Like most of the people here, I am opposed to automine and MBS for SC2. I think that they will make the game too easy, too boring, and remove the strategic choice of whether to focus on macro or micro.
However, this thread is not to argue about that. We've had a lot of MBS threads, and they're all pretty much the same. And despite people telling blizzard many times that MBS is bad, they have yet to even try taking it away. To be honest, I doubt that their developers understand BW enough to know why it's bad. They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs.
So I think it's time to admit defeat. gg. MBS is here to stay. But if it stays, what could they add that would save the game? It's actually not so important whether or not MBS is in the game, what's important is that MACRO is in the game. We need to think of something to add to the game that is difficult, and somewhat mindless, that diverts attention away from your army. I believe Karune actually said in one of the Q and A posts that they were looking for ways to add macro, but I don't think they really understand what they're looking for. We need to help them with this.
Here are some ideas that I have: 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.
Anyway please tell me what you think of my macro ideas, and try to come up with some youselves. Let's save this game!
My apologies for making yet another MBS thread, but I feel that this one will be productive.
I like these ideas, but I'm not too sure about the interactive terrain...letting workers completely bypass a choke to a main or natural would be pretty powerful, as well as walling off corner expos and making them "island" expos. This would probably be useful if balanced well, though.
I like your third idea, kinda. But the remaining two would change the core gameplay probably even more than MBS.
Another idea that has been proposed is making MBS simulate SBS-macro (to force the players to make decisions and multi-task like in BW) when its needed (i.e. unit production) while leaving all other improvements it brings (mass rally, focus firing with defensive structures, etc.). This could be achieved by restricting the MBS to one building per hotkey like in BW.
I think that's the only real solution since so far other ideas presented have been equally tedious as SBS-macro, and would therefore be equally hated by casual players.
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...
what maybenexttime is saying is different from mbs. his version of mbs wouldn't allow using mbs to make units, only "mass rally, focus firing with defensive structures, etc." Thus it's a nice compromise between the two.
luddite, your number two seems like it would be more of a map-based change rather than anything else. So perhaps we ought to test making gameplay more expo driven by making low $ patch, high expo maps now? Oh and it just struck me that perhaps this change would help zerg most, terran some, and hurt toss. Zerg gets increasing numbers of hatches as the game progresses anyway, at least in current sc. Terran can just lift off buildings, thus saving money. Toss has to build useless nexuses everywhere just to keep up, then. And number three seems like a good idea. As you said, strategic options open up and reward apm/skill; it also gives blizzard another chance to make the races unique by giving each race unique terrain abilities. But I wonder how they will fare in terms of visibility. IMO sc2 graphics are dazzling enough already, and I don't want to be even more confused by lots of random terrain doodads everywhere.
personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
I liked your ideas especially 2) and 3) i also think that Blizzard should make complex unit combos more useful. Pure Goon / zeal with MBS would be quite boring to macro in Bw but if you have to make arbiters, zeal, goons, reavers and ht you will be busy.
I think that if Blizzard uses this kind of ideas MBS wont be a real problem. SBS just forces players to make intensive apm-related routines which arent really funny or interesting althought it requiers skill.
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
I remember in an interview a dev addressed this, saying korean pros still felt warp gate was too easy. He also seemed legitimately concerned about the fact that veterans know MBS changes a big part of the game while still trying to cater to the expectations of a modern rts. So even though they may not have the answer at this very moment, that relieved a lot of my concerns because it's a genuine issue to them. If they can do more things like warp gates, could be the best of both worlds.
how about "build penalty time" multiplied by the number of buildings you have SELECTED minus one.
ie. you have 1 building selected = zero build penalty time 2 selected you have (an example remember) 1x build penalty time = 0.5sec 3 selected you have 2x build penalty time = 1.0sec 4 selected you have 3x build penalty time = 1.5sec etc. etc.
(so if you click each of your buildings individually and build from them one at a time, you get no penalty)
so if you build your units from multiple sources at once, then each unit takes "build penalty time" longer to finish.
in casual (noob?) games, where players frequently build then attack, then build then attack (not much multitasking) there isnt much difference for the players, if their army takes an extra 3-4 seconds to replenish per unit because likely most players will be using MBS and equalizing the penalty against each other.
meanwhile in pro games, the difference even in 1-2 secs can make a significant difference with min-maxed build orders and timing attacks.
the better the players, the more significant this penalty time would be, while lesser players will hardly notice it.
the goal is that the penalty time emulates how long it might take for many lesser-to-medium players to click each building and select a unit to build.
this also means that pro players will have a natural and strategic macro advantage over lesser players, and the advantage scales with game time, as you build up more resources and production buildings you need to be a better player to make the most of it.
and most importantly, this provides a rewarding bonus to good players that they will notice, while barely making a difference to casual players because they simply arent fast enough to appreciate the difference (atleast until they get better and seek to improve their macro skill).
(oh and if you want an ingame justification - you could claim that MBS represents sending your orders through 'middle management' in the chain of command, so if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.)
RE: AutoMine
1. Make miners lazy - they dont auto mine straight away, instead they wait after being created for 0.25seconds "per miner in sight range". so early in the game when you reach around 8 miners and start building production buildings, choosing tech, rushing/defending..etc. being distracted from your miners is starting to cost you 2+s mining time per miner. (this 'lazy time' could be varied per race, zerg dont build nearly as many miners as the other races for example).
2. Make miners dumb - they auto mine towards the closest patch even if its being mined (they never mine gas automatically) they dont switch to another patch until they actually try to mine that patch, so you atleast have to change your rally point every now and then or else they will approach the nearest (probably occupied) patch and fail to mine it, and then look for another patch. this should cost another 1-2s of mining time per miner.
so in the first 2 minutes of gameplay assuming it takes about 3s to complete a mining trip and roughly 20s to make a miner and you start with 4 miners (that mine at 8 minerals per trip each) you lose around 50 minerals worth through downtime on mining. thats 2 less zerglings to defend or rush with, or maybe you take another 5 seconds before you can build your barracks etc.
obviously as the game continues, this accumulated downtime spread across a couple of expansions can mean the difference between being able to tech faster or having that extra reaver ready etc.
and again, importantly, the difference is really only noticeable for good players, new players will barely notice it, they probably have trouble spending all their resources anyway and will likely have a surplus build up between battles that eclipses the lost mining time penalty. however good players will definitely want the advantage of an extra few units in the early-mid game, and faster tech into the late game.
small differences like these that dont overtly hurt a new player but rather give them explicit game mechanic rewards for improving multitasking skills, while not making them mandatory in games against others around the same skill level.
so a casual player who doesnt really follow build orders strictly, plays money maps, likes to spam a single unit en masse, never even heard of a 'timing attack' will never feel forced into learning the more difficult advanced skills that the pros MUST use because of the knife edge discrimination between winning and losing at high levels.
NOTE: the numbers ive used are just to illustrate by example, i have no idea what the optimum penalty times would be, but people with the stats could work that stuff out.
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
I'm against MBS but I'm still unsure whether I like the idea of warpgates or not. They have a good and a bad point, good being that they reward busy players and bad being that they force one certain playing style if you want to get 100% efficiency. Hard decision to make.
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
I'm against MBS but I'm still unsure whether I like the idea of warpgates or not. They have a good and a bad point, good being that they reward busy players and bad being that they force one certain playing style if you want to get 100% efficiency. Hard decision to make.
Isn't that of how it is now in Brood War now? I think this is all we get because Dustin seems out of ideas and a roll back is wishful thinking.
I´d rather have mechanics like the Protoss warp in (which is constanlty being ignored when complaining about lacking macro). Something thats optional, otherwise there wouldn´t be a point in implementing MBS.
You can't just add more macro. If you do, you have to redesign the way the game works. The mechanics that gather resources and produce units. And probably make it more abstract and counter intuitive, without a ground in reality. Yeah, really artificial stuff. Something like warp gates accounts for nothing.
Best would be to either make MBS an option for casual play. Or make MBS have a big penalty which would result in competitive players NEVER EVER using it. Which is probably not possible.
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
I remember in an interview a dev addressed this, saying korean pros still felt warp gate was too easy. He also seemed legitimately concerned about the fact that veterans know MBS changes a big part of the game while still trying to cater to the expectations of a modern rts. So even though they may not have the answer at this very moment, that relieved a lot of my concerns because it's a genuine issue to them. If they can do more things like warp gates, could be the best of both worlds.
Ya, Dustin said this in Blizzcast #3. He is genuinely concerned about the lack of macro, and another issue you never hear much about is that he is also worried about the lack of micro, but to a lesser extent. Blizzard wants this to be the best rts ever and they have indicated they will take as much time as possible to ensure that all players will be happy with the final product. I just hope this is actually possible.
I completely agree with the OP, we need more to do in terms of macro. And I'm sure we all know that the decision to focus on micro/macro is important in racial balancing as well.
Anyways, something I liked that another RTS did (a really old one, I think Dune 2000 or something?) is that it allowed workers to build cheap walls. It was just a thin divider that units couldn't pass on ground, but they could attack it. Using this, one could create different choke points in their base, or set up interesting advanced positions, etc. The walls took a while to build though, every section was small so you really had to manage the construction process well.
Another option is definitely just decreasing unit production time, so players have to at least pay more attention to their production buildings. Maybe also make it so they are required to just build more buildings, as the OP suggested. This would really increase the pace of the game though, which I think would be good but whatever.
For increasing the micro... I think they just need to bring back some of the units from BW which really allowed players to look like geniuses. For example: medics, vultures, reavers. All lead to intense micro encounters which not only required skill, but were very exciting to watch (double bonus). I look at the replacement units for SC2 and they don't really seem that exciting, despite having good concept art (a novelty which wears off pretty quickly).
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote: ... So I think it's time to admit defeat. gg. MBS is here to stay. But if it stays, what could they add that would save the game? It's actually not so important whether or not MBS is in the game, what's important is that MACRO is in the game. We need to think of something to add to the game that is difficult, and somewhat mindless, that diverts attention away from your army [emphasis added]. I believe Karune actually said in one of the Q and A posts that they were looking for ways to add macro, but I don't think they really understand what they're looking for. We need to help them with this. ...
The point of things like MBS, unit cap select increase, automine command, etc. is UI simplification in order to make the game mechanically easier to play (and perhaps more intuitive). This in turn makes the game more playable to people who have no intention of playing it competitively, as well as those beginning to ladder, making them reach a skill level where strategy is comparably important to mouse/hand speed quicker--thus increasing the competitive base of players too. Sure, everybody who understands SC realizes the huge importance of time management and the dynamics of never-have-enough-time gameplay, and how MBS would take away from that. It's quite possible it'll make the game much worse.
But creating new mindless busywork tasks to replace the old...they're never going to do that (intentionally). They're trying to remove that element from the game, so there's no reason IMHO to devise awkward ways that could possibly be accomplished. Anything they do add, such as warp gates (witholding judgement on warp gates atm), would have some kind of strategical element attached to it. Ideally isn't this what you would want: old mindless tasks replaced with new non-mindless tasks that took up as much time? Actually coming up with new stuff that would be non-mindless and take time, though, might likely be impossible or beyond Blizzard's ability at this day and age.
Anyhow, I'd be careful about implying that macro has been removed from the game. All kinds of unit production, expanding, worker timing, unit/mass/tech equation theory, etc. are still in the game, and mastery of these concepts was the signiture of macro beasts like iloveoov. Say that the mechanical difficulty and time management aspects were somewhat removed. It's more precise, and it might sound more palatable to say the non-RTS competitive gamer.
edit: yeah not sure how it'd fit, but buildable walls are kind of cute if nothing else. Actually, what I'm as concerned with is the importance of unit positioning, what with high ground advantage changed and all those terrain-ignoring units like Reapers and Colossi--with these kinds of units as well as mass transport like in Nydus Worms, these walls/choke/positioning concepts become less important.
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
I'm against MBS but I'm still unsure whether I like the idea of warpgates or not. They have a good and a bad point, good being that they reward busy players and bad being that they force one certain playing style if you want to get 100% efficiency. Hard decision to make.
Isn't that of how it is now in Brood War now? I think this is all we get because Dustin seems out of ideas and a roll back is wishful thinking.
Theres no real issue for Zerg with respect to MBS as it is essentially the same system from Sc1; thus MBS only affects (really) T and P. P have warpgates while T are... lacking.. a specific macro thing for terran would be beneficial imo
to address the guy would said that warpgates were easy, its that the units build automatically (doh?) warpgates could easily be more difficult to use than gateways in SC1 if you had to initiate build, then place them - instantly double macro
I don't know if this idea has been suggested before but...
How about a system where:
- You can select up to 10 buildings at a time - You cannot simultaneously build the same units from those buildings BUT - You can use shift-1 through shift-0 to select individual buildings from those group of 10 buildings, and build units from that
so for instance, if you hotkey 10 gateways to "5", you'd press
5 shift-1, z shift-2, z shift-3, z
etc...
That way you'd still have to remember to macro but you wouldn't have to switch your screen back to your base as often. Somewhat of a compromise.
How about if you select five buildings and you want to make five zealots you have to press Z five times. Then if you pressed Z 10 times, each gateway would produce 2 zealots. Just a thought.
how about "build penalty time" multiplied by the number of buildings you have SELECTED minus one.
ie. you have 1 building selected = zero build penalty time 2 selected you have (an example remember) 1x build penalty time = 0.5sec 3 selected you have 2x build penalty time = 1.0sec 4 selected you have 3x build penalty time = 1.5sec etc. etc.
(so if you click each of your buildings individually and build from them one at a time, you get no penalty)
so if you build your units from multiple sources at once, then each unit takes "build penalty time" longer to finish.
in casual (noob?) games, where players frequently build then attack, then build then attack (not much multitasking) there isnt much difference for the players, if their army takes an extra 3-4 seconds to replenish per unit because likely most players will be using MBS and equalizing the penalty against each other.
meanwhile in pro games, the difference even in 1-2 secs can make a significant difference with min-maxed build orders and timing attacks.
the better the players, the more significant this penalty time would be, while lesser players will hardly notice it.
the goal is that the penalty time emulates how long it might take for many lesser-to-medium players to click each building and select a unit to build.
this also means that pro players will have a natural and strategic macro advantage over lesser players, and the advantage scales with game time, as you build up more resources and production buildings you need to be a better player to make the most of it.
and most importantly, this provides a rewarding bonus to good players that they will notice, while barely making a difference to casual players because they simply arent fast enough to appreciate the difference (atleast until they get better and seek to improve their macro skill).
(oh and if you want an ingame justification - you could claim that MBS represents sending your orders through 'middle management' in the chain of command, so if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.)
RE: AutoMine
1. Make miners lazy - they dont auto mine straight away, instead they wait after being created for 0.25seconds "per miner in sight range". so early in the game when you reach around 8 miners and start building production buildings, choosing tech, rushing/defending..etc. being distracted from your miners is starting to cost you 2+s mining time per miner. (this 'lazy time' could be varied per race, zerg dont build nearly as many miners as the other races for example).
2. Make miners dumb - they auto mine towards the closest patch even if its being mined (they never mine gas automatically) they dont switch to another patch until they actually try to mine that patch, so you atleast have to change your rally point every now and then or else they will approach the nearest (probably occupied) patch and fail to mine it, and then look for another patch. this should cost another 1-2s of mining time per miner.
so in the first 2 minutes of gameplay assuming it takes about 3s to complete a mining trip and roughly 20s to make a miner and you start with 4 miners (that mine at 8 minerals per trip each) you lose around 50 minerals worth through downtime on mining. thats 2 less zerglings to defend or rush with, or maybe you take another 5 seconds before you can build your barracks etc.
obviously as the game continues, this accumulated downtime spread across a couple of expansions can mean the difference between being able to tech faster or having that extra reaver ready etc.
and again, importantly, the difference is really only noticeable for good players, new players will barely notice it, they probably have trouble spending all their resources anyway and will likely have a surplus build up between battles that eclipses the lost mining time penalty. however good players will definitely want the advantage of an extra few units in the early-mid game, and faster tech into the late game.
small differences like these that dont overtly hurt a new player but rather give them explicit game mechanic rewards for improving multitasking skills, while not making them mandatory in games against others around the same skill level.
so a casual player who doesnt really follow build orders strictly, plays money maps, likes to spam a single unit en masse, never even heard of a 'timing attack' will never feel forced into learning the more difficult advanced skills that the pros MUST use because of the knife edge discrimination between winning and losing at high levels.
NOTE: the numbers ive used are just to illustrate by example, i have no idea what the optimum penalty times would be, but people with the stats could work that stuff out.
PS: sorry for the epic meandering post.
That is a really well-thought out idea. I think the idea of penalizing people for using MBS is very interesting, but I feel macro should be kept up by something like warp-in and keeping MBS in, instead of keeping MBS in and then punishing players for using it. I'm hoping that in the end Blizzard will come up with many ways to keep macro important without just adding weird hanicaps to MBS (such as not being able to hotkey buildings or something) or punishing the player with longer build times for using it. Props on the idea though.
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
i agree and blizzard even said they think it helps with macro. but it's really just one breath of fresh air in a desert sand storm. what other features could there be for the other races? and warp gate alone, while is a step in the right direction, does not put us at the finish line for fulfilling the macro aspect.
if there were lots more features like warp gate, it would defeinitely do a lot for the macro. but my fear is that there really aren't that many features that would satisfy, or that even if there were, that that would be enough of a compensation for MBS. so atm, it seems to me, as beautiful as warp gate is, it seems to be a lone ranger.
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
i agree and blizzard even said they think it helps with macro. but it's really just one breath of fresh air in a desert sand storm. what other features could there be for the other races? and warp gate alone, while is a step in the right direction, does not put us at the finish line for fulfilling the macro aspect.
if there were lots more features like warp gate, it would defeinitely do a lot for the macro. but my fear is that there really aren't that many features that would satisfy, or that even if there were, that that would be enough of a compensation for MBS. so atm, it seems to me, as beautiful as warp gate is, it seems to be a lone ranger.
To essentially repeat myself...
Zerg = Same as Sc1 Protoss = Warpgates (main productive facility) option of using lesser gateways if you suck (MBS on stargates who cares? you build like 6 carriers at a time anyway) Terran = ??? <-- needs something here
imo its not that big of an issue for any race but terran
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote: They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs.
Why do people keep saying this implying that progamers and against MBS and only noobs like it? Anyone got a link of any interview actually stating that? Because the few korean progamers interviews that I did read, every single one of them had a "I don't care - makes little difference - let's wait for beta and see" stance on MBS. It has always seemed to me that it's only the C- TL.net players who got addicted to the subject and wanna show off how good they are opposed to the D- noobs who wants an easier game. But the progamers themselves who you often cite could care less about MBS. Why are you guys so addicted to it? Why not just wait to beta?
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.
