|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Old thread has been vaulted.
Second MBS Thread has now been vaulted.
We've noticed things started to become a bit rowdy in the past thread. The SC2 forum mods may be making the rules a bit more well defined in the near future, so keep an eye out for that. For now the stated guidelines in the op will remain identical to the previous thread.
In the words of our beloved longtime moderator, ToKoreaWithLove
The MBS discussion thread
This is the last MBS thread you will ever see. We are remaking it as an official thread because quite honestly the previous ones became quite large and quite damaged by spam, stupidity, and useless arguing.
This will be heavily moderated. We will accept no rulebreaking, we will delete posts that don't follow the rules, and we will swing the mean 'ol ban hammer. We will tell you to back off if your clearly don't know what you are talking about. Too harsh? Go somewhere else.
When all is said and done we want this to be a meaningfull thread about something we are all concerned or enthusistic about. We want YOUR opinion, your arguments, your enthusiasm, your fears and your concerns about how this will change the gameplay we all love.
Rules:
1. Educate yourself. If you don't know something, find out. Search, read our articles or find out otherwise. Many of our members are knowledgeable, and if they make a point you don't understand, admit your lack of said knowledge and fix it.
2. Stay ON TOPIC. (!!! !! !! 111 !!!). This thread is meant for MBS discussions, nothing else. Nobody gives a rat's ass about misspelling or your gamei score 200 years ago. If you have something good to say, say it. One-liners or funny remarks does not belong in this thread. A good idea is to state your stance on the matter in your post.
3. Be civil. Insult other members in any way and you are gone.
4. Be smart. Think about your own post, check if it has been said before. When replying to someone else's post - make sure you know what his/hers post is about, that you understand it, and that your disagreement, agreement or addition is properly worded and shows your opinion clearly.
5. Constructive criticism. You are allowed to tell other posters that they are wrong. Criticism should be allowed in any discussion, but it should be done nicely, and you are expected to back up your claims.
6. No polls. I've already read two posts today where forum users (not this forum) admits to making multiple votes on our last poll on this matter. Polls can not be trusted, and should be avoided
7. For the purpose of discussion in this thread, the term "Macro" takes the meaning given to it by StarCraft players. It means "Economy and Production Management", not whatever you think it should mean.
Old MBS threads
Why MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2
Let's imagine SC1 with MBS
MBS suggestions and UI ideas
Competitive play issues
Multiple building selection
[D] MBS Discussion
[D] MBS Discussion II
|
What is actually the goal of MBS? Is it to make the game easier and more convenient? Is it because macro is a mundane task and a primitive gameplay element for a newer modern more creativity-based RTS? Because those are two different things?
What is actually the real reason for adding MBS?
|
|
|
I really hope that second picture is not legit. If it is, my respect for blizzard has hit the floor.
|
On February 21 2008 10:29 Fen wrote:
I really hope that second picture is not legit. If it is, my respect for blizzard has hit the floor.
Wait, I honestly don't get the picture...what's so bad about it?
On a unrelated note, but still relevent to MBS and other UI imporvements:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.wowinsider.com/media/2008/02/dsc_0958.jpg
Read the second bullet: Multitasking (RTS)
Hmm now i'm really interested to know what Blizzard has in mind to keep the game intense and multi task demanding.
|
On February 21 2008 10:29 Fen wrote:
I really hope that second picture is not legit. If it is, my respect for blizzard has hit the floor.
uh, it's kinda true. obviously not everyone feels the same way about every change, but you have to admit there are innumerable occurrences where people, on these forums and others, have complained about "changes" between units in SC and SC2, or changes within SC2, etc.
|
Before we get further along, lets all agree to not make this another repetition of the previous two threads. I advocate new arguments, not the ones we've been throwing back and forth thus far, because they were not convincing enough. If the opposers didn't agree to the argument in the previous two threads, they probably won't agree in this thread, so please bring new discussion, not 30 pages of the same shit.
|
On February 21 2008 10:29 Fen wrote:
I really hope that second picture is not legit. If it is, my respect for blizzard has hit the floor.
I think you may have misunderstood the slide. It is saying that players (generally) react negatively to changes, even when the changes are good. The rest system in WoW was a good example. People always find something to complain about. There were a lot of great points in that presentation that illustrate that blizzard is definitely learning from past mistakes.
|
It is probably useless for us to argue here because MBS will almost certainly be implimented with out a doubt.
Let's just embrace the change.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On February 21 2008 15:34 evanthebouncy! wrote:
It is probably useless for us to argue here because MBS will almost certainly be implimented with out a doubt.
Let's just embrace the change.
i don't believe this is true. it is certianally reasonable to say that blizzard may put some changes to mbs and automing due to the fact every pro/competitive player seems to be speaking out against it. Blizzard is known for listening to it's fans, and the players who played it for the last 10 years without stopping are easily the biggest starcraft fans around.
I don't see why we should 'give up' and not voice our opinions. Blizzard needs to be warned about the negative ramifications of MBS and automine so they don't damage the competitive elements within the game.
|
Yeah,,,, they probably do
I'm convinced at this point that blizzard will ship with mbs regardless of what anyone says, even progamers.
its really easy to get caught in the box as a developer that 'they just dont like it because they havent played it enough'
I really wont have faith in this game, until they take current progamers, have them sign NDAs and playtest....as long as its just random developers playing it, especially ex-wc3 types, its really vulnerable to missing the point of starcraft.
