StarCraft II criticism

[Broodling]

I found this video at YouTube. Its author criticize some features seen in the videos released by Blizzard and compare them with the original StarCraft.

s7k3ZM6bQx4
at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7k3ZM6bQx4

Is it too early for criticizing so or do you agree with him?

[Lithium]

It's also too stupid to be criticizing a game and comparing it to the prequel. I think the author just created it for entertainment purposes, because I laughed once or twice in the video. I must admit, he makes several key points on some issues, such as the Thor and the easily identifiable units...

I can't really tell, so I'll reserve my opinion until the game actually comes out.

[RyuuguuRena]

Far too early for criticism. Also, that video is not exactly recent either - check the Mothership vids and the Siege tank designs.

Saying the Thor cant micro well is like saying a tortoise wins sprint races. Its not going to happen. And few people will care.

[DarkMirror]

Yeah, this thing is OLD. It was made basically after the first open gameplay tests were done. There are quite a few errors, such as Reapers "replacing" Firebats, was made when Mothership was still a super unit...

Plus, complaining about the ability to 'Find units" on a hyper pixely recording or that units look too "Warcrafty" or "Ninjalike" is horrible logic.

[Protogod]

ancient video.

[ChimTheGrim21]

this is lame

[RavenCrusade]

Easily Identifiable units: True, but this isn't a problem with SC2, it's a problem with most games of the 'newer' generation variety, realism supposedly = more bloom and lighting effects, which make things hard to see on occasion.

Units not fitting into the SC universe: I only have three words; what the hell?
Personally I find that stalkers and Colossi fit EXTREMELY well into the storyline, just because they weren't in SC1 (well, this version of the queen anyways), doesn't mean they don't belong.
What's this crap about the Stalker looking like a Crypt Fiend? And zealots being ninjas? I mean, sure, the legs look the same, and the Lot's hair might be tied in a way reminiscent of Japanese Anime, but damn, other than that, I couldn't possibly confuse them.

[Vezer]

I actually laughed my ass off at this video.

[T-Dawg]

BTW: when actually playing SCII I didn't have a problem identifying my units. Ever. At all. At any time. Just thought I would throw in my two cents.

[Borgorb]

He cant identify the units because they are youtube quality

he has no idea waht he is talking about and just wants to bitch
its not like he actualy played the game

and as it has been said many times over OLD NEWS

[PaiN]

Hmmm...

There were somethings that he pointed out that I do dislike about SCII, at least if they are implemented.

MBS and Automation is horrible and I think this is where Blizzard would go the most wrong in making SCII, the lack of that is what makes SC great and seperates it from other RTS's.

Secondly, If the mother ship IS going to be a superunit by release I think that is also incredibly dumb.

Other than that, all looks good.

And SC was very much rock, paper, scissors. Not as in terran > protoss > zerg or anything but more along the lines of unit counters.

Anyway, Old news.

[T-Dawg]

MBS and Automation hardly factors into play at the prolevel -- at least as commented on by the pros to blizzard.

There will be another editorial appearing on Starcraft.org that will cover lots of these issues in the coming days and how I felt they were experienced when actually playing the game.

MBS is really not that big of an issue -- at all, surprisingly.

[PaiN]

Ill have to Disagree, I think that MBS plays a huge factor in a game. It forces you to look away from the feild of play during a battle where that would not be required with MBS. Automation would also be incredibly helpful, even so at a pro level. No longer do you needa spend time have Vults lay mines or storming or lockingdown =/

Id have to say its very important

[Broodling]

BTW: when actually playing SCII I didn't have a problem identifying my units. Ever. At all. At any time. Just thought I would throw in my two cents.
Have you ever played SC II?

[Escade]

And SC was very much rock, paper, scissors. Not as in terran > protoss > zerg or anything but more along the lines of unit counters.

No... it wasn't. SC wasn't rock, paper, scissors. There were as many soft counters as there were 'hard' counters, and while the Lurker may of seemed like the hard counter to infantry massing, good micro could help you avoid the spikes. You'd need to mix and match units.

It's not Zergling > Marine > Zealot or something like that, and at it's core, it wasn't rock, paper, scissors, it was micromanagement and macromanagement. If it were rock, paper, scissors, tell me how a Marine can defeat a Zealot?

If your looking for 'hard' counters, go look at C&C or SupCom.

[Ktan]

Have you ever played SC II?

I believe T-Dawg has, actually.

[PaiN]

I dont mean rock paper scissors as in a marine is ALWAYS gunna get owned by a lurker or something but enough that it will force you to change, as in PvT Vultures very much own zealots so toss needs to get goons. I think what Im saying is that there are lots of counters to certain units, similar to rock paper scissors.

[Lithium]

Have you ever played SC II?

Why don't you pull your head outta your ass and actually read some informative news articles on sc.org? And in case you're too lazy to look for it, here: http://www.starcraft.org/news/comments/542

The author is T-Dawg, obviously.

[T-Dawg]

Have you ever played SC II?

1. Yes, I have played a build of SCII, along with AJ, and some other fansite admins.

2. MBS, in my opinion, won't factor much, because what MBS does is let you build units evenly and on a macroscale. Most pro's (see: all) micromanage their building efforts so much that if MBS would help them they have already made a grave mistake. Also it isn't an issue of "looking away" because they can cycle through hotkeys so fast it would make your mind blowup, but I am sure you are familiar with this from watching videos. Also when the likes of Savior, etc. got to try out SCII MBS wasn't something they viewed as a problem.

For the average gamer -- it may come in a great deal though, I will agree. Since making mistakes and misjudging economy doesn't necessarily equate to a gg in average play. My fear exists that it will create a more accessible but sloppy average gamer.

3. The same argument exists, on more or less the same level, for automation. I think on a pro level it won't really matter because pros will always be able to use their abilities more effectively than the AI will allow, but for the average gamer it may have a much larger impact, only that the average gamer will become reliant on automation and never learn to micro.

So PaiN I guess, I am not sure whether we are disagreeing or not. I feel that for "American" gamers (Also: Non-Pros) it will have a large impact on the gaming world, but not so much for pros. I generally assume when people discuss these issues they are naturally referring to the e-sports community, because the "average gamer" will still get pwned by people not reliant on these new features.

[PaiN]

Yes at a pro level it would not affect but what im trying to say is at a like D-Bish level skill it will make a huge affect. For most people trying to watch your macro and laying mines is a large part of the game. So at the skill level I am going to be playing at it will make a big difference, and that is where im worried =/

[Protogod]

Have you ever played SC II?

Get your head out of your ass.

@ TDawg: I'm still on Pain's side of the fence atm. It isnt just about the pro level. There is also the semi-pro and wannabe-pro levels that we play on. The "average" sc player who plays melee shouldnt be dependant on these things either.

It's just not as attractive a game when theres nothing impressive to see, and nothing micro intensive to do.

[T-Dawg]

There will always be something micro-intensive to do for it is easy to add micro management into the game, and Blizzard, specifically Dustin Broder , discussed this. Though you are right, it will make macro less impressive and that is what all the folks at Blizzard are currently concerned about (referencing MBS).