On June 25 2008 04:10 UmmTheHobo wrote: How about if you select five buildings and you want to make five zealots you have to press Z five times. Then if you pressed Z 10 times, each gateway would produce 2 zealots. Just a thought.
I've thought about this as well. Just cycle to the next non-training building in the group after you've pressed whatever you want to build. If all have queues, just make it select the one with least buildtime for the next unit to start building. You'd be able to have better control of what you build instead of regular MBS, and it'd reward players that are more careful with their army composition instead of players just randomly mashing the buttons, creating queues of units they don't need.
all 3 ideas are very stupid. 3.workers building ramps and bridges? Come on... 2.it will only make games last longer and we'll constantly see mined out bases fight which although its interesting to see here and there it will get very boring if every 3rd game is like that! 1.That's totally changing the whole gameplay and balance, better to have no macro than changing the game so much!
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
i agree and blizzard even said they think it helps with macro. but it's really just one breath of fresh air in a desert sand storm. what other features could there be for the other races? and warp gate alone, while is a step in the right direction, does not put us at the finish line for fulfilling the macro aspect.
if there were lots more features like warp gate, it would defeinitely do a lot for the macro. but my fear is that there really aren't that many features that would satisfy, or that even if there were, that that would be enough of a compensation for MBS. so atm, it seems to me, as beautiful as warp gate is, it seems to be a lone ranger.
To essentially repeat myself...
Zerg = Same as Sc1 Protoss = Warpgates (main productive facility) option of using lesser gateways if you suck (MBS on stargates who cares? you build like 6 carriers at a time anyway) Terran = ??? <-- needs something here
imo its not that big of an issue for any race but terran
Don't terrans have those nuclear add ons or w/e so they can produce two units at once from a building or something?
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote: They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs.
Why do people keep saying this implying that progamers and against MBS and only noobs like it? Anyone got a link of any interview actually stating that? Because the few korean progamers interviews that I did read, every single one of them had a "I don't care - makes little difference - let's wait for beta and see" stance on MBS. It has always seemed to me that it's only the C- TL.net players who got addicted to the subject and wanna show off how good they are opposed to the D- noobs who wants an easier game. But the progamers themselves who you often cite could care less about MBS. Why are you guys so addicted to it? Why not just wait to beta?
Korean progamers haven't really said anything about it, but I'm thinking that may just be good manners and respect. If the progamers were already denouncing SC2 as of now, Blizzard would lose a lot of face. Most Asian cultures value respect. According to Tasteless, most Korean progamers he's talked to have said to him that they think MBS is a bad idea (I could be wrong on this one though).
As for only C- TL.net players angry at D- noobs, that is just a very ignorant and arrogant statement. Many of the top foreign gamers here think MBS is a terrible idea (e.g. IdrA). I would argue that most of us are not addicted, but rather just worried. I think this thread is a step in the right direction (assuming we are going to be in an MBS world).
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote: They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs.
Why do people keep saying this implying that progamers and against MBS and only noobs like it? Anyone got a link of any interview actually stating that? Because the few korean progamers interviews that I did read, every single one of them had a "I don't care - makes little difference - let's wait for beta and see" stance on MBS. It has always seemed to me that it's only the C- TL.net players who got addicted to the subject and wanna show off how good they are opposed to the D- noobs who wants an easier game. But the progamers themselves who you often cite could care less about MBS. Why are you guys so addicted to it? Why not just wait to beta?
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.
It's funny that you'd take this stance, considering Dustin himself stated his concerns on MBS, saying that, and I quote, they keep trying "bad ideas" that don't work, and they can't find a solution to the problem. What "problem"? The "problem" that he is referring to, is the over-simplification of MBS and Automine. If the Lead Developer himself refers to it as an issue which they are taking extremely seriously, then maybe we should too?
Also, Tasteless has stated that after speaking with plenty of people in the Pro-scene, that the general consensus is that it is not taken well. You can find that quote yourself, it's not hard to find.
Also, I believe all the top foreigners who have spoken about it, have spoken against it.
I think you should do some more research before making such a baseless assumption. The reason higher ranked players are more "obsessed" with it, is because higher ranked players are more dedicated players, who value competitive SC more than average or D- players.
Are people saying Starcraft is a shallow game if it has MBS and an improved U.I? That's what it seems like. That's pretty sad if true and a bit disrespectful to SC. We can only hope SC2 isn't released anytime soon because it seems like the developers still haven't found a solution to the "lost some macro and to a lesser extent, micro in StarCraft II".
Anyways I'd like to see more new game mechanics introduced in SC2 that will define SC2 from SC1 in a positive way. Right now it seems like SC1.5 rehash with shuffled units, 3d graphics, with an easier U.I and very few new game mechanics such as cliff walking.
Ugh for the last time, the ultimate solution to MBS is just to have it optional in pre-game settings. For example, when you create a game on battle.net, there will be an option to include MBS. So when you see a game on the list you are searching, it will say something like "Python, fastest, no MBS".
On June 25 2008 07:55 Storm79 wrote: Ugh for the last time, the ultimate solution to MBS is just to have it optional in pre-game settings. For example, when you create a game on battle.net, there will be an option to include MBS. So when you see a game on the list you are searching, it will say something like "Python, fastest, no MBS".
either nobody will use it.. (do you see anyone playing on slowest speed on bnet? ) or the community will be further segmented which is very bad. The community is already segmented 5 ways(regular maps, hunters, bgh, fastest, ums).
I've been thinking like the op, that we should get together and find good alternatives for a long time. So I copy paste my own idea that i posted in the "ideas" sticky just after QnA 35.
Solution to the macro problem. Inspired from the QnA batch 35 with the new mothership that lets warp gates build units directly to the mothership FASTER. This is supposed to solve the MBS uproar once and for all by introducing new macro tasks.
Idea The basic idea is to have abilities for units/buildings that is NOT queable and NOT multishootable which improves macro rather than direct fighting ability.
Protoss: Copy paste from QnA 35: The Mothership now allows Protoss Gateways that have converted to Warp Gates to be able to warp units straight to the Mothership. The warp-in mechanic (which cannot be queued) has also been tweaked to allow Protoss players who use it to get a slight time decrease in unit production as opposed to queuing units traditionally at the Gateways. In other words, the cooldown timer on warp-in doesnt take as long as the build time for units at a Gateway.
So use the mothership to build things faster. Then the mothership should be fairly early in tech, or the ability should be moved to another unit. This to allow for more intense macroing at least from midgame.
Terran: A building called "administration centre" or something similar (preferably less lame) which has an ability that can be used on unit producing building with about a siege tanks range. No mana, no cooldown. spammable, not queable. This ability will refund a percentage of the units cost (10%? 20%? has to be tuned) once on each unit WHILE IT IS BUILDING. So you will have to build this building central in yuor base, and each time you build units, you will have to select this building afterwards and go on a refunding round for optimal macro. (and you may be able to build more units after that, that you can refund!) Alternatively it can be put on one of the existing buildings (ebay? academy?).
So building placement will be even more importnat for terran, and it may not always be a good idea to proxy too agressively. Also, this building will be target for raids i guess.
Zerg: Give one of the zerg units (overlord comes to mind, or maybe queen) an ability "create larva". This should have fairly large range and target a hatchery that will create an extra larva, up to a maximum of 3 larva. With cooldown or mana.
This is probably the coolest idea imo. Building will be 1) use all existing larvae 2) select a group of overlords close to your hatcheries 3) c-click-c-click-c-click until you have 3 larvae on all hatcheries. 4) repeat until all overlords have used their cooldown. Also, you will have to chose if you want to scout with your overlords, or macro with them, which could make for more strategic play in some way probably. Similarly, if the queen has the ability, you will have to chose if you need to mana for fighting, or for macro.
Another thing to think about: if SC2 has the exact same mechanics as SC (what many here would probably prefer), it will automatically be P>Z>T once again (once the game is "perfectly balanced" as BW is) in the non-progamer scene. This is simply because of the lower mechanical demands Protoss has (fewer units, longer build times, etc.). This should be addressed so that the races can be "balanced" not only for progamers but for casual gamers up to "foreigner gosus" too.
Generally, they should make T and Z as easy to play (mechanically) as P (mechanically), or P harder.
They should at least add MUS (multiple unit selection, with a limit far higher than 12) because it's just really annoying for Zergs below progamer level to deal with all those lings and whatnot in late game. Again, advantage for P because of fewer units.
Terran have the 2x unit production with the add on. A lot of buildings seem to have attention demanding features. I revel in sc2 filth. Gurgurgagraaaammmmm
[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.
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote: They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs.
Why do people keep saying this implying that progamers and against MBS and only noobs like it? Anyone got a link of any interview actually stating that? Because the few korean progamers interviews that I did read, every single one of them had a "I don't care - makes little difference - let's wait for beta and see" stance on MBS. It has always seemed to me that it's only the C- TL.net players who got addicted to the subject and wanna show off how good they are opposed to the D- noobs who wants an easier game. But the progamers themselves who you often cite could care less about MBS. Why are you guys so addicted to it? Why not just wait to beta?
Korean progamers haven't really said anything about it, but I'm thinking that may just be good manners and respect.
So essentially your saying: "No progamer has said anything bad against MBS, but I am sure that they are still against it."
:\
Whats to keep someone else from saying: "No progamer has spoken about MBS, but I sm sure that they are all for it."?
I wish everyone would just speak for themselves and not for others.
On June 25 2008 08:28 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Another thing to think about: if SC2 has the exact same mechanics as SC (what many here would probably prefer), it will automatically be P>Z>T once again (once the game is "perfectly balanced" as BW is) in the non-progamer scene. This is simply because of the lower mechanical demands Protoss has (fewer units, longer build times, etc.). This should be addressed so that the races can be "balanced" not only for progamers but for casual gamers up to "foreigner gosus" too.
Generally, they should make T and Z as easy to play (mechanically) as P (mechanically), or P harder.
They should at least add MUS (multiple unit selection, with a limit far higher than 12) because it's just really annoying for Zergs below progamer level to deal with all those lings and whatnot in late game. Again, advantage for P because of fewer units.
Now you've said it all. P>Z>T, WTF?????? At least look for race statistics, which are pretty much the same, with Zerg being abble to more easily kill Protoss, not terran! @ to the guy suggesting toggable MBS that's pure crap. A)Everyone will use it and those not using it will obviously be in an disadvantage, while the problem of easier game and less macro remains! Do you even think?
On June 25 2008 01:12 jellyfish wrote: what maybenexttime is saying is different from mbs. his version of mbs wouldn't allow using mbs to make units, only "mass rally, focus firing with defensive structures, etc." Thus it's a nice compromise between the two.
I don't think that some sort of gimped version of MBS is the answer. I think that would just piss off everyone.
On June 25 2008 01:12 jellyfish wrote: luddite, your number two seems like it would be more of a map-based change rather than anything else. So perhaps we ought to test making gameplay more expo driven by making low $ patch, high expo maps now? Oh and it just struck me that perhaps this change would help zerg most, terran some, and hurt toss. Zerg gets increasing numbers of hatches as the game progresses anyway, at least in current sc. Terran can just lift off buildings, thus saving money. Toss has to build useless nexuses everywhere just to keep up, then.
Yeah as you say if you did this in BW it would really help zerg waaay too much. Terran can't defend that many expos and protoss can't afford to keep building nexuses.
On June 25 2008 01:12 jellyfish wrote: And number three seems like a good idea. As you said, strategic options open up and reward apm/skill; it also gives blizzard another chance to make the races unique by giving each race unique terrain abilities. But I wonder how they will fare in terms of visibility. IMO sc2 graphics are dazzling enough already, and I don't want to be even more confused by lots of random terrain doodads everywhere.
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
Hmm OK I wasn't aware that warpgates worked like that. That is a good idea. I'm very surprised that they can't warp in by MBS though- I wonder why not.
On June 25 2008 02:47 Ryot wrote: Anyways, something I liked that another RTS did (a really old one, I think Dune 2000 or something?) is that it allowed workers to build cheap walls. It was just a thin divider that units couldn't pass on ground, but they could attack it. Using this, one could create different choke points in their base, or set up interesting advanced positions, etc. The walls took a while to build though, every section was small so you really had to manage the construction process well.
I like the walls idea. They had that in Total Annihilation, and it was pretty fun. Actually war2 had walls also, although as i recall they were pretty useless.
On June 25 2008 02:47 Ryot wrote: For increasing the micro... I think they just need to bring back some of the units from BW which really allowed players to look like geniuses. For example: medics, vultures, reavers. All lead to intense micro encounters which not only required skill, but were very exciting to watch (double bonus). I look at the replacement units for SC2 and they don't really seem that exciting, despite having good concept art (a novelty which wears off pretty quickly).
I'm not too worried about a lack of micro. I think there's plenty of stuff in the game already that will require lots of micro (stalkers for example) and it's very easy from them to just add new special abilities to units if there's not enough micro.
On June 25 2008 04:27 Plexa wrote: To essentially repeat myself...
Zerg = Same as Sc1 Protoss = Warpgates (main productive facility) option of using lesser gateways if you suck (MBS on stargates who cares? you build like 6 carriers at a time anyway) Terran = ??? <-- needs something here
imo its not that big of an issue for any race but terran
There's still the issue of automine, though. That will make macro a lot easier, too.
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote: They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs.
Why do people keep saying this implying that progamers and against MBS and only noobs like it? Anyone got a link of any interview actually stating that? Because the few korean progamers interviews that I did read, every single one of them had a "I don't care - makes little difference - let's wait for beta and see" stance on MBS. It has always seemed to me that it's only the C- TL.net players who got addicted to the subject and wanna show off how good they are opposed to the D- noobs who wants an easier game. But the progamers themselves who you often cite could care less about MBS. Why are you guys so addicted to it? Why not just wait to beta?
To be honest it would have been more accurate to just say that people who play a lot are against MBS. I don't have any hard data, but it's really obvious from any MBS debate that the more someone plays, the more likely they are to be against MBS. It's almost a direct correlation. I don't know what the real pro gamers said, but I do know that it would be considered extremely bad manner in Korea for someone as young as them to publicly criticize the game.
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.
On June 25 2008 08:32 Yank31 wrote: Isn't it T>P>Z at high level?
More like T>P<Z at high level. But only slightly, it's very balanced. This is because Terran is rewarded for better mechanics much more than Protoss, and the same with Zerg but not as much as Terran. And we all know how good the Koreans are with mechanics.
Plus, (I'm referring to that huge long post), you can't put artificial limitations on things. This will only make the game more complex and make people angry and wondering why there are such limitations. If you're making the units build slower, it's going to take more coding, as well as being pointless. If it's a small variable like 0.5 seconds - 5 seconds, the time it takes you to select every single building one by one to make units will be equal or greater to the delay you'll get from your "penalty". Slapping on a penalty for MBS is pointless, and will only decrease sales and general player happiness because of artificial limitations that the casual gamer will find extremely irritating.
The auto mining system is when you put a rally point on the mineral itself. The workers don't tell themselves to mine gas, you just put a rally point on the mineral patch and when they are built they will head to mine. The worker AI is very smart now and will choose the next open patch to be more efficient - why would you waste all that coding to make them "dumb"? This will only open up more reasons for reviewers and casual customers / gamers to get angry at Blizzard. Another pointless artificial limitation.
You are thinking of all these limitations that come with MBS. But face it, MBS is here to stay, and you can't just try and dumb it down and punish those who use MBS. That would be like saying if you have 10 high templar and you storm very quickly, they will wait until the last storm is finished before storming, because storm is imba. ??? It doesn't make any sense! Imagine how 'penalizing' players for doing certain things will affect the way a normal player will think of the game. Especially if they carry over to UMS. Artificial limitations are NOT the solution here.
To the op, I like the 3rd example but it would have to go through extensive testing to find out ways to make it balanced. It would add a cool strategical tactic, however.
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!
All these ideas about adding bizarre, non-intuitive tasks isn't something that shouldn't be in a game. In SC1, there a ton of tasks that need to be accomplished but they're all logical. "I need SCVs, so I click the command center and hit S and they get made."
To put MBS into SC2 and then throw in a bunch of weird time delays that are completely artificial is just confusing. Now it's "I need SCVs, but for a reason I can't comprehend I need to avoid random production time penalties."
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote: They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs.
Why do people keep saying this implying that progamers and against MBS and only noobs like it? Anyone got a link of any interview actually stating that? Because the few korean progamers interviews that I did read, every single one of them had a "I don't care - makes little difference - let's wait for beta and see" stance on MBS. It has always seemed to me that it's only the C- TL.net players who got addicted to the subject and wanna show off how good they are opposed to the D- noobs who wants an easier game. But the progamers themselves who you often cite could care less about MBS. Why are you guys so addicted to it? Why not just wait to beta?
Korean progamers haven't really said anything about it, but I'm thinking that may just be good manners and respect.
So essentially your saying: "No progamer has said anything bad against MBS, but I am sure that they are still against it."
:\
Whats to keep someone else from saying: "No progamer has spoken about MBS, but I sm sure that they are all for it."?
I wish everyone would just speak for themselves and not for others.
the progamers are against it, this has been discussed before. just about anyone who understands the game on a competitive level is against it.
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.
[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...
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
Hmm OK I wasn't aware that warpgates worked like that. That is a good idea. I'm very surprised that they can't warp in by MBS though- I wonder why not.
You can select multiple Warp Gates, but you need to select a separate location for every unit you warp in.
The case here seems to be that many of you think that "casual players" dont care if there is MBS or not in the game. I assure you that this is definitely not the case. Majority of the casual players who buy SC2 have played other modern RTSs and they demand for a more accessible and improved UI with automining and MBS. They want a better game and I believe that a lot of UI improvements are called for to make SC2 a better "game"(even tough it takes away a lot of the skill). I'm pretty sure that many mediums will bash SC2 alot if it lacks MBS and automining and other UI features that are in other RTSs out there right now. Even tough Blizzard values its hardcore fans, they don't want their game to be labeled as a dated update by the majority of buyers (and media) and therefore automing and MBS and other UI changes that make the game easier WILL be implemented. It's inevitable.
And before flaming ensues, I myself acknowledge the fact that implenting such changes into the game takes away a lot of it's competetiveness and diminishes the skill needed to be successfull. The challenge here for Blizzard is to add new factors that'll require skill and separate the pros from noobs.
Hmh, I hope that I just didn't repeat everything that has been already said in this thread.
Last time I checked, you couldn't select multiple buildings in CNC3 (well, you can, but you've gotta add a hotkeyed structure to an already selected one, and you can't use rally points or produce from those structures via hotkeys anyway). Yet, I didn't see literally ANYONE complaining about that, not even casual players... Was CNC3 labeled as 'dated' by reviewers? Were they complaining about the UI? No, they didn't even notice it's missing, and neither did the reviewers...