And MBS/Unlimited selection/automine/autoclone is one of those vulnerabilites.
|
On February 21 2008 17:54 fusionsdf wrote:
its really easy to get caught in the box as a developer that 'they just dont like it because they havent played it enough'
This is the worry. They might be chuffed about their creation. And if they turn around and just dismiss our arguments as "they just hate change", then im really not impressed. There has been a LOT of people speaking out about the UI implementations and how they will damage what starcraft is. I dont really care if they made the ghost look gay or replaced a unit, but changing the core of starcraft is a lot different.
|
I still believe they might consider making one unable to hotkey more than one building under one group. This is not that dramatic a change, and could definitely be made in beta phase, when more (competent as players) people have played the game.
|
On February 21 2008 09:55 BlackStar wrote:
What is actually the goal of MBS? Is it to make the game easier and more convenient? Is it because macro is a mundane task and a primitive gameplay element for a newer modern more creativity-based RTS? Because those are two different things?
What is actually the real reason for adding MBS?
I think we should discuss this point more.
The most obvious answer would be: because everyone expects it.
Also I don´t think Blizzard considers the gameplayvalue of the effort SBS requires very high.
It may make the game easier but it shurely would make it more convinient.
I don´t think we should argue (again) if MBS would hurt competative play or not since that point can´t be proven without a BETA. We had lots of good points in the previous threads about that(pro and contra).
|
The main reason that I see it is to make new players more comfortable in the game AND because everyone expects it.
It's the new standard of RTS games wich is the main reason but it became the new standard for RTS games because it made the game easier for new players.
It's not like it doesn't have any positive sides and will just ruin a game because then it wouldn't have been raised to "industry standard". For most players it geniuinly makes the game more fun by allowing them to do what they feel RTS is all about and making some mundane tasks easier.
Blizzard wants SCII to be a huge global hit and because of that they want two things very badly:
1) a game that is very easily acceseble for new gamers so that they do not choose another RTS wich they feel is easier to get into and thereby better. Most people will not "train" to get into a game, they want to "play" it out of the box.
2) get good reviews. Reviews are written for the new gamers (often by new gamers) and will focus on points they think their audience will find important. If the game is going to reach it's maxium selling potential the reviews cannot say that it's great for professional competition but the UI is outdated and takes some time to get used to.
Bob who's never played an RTS and is just looking for some fun on the weekends will not choose a game which he thinks he'll get his ass handed to him in. And even if he does decides to try it and has some doubts about it he won't stick around if he feels he can blame it on the UI because Bob would rather attack move his units and watch the cool deathanimations.
|
Blizzard should really make a clear statement as to whether the reason behind implementing MBS is removing the tediousness OR making macro during the battle easy. Because the former can be achieved without being able to hotkey multiple buildings under one group. This way macro would remain mainly unchanged.
|
On February 21 2008 19:09 maybenexttime wrote:
I still believe they might consider making one unable to hotkey more than one building under one group. This is not that dramatic a change, and could definitely be made in beta phase, when more (competent as players) people have played the game.
Problem with that is that it's unintuitive.
The core of the problem is simple: in SC1 you can select multiple units at once (up to 12, but still...), and issue 1 command and all of the units will follow this command. But you can't do that with buildings. This is what seems to be inconsistent and an artificial limitation to many players (mostly casual, but also for some of the more hardcore ones).
But good UI design means making the UI easy, intuitive and consistent. If the competitiveness of the game suffers when you do that (it would probably happen if you would add MBS to SC1), it means that the game must be made more complex. Which is my hope for SC2: a more friendly and smooth UI combined with a more complex gameplay.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 21 2008 17:54 fusionsdf wrote:Yeah,,,, they probably do I'm convinced at this point that blizzard will ship with mbs regardless of what anyone says, even progamers. its really easy to get caught in the box as a developer that 'they just dont like it because they havent played it enough' I really wont have faith in this game, until they take current progamers, have them sign NDAs and playtest....as long as its just random developers playing it, especially ex-wc3 types, its really vulnerable to missing the point of starcraft. And MBS/Unlimited selection/automine/autoclone is one of those vulnerabilites.
SC2 is in excellent hands.
On January 15 2008 06:23 Mora wrote:
A little more information about David Kim for you folks:
David Kim is korean, born in korea, and moved here to go to school. He was a competitive SC player back in the day, playing with CuteBoy[gm] as well as ZeuS. His favourite sport to watch on TV is Starcraft. He switched to Warcraft3 when war3 came out, but SC was still his favourite RTS (and is to this day).
I worked with Dayvie for over a year. Out of everyone i've had the pleasure of working with in the Game Industry, i feel he is the most qualified to handle SC2 balance. (other than me of course. lol)
I'm confident he'll do a great job.
edit - oh right, i think he also placed in the top 8 for Korea WCG qualifications in 2000. i think.
|
Well, he also was the lead balance designer for Relic RTS games. ;/
Oh, and I dunno if everybody knows - Pillars no longer works there. 
|
Does anyone know why Pillars ended up leaving?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
