Why MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 - Page 33

On October 03 2007 13:59 orangedude wrote:

Please do.

On October 03 2007 14:02 Aphelion wrote:


When a player cannot play a game because of lack of mechanical skill and feels unwilling to put in the effort to overcome that, he is not a "potential expert". He is noob through and through. He might eventually get good at the game, but not before he changes that kind of attitude entirely. That attitude which you support is wholy noob.

bunny: Who do you think is most successful at doing this right now at top level play? For most part, at high level gaming, sometimes executing the right strategy won't always win it for you.

Grubby: The difficult thing about this is what you should judge "skill" on. Do you judge skill only by the quality of someone's gameplay, or also on how *HARD* it is to execute that gameplay? This is a very hot topic with most people not even realising it. There have been soooooo many BW vs WC3 discussions about which game is better and I've found that the disagreements mostly spawn from different ways to measure skill. It can, for example, be extremely challenging to play Tetris with a ball-mouse where the ball is missing, but that doesn't make it a better or harder game than wc3. Just the same, I think most comparisons of BW and WC3 don't do justice to either of the games. Most people who advertise the superiority of BW do so because it's a harder game to play, using APM as an example. But another example that is given, is that for example spell-casters need to be selected seperately while casting, because otherwise you'll get 10 psionic storms in 1 location which doesn't do more damage than 1 psionic storm. However, I fail to see how an obsoleted game engine proves that it requires more skill, or how that's something to be proud of.

To me, BroodWars seems to be much harder to control partly because the game engine is so obsolete. Control groups respond less readily and units have lower AI. If that's what it takes to give a game quality, I say remove every single hotkey there is for WC3 and let's see how much harder WC3 is than BW. However, that would just be stupid, and perhaps it would also be stupid to condemn "1-strat-wonders" or "low-micro-strats", because it's not about how hard a strategy is to execute, but about how effective it is and how well it works in a situation. A lot of people seem to care even more about how hard it is to execute a strategy than about the result of it. It might be very hard to stand on one hand with your foot in your mouth, but it's more impressive to see someone do a spin on the floor with both legs in the air; while that may be a much easier move. That's why I think the animosity towards low-micro-strategies is unfair.

Prime.zeroth: Have you ever played or seen people played Starcraft? If yes, how do you think WC compare to SC as a RTS game? If Blizzard releases a new RTS game in few years, would you switch or would you still play WC?

Grubby: I've played Starcraft for about 5 years on and off, more off than on. It's an exciting game with infinite possibility for 'perfection' when it comes to handling several things at a time. The 'always build more worker units' concept appealed to me, but the low variety of strategies was less interesting and made it boring, unless i was messing around with Queens and such. If Blizzard releases a new RTS game, I'd DEFINITELY try it out and try to see if it's better.

On October 03 2007 14:23 Aphelion wrote:
No, BS. aw]nevermind NEVER appreciated the game of SC for what is, so that question is completely moot. His claims of War3 greatness are suspect anyways, together with the rest of his story? A B.net troll is hardly the best evidence to support your argument.

On October 03 2007 14:23 Aphelion wrote:
I guarantee you that at least 90% of anyone who has an idea of APM would play SC2, even if they wanted MBS and didn't get it. What are they going to turn to? WC3? Most WC3 and SC players would DEFINITELY not be deterred by a lack of MBS. From what Lazerflip says, neither will most truly competitive RTS players.

On October 03 2007 14:23 Aphelion wrote:
And if you think any other "potential experts" with 150+apm will not play the game - your delusional.

On September 13 2007 22:29 aW]Nevermind wrote:
So you shouldn't care about MBS, doesn't matter what we think, blizzard already implemented it, as the wc3 player i am, i know a lot of wc3 players who won't change to sc2 if UI isn't as good as the wc3 one, because we don't want to get used to an old UI.

And thats the main reason i quit BW a few months ago i remember my last game, i played it on ICCUP against this protoss player (i'm zerg) well i had a good start i watched a lot of replays, etc i knew the built order quite perfectly and i had in mind what to do to counter his cannon expo (map was reverse temple), at some point we had a big battle i had zerlings and hydras while he had zealots and goons, he tryed to push my second expo but he was so lazzy with micro that i beated his push really bad killing units for free at this point i though well hes dead he lost too much if i push his expo now he will lose, so i did right i was beating him up bad at his expo but i had to go back to my base to babysit my unit production, at the same time i went back to my base in just an eye blink he used his 3 high templars, and killed around 12 hydras with 3 storms, obviously my push failed and then he macro whored me and won, i was so damn pissed i outmicroed him so bad in every battle if i had MBS like in wc3 i wouldn't lose everything to 3 high templars just because i had to go back to my base 3 or4 seconds to mass click some stupid larvas, the funniest thing after showing the replay to a friend of mine who is "good" at BW, he tells me this "you can't copy such a strat because is too hard to use thats why we don't try and copy korean pros because we are not fast enough LOL that is so fucking sad really just because a stupid interfase, doesn't make any sense.

Then i switched to terran because i saw some replays, etc i realized that only koreans are good with terran because terran needs some intense vulture micro / mines micro, using siege tanks properly, building turrets to defend against anti-air etc, terran needs to use this in order to win, but you can't because you must go back in the middle of a battle to your base just to smash ur keyboard pressing V, T on ur 12 factorys, instead of actually microing in the fight, that is so damn boring losing to a guy that doesn't care at all about his units but only about mass clicking his 12 factorys, we wc3 players we are used to fight our battles, trying to outmicro our opponent in every fight, getting the best position, etc but on bw midd lev of play, this doesn't work but only mass clicking ur factorys.

Then i went back to zerg because i though terran was too hard for me, so i've started to beat some of my friends because all i did in midd long game was smashing my keyboard to mass more zerlings, lurkers, ultras or whatever, It was hilarius to beat a wc3 friend who was really putting an insane marine micro just because i massed faster than him, on the long road let's say 30 minutes i always beated him even tho sometimes i could lose my entire army killing a small supply. (we both have + 200 apm in wc3, reaching around 300 - 350 in battle, tho this is not good enough to mass and micro in BW thanks to thar retard'ed UI).

On October 03 2007 14:35 orangedude wrote:

Why did aw]nevermind not appreciate the game of SC? It was the UI. He gave very clear examples of exactly what pissed him off initially at first, until finally he couldn't take it anymore. I'll post his explanation here if you want to read it again. He IS a competitive player and so was his whole clan. That's the point I made and you haven't refuted this.

Here you go, proof that he's not lying:
http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/W3XP-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Azeroth&PlayerName=aw］nevermind

I am quite sure that many other War3 players will think the same way. READ Grubby's post if you still don't believe me. He has one of the best attitudes out there of any War3 player.


But how many of that 90% will stay and try to play competitively? That's a totally different story, and it could be far lower due to lacking of MBS. Where is your solid proof that allows you to use the words "DEFINITELY" here?

Lazerflip has never even played SC, so that's not exactly someone to take the most objective stand point from.


There's already a whole clan to prove you wrong, so maybe I'm not the one that's delusional. That's hard evidence, which you don't have.

On October 03 2007 14:45 mensrea wrote:
Orangedude,

1. While I personally believe that MBS will lessen the game, I also acknowledge the possibility that, in the context of SC2, it may also have the opposite effect. Time will tell.

2. You appear to assume that an easier game will be more popular. That is not always the case. And remember: the original SC had no problems whatsoever becoming popular and developing a fanbase without MBS. That is reality, not theory.

3. Your argument that noobs are necessary to create a fanbase for SC2 in order to make the game viable as a professional sport is just silly. You keep beating that dog over the head (which is why I finally decided to address you directly), but it's a patently absurd argument in the context of SC2. SC2 already has a fanbase. It will have a critical mass of players from the get-go regardless of whether MBS is implemented or not. Whether you are for or against MBS, that feature will not determine the formation of a fanbase for SC2. Give me a break.

4. If you had the experience I have speaking with players in PC rooms all over Korea, you would realize that the average non-professional player of the game in that video game madhouse prefers a more difficult game and that nerf features like MBS would be a turnoff for most fans - not a selling point. I am already hearing gripes from the Koreans who have heard about the feature, but have yet to hear any substantial numbers put forth a favorable view of MBS. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence nonetheless.

5. What about those players outside of Korea? They are irrelevant. NBA basketball has a global following precisely because its rules cater to a limited fanbase (fans based in major urban centers in the United States) who are already knowledgeable about the game, who are experienced and who want a game that has standards of excellence that the average person cannot hope to attain. No one wants to see Michael Jordan dunking on a hoop that's been shortened to accomodate the average fan. People outside the core basketball centers (fans in China, South America, Europe, Mongolia, wherever) don't complain - they marvel and aspire. Same deal with any of the major spectator sports with a global fanbase.

For SC pro gaming, Korea is the gold standard. It is the Majors. That is just the way it is. SC 2 should be built with that market in mind - and the rest of the world will follow and, in the end, the fans will thank you for it.

6. If Blizzard is serious about releasing a game designed with professional gaming built into its DNA, then introducing a feature that, at least in isolation (and we have no other way of analysis at this point) makes the game play easier, seems counterintuitive.

Of course, reality is weird. It has a way of confounding logic and disrupting a priori analysis. Reality sets its own rules and determines its own outcomes. So, MBS may, in fact, turn out to be the best thing to happen to the game. Like I said, time will tell.

But, my point is, ORANGEDUDE, you have no rational basis for being so certain. You are too certain of your conclusions and you should not be. I know I'm not.

I hope you do not respond. Best to channel your energies on others. Kudos again for setting out your thoughts to begin with. That's more contribution than most.

On October 03 2007 15:03 Aphelion wrote:
And before you bring up the "broaden the pro scene" argument again - I challenge you, do you honestly think that an RTS can make it as a serious e-sport in USA or even Europe? A scene that is worth us losing our 10 year old perfect game for? This is obviously the crux of your argument, the sacrificing of gameplay to achieve some noble goal in esports. You've been bringing it up as a deux ex machina for your arguments for so long now - its time to back it up.

We can make a separate topic for this if you want, specifically addressing this possibility. And be forewarned - teams like MYM paying players $100 a year to play in online clan leagues don't count. I want to see a feasible scenario to lead to something similar to that in Korea: the booming of mainstream industry. I do not see this happening within 5 years of SC2's release. I will debate this to the death with you if you want. Pick up the gauntlet if you dare.

On October 03 2007 13:59 orangedude wrote:
I'm not going to kid myself here. I'm not expecting SC2 matches to start showing up on my TV anytime soon like in Korea, but that doesn't mean it can't experience a large amount of growth. I think it can at the very least expand and overtake the CS pro-scene if Blizzard does it right. However, again it must attract a large fanbase first of all before this will be possible.

On October 03 2007 15:09 Lz wrote:
to me.. a Warcraft 3 players oppenion doesnt mean much.. for the fact he plays wc3 for a reason.. this is not WC4.. this is SC2 so its disregarded to me.. Yes i have made my mind set up 100% .. i agree with tasteless, Blizzard should have MBS in the game.. but not in the Competitive ladder games.. that way the newbs who feel they need it to play, can have it and be pleased~ and then the Real competitive players can show there skill for years and years to come~

Its a Win Win Situation ~ Blizzard should really think about applying this~

On October 03 2007 15:02 orangedude wrote:


3) Indeed, there will be a critical mass of noobs for SC2, but how many of those will stay long enough to go pro? Many could be turned away from competitive play due to lack of MBS. That's my main argument, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this as well.

On October 03 2007 13:59 orangedude wrote:
I'm not going to kid myself here. I'm not expecting SC2 matches to start showing up on my TV anytime soon like in Korea, but that doesn't mean it can't experience a large amount of growth. I think it can at the very least expand and overtake the CS pro-scene if Blizzard does it right. However, again it must attract a large fanbase first of all before this will be possible.

On October 03 2007 15:10 ForAdun wrote:
Seriously, this is not a good way to go Aphelion.
I share many of your thoughts but this is just going to get ridiculous now.

On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:

what if the newbs can't go pro? what?... if they can't figure out how to use a keyboard and hotkeys i'm fairly sure they're going to be terrible in other areas as well. Using the keyboard isn't a magical god given gift, you just learn it by playing a lot, just like you do with micro and strategy. Those newbs who wont go pro will still remember SC2 as a challenging mind game that was a great spectator sport.

On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:
The important thing for an esport to grow is not to get as many progamers as possible, it's to get a game that is incredible to watch and very very difficult to master. Then you get a big fan base because they can be impressed by what's happening. It should be INCREDIBLY hard to become a progamer for SC2, that way it looks even more impressive as an esport.

On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:
I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time.