Though I will have to ask AJ if he remembers anything from the terran side, as I spent most of my time playing the Zerg, but the Zerg had zero automation besides being able to rally workers on resources, at least that I noticed and I did play them a lot.

And with regards to it making a big deal on levels other than Pro; I completely agree, which is why earlier I specified that I was referencing the Pro Circuit with my initial stance, and then said that an "average" gamer it will make a big difference.

[PaiN]

I just think that what seperates a noob from an average player are the little things like that, like no idle miners, storming, mining, teching, macroing, anyways we've gone over this alot and everyone knows are views so theirs not much more to say.

[gamer102]

I just think that what seperates a noob from an average player are the little things like that, like no idle miners, storming, mining, teching, macroing, anyways we've gone over this alot and everyone knows are views so theirs not much more to say.

I think what separates pros from average SC melee goers are the fact that they use the keyboard more often for faster commands.

@ T-Dawg: You played the final release of SC or just some beta version? I would think beta, right?

[Protogod]

I think what separates pros from average SC melee goers are the fact that they use the keyboard more often for faster commands.
He said noob from average. Really.


@ T-Dawg: You played the final release of SC or just some beta version? I would think beta, right?

yes, because blizz actually finished SC2 months ago. They're just hiding it to build up hype for the next year and a half. :rolleyes:

It's not a secret that sc2 is still ~Alpha (not even beta)

[ChimTheGrim21]

It's not a secret that sc2 is still ~Alpha (not even beta)

It's important to take into consideration that the quality of Blizzard's alpha build on a game is probably higher than most released games on the market--even without the changes coming.

[b0bthecheeseman]

im new here and eager to discuss

i believe that he should only critisize after actually playing the gaame.

[Protogod]

It's important to take into consideration that the quality of Blizzard's alpha build on a game is probably higher than most released games on the market--even without the changes coming.
Of course, but that does not make "did you play the final version" any less stupid a question.
im new here and eager to discuss
welcome to warboards, dude. I hope you like our community.
i believe that he should only critisize after actually playing the game.

I disagree. It is important to criticize before the game is released to make sure that the final build comes out up to expectations. Blizzard WANTS our feedback, especially the negative, because it tells them what to change.

It is just sometimes uncalled for when people criticize something they havent researched and appear ignorant.

[PaiN]

I think what separates pros from average SC melee goers are the fact that they use the keyboard more often for faster commands.

Anyone who wants to be a decent starcraft gamer needs to use the keys. Personally when i play i use almost every hotkey in the game, I think what seperates it would be more like the speed and effeciency at which pros can do this.

[IrishDutchman]

Sweet bejesus, they've been working on SC 2 for what, 4 years now? And they've only got an ~Alpha?!

[ChimTheGrim21]

Sweet bejesus, they've been working on SC 2 for what, 4 years now? And they've only got an ~Alpha?!
During those 4 years most of the team was working on WoW. So really, you could cut that down to around 2 to 3 years of work.

[Nephi]

hate to point out the obvious here but thats why blizzards products are still being played 10 years after there release, they get it right the first time.....I appreciate the time they take.

[Ktan]

The "average" sc player who plays melee shouldnt be dependant on these things either.

An interesting point, but maybe this will become one way to differentiate between 'average' and 'good/above average'. Perhaps someone who becomes dependant on these things will somehow eventually reach a glass ceiling due to them, and not be able to get any higher.

The best analogy (and a rather stretched one, I'll concede) would be the Guitar Hero series. Easier modes require the use of less of the fret buttons, but also garner lower scores in 'versus' modes. This essentially puts a cap on the top score. Higher difficulty levels are much more risky, but this is offset by the fact that if you do well, you will receive a much superior score.

Perhaps, in the same way, if you rely on auto features, you won't so much get a lower score, but you won't be able to perform with the precision and skill as someone who has learnt to control their units more carefully, a la SC1.

I agree fully that these things should not be something that people should be reliant on at all, but maybe for the casual gamer, they may not be so destructive. Perhaps more serious gamers could somehow expect vastly superior results from micro-ing themselves as opposed to letting the machine do it.

I'm not trying to argue against you, per se, I'm just wondering if there's a way of saying 'Don't Panic!' xD

[T-Dawg]

Thanks K'tan for saying so eloquently what I was trying to convey.

Also: yes the build I played was only Alpha. No the game isn't in beta. Yes our feedback is still very necessary because it is in Alpha that the most major unit changes / designs get made whereas beta is generally for balancing.

[Mjolniir]

this is obviously a number of moths out of date (going from when they changed the thor)

as for zealots being ninjas...i have been struck speachless...it was so spot on...i mean there is no possible way i missed that...other than the fact that they look nothing alike.

stalker looks like crypt fiend. sure, does the fact that blizzard has combined the warcraft and starcraft dev. teams to make this game mean anything? of course there's going to be overlap in the visual styles.

twilight archon looks great...

omg, the walking animation makes it look even more like it's from warcraft.

who' up for a good ol' fashioned lynching?

oh, and mbs/automation could just be an option that you set. just like having subtitles. those who want, get. those who don't, don't.

[Protogod]

I agree fully that these things should not be something that people should be reliant on at all, but maybe for the casual gamer, they may not be so destructive. Perhaps more serious gamers could somehow expect vastly superior results from micro-ing themselves as opposed to letting the machine do it.

Unofrtunately the guitar hero analogy falls short in that sc2 will not have analagous handicaps, in that units made with the MBS get weaker (the way players on easier modes get less points - weaker points)

The problem arises in that MBS is somewhat forced upon us, in a "use or die" sort of fashion. It is by all means an advantage. I dont think there will be players who select gteways 1 by one just to make sure their macro/micro stays in shape when their opponent is macroing 5x faster thanks to MBS. If so, one player is far, far superior than the other, in that his base macro is already 5x better (only possible by having done it before. A chicken-egg style quandry of origin for this skill level)

The bottom line is that on the average player's level, he has the skills to macro maybe 5x faster, than a noob, but not micro as well as a pro. Thus, MBS makes his ability moot, and his time may be better spent trying to macro with MBS despite his skill.

In other words, this forces a glass ceiling on average players, making the sc2 pro scene potentially even mroe elitist and untouchable than it already is (especially for non koreans.) I find this troubling.


oh, and mbs/automation could just be an option that you set. just like having subtitles. those who want, get. those who don't, don't.

Thing is, subtitles are not analagous to MBS, just as guitar hero isnt analagous to SC2.

Subtitles dont give you a handicap to overcome your opponent with. Subtitles dont make up for skill you lack. MBS does.

Lets say you turned it off. Cool. Now your opponent has opted to keep it on and stands a much better chance of beating you, despite your more talented macro, because MBS can do the work for him.

[T-Dawg]

That's good and all Protogod but MBS is drastically reduced when you are building a blend of units. IE zealots and goons, and in serious 1v1 play you rarely have like 15 gateways to make it make a difference, let alone a plethora of other buildings pumping units as well.

I feel that MBS is more of a targeted issue as the resource and economy become more bloated -- as in with infinite money and faster money maps. Less of an issue 1 v 1, more of an issue 3v3 BGH style.

Also the analogy stands: if you never learn to micro effectively anyway -- then MBS is only going to serve to help your macro a little, but you will still lose to the better player. Just because MBS evens the playing field doesn't mean that it prevents the better player from winning -- you still have to remember to build units during battle, keep building peons, etc.

[Ktan]

The part where K'tan realises Proto is talking about MBS

Ah, yes, I forgot what MBS actually meant for a second there :P

I agree, MBS will possibly have a much larger impact than I anticipated when I made my post earlier. However, I hope as T-Dawg alludes to that in certain situations, MBS may not make much difference. Indeed, I dare say that perhaps even the pros will be able to make use of MBS to further their game. It will make some things easier, but I don't think it will narrow the gap between n00bs and pros too much.

Also, as T-Dawg also said, it's going to have a much larger impact on money maps. It will make it easier for n00bs to spam zeals in such maps. I think for now, the effects of MBS on 1v1 melee may be something we just have to wait for, I'm sure that if it's too abusive, it will get cut out at the beta stage.

[ChimTheGrim21]

I think at this point in time Blizzard has to release a game with MBS (multiple building selection). The year is 2008, and games are made for players to have fun--mostly. So if they were to release a game without MBS, I would say millions of gamers would be turned off by that seeing that most RTS gamers have been playing games with MBS for years. I just don't even see how anyone could argue against MBS--this isn't 1998. SC2 will not equal SC1. And the game is not 100% made for pros only.

[T-Dawg]

The problem Chim is that there is already a set community that Blizzard is trying to balance with progressing the game and bringing it up to speed. I empathize with you completely on this point and Dustin made a funny comment how he feels the pressure from other game developers to include these, now rudimentary, features but can't because he doesn't want the community to lynch him.

It's not just the pros anymore (actually -- the pros don't care about MBS), its from the "average" gamers that have stuck with the community that are making the most noise about these things, and Blizzard needs to appeal to the community that has made SC one of the greatest games of all time. It's a delicate balance to be sure.

[Mjolniir]

Lets say you turned it off. Cool. Now your opponent has opted to keep it on and stands a much better chance of beating you, despite your more talented macro, because MBS can do the work for him.

true, very true.

unless it also toggles a setting in the background that makes the two playstyles uncompatitble, like different starcraft versions.

i suppose a filter could be triggered with that to filter out the incompatible games.

but the noob-avg-pro gap still remains rather large if you were to join a non MBS game.

[PaiN]

Actually T-dawg in a 1v1 against relatively balanced players the game almost progress to a point of ~8+ gates. Without MBS you have to hotkey back (FX) select each, build a mix of goons and zealot, then jump back to the feild of play, whereas in MBS you can simply do something along the lines of '1z' '2d' half gates build zealots half gates build goons. Anyway another thing is that with more new age gamers macro > micro ATM and most people trying to get good are playing a huge macro game.

And yes with MBS I think there will be absolutely no skill in money map. It will be the people that no counters > the people that dont.

Also for anyone reading this MBS is Multiple Building Selection. I also think that the loss of the variety of units will be easily covered with the speed.

Finally I think Auto Casting will be huge in the game. Most commonly I think vultures beeing able to lay mines with a click of the button has a huge advantage. Whatever, i just think SC2 will be better without MBS and Auto

[T-Dawg]

How will the loss of the variety of units be countered by speed?

You are saving like 2 seconds, versus losing a mixed unit selection. That will in no way equate. And at the point of having 8+ gates -- are you seriously going to tell me you have 800+ resources chilling out ready to build stuff with? No. You will have 1-200 minerals maybe, at that point you will still have to hotkey back every time you want to build a unit -- which means you haven't saved any time.

[PaiN]

If you had 800 minerals flat out, which mind you is very common in lower level games toward then end of a game, then you would build what like 4 goons 4 zealots? anyway if you hotkey half your gates you can do the same thing. But having 1000k resources is very common because when you build all your units from your gates you will drop to ~100-200 but by the time you have to build again its ussually back up.

[T-Dawg]

If you had 800 minerals flat out, which mind you is very common in lower level games toward then end of a game,

Great its common in "lower level games" meaning in low-skill games. Therefore you shouldn't be worried about MBS because it mostly affects those that have lower skill. Once you bust out of being a noob -- MBS should have minimal effect on your tier of gameplay.

[Protogod]

in serious 1v1 play you rarely have like 15 gateways Laughable.

In any given game (assuming it's a decent one where no one is overwhelming the other) I will have ~9 gatways, and I usually have too few. In one of the last replays ahzz showed me, he was complaining how he had so few gateways when he had 11 of them.

You'll rarely have alot of gateways? Bull-fucking-shit. I call your bluff.


I feel that MBS is more of a targeted issue as the resource and economy become more bloated -- as in with infinite money and faster money maps. Less of an issue 1 v 1, more of an issue 3v3 BGH style. Or maybe its in normal 1v1, as explained above. But hey, I'll cut you some slack. Alot of .org staff arent familiar with real starcraft melle.

Also the analogy stands: if you never learn to micro effectively anyway -- then MBS is only going to serve to help your macro a little, but you will still lose to the better player. that totally isnt the point. The point is that MBS holds you back from becoming a better player, and that it does have a large impact on the game of average 1v1 melee players.

I think at this point in time Blizzard has to release a game with MBS (multiple building selection). The year is 2008, and games are made for players to have fun--mostly. So if they were to release a game without MBS, I would say millions of gamers would be turned off by that seeing that most RTS gamers have been playing games with MBS for years. I just don't even see how anyone could argue against MBS--this isn't 1998. SC2 will not equal SC1. And the game is not 100% made for pros only.

You're talking about something totally unrelated. MBS isnt about pros. If you had read the goddamned thread you would knwo we are talking about it in terms of average players.

I'm going to see about giving infractions for not reading a thread before posting. This is how much posts like yours annoy me. now go read, ffs.

Dustin made a funny comment how he feels the pressure from other game developers to include these, now rudimentary, features but can't because he doesn't want the community to lynch him. Lol, I so would, too.

Actually T-dawg in a 1v1 against relatively balanced players the game almost progress to a point of ~8+ gates.

Usually yes, they do. +1 ish for pain.

Again, boo for auto-play.

[Serban]

Small question regarding the MBS depending on resources: If you have 200 resources and want to build 1 zealot from each game (which would require a normal 800 resources), wouldn't only just 2 gates process the command and the others not react?
You still save the little time it would take to select gateway 1, zealot, gateway 2, zealot... Now it's just 2 commands instead of 4... I'm not saying this is either good or bad, since I don't want to take sides in this pro/con MBS debate, I'm just pointing it out...

[T-Dawg]

How does MBS hold someone back from becoming a better player?

It only serves to augment -- just because you become reliant on it doesn't mean that it is holding you back. It means that you are lazy.

Furthermore, anyone running 11 gateways and needing more, should seriously consider mixing units, grabbing reavers and going air. Not just pumping zealots (where they are finding the eco to handle pumping a consistent 1100 without a high money map is beyond me).

[PaiN]

Ok @ Tdawg: When you go to build in almost all games you have a large pool of minerals (800-1000) and then they are depleted down to 50-100. By the time the units pop you have another 1000 minerals and you do the same, so yes splitting 1/2 gates to each is faster.

