who can use his hands." to someone entirely uninvolved in competitive gaming, who does not care at all about competitive gaming, who doesnt want to play the game long term how does mbs even matter? theyre going to be sitting in ums and bgh games on east (or the sc2 equivalent), and the real games that they do play they will play so poorly that theyre going to suck whether it takes them 10 clicks to make 10 units or 1 click to make 10 units. i was not missing your point, i just assumed you couldnt possibly be making a point that dumb. mbs or not only matters when you're talking about the game on an at least somewhat competitive level. also "lifespan of a game I don´t like BECAUSE of SBS" you dont like sc1? whats to say you cant like a game simply because it has sbs? His point isn't dumb. You probably know that MBS (or generally speaking: a more intuitive interface than the one from SC1) is considered an "industry standard" these days. This means all players who aren't involved in competitive gaming at all (~90% of the player base) WILL bitch about that. Because other games have easier controls. Reviews will mention this and give worse ratings. This can have quite a big effect on the popularity, which is always Blizzard's really strong point: they make games which are extremely accessible because they're very easy to learn (and hard to master). Any retard can jump right in and start playing. If Blizzard should suddenly stop caring about this, just to please a few hardcore SC1 fans, it could end quite bad for them, and the game might not become popular enough to have a chance to become a world-wide e-sport.
im well aware that its the industry standard, that doesnt mean its good or necessary. once again, mbs is pretty much irrelevant for the hardcore newbies. if you dont know how to play at all it doesnt really matter how long it takes you to make a round of units. people like that are just going to have fun rushing to motherships or using cute abilities like blink and stuff, and when they get bored of that theyll move on to the next flashy game or go back to wow. esports players from other games will be moving to sc2 regardless of interface, because thats where the money will be. the only players who you might have a point with are the mid level players who want to be as good as progamers, but suck too much and so want mbs to level the playing field. why cater to their selfish demands at the cost of having a competitive game (which is what blizz has said they want multiple times)?
|
On July 04 2008 02:37 Unentschieden wrote:
So what DOES count on a noncompetative level? How would you make the game fun for the lower half of the ladder? Do you honestly expect Blizzard to disregard these players? Get ready to be ignored then. The lone fact that we know so much about the game already should tell you what Blizzard thinks of the community.
SBS, among other stuff formed entrance barriers in SC. Blizzard officially stated that. They will try to fix that. If you look back, SC had even back at it´s first release a lot criticism for the controls. WC3 didn´t.
yep it received criticism. and guess what? a shitload of people played it, and still do. you might get a few retards giving sc2 bad reviews because its 'outdated' or whatever, but in the end people are going to buy it for two reasons. it is starcraft2, and it will be a fun game to play. non competitive players will mess around on it for a few months and then move on, whether it has sbs or mbs. where sbs/mbs matters is in the competitive scene as it will determine how well the game plays as an esport (and so the quality and longevity of the scene). that is why we should be focusing on competitive play when discussing the interface.
|
On July 04 2008 11:34 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 00:56 0xDEADBEEF wrote:On July 04 2008 00:23 IdrA wrote:On July 03 2008 07:15 Unentschieden wrote:On July 03 2008 01:37 IdrA wrote:On July 02 2008 23:56 Unentschieden wrote:On July 02 2008 18:10 maybenexttime wrote:
VIB, the newbies didn't realize that MBS was lacking in CNC3, what makes you think they will, and especially that they'll care in case of SC2?
I don't really care about MBS and conveniences it brings except for the diminished multi-tasking load. For all I care, they could set it to one building per hotkey, or make your screen center when you tab to different building to make macro require player's attention. The REAL NEWBIES wouldn't even notice that since they go back to their base REGARDLESS of MBS. ;;
The skill gap hard mechanics bring is not just a bit wider than the MBS gap. It's huge. I don't want semi-pros & pros to end up at the same "level" like in WC3, I don't want INACTIVE players winning important events (Creolophus at WCG).
"It's not like you're gonna lose to D- noobs because of MBS."
Nice straw man there. It's about B+ magically becoming A- due to attention management and macro mechanics being far less of a factor.
"Savior wouldn't have beaten FBH if he had MBS."
Yes, because there would be NO SAVIOR AT ALL. In case you didn't notice, his hallmark was touch and go timing and attention management. He did everything at just the right time with perfect mutl-tasking. Lets assume a worst case scenario where all these "skill equalizing" actually happend. The problem then would ba that the majority wouldn´t care! "Noobs" don´t care about professional gameplay but they DO care about gameplay which includes the UI. You know your C&C example doesn´t hold water, C&C is beyond MBS, MBS is already a compromise. So, explain it to me, how would SBS make the game better for ME, a "casual"? Why should a non-professional player support a control sceme that he doesn´t like? it makes it better for you by allowing it to support a professional scene which directly affects you by keeping the game alive with new players coming into the scene and encouraging people to provide new features, programs, and tournaments for you to enjoy. also indirectly affects you by providing the added fun of watching progaming and everything for spectators that follows with the progaming scene, you can claim you dont enjoy that but most people do. do you see spectators arguing that soccer players should be allowed to use their hands? Flawed logic here. So SBS increases the lifespan of a game I don´t like BECAUSE of SBS? It alows me to watch matches In a game I don´t like? You don´t see Football fans arguing about using hands or not. NON-fans don´t know or care if or who can use his hands. You completely missed the point of the argument: How do you explain SBS to a person that just want´s to PLAY the game? Someone who doesn´t care about progamers and never will? Extended lifespan is only then a argument IF you actually want to play that game so long! Do tell one reason why SBS is good for the game WITHOUT mentioning progaming or Korea or anything in that direction. "NON-fans don´t know or care if or who can use his hands." to someone entirely uninvolved in competitive gaming, who does not care at all about competitive gaming, who doesnt want to play the game long term how does mbs even matter? theyre going to be sitting in ums and bgh games on east (or the sc2 equivalent), and the real games that they do play they will play so poorly that theyre going to suck whether it takes them 10 clicks to make 10 units or 1 click to make 10 units. i was not missing your point, i just assumed you couldnt possibly be making a point that dumb. mbs or not only matters when you're talking about the game on an at least somewhat competitive level. also "lifespan of a game I don´t like BECAUSE of SBS" you dont like sc1? whats to say you cant like a game simply because it has sbs? His point isn't dumb. You probably know that MBS (or generally speaking: a more intuitive interface than the one from SC1) is considered an "industry standard" these days. This means all players who aren't involved in competitive gaming at all (~90% of the player base) WILL bitch about that. Because other games have easier controls. Reviews will mention this and give worse ratings. This can have quite a big effect on the popularity, which is always Blizzard's really strong point: they make games which are extremely accessible because they're very easy to learn (and hard to master). Any retard can jump right in and start playing. If Blizzard should suddenly stop caring about this, just to please a few hardcore SC1 fans, it could end quite bad for them, and the game might not become popular enough to have a chance to become a world-wide e-sport. im well aware that its the industry standard, that doesnt mean its good or necessary. once again, mbs is pretty much irrelevant for the hardcore newbies. if you dont know how to play at all it doesnt really matter how long it takes you to make a round of units. people like that are just going to have fun rushing to motherships or using cute abilities like blink and stuff, and when they get bored of that theyll move on to the next flashy game or go back to wow. esports players from other games will be moving to sc2 regardless of interface, because thats where the money will be. the only players who you might have a point with are the mid level players who want to be as good as progamers, but suck too much and so want mbs to level the playing field. why cater to their selfish demands at the cost of having a competitive game (which is what blizz has said they want multiple times)?
Why is macro the biggest factor of competitiveness for you? Why not to try to transfer it somewhere were more people will be happy with it?
|
If you are so fixated on the short term economical factor: What will hold more people at least until the inevitable expansion?
