EPTIt's like the best possible solution. And also very intuitive. I'm happy with this.
[T] what could replace macro with MBS? - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
It's like the best possible solution. And also very intuitive. I'm happy with this. | ||
|
heyitsme
153 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 02 2008 05:59 teacake wrote: 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. Obviously it was proof of absolutely nothign... Maybe that's your point (that it can be taken to mean whatever you want it to mean). On July 02 2008 15:55 VIB wrote: I cannot comprehend how is that such a good thing? I mean I do understand that having a bigger skill gap is better than having a smaller skill gap. But in the specific of interface optimization it comes with a cost (less popular game). And I still cannot understand why do you guys think that the skill gap difference is SO important to make up for the cost (which is big imo). Sometimes I think you guys just don't understand what the cost is. I believe most of you just underestimate the importance of new players to the e-sport community. It's really simple: more newbies -> more watchers -> more sponsors -> more money + better tournaments + better top players. And SBS reduces the amount of newbies. Which, despite of many of you think, is extremely BAD for the game as an e-sport. Yes, having a wider skill-gap is good. But having less newbies is bad. So you have to balance both sides. Is that little larger skill-gap offered by SBS so good it makes up for losing tons of spectators that attracts sponsors? Just think about it for a second. It's not like you're gonna lose to D- noobs because of MBS. Look at Naruto at the WWI, he pwned noobs because he is just better. Would it have mattered THAT much if the skill gap was a little bigger? He would have pwned those noobs anyway? A+ players aren't gonna lose to B players because of MBS. Savior wouldn't have beaten FBH if he had MBS. The best player still wins. Having a little wider skill-gap isn't that all important. But popularity is! Yea starcraft is big even with SBS, but it could be better. WoW is even bigger, how many guys try BW and say "bah this is too hard, I'm gonna play WoW?". Don't you wish BW was even bigger? Had more televised games out of korea? That you had a better chance winning a decent cash playing it? SC in Korea, when it was at its peak (not progaming wise but popularity among people actually PLAYING the game), it was - I've been told - completely crazy. Literally the only thing played. That was without MBS. Can this happen these days? Honestly, probably not? SC didn't have much competition even from other genres at the time. So why did I mention this? I dunno. My real point is that SC is a difficult game. SC2 will be a difficult game as well! The people who go "Meh too hard, I'll go play some WoW" are gonna react this way MBS or no MBS. Oh and no obviously I won't lose to D- players, that's not the point. Have you ever read any of the progamer interviews where they say the difference from progamer to progamer is "paper thin"? Pretty popular example, and probably very true. I don't know to what extent MBS will affect these levels of play, but if it does, that's obviously huge and very, very bad. Obviously there will still be standouts (because of their superior work ethic, mentality, talent, whatever), but it's still something to consider. I don't really claim to have the answer, however. | ||
|
hihiahihiahihi
Canada2 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On July 03 2008 01:37 IdrA wrote: 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. | ||
|
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
Other than that it would seem that blizzard is emphasizing micro more in Sc2 than SC1, which is just a matter of opinion. I personally rather like MBS and automine because the jobs they "do" for you are rather tedious, especially in early game, and still, even though these lack of features made SC what it is and still is and probably will be for a long time, it's just not defining in a sequel. -Pyro | ||
|
Morzas
United States387 Posts
On July 02 2008 05:00 Pillars wrote: 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. | ||
|
Inzek
Chile802 Posts
On July 03 2008 12:13 exo6yte wrote: 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. LOL so true.... how can i forget daigo vs justin!! | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On July 03 2008 12:13 exo6yte wrote: 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... | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 03 2008 07:15 Unentschieden wrote: 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. You probably can't, but do you even want to? Do you even need to? The person you describe is gonna buy the game, play single player, jump on bnet for a few weeks then move on to the latest new game. I think SBS/MBS is gonna have less of an impact than people think :C Perhaps on both sides. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On July 02 2008 00:16 FinalB055 wrote: Au contraire, BlackStar. When units have low health, Micro is even more important, not less. Who talked about importance? | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On July 03 2008 17:14 FrozenArbiter wrote: You probably can't, but do you even want to? Do you even need to? The person you describe is gonna buy the game, play single player, jump on bnet for a few weeks then move on to the latest new game. I think SBS/MBS is gonna have less of an impact than people think :C Perhaps on both sides. Imagine making that argument to Blizzard. "Don´t bother, you can afford to disapoint the casuals. It wouldn´t even have a effect on your next projekts!". Blizzard is so popular because they constantly produce blockbusters. Why would they forfeit that advantage to make a game for a "niche" (right now at least)? Why do you think they concsiously keep system reqs. low? Sponsors would be more than happy to supply high-end hardware for tournaments. And most importantly you also dodged the issue: Why should that person buy the game at all? You effectivly told him: "Don´t buy that game, we don´t need you." --------- I´m certain of that. MBS is a minor mechanic and not even the best in it´s category (think C&C). There is stuff that improves gameplay and "lowers the Skillceiling" that is even more obvious and helpfull to the point that even SC-fundamentalists can´t argue it. Improved Pathfinding. Improved collision detection. Improved order reception (thats why mutas don´t work like they used to). Lazy worker button. Textmessage for production/attacks etc. (in the left corner). New LOS system. Just a few examples. Blizzard has to make shure that no part of the game feels like a chore when playing. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Also, the auto-surround of units sounds worrisome (a result of the new pathing). There have also been some other cases of the AI being "too smart" (ie to the point where it's not listening to you  but these will probably be covered). | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
Well he might buy the game regardless based on his experience on previous games. But what about the next? Would he buy Diablo 3 "regardless"? Would he pre-order it or think "Well, they kinda messed SC2 up, I´d rather wait for the review". Blizzard makes great games but that isn´t some kind of divine mandate. It´s a result of consistently great games. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On July 03 2008 07:15 Unentschieden wrote: 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? | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
MBS can have many downsides. But you can't disagree that this one is at least one of it's benefits. Interface improvements being good or not is, like concluded in many threads before, only a matter of finding a balance between it's benefits (easy to learn - popular game with lots of sponsors) and it's downsides (not has hard to master - shorter skill gap). This is the subjective part where the discussion should be at. But you can't say UI improvements won't make the game more popular. That is arguing backwards and against objective logic. Like saying "I don't like your theory about life's meaning because that part in the beginning where you said 1+1=2 is wrong, so let's discuss that part". That part is not discussable I accept that MBS makes the game less "hard to master", but you need to accept it makes the game "easier to learn". Those are objective facts. Now let's move forward to the subjective discussable part. How much easier to learn and how much hard to master will it be? I personally think the "easier to learn" part weights heavier because (among other stuff) they're also adding many new stuff to keep you busy (warp in, more mobile harass units for all races etc). So at the end you'll still have better/more dedicated players beating worse players even at korean progamer level, while at the same time making the game much easier for newbies to enjoy and attract sponsors. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
On July 04 2008 00:23 IdrA wrote: "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. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
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. | ||
|
Morzas
United States387 Posts
On July 03 2008 14:53 Klockan3 wrote: 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. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5771 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