And yes almost any game 10 minutes+ you should have ~10 gates

*edit: yes when you have 11+ gates you are maxed but thats the whole point, when you start attacking you can replenish so much faster then a player who stuck with 7-8 gates, even tho it is easy to max with that

[T-Dawg]

Just curious: what maps do you play in PaiN?

[Protogod]

Just curious: what maps do you play in PaiN?

Python, blue storm, and the other standard WCG maps.

Get off your high horse and respond to our criticisms without the predisposition that we are inherently wrong in our experiences.

(in layman's terms- You dont know what youre talking about, so stafoo)

[Ktan]

Proto, that's a bit rich telling T-Dawg he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when he's actually played SC II, or at least a build of it.

I mean, by all means, criticise his discussions about SC 1 if he's wrong, but there are things that are inevitably going to change between StarCraft I and II.

As a more general point, and more in reference to what Dustin Browder said as opposed to the main theme of the thread (I agree, in most games, MBS is a bit silly, tbh, not in terms of strategy, or w/e, it just never made logical sense to me) it seems the SC community is acting like a bit of a bunch of troglodytes. The constant blocking of rudimentary changes that are present in any RTS game is getting a bit ridiculous. Yes, it will make SC II a little 'different', but it's also worth bearing in mind a lot of these 'unique' differences were actually engine limitations that we've learnt to deal with.

Which lends the question, if we can overcome the flaws of a 10 year old engine and be entertained by the game becaue of it's fast pace, story, etc. w/e, then I'm sure we can equally adapt if SC II has other appealing functions. Sure, MBS may not be hot, but I'm sure SC II will have other things going for it.

[PaiN]

T-Dawg Im playing on iCcup ladder ATM so Python, Bluestorm, LT (Hate LT bwe), Longinus. Proto has seen me play and i think im at least good enough to justify what im saying...

I've been playing starcraft non money for a good 2 years, on and off a lot but i've played easily enough to know that being able to select multiple buildings is going to do wonders for noob-decent level players. I also know that little things like when you rally a CC to a mineral the SCV will mine it and not just stand near it matter in a game. The point im trying to prove is MBS and Auto will make starcraft an easier game to become good at then when you had to do everything on your own, and because of this I do not want it.

@Ktan: Yes I agree we are going to need to adapt but because starcraft ATM is on such a competetive level, MBS is a big deal. If everyone just played the Campaign or casual online then whatever it might make things easier but i feel MBS is big enough im going to argue against it, and im sure other people feel the same.

[3Vee]

To start out with, I'll admit I'm a bad (compared to people I normally play with) to about average (judging by my record joining random public games) player, and my big weakness is macro. So maybe my opinion of MBS is overly biased by all that.

The MBS as it currently stands makes it harder, from what I can tell, to diversify units - you can't get beyond 1z, and it sounds like 1zd would make all your 1-gates build a zeal and queue a dragoon. And personally, despite how much that would "improve" my own macro game, even as a bad player I want some level of control over individual gates. I might have one group of three or four hotkeyed for "desparation" pumping, or near the end of a won game when I just needed stuff to run a guy over, but mostly I wouldn't want to use it.

If I were putting an MBS function in a game, as a player what I would ideally want is the ability to have, say, the five gates in my base in a group, the four gate at the nat in another group, etc., and then when I select a group be able to build "individually" to the gates, so I could theoretically (using SC:BW units) key 1zzdkt for my main base gates to build two zeals, a DT, a goon, and a temp. Obviously that eliminates a lot of clicking, so it would make the game easier, but you still have to know what to build, and it cuts down slightly on the speed advantage of just massing units.

[PaiN]

Sticking with the toss as an example, when you diversify units all it really is is a 1:1 ratio zealots/dragoons *mainly*. So hotkey half gates 1 and half gates 2 and then BAM, problem solved. You could always as extra hotkey 1-2 gates and build HT or DT from them but i think the diversity problem can easily be overcome.

[Protogod]

Proto, that's a bit rich telling T-Dawg he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when he's actually played SC II, or at least a build of it.

I mean, by all means, criticise his discussions about SC 1 if he's wrong,


That's exactly what im doing. My entire post was talking about original sc dynamics and his assertion that only high money players would care.

He was very condescending to everyone in disagreement which i found tasteless.

When your last 3 years of sc1 experience consist solely of UMS and 3v3 fastest (lookin at you, TDawg) I'd say you arent an expert on 1v1 low money melee. Sorry.

[Lithium]

Problem with hotkeys is that there's not enough of them. Often when I'm playing, my hotkeys max out and I have to decide between hotkeying a ghost or a science vessel. It's really frustrating.

[T-Dawg]

Holy shit -- I asked what maps you play on? I was curious. I wasn't gonna critique it or anything.

Get off your high horse Protogod, and come back down to earth.

EDIT: And now that we shifted this argument back to competitive play -- IF THE PROS DIDN'T CARE ABOUT MBS THEN YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER. You keep shifting your argument back and forth from average players to competitive players, which makes this debate impossible to have. I agree, with average players MBS is a big deal. On a competitive level, it is not.

[Protogod]

EDIT: And now that we shifted this argument back to competitive play -- IF THE PROS DIDN'T CARE ABOUT MBS THEN YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER. You keep shifting your argument back and forth from average players to competitive players, which makes this debate impossible to have. I agree, with average players MBS is a big deal. On a competitive level, it is not.

No, your logic is inherently flawed.

We had divided the topic into average sc player vs pro. Both are competitive.

Average sc player does not (=/=) equal UMS/moneymap noobs, despite your experience.

WE are wholly on topic, and the debate is totally possible to have. Not our fault that you are incapable of comprehending that simple fact.

[RavenCrusade]

Every single friend I know in real life that plays Melee on Starcraft(about thirty when I last counted) plays on Fastest&Money or UMS. Maybe there should be a census for SC, but last time I checked, I was pretty sure the average player does play on Fastest/High Money.

Also, T-Dawg does have a point. When he makes a point about the average gamer, you both seem to switch to a competitive gamer's perspective. Yes, your points are valid, but separately.

Edit:
Get off your high horse and respond... Post #51
Get off your high horse Protogod, and Post #58

One thing I've noticed throughout this whole discussion is that you are both 'on a high horse' and condescending towards one-another. You criticize each other for it when your time would be better spent making points. Just my two cents.

[Protogod]

"Competetive" does not mean "pro" though. Just because the pros dont mind doesnt mean that all competitive sc isnt affected. We are talking about competitive sc when talking about both pros and average players.

We are talking about average competitive players, and professional competitive players. His points are still totally moot.

Keep the change.

[RavenCrusade]

Very well then, you may continue your "argument" over MBS and automation.
To me you are not having an argument, simply denying eachothers points in turn.