What exactly makes you think they do care about such things in SC2? They care about singleplayer, lore, and stuff like that. Only a small fraction of them actually ever goes to the Battle.net, and even fewer post on online forums, much less complain about such things...
Also those simplifications are not being introduced to make SC2 a better game. They're supposed to make it EASIER, just that.
In fact yes, I think CNC3 was dated when it comes to UI. And I really heard criticism about it, many reviews cited that the game felt essentially the same as older cnc games (but still managed to improve the series).
And when I say "modern RTS" I don't mean just CNC3. Even Warcraft 3 had MBS and the versatility and awesomeness of Supreme Commander UI is unrivalled. And while saying that "making things easier isn't making the game better" you might be right to a certain point. Supreme Commander was such an awesome game because the UI was just that good. You could automate a lot of actions and you had supreme control of the battlefield and this was one of the main points that made the game so good and acclaimed by critics. So in conclusion, by making things easier to control and giving more options the game got better.
What I'm trying to say is that Blizzard has 2 audiences to satisfy. By excluding MBS, automining and such they are making the game more competitive and satisfying the HC gamers who want the game to be as hard as SC1 was. But at the same time they are doing a disservice to ppl who want to play for fun and who don't have 3593495 apm to select every worker separately.
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote: personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
Hmm OK I wasn't aware that warpgates worked like that. That is a good idea. I'm very surprised that they can't warp in by MBS though- I wonder why not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to videos I saw this is because even if you select all the warp gates with MBS you still have to click on a spot for them to warp to, you can't simply click on one spot and then have everything appear there.
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)
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 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%.
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 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 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".
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 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.
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
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.
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.
You asked whether it's not the point that *being able to produce several units with just one click* equals to *close to perfect macro with minimal attention*, right?
On June 25 2008 23:46 rkarhu wrote: In fact yes, I think CNC3 was dated when it comes to UI. And I really heard criticism about it, many reviews cited that the game felt essentially the same as older cnc games (but still managed to improve the series).
And when I say "modern RTS" I don't mean just CNC3. Even Warcraft 3 had MBS and the versatility and awesomeness of Supreme Commander UI is unrivalled. And while saying that "making things easier isn't making the game better" you might be right to a certain point. Supreme Commander was such an awesome game because the UI was just that good. You could automate a lot of actions and you had supreme control of the battlefield and this was one of the main points that made the game so good and acclaimed by critics. So in conclusion, by making things easier to control and giving more options the game got better.
What I'm trying to say is that Blizzard has 2 audiences to satisfy. By excluding MBS, automining and such they are making the game more competitive and satisfying the HC gamers who want the game to be as hard as SC1 was. But at the same time they are doing a disservice to ppl who want to play for fun and who don't have 3593495 apm to select every worker separately.
Blizzard doesn't need to "statisfy" anyone, they can do whatever the fuck they want. Heck they could ship SC2 TODAY and it would still sell more than any other game this year cept for Sims and WoW and that income would STILL be dwarfed when the money from next months game-card sales rolled in.
Ok i am exagerating a bit, but not a lot. The point is that blizzard can choose what they want SC2 to become. If they want to make a succesor to brood war they can do so and absolutly not give a shit that some people might not buy it. (Everyone will still buy it though) Sure they will probably make an easier game but they are not forced to.
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"?
Doesn't really matter what it implies. I thought TL.net were the masters at rigging polls on teh internets, but we failed at even manipulating one poll on our own site. Now I'm not going to argue anything, but I'm just stating the facts as they are.
Anyways, we just need a good way to make Terran more mechanically challenging and it's all good. Keep the ideas coming.
On June 27 2008 06:41 FrozenArbiter wrote: Eh, wasn't the MBS poll rigged by a bunch of spammers which is why polls were subsequently banned in the SC2 forum -.-?
Yes, that would be the "official" reason for closing the poll. There are no numbers to show whether it was true or not though, or if there were just as many TL riggers as well. The # of MBS and anti-MBS votes were actually very close from the start of the poll till the end.
Oh well I don't really have any inside knowledge on this, was just going off memory.
Probably a decent bit of spamming from both sides, but if you just read most of the threads I think it's sort of clear that among TL.net regulars, the pro mbs-ers are in minority.
And that is the real reason polls are bad - the result would be pointless. TL.net is quite unique, I have yet to see a Forum whose population is so averse to change.
On June 27 2008 07:40 Unentschieden wrote: And that is the real reason polls are bad - the result would be pointless. TL.net is quite unique, I have yet to see a Forum whose population is so averse to change.
We're not adverse to change, we just think SC2 should use only features that are good, not features that are new and popular.
On June 25 2008 08:28 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Another thing to think about: if SC2 has the exact same mechanics as SC (what many here would probably prefer), it will automatically be P>Z>T once again (once the game is "perfectly balanced" as BW is) in the non-progamer scene. This is simply because of the lower mechanical demands Protoss has (fewer units, longer build times, etc.). This should be addressed so that the races can be "balanced" not only for progamers but for casual gamers up to "foreigner gosus" too.
Generally, they should make T and Z as easy to play (mechanically) as P (mechanically), or P harder.
They should at least add MUS (multiple unit selection, with a limit far higher than 12) because it's just really annoying for Zergs below progamer level to deal with all those lings and whatnot in late game. Again, advantage for P because of fewer units.
since when was P > Z? i always thought it was reversed? bisu was the one anomoly but when most ppl play, if they let zerg get to hive tech it is fuckin bloody impossible to kill -_-; (assuming they have an economy to support hive tech)
On June 25 2008 19:18 rkarhu wrote: The case here seems to be that many of you think that "casual players" dont care if there is MBS or not in the game. I assure you that this is definitely not the case. Majority of the casual players who buy SC2 have played other modern RTSs and they demand for a more accessible and improved UI with automining and MBS. They want a better game and I believe that a lot of UI improvements are called for to make SC2 a better "game"(even tough it takes away a lot of the skill). I'm pretty sure that many mediums will bash SC2 alot if it lacks MBS and automining and other UI features that are in other RTSs out there right now. Even tough Blizzard values its hardcore fans, they don't want their game to be labeled as a dated update by the majority of buyers (and media) and therefore automing and MBS and other UI changes that make the game easier WILL be implemented. It's inevitable.
And before flaming ensues, I myself acknowledge the fact that implenting such changes into the game takes away a lot of it's competetiveness and diminishes the skill needed to be successfull. The challenge here for Blizzard is to add new factors that'll require skill and separate the pros from noobs.
Hmh, I hope that I just didn't repeat everything that has been already said in this thread.
and most of the casual games of other RTS games have moved on after d/ling a free copy of C&C3 off torrent websites finding disatisfaction in the game. when casual games ask for a "better game" it is very easily replaceable with "easy game" that they will move on from in another month or two.
oh blizzard wants to fit the image of new game and not just an upgrade of sc1, but like dustin said in his interviews, they are having big issues with the balancing with mbs or wahtever.
and are the critiques really gonna sway you that much? it seems as if word of mouth is the most effective form of advertisement among games personally. most of those critiques have not a fucking brain cell in their head when it comes to reviewing games they dont even know how to play.
Idea for increasing early game economy management:
Workers gather minerals at a linear continuous rate as opposed to a discontinuous rate.
Instead of waiting 8 seconds, say, to return a load of 8 minerals, workers gather 1 mineral per second. So if you wanted, you could tell them to return cargo early and get the minerals that they mined in that time (anywhere from 1 to 7 minerals). Otherwise they default to returning minerals when they have the max amount. This way you can micro your timings... if you want a building that costs 150, and you have 146, you can have a worker halfway done mining return minerals to get the needed 4 and get the building 4 seconds earlier. You get the idea.
Is MBS that big of a deal? It shouldnt be difficult for them to add an option to toggle it before game. Worst Case Scenario: Blizzard does not include an option to turn off MBS/automine/etc, and people have to edit the maps to turn them off manually. It wouldnt be hard if the new editor is really as powerful as they say it is. I bet Blizzard would eventually give and patch the options in and probably even make it standard for ladder, if pros still preferred it after a while. My point is, minor changes UI/AI changes like MBS/automine/etc will probably make a small difference in the long run. It seems like there are bigger problems like some of the units since fixing them would take much more time and effort to do correctly.
Imo, Blizzard should add more UI features as long as they have options to turn them off for all players at the beginning of the game. Personally, I think it would be amazing to have full camera control in game. Some people would say that would make it easier, but it also lets you see and respond to more of the map which may reveal options that werent available before. Maybe zoom turns out to be terrible, but even then people could just switch back to the fixed camera option or never try it at all. It sounds a lot better than forcing a single standard and upsetting some people.
Looks nice, I'm glad that they added this. However Morphalisks shouldn't have a gas cost IMO.
To increase the amount of macro for Terran players, Blizzard could simply make it so that Terran addons for their production facilities (Reactor, Tech Lab) have limited uses.
Therefore a Terran player will constantly have to keep track of them and he will have to salvage them and make new ones.
Also the Merc Haven could have a secondary use aside of unlocking Reaper tech. Maybe it could give a certain kind of bonus to Terran infantry that rests in there for 30 seconds... something like non damaging stimpacks for Marines/Marauders or a new stock of D8 charges for Reapers. Also Terran infantry units that come out of there could be fully healed.
The Ghost Academy could do something similar, it could increase the Mana Regeneration of Ghosts that are resting there.
For Toss... how about having pylons being able to overheat and lose effectiveness when they start to support more Cannons, Warp-Ins and the advanced production buildings (Robo and StarGate). The psionic Matrix could become Red and Warp-In would be disabled for that area. Also the building time for your units would increase. You would have to regularly repair the pylons with probes or you could add some kind of ''recharge pylon'' ability to phase prisms. Deployed phase prisms could also be affected by this, so that you cannot warp-in an unlimited amount of units out there with only one phase prism.
tl:dr I propose advanced infrastructure management for all races that have nothing to do with ressources:
- Z already has advanced larva management and larva select is already unaffected by MBS - T should have add-ons management for their production facilities and can also use their secondary buildings to buff/restock their units - P already have Warp-in and should have advanced psionic matrix management
I was thinking of splitting mineral patches... 1st I thought of using higher damage units to do it but 'kill' some % of minerals in targeted patch also... Terrans have Siege Tank, Protoss Immortals and Archons, Zerg... Slime and that's why it wouldn't work but I came up with something else: when mineral patch is mined out enough it can be split using 3-4 workers They are mining it normally instead of drilling only but gather less minerals during the process like 2-4 instead of current 6 (or 5 as I read?) and old 8. When process is completed patch splits into two (maybe even 3 if it was mined even more than needed)
In that way player would have to constantly check if some patches can be split and manually do so... for better income
Ok, I've tried SC2 now, and this is my general experience with it: Mass rally is nice. If that's something they want to keep, just remove the option to build units when you have multiple production facilities selected. That seems to me as being much more intuitive and clean than what was presented to me in the BWWI beta. What I played there mostly just felt like bad habits paying off. The main reason for that is that it's a slight part unintuitive, circumstantially useless (read: Zerg), and a large part rewarding to nannies and babysitters (read: People watching units do stuff). If you're used to actually having to macro, you're going to feel like you're doing it 'rong watching your precious lings 80% of the play-time.
The part that makes it slightly useless is i.e. what happens if I have two Nexii hotkeyed to 4 and double tap. Do I end up in the middle? It actually left me too puzzled to even try, because hotkeys are just as locational as they are functional. This meaning that I had every single Hatchery as a Zerg hot keyed to different buttons, leaving MBS, in my experience, just an unpolished addition. The whole "5zzzssssiiii" thing only ended up with me using a just about as much time as I would doing normal macro (only less), but removing the whole aspect of not babysitting your troops the entire fucking time. The Gateways ended up as more of a "production pool" than an actual set of buildings with placements. In essence, "my base" became more of an abstract than an actual place where you would spend more than 1-2 seconds in setting up the next pylon. Even more so when the Gateways evolved to Warp Gates (they should consider removing rally points when they evolve, because you don't need them, and it's just extra clutter).
Ok, so Blizzard, you've fallen in love with a flawed bastard child ... what do you do? Well, I guess you could add more mechanics like the gas renewal, gas boost or whatever, but then again, I do feel that this would ruin one of the most fundamental principle of StarCraft: Simple complexity. Personally, I don't think there's a lot they CAN do, and I'm afraid everyone is doomed to a life in SC2 with Flash-esque macro, and at least time for Boxer-esque micro. Sad, but true. Especially sad, because the crow that MBS is aimed for, wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they started out without it. In the end, it's a loose-loose situation.
I think the whole of the SC competitive scene is held victim by the fact that the SC developers simply aren't that very good gamers, and simply don't want to get skilled but still be competitive. But that's the thing, you can't have one without the other and still have the other. It's very simple logics. If you lower the bar, you lower the level. Casual gamers does not care for their ungosuness, but they still care for a professional gamer's godlike skill. Hey, people can have a lot of fun with StarCraft from thinking having a lot of minerals makes you on a roll, or thinking one GateWay is just fine because it makes zealots.
Still, I guess ... gg, sbs R.I.P. even for a n00b, it has been fun.
(Disclaimer: 5 days of Paris and 2 days of BWWI into waiting late-night waiting for the plane home may make writing of posts a dangerous field of work for me. Please bear with logical fallacies or spelling errors if you can figure out the gist of it :-P)
what about some speed(mining and/or movespeed) buff for drones/probes/scv, that can be activated/deactivated and takes away hp. So if u use it u have to watch or pay loosing your units. issues: zerg regenerates, scv could repair itselves, probes ~.
Ok this morphalisk thing looks to be really bloody interesting. Unfortuantely, the zergs weren't the ones really in need of more macro, but hey what the hell - it's a start.
On June 26 2008 16:04 likeaboss wrote: 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"
LOL. You are talking about older players as if they are 60 years old with their hands shaking. It's not that they are old, it's just that they play less and don't train on regular basis.
To the point. I've read some remarks by bliz at WWI and they say they are trying hard to keep the resourse inflow the same as in sc1 (it encreased because of better pathfinding and AI), so they yet again dropped the minerals per worker trip to 5 but the mining time is shorter they say. So I've been thinking why would you want the same resourse inflow in the first place? I guess noone knows which pace is perfect. So what happens if we don't interfere and leave minerals per trip? Faster mining > more minerals > players have to spend them faster > more building facilities, more units and faster tech (if you have too many minerals you can take gas earlier) > more macro. The point is the game pace stays the same but the macro speed becomes faster. This is exactly what you want to balance out MBS and automining with more macro. But blizzard are changing minerals per trip to 5 which makes the game even slower especially in the beginning and thus makes even less macro. To make it short: by changing the resource inflow speed you can make more\less macro without changing the game speed and only slightly changing micro. This is the perfect way of neglecting MBS effect.
On June 30 2008 09:57 edahl wrote: ...this would ruin one of the most fundamental principle of StarCraft: Simple complexity
here here!! well said
I think the whole of the SC competitive scene is held victim by the fact that the SC developers simply aren't that very good gamers, and simply don't want to get skilled but still be competitive. But that's the thing, you can't have one without the other and still have the other. It's very simple logics. If you lower the bar, you lower the level. Casual gamers does not care for their ungosuness, but they still care for a professional gamer's godlike skill. Hey, people can have a lot of fun with StarCraft from thinking having a lot of minerals makes you on a roll, or thinking one GateWay is just fine because it makes zealots.)
On June 26 2008 16:04 likeaboss wrote: 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"
LOL. You are talking about older players as if they are 60 years old with their hands shaking. It's not that they are old, it's just that they play less and don't train on regular basis.
To the point. I've read some remarks by bliz at WWI and they say they are trying hard to keep the resourse inflow the same as in sc1 (it encreased because of better pathfinding and AI), so they yet again dropped the minerals per worker trip to 5 but the mining time is shorter they say. So I've been thinking why would you want the same resourse inflow in the first place? I guess noone knows which pace is perfect. So what happens if we don't interfere and leave minerals per trip? Faster mining > more minerals > players have to spend them faster > more building facilities, more units and faster tech (if you have too many minerals you can take gas earlier) > more macro. The point is the game pace stays the same but the macro speed becomes faster. This is exactly what you want to balance out MBS and automining with more macro. But blizzard are changing minerals per trip to 5 which makes the game even slower especially in the beginning and thus makes even less macro. To make it short: by changing the resource inflow speed you can make more\less macro without changing the game speed and only slightly changing micro. This is the perfect way of neglecting MBS effect.
You're not changing game speed that way, but throwing the game pace off balance. We'd end up with CNC3 type of game this way: spammy, no early-mid-late game transition, etc. ...
At the moment a gas gayser only has 500gas and as soon as it runs out you have to "renew it" by clicking it and pressing V
when they run out of gas it turn really red and they run out really quick 5min with 3 workers. This is a macro add.
also there are already more buildings then in sc1 and the blockage to get at some new mining spots.
ps: talking about toss MBS is not the biggest problem its Warp in.
All you hvae to do is Press
W (select all warp gates) and spam Z Z Z Z Z Z I I I II II SSSS S S S on what ever spot you want
and you just do that when ever you see a warpgate is ready
really NO FUCKING SKILL AT ALL LOL (atleast remove the interface thing where you can see how many warp gates are ready because all you do it watch that and as soon as you see a warp gate is ready
MBS = Multiple Building Selection SBS = Single Building Selection
e.g. currently in starcraft if you have 5 barracks and you want to build 5 marines you have to select each building one at a time. With MBS you would be able to do it by selecting all 5 buildings, by dragging a box or shift-clicking and then build 5 marines in one go.
As this is turning into MBS disussion 7 or whatever...
Reading edhals comment just confirms my belief that people have very different expectations about gameplay.
In my warcraft background, among the many insults hurled at the other player/team are things like...
after you have just destroyed their numerically superior army "make more units noob"
after you have lost to their superior numbers "mass more noob"
suggesting that massing units is a lower form of gameplay and the skill that deserves respect is micro.
compare this with edhals comment that micro is just babysitting and the real skill is making a big army.
I'm tired of the idea that it is the middle way and that the real skill is deciding when to micro and when to go and spin the plates, because thats what SBS feels like to me - spinning plates.
I hate the artificial macro that blizzard are trying to implement, that thing that you have to click on your gas to get faster harvesting... because player like edhal like to look at his base.
It's not spinning plates, it's producing units. The choice is between more units or the ones you have, and that's the skill: Deciding whether or not the ones you have will do, or of you need to macro. The next level of skill is actually being able to do them both at the same time, while SC2 removes this as a skill layer, and makes it a default for any player.
It's not that i like to look at my base so much, but it's a balance in prioritizing what to do. SC2 disrupts that balance, and it's more natural for me talking about hanging around in my base than microing, because I'm already microing too much and that's the problem. It isn't SimCity, but that does not mean it's WC3.
