|
On June 25 2008 23:09 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 22:07 lolaloc wrote:
Protoss has warpgates for "macro"
Terran gives you "macro" options through the add-ons.
Zerg is pretty much the same (you "MBS" the larva). Add-on don't change anything. They won't keep you as busy as SBS-macro, it's not even close...
That's assuming the add-ons are also subject to MBS, can someone clarify this?
And those add ons DO make macro more complex, you have even more timings and elements to worry about with macro. Although, it's less of a mindless and mechanical thing and more of strategic/sense/timing.
|
You realize that the whole economy factor in new 'modern' RTS games has been removed. If an RTS is still an RTS in more than name only; meaning it has the actual properties that used to define the RTS genre from the RTT genre, then it has annoying gameplay and is filled with mundane tasks the player has to execute.
Good RTS games have become bad ones. The genre is reduced to watching an interactive movie where there is a continuous mindless battle.
|
So you are saying an RTS is only good if there are mundane tasks to be done? yes this is one way to make the game harder and more multi-task involved, but there are still other ways to occupy a players time aren't? An example can be Armies of Exigo, where there were 3 resources that needed to be used. It's pretty obvious that MBS is set in stone and nothing we do is probably going to change that so we need to find other ways to solve the vacuum left behind by MBS. Like the warp function, plexa said earlier. And that actually was a sort of mundane or annoying task a way since you had to go of screen and click a spot for each warp in (which is mechanically similiar to SBS I believe).
|
Hah, was just reading the Dustin Browders interview at SCwire where he said that "MBS ain't set in stone", though I'm 99% sure that it will be.
"Dustin also pointed out with these features of the game, that it was 10 years ago StarCraft was released, and people will start asking "Why don't you have these things in the game?", and so he said it can be hard to reply that "No, we don't have those features, because the guys in Korea would kill us". This comment gave all of us in the room a big smile.
He further said that they are letting pro gamers trying the game out and it isn't set in stone with the multiple building selections, as they are trying out what works for this game."
|
Zerg hasn't changed much, Protoss has warp in. We need to find something for terran.
How about different modes for production structures (just some of them) to access different types of units? Would work in a similar way as Gateway to Warp Gate transition.
EDIT: The ideas I've come up with so far (Terran unit production modes):
Barracks mode I (initial) - Marines, Medics, Marauders (sort of lower tech units)
Barracks mode II (transition at the Lab, can't produce units while transitioning) - Reapers, Spotters ( http://teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?currentpage=9&topic_id=72611 ), Ghosts
Factory mode I (initial) - Jackal, Siege Tank
Factory mode II (same as Barracks mode II) - Thor, Viking
Starport mode I (initial) - Banshee, Nomad, Dropship
Starport mode II (maybe required to be lifted off, that sounds interesting imo) - Battlecruisers, (Banshe, Viking?)
edit: Some clarification. The transition between different modes would work kinda like the transition from Gateway to Warp Gate, but would be initiated in the lab. You wouldn't be able to train units during the transition period.
This way the players would have to pay more attention to macro/base.
|
I really like the build more buildings idea, but not the other two.
Expanding is surely already enough in Brood War. I mean, years ago people didn't expand nearly as much as they do nowadays, and in those days micro was way more fun to watch. Nowadays, most progamers are known to "macro-whore," choosing to just out-expand their opponent and win with a mass of units rather than out-micro them.
If we made it so you had to expand even more, the games would turn into total macrofests.
|
On June 25 2008 18:10 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 09:52 Savio1 wrote:Speaking about anti-MBS: [B]
On a sidenote, we're not really in a minority. Casual players WHO CARE about such things as MBS are actually rare. The problem could be ignorant reviewers like e.g. Dan... I'm not saying what my opinion of MBS is, but you're off on this. Poll at SC2 armory has 92% in favor of MBS and 8% against with 380 votes in. Not a scientific poll but it is probably more accurate than just thinking......"well I bet there are more people in favor of MBS". Unless your definition of "WHO CARE" is something like "who agree with me". Then you can come up with any number you want. Wow, nice, but you'd get ten times as much people voting on either TL or GosuGamers.net with great majority against MBS. How does that poll prove anything? What I'm saying is that the VAST majority of casual players will buy the game REGARDLESS. They do not care about MBS, they do not post on online forums, don't argue about such issues. Only several hundred out of millions casual players do care about whether MBS will be in the game. That's few compared to how many competitive players who do care there are...
Actually there has been an MBS poll done at TL.net, and it got about 1000 votes over 2 weeks. MBS won out 48% to 43%.
|
I definitely agree on the point that macro should be a smaller factor in SC2.
|
On June 26 2008 05:18 rkarhu wrote:
I definitely agree on the point that macro should be a smaller factor in SC2.
And ruin starcraft? no
EDIT: Macro is not JUST the mechanical action of cycling through gateways and making units or building stuff. There's also the timing of expos and management of how many workers to get and when, which units to get and when, how many production facilities to get and when. I'd also say tech research and upgrades also fall under this category.
|
On June 26 2008 05:18 rkarhu wrote:
I definitely agree on the point that macro should be a smaller factor in SC2.