[anderoo]

What does MBS add to gameplay? I don't understand why so many are pushing for it so badly. When people say that it will increase the fast pace of starcraft, to me that makes no sense. The fast pace comes when you are flipping around to your different bases producing more units, sending your workers to mine (because the computer doesn't do it for you) and going to micro your units. MBS will likely turn the focus of the game on microing units more, and that slows the pace of the game down. Why would we want something that will make multitasking easier, when multitasking is one of the big things that seperates player's skill levels, thus making the game less challenging. Would people still play starcraft today if it was easier? A good player defeats a weaker player by outperforming him in enough aspects of the game to win, so if we eliminate aspects of the game completely (auto mine) or just make some easier (multiple building selection) then we're just simplifying a game that is awesome because it is complex and challenging.

[T-Dawg]

@ Raven -- i agree. The problem is that I think of this debate as a limit. As the limit approaches the pro gaming circuit MBS becomes less of a problem until it is eliminated as a "problem" completely. I agree that it affects Noobs a whole bunch, and then average gamers to a lesser extent, so its not that I am denying his points -- but that generally I agree with them.

@anderoo People are pushing for MBS because it grants a great range of accessibility to the game. Lots of gamers in the RTS-genre are familiar with MBS and use it all the time. A game without MBS many people will just go "wow -- this is crap" and set it down because they lose aspects that every other game in the genre has. (Note: I am not actually saying it will be that dramatic) Basically MBS opens up more people to the game. Also, my point is: if you can beat someone without MBS, then you should be able to beat them with MBS, otherwise you weren't really better than them to begin with.

[sdbolts11]

MBS saves some time in unit production, although just a few seconds. If you click one building hit the unit hotkey a few times, then click another building and do the same thing. MBS will speed up unit production, and allow more time to concentrate on other things. The concept of automated commands to go mine minerals or gas, or repair buildings/units opens up more ability to concentrate actual military strategy and tactics, rather than doing things to sustain your economy and production. Much of my RTS is experience is with older RTS, like SC, so I don't really care too much about MBS and automated actions.

Nonetheless, I don't really care too much if MBS is in or not, although considering that it is a feature of many newer RTS games, Blizzard will most likely include it.

One thing I do like is the ability to select more than 12 units at a time. Last I heard, it was set at "unlimited" but even if limited down to 24 or 30, that will be a huge improvement, especially when assigning groups and commanding small, cheap units that are in mass.

[RavenCrusade]

MBS will speed up unit production, and allow more time to concentrate on other things. The concept of automated commands to go mine minerals or gas, or repair buildings/units opens up more ability to concentrate actual military strategy and tactics, rather than doing things to sustain your economy and production.

Which is a bad thing?
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware people bought RTS games for the thrill of assigning workers to mine. ;)

[AJ]

One thing I do like is the ability to select more than 12 units at a time. Last I heard, it was set at "unlimited" but even if limited down to 24 or 30, that will be a huge improvement, especially when assigning groups and commanding small, cheap units that are in mass.

Currently unlimited selection, yes. The only limit they have added that wasn't in the initial SC2 build was the unit production limits, the 200 unit max is still enforced. At least as of the last build. ;)

[Serban]

'Ang on a minute. Can't MBS be discussed just as MUS (multiple unit selection)? I mean, in Warcraft I and II, if I remember correctly, you could only select one unit at a time. Yet, no one was disappointed about that...

*prepares for an avalanche of napalm*

[sdbolts11]

Which is a bad thing?
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware people bought RTS games for the thrill of assigning workers to mine. ;)
LOL! I love your sense of humor :) but I'm making the point that automated commands will simplify things much more, and though that would be helpful to total noobs like myself, it would sort of kill the real awareness, speed, proficiency skills of economic and building management.
But I must admit, I would really like automated commands.

[RavenCrusade]

Although I agree it will make things easier for new players and/or average players, I still think that if you are great at the game, you should be able to handle a handicap for the newer players. If not, then you should learn.

And to those who are worried it will hold you back; give me a break. Is having an Easy setting in Campaign holding players back from achieving the skill level neccesary to play the Hard setting? Only if they're lazy, in which case they'll have more fun playing with Multiple-Selection.

Why don't people want to learn new ways of playing that are better than those who rely on MBS, MUS and Automation? If you want it to be the SAME game as Starcraft, with simply new graphics and a few new units, that's great, but you should go make a SC mod out of another game.

I stand behind MBS, MUS and Automation because it changes Starcraft. It makes it more
accessible to the masses. If you were skilled at SC1, then you should learn how to be skilled at SC2. You should not have games fitted to your skillset, but rather the other way around.

[PaiN]

Um RavenCrusade im sure that that is what may appear to you but non-money is INCREDIBLY more common. Money/Fastest owns on East. I think its tied on West. Europe is mainly nonmoney and Asia is almost all nonmoney. Then we have WCG, iCCup, PL. So yhea there is a LOT more nonmoney.

And about the hotkeys, i think saving 1-2 is easy enough, I ussually have room at least.

[RavenCrusade]

Funny, I go on West alot and play Melee, I find it harder to find a Nonmoney game than a Fastest&Money one.

Regardless, you and Protogod have a point, I'm assuming. You're saying they should remove Multiple Selection and Automation?

[PaiN]

Multiple Building Selection not just any multiple selection =/

[Protogod]

By the way, I'd like to point out how sick i am of the "argument" of "you just want sc2 to be the same as sc1 with new graphics"

cut the crap. That is not an argument. It's a baseless assertion aimed at discrediting the speaker. Any time anything isnt approved of, the people that like it always just say "YOU DONT LIKE NEW THINGS, LAWL"

It isnt the fact that it is new that makes it suck. It's the implications it has on gameplay. Look at the difference between DMC1 -> DMC2 or DMC3 -> DMC4. Huge changes, mostly for the worse.

Look at games like the megaman series. They all need to have similar aspects or they arent a series, yet some of them play very differently.

I mean really, I could just as easily say you want "everything" changed to the point that its unrecognizable from the original. Who wants that? Some people want a sequel, not a totally new franchise.

I love some of the new units. Colossus, TA, stalker, immortal (but it should be able to attack air. T.T), phoenix, reaper, nydus worm, banshee, viking, queen, warp ray, etc.

I love some of the new features. Destroyable doodads/terrain blocks, multi(more than 2)-tiered terrain, idle worker tabs, the new BC weapon, faster pace, cliff-jumping, etc.

Thats exactly like sc1 right?

No, we dont want fucking sc1 again, but we dont want SC2 to become C&C either. Maybe, just maybe, we dislike things for the ample reasons we provide? Who'd have thunk it, eh? Think before you speak.

[RavenCrusade]

YOU DONT LIKE NEW THINGS, LAWL

Ah yes, thank you for summarizing the exact point of my previous post. :rolleyes:

Maybe, just maybe, we dislike things for the ample reasons we provide? Who'd have thunk it, eh? Think before you speak.

This is exactly my point. I've read the topic through, and I must commend you (by you I mean Protogod, PaiN and T-Dawg) on your ability to hide your points inside of rebuttals. I haven't found more then four stand-alone points, and so, I was curious if rather than continuing this argument without knowing each others points, perhaps we could actually tell each other, in a simple and straightforward way, what the hell we're talking about. In between the senseless rebuttals and the good ones, the moronic points and the good ones, I feel like we're talking about different things. So, I ask you; instead of quoting one sentence from this post and ignoring the rest, could you please define your points?