The main game is one thing but skipping the expansion is much more dependant on actual performance of the game.
|
3)Interactive terrain! One of the things that I really like about SC2 is the way the terrain looks. Make it so that workers can build ramps, dig trenches, dam rivers, and push over rocks. This would both open a lot of strategic options, AND it would force you to be constantly controlling your workers to shape the terrain the way you want it.
Great idea! But that's what they seemed to have in mind for the Zerg w/ creep.Indeed, perhaps the Terrans should focus more an ground movement/water channeling, as a requirement for certain buildings perhaps, dams generate electricity, can also provide water for nuclear reactor cooling.
For the Protoss, perhaps they should have PSI channeling, some sort of bonus being near certain buildings.
|
Protoss, perhaps Psionic channeling, crystal creating (think Uraj, and more).
Zerg, creep, creep increases sunken/spore building speed.
Terran, as you said dams and stuff, ravines, et cetera. Perhaps buildings such as dams/nuclear reactors should require water, and nuke silos could have more HP if dirt is "contructed" around them making them actual ICBM bunkers.
|
On July 04 2008 12:02 MrRammstein wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 11:34 IdrA wrote:On July 04 2008 00:56 0xDEADBEEF wrote:On July 04 2008 00:23 IdrA wrote:On July 03 2008 07:15 Unentschieden wrote:On July 03 2008 01:37 IdrA wrote:On July 02 2008 23:56 Unentschieden wrote:On July 02 2008 18:10 maybenexttime wrote:
VIB, the newbies didn't realize that MBS was lacking in CNC3, what makes you think they will, and especially that they'll care in case of SC2?
I don't really care about MBS and conveniences it brings except for the diminished multi-tasking load. For all I care, they could set it to one building per hotkey, or make your screen center when you tab to different building to make macro require player's attention. The REAL NEWBIES wouldn't even notice that since they go back to their base REGARDLESS of MBS. ;;
The skill gap hard mechanics bring is not just a bit wider than the MBS gap. It's huge. I don't want semi-pros & pros to end up at the same "level" like in WC3, I don't want INACTIVE players winning important events (Creolophus at WCG).
"It's not like you're gonna lose to D- noobs because of MBS."
Nice straw man there. It's about B+ magically becoming A- due to attention management and macro mechanics being far less of a factor.
"Savior wouldn't have beaten FBH if he had MBS."
Yes, because there would be NO SAVIOR AT ALL. In case you didn't notice, his hallmark was touch and go timing and attention management. He did everything at just the right time with perfect mutl-tasking. Lets assume a worst case scenario where all these "skill equalizing" actually happend. The problem then would ba that the majority wouldn´t care! "Noobs" don´t care about professional gameplay but they DO care about gameplay which includes the UI. You know your C&C example doesn´t hold water, C&C is beyond MBS, MBS is already a compromise. So, explain it to me, how would SBS make the game better for ME, a "casual"? Why should a non-professional player support a control sceme that he doesn´t like? it makes it better for you by allowing it to support a professional scene which directly affects you by keeping the game alive with new players coming into the scene and encouraging people to provide new features, programs, and tournaments for you to enjoy. also indirectly affects you by providing the added fun of watching progaming and everything for spectators that follows with the progaming scene, you can claim you dont enjoy that but most people do. do you see spectators arguing that soccer players should be allowed to use their hands? Flawed logic here. So SBS increases the lifespan of a game I don´t like BECAUSE of SBS? It alows me to watch matches In a game I don´t like? You don´t see Football fans arguing about using hands or not. NON-fans don´t know or care if or who can use his hands. You completely missed the point of the argument: How do you explain SBS to a person that just want´s to PLAY the game? Someone who doesn´t care about progamers and never will? Extended lifespan is only then a argument IF you actually want to play that game so long! Do tell one reason why SBS is good for the game WITHOUT mentioning progaming or Korea or anything in that direction. "NON-fans don´t know or care if or who can use his hands." to someone entirely uninvolved in competitive gaming, who does not care at all about competitive gaming, who doesnt want to play the game long term how does mbs even matter? theyre going to be sitting in ums and bgh games on east (or the sc2 equivalent), and the real games that they do play