[T] what could replace macro with MBS? - Page 7

FinalB055

United States15 Posts

July 01 2008 07:24 GMT

#121

Starcraft, in comparison to a lot of other rts out there, could be well characterized by speed. A lot of this stems from relative low unit hp which keeps battles short, intense, and moving. I dont know how many of you out there played AoE3, but one of its major flaws (besides poor balancing) was making units in large chunks (groups of 10 or so from each building) so quickly that battles stemmed off an infinite economy and would be a test of who could push the m key the fastest because unit choices didn't matter, just who had more dudes with guns. But looking again at starcraft, macro consists of monitoring your base during a fight so that you could produce a sizable force to deal with the outcome of a battle while that battle is still taking place, which could be decided rather quickly. But, what prevents starcraft from falling into the same MBS trap that AoE3 did was the fact that you're building single units and that unit choices matter. Starcraft is not a game about constantly reinforcing an infinite battle. Its quick battles and decisive victories, which is why we're all still playing this game after 10 years. Honestly, its difficult to say that an MBS mechanic can take away from gameplay, or that SBS defines starcraft, because there are so many other reasons why rts fail: poor resource systems, too powerful units that make battles last to long, slow boring gameplay. Starcraft isn't that game, and in order to preserve that, MBS isn't what we should be arguing about. Its about keeping the game fun for lots of people, competitive players or not. You cant tell me the pro's aren't still having fun. MBS is just a mechanic to allow that macro, which we all have had to do, into less of a chore. We're still having to make the same decisions, and we still have to get right back into the fight. Its the same process. And, imho, if MBS was all of a noob tool, isn't the fact that the devs got told proof enough that skill still wins and MBS doesn't matter?

alphafuzard

United States1610 Posts

July 01 2008 07:27 GMT

#122

On July 01 2008 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:
The point is, most anti-MBS people DO NOT CARE about less clicking MBS brings. They (we) want there to be a need to split the player's ATTENTION. The decision making factor and managing time is key. The "I don't have enough time to do everything so I need to choose" feeling.

Pro-MBS crowd just doesn't get it...

This is like saying football (the real kind

) should be about choosing when to defend and when to attack, but eliminating the running in between because its menial. Starcraft is a sport and should have a level of physical demand. Reducing the action requirement, or "clicking", in a computer game (-.-) would be akin to reducing the running (or w.e. physical activity, like skating in hockey) demand from "regular" sports. If a football player can run faster than other players and scores goals because of it, does anyone look down on him for not utilizing the strategical element of football? Of course not.
On the same token, if a starcraft player can click fast enough to give him more time to micromanage units/etc should we look down on him or the way he plays? Of course not.

I also don't understand why you would want the "I don't have enough time to do everything" feeling but at the same time want to lower down the apm demand of the game? Doesn't that seem counter productive?

Sorry for whipping out the sports analogies

, but it seems like an effective way to send a complex message in an easy to follow manner.

edit:

MBS is just a mechanic to allow that macro, which we all have had to do, into less of a chore.

This quote from the post above exemplifies what I am talking about with the whole removing running from football. This quote translated could read: "jetpacks are just a mechanic to allow moving around the field, which we all have to do, into less of a chore." On the subject of football

next time germany

FinalB055

United States15 Posts

July 01 2008 07:32 GMT

#123

On July 01 2008 16:27 alphafuzard wrote:
This is like saying football (the real kind

Of course you dont want to take out the running, (sticking with the sports analogy), but does that mean if theres a way for you to run faster, a certain technique or form, that you would take it? MBS is just a way to make us run faster. And there will be people that will fly with it and others that will get a moderate speed boost, never a guaranteed even playing field.
EDIT: And as to the rocket pack comment in the post before, its hard to compare running and rocketry to the SBS vs. MBS mechanic. 3t4t5v6v7v8v9v0v -> 3ttvvvvvv is hardly a comparable analogy.

Deimos0

Poland277 Posts

July 01 2008 08:35 GMT

#124

If compare MBS to ability to "run faster" - I'd take such opportunity as long as it's not equal cheating in any form. Also 1z2z3z4d...->1zzzd.. sounds more friendly to me, as I havet to still press those keys and still remember to do it (BTW how to que units when assuming you create one unit in one gate/fac/rax/whatever per pressed key?). It's faster - that's for sure and it doesn't require as much attention as in SBS mode, but MBS would still require some skill from new players (they're surely are targets for Blizzard) to use this mechanic effeciently and for better players it'll be an opportunity to make their matches more dynamic. That's my opinion (and yes, AoE3 was horrible when it came to lead units into battle).

teapot

United Kingdom266 Posts

July 01 2008 08:38 GMT

#125

If you want a sports analogy try this:

SBS = Real Tennis

MBS = Lawn Tennis

Klockan3

Sweden2866 Posts

July 01 2008 10:53 GMT

#126

On July 01 2008 17:38 teapot wrote:
If you want a sports analogy try this:

SBS = Real Tennis

MBS = Lawn Tennis

Analogies fail.
SBS = Wheelchair baseball since it handicaps the player so much.
+ Show Spoiler +

MBS = Real baseball were every player plays to his max potential.
+ Show Spoiler +

They can go both ways as easily just by changing which is normal, this was realized a year ago on this forum.

maybenexttime

Poland5871 Posts

July 01 2008 11:01 GMT

#127

SBS = chess

MBS = checkers

BlackStar

Netherlands3029 Posts

July 01 2008 11:08 GMT

#128

Starcraft is such a great game because units die so fast and battles are so quick.

This reduces micro.

To compensate in Starcraft macro takes a lot of effort and attention. If you could macro with 1 button then why micro? Micro would be a waste of time.