I'm not asking this because I'm too idiotic to understand them; I just want to make sure everyone knows what you're talking about. So, before you call me an idiot, or a moron, I want you to know that I called it.

[PaiN]

Alright fine. Here are my points.

1. MBS is going to make macroing in SC2 easier.
2. This will lessen the gap between a noob and an average player

And i feel that it takes away the skill that people put into the game learning how to macro and micro efficiently and effectively.

[Protogod]

So, I ask you; instead of quoting one sentence from this post and ignoring the rest, could you please define your points?

No. Lol, I made a funny.

The bottom line is that Starcraft really was the quintessential game of the time, a time without MBS. The core of its greatness came from how well it worked without MBS. It took loads of skill and multitasking. Thats what made it one of the greatest games of all time.

MBS and autoplay may not affect pros, but it affects everyone else. At best it's a novelty, trying to fit into SCII for the sake of being like every other game. This realyl has nothing to do with attracting new gamers. SCII is one of the most anticipated, most hyped games ever. There will be no trouble attracting new players. Saying that MBS is necessary to keep buyers is a cop-out.

As pain already said, it makes the noob-hasu (poor to average) skill range, which most people are in, less indicative of skill. Even players like Testie and incontrol are on the lower half of the "pro" level. Basically everyone who cant beat Testie is affected.

Sure I can go on tl.net and watch them pwn still, but I can no longer go on bnet after watching and have a similar game, because on my level, on your level, on this entire forum's level, some noob can still keep up by using MBS.

Playing SC2 without already being a pro becomes pointless and unrewarding.

[Serban]

Playing SC2 without already being a pro becomes pointless and unrewarding.

Umm, what? Just playing the game casually and for the story-line is already fun. To some people, being able to do things close to what the pros are managing (or even outperform the latter) is, indeed, fun, but to others, they just like the lore, or some other point of the game.
As for being pointless... well, that's the problem with every video game, isn't it? The 'point' to play it like an amateur is to have fun, enjoy the story, look at the nice graphics, whatever. The 'point' to play it pro-like is to develop your clicking skill and win money by showing that to people.
You decide which is worse.

[Protogod]

By your logic, any game made is fun just because it exists.

[PaiN]

I dont think you fully understand what we are talking about, and maybe if you read if from the begining like everyone keeps saying people need to we wouldn't have this problem. This argument is about people playing competively, no matter their skill. So MBS in a campaign really doesnt matter much. And MBS has absoultely nothing relating to the lore. His, and my, point is that since MBS greatly decreases the skill range between noob and hasu, then why bother playing unless your pro? You could still get owned by a noob because your macro skill is almost irrelevant. So I would suggest reading everything before jumping into a conversation.

[Ktan]

It's an interesting point, granted, but I really don't see how a n00b (who is someone who knows little to nothing about the game) would be able to pwn a more experienced (let's say 50-150 games, just for example) just because of MBS.

Ofc, I'm not going to ask for evidence of that, because it's impossible, but surely the only people who are going to implement MBS in a way that actually threatens someone is someone who is already competent.

You can see the ramifications of it because you are on a slightly higher level (let's say above average), but most lower level players will surely just think "Select all buildings and spam unit X". It's all about competence, really. I think it sounds like you are worried that newbies are going to be able to see MBS in the same way that others do, which might not be the case.

I can't think of an analogy right now, so I hope that makes decent sense.

[Protogod]

Your very numbers are faulty. Someone with 50-150 games is still a noob. Nuff said.

We're talking about noobs with maybe a couple hundred (note: 200) games who dont just spam x unit. We arent tlaking about money noobs or kirbyman. We're talking about people who are less experienced vs people with a few more hundred. One should know more strategies, granted,but on average, the defining factor for an average player is the ability to macro.

Macro is one of the first skills you get as an average player. When macro is evene across the boards, there is little to nothing to differentiate someone with 150 gams from someone with 500-600.

[PaiN]

The noobs we are talking about are the people that know units counters, know build orders, but cannot suffiecently execute this because a lack of macro. When MBS is implemented its much easier to match up. After 100+ games you know 95% of what someone with 1000 games knows. You just cant actually do it in a game. With MBS it makes macroing much easier so yes, people that normally cannot keep up would be able to beat higher level players.

[Protogod]

The noobs we are talking about are the people that know units counters, know build orders, but cannot suffiecently execute this because a lack of macro.

Not necessarily just macro. Its a lack of experience/practice in general.

We're talking about people that actually have potential.

[Ktan]

So, essentially, people with the potential are given a little step up which makes it easier.

Yes, my numbers were faulty, but I anticipate that you understood what I meant. I suppose I'm seeing n00bs as people who don't have a clue at all, thus 50-150 seems enough games to at least get a grasp of what's going on.

Whether a slightly shallower learning curve is a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know, and I'm not going to get into semantics over that.

Please don't get into semantics over the numbers I used though as if it invalidates everything else that follows. It doesn't prove anything, and at best it's just a logical fallacy.

I suppose I don't have quite as sound a grasp of the numbers as many others do, due to lack of time practising, and as you alluded to via MSN, you're probably right, for the above reasons I'd probably be one of those who benefits from MBS. There may be other causes for someone lacking sufficient skills to get to the higher tiers, such as absent-mindedness due to a lack of practice (I often get too focussed on one thing, for example).

I can see where this comes from though (and I did give it some thought myself outside of the forum topic). Thinking about it, I can see at lower levels how this would maybe shallow the learning curve a little. Otherwise, I'm going to wait and see with this one.

I don't know, maybe I'm tired and I'm almost past giving a fuck. I suppose I'df just get this in because I felt, in light of the consideration I'd been giving to it, I might as well note that 'I see what you mean now.' Overall, I still think it's going to be a drop in the ocean, but meh.

[PaiN]

Thank you Ktan, and it is accepted that you did not know adequate numbers.

I now wonder that what does blizzard get by implementing MBS that is better than when it did not have it?

[GroG]

Didn't we have this argument a few months ago?

Anyways, I play melee on SC (I have played ICCUP, as well as public and private games with people from warboards, etc). I also played melee on WC3:TFT (I was ranked in solo ladder back in the day). So there's my experience.

Anyways, just like last time I have to disagree with Protogod and PaiN. Multiple Building Selection will only increase the speed and action of this game since players will have more time to multitask with unit squads to harass and push and spend less time doing mundane tasks like creating each unit individually in a gateway.

Just for example, when I was playing solo ladder in WC3, I really felt there was much more multitasking going on in that game dispite the lower unit caps (100 population vs 200) and the MBS. I had to spend more of my time controlling unit groups to harass, to scout, to creep, etc. Now, I know there won't be creeping in this game, I still think this formula will for the most part hold true in SC. Just look at the unit abilities - Toss can blink around and harass, terran can jetpack to locations, and zerg have muta and nydus worm. Basically each race has mobile units to harass and I feel like this will be a strong element in SC2.

I don't think relying on some old archaic system of creating units tells who has more skill. It's a friggin' game of conquering your opponent. Focus your time on killing him using tactics and strategy, not on creating units in your buildings. That's something that I really think is stupid whenever I play SC, I barely have time to use my units because I keep having to flip back to my factories to macro. It's horrible. Sure, you still need to be fast and multitask to be good, but use that speed and attention to detail to actually use your units to their full potential, instead of just making sure you have units and only getting to use them half-assed.

If it makes noobs better, fine by me. The game was made for competition using tactics, not overrunning them just because their macro sucks.

Oh, and btw I think not having MBS completely ruined the TvZ matchup. Well, for me anyways. I don't think in my entire career of playing SC (since the beginning, on and off) I've ever played a TvZ game where I macroed well. Ever. That's fucking pathetic - and I'm not talking about me. Have you seen how many people who play Terran play PvZ instead of TvZ? Is there a correlation you think?

This can really only help SC as far as I'm concerned.

[Protogod]

Maybe you have such troubles because of your poor skills? Maybe this is why you even pretended WC3 was somehow going to help your argument?

Totally not even worth reading that.

[GroG]

Nice. Way to completely shut yourself off from other opinions by just choosing to ignore them. Must make it easier for you to tell other people they are wrong.

BTW, where does this put you if my skills are so low? I guess your opinion just doesn't count.

[anderoo]

People keep bringing up that by not wanting MBS we just hate anything that isn't SC1. That's not really the case, I want the units and structures and graphics of the game to change, but I want the interface to be exactly the same. I don't think it's so wrong to want the game to change, but the way you play it to stay the same.

@ Grog/Proto stop attacking eachother and start attacking the subject, d00ds

[GroG]

I clearly did attack the subject. Read my post. I think not having MBS would be a giant mistake on Blizzard's part, the argument here is the skill of the game is controlling units and economy at the same time, and in my opinion being good at economy doesn't require you to click each gateway or factory independantly of each other.

The problem I have is when I say I played WC3 and I liked it or did well in it, and then for some reason my opinion is automatically thrown out of the discussion because "LOL ROFL WC3 IS 4 N00BZ". That's not the case, Blizzard tried something new and I applaud them for it (and I liked it), and it's obvious there are aspects of WC3 they are using in SC2, as well as aspects from SC. I have no problems with this, this is a product development cycle, take the best from each successive product to make the new product. MBS doesn't make the game "easier", it takes time away from mundane tasks and streamlines them so you can focus more effort on the meat and potatoes of the game, the battles and strategy.

But, I suppose no one is reading this anyways. Damn, I wish I had been ignorant and hated WC3 for no reason! I wish I didn't even try it and give it a shot! Stupid me!

[PaiN]

First of all MBS does make things easier for the simple fact of what you said. You just made almost a double negative, MBS doesn't make the game "easier", it takes time away from mundane tasks and streamlines them so you can focus more effort on the meat and potatoes of the game, the battles and strategy. As far as im concerned doing somethign extra and 'mundane' in addition to UC is going to make it harder. Anyway...

Sure. WC3 was a game people liked. It had hero's, more unit health, MBS, and lower pop. Overall, it was a user friendly game. People I know that played WC3 and were good when traversing over to SC had a hard time keeping up, starcraft is a MUCH faster paced game. I think what makes starcraft is that you aer doing almost everything on your own, you are controlling your troops and playing the game how you want. Do you want to play a macro game or a micro game.

Comparing WC3 and SC is not going to help it is simply not relevant.

[GroG]

You just made almost a double negativeWhat is an almost double negative? Did I say not twice in a sentence? Maybe I said not and ought in the same one, I suppose that'd be an almost double negative.

As far as im concerned doing somethign extra and 'mundane' in addition to UC is going to make it harder.The key here is harder, not more skill. You are lumping hardness and skill together as if they are one entity, which is not the case - why make something unnecessarily hard when you still don't have enough time to control all the rest of the tasks in the game? Do you think with MBS all of a sudden the game will play itself? That the units will be created in the gateways with the right mix you need for the situation? That you won't have to still create more gateways when you have more income? I guess I don't see your point.

By the way, don't both of you guys play Protoss? Coincidentally they are the easiest macro race. Anyways..

WC3 was a game people liked. It had hero's, more unit health, MBS, and lower pop. Overall, it was a user friendly game.
And SC wasn't user friendly? Why would people play a game not friendly to them? We like friends.

People I know that played WC3 and were good when traversing over to SC had a hard time keeping up
Yeah and I know people who went from being good in SC to sucking in WC3. I also know people who sucked at both games. Finally, I know people who are good at both games. What's your point? Are you trying to say WC3 is an easier game? Let me know when you get ranked in solo ladder then we can talk.

I think what makes starcraft is that you aer doing almost everything on your own, you are controlling your troops and playing the game how you want. Do you want to play a macro game or a micro game.
I play all games how I want. My units don't move until I tell them to, and my buildings don't train units unless I tell them to. You must hack.

[ChimTheGrim21]

Warcraft III would be a better game if it was more forgiving.
I want SC2 to be as forgiving as the original. If I lose 12 hydras, I don't want it to be gg. In Warcraft III if you lost just 2 riflemen at the start, it could mean the rest of the game is downhill for you against certain aggressive opponents. In SC, this just isn't the case for skilled players.

[PaiN]

Im sorry if i said almost a double negative. I guess it was just a double negative.

You said that the MBS does not make the game easier. I argued that it does, meaning harder. Easier/Harder. Im sorry if I misunderstood it as easier/requires more skill.

And yes I like protoss. I like to play a macro game and overpower my opponent, so with MBS its just going to make that almost pointless.

Have two people who have never played either game or much of any RTS before. I think that yes WC3 would be easier because it is a slower paced game.

I would honestly not try to compare this to WC3 but yes, I think that WC3 is an easier game than SC is.

And I thought you would understand what I ment by playing a macro game or a micro game considering how much you've played starcraft...it does not mean that you simply do not do the other part.

And for the record, I dont hack =P

[GroG]

I guess it was just a double negative.
Where?

Let's read what you said:
As far as im concerned doing somethign extra and 'mundane' in addition to UC is going to make it harder.
I notice you have mundane in quotes, as if it's not. I just want to ask you a question - Is there skill to clicking a gateway, hitting z, selecting a gateway, hitting z, and doing that over and over again? I mean, this may be just me but.. that's mundane. Where's the skill to that? Let me know when you figure it out.

I think that yes WC3 would be easier because it is a slower paced game.
OK, you are titled to your opinion - which is generalized and based on no actual personal experience playing the game in solo ladder. But hey, it's your opinion.

And I thought you would understand what I ment by playing a macro game or a micro game considering how much you've played starcraft...it does not mean that you simply do not do the other part.
Just because I played SC doesn't mean that I understand what this
I think what makes starcraft is that you aer doing almost everything on your own, you are controlling your troops and playing the game how you want. Do you want to play a macro game or a micro game. means. To me, it is about the equivalent of saying you'd rather eat at Subway than Jimmy John's because they use bread on their sandwich.

[PaiN]

skill
~noun
1. the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentry was one of his many skills.
2. competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity: The dancers performed with skill.
3. a craft, trade, or job requiring manual dexterity or special training in which a person has competence and experience: the skill of cabinetmaking.