What kind of game do you want to play dude? One of those silly UMS maps where you get units respawned every so often so you don't have to worry about building them yourself? SC is all about the micro/macro balance and trade-off. If you want less macro, you should find another game.
|
On June 26 2008 05:15 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 18:10 maybenexttime wrote:On June 25 2008 09:52 Savio1 wrote:Speaking about anti-MBS: [B]
On a sidenote, we're not really in a minority. Casual players WHO CARE about such things as MBS are actually rare. The problem could be ignorant reviewers like e.g. Dan... I'm not saying what my opinion of MBS is, but you're off on this. Poll at SC2 armory has 92% in favor of MBS and 8% against with 380 votes in. Not a scientific poll but it is probably more accurate than just thinking......"well I bet there are more people in favor of MBS". Unless your definition of "WHO CARE" is something like "who agree with me". Then you can come up with any number you want. Wow, nice, but you'd get ten times as much people voting on either TL or GosuGamers.net with great majority against MBS. How does that poll prove anything? What I'm saying is that the VAST majority of casual players will buy the game REGARDLESS. They do not care about MBS, they do not post on online forums, don't argue about such issues. Only several hundred out of millions casual players do care about whether MBS will be in the game. That's few compared to how many competitive players who do care there are... Actually there has been an MBS poll done at TL.net, and it got about 1000 votes over 2 weeks. MBS won out 48% to 43%.
How about you link to a poll that does not imply you have to implement MBS somehow in the very question, and where 6 out of 9 options are not "yes, MBS"?
|
On June 26 2008 06:56 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2008 05:15 teamsolid wrote:On June 25 2008 18:10 maybenexttime wrote:On June 25 2008 09:52 Savio1 wrote:Speaking about anti-MBS: [B]
On a sidenote, we're not really in a minority. Casual players WHO CARE about such things as MBS are actually rare. The problem could be ignorant reviewers like e.g. Dan... I'm not saying what my opinion of MBS is, but you're off on this. Poll at SC2 armory has 92% in favor of MBS and 8% against with 380 votes in. Not a scientific poll but it is probably more accurate than just thinking......"well I bet there are more people in favor of MBS". Unless your definition of "WHO CARE" is something like "who agree with me". Then you can come up with any number you want. Wow, nice, but you'd get ten times as much people voting on either TL or GosuGamers.net with great majority against MBS. How does that poll prove anything? What I'm saying is that the VAST majority of casual players will buy the game REGARDLESS. They do not care about MBS, they do not post on online forums, don't argue about such issues. Only several hundred out of millions casual players do care about whether MBS will be in the game. That's few compared to how many competitive players who do care there are... Actually there has been an MBS poll done at TL.net, and it got about 1000 votes over 2 weeks. MBS won out 48% to 43%. How about you link to a poll that does not imply you have to implement MBS somehow in the very question, and where 6 out of 9 options are not "yes, MBS"?
Actually, splitting the "Pro-MBS" vote 6 ways actually overstates the support for the anti MBS votes because ppl who want MBS can split their votes between the 6 choices.
I seriously lol'd hard when I saw this. So many people have been talking about MBS in this thread as if everyone was against it. Then we see polls from other sites coming in in the 90 percents for MBS and even on TL.net, arguably the most "anit-MBS" SC site to be found, MBS still wins.
And we still have people saying, "Well the pros haven't come out against it, but I am sure that they are still all secretly against MBS".
lol
|
On June 26 2008 06:40 crazie-penguin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2008 05:18 rkarhu wrote:
I definitely agree on the point that macro should be a smaller factor in SC2. And ruin starcraft? no EDIT: Macro is not JUST the mechanical action of cycling through gateways and making units or building stuff. There's also the timing of expos and management of how many workers to get and when, which units to get and when, how many production facilities to get and when. I'd also say tech research and upgrades also fall under this category.
dont they still have everything but the cycling part?
not that im pro-mbs, I actually think its pretty lame.
i dont like some of these gimmicky ideas. any kind of system should be short and sweet.
the punishment system sounds good to me on paper, and it seems like that is the idea behind the warp gates. the more difficult mechanics you pull off, the more you are rewarded. The only downfall that I could see would be an increased range of skills as in, the noobs would get noobier and the pros would get...proier? 
Not sure if this is actually a problem or not, but at least something to think about. It might drive new players away from sc, as they would get raped even harder by players with just average skills. My friend just started iccup, and he is getting the *treament* that i think we all went through at some point.
If it became that much worse i'm not sure if he would find incentive to continue playing.
anyways the key point of this thread is
On June 25 2008 16:28 IdrA wrote:
IDRA WHY ARE YOU POSTING WHEN YOU SHOULD BE WINNING COURAGE?
AFTER COURAGE ITS A SINGLE STEP TO OSL VICTORY AND LOADS OF FANGIRLS!!!
GOGOGO REPRESENT!
|
On June 26 2008 13:43 Savio1 wrote:
we still have people saying, "Well the pros haven't come out against it, but I am sure that they are still all secretly against MBS".
lol
1. Never asked it directly.
2. Happy to be able to play it in alpha -- EXCITED!!
3. Culture.
4. Trained to give 'proper' media friendly responses.
Tx.