they will play so poorly that theyre going to suck whether it takes them 10 clicks to make 10 units or 1 click to make 10 units. i was not missing your point, i just assumed you couldnt possibly be making a point that dumb. mbs or not only matters when you're talking about the game on an at least somewhat competitive level. also "lifespan of a game I don´t like BECAUSE of SBS" you dont like sc1? whats to say you cant like a game simply because it has sbs? His point isn't dumb. You probably know that MBS (or generally speaking: a more intuitive interface than the one from SC1) is considered an "industry standard" these days. This means all players who aren't involved in competitive gaming at all (~90% of the player base) WILL bitch about that. Because other games have easier controls. Reviews will mention this and give worse ratings. This can have quite a big effect on the popularity, which is always Blizzard's really strong point: they make games which are extremely accessible because they're very easy to learn (and hard to master). Any retard can jump right in and start playing. If Blizzard should suddenly stop caring about this, just to please a few hardcore SC1 fans, it could end quite bad for them, and the game might not become popular enough to have a chance to become a world-wide e-sport. im well aware that its the industry standard, that doesnt mean its good or necessary. once again, mbs is pretty much irrelevant for the hardcore newbies. if you dont know how to play at all it doesnt really matter how long it takes you to make a round of units. people like that are just going to have fun rushing to motherships or using cute abilities like blink and stuff, and when they get bored of that theyll move on to the next flashy game or go back to wow. esports players from other games will be moving to sc2 regardless of interface, because thats where the money will be. the only players who you might have a point with are the mid level players who want to be as good as progamers, but suck too much and so want mbs to level the playing field. why cater to their selfish demands at the cost of having a competitive game (which is what blizz has said they want multiple times)? Why is macro the biggest factor of competitiveness for you? Why not to try to transfer it somewhere were more people will be happy with it?
i dont, there need to be multiple factors of equal importance, and more demands on a players time than can be met. macro is the aspect of the game that is being damaged the most, hence its the one that needs to be argued for the most. in my post in the wwi thread i said they were overdoing the automatic micro and stuff too, but not to the same extent as macro.
and the people who are unhappy with sbs do not want factors of competitiveness, they want the game to essentially play itself so they can focus on 'strategy' (like the guy who wrote that speedfreaks article, as if theyre able to outthink good players and are just held back by handspeed)
|
On July 04 2008 13:17 Unentschieden wrote:
If you are so fixated on the short term economical factor: What will hold more people at least until the inevitable expansion?
The main game is one thing but skipping the expansion is much more dependant on actual performance of the game.
you are the one arguing economics because you cant argue that mbs will make it a better game. i only care about economics to the extent that if the game doesnt sell there wont be anyone for me to play against.
|
On July 04 2008 16:26 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 12:02 MrRammstein wrote:On July 04 2008 11:34 IdrA wrote:On July 04 2008 00:56 0xDEADBEEF wrote:On July 04 2008 00:23 IdrA wrote:On July 03 2008 07:15 Unentschieden wrote:On July 03 2008 01:37 IdrA wrote:On July 02 2008 23:56 Unentschieden wrote:On July 02 2008 18:10 maybenexttime wrote:
VIB, the newbies didn't realize that MBS was lacking in CNC3, what makes you think they will, and especially that they'll care in case of SC2?
I don't really care about MBS and conveniences it brings except for the diminished multi-tasking load. For all I care, they could set it to one building per hotkey, or make your screen center when you tab to different building to make macro require player's attention. The REAL NEWBIES wouldn't even notice that since they go back to their base REGARDLESS of MBS. ;;
The skill gap hard mechanics bring is not just a bit wider than the MBS gap. It's huge. I don't want semi-pros & pros to end up at the same "level" like in WC3, I don't want INACTIVE players winning important events (Creolophus at WCG).
"It's not like you're gonna lose to D- noobs because of MBS."
Nice straw man there. It's about B+ magically becoming A- due to attention management and macro mechanics being far less of a factor.