So yes I consider stopping what you are doing, going to all lets say gateways, building a proper unit distribution before the first que pops and all as fast as possible. After playing more games and practicing you can get better and faster at macroing.

Yes it is my opinion that WC3 is easier for noobs.

And what I ment by doing what you want is you can play a more micro intensive game or a more macro intensive game, whereas with MBS almost everyone is macroing at very close to the same level

[Ktan]

That's true, but equally by so strict a definition, the game would require more 'skill' if you could only select one unit at a time, or had to perform a raindance before creating a structure :P

As much as I agree with the dictionary on a regular basis, I think skill has different meanings to different people. To some, skill is a very definite thing, whereas to others maybe it is more akin to being a good tactician. I suppose the difference is how much you want the game to focus on 'raw' skill, or if , even if it takes removing 'skill' you can perhaps make people more adept tacticians.

I of course, do not believe the PC should do it for you, of course you should have to micro and macro a fair amount yourself, otherwise it would be a case of 'tell PC to follow this build, and attack enemy while I put the kettle on.'

MBS, I'd guess, would have different effects on different races. For Zerg, if they stay the same with Larvae, which I suspect will be the case, it's nigh on useless, since they get the benefits of MBS anyway. With Terran's it's going to make things a lot easier, since they are probably building a lot of units and I can understand that, if it was implemented in SC 1 as it stands now, it would probably almost remove Protoss base management due to their longer build times and lower unit count.

I wonder though, how quick are units built too? A number of recent RTS have seen build times increase by such an amount that having lots of buildings seems rather superfluous unless you are a high money game, so I wonder how much build times will affect the values of MBS. Does anyone have a comparison of how long it takes to build an SC1 zeal compared to an SC II Zeal? (bearing in mind a lot of sites have simply yoinked the SCI stats)

[ChimTheGrim21]

I tend to agree with Grog on the MBS subject. It just doesn't make any sense to not include MBS in SC2. What does it matter if I click 12 different barracks' each 12 different times, and press the "M" key 12 different times rather than clicking on all 12 barracks 1 time, and pressing "m" 1 time. It simply gives me more time to use my skills on more tactical matters. Meanwhile, your economic supply and proficiency will still be a result of your ability to secure resources on the map.

I just don't think the argument against MBS is strong at all--I am a SC and War3 player. I vouche for MBS.

[Protogod]

I'm trying to hold back on the argument here but I'm jsut gonna point out the fact that people who liked WC3 all seem to like MBS, while SC fans like non mbs.

Just throwing it out there.

[anderoo]

I'm trying to hold back on the argument here but I'm jsut gonna point out the fact that people who liked WC3 all seem to like MBS, while SC fans like non mbs.

Just throwing it out there.

That's true.

Maybe it's because all of us non-WC3 players have had our only MBS experience with is games like Command and Conquer, which leaves a pretty bad taste in most people's mouths after playing starcraft as their first rts.

I haven't played that many RTS games other than starcraft, but when I do play SC I'm a bit of a macro whore. Meaning that I pay a lot more attention to what's going on with my unit production than with my micro, most people think that this just means that I must have horrible micro and I need to compensate it with macro, but whether that's true or not why should a macro oriented player like myself be forced to play a micro-oriented game?

[GroG]

I'm a SC fan and a WC fan. Where does that put me, Proto? ChimTheGrim plays both games too. Where does he fit in? Just because we play WC3 means we can only like WC3?

Meaning that I pay a lot more attention to what's going on with my unit production than with my micro, most people think that this just means that I must have horrible micro and I need to compensate it with macro, but whether that's true or not why should a macro oriented player like myself be forced to play a micro-oriented game?
Why are you forced to choose which portion of the game to play? Why would MBS remove this playstyle of yours? Would you not be able to do a FE build vs. a tech build? Would your opponent still not have to switch back to their gateways to pump units, switch back to probes to create pylons for psi limit, the choice to expand vs tech, etc.? Do you not still have to readjust rally points? Do you not still have to pump probes?

It's not like all of a sudden your opponent will have units without doing anything.

[anderoo]

Why are you forced to choose which portion of the game to play? Why would MBS remove this playstyle of yours? Would you not be able to do a FE build vs. a tech build? Would your opponent still not have to switch back to their gateways to pump units, switch back to probes to create pylons for psi limit, the choice to expand vs tech, etc.? Do you not still have to readjust rally points? Do you not still have to pump probes?

It's not like all of a sudden your opponent will have units without doing anything.

You know what I'm talking about, a lot of players are either macro oriented or micro oriented. I'm not saying I Only macro or Only micro, I'm saying that my playstyle is a macro Oriented one, not a solely macro one, just more oriented that way. So if it becomes easier to pump units and the macro-aspect of the game evens out, where does that leave me with shitty micro against a micro-oriented player?

[GroG]

Yes, I do see what you are talking about. I'm saying that there's still plenty of things left to do in the macro arena of the game. That's why I described the other areas that are basically unaffected by MBS.

You can also use your units special abilities better and more. You know, focus on it. But with a unit cap of 200 units, something tells me newbs aren't all of a sudden gonna have 200 units at the same time a good player will just because of MBS.

[ChimTheGrim21]

with a unit cap of 200 units, something tells me newbs aren't all of a sudden gonna have 200 units at the same time a good player will just because of MBS.
Yep.

You can still be macro oriented with MBS. You can now use the time that you were clicking on 8 different buildings to send a probe/drone/scv to expand on your resources--this is what people tend to use their time for in Warcraft3 solo matches. And it makes resources extremely important all across the map--not that they aren't in SC now, but they will be even more so with MBS (which is a good thing to me).

[Protogod]

this is what people tend to use their time for in Warcraft3 solo matches.

How popular are wc3 solo matches? How many sc pros have honed wc3 pros? How many pros even play wc3? Why isnt wc3 the #1 esports game instead of sc?

It's entirely possible that this is a related issue.

[GroG]

Are you kidding me? Navigate around in http://www.wcreplays.com/

Near the top there's links to scene news where teams pick up players to compete on their sponsored teams.

Off the top of my head I can think of:
ToD, Grubby, Moon, Sky, XLord, Lynn, Soccer, SweeT, uhh.. DeMuslim.. uhh.. man I haven't played in forever. There's a tons of teams that compete in many cups and leagues with sponsors and all that. China is a large hotspot for WC3, as well as Europe. I'm sure both those areas have their fair share of SC players too, which leads me to Korea.

The answer you want is because of Korea. Do you think it's a coincidence that barely any foreign players can make it outside Korea in SC? Do you think it's a coincidence that SC's popularity is tied to Korea? Do you think SC would be as popular today if it wasn't for Korea? You honestly don't think that SC is just THAT good, that other RTS that were better or as good as SC would have lasted this long if SC hadn't come out?

BTW, I haven't seen any numbers, but from what I understand CS is more popular than SC.

[RavenCrusade]

I'm trying to hold back on the argument here but I'm jsut gonna point out the fact that people who liked WC3 all seem to like MBS, while SC fans like non mbs.

Just throwing it out there.

Hey! It's a good thing I love WC3 (even though I hate it)! I should side with MBS because I'm a complete Ad Hