|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Old thread has been vaulted.
Second MBS Thread has now been vaulted.
Third MBS Thread has now been vaulted.\
WARNING: I recieved 3 PMs about trolling the 3rd thread as apparently things were getting out of hand. The ban hammer is now coming down - tread lightly.
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
[D] MBS Discussion III
|
I'll start off by saying, the success of Starcraft had little to do with SBS. Players like Grrrrrr were dominating bnet through predominately brilliant micro plays alone, and when Boxer came into the scene, he was known for his brilliant displays of small scale micro. SBS had no effect here.
Macro slowly integrated itself into the pro scene as an important part of the game, and became fully hyped during the reign of the Gorilla. Thus, the pumping of units, and the difficulty of doing this through SBS became well known; however, the game was already a huge success in the pro scene before this.
Thus, even the original Starcraft we all love would have been just as popular and successful had the game originally been designed with MBS. There is much more to Starcraft than just pumping units on the pro scene, and I don't believe the inclusion of MBS in Starcraft II will change that.
|
I thought the last thread was the last one? Bringing up the topic alone should be an instant ban on these forums now. We've exhausted the topic and there is nothing we'll be able to do until Blizzard lets us BETA test it.
I lol'ed at the post above: everything you said was said by me and probably a few other people in another thread; however, you found a way of messing it all up.
It goes something like this:
- Early Eras - Grrrr and BoxeR-like micro
- Modern Era - Gorilla Macro
- Post-Modern Era, or present day - you need BOTH.
The success of Starcraft had little to do with SBS early on. Sure, I'll let you get away with that but not present day.
It evolved and now more than ever you have to focus on BOTH or else you'll go nowhere 
|
UI Comments from Starcraft Reviews:
From Gamespot: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft/review.html
"Like it or not, creating a horde of the most basic units and attacking the enemy immediately is an effective tactic. Only a heavily defended base will survive an early rush of Terran Marines or Protoss Zealots. Starcraft has a built-in safeguard to discourage rushing, but it's one of the game's most problematic areas.
This safeguard is in the interface, which only allows you to select 12 units at a time. This isn't especially effective, considering six Zealots will smoke a base early in the game. The selectable unit cap does make rushing more difficult, but it also becomes frustrating at times, especially for those used to the ability to select unlimited units at once. Often, selecting the chosen units from a large group becomes a time-consuming effort. During battle, it can be an exercise in frustration. You can assign groups to hotkeys quite easily, however, lessening the frustration of the selectable unit cap - but this system isn't nearly as good as in Total Annihilation or Dark Reign, and units aren't marked by their group number like in said games. Multiplayer battles can often be decided by who has the best manual dexterity and can overcome the built-in limitations of the interface the most quickly.
Recent real-time innovations regarding unit control are included, with mixed results. Each production facility can have up to five units queued at once. There's a waypoint system, patrolling, and the like - but many of these options aren't particularly well implemented, and some of the options seem tacked on. On the other hand, pathing is great, with only occasional glitches (where a unit will run around in cute little circles). Starcraft most notably lacks the ability to define unit behavior (as in Dark Reign or Total Annihilation), leading to much micromanagement."
From IGN: http://pc.ign.com/articles/152/152159p1.html
The interface is missing some things we're used to these days. A key to find the next idle worker, Age of Empires style, would have been very helpful. And since certain units' spell effects are crucial to doing well, they should be more accessible; Activision's Star Trek: Armada has the right idea in this regard. One of the most annoying things about Starcraft is the limit of twelve units to a group, especially if you're playing the Zerg, who rely on unruly swarms rather than, say, the Protoss' small groups of powerful crack troops. But it's fairly easy to get around this; instruct your groups to follow each other and just control the lead group.
From GamePro: http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/reviews/818.shtml
"And then there's the 12-unit limit for group commands. I imagine this was done to prevent players from falling back on the tank rush. If so, it's merely an inconvenience. (You can get around the limit by assigning separate groups to keystrokes.) AI and unit design would be better answers to the tank rush."
From Insanely Great Mac: http://www.insanely-great.com/reviews/starcraft.html
"Cons
On the down side, many times your production units could get stuck behind something they had just built (a problem carrying over from WarCraft), rendering them useless. Also, you are limited to directing 12 units at a time, which puts you at a distinct disadvantage against the computer. And another MAJOR problem I found in StarCraft was path finding. Sometimes without absolutely micro-managing your units, they would stray off into hostile territory, bringing forth a flood of invaders you weren’t prepared for."
From me:
Reviewers don't always know what they're talking about but you can take this info one of two ways:
Either MBS is now needed because if SC's UI was outdated in '98 it's even more ridiculously outdated now
or
MBS is NOT needed because if SC could succeed with an outdated interface in '98, it can do so again in '08.
NOTE that the above reviews talk mostly about unlimited unit selection, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. I brought the reviews in because they discuss the UI from a '98 perspective.
I think the main argument for MBS is not that it increases competitiveness of SC2, but that it allows for greater accessibility and an influx of more players. If we examine modern views on the RTS we can see if MBS really is necessary to appeal to the gaming public.
So to determine whether MBS is necessary for popularity (which is the main argument for MBS I think) we need to look at game reviews for OTHER RTSs to see how MBS was received as it was introduced, and see if we can find any games that still DON'T have MBS today and are a success (or that failed because of SBS). That's probably what I'll tackle next.
I still believe than an SC2 with MBS can be as competitive as SC1, but it needs to add something to make up for the missing macro. And to keep the SC feel, the added component should be macro-based as well, or Blizz shifts the ratio of micro:macro too heavily to the micro side (i.e. it won't feel like SC1).
|
On March 22 2008 01:35 Showtime! wrote:I thought the last thread was the last one? Bringing up the topic alone should be an instant ban on these forums now. We've exhausted the topic and there is nothing we'll be able to do until Blizzard lets us BETA test it. I lol'ed at the post above: everything you said was said by me and probably a few other people in another thread; however, you found a way of messing it all up. It goes something like this: - Early Eras - Grrrr and BoxeR-like micro - Modern Era - Gorilla Macro - Post-Modern Era, or present day - you need BOTH. The success of Starcraft had little to do with SBS early on. Sure, I'll let you get away with that but not present day. It evolved and now more than ever you have to focus on BOTH or else you'll go nowhere
Obviously. We are both right, but I just wanted to show that MBS/SBS had little to do with the pro scene developing.
And, yeah, your right about the BETA test. We should all just leave at that I suppose, and move on to talking about other things, such as whether the game will be as strategic as Starcraft in other aspects, such as timing.
However, I do want to bring everyone's attention to this.
"How is the -endless- unit selection working out? Does it give you some more advantages as a zerg player with their big unit masses, and what are your thoughts on that possibly being imbalanced?
MBS is very interesting, but at this time I think it affects the 3 races drastically differently. I think it favors the Protoss very heavily because they are reliant on a number of Gateways to produce their units whereas before you had to individually click, now you can produce any number of units at once.
The Terran are quite different because they have the Reactor which doubles a building's production. So really the Terran have LESS production buildings than before and so the MBS isn't as much of an advantage.
In last place on the MBS front is the Zerg. They already had MBS in that they could select all their larvae at once. While its a bit easier now, it's just a different way of doing things.
Also, the unlimited unit selection is rather nice. Units move in a fluid way even when you select a bunch of different types of units. There's no real confusion, it's just different. I think it's a great characteristic of the game, but it does diminish the need for hotkeying your forces. However, in order to effectively use the different units in your army, you will still need to hotkey."
Interesting eh? Source:
http://www.starcraft2forum.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=47&topic=6512.0
|
Well, Zerg MBS will obviously mean that you can select all larvae from multiple hatcheries at once (e.g. 12 larvae from 4 hatches).
Which, in the end, doesn't put them at a disadvantage when MBS is in.
|
On March 22 2008 02:33 FeArTeHsCoUrGe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2008 01:35 Showtime! wrote:I thought the last thread was the last one? Bringing up the topic alone should be an instant ban on these forums now. We've exhausted the topic and there is nothing we'll be able to do until Blizzard lets us BETA test it. I lol'ed at the post above: everything you said was said by me and probably a few other people in another thread; however, you found a way of messing it all up. It goes something like this: - Early Eras - Grrrr and BoxeR-like micro - Modern Era - Gorilla Macro - Post-Modern Era, or present day - you need BOTH. The success of Starcraft had little to do with SBS early on. Sure, I'll let you get away with that but not present day. It evolved and now more than ever you have to focus on BOTH or else you'll go nowhere Obviously. We are both right, but I just wanted to show that MBS/SBS had little to do with the pro scene developing. And, yeah, your right about the BETA test. We should all just leave at that I suppose, and move on to talking about other things, such as whether the game will be as strategic as Starcraft in other aspects, such as timing. However, I do want to bring everyone's attention to this. " How is the -endless- unit selection working out? Does it give you some more advantages as a zerg player with their big unit masses, and what are your thoughts on that possibly being imbalanced?MBS is very interesting, but at this time I think it affects the 3 races drastically differently. I think it favors the Protoss very heavily because they are reliant on a number of Gateways to produce their units whereas before you had to individually click, now you can produce any number of units at once. The Terran are quite different because they have the Reactor which doubles a building's production. So really the Terran have LESS production buildings than before and so the MBS isn't as much of an advantage. In last place on the MBS front is the Zerg. They already had MBS in that they could select all their larvae at once. While its a bit easier now, it's just a different way of doing things. Also, the unlimited unit selection is rather nice. Units move in a fluid way even when you select a bunch of different types of units. There's no real confusion, it's just different. I think it's a great characteristic of the game, but it does diminish the need for hotkeying your forces. However, in order to effectively use the different units in your army, you will still need to hotkey." Interesting eh? Source: http://www.starcraft2forum.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=47&topic=6512.0
Sure, but who's answering these questions? Its one thing for it to be a pro gamer or highly competitive player, its another if its just some "newb."
They sound intelligent though, so I'll assume its a highly competitive player perhaps.
|
You have to take everything a game reviewer says with a grain of salt.
Surely, they know something about games and they have served their time in colleges/universities getting a degree in journalism. I would like to see a few studies on the effect of game reviewers on the consumer though to acknowledge that fluff.
Case in point:
What do you think has more impact on the consumer? Good marketing & promotion, or some game reviewer from a magazine?
It is the way you package it. If you explain it to them before the fact rather than after it they'll understand. Plus, I believe those reviews came out right when the game was first launched so their opinions might have changed as well once they had a look at the bigger picture. Don't be so narrow-sighted as those who came before you.
***
You can always try and make a sport more competitive and entertaining by going back and changing the rules. For example, we've seen the NHL do this, but so far their rule changes have been ineffective. You could say the only reason the league is doing so well is because of the Canadian dollar and Americans are at war.
MBS can be viewed in this regard, but what happens if this NHL analogy take's a turn for the worst?
We can spin it the other way as well.
By allowing a less skilled hockey player to grab and clutch a player like Sidney Crosby player are you really leveling the competitive playing field? Sure, but you lose the entertainment value at the same time and the spectator will tune out.
SC2 will be something new and exciting at the start sure, but will it die out once people get used to the fact that it is so easy to pick up and play with no limitations or solid rules?
That is the question we must ask ourselves.
|
Guys I still don't see the problem here.
Generally people seem to have been agreeing that MBS is more catered towards the casual player, while SBS is more catered towards the pro gaming scene, making things more competitive.
So why can't we just use the solution of having both? Just like having the option to choose the speed of your game, you should be able to choose if the game you create will allow MBS.
Time has shown us that everyone always chooses the more difficult choice anyways (when's the last time you saw a game not on fastest mode setting... that wasn't an accident?). Still, I think to allow newer players to get into the game, allowing MBS as an option gives us the best of both worlds.
Newbies that buy SC2 based on its popularity will be able to use MBS against other newbies, while SC1 veterans can knock themselves out dealing with SBS.
Is there any disadvantage to this solution?
|
On March 22 2008 02:59 Showtime! wrote:
You have to take everything a game reviewer says with a grain of salt.
Surely, they know something about games and they have served their time in colleges/universities getting a degree in journalism. I would like to see a few studies on the effect of game reviewers on the consumer though to acknowledge that fluff.
Case in point:
What do you think has more impact on the consumer? Good marketing & promotion, or some game reviewer from a magazine?
It is the way you package it. If you explain it to them before the fact rather than after it they'll understand. Plus, I believe those reviews came out right when the game was first launched so their opinions might have changed as well once they had a look at the bigger picture. Don't be so narrow-sighted as those who came before you.
***
You can always try and make a sport more competitive and entertaining by going back and changing the rules. For example, we've seen the NHL do this, but so far their rule changes have been ineffective. You could say the only reason the league is doing so well is because of the Canadian dollar and Americans are at war.
MBS can be viewed in this regard, but what happens if this NHL analogy take's a turn for the worst?
We can spin it the other way as well.
By allowing a less skilled hockey player to grab and clutch a player like Sidney Crosby player are you really leveling the competitive playing field? Sure, but you lose the entertainment value at the same time and the spectator will tune out.
SC2 will be something new and exciting at the start sure, but will it die out once people get used to the fact that it is so easy to pick up and play with no limitations or solid rules?
That is the question we must ask ourselves.
Blizzard games hardly die out. It just comes down to how will the esports scene turn out? I think we need to refocus on that.
Anyways I remember Tasteless (he is a great commentator, though I disagree with his views on MBS) mentioning how hard it is to believe that players won't play SC2 if it doesn't have MBS. I think thats a gray argument. It could go both ways. Let me explain. Many people could argue that its hard to believe that competitive players won't play SC2 because it has MBS. And then even so, it is true that even if there is MBS, there will be a strong competitive community.. its just a question of to what degree compared to SC1's korean pro scene. Also you can flip it around again and say that even if MBS weren't implemented, there would be a lot of people playing SC2.. simply because it is SC2!
There is this solution, mentioned a few times before, of splitting the ladder between MBS/nonMBS. I think its interesting to think about. For example, in Call of Duty 4 they have this "hardcore" mode where you have virtually no UI and very low HP/higher damage. Its sort of a realism mode. I'm wondering if its a decent idea to implement a "hardcore" mode in ladderplay. The hardcore mode would simply utilize pretty much the EXACT same interface that SC1. I would say that there would be much more people playing normal ladder than hardcore ladder, but then of course, the anti-MBS people don't care about population/popularity right? Also, Diablo2 had a hardcore ladder mode where your heroes only have 1 life, no respawn.. which was actually popular, not as much as normal play though.
I think the only issue with that is possible balancing issues. It'd take a different balancing team to balance hardcore mode vs. normal ladder mode.
|
Yes, -Orb, the disadvantage is that you'd have a split community.
There would definately be a rift and I bet us competative players will get called elitists and the debate would continue even after release. Not a good way to create a strong community really.
|
Certainly SC2 would also be a success with SBS, but it could be a bigger one if it had MBS.
Reviewers will definitely see SBS as a disadvantage, and many gamers will think "meh, still the same old crude mechanics, I could as well save the money and just play SC1 instead. Or something entirely different".
|
On March 22 2008 03:28 -orb- wrote:
Guys I still don't see the problem here.
Generally people seem to have been agreeing that MBS is more catered towards the casual player, while SBS is more catered towards the pro gaming scene, making things more competitive.
So why can't we just use the solution of having both? Just like having the option to choose the speed of your game, you should be able to choose if the game you create will allow MBS.
Time has shown us that everyone always chooses the more difficult choice anyways (when's the last time you saw a game not on fastest mode setting... that wasn't an accident?). Still, I think to allow newer players to get into the game, allowing MBS as an option gives us the best of both worlds.
Newbies that buy SC2 based on its popularity will be able to use MBS against other newbies, while SC1 veterans can knock themselves out dealing with SBS.
Is there any disadvantage to this solution? yeah, because then you have
promap community
bgh community
fastest community
ums community
the inevitable dota for sc2 community
with the top 3 split AGAIN into MBS/SBS subgroups, then divide it again for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4. how many different gametypes do you expect blizz to support in matchmaking? i don't see a fastest ladder but I do see a bgh ladder and more "high money" maps because as much as i don't like them they do kinda play better in 3v3/4v4 (and now that i think about it 5v5 and 6v6 were in war3 as well), you can't expo unless you're winning or have balls of steel.
clearly the solution is to do away with bgh and fastest but i digress. they already confirmed bgh is in the game, and with customizable minerals fastest will be easy to make
|
damn seems the MBSers won the argument. Lame, I hate mbs. 
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Uh what are you talking about HammerD? I haven't seen anyone win anything, all I see are the same arguments we had just under a year ago..
|
FA what I think he meant is that Blizzard is really kean on not removing MBS.
Considering it is all the same arguments or so you say shouldn't we just close this for good one last time and wait for BETA.
What we're doing is pointless. If we want to be productive why don't we gift wrap these three threads and pass it on to Blizzard.
|
On March 22 2008 04:52 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2008 03:28 -orb- wrote:
Guys I still don't see the problem here.
Generally people seem to have been agreeing that MBS is more catered towards the casual player, while SBS is more catered towards the pro gaming scene, making things more competitive.
So why can't we just use the solution of having both? Just like having the option to choose the speed of your game, you should be able to choose if the game you create will allow MBS.
Time has shown us that everyone always chooses the more difficult choice anyways (when's the last time you saw a game not on fastest mode setting... that wasn't an accident?). Still, I think to allow newer players to get into the game, allowing MBS as an option gives us the best of both worlds.
Newbies that buy SC2 based on its popularity will be able to use MBS against other newbies, while SC1 veterans can knock themselves out dealing with SBS.
Is there any disadvantage to this solution? yeah, because then you have promap community bgh community fastest community ums community the inevitable dota for sc2 community with the top 3 split AGAIN into MBS/SBS subgroups, then divide it again for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4. how many different gametypes do you expect blizz to support in matchmaking? i don't see a fastest ladder but I do see a bgh ladder and more "high money" maps because as much as i don't like them they do kinda play better in 3v3/4v4 (and now that i think about it 5v5 and 6v6 were in war3 as well), you can't expo unless you're winning or have balls of steel. clearly the solution is to do away with bgh and fastest but i digress. they already confirmed bgh is in the game, and with customizable minerals fastest will be easy to make
I don't see it being that bad. The community naturally splits itself anyways.. and even so you have people that go back and forth between gametypes. In Starcraft you have the "FASTEST MAP POSSIBLE" players.. the "ZERO CLUTTER" players.. the custom map players, the competitive players, and what not. People just naturally split up into whatever they like and go back and forth.
I think the idea of allowing a "hardcore ladder" mode with no MBS and classic starcraft interface as an alternative to normal ladder is a good idea. I think that most people will play normal ladder, but thats ok right? Not like anti-MBS players care, they would rather play with a niche community anyways right? And even so its not like you're restrained, you can go back and forth on either ladder depending on what you feel like playing. This could be done when you're making your account.. check "X" for hardcore ladder account... or maybe just make it an option when you're automatching.. whatever.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Yea, I've been considering banning MBS discussion (actually talked to some other mods about it just a few hours ago) but I decided to give this thread a day or two to see if anything new will pop up. If not, MBS discussion will probably be banned until WWI/Beta/News/other.
|
There seems like there is only so much that can come out of MBS discussion with the same base information, and I think these threads have reached that point.
I noted near the end of the last thread how pointless it is to try to argue for either side anymore, even if you bring a good argument to the table. So far, they have been very cyclical and have been getting increasingly cluttered. Good, well mannered posts are often ignored because people jump for the opportunity to tear down the constant influx of poor quality arguments that appear time and time again.
I think the most positive direction that the MBS discussion could take at this point is alternative macro discussion. By that I mean, alternative attention-requiring tasks that would make up for MBS or an alternative MBS system that still requires attention. The problem is, discussion of this would mean having to make assumptions about MBS that may not line up with what people believe, and no one wants to do that. This style MBS thread though isn't likely to be useful until there is a significant change in the build (could happen anytime) or a very large amount of people are able to play with it (beta).
|
On March 22 2008 06:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Yea, I've been considering banning MBS discussion (actually talked to some other mods about it just a few hours ago) but I decided to give this thread a day or two to see if anything new will pop up. If not, MBS discussion will probably be banned until WWI/Beta/News/other.
By all means please do. This debate is not going anywhere...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