"Savior wouldn't have beaten FBH if he had MBS."
Yes, because there would be NO SAVIOR AT ALL. In case you didn't notice, his hallmark was touch and go timing and attention management. He did everything at just the right time with perfect mutl-tasking. Lets assume a worst case scenario where all these "skill equalizing" actually happend. The problem then would ba that the majority wouldn´t care! "Noobs" don´t care about professional gameplay but they DO care about gameplay which includes the UI. You know your C&C example doesn´t hold water, C&C is beyond MBS, MBS is already a compromise. So, explain it to me, how would SBS make the game better for ME, a "casual"? Why should a non-professional player support a control sceme that he doesn´t like? it makes it better for you by allowing it to support a professional scene which directly affects you by keeping the game alive with new players coming into the scene and encouraging people to provide new features, programs, and tournaments for you to enjoy. also indirectly affects you by providing the added fun of watching progaming and everything for spectators that follows with the progaming scene, you can claim you dont enjoy that but most people do. do you see spectators arguing that soccer players should be allowed to use their hands? Flawed logic here. So SBS increases the lifespan of a game I don´t like BECAUSE of SBS? It alows me to watch matches In a game I don´t like? You don´t see Football fans arguing about using hands or not. NON-fans don´t know or care if or who can use his hands. You completely missed the point of the argument: How do you explain SBS to a person that just want´s to PLAY the game? Someone who doesn´t care about progamers and never will? Extended lifespan is only then a argument IF you actually want to play that game so long! Do tell one reason why SBS is good for the game WITHOUT mentioning progaming or Korea or anything in that direction. "NON-fans don´t know or care if or who can use his hands." to someone entirely uninvolved in competitive gaming, who does not care at all about competitive gaming, who doesnt want to play the game long term how does mbs even matter? theyre going to be sitting in ums and bgh games on east (or the sc2 equivalent), and the real games that they do play they will play so poorly that theyre going to suck whether it takes them 10 clicks to make 10 units or 1 click to make 10 units. i was not missing your point, i just assumed you couldnt possibly be making a point that dumb. mbs or not only matters when you're talking about the game on an at least somewhat competitive level. also "lifespan of a game I don´t like BECAUSE of SBS" you dont like sc1? whats to say you cant like a game simply because it has sbs? His point isn't dumb. You probably know that MBS (or generally speaking: a more intuitive interface than the one from SC1) is considered an "industry standard" these days. This means all players who aren't involved in competitive gaming at all (~90% of the player base) WILL bitch about that. Because other games have easier controls. Reviews will mention this and give worse ratings. This can have quite a big effect on the popularity, which is always Blizzard's really strong point: they make games which are extremely accessible because they're very easy to learn (and hard to master). Any retard can jump right in and start playing. If Blizzard should suddenly stop caring about this, just to please a few hardcore SC1 fans, it could end quite bad for them, and the game might not become popular enough to have a chance to become a world-wide e-sport. im well aware that its the industry standard, that doesnt mean its good or necessary. once again, mbs is pretty much irrelevant for the hardcore newbies. if you dont know how to play at all it doesnt really matter how long it takes you to make a round of units. people like that are just going to have fun rushing to motherships or using cute abilities like blink and stuff, and when they get bored of that theyll move on to the next flashy game or go back to wow. esports players from other games will be moving to sc2 regardless of interface, because thats where the money will be. the only players who you might have a point with are the mid level players who want to be as good as progamers, but suck too much and so want mbs to level the playing field. why cater to their selfish demands at the cost of having a competitive game (which is what blizz has said they want multiple times)? Why is macro the biggest factor of competitiveness for you? Why not to try to transfer it somewhere were more people will be happy with it? i dont, there need to be multiple factors of equal importance, and more demands on a players time than can be met. macro is the aspect of the game that is being damaged the most, hence its the one that needs to be argued for the most. in my post in the wwi thread i said they were overdoing the automatic micro and stuff too, but not to the same extent as macro. and the people who are unhappy with sbs do not want factors of competitiveness, they want the game to essentially play itself so they can focus on 'strategy' (like the guy who wrote that speedfreaks article, as if theyre able to outthink good players and are just held back by handspeed)
As I don't agree with the way they put this at all, some people approaching automation like that made me for one person consider Team Liquid definitely not as I can see this site as a whole now, which I somehow expressed being surprised and even PMing Frozen Arbiter that he sends feedback to Blizz monthly, even if I new way earlier he reads and posts on BN SC2 forums.
Reading some flames based on MBS alone made me think like that and see MBS in much more ironic way than now (if someone doesn't give a fuck about this I don't give a fuck about him so spare me).
I can't say I pwn teh world but 'killing' time here and on BN forums at least for me proves I really <3 SC and can't wait for SC2 enough not to stop playing after weeks or so.
Being recruited in August for 9 months for sure is additional factor I will be SC starved not to care if MBS is out but even then kind of think why this couldn't be made in a better way, at least tried to do.
There is really lots of time to do so...
|
Idra, MBS is necessary to please the casual gamers, yes even the hardcore newbies.
For them, everything that involves macro is dull and boring, what they enjoy is seeing 50 battlecruisers vs 100 mutalisks omg omg. Sure, most of them will play BGH or use map settings all the time, then they'll move on a few weeks later. Still, Blizzard don't wanna deceive those players because they're a HUGE part of their market. Especially if that feature is included in any other RTS made in the past 5 years or whatever.
The best compromise will probably be to add simple features that makes MBS ineffective in competitive games, kinda like warpgates.
|
Just a thought:
What if producing from buildings selected at the same time made it more expensive or made the units take longer to train?
That way, faster players who select each building have a real advantage over slow or lazy ones, but the game is still fun for everyone. If you increase build time by 5%, no noob will care, but it makes a huge difference to pros.
It seems like the market demands MBS, but there must be ways, like the one I suggest here, to retain the high skill differentiation which makes people constantly seek to get better at SC, and which accounts for its longevity.
|
On July 04 2008 19:38 inlagdsil wrote:
Just a thought:
What if producing from buildings selected at the same time made it more expensive or made the units take longer to train?
That way, faster players who select each building have a real advantage over slow or lazy ones, but the game is still fun for everyone. If you increase build time by 5%, no noob will care, but it makes a huge difference to pros.
It seems like the market demands MBS, but there must be ways, like the one I suggest here, to retain the high skill differentiation which makes people constantly seek to get better at SC, and which accounts for its longevity.
You're saying that like it's a proven fact that MBS is bad for the game... but the fear of MBS is mainly speculation. The game must be finished and played a lot until one can say this for sure.
And @Idra:
You seem to think that players will have predefined "roles" or so which they can't escape from, like "70% will be noobs who will move on to the next flashy game within a few months, so only the remaining 30% will matter". That's just not true... the noobs are very important (as strange as that may sound) because everything starts with them... old progamers like Boxer and Yellow mentioned in interviews that they started playing because it was FUN. Many Koreans started playing it because it was fun. Not because they foresaw some glorious e-sport future for the game. Then they got kinda addicted and played a lot to become better and better. Eventually they became progamers. But they started out as noobs who just wanted fun. The desire to become the best only came later on.
So if you make the game less fun for noobs, there will be less noobs starting the game, and therefore there will be less progamers later on. Which means less competition at very high levels, which means an uninteresting e-sport.
Also be aware that many of the current SC players won't play SC2 anymore, or at least won't play it for long. Because they get older and have other duties. So SC2 will mainly be played by newer generations.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I liked SC even without MBS when I started as a total noob...
I know times changed but it's not like SC2 wont be fun regardless =[
Btw to finally put an end to what progamers think of MBS:
-he wants MBS out of the game. when asked, he also said all the other progamers feel the same way.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=74592
Sea[Shield] being not only a progamer but someone who has played SC2 should be good enough an authority on wether progamers want or dont want it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