I thought we were going to have no more MBS/UI threads until beta. Golden.
Believe me, this topic won't go away and this will become apparent once we have 50,000 people playing it in beta stage.
|
On June 25 2008 16:28 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 15:27 VIB wrote:On June 25 2008 12:22 Luddite wrote:On June 25 2008 04:35 VIB wrote:On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote:
1)Build more buildings! Increase unit build times, decrease building sizes and costs. Add more tech buildings also. This would force you to spend a lot of time at your base, making buildings.
2)Reduce the number of minerals in most patches, and make a lot of expansion sites on the map. Force players to be constantly expanding, much more so than in BW.
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.
All off these 1 to 3 can be made by mapping. You can make it yourself if you feel you need it. Well I want something that's included in competitive melee games, not just crappy UMS games. And the game needs to be balanced with the macro system in place. 2) can be done in melee games (and actually a good idea, I like it). And all korean leagues are played in observer mode in "crappy UMS games". The point is, there is enough tools with mapping to enforce macro-heavy games. I guarantee to you, mr. Luddite, that if Kespa for whatever reason ever believes the games need more macro, they'll fix it making macro maps. I still don't understand why you guys just don't chill out and wait for beta >< No matter how good and logical your anti-mbs arguments are. Those arguments will never be as strong as the fact that you just can't be sure until you try it yourself! Yes I realize that they play with UMS, but it's still the same game as melee mode. The game was specifically balanced for the rules of melee mode, so you can't say "oh just play with different rules". And the reason we don't want to wait for beta is that it will probably be too late by that point. The beta test is for balancing and fixing bugs, not for adding completely new parts to the game play. My point was that you can still make changes to map to force macro games. Like your own suggestion "Reduce the number of minerals in most patches" (I love that idea btw). Is that gonna be enough? I don't know, why don't we just... wait for beta and try it? Anyway I don't think anyone would oppose using UMS only for SBS in tournaments if there is a consensus that SBS is better.
Toggling MBS/SBS is easy, don't worry about beta being too late. They added a whole new damage and armor type once in one WC3:TFT beta patch. Changing back to SBS takes changing 1 single variable. That is editing 1 number in 1 text file. Much like:
from: "int BuildSelectLimit = 0" to "int BuildSelectLimit = 1". Done.
So, just calm down and wait till beta ^^
|
I think MBS is going to allow older and the less skilled to have a chance. Sure it might take away from the greats of the game but I'm personally tired of being called "foriegners". No other e-sport is domianted so badly as korean sc players domiante the world. I mean we couldnt even let any koreans play in tsl cause even amatuers would of knocked all the foriegners out. I think this will allow older players, players with not such high apm, and basically non koreans, to have a shot at keeping up and maybe making sc2 a game where theres no "foriegners"
|
Whatever route they take, I just hope that they remember that it's not satisfying to get good at something that is easy, nor is it fun to watch people do something that is easy
|
I think you all would like to read this:
Currently there are some things that help the player and there are a lot of hardcore players that are freaking out to a bit about some of the decisions we've made so far...
[...]
Example: Unlimited selection. I mean, amongst our own *team* it took us literary a year or something to sell the team on "lets just try it, why set it at 12?" and another thing, Multiple Building Selection. So now you can have three barracks selected and just hit (M)arine [rapidly hits finger at table] and then just go away, where as in the old one you had to specifically select each one. So the hardcore gamers think that: "now the AVERAGE gamer can be as good as me" so we're not really too worried about being to hardcore, we are still experimenting. We are not really to worried, because there are a lot of elements that we want to approach. Micro will have to be there so that a pro gamer can do what an average gamer can't. We are adding some of these UI features that will help people that never could bridge the gap, but I still think that there will be things that sets a pro gamer apart from an average player.
- Lead Developer @ http://www.starcraftwire.net/articles/634/chris-sigaty-interview/page2
Just to let you all know that Blizzard is perfectly aware of the issue. They're perfetly aware that there is this mass of hardcore people is freaking out with MBS. And they're just giving it a try to see how it goes. It's all still subject to change. So give it at least a chance yourself ^^
|
Sigaty doesn't even understand why MBS is so controversial. It's not because you can produce several units with just one click. It's because you can macro perfectly with while paying minimal attention to your macro/base. You won't even let your resources pile up to be able to queue several units at the same time because you can queue units one by one via hotkeys like in WC3...
He also has no idea about the "gap" he is talking about. You can tell that from their very first demo where they all got so excited about some BASIC micro with Stalkers. ;;
|
On June 26 2008 18:13 maybenexttime wrote:
A) It's not because you can produce several units with just one click. B) It's because you can macro perfectly with while paying minimal attention to your macro/base. I'm sorry, but the whole point isn't exactly that A) implies in B) ?
Anyway, I just found that quote interesting because it shows that "they're aware that masses of hardcore gamers hates MBS". Which I didn't know before the interview. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