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.
yah, they are both genuine skills. Some favour one over the other, while some see the balance between the two.
If Blizzard caters to one of those three at the expense of the other they are going to get complaints.
Speaking as someone who prefers micro, I would hate to see economy and other macro removed from the game. I just can't wait to see the back of sbs.
I really just see mbs as making the game more convenient to play and not affecting the competivity. Maybe its my short sightedness.
edit - no, maybenexttime I don't get it. and one of the reasons is I don't think thats going to be an issue either because there will always be more to do. You would have to be a supercomputer 100X better than the ones we currently have to do everything perfectly.
Recently chess has been cracked, a computer is capable of calculating all the permutaions of the 8x8 64 squares board and the 32 pieces, and this only happened releativley recently.
I dont know how many hexagons there are on a standard SC map but I think that with the potential 400 unit in a 1v1 to achieve this level of APM you would require, like a new keyboard with more buttons, more fingers and a much, much bigger brain.
It is close to impossible that you won't have anything to do. In fact you will ALWAYS have something to do. Don't worry about it ; )
It is not a trick to allow lazy player to beat gosus. Smarter faster should always win.
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...
There shouldn´t be a "need" but definetly a desicion. SBS doesn´t promote desicion making, it just distracts the player. The gas thing is a better aproach there since it allows the player to optimize (or fuck up) his economy. Players COULD live of fumes, in fact that´s not even that worse.
SBS and the like belongs in the "have to do" pile. It would be way more interesting and player friendly if all that stuff was in the "can do" pile. For example utilizing Queues, a handy function for "lesser" players but usually avoided by gosus - everyones happy with that.
Isn't calling micro "babysitting" and talking about "choosing between macro and micro" just way to avoid something that requires both clicking and thinking to do something that requires only clicking? How can producing units be main factor of enjoyment in the game? How can not letting units die and using them to their full extent be called "babysitting"?
Maybe "choosing to macro" is just to avoid harder things to do?
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote: Here are some ideas that I have: 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 three of them are interesting. I, myself, was thinking something like: To make to expand more easy and more needed; may be with a new cheap building which acts as gathering point but it can't produce workers, or by simply making Center/Nexus/Hatchery cheaper, reduce the amount of minerals and increasing the number of expansion sites. But, the other two ideas are impressive as well and i like very much the third one --because it would be a really new aspect for Starcraft.
My arguments to praise these ideas are: i) They are simple solutions. I mean this, some developer of Blizzard explained that the reason to change from the Reduced Damage way to the Line of Sight way was to make the game more all/nothing, that is, more like a game as Chess... or say as Go is. I suggest, then, that each building is like a game's "piece". This way if more Mineral or more Gas is wanted... then, expand. ii) They are apparent solutions. That is, I think, that for a e-sport it is important that spectators know what is happening, say what is doing each player, this is why to make apparent what they do is important, and Buildings, expansions, and interactions with terrain are apparent visible moves. iii) They would be distinct and innovative solutions. I mean, the more buildings needed and the easy to expand features strengthen the Starcraft distinctive featuring (from Warcraft: few buildings, hard to expand) and the interactions with terrain would be really innovative in this game --as spells' effects are not any more a novelty.
On July 01 2008 02:28 MrRammstein wrote: Isn't calling micro "babysitting" and talking about "choosing between macro and micro" just way to avoid something that requires both clicking and thinking to do something that requires only clicking? How can producing units be main factor of enjoyment in the game? How can not letting units die and using them to their full extent be called "babysitting"?
Maybe "choosing to macro" is just to avoid harder things to do?
The way I´d LIKE it to be "chosing to macro" would mean to plan/prepare/execute expansions, managing resource floating, optimizing building positions (a bit more mobility there), maybe scrap something, that kind of stuff.
I can´t and wouldn´t try to attach something like that to necessary tasks like production or even something simple like unit movement. Pathfinding was improved so wouldn´t it be reasonable to make the moving process harder to "balance it out"? Of course not.
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...
There shouldn´t be a "need" but definetly a desicion. SBS doesn´t promote desicion making, it just distracts the player. The gas thing is a better aproach there since it allows the player to optimize (or fuck up) his economy. Players COULD live of fumes, in fact that´s not even that worse.
SBS and the like belongs in the "have to do" pile. It would be way more interesting and player friendly if all that stuff was in the "can do" pile. For example utilizing Queues, a handy function for "lesser" players but usually avoided by gosus - everyones happy with that.
I was talking about different type of decisions:
Do I micro my units to the fullest, and thus gain an (possible) advantage here and now or should I rather focus on macro, and thus gain an (possible) advantage later on?
You need to manage your attention/time between micro & macro tasks. SC2 dumbs that joggling down to mostly choosing between different MICRO tasks, and multi-tasking between similar tasks is easier than multi-tasking between inherently different tasks.
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...
There shouldn´t be a "need" but definetly a desicion. SBS doesn´t promote desicion making, it just distracts the player. The gas thing is a better aproach there since it allows the player to optimize (or fuck up) his economy. Players COULD live of fumes, in fact that´s not even that worse.
SBS and the like belongs in the "have to do" pile. It would be way more interesting and player friendly if all that stuff was in the "can do" pile. For example utilizing Queues, a handy function for "lesser" players but usually avoided by gosus - everyones happy with that.
I was talking about different type of decisions:
Do I micro my units to the fullest, and thus gain an (possible) advantage here and now or should I rather focus on macro, and thus gain an (possible) advantage later on?
You need to manage your attention/time between micro & macro tasks. SC2 dumbs that joggling down to mostly choosing between different MICRO tasks, and multi-tasking between similar tasks is easier than multi-tasking between inherently different tasks.
Shure. But Micro & Macro should intheritly exist next to each other, not opposed to each other. Certain tasks shouldn´t weight down the player if they aren´t optional. SC2 should dumb the juggling down on the very bare bones of the game, the skeleton gameplay. I don´t have problems with time/effort/attention/whatever intensive tasks. But I don´t want to be FORCED to do them, I want to be ENCOURAGED. It gives players more freedom to develop their playstile since there is no "you want to do that? get faster first!" Patronizing.
"Juggling" should be in the game but the implementation needs improvement.
On July 01 2008 03:31 G.s)NarutO wrote: Actually MBS works like, if you have 4 gateways / factories whatever on one hotkey, you have to for example press "Z" for zealot 4 times to make all gateways build one, its not that bad and you really get a great overview with a little graphics about it. And I think even if you use automining and MBS it wouldn't change too much. Actually I think automining is more helpfull than MBS to newbies, because MBS just changes: 3t4t5v6v7v8v9v0v to 3ttvvvvvv . You still have to choose what units you are going to build and the unit combinations in Starcraft 2 seem like to feature lots of different units, so MBS wont be a stupid 3zzzzzzzz or something . [...] Oh yeah MBS didnt feel like a problem at all funnily enough[...]
On July 01 2008 04:00 FrozenArbiter wrote: Omg that's what I (and several others) suggested for MBS waaaaaaaaaaay back when it was first announced.. Has it always been that way and nobody bothered mentioning it ?
I actually don't mind MBS nearly as much if that's how it works.
I'm getting more and more hopeful about sc2 [...] Gah I almost feel silly for worrying about ANYTHING. SC2 seems absolutely brilliant.
PWNED! Told you guys to at least wait till you play it instead of panicking! Oh The sweat taste of victory >
and what about auto mining? how it works? if u set rally probe/drone/scv goes to that patch and if being used to other not used? (so at start, u still gain something by sending them individually?)
On July 01 2008 11:30 MrRammstein wrote: That reminded me of 2 rally points for Zerg - 1 for attacking units, 1 for Drones to minerals but I wonder too...
afaik that's already implemented
Okay picture this scene. TvZ mid-late game, vessel cloud, 5 control groups of marines running around, zerg comes in with perfect pincer maneuver and slaughters the marines, but the terran has been keeping up his macro and has 5 more control groups of marines that are rallied outside his base. This happens multiple times in a game
but will this situation happen in SC2? You can rally all your marines to go where your army currently is, furthermore, you can control way more than just 60 marines.
This was a staple of terran macro in SC.
So what happens when you change from controlling half an army at a time to controlling a full army at a time? If your full army gets slaughtered you wont have another full army rallied outside your base.
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?
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
On July 01 2008 16:27 alphafuzard wrote: 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Huge skilldifference? How would that happen, the game was new for all participants, Blizzard has already changed half the stuff in it by now. I doubt thouse maches conclude anything expect that MBS didn´t change the game as much as Pathfinding and new gascost balance did.
On July 02 2008 06:02 maybenexttime wrote: He's saying that the huge skill difference would be WAY more apparent with SBS. At least as far as I can tell.
Huge skilldifference? How would that happen, the game was new for all participants, Blizzard has already changed half the stuff in it by now. I doubt thouse maches conclude anything expect that MBS didn´t change the game as much as Pathfinding and new gascost balance did.
No MBS or automining in SCII would make the game unplayable for anyone who does not have the mechanical skill acquired from playing SC: BW at this stage, and it would take them months to "catch" up to average SC: BW players. In comparison, better pathfinding and gas costs are just new aspects of a new game that the majority of players will easily be able to adapt to.
On July 01 2008 20:01 maybenexttime wrote: SBS = chess
On July 02 2008 06:02 maybenexttime wrote: He's saying that the huge skill difference would be WAY more apparent with SBS. At least as far as I can tell.
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?
I´m also wondering how "wide" is being defined in terms of SC(2) gameplay skill. At the very top differences get smaller and smaller - that counts for efectivly ANY competative game - so the only thing that matters is that even with small differences skill still matters.
Even in SC we usually have 2 out of 3s and 3out of 5s to eliminate any element of luck and add a "Tournament factor" (you are likely to adjust your strategy after the 1st match)
I perfectly understand that. A simple macro misclick can screw a game and be the defining end result. Like I said, SBS does increases the skill gap, which is important. The that specific gap added by SBS is small. And there is a cost, popularity. Is the gap big enough to make up?
While there are some games where the guy loses because he couldn't keep up with macro. There are also tons of games, at korean leagues. Where the guy loses because of bad strat, lacking micro or.. forgetting to upgrade adrenal glands ^^ How many pro-games would have had different results because of MBS? Would that screw the progaming scene? Now how many people would play SC2 instead of WoW because of MBS? Wouldn't that help everyone get a sponsor?
On July 02 2008 16:24 VIB wrote: I perfectly understand that. A simple macro misclick can screw a game and be the defining end result. Like I said, SBS does increases the skill gap, which is important. The that specific gap added by SBS is small. And there is a cost, popularity. Is the gap big enough to make up?
While there are some games where the guy loses because he couldn't keep up with macro. There are also tons of games, at korean leagues. Where the guy loses because of bad strat, lacking micro or.. forgetting to upgrade adrenal glands ^^ How many pro-games would have had different results because of MBS? Would that screw the progaming scene? Now how many people would play SC2 instead of WoW because of MBS? Wouldn't that help everyone get a sponsor?
... how many times have you seen Zerg consuming Drones or Overlords because in the heat of the battle he couldn't macro properly?
Why all Koreans in ZvT use Mutalisks to tech to Ultras and Defilers ASAP? + Show Spoiler +
Last time I saw Lurkers before Mutas was when few days ago Hwasin made proxy Factory and landed in the corner of Jaedong's base so he had to make Den. edit: sorry looks like not only then but that's still only 2?
On July 02 2008 15:18 OakHill wrote: No MBS or automining in SCII would make the game unplayable for anyone who does not have the mechanical skill acquired from playing SC: BW at this stage, and it would take them months to "catch" up to average SC: BW players. In comparison, better pathfinding and gas costs are just new aspects of a new game that the majority of players will easily be able to adapt to.
people who arent as good at playing rts' wont be able to succeed as well as people who are good at playing rts'! oh the horror
its not like war3 players are slow anyway, alot of them average close to 300 from what ive heard/seen. they just have to adapt it to a different type of gameplay (which is to be expected, they are switching games after all)
... how many times have you seen Zerg consuming Drones or Overlords because in the heat of the battle he couldn't macro properly?
Why all Koreans use Mutalisks to tech to Ultras and Defilers ASAP? + Show Spoiler + Last time I saw Lurkers before Mutas was when few days ago Hwasin made proxy Factory and landed in the corner of Jaedong's base so he had to make Den.
Why is Boxer the most renown player in the world?
Those are all reasons why the skill gap is already so significant and the skill ceiling is so unreachable, that there will still be a significant gap after MBS :S
Pros making big armies even tho they are fighting at the same time in BW are astonishing but on the other hand Tasteless should explain what he means by StarCraft being a manly game ;P there's some misunderstanding for me in this
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.
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.
CnC3 has sort of MBS build in UI as you can switch between buildings without coming back to your base, small buttons and no hot keys to do so are the only problems.
Btw there is no problem of skyrocketing resources as everything is paid for as it builds not in advance when queued in. Queues themselves aren't limited to 5
And talking about skill why Draco ended as 2nd in TSL? He was kind of inactive, he even stressed it by his nick? Because he spent 8 months training in Korea. And who beaten him? JF renown for his Reavers micro!
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?
However CNC3 had the next stage of UI enhancements, free queing.
That means that you can put up a que of 99 units and you only pay for them as they build and not upfront making perfect macro almost imposible to not have.
On July 01 2008 20:01 maybenexttime wrote: SBS = chess
MBS = checkers
You can't compare turn-based games with real-time games. No RTS is like chess. RTS are always more about player mechanics than game depth, and turn-based games are the direct opposite.
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?
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.
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?
That line TBH is flame war attractive and better question is if people who played SC2 on WWI still say it should go after all, what should be added to gameplay to compromise for it? Draw attention enough outside base (in addition to cliffs and Colossus, etc)??
I read that for Dustin Browder, Zerg scaling cliffs as they are the only race that can't do it at all (beside Worms) is a possibility.
+ any other legitimate ideas?
Brainstorming time IMO or we will end as scrubs/noobs.
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?
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?
I don't want to defend MBS here but Unentschieden meant there are no live spectators outside Korea, not in the meaning of live shows and growing fan base.
Frozen Arbiter highlighted that with his Automated tournaments and Paying2Play thread.
I don't know how many people watch GomTV Live but uploaded videos very slowly reach 10 000 views and rather don't go much more than that, unless some finals that got 20 000 - 30 000 over time.
Even in Korea there were some small signals it starts fading away
If SC2 won't be user-friendly as Blizzard aims now it will end up like W3 - some niche game not many people get what is it about so much and what's more even harder to play with all those new things in.
edit: about GomTV and commentated games at all I know GomTV is 1 source of VODs and for example Team Liquid another and as I read on Wikipedia KlazzartSC is the most viewed You Tube user from/in? Iceland but that's still scattered fan base, no business, occasional Lan parties and WCG only once in a year?
On July 01 2008 03:31 G.s)NarutO wrote: Actually MBS works like, if you have 4 gateways / factories whatever on one hotkey, you have to for example press "Z" for zealot 4 times to make all gateways build one, its not that bad and you really get a great overview with a little graphics about it. And I think even if you use automining and MBS it wouldn't change too much. Actually I think automining is more helpfull than MBS to newbies, because MBS just changes: 3t4t5v6v7v8v9v0v to 3ttvvvvvv . You still have to choose what units you are going to build and the unit combinations in Starcraft 2 seem like to feature lots of different units, so MBS wont be a stupid 3zzzzzzzz or something . [...] Oh yeah MBS didnt feel like a problem at all funnily enough[...]
On July 01 2008 04:00 FrozenArbiter wrote: Omg that's what I (and several others) suggested for MBS waaaaaaaaaaay back when it was first announced.. Has it always been that way and nobody bothered mentioning it ?
I actually don't mind MBS nearly as much if that's how it works.
I'm getting more and more hopeful about sc2 [...] Gah I almost feel silly for worrying about ANYTHING. SC2 seems absolutely brilliant.
PWNED! Told you guys to at least wait till you play it instead of panicking! Oh The sweat taste of victory
Well, I've been in the "wait until beta" camp for like what, 1 year almost (I guess since autumn 2007)?
As for MBS, in theory I like this idea a lot more but most of the people from WWI have still expressed concern over MBS so it's not like the debate is over just because I like it (in theory).
That's very good if it works like Naruto wrote. It will make producing units less annoying, eliminate the need of a ton of hotkeys just for your production buildings, and it will still give the player total control (i.e. you aren't forced to select each production building when you want a certain unit combination, you just have to press 1 hotkey and then the keys for whatever units you want). It's like the best possible solution. And also very intuitive. I'm happy with this.
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 06:02 maybenexttime wrote: He's saying that the huge skill difference would be WAY more apparent with SBS. At least as far as I can tell.
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.
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.
Personally i don't see MBS getting removed by any chance, not only would the new users (which we still need) be harsh toward the game, comparing it to other of the RTS games out there today, but the critics would also treat the game very harshly for lack of technic advancement.
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.
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.
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!!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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).
It´s NOT about if hed BUY it but if he´d ENJOY it.
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.
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?
Wait, so some of you actually disagree that MBS -> easier game -> more newbies -> more popularity/watchers -> more sponsors -> better money tournaments? :S
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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 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?
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 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 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 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.
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.
On July 04 2008 20:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: I liked SC even without MBS when I started as a total noob...
Still a lot of players stuck with the far inferior cnc series just because of issues like these. That and limited money, which explains the love for BGH.
Uh... I think if we ignore the fact that I'm sure a lot of people simply liked the CnC games on their own merit (it's a series with a lot of history after all, even though I've never really played them a lot) I'd say that SC did pretty damn well for itself. If SC2 could have the same comparative success as SC1 (since everything is bigger now, I'm assuming it's gonna do better in terms of raw numbers) I'd be happy.
The (comparatively) few who can't accept that MBS isn't in the game, oh well.. It's not like we are taking the Sc1 UI and slapping it onto SC2. There's still unlimited unit selection, smartcasting, and probably MBS for rallypoints at least.
I'm sure most casual players would be satisfied with MBS as a means of focus firing with defensive structures and mass rallying. They don't even know how to abuse MBS in order not to pay attention to your base too much: the hot keys.
On July 04 2008 16:28 IdrA wrote: you are the one arguing economics because you cant argue that mbs will make it a better game
Shure I can. SBS by the mechanic itself serves to make the game clunkier to play. It intentionally keeps the players effectivness down. It´s a games issue if a too effective player breaks it, Blizzard has to find a solution to that. It´s the process of making a good game.
You have a point when you are concerned about competative value of the game. But that doesn´t rely on SBS or MBS. Why wouldn´t the game be competative with a better interface?
On July 04 2008 21:11 FrozenArbiter wrote: Uh... I think if we ignore the fact that I'm sure a lot of people simply liked the CnC games on their own merit (it's a series with a lot of history after all, even though I've never really played them a lot) I'd say that SC did pretty damn well for itself. If SC2 could have the same comparative success as SC1 (since everything is bigger now, I'm assuming it's gonna do better in terms of raw numbers) I'd be happy.
The (comparatively) few who can't accept that MBS isn't in the game, oh well.. It's not like we are taking the Sc1 UI and slapping it onto SC2. There's still unlimited unit selection, smartcasting, and probably MBS for rallypoints at least.
You know how to warm my heart when cold wind blows <3
Well... assuming current pros' APM of 300-400 is spam in a pretty much big part, doing something like Blinging infantry to death or walling someone's units on a ramp with Force Field instead will do x)
On July 04 2008 21:11 FrozenArbiter wrote: The (comparatively) few who can't accept that MBS isn't in the game, oh well..
Did I miss something? MBS IS in the game and they are trying their best to implement it in a way that makes everyone happy. The changeling is actually a example of that. It forces you to have a eye "everywhere" since even with detection you can´t leave defense to your units.
Well, what does make MBS so important? Multitasking is fine but I didn´t enjoy being intentionally hindered by the User interface in SC.
WC3 was more compfortable even though MBS didn´t change all that much. But in the few situations where you could use it it was handy, like focus firing Towers.
Also note that I said "like" the changeling. It´s more or less a gimick unit, fun but hardly gamedeciding. The thing is that it´s part of the whole picture.
No one ever argued that the SBS mechanic in itself would be fun - because it isn´t. It´s always argued as the cause for the actuall advantage: The need to multitask. But why should we rely on SBS for Multitasking if SBS isn´t fun?
And as I said, I'm in favour of MBS being in place for things like rally points or focus firing, hell, I might even be in favour of letting you drag select multiple buildings but being unable to build from them if you hotkey them (I dunno, it sounds contrived, there might be a more elegant solution).
On July 04 2008 21:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think SBS is fun..
And as I said, I'm in favour of MBS being in place for things like rally points or focus firing, hell, I might even be in favour of letting you drag select multiple buildings but being unable to build from them if you hotkey them (I dunno, it sounds contrived, there might be a more elegant solution).
QFT.
We just want multi-tasking (between micro and macro, because between micro and micro is not as hard, and requires less experience), macro-management, etc. to be equally important.
We don't want SBS for the sake of clicking. It's one should gain an advantage by being great at multi-tasking, gameplay should revolve/allow for "babysitting" your army like WC3. You should be forced to manage your attention well in order to excell.
My problem is that youre already forced to manage your attention well (+2 weeks practice minimum) to play at all. Multitasking should be a req. to be good, not to play the game itself. In SC you autolose because your economy collapses without you supervising it.
Well, what would you want to be the "minimum" requirements for the player not his computer to play it? Imagine it as system requirements just for Players. How much game hours of experimenting? How much APM, before he is "lagfree"?
On July 04 2008 22:50 MrRammstein wrote: Dude since it's about changing people's opinions it leads to nowhere :/ Points of view presented, let's stay with that?
But arguing is so much fun!
Heh, it´s fine. I just can´t agree with the concept that SBS is so essential to SC even though it´s only purpose is to hinder the player. I don´t expect anyone to change his opinion just because I said so. The Beta will do that. Or in the latest case the hands on presentations of the Alpha.
I'm not saying SBS is essential. I'm for limited MBS, or Blizzard introducing some multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanics. So far they were unable to design any of those, but at least they're heading the right direction.
On July 04 2008 22:47 Unentschieden wrote: My problem is that youre already forced to manage your attention well (+2 weeks practice minimum) to play at all. Multitasking should be a req. to be good, not to play the game itself. In SC you autolose because your economy collapses without you supervising it.
Well, what would you want to be the "minimum" requirements for the player not his computer to play it? Imagine it as system requirements just for Players. How much game hours of experimenting? How much APM, before he is "lagfree"?
Bullshit, I loved SC as much when I sucked as I do now.
The reason that NOW it's sooooooo hard for beginners to get into the game is that it's 10 years old!! With SC2 you'll have a ton of "What's an SCV?" people to play with.
Back when the game was just released and everyone played low econ, no one complained. It's only now that everyone wants to macro like oov. It's so strange.
Why should the playing field for production be leveled and the skill be tested just on fighting? That's stupid. Outmacroing your opponent is part of the game. Be it through strategy or through multitasking or whatever.
On July 04 2008 21:20 Unentschieden wrote: Shure I can. SBS by the mechanic itself serves to make the game clunkier to play. It intentionally keeps the players effectivness down. Why wouldn´t the game be competative with a better interface?
Damnit, I avoided this thread as long as I could.
You know and I know anyone could take what you just wrote and reverse it, so why bother without empirical evidence?
Matter of opinions. Same old discussion. Direction: still pretty much going nowhere, but it looks like Blizzard could be on the right track and 'optimal gas features' add to more complexity and dif. build orders, which is different and innovative.
I want E-Sports to develop and go further. I don't see this happening with MBS due to the fact MBS is limited in it's own right.
In 'real' sports there are so many factors/variables to account for when it comes down to performance, i.e. physique, stamina/endurance, motor skills.
Last night, with Sea (top Terran known for his great mechanics and macro) against NonY and JF (two top foreign TvPers mechanically) showed this. NonY and JF weren't even close to his level.
Who is to say this would have happened if MBS were part of the UI?
When people talk about these guys it is about their strong BOs, mechanics and macro like I said before. There was a huge gap between the Korean Pro Gamer and our top guys.
It is possible to play a great macro game close to perfection with a lot of practice. Sea[Shield] emphasizes this point. In order to become a pro at any sport it takes: time, practice and patience.
If we want E-Sports to be taken seriously we need these factors to be accountable as well.
WC3 player ceo (is he from Norway?!?!? Cannot remember) recently came back after a long hiatus to win a prestigious Blizzard touranment. Sure, this happens in few sports, but not many.
An asterisk win at best.
You would be degrading what these guys do professionaly. MBS will add less risk and the gap between the professional gamer and amateur gets smaller in my opinion.
On July 04 2008 23:13 maybenexttime wrote: I'm not saying SBS is essential. I'm for limited MBS, or Blizzard introducing some multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanics. So far they were unable to design any of those, but at least they're heading the right direction.
On July 04 2008 22:47 Unentschieden wrote: My problem is that youre already forced to manage your attention well (+2 weeks practice minimum) to play at all. Multitasking should be a req. to be good, not to play the game itself. In SC you autolose because your economy collapses without you supervising it.
Well, what would you want to be the "minimum" requirements for the player not his computer to play it? Imagine it as system requirements just for Players. How much game hours of experimenting? How much APM, before he is "lagfree"?
Bullshit, I loved SC as much when I sucked as I do now.
The reason that NOW it's sooooooo hard for beginners to get into the game is that it's 10 years old!! With SC2 you'll have a ton of "What's an SCV?" people to play with.
Standarts increased. A "good" UI has to be better today than it would have been 10 years ago.I never said that bad UI = bad game. But good game + bad UI < good game + good UI.
You are right, there will be plenty of people buying SC2 that didn´t play SC. That´s why it´s so important that the game becomes intuitive and easy to learn. Did the players get worse? I´d say games got better.
Games got better graphically. Game play wise, 3d adds more dimension and variables in it's own right. Does that mean they offer a greater challenge? Not necessarily.
'Gamers' are better prepared nowadays.
Many people spend hours on end in front of a screen: checking email, checking facebook, checking their messengers, checking their myspace, watching videos and playing video games.
Many people are computer literate, being able to do common tasks without much difficulty hence they can type and know where a few keys are with practice.
Stop re-hashing your opinion. We got it the first time. Unless you can bring something new to the table please just stop and think again before posting.
Thats what you think? Games are the same as they always were, just with new optics? By that I figure you´d like SC2 to be SC:BW with better graphics, feel free to correct me.
Especially in multiplayer a good UI is important... for single player or turn-based games I don't really care, I can deal with anything. But when you want to play competitively and the game is so fast, I really want the controls to be as efficient as possible. SC1's UI is still nice overall, but not ideal. It also makes me a bit sad that the competitiveness of the game is considered proportional to the inefficiency of the UI ("a RTS is only hard when it's hard to control"). Maybe it's true for SC1, but if that's the case then this should be changed for SC2 ASAP.
On July 04 2008 23:13 maybenexttime wrote: I'm not saying SBS is essential. I'm for limited MBS, or Blizzard introducing some multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanics. So far they were unable to design any of those, but at least they're heading the right direction.
Agreed.
wait what youve spent this whole thread plus multiple other ones arguing that they cant have sbs because it will turn off newbies who dont want to invest time in producing units... and you agree that a 'multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanic' would be good? what? you do realize that has the exact same effect as sbs right?
On July 04 2008 23:51 Unentschieden wrote: Thats what you think? Games are the same as they always were, just with new optics? By that I figure you´d like SC2 to be SC:BW with better graphics, feel free to correct me.
But thank you for noticing my consitency.
No, I'm speaking of games in general you ass.
Many games today offer no 'new' challenges. Look at EA Sports for example. The company rehashes the same old shit with new rosters (OH MY!) and consumers continue to buy into it. Yet they still have license agreements with the NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. to continue onward.
I never said, 'I want SC2 to be SC:BW with better graphics.' If only you read what I posted before you would be able to deduce that. Read shit over before you post. It's really irritating having to deal with trolls like you on a frequent basis.
MBS RTSs have shown no 'new' challenges and lack variance and moral fibre. They lack substance. From my deductions, I think it's time to implement a different UI altogether.
Hopefully this time you get the message and be able to move on.
On July 04 2008 23:13 maybenexttime wrote: I'm not saying SBS is essential. I'm for limited MBS, or Blizzard introducing some multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanics. So far they were unable to design any of those, but at least they're heading the right direction.
Agreed.
wait what youve spent this whole thread plus multiple other ones arguing that they cant have sbs because it will turn off newbies who dont want to invest time in producing units... and you agree that a 'multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanic' would be good? what? you do realize that has the exact same effect as sbs right?
Maybe something that means more, like the new gas mechanic? SBS itself keeps attention split only... which yea is good but doesn't create new gameplay by itself; static BOs more, with anything new or different being cheese :/ or at least all in?
sbs does create gameplay, it forces players to choose between micro and macro, since both are time consuming and you have limited time. some players choose to focus on macro and you end up with oov-style players, some players choose to focus on micro and you end up with boxer-style players.
the new gas mechanic doesnt create new gameplay except varying the units you can get later in the game a bit more its just an artificially contrived waste of time that theyre trying to force on the game (literally, theyve modified the entire economic setup to try to make it useful, making everything gas intensive and setting it up so the geysers deplete insanely fast) because newbies are scaring them off of sbs for no good reason.
On July 04 2008 23:13 maybenexttime wrote: I'm not saying SBS is essential. I'm for limited MBS, or Blizzard introducing some multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanics. So far they were unable to design any of those, but at least they're heading the right direction.
Agreed.
wait what youve spent this whole thread plus multiple other ones arguing that they cant have sbs because it will turn off newbies who dont want to invest time in producing units... and you agree that a 'multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanic' would be good? what? you do realize that has the exact same effect as sbs right?
SBS drags you down by burdening you with the task, you don´t optimize your gains, you minimize your inefficiency. Production buildings are build in "clump" to be able to accsess them as fast as possible.
The gas mechanic is also multi tasking heavy since you have to order your peons on the minerals during the 45 sec offtime for optimal efficiency - or you can just ignore that. You can live on fumes if you don´t have the time to worry about that.
The difference - and this is important - is that this one is optional. It allows you to sink more and more APM into the game without ruining players below a certain level/speed.
On July 05 2008 00:28 Showtime! wrote:I think it's time to implement a different UI altogether.
IdrA, how much faster do they deplete? I'd like to know from your few days of testing. I think it still might have some value once we get precision timing and strong BOs out. But, I don't know because I wasn't at this BWWI.
It could add some variation and more importance to gas expos. Perhaps Blizzard is aiming for a slightly faster pace, getting away from games being dragged out, and so forth.
I guess they believe dif. gas collecting features will help players get out of stagnant situations when it becomes a mineral only game and add new variety. 12 minute games from 15 minute games on average wouldn't be so bad. I think it pushes players in more directions. VARIABLES :D
On July 05 2008 00:42 IdrA wrote: sbs does create gameplay, it forces players to choose between micro and macro, since both are time consuming and you have limited time. some players choose to focus on macro and you end up with oov-style players, some players choose to focus on micro and you end up with boxer-style players.
What I mean more is as games go forward and resources income grows, room for variations like"go Cars or Arbiters? or maybe more Storm Drops?" or any other accessible for other races is getting smaller - interaction with units is simplified to focus on macro more.
As seen in last Boxer's TvP - micro isn't rewarding that much when players get rusty and simply slow down, even being sharp as ever.
But can we truly say that we want this new Boxer? Wouldn't be "Boxer v1.0" be even more fun to watch?
the new gas mechanic doesnt create new gameplay except varying the units you can get later in the game a bit more its just an artificially contrived waste of time that theyre trying to force on the game (literally, theyve modified the entire economic setup to try to make it useful, making everything gas intensive and setting it up so the geysers deplete insanely fast) because newbies are scaring them off of sbs for no good reason.
But this isn't final build and the truth may be it's meant to scare shit out of all of us just to take it easier when if it won't end so much gas stressed as is now.
+ in general units based on gas more potentially always do bigger damage or like Carriers not necessarily bigger but way more crucial as they can fly and abuse terrain obstacles.
On July 05 2008 00:55 Showtime! wrote: IdrA, how much faster do they deplete? I'd like to know from your few days of testing. I think it still might have some value once we get precision timing and strong BOs out. But, I don't know because I wasn't at this BWWI.
It could add some variation and more importance to gas expos. Perhaps Blizzard is aiming for a slightly faster pace, getting away from games being dragged out, and so forth.
I guess they believe dif. gas collecting features will help players get out of stagnant situations when it becomes a mineral only game and add new variety. 12 minute games from 15 minute games on average wouldn't be so bad. I think it pushes players in more directions. VARIABLES :D
It really has to be tested.
Hardcore.
honestly i really think theyre just desperate for a way to make macro meaningful while keeping mbs and they just made everything deplete fast/gas intensive so that the new gas mechanic would be a necessary macro feature.
as for the speed, every geyser was 1000 gas and i *think* it mined at like 6 gas per trip? but it felt even faster than that would imply, if you did anything but fast expand your first geyser would be depleted before your expo was up (you get 2 geysers per base though).
On July 05 2008 00:42 IdrA wrote: sbs does create gameplay, it forces players to choose between micro and macro, since both are time consuming and you have limited time. some players choose to focus on macro and you end up with oov-style players, some players choose to focus on micro and you end up with boxer-style players.
What I mean more is as games go forward and resources income grows, room for variations like"go Cars or Arbiters? or maybe more Storm Drops?" or any other accessible for other races is getting smaller - interaction with units is simplified to focus on macro more.
you cant choose between carr/arb/storm drop in sc1? i dont see how the gas mechanic changes that. the only limitation is if you dont have enough gas, and the only reason you wouldnt have enough gas is because theyre setting the game up to prevent you from having enough gas without using the mechanic. (so theyre creating a problem in order to force you to use the solution, so just dont put in the problem in the first place)
As seen in last Boxer's TvP - micro isn't rewarding that much when players get rusty and simply slow down, even being sharp as ever.
But can we truly say that we want this new Boxer? Wouldn't be "Boxer v1.0" be even more fun to watch?
you're referencing a player who has been in the army for over a year competing with full time progamers to make a point? the fact that boxer still wins games at all kinda proves that his style is viable.
the new gas mechanic doesnt create new gameplay except varying the units you can get later in the game a bit more its just an artificially contrived waste of time that theyre trying to force on the game (literally, theyve modified the entire economic setup to try to make it useful, making everything gas intensive and setting it up so the geysers deplete insanely fast) because newbies are scaring them off of sbs for no good reason.
But this isn't final build and the truth may be it's meant to scare shit out of all of us just to take it easier when if it won't end so much gas stressed as is now.
+ in general units based on gas more potentially always do bigger damage or like Carriers not necessarily bigger but way more crucial as they can fly and abuse terrain obstacles.
that didnt really respond to anything i said so :D
On July 04 2008 23:13 maybenexttime wrote: I'm not saying SBS is essential. I'm for limited MBS, or Blizzard introducing some multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanics. So far they were unable to design any of those, but at least they're heading the right direction.
Agreed.
wait what youve spent this whole thread plus multiple other ones arguing that they cant have sbs because it will turn off newbies who dont want to invest time in producing units... and you agree that a 'multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanic' would be good? what? you do realize that has the exact same effect as sbs right?
SBS drags you down by burdening you with the task, you don´t optimize your gains, you minimize your inefficiency. Production buildings are build in "clump" to be able to accsess them as fast as possible.
The gas mechanic is also multi tasking heavy since you have to order your peons on the minerals during the 45 sec offtime for optimal efficiency - or you can just ignore that. You can live on fumes if you don´t have the time to worry about that.
The difference - and this is important - is that this one is optional. It allows you to sink more and more APM into the game without ruining players below a certain level/speed.
On July 05 2008 00:28 Showtime! wrote:I think it's time to implement a different UI altogether.
Better than MBS OR SBS? Hell yeah!
and anything that serves the purpose that is needed (force people to invest time in macro) is going to 'burden you with a task' (how is playing the game a task?). who cares if its minimizing efficiency or maximing gains or whatever, it produces a better game to force people to spend time on macro. (for reasons gone over several hundred times in past threads that you have been a part of)
the gas mechanic would not really be optional. imagine you're pvping someone who is of the same skill level as you. everything is equal, except he uses the new gas mechanic and you dont. late game, you have a bunch of zealots and a few stalkers, he has an archon/collosus/zealot army. who wins? (not you) now, if you're both too slow to use the mechanic then yes you'll both be fine. but then youd both be too slow to produce efficiently with sbs, so whats the difference?
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.
Please read my post over and you would see that I am not taking a stand on whether MBS is good or not, I am saying it's inevitable. I have no idea how it will play out. Also, abour your reply to Idra, we don't know if gamers will stop playing as they get older, because video games are so new that the original video game generation is still playing.
I don't want to argue about the above points, what I want is for people to discuss the merits of the mechanic that I suggested. That is:
When you select several buildings at a time to produce units, their training time increases slightly, let's say, by 5%. This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway )
Storm is an ability available through whole game in any MU, in late game unit that 'delivers' HTs is just changed from Shuttle to Arbiter and I don't see any reason why not to look for holes in defenses at all; dropping HTs after Zeals that draw fire, at least close enough to any mineral line if not in Storm's range of it.
Boxer is in team that I can't recall being worst of all 12 atm; his position there is secured as Ace doesn't recruit more players as far as I know. Whatever takes his time now every day doesn't prevent him from playing at all but the point is he is limited to BW macro the most as it requires more and more attention with every additional expo.
We really can watch armies clashing using attack-move with few Recalls and EMPs here and there but haven't gameplay based on out-macroing been severely nerfed with for example Immortals and new M&M combo or Marauders + Jackals/whatever to stay with TvP?
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.
Please read my post over and you would see that I am not taking a stand on whether MBS is good or not, I am saying it's inevitable. I have no idea how it will play out. Also, abour your reply to Idra, we don't know if gamers will stop playing as they get older, because video games are so new that the original video game generation is still playing.
I don't want to argue about the above points, what I want is for people to discuss the merits of the mechanic that I suggested. That is:
When you select several buildings at a time to produce units, their training time increases slightly, let's say, by 5%. This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway )
The problem then would be a lot of whiny wc3 players who want wc4 (no macro) and think sc2 is going to be a substitute. They basically want a game where you essentially DON'T have to focus on macro.
On July 04 2008 23:13 maybenexttime wrote: I'm not saying SBS is essential. I'm for limited MBS, or Blizzard introducing some multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanics. So far they were unable to design any of those, but at least they're heading the right direction.
Agreed.
wait what youve spent this whole thread plus multiple other ones arguing that they cant have sbs because it will turn off newbies who dont want to invest time in producing units... and you agree that a 'multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanic' would be good? what? you do realize that has the exact same effect as sbs right?
SBS drags you down by burdening you with the task, you don´t optimize your gains, you minimize your inefficiency. Production buildings are build in "clump" to be able to accsess them as fast as possible.
The gas mechanic is also multi tasking heavy since you have to order your peons on the minerals during the 45 sec offtime for optimal efficiency - or you can just ignore that. You can live on fumes if you don´t have the time to worry about that.
The difference - and this is important - is that this one is optional. It allows you to sink more and more APM into the game without ruining players below a certain level/speed.
On July 05 2008 00:28 Showtime! wrote:I think it's time to implement a different UI altogether.
Better than MBS OR SBS? Hell yeah!
and anything that serves the purpose that is needed (force people to invest time in macro) is going to 'burden you with a task' (how is playing the game a task?). who cares if its minimizing efficiency or maximing gains or whatever, it produces a better game to force people to spend time on macro. (for reasons gone over several hundred times in past threads that you have been a part of)
the gas mechanic would not really be optional. imagine you're pvping someone who is of the same skill level as you. everything is equal, except he uses the new gas mechanic and you dont. late game, you have a bunch of zealots and a few stalkers, he has an archon/collosus/zealot army. who wins? (not you) now, if you're both too slow to use the mechanic then yes you'll both be fine. but then youd both be too slow to produce efficiently with sbs, so whats the difference?
But TBH if it will end up like that they will just make units cost less in gas and/or give more gas to geysers.
It's about option to do it and fear if opponent does as you can completely ignore that at some point but if use, whatever if earlier or later (or put it in the other words - midgame or lategame), just to make those more powerful, (currently so much) gas heavy units - they can strengthen unit mix better than standard Zealots or Stalkers worth minerals mined instead.
Blizzard won't keep any units worthless for sure and because of that the game can't be predictable as much as BW... in my point of view.
On July 05 2008 01:20 IdrA wrote: and anything that serves the purpose that is needed (force people to invest time in macro) is going to 'burden you with a task' (how is playing the game a task?). who cares if its minimizing efficiency or maximing gains or whatever, it produces a better game to force people to spend time on macro. (for reasons gone over several hundred times in past threads that you have been a part of)
If it were that easy we could improve the game by adding "Macrobuttons" to the buildings that simply increase output for a certain time with a certain CD. Its macro in the most open sense. It takes up a players time. It creates another "skill" players can master. So it´s perfect right?
Just forcing people to "macro" by limiting the UI is for me the wrong aproach. They should rather EXTEND the possibilities of the Player to give him more stuff to do. No one wants to just add MBS and be done with it.
On July 05 2008 01:20 IdrA wrote: the gas mechanic would not really be optional. imagine you're pvping someone who is of the same skill level as you. everything is equal, except he uses the new gas mechanic and you dont. late game, you have a bunch of zealots and a few stalkers, he has an archon/collosus/zealot army. who wins? (not you) now, if you're both too slow to use the mechanic then yes you'll both be fine. but then youd both be too slow to produce efficiently with sbs, so whats the difference?
If the gas mechanic actually worked out like it should, I might win. I would have several advantages: More "free time" since my opponent would be busy organizing his drones. More minerals since my opponent "wastes" his on increasing his supply of gas.
My opponent would obviously have the advantage of more gas.
My chances of succsess depend how good/bad the two unit mixes would be and how well I can use my "bonustime".
Both extremes have issues. The "best" way would be a golden middle, I would trade for just as much gas as I would need for the optimal unitmix.
On your last point: If we are both to slow to use the gas thing we would use more "basic" units. Now guessing there would be a proper UI we would be able to produce units anyway. If we were both to slow to use a poor UI we would slow down the game and ruin the pace. In the first case the game is different. In the second case the game is frustrating.
the thing is all numbers are up to change, right now its 100 minerals for 400 gas, but it can easily be more for less or less for more (or more for more or less for less) it it takes the gas offline for 45 seconds, it could take the gas offline for less
and because there are two geysers (whereas if you use the double worker method, you'd probably revert back to one geyser) it does also offer timing strategies, being that building another gas would put you 100 minerals behind, but you double your gas input for a tech rush
however all the timing will settle with years of playtime, blizzard's foresight can only be so far
is the SC2 gas collection with 1 geyser comparable to SC? or do you have to have two geysers for achieve that? (I read gas brings in 6 per trip, depleted 2 per trip). With the faster pathing, that leads me to believe that 1 geyser is comparable to BW's gas rate
On July 05 2008 01:31 inlagdsil wrote: This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway )
The gas-mechanic isn't really a fix. Hotkey all assimilators, and it's the same thing as producing units with MBS, only less recurrent, and at another hotkey. (Press 0, spam R for 1/3 of a second, fixed)
On July 05 2008 01:41 MrRammstein wrote: Boxer is in team that I can't recall being worst of all 12 atm; his position there is secured as Ace doesn't recruit more players as far as I know. Whatever takes his time now every day doesn't prevent him from playing at all but the point is he is limited to BW macro the most as it requires more and more attention with every additional expo.
Um, this statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin.
Estro is currently at the bottom in Pro League.
3 really good players are joining the Air Force. In fact, there has been two threads about this here. (Reach, Silent_Control and Anytime I believe)
Sure, they don't have as much time to practice, but sometimes they manage to get a win.
On July 05 2008 03:04 edahl wrote: The gas-mechanic isn't really a fix. Hotkey all assimilators, and it's the same thing as producing units with MBS, only less recurrent, and at another hotkey. (Press 0, spam R for 1/3 of a second, fixed)
You will have to redeploy the workers for all your extractors or you will have 3 times the number of extractors idle workers for 45 seconds every time the extractors deplete. The player using his extra workers on minerals during that time will get a huge advantage.
On July 05 2008 01:31 inlagdsil wrote: This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway )
Often have just one facility anyway....
haha, true!
Other than making units produced at buildings selected together take more time to train, here are some random ideas to make macro skills useful:
-make the spawn location random. When you tell your 25 gateways to produce 1 zealot, it could be made in any one of them. That way, if you have gateways in several bases, you will put make each group of gateways have its own hotkey. This doesn't make a huge difference, of course, but adds a few keystrokes. For zerg, this would be a huge deal, since hatcheries tend to be scattered at expansions. -(something similar to this was suggested, I don't remember what is was or where) When you click on a production building, there could be a button that can be used only once for each unit, that cuts down slightly on build time. Thus, faster players will get their armies slightly faster. This function cannot be used when you select several buildings at the same time. -make supply management more important. Is it true that pylons/overlords/supply depots now give less supply? That is a good start. Getting supply bonuses might also me good. For example, if you individually select 5 supply depots and for each click on "increase supply", you could add 1 supply until the construction of the next depot. That one extra unit can really come in handy.
I don't think that all of these suggestions are ideal, but by discussing them we might stumble upon something really good. The basic idea behind all of them is to let the game be easy to play for casual players, all the while letting competitive players get an edge by doing things that less good players won't bother or have the APM to do.
On July 05 2008 01:41 MrRammstein wrote: Boxer is in team that I can't recall being worst of all 12 atm; his position there is secured as Ace doesn't recruit more players as far as I know. Whatever takes his time now every day doesn't prevent him from playing at all but the point is he is limited to BW macro the most as it requires more and more attention with every additional expo.
Um, this statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin.
Estro is currently at the bottom in Pro League.
That's why I wrote "that I can't recall"
3 really good players are joining the Air Force. In fact, there has been two threads about this here. (Reach, Silent_Control and Anytime I believe)
Sure, they don't have as much time to practice, but sometimes they manage to get a win.
On July 05 2008 01:31 inlagdsil wrote: This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway )
Other than making units produced at buildings selected together take more time to train, here are some random ideas to make macro skills useful:
-make the spawn location random. When you tell your 25 gateways to produce 1 zealot, it could be made in any one of them. That way, if you have gateways in several bases, you will put make each group of gateways have its own hotkey. This doesn't make a huge difference, of course, but adds a few keystrokes. For zerg, this would be a huge deal, since hatcheries tend to be scattered at expansions. -(something similar to this was suggested, I don't remember what is was or where) When you click on a production building, there could be a button that can be used only once for each unit, that cuts down slightly on build time. Thus, faster players will get their armies slightly faster. This function cannot be used when you select several buildings at the same time. -make supply management more important. Is it true that pylons/overlords/supply depots now give less supply? That is a good start. Getting supply bonuses might also me good. For example, if you individually select 5 supply depots and for each click on "increase supply", you could add 1 supply until the construction of the next depot. That one extra unit can really come in handy.
I don't think that all of these suggestions are ideal, but by discussing them we might stumble upon something really good. The basic idea behind all of them is to let the game be easy to play for casual players, all the while letting competitive players get an edge by doing things that less good players won't bother or have the APM to do.
I have nothing against smaller supply given by Depots but I wouldn't make them upgradeable
About making units in random buildings tho: Putting aside Warp In (that would make it of very small use), what if by default they were produced in Gateways that were warped (build) 1st? So Protoss player would have to plan where to build 1st ones to be sure where units will pop out if queued using MBS?
Blizz may make it closest ones to the rally point tho...
On July 05 2008 01:31 inlagdsil wrote: This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway )
Other than making units produced at buildings selected together take more time to train, here are some random ideas to make macro skills useful:
-make the spawn location random. When you tell your 25 gateways to produce 1 zealot, it could be made in any one of them. That way, if you have gateways in several bases, you will put make each group of gateways have its own hotkey. This doesn't make a huge difference, of course, but adds a few keystrokes. For zerg, this would be a huge deal, since hatcheries tend to be scattered at expansions. -(something similar to this was suggested, I don't remember what is was or where) When you click on a production building, there could be a button that can be used only once for each unit, that cuts down slightly on build time. Thus, faster players will get their armies slightly faster. This function cannot be used when you select several buildings at the same time. -make supply management more important. Is it true that pylons/overlords/supply depots now give less supply? That is a good start. Getting supply bonuses might also me good. For example, if you individually select 5 supply depots and for each click on "increase supply", you could add 1 supply until the construction of the next depot. That one extra unit can really come in handy.
I don't think that all of these suggestions are ideal, but by discussing them we might stumble upon something really good. The basic idea behind all of them is to let the game be easy to play for casual players, all the while letting competitive players get an edge by doing things that less good players won't bother or have the APM to do.
I have nothing against smaller supply given by Depots but I wouldn't make them upgradeable
About making units in random buildings tho: Putting aside Warp In (that would make it of very small use), what if by default they were produced in Gateways that were warped (build) 1st? So Protoss player would have to plan where to build 1st ones to be sure where units will pop out if queued using MBS?
Blizz may make it closest ones to the rally point tho...
Yeah, choosing which building produces will be an important decision. My "random" idea was to make it less convenient and force players to hotkey several different groups of buildings. It's very unlikely that they would do that though. So, what are the options for choosing which building produces? Here are the ones mentioned and a few more: -random -order of buildings produced -closest to rally point
-chosen by player at any time, but default is order produced -from highest on map to lowest, or right to left etc. -commit different buildings to different units, one to zeals, one to DTs... but this might be too complicated Any other ideas? In weighing these options, a problem arises: do you want the system to be as convenient as possible, or make it difficult so that better players take advantage of it more?
Difficult but with as much logical reasoning as possible for me... reposting my idea from page 10
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 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 some 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 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 05 2008 01:20 IdrA wrote: and anything that serves the purpose that is needed (force people to invest time in macro) is going to 'burden you with a task' (how is playing the game a task?). who cares if its minimizing efficiency or maximing gains or whatever, it produces a better game to force people to spend time on macro. (for reasons gone over several hundred times in past threads that you have been a part of)
If it were that easy we could improve the game by adding "Macrobuttons" to the buildings that simply increase output for a certain time with a certain CD. Its macro in the most open sense. It takes up a players time. It creates another "skill" players can master. So it´s perfect right?
Judging from your example here, you don't seem to really understand the underlying problem that MBS introduces into the game. The problem is not the reduction of button presses, its the reduction of time. More specifically, its where that time is being invested. If the time is invested while the player is on the battlefield, watching his units, then that extra time investment is not really taking the player's attention away from microing, and its not helping to balance the mico/macro in the game. This is the main reason why things like the new gas mechanic don't really help to increase macro time: with MBS, there is effectively no issue with having too few hotkeys as there is in BW. In SC2, with MBS, you can hotkey all your production buildings, all your units, AND all your extractors/assimilators/refineries and still have hotkeys left over. Therefore, you can perform all production while on the battlefield quite easily, and it doesn't really have any noticeable effect on your micro.
The main problem with MBS is not that it removes keystrokes (although past a certain point, this as well is an issue. With the newer setup with MBS (one keystroke per unit) this is much less of a problem). The main problem with MBS is that it means a player barely ever has to move his viewpoint from units in battle back to his base. In BW, there's absolutely no way you could hotkey all your production buildings and still have space for your units past early game. You absolutely have to look back at your base during battles if you want to keep up good macro. And in doing so, you invest time into the game while not able to view your units. This forces you to make tough strategic decisions on the fly, and forces you to weigh risks and benefits quickly. It introduces a tough question with no *absolutely correct* answers into play that occurs frequently, one that will always be made differently by different people, and therefore adds infinitely varying degrees of skill into the game.
So when searching for something to add into the game that replaces the skill lost due to MBS, we aren't searching to replace the keypresses. We aren't searching to replace the time. We're looking for something much more specific: something that forces you to divert your attention back to your base very frequently during the game. The right solution would force you to make a decision that has no easy answers, and in choosing your option, there is always a downside.
BW is a game of limitations. You have limited time, limited minerals, limited gas, limited hotkeys. The limited time means no play can ever be truly perfect. The limited minerals and gas means you must manage and make strategic spending decisions. Lastly, the limited hotkeys means you can never monitor every unit and every building with perfect timing, nor can you control each of them with perfect timing. MBS effectively removes the limit on hotkeys, while also giving you an effective boost in the time availible to you. So whatever solution is chosen, it needs to fix the skill lost by the modification of those limits. And honestly, none of the solutions I have seen either A) do that, or B) are elegant and simple enough to please the majority of the population playing the game. SBS is by far the simplest solution to the problem.
I realize a lot of you would rather see this problem patched over with 'additions' rather than 'limits', but as I said, SC is a game of limits. And thats what's needed to fix this problem: a limit.
this isn't worth arguing anymore considering it really isn't going anywhere. Can we stick to coming up with new and exciting ideas like new ways of gathering resources and what not? The Anti-MBS versus MBS discussion is getting lame again.
On July 05 2008 11:20 Showtime! wrote: tec very well said sir.
this isn't worth arguing anymore considering it really isn't going anywhere. Can we stick to coming up with new and exciting ideas like new ways of gathering resources and what not? The Anti-MBS versus MBS discussion is getting lame again.
It will go on forever.
You're right, this discussion is on how to improve the game assuming it does have MBS.
Regarding the nature of the changes to be made, tec suggests that they should be "limitations". Well, they were in BW, and that certainly worked out well. But do they have to be in SC2? The sequel will be a different game, with a different focus. Even in the same game, SC, the focus has shifted over time from micro to macro. There is a huge opportunity here to influence the making of a game so that it becomes exactly what we want. Now, we can say "it was done this way in SC, so that's how it should be in SC2". This implies that SC was perfect in every way. If that were the case, then why the fuss about SC2, it would necessarily be a disappointment! Our greatest hope is that SC2 will be even more fun than SC while retaining its infinite skill ceiling.
SC2 is a modern game; it should feel pleasant to play. This is what worries me about the new gas mechanic, as it risks being a nuissance. I have made many suggestions in the last few pages on mechanics that reward returning to your base and clicking on individual buildings. The problem that they share is that they risk being annoying. The limitations in SC are technical: no one intended on them being a hindrance. In fact SC prided itself in its "revolutionary new queuing system", if I recall. In other words, there are no artificial tools added to SC to make you have to spend time macroing, the requirement is just built into the interface. However, these limitations will not exist in SC2. Therefore, the point of this thread should be to find a mechanic that achieves the following things: -requires you to balance your efforts between micro and macro -seems to stem naturally from the gameplay and isn't some random contrived clickfest -everything everyone else said better than me
One way would be to make the game much more fast paced. If units produced a lot faster, then you would have to train them a lot more often. However, this seems like a draconian way of dealing with the problem.
I still like my idea of using increased training time as a penalty for training from multiple buildings at once, but there is surely a way of improving on it to make it less like "this game has MBS but if you want to play well you can't have it, nah nah nah".
And please, no one say: "well then what about SBS?", that is for a different thread...
Here's an idea inspired by tec's post; it's not directly macro-related, but at least helps solve the problem.
The problem tec (and others before) has with MBS is that it allows the player to build new units without taking their attention off of their army or armies, which removes an important strategic decision in timing waves of unit production. But does this shift in attention require a shift in viewpoint?
The assumption is that it does, because it's assumed that hotkeyed MBS unit production (even with one unit per click) will be fast enough to perform that even if battlefield conditions change while the player is producing units, if the player is aware of those changes they have time to finish their production and effectively respond to new threats.
However, if this assumption is wrong, there would not only be a strategic choice on when to build a new wave of units, but also a strategic choice on whether to finish a production run if the enemy attacks in the middle or break it off to respond to the threat and try to remember where you left off to finish later. This would be ideal, but the counter-argument is that it's unlikely that the enemy would attack during a production run both because of the speed of MBS production and because the enemy doesn't know for certain when their opponent isn't controlling their units (and so attacks while one is producing are essentially luck rather than planned).