Or, you could sometimes micro because you have nothing better to do. And if you aren't distracted harass is very easy to defend.

FinalB055

United States15 Posts

July 01 2008 15:16 GMT

#129

Au contraire, BlackStar. When units have low health, mix that with single unit production and the inability to instantly replenish an army, units have a purpose, and losing even a few units matters. Micro is even more important, not less. I remember, warhammer 40k: dawn of war. Units have some crazy 2000 hp or something like that. Send units into battles that take forever. On top of that, units moved so slow there was no reason to avoid fire or damage cause it just wasn't feasible. In that way, high hp lowered the skill in that game. Granted there was other things to make up for strategy but thats just one example. Micro stems from the importance of units, which i think you were kinda getting at; that if you can rebuild them in a second they dont mean anything. But MBS doesn't translate to instant units. 3bbbbbb isn't just gonna give you 6 battlecruisers instantly to go walk all over your opponent. You still gotta wait and time everything.

teacake

Afghanistan12 Posts

July 01 2008 16:14 GMT

#130

if as you say units are valuable because they are hard to produce, then being good at macro is a desirable skill. Especially when the units have such low health, because it is not really feasible in big battles to keep individual units alive. Your better off building a new army, which if SBS is retained, will be much more to your advantage than to micro. SBS means you cant effectively micro and macro at the same time.

Why? because at that end of the firefight your opponent who out microed you has kept 1/4 to a 1/3 of his army but not built any replacements is going to get steamrollered when he bumps into your fresh new army that you have been making all the time of the fight.

In the MBS alternative, and i'm going to bring my wc3 experoence in a bit, sorry about that.

in a fight you "macro" simply 5 r 6 d and i know i have 2 archers and 2 dryads being rallied to my hero. Sounds easy, but in an intense fight its hard to remember all the time.

Micro is more important now because to beat an opponent you are now better off outmicroing him to change the balance in your favour.

Macro is given a back seat in wc3, but if you imagine the same mechanic multiplied to SC scale you can see macro becoming more important in terms of expansions and economy, that being able to outproduce someone will help balance the micro macro dilemma.

FinalB055

United States15 Posts

July 01 2008 16:35 GMT

#131

I agree with you teacake, that macro is important for expansions and economy. What makes macro difficult is the ability to be constantly expanding, while producing and fighting. But i disagree that micro becomes less important as battles become bigger. In fact, I would say its more important in larger battles, because small movements can help so much. When fighting someone whose just using attack move, unit movements become predictable and your involvement in the fight will be able to allow you to focus fire, preserve injured units, etc. The trick is being able to out macro while out microing. And this comes down to a mindset more then anything else. With your tft example, if you had sbs, would having to type 5r6r7d8d really dissuade you from macroing any more then 5r6d? once you remember, those extra 4 keys really aren't a burden, because either way your not looking back at your base. Macro is more then those 4 keys.

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

July 01 2008 16:40 GMT

#132

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?

CuddlyCuteKitten

Sweden2892 Posts

July 01 2008 17:55 GMT

#133

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?

That SC2 looks like hot shit? I dunno I'm to excited to care about MBS anymore.

Deimos0

Poland277 Posts

July 01 2008 18:55 GMT

#134

Take into consideration that pressing 1+unit hotkey, 2+unit hotkey won't produce 2 units of those 2 types in SC2, you have to press the key for each unit you want to produce, so it isn't exactly as in War3. As for winning without using MBS/automine - players good at playing SBS can be even better when they use MBS correctly. I for myself like the way MBS is introduced in SC2, because in War3 it was simply lame. Automine is little detail that should be removed, just as (don't know if its still present) SCV transported in CC. At first, I enjoyed idea of autocasting and some automation but now I'm just into MBS (but not in War3 style). And yes, just as my predecessor above I'm too excited about SC2 as a whole to care about MBS

FinalB055

United States15 Posts

July 01 2008 19:17 GMT

#135

I for one like automine. Not that its a step down in skill, but just that different base locations get affected differently. At least, its always been annoying to pick that spawned unit out of the mess of workers when your min field is south of your main. Its just a nuicance and shouldn't define skill.

Deimos0

Poland277 Posts

July 01 2008 19:27 GMT

#136

I can agree on this

maybenexttime

Poland5871 Posts

July 01 2008 19:59 GMT

#137

On July 02 2008 04:17 FinalB055 wrote:
I for one like automine. Not that its a step down in skill, but just that different base locations get affected differently. At least, its always been annoying to pick that spawned unit out of the mess of workers when your min field is south of your main. Its just a nuicance and shouldn't define skill.

Maintaining worker production in four different bases as a part of your macro routine while in battle is a skill...

Auto-mining also removes a crucial gameplay dynamic - the more you grow macro-wise the bigger the multi-tasking demand gets.

Pillars

United States147 Posts

July 01 2008 20:00 GMT

#138

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.

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

July 01 2008 20:03 GMT

#139

On July 02 2008 05:00 Pillars wrote:

Show nested quote +

No you got it exactly right -.-; naruto was much much better than his opponents and thats the moral of the story - but that skill difference was not reflected in his games at all

teacake

Afghanistan12 Posts

July 01 2008 20:59 GMT

#140

I don't kow what you mean plexa? Are you saying that this evidence lays to rest the silly idea that MBS is wanted by noobs who think it will make it easier for them to win? I think that this is total proof that this is not the case. Thank you naruto for demonstrating that good players will prevail. I think all you anti-mbs can now stop whining about this. Pro-MBS like myself only see it as an aesthetic issue that will have no bearing on game outcomes.

Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 16 Next All

Please or register to reply.

[T] what could replace macro with MBS? - Page 7

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming