EPT1) SC2 must have a good interface to attract the initial fanbase who will then spread good word and gather an even larger one. If it didn't, the negative press (from both reviews and word of mouth) will quickly kill off the game's potential and it'll never even be given the chance to form a thriving pro community. So only if the initial player base is kept pleased, will a small percentage of this large pool of newbs become the loyal SC veterans/progamers that will keep the game alive and kicking (i.e. TL.net). As discussed, the option to turn off MBS/automine can also be included in either maps or game types depending on how things turn out. However, my prediction is that very few new SC2 players will make the switch once they are "spoiled" by MBS, and this again severely limits the pro-scene.
But the key point here to emphasize is that the large newb pool is a prerequisite to a large competitive community and thus CANNOT be overlooked/ignored. They simply must be catered to, or the second part will not even be possible. Everyone here started off as a noob at one point. To say "screw the noobs, let them learn the hard way like I did" after you have passed that stage already is not only being selfish but also narrow-minded because you're ultimately hurting the game by lowering the potential skill pool.
2) SC2 must have a very high skill curve in both mechanical and mental aspects in order to keep the competitive scene happy. The mechanistic side (high apm) can be achieved in a number of ways, such as emphasizing the importance of micro (the War3 way), but the easiest would be to limit the interface. Back in 1997, when SC was released I believe a lot of these restrictions were unintentional, as even other RTS games from the same period had similar UI limitations. However, now that every single RTS from the past 8 years (including Bliz's own War3) has some form of MBS or equivalent, leaving this out of a game released in 2008+ will feel very artificial and awkward, as it is breaking the RTS standard and will become a huge disappointment to many potential fans (see point 1).
SC Alpha
Although this may be a bit exaggerated, I believe that for the "new generation" of RTS players, a game without MBS would feel something akin to the frustration we would feel if a War2-like interface (9-unit selection cap, no building hotkeys, queues or rallies, all spells manual cast including heal and more) was forced upon SC, for the very same reason that we know that we are being artificially limited. Just imagine this for one second. Suppose that Blizzard had decided to make SC with a UI similar to War2 while keeping everything else identical (let's call this game "SC Alpha"), because they gave in to the masses of War2 fans that were screaming at Blizz for "noobifying" SC (this actually happened, btw).
Now, is it not true that these same Koreans who practice 10 hrs a day at perfecting their technique, would gain even more for their efforts in SC Alpha? Let's imagine that a 200 apm SC player, would require 300-400 apm (and even more of the beautiful "keyboard dancing" that Tasteless loves) in SC Alpha to achieve the same level of play with a balance of macro and precise unit control. There will be an even larger difference in skill amongst the pros, as only a select few such as
NaDa ever consistently break 400+ apm in games. When we see NaDa's (near) perfect micro combined with his "oovlike" macro in SC Alpha on OGN, compared to the other much lesser pros, we will be in even more awe at his abilities than in the current SC! These few Korean pros may even be happy with the way things are, because now becoming a true pro-gamer requires a certain amount of natural born talent/agility to become successful (just like how rare it is for someone to be genetically built for NBA material). Do you see my point yet? Assuming that rest of the game aside from the UI is virtually identical, is SC Alpha really the better competitive game because it differentiates skill even more than SC?
I believe not. Although it may be extremely rewarding and fun to those few that enjoy training and mastering the UI to effectively use their 300-400 apm to play somewhat competently in SC Alpha, even the people with around 200 apm may feel artificially limited by the interface. Simply put, SC Alpha would not be as fun to play for the majority of the fans as the current SC, due to frustrations with the UI. The game would never be even close to reaching the popularity of SC in Korea today, because newbs would get turned away from lack of interest. Such a pro-scene with the
BoxeR's, NaDa's, and 
Nal_rA's of today would NOT be possible. Now can you see the pro-MBS crowd's point yet? It's not that we want an easier game for ourselves. It's because we want the pro-scene to live on and start a new generation by not disappointing the RTS newbs with artificial limitations in the UI before they gather enough interest to become pros. If these newbies think that lack of MBS isn't fun or causes frustrations due to being "spoiled" by the UI's of more recent RTS's, then many of them will NOT give SC2 a proper chance, and this thereby greatly restricts the pro-scene. That is the unfortunate truth.
Armies of Exigo: A Valuable Lesson
Unfortunately, even if most game reviewers are complete RTS noobs (which is often true for large popular sites), they are still catered to the mass market and are very important to their success among such an audience where the most sales will be coming from. Basically, it does not matter one bit how "wrong" you believe the reviewers are, because they are probably playing with a mindset similar to the average gamer, and are thus writing an "accurate" review if you think about it.
Armies of Exigo is an excellent modern RTS (2004) that exemplifies the severe consequences of catering to a hardcore fanbase (namely SC's):
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/919920.asp (72%)
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/armiesofexigo/review.html?page=2
GameSpot:
Score 6.7 fair
(gameplay 6, graphics 9)
Despite its gorgeous graphics, this real-time strategy game seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Armies of Exigo is a real-time strategy game that should have Blizzard blushing. This debut offering from developer Black Hole Games borrows quite a bit from Blizzard's classic real-time strategy releases. In making its Blizzard clone, the developer has emulated everything from the 3D look of the units and buildings of Warcraft III to the three-pronged storyline of Starcraft and the Hollywood-quality cutscene movies that Blizzard is known for. The only problem is that while Black Hole has all the ingredients of a great real-time strategy game, the formula in Armies of Exigo comes off as, well, far too formulaic. Armies of Exigo is in many ways a 1999-era real-time strategy game with 2004 production values. It's a beautiful strategy offering that's technically on par with the best games on the market, and you can appreciate the graphical detail on display as armies clash, magical effects rain down, and units are hurled into the air by mighty blows. However, it's disappointing that the gameplay is very much like that of the earliest real-time strategy games. This is a traditional RTS that seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years.
...
That said, if you're looking for an old-school real-time strategy game, then you'll most likely enjoy Armies of Exigo, especially since it features a lot of gameplay in its single-player campaign. Just be prepared for some frustration along the way. However, if you're looking for innovation or streamlined or modern gameplay, you won't find it here.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Armies of Exigo is a real-time strategy game that should have Blizzard blushing. This debut offering from developer Black Hole Games borrows quite a bit from Blizzard's classic real-time strategy releases. In making its Blizzard clone, the developer has emulated everything from the 3D look of the units and buildings of Warcraft III to the three-pronged storyline of Starcraft and the Hollywood-quality cutscene movies that Blizzard is known for. The only problem is that while Black Hole has all the ingredients of a great real-time strategy game, the formula in Armies of Exigo comes off as, well, far too formulaic. Armies of Exigo is in many ways a 1999-era real-time strategy game with 2004 production values. It's a beautiful strategy offering that's technically on par with the best games on the market, and you can appreciate the graphical detail on display as armies clash, magical effects rain down, and units are hurled into the air by mighty blows. However, it's disappointing that the gameplay is very much like that of the earliest real-time strategy games. This is a traditional RTS that seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years.
...
That said, if you're looking for an old-school real-time strategy game, then you'll most likely enjoy Armies of Exigo, especially since it features a lot of gameplay in its single-player campaign. Just be prepared for some frustration along the way. However, if you're looking for innovation or streamlined or modern gameplay, you won't find it here.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/573/573573p2.html
IGN:
7.0
Decent
Armies of Exigo
The perfect game for that nostalgic masochist in your life.
by Steve Butts
December 15, 2004 - No developer in their right mind would be upset if you compared their game to Starcraft. The Blizzard classic set a new standard for strategy games five years ago and sparked an excessive number of copycats. It took a few years for real-time strategy developers to absorb the model before finally breaking through it in terms of technology and design. While some gamers still hold Starcraft up as the standard by which all other real-time strategy games are judged, none can deny that lots of new features have been introduced in the meantime.
Armies of Exigo hearkens back to the days when every RTS that came our way seemed to be cast in the Starcraft mold. Though this makes it a very traditional and ultimately unsurprising game, it also means that the developers have the benefit of five years of refinement to look back on. Consequently Armies of Exigo seems like an anachronism -- a familiar but finely polished take on the previous generation of strategy games.
...
Capping groups at 15 units could potentially create a real headache in terms of controlling the armies. Armies of Exigo allows you to combine these small groups into one of four larger Super Groups. This extra layer of flexibility is definitely welcome but, given the size of the maps and the overall shape of the action, it would be much easier if the designers had just increased the unit cap for the basic groups. Keeping tabs on the status of the units within each individual group is basically impossible without lots of management.
...
Closing Comments:
Since it borrows so heavily from Starcraft, Armies of Exigo definitely has a lot going for it. The three races are balanced nicely and the campaign offers a lengthy challenge. Though the story is a bit forgettable, the cutscenes are almost as good as those we've seen from Blizzard.
Still, this is definitely a game aimed at the hardcore, old school crowd. Newcomers to the real-time strategy genre will find that the campaign is difficult to the point of near total aggravation. I've played almost every RTS released since Starcraft and even I threw up my hands in frustration at times. Veterans who are looking for something new will find that the design holds no surprises. The dual-layer map system is a nice gimmick but I'm looking to Liquid's Dragonshard to actually make something interesting from the concept.
The perfect game for that nostalgic masochist in your life.
by Steve Butts
December 15, 2004 - No developer in their right mind would be upset if you compared their game to Starcraft. The Blizzard classic set a new standard for strategy games five years ago and sparked an excessive number of copycats. It took a few years for real-time strategy developers to absorb the model before finally breaking through it in terms of technology and design. While some gamers still hold Starcraft up as the standard by which all other real-time strategy games are judged, none can deny that lots of new features have been introduced in the meantime.
Armies of Exigo hearkens back to the days when every RTS that came our way seemed to be cast in the Starcraft mold. Though this makes it a very traditional and ultimately unsurprising game, it also means that the developers have the benefit of five years of refinement to look back on. Consequently Armies of Exigo seems like an anachronism -- a familiar but finely polished take on the previous generation of strategy games.
...
Capping groups at 15 units could potentially create a real headache in terms of controlling the armies. Armies of Exigo allows you to combine these small groups into one of four larger Super Groups. This extra layer of flexibility is definitely welcome but, given the size of the maps and the overall shape of the action, it would be much easier if the designers had just increased the unit cap for the basic groups. Keeping tabs on the status of the units within each individual group is basically impossible without lots of management.
...
Closing Comments:
Since it borrows so heavily from Starcraft, Armies of Exigo definitely has a lot going for it. The three races are balanced nicely and the campaign offers a lengthy challenge. Though the story is a bit forgettable, the cutscenes are almost as good as those we've seen from Blizzard.
Still, this is definitely a game aimed at the hardcore, old school crowd. Newcomers to the real-time strategy genre will find that the campaign is difficult to the point of near total aggravation. I've played almost every RTS released since Starcraft and even I threw up my hands in frustration at times. Veterans who are looking for something new will find that the design holds no surprises. The dual-layer map system is a nice gimmick but I'm looking to Liquid's Dragonshard to actually make something interesting from the concept.
Needless to say, Armies of Exigo despite its excellent visuals, was NOT a successful game and has literally 0 pro-scene today despite its catering to the hardcore crowd familiar to SC.
Solutions
Obviously, I'm not simply suggesting to keep MBS in the game without changing anything, as then I would be completely contradicting my second point above in that the game should require high manual dexterity. Let's take a look at a bunch of possible solutions that Blizzard can implement, keeping this in mind.
Having two modes, with one for competitive play and one for the casual crowd will probably not solve anything, and officially segregate the population into two groups. The problem is that most new SC2 players will start off with MBS/automine as default in both the campaigns and online games because that's what they're used to from other RTS's. I highly doubt that they'll make the switch over and scrap their MBS just because a few "oldschool" SC fans have chosen to do so, especially if they have invested any reasonable amount of time into the game and have gotten comfortable with the new UI. Outside of Korea, this group of "non-MBS" will probably stay about the same as the current SC population, maybe up to 1-2% of total players once SC2 comes out.