This is where my idea comes in. Every unit will have two animations for most basic actions: one if they are currently selected by the player, and another if they aren't. If the player is currently selecting a unit, they will be "at attention", on edge and ready for anything. If the unit isn't selected, however, they subtly but distinctly "relax" now that their commander isn't looking over their shoulder, with their animations looser than when they're at attention.
In play, an observant enemy will know to look for "relaxed" units, and time their attacks when they know that their opponent isn't in direct control. Now, the producing player can see the attack coming, but they have to make a decision whether to cut off the production run and select their units to keep their opponent from gaining the upper hand at the cost of a off-timed/smaller production run, or finish their production run before selecting their units, which ensures maximum production but puts the player at a disadvantage in the battle.
So in a way, this brings back the attention cost to production, though now its more of a control cost. The player must decide whether to give up control over their units for production, and whether to cut off a production run to go back to their units if necessary. It also brings a new skill to attacking, rewarding players who send scouts ahead to see when the enemy "relaxes" and only attacking when their opponent will have to sacrifice something else that they're doing to stay on top of the battle.
On July 05 2008 16:51 1esu wrote: Here's an idea inspired by tec's post; it's not directly macro-related, but at least helps solve the problem.
The problem tec (and others before) has with MBS is that it allows the player to build new units without taking their attention off of their army or armies, which removes an important strategic decision in timing waves of unit production. But does this shift in attention require a shift in viewpoint?
The assumption is that it does, because it's assumed that hotkeyed MBS unit production (even with one unit per click) will be fast enough to perform that even if battlefield conditions change while the player is producing units, if the player is aware of those changes they have time to finish their production and effectively respond to new threats.
However, if this assumption is wrong, there would not only be a strategic choice on when to build a new wave of units, but also a strategic choice on whether to finish a production run if the enemy attacks in the middle or break it off to respond to the threat and try to remember where you left off to finish later. This would be ideal, but the counter-argument is that it's unlikely that the enemy would attack during a production run both because of the speed of MBS production and because the enemy doesn't know for certain when their opponent isn't controlling their units (and so attacks while one is producing are essentially luck rather than planned).
This is where my idea comes in. Every unit will have two animations for most basic actions: one if they are currently selected by the player, and another if they aren't. If the player is currently selecting a unit, they will be "at attention", on edge and ready for anything. If the unit isn't selected, however, they subtly but distinctly "relax" now that their commander isn't looking over their shoulder, with their animations looser than when they're at attention.
In play, an observant enemy will know to look for "relaxed" units, and time their attacks when they know that their opponent isn't in direct control. Now, the producing player can see the attack coming, but they have to make a decision whether to cut off the production run and select their units to keep their opponent from gaining the upper hand at the cost of a off-timed/smaller production run, or finish their production run before selecting their units, which ensures maximum production but puts the player at a disadvantage in the battle.
So in a way, this brings back the attention cost to production, though now its more of a control cost. The player must decide whether to give up control over their units for production, and whether to cut off a production run to go back to their units if necessary. It also brings a new skill to attacking, rewarding players who send scouts ahead to see when the enemy "relaxes" and only attacking when their opponent will have to sacrifice something else that they're doing to stay on top of the battle.
I see how this deals with the problem, but I'm not really comfortable with the idea. In SC, you have to guess that the units aren't being controlled, which can be helped by setting up a diversion. Knowing for sure just seems to be less fun. It would also become an important part of the game. So then, do we really want to spend our time during the whole game looking at which animation the unit has? I don't have anything really objective to say about this right now, but it just doesn't feel right to me.
On July 05 2008 10:05 tec27 wrote: I realize a lot of you would rather see this problem patched over with 'additions' rather than 'limits', but as I said, SC is a game of limits. And thats what's needed to fix this problem: a limit.
I think everyone knows your point, as it has been discussed to death. It might be valid (i.e. if it's proven that being able to "babysit" your army slightly more than is possible in SC1 is bad for the gameplay). However, your conclusion is only half true. You don't need a limitation (like SBS) to fix this. An "addition" which forces the player to pay more attention to his base works just as well if not even better, provided that it doesn't feel too artificial/awkward/strange. It has to blend well into the game. SBS feels awkward and tedious, so why keep it? If many players don't like it, why keep it? The effect it has can be created with other, better (more meaningful) methods too. Instead of limiting player effectiveness by including SBS again, there should be a way for players to gain an advantage by choosing to switch to their base every now and then. This way, bad players can choose to babysit their army and not get the advantages because it's too demanding on their multitasking skill, but good players can gain additional advantages by splitting their attention. It would be an optional feature (SBS is not), and great for both parties... no one would have to complain about anything. And you probably know that good players will use every means possible in order to improve, so it's not like they would ignore such possibilities. Furthermore, something like this new gas mechanic could also lead to very complex but rewarding build orders. It will take longer until the best build orders for each map/situation/race are known, and creative players will be able to find out many new cool builds.
On July 05 2008 16:51 1esu wrote: Here's an idea inspired by tec's post; it's not directly macro-related, but at least helps solve the problem.
The problem tec (and others before) has with MBS is that it allows the player to build new units without taking their attention off of their army or armies, which removes an important strategic decision in timing waves of unit production. But does this shift in attention require a shift in viewpoint?
The assumption is that it does, because it's assumed that hotkeyed MBS unit production (even with one unit per click) will be fast enough to perform that even if battlefield conditions change while the player is producing units, if the player is aware of those changes they have time to finish their production and effectively respond to new threats.
However, if this assumption is wrong, there would not only be a strategic choice on when to build a new wave of units, but also a strategic choice on whether to finish a production run if the enemy attacks in the middle or break it off to respond to the threat and try to remember where you left off to finish later. This would be ideal, but the counter-argument is that it's unlikely that the enemy would attack during a production run both because of the speed of MBS production and because the enemy doesn't know for certain when their opponent isn't controlling their units (and so attacks while one is producing are essentially luck rather than planned).
This is where my idea comes in. Every unit will have two animations for most basic actions: one if they are currently selected by the player, and another if they aren't. If the player is currently selecting a unit, they will be "at attention", on edge and ready for anything. If the unit isn't selected, however, they subtly but distinctly "relax" now that their commander isn't looking over their shoulder, with their animations looser than when they're at attention.
In play, an observant enemy will know to look for "relaxed" units, and time their attacks when they know that their opponent isn't in direct control. Now, the producing player can see the attack coming, but they have to make a decision whether to cut off the production run and select their units to keep their opponent from gaining the upper hand at the cost of a off-timed/smaller production run, or finish their production run before selecting their units, which ensures maximum production but puts the player at a disadvantage in the battle.
So in a way, this brings back the attention cost to production, though now its more of a control cost. The player must decide whether to give up control over their units for production, and whether to cut off a production run to go back to their units if necessary. It also brings a new skill to attacking, rewarding players who send scouts ahead to see when the enemy "relaxes" and only attacking when their opponent will have to sacrifice something else that they're doing to stay on top of the battle.
I see how this deals with the problem, but I'm not really comfortable with the idea. In SC, you have to guess that the units aren't being controlled, which can be helped by setting up a diversion. Knowing for sure just seems to be less fun. It would also become an important part of the game. So then, do we really want to spend our time during the whole game looking at which animation the unit has? I don't have anything really objective to say about this right now, but it just doesn't feel right to me.
I like this idea, made me remember Stronghold game where some units already stand up not when they are selected but when selection box is being dragged over them and lie down back when aren't selected.
This would work more not because they wouldn't be selected but because it would take split of second to respond and execute animation... in other words would be similar to current Mutas micro - they can be used more efficient when used with Hold Position (as they don't shoot instantly when they have range but are on the move).
Another thing is fact that not selected units would not mean they aren't supervised and could be selected in instant when battle is going to start... so this could be used to lure opponent out.
I dont think this really deserves its own thread but i was chillin pretty much staring at a wall and was thinking bout the macro problem. What if they tied MBS into the game storyline. Bare with me this is a rough idea and i dont really know where they could go with it but i though it was worth a mention. What if they had a building that allowed for the players to do MBS and tied it into the lore.
What if terran had some type of communications array that allowed you to "radio" more than one transmission at a time or something along those lines. It could be top tier so newbs and the such who absolutely need it can rush to it if they want and other who dont can have an advantage of supply mins and units? This would also help make late games more exciting because i know that in late game a lot of macro gets that much tougher and there is a lot more to do. So if you added MBS in the late game for pros or whatnot it could help to make those games closer, while still maintaining a sharp edge at the beginning.
You could also introduce this into the Single player to allow newbs to get used to the mechanic as in the beginning they can say that the radar array is down and that they will have to scalvage parts for a new one. This would help ease the flow of the game and allow newbs the chance to get accustomed to the play of SBS while not completely disappointing them later on in the game with the tediousness of late game macro.
Like i said in multiplayer they could use this as a strategic building that say you can only have one of, i know that sounds kinda CNCish but i dont know what else, and it would a strategic target to take out similar to a greater spire or science facility. This would also further cripple the player as they would have to build a new one before they began to use MBS again. One again newbs will opt to build this for the ease of play at the beginning and pros will opt to spend the minerals on units and tech giving them an advantage for their faster apm. Thus if the newb is actually good strategist and can out play the person who is not using the MBS building they can eventually gain an edge if they are on top of their macro and the other isnt.
I think it's a bit too gimmicky. Also, unless this "MBS" building is made really expensive, everyone will build it. MBS is pretty much irrelevant to the game until at least past ~7-8 minute mark so its only late game that it will cause an impact in the first place.
On July 08 2008 01:37 _PulSe_ wrote: I dont think this really deserves its own thread but i was chillin pretty much staring at a wall and was thinking bout the macro problem. What if they tied MBS into the game storyline. Bare with me this is a rough idea and i dont really know where they could go with it but i though it was worth a mention. What if they had a building that allowed for the players to do MBS and tied it into the lore.
What if terran had some type of communications array that allowed you to "radio" more than one transmission at a time or something along those lines. It could be top tier so newbs and the such who absolutely need it can rush to it if they want and other who dont can have an advantage of supply mins and units? This would also help make late games more exciting because i know that in late game a lot of macro gets that much tougher and there is a lot more to do. So if you added MBS in the late game for pros or whatnot it could help to make those games closer, while still maintaining a sharp edge at the beginning.
You could also introduce this into the Single player to allow newbs to get used to the mechanic as in the beginning they can say that the radar array is down and that they will have to scalvage parts for a new one. This would help ease the flow of the game and allow newbs the chance to get accustomed to the play of SBS while not completely disappointing them later on in the game with the tediousness of late game macro.
Like i said in multiplayer they could use this as a strategic building that say you can only have one of, i know that sounds kinda CNCish but i dont know what else, and it would a strategic target to take out similar to a greater spire or science facility. This would also further cripple the player as they would have to build a new one before they began to use MBS again. One again newbs will opt to build this for the ease of play at the beginning and pros will opt to spend the minerals on units and tech giving them an advantage for their faster apm. Thus if the newb is actually good strategist and can out play the person who is not using the MBS building they can eventually gain an edge if they are on top of their macro and the other isnt.
Thoughts?
Man... if only PC Tard and others didn't exist.
BUT dude, changeable MBS timer, like appearing slowly during the game (allowing more buildings - 2,3,4 to be selected at once) would be great.
Explanation - satellite(s) enclosing, radio waves for the time being especially since Scan is just satellite Scan, right? Energy goes for transmission IMHO
Hey I just had this crazy idea that is so obvious that I don't know how I didn't think about it before. I wanted to know what you guys think about it. You know, in WC3 they wanted to game to be much more micro and less macro, so the first thing they changed to go that route was decreasing food count to like ~75, then on TFT (wc3 expansion) they tried to shift balance a liiiitle bit more to macro so the first thing they did was to increase food count to ~90 (could be wrong about exact numbers, but you get the idea).
So if we want to add more macro to make up for MBS. Why don't we just increase the max food to like 250 or 300?
I personally would be very excited about it. It's not too much increase to break balance or make polygon count way too much laggier. But enough to force ppl to macro and multi-task more often.
More macro, more multi-tasking. But NO artificial interface block. What do you think?
what was the original reason for the 200 food limit? afaik the other popular RTSs at the time (CnC, TA) didn't have food limits. I thought it to do with the engine not being able to support that many units
On July 09 2008 00:26 VIB wrote: Hey I just had this crazy idea that is so obvious that I don't know how I didn't think about it before. I wanted to know what you guys think about it. You know, in WC3 they wanted to game to be much more micro and less macro, so the first thing they changed to go that route was decreasing food count to like ~75, then on TFT (wc3 expansion) they tried to shift balance a liiiitle bit more to macro so the first thing they did was to increase food count to ~90 (could be wrong about exact numbers, but you get the idea).
So if we want to add more macro to make up for MBS. Why don't we just increase the max food to like 250 or 300?
I personally would be very excited about it. It's not too much increase to break balance or make polygon count way too much laggier. But enough to force ppl to macro and multi-task more often.
More macro, more multi-tasking. But NO artificial interface block. What do you think?
So-So. The issue here is that the 200 supply limit serves as indirect "you are doing it wrong" message. You aren´t actually ever supposed to hit the limit, if you have 150+ supply you should attack your opponent.
WC3 is a good example that more complex Units/Heroes create more demanding Micro than masses of "run-and-gunners".
Also it might create Racial balance issues. Terrans are all about Critical Mass, after a certain point they simply melt their opponents before they can do any damage. Zerg on the other hand are somewhat limited by the amount of units that can attack a enemy at once. A global unitnumber increasement would strangely benefit Terrans more than the swarmy Zerg.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the initial reason for the 200 supply limit in SC:BW was because of the limitations of the game engine. You can only have so many doodads in the map editor, you can only have so many units on the map per colour, etc. With so many units running around the engine simply cannot handle it.
200 seemed perfect to me because that was more than enough to attack an opponent and with several production buildings idle, you can hit the limit quickly again in no time.
After all these years, sure! More and more games are going the distance, so if need be it might not be a bad idea as long as the engine and computers can handle it.
On July 09 2008 00:56 caution.slip wrote: what was the original reason for the 200 food limit? afaik the other popular RTSs at the time (CnC, TA) didn't have food limits. I thought it to do with the engine not being able to support that many units
There are a couple of other reasons (hardware limitation) but the main reason why there is a supply limit is exactly to balance micro vs macro. There's a limit because, even tho macro is cool, we don't wanna get to a point where you have so much units that micro is nonexistent and you're just attack-moving sauron mode using 100% of your APM to macro. So you put a limit to how much macro you can do.
But since in SC2 macro will be easier than in BW. You could increase the macro limit so you can macro more.
Unentschieden wrote: So-So. The issue here is that the 200 supply limit serves as indirect "you are doing it wrong" message. You aren´t actually ever supposed to hit the limit, if you have 150+ supply you should attack your opponent.
I just 100% disagree with what you just said :S Just, watch a couple of pro-games I guess, it will tell you the exact contrary.
Unentschieden wrote: Also it might create Racial balance issues.
That is a consequence of how the metagame developed. When they created SC1 they didn't think "hey, let's limit how many units people can have or else X race will beat Y race". If this was the case, they would have put different food limit for different races. But since it's just a consequence of how the metagame developed it can be balanced much like anything else in the game. You could either balance it by unit changing patches. Or balance it by putting more X favored maps, if X race feels weaker - like Kespa has been doing since ever and it's been working like a charm. I see no problem with it.
VIB wasn't it also because of the lag it generates with so many units on screen not to mention the limitations of the engine? I could have sworn that was the major factor in their decision, but yes it is because they wanted to balance micro and macro as well (when is it too much).
On July 08 2008 01:37 _PulSe_ wrote: I dont think this really deserves its own thread but i was chillin pretty much staring at a wall and was thinking bout the macro problem. What if they tied MBS into the game storyline. Bare with me this is a rough idea and i dont really know where they could go with it but i though it was worth a mention. What if they had a building that allowed for the players to do MBS and tied it into the lore.
What if terran had some type of communications array that allowed you to "radio" more than one transmission at a time or something along those lines. It could be top tier so newbs and the such who absolutely need it can rush to it if they want and other who dont can have an advantage of supply mins and units? This would also help make late games more exciting because i know that in late game a lot of macro gets that much tougher and there is a lot more to do. So if you added MBS in the late game for pros or whatnot it could help to make those games closer, while still maintaining a sharp edge at the beginning.
You could also introduce this into the Single player to allow newbs to get used to the mechanic as in the beginning they can say that the radar array is down and that they will have to scalvage parts for a new one. This would help ease the flow of the game and allow newbs the chance to get accustomed to the play of SBS while not completely disappointing them later on in the game with the tediousness of late game macro.
Like i said in multiplayer they could use this as a strategic building that say you can only have one of, i know that sounds kinda CNCish but i dont know what else, and it would a strategic target to take out similar to a greater spire or science facility. This would also further cripple the player as they would have to build a new one before they began to use MBS again. One again newbs will opt to build this for the ease of play at the beginning and pros will opt to spend the minerals on units and tech giving them an advantage for their faster apm. Thus if the newb is actually good strategist and can out play the person who is not using the MBS building they can eventually gain an edge if they are on top of their macro and the other isnt.
Thoughts?
Man... if only PC Tard and others didn't exist.
BUT dude, changeable MBS timer, like appearing slowly during the game (allowing more buildings - 2,3,4 to be selected at once) would be great.
Explanation - satellite(s) enclosing, radio waves for the time being especially since Scan is just satellite Scan, right? Energy goes for transmission IMHO
On July 09 2008 02:14 Swailoc wrote: how could they want to balance micro and macro when they had no idea that micro and micro existed while making the game?
lol
'micro' and 'macro' existed before Starcraft, bud. They were well aware of it, but they had no idea it would amount to this.
On July 09 2008 00:56 caution.slip wrote: what was the original reason for the 200 food limit? afaik the other popular RTSs at the time (CnC, TA) didn't have food limits. I thought it to do with the engine not being able to support that many units
I don't know if CnC had any but TA for sure. Some unit packs and stuff to download were extending that to 500 at least... and reasoning behind cap is to force players to fight at some point in time if they avoid that?
On July 09 2008 02:06 Showtime! wrote: VIB wasn't it also because of the lag it generates with so many units on screen not to mention the limitations of the engine? I could have sworn that was the major factor in their decision, but yes it is because they wanted to balance micro and macro as well (when is it too much).
Yes, I've mentioned it a couple of times:
On July 09 2008 01:35 VIB wrote: There are a couple of other reasons (hardware limitation) but the main reason why there is a supply limit is exactly to balance micro vs macro.
On July 09 2008 01:35 VIB wrote: It's not too much increase to break balance or make polygon count way too much laggier. But enough to force ppl to macro and multi-task more often.
Hardware is part of the problem, but not the problem. It's a 25% increase from 200 to 250 (so no too much). So you could estimate a approximately ~10~20% slower computer (since not all units will be on screen at the same time + food will not imply in directly proportional more polygons etc etc)
Main three reasons why there is a food cap, in order of importance (my personal opinion of course) is: 1) micro vs macro balance 2) hardware limitation 3) limit turtling (you have to attack at some time)
But I still think micro vs macro balance was the 1st and most important reason. So if we want to shift the balance in favor of macro (to make up MBS) let's increase the food cap a bit
On July 09 2008 02:14 Swailoc wrote: how could they want to balance micro and macro when they had no idea that micro and micro existed while making the game?
lol
'micro' and 'macro' existed before Starcraft, bud. They were well aware of it, but they had no idea it would amount to this.
Obviously they were aware that you need to build units and move them around but they had no idea that someone would be so fast for the game to need some kind of balance between the 2, it was definitely not intentional even blizzard themselves said they had no idea it would be like this just like you said
On July 09 2008 02:06 Showtime! wrote: VIB wasn't it also because of the lag it generates with so many units on screen not to mention the limitations of the engine? I could have sworn that was the major factor in their decision, but yes it is because they wanted to balance micro and macro as well (when is it too much).
On July 09 2008 01:35 VIB wrote: There are a couple of other reasons (hardware limitation) but the main reason why there is a supply limit is exactly to balance micro vs macro.
On July 09 2008 01:35 VIB wrote: It's not too much increase to break balance or make polygon count way too much laggier. But enough to force ppl to macro and multi-task more often.
Hardware is part of the problem, but not the problem. It's a 25% increase from 200 to 250 (so no too much). So you could estimate a approximately ~10~20% slower computer (since not all units will be on screen at the same time + food will not imply in directly proportional more polygons etc etc)
Main three reasons why there is a food cap, in order of importance (my personal opinion of course) is: 1) micro vs macro balance 2) hardware limitation 3) limit turtling (you have to attack at some time)
But I still think micro vs macro balance was the 1st and most important reason. So if we want to shift the balance in favor of macro (to make up MBS) let's increase the food cap a bit
increasing the food cap doesn't help if you don't have to spend any time adding extra cap. if anything this adds more micro because you'll have more units to work with without working for the units
On July 09 2008 03:49 Swailoc wrote: if you don't have to spend any time adding extra cap
If you don't spend any time adding extra thinking before you post, you'll just look dumb and not contribute to the thread. Please stop wasting our bandwidth and time.
I don't actually want this to be implemented, but I was just speculating...what if the game starts out SBS and in order to obtain MBS, you have to research it? I was also thinking about this regarding unlimited selection, you know, keep it at 12 or 16 and then research it to 344 or whatever the max is...
Even better, what if food cap were modifiable per map, so official melee maps could have different food caps.
So, for example, you have big macro maps could have a 250 food limit. While small short game maps would have 200 food limit? It would be another tool for map makers to control the flow and balance of their maps.
So if Kespa decides mbs is making the pro games boring and slow, they could just start putting heavy macro maps on the tournament pools. These maps would have like big size, lots of expansions, lot of yellow minerals and 250 food limit. If they decide it's too complicated to understand having different food cap on different maps, they could just have the same for all maps, but they'll decide what the cap is. It's just one more tool to help Kespa customize how the pro-games look and feel.
More macro, more multi-tasking, no (additional) artificial blocks and balanceable by the community.
On July 09 2008 03:49 Swailoc wrote: if you don't have to spend any time adding extra cap
If you don't spend any time adding extra thinking before you post, you'll just look dumb and not contribute to the thread. Please stop wasting our bandwidth and time.
I've read enough of your posts to realise that you have no idea how this game works. Doesn't matter how much time and thought you put into your posts because you're a bgh noob
On July 09 2008 06:25 VIB wrote: Even better, what if food cap were modifiable per map, so official melee maps could have different food caps.
So, for example, you have big macro maps could have a 250 food limit. While small short game maps would have 200 food limit? It would be another tool for map makers to control the flow and balance of their maps.
So if Kespa decides mbs is making the pro games boring and slow, they could just start putting heavy macro maps on the tournament pools. These maps would have like big size, lots of expansions, lot of yellow minerals and 250 food limit. If they decide it's too complicated to understand having different food cap on different maps, they could just have the same for all maps, but they'll decide what the cap is. It's just one more tool to help Kespa customize how the pro-games look and feel.
More macro, more multi-tasking, no (additional) artificial blocks and balanceable by the community.
Rofl you think if kespa made pros work harder to win games it would make it better? How does this make ANY sense at all, please think. Everyone will still be playing with mbs smartcast and all the noob things blizzard did to remove gameplay so noobs can have an easier time winning, if ONLY the pros have to play in tougher conditions that only makes it harder for them and no one else. the effect on the observers is absolutely none. If 2 players on the ladder can make a better game and play on the same skill level with the noob features there's just no point in proleague. If a change is made to the interface it has to be done by blizzard otherwise it won't work
:edit oh sorry you meant actually adding bigger maps to make it harder to macro? That doesn't work at all it's still easy to macro. Go play wc3 and see how easy it is to macro with mbs. Bigger maps do nothing.
On July 09 2008 06:25 VIB wrote: Even better, what if food cap were modifiable per map, so official melee maps could have different food caps.
So, for example, you have big macro maps could have a 250 food limit. While small short game maps would have 200 food limit? It would be another tool for map makers to control the flow and balance of their maps.
So if Kespa decides mbs is making the pro games boring and slow, they could just start putting heavy macro maps on the tournament pools. These maps would have like big size, lots of expansions, lot of yellow minerals and 250 food limit. If they decide it's too complicated to understand having different food cap on different maps, they could just have the same for all maps, but they'll decide what the cap is. It's just one more tool to help Kespa customize how the pro-games look and feel.
More macro, more multi-tasking, no (additional) artificial blocks and balanceable by the community.
Rofl you think if kespa made pros work harder to win games it would make it better? How does this make ANY sense at all, please think. Everyone will still be playing with mbs smartcast and all the noob things blizzard did to remove gameplay so noobs can have an easier time winning, if ONLY the pros have to play in tougher conditions that only makes it harder for them and no one else. the effect on the observers is absolutely none. If 2 players on the ladder can make a better game and play on the same skill level with the noob features there's just no point in proleague. If a change is made to the interface it has to be done by blizzard otherwise it won't work
:edit oh sorry you meant actually adding bigger maps to make it harder to macro? That doesn't work at all it's still easy to macro. Go play wc3 and see how easy it is to macro with mbs. Bigger maps do nothing.
Are you saying playing SC on different maps doesn't affect balance at all? + how that and SBS doesn't make pros work harder already? Where did he say it would affect pros only?
What's more how smartcasting is better than for example Size Storms that will be affected by this the most?
You want to make gigantic maps to make the game more difficult but just leaving the interface they have now and playing on normal maps isn't possible? I don't know what you're saying about storm but it's probably something about smartcsating being good bla bla. Smartcast = weaker spells because of how easy it is to use them. Infinite select = weaker units because of how easy it is to use them. MBS = you spend all your time microing with infinite select and smartcast. result = NOOB game anyone can be a good. why not just program the computer to play perfect instead of playing at all since the game becomes like watching a movie instead of doing anything. Just face it nothing is ever going to replace this interface, you either make the game easy for noobs or you make it hard with powerful game turning spells and units that only good players can use.
On July 09 2008 05:24 Showtime! wrote: Then why post it?
God no.
??
Um...assuming that the post was directed towards me, then to answer your question...
I was just wondering how the game would be affected. You know, to see why MBS or SBS is preferred, to see the pros and cons between each one and find a way to bridge them together. Sometimes I post so people of higher creativity can leech off my idea and create something that both hardcore and casual gamers can agree upon. Also to cover all the bases, you know, leave no stone unturned and whatnot. I mean, there's nothing wrong with thinking of a new idea, and it's also true that there's nothing wrong with shooting one down, but being the anal person that I am, I kind of like to know why my ideas wont work. Of course, no one is obligated answer my ideas, but you know how people act, they like to be awknowledged and whatnot...
No problem man. After thinking about what you said, I can see where you're coming from.
Interface features such as that shouldn't be 'unlockable' ingame with higher tech and you shouldn't have to research it. It becomes just another gimmick. Both sides would create an uproar over it.
It's a lot similar to the rax addon. I don't know. I think it would create an uproar with both philosophies.
I'll expand upon your idea though:
It's a lot like upkeep in WCIII, but reversed in a way. As soon as a player meets certain conditions like 75-100 supply and tier 3.. you should be able to research MBS for your production facilities to make macro easier so you can focus your hotkeys on your units?
Limiting unit selection to smaller groups should stay consistent though.
Is that hardcore and casual enough for you? Still sounds like a gimmick to me. I like the idea of increasing the supply though because players do tend to max out quickly and I think some players are more than capable of handling a few more units to push the action more. I don't think that abolishes the SBS vs. MBS issue completely though.
I was just wondering how the game would be affected. You know, to see why MBS or SBS is preferred, to see the pros and cons between each one and find a way to bridge them together.
If you want more info *gulp*, search all the MBS versus Anti-MBS threads. There are many of them and it goes on for pages and pages and pages. It's a real shit fest. Tread carefully.
There is something that lets all the corpses stay on the battlefield...? Some mod?
So here is walking corpses mod idea ;P
Basically all corpses / wreckages of dead ground units or parts of dead air units could be harvested. Wreckages would be normally 'hidden' but by enabling option to see them somewhere in game, revealed and able to be harvested.
Zerg Queen's Transfusion would have different effect on the corpses: it wouldn't heal them but by spending 'nominal' amount of energy bring them to life - corpses would move with 50% of alive units' speed and by default start moving to nearest Hatch to be devoured ;P or stay in place where they died and be ordered by the same button as workers that grabbed mined minerals / gas are ordered to go back to CC/etc (hotkey C).
Protoss Probes would 'invest' small amount of minerals to open smaller warp rift and put scattered parts together and make them move with 50% speed of normal units; rest would go as for Zerg above.
Terran SCVs would pack wreckages up and move them to CC in kind of fork lift manner.
I think we should stop these MBS discussions, nothing good will come of them. I believe there was an agreement not to start any new threads, and that probably extends to posting on old ones.
This one isn't about talking why MBS is bad. This one is next step after reaching conclusion that macro - oriented game will be nearly impossible if MBS alone stays in.
In other words it's not typical disputing, ranting about it, asking when the fuck will they revert MBS to SBS as if Karune would pop out of nowhere and say YES, YOU'VE DONE IT, YOU WERE RIGHT; it's brainstorming what can be added to the game in place of SBS because so far they struggle not to remove MBS and with ideas like tab-click-tab-click they roll down to hell.
Even tho title seems to be sarcastic, it shows that Blizz wants ideas in any form so why not to come up with any? Gas mechanic is one of steps to help fix the situation, maybe there are other in above posts?
Macro with scaled MBS! I made a video to demonstrate.
Scaled MBS
Firstly, it's important to address the problem. With multiple building selection, the macro (time/attention) cost is basically zero; building 40 goons takes the same time/attention as building 1 goon! This skewers everything majorly. Scaled MBS solves that problem. Making 40 goons costs more 'macro' over making 1. * You can still do classic SC macro: clicking on each building then pressing hotkey of unit; 5z6z7z8d9d, etc. * You can interrupt the auto-massing anytime (ie. by clicking another hotkey, etc.). If you interrupt by moving screen elsewhere, the gates remain selected, and thus you can queue up, but now only manually. * The 'cycle' duration can be adjusted, tested out. * Imagine yourself in an actual game using the methods here, particularly that you'd click back to the battlefield right after the massing.
just make mbss and automining cost minerals to do (like the first mineral brought back by a mbs'd worker doesnt count and using MBS costs 125% of the main mineral cost, that way casual players who are playing against cpu or their friends dog can still use it but in competitive play it wouldnt be worth it until very late game where I don't think id mind it either
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote: To be honest, I doubt that their developers understand BW enough to know why it's bad.
I lol'd.
Luddite, do you really believe this? They can change the minerals per trip to compensate for improved pathing but they can't understand the effect going back to the base has on gameplay?
It is one thing to disagree with the developers on a fundamental design dicision. It is another to claim they have no grasp of their own game. Don't be insulting.
You have to be a competent player to actually realize how important time/attention management is in BW. They don't have the necessary speed not experience. Take their balance designer, Matt Cooper, he looked like a D-, clueless in terms of pretty much anything (from scouting, though micro, to overall game plan).
Do you really think someone on his level would actually get into such details as micro vs. macro in terms of attention paid, having barely any grasp of micro and macro? That's wishful thinking, imo.
If they really did realize what the issue is, they would've come up with a replacement MUCH earlier. They didn't design their crappy gas mechanic until the competitive community bashed them. ;;
On January 05 2009 23:13 maybenexttime wrote: I'd say it's a fair assumption.
You have to be a competent player to actually realize how important time/attention management is in BW. They don't have the necessary speed not experience. Take their balance designer, Matt Cooper, he looked like a D-, clueless in terms of pretty much anything (from scouting, though micro, to overall game plan).
Do you really think someone on his level would actually get into such details as micro vs. macro in terms of attention paid, having barely any grasp of micro and macro? That's wishful thinking, imo.
If they really did realize what the issue is, they would've come up with a replacement MUCH earlier. They didn't design their crappy gas mechanic until the competitive community bashed them. ;;
You are making an awful lot of presumptions about comprehension vs. execution, the internal development teams skill level, their basic understanding of action RTS gameplay and their intentions for gas and other macro mechanics.
What does implementing a bear brainless gas mechanic that adds almost exclusively "extra clicking" tell us about their understanding?
And not knowing that you're supposed to scout A POSSIBLE ISLAND EXPO or knowing that you're supposed to use basic abilities like Blink is what is aweful, imo.
it is not about replacing macro its about allowing someday an oov-like boy to revolutionize much more than brood war allowed in what touches the macro/micro relationship and making the game be about 14 cc ,14 nexus and to create a generation of forggs
Long time reader first time poster. Hope to provide valuable input into discussions concerning SC2 upto and including its release. Pleasure to be here guys.
I read something in one of the earlier post's that finally switched me onto registering.
2. Make miners dumb - they auto mine towards the closest patch even if its being mined (they never mine gas automatically) they dont switch to another patch until they actually try to mine that patch, so you atleast have to change your rally point every now and then or else they will approach the nearest (probably occupied) patch and fail to mine it, and then look for another patch. this should cost another 1-2s of mining time per miner
I think blizzard should take this and run with it. It's smart and i always thought that's how automine was going to work. Apparently i was incorrect. Say if you rally your workers to a mineral patch and then leave your base to look back at your current fight taking place, and in doing so you do not look back for quite some time, your miners that you have produced should be stacked up on one mineral, not mining, but waiting their turn to mine the node that you rallied them to.
I really feel that this would reintroduce some of the macro (not enough) back into the game. A great player is going to be able to quickly look back at his base, re-rally his workers being built to an empty patch and then quickly return back to the fight.
Because a SCV that goes mining as soon as it is produced instead of standing still is gamebraking.. You can do other important stuff instead of sending SCV's to mine... The only reason i dont oppose is that i want SC2 to be different then SC1, otherwise we could just have SC1 with better graphics, and because i dont see any big deal with automine...
On January 19 2009 18:54 Samurai- wrote: Because a SCV that goes mining as soon as it is produced instead of standing still is gamebraking.. You can do other important stuff instead of sending SCV's to mine... The only reason i dont oppose is that i want SC2 to be different then SC1, otherwise we could just have SC1 with better graphics, and because i dont see any big deal with automine...
Ok, at first, i'm pro mbs and automining. But i totally agree that it simplifies the game and that there have to be some mechanics that increase the macro-aspect.
But most uf us can only speak about theory, because we haven't played the game yet. If i think about all the new units and mechanics i think that (even if there arent any more macro-mechanics added), you would have to do enough in your base(s).
There are many new units that can jump/walk/fly/dig/blink into your base and cause chaos. So you have to keep an eye on your base and make sure you know what your enemy is up to. Also, with lesser apm "wasted" on macro, you will have more time to do crazy things with all those units.
Macro vs micro could be more a macro AND micro. Macro would still require a lot of knowledge and starcraft-senses but you would have to do lesser clicks to realize them.
If macro for you is managing your base, then macro in sc2 would be more like protecting your base. If you think that it would require less apm, just think about all those new units and their abilitys and mechanics. I think they'll be used in total crazy ways that requires a lot of apm and multitasking
my friend was explaining some points about MBS. even though we are both kinda against it:
1. Even if u can select, lets say 50 factories. Are u really going to be making 50 tanks at a time? thats 100 food. and a healt Terran army needs only like 1/3 or 1/2 tanks.. If Protoss go Carriers then ur screwed.
2. Ull need money to make the 50 tanks at a time. 150 X 50 = 7500 minerals. So ur not going be making them at a time.
but for point number 2. U can still be like: O SHT I HAVE 2K MINERALS! I neeed to spend it. and then u go 1t
Honestly I dont feel MBS intrudes much on the game...... However I do like your 3rd idea a little bit, but it would have to be a lot more limited than what you said, otherwise maps would all end up the same with the different races figuring out their niches on how they need the terrain, and then map balances would be obsolete, part of the reason that keeps SC alive.... and I want SC2 to stay alive just as long........ HMMMMMM
On January 20 2009 11:42 FrozenArbiter wrote: Actually you have to press once per unit now, so 4ttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.. (etc)
And that means that, regardless of the number of production buildings you have, you can mash them all on one hotkey, as opposed to having to manage your hotkeys more carefully in the current system.
On January 20 2009 11:42 FrozenArbiter wrote: Actually you have to press once per unit now, so 4ttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.. (etc)
And that means that, regardless of the number of production buildings you have, you can mash them all on one hotkey, as opposed to having to manage your hotkeys more carefully in the current system.
It free's up hotkey space to allow more units to be hotkeyed. You know. Units. The thing the game is supposed to be about? MBS is really a none-issue, and being able to bind more units to hotkey's is going to make the game appeal to many more people and overall improve the quality of battles in SC2.
Like what frozen said. You still have to press the hotkey a multiple amount of times to build units. People are also forgetting that rallying 5 gateways to your current army isn't always what a player is looking to do. Many players are for example going to rally 3 gates to their army and 2 to their expo.
Managing your rally points and where each unit is going is still going to create a large amount of macro.
EPT
Also, this building will be target for raids i guess.
next time germany![[image loading]](http://entrenadr.com/imagenes/pict8.gif)
![[image loading]](http://images01.trafficz.com/relative/h3w4/4_1196909807_baseball_player.jpg)