I personally believe that the best and only way to truly solving this dilemma is by taking the long road, where we (or Blizzard) come up with a way to add in more complicated macro without making it seem like an artificial limit of the UI. Anything less than that IMHO is just a copout and an excuse to keep ourselves happy at the expense of the future SC2 pro-scene.
Warp gates for Protoss are already a great start, as they require quite a fair bit of clicking to use without seeming like the UI is forcing it upon you. Who knows, maybe Zerg will even be fine with MBS, as the only way for a player to efficiently produce both enough drones and an army at the same time is to manually morph larvae from different hatcheries and direct them to different locations. Maybe they can come up with a completely new production method for zerg? What about some ideas for Terran production. So I suggest we do something important and put our minds together and come up with a true solution to the MBS problem, rather than a shortcut to simply disguise it. Because if Blizzard doesn't, then who will?
UI From Recent RTS Games
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote:
What new RTS games have such skilled, competitive players? You speak as though there is this great pool of competitive players that require MBS and automining, but who are they? SC has been at WCG for years now as other RTS's come and go. The competition level for non-SC and non-WC3 RTS's is low.
What new RTS games have such skilled, competitive players? You speak as though there is this great pool of competitive players that require MBS and automining, but who are they? SC has been at WCG for years now as other RTS's come and go. The competition level for non-SC and non-WC3 RTS's is low.
The fact that most RTS's have failed is absolutely not due to MBS and automining. There are many more obvious reasons for their apparent lack of longevity. The primary reason why almost every other RTS does not reach the level of success of Blizzard's is because they are not made with as much love and care. Blizzard puts much thought into every aspect of their RTS franchise, and spends an enormous time designing, redesigning, balancing, and again rebalancing until they are completely and utterly satisfied with their work. You should all know this by now and can see it in their design process for SC2. Imbalances and exploits are even patched for years AFTER the game is released to keep gameplay continually fresh. No other company in existence does this.
Every other RTS from every other company released so far (excluding mirror races) has major imbalances in their game (e.g. C&C tank rushes, superweapons, etc). Any patches often only fix only technical issues, and rarely address gameplay. This is a problem, because any large imbalance in a strategy game immediately causes the strategical game metatype to become entirely one dimensional (this has even happened after many years to several matchups in SC to an extent: ZvZ, TvT, PvT). People start building the same mix of units every game, because it is the strongest/most effective/least counterable.
However, the fact that strategies are still evolving in SC even after TEN years is a testament to how well balanced Blizzard designed SC. I do not believe this is luck, but more of a product of hard work and talent. In this area SC also outshines War3, as several matchups in the latter became strategically stale in only a few years (not completely Blizzard's fault either since 4 races + heroes + units are MUCH harder to balance than only 3 races + units)
Finally, again my main point is that just because a feature is common to games of recent years that do not achieve the same success as SC, does NOT mean that this feature is intrinsically bad. For example, very few people are going to argue that 3-D graphics (common to all games now) is a bad thing just because it's in all these games that do suck. This is simply an industry standard, in the same way that MBS/automining is now an RTS standard. If you DON'T have this feature, MOST people are not going to be pleased. That is a simple truth.
I am fairly sure that Blizzard will end up implementing MBS/automining regardless of what we say, since it is definitely in their best interests to do so (financially, and to increase a loyal fanbase by attracting new players). They are not making the game just for the hardcore crowd (probably <5% of the market), because the majority will always come first. They will take our opinions into account, but this is one area where I think they won't compromise.
We should be instead focusing on ways to make up for the addition of MBS/automining with additional macro ideas rather than opposing its inclusion into SC2, because we might actually profoundly improve the game as a result of our ideas. How awesome would it be, if one of YOUR ideas was implemented into SC2, the game that millions of people will be playing worldwide?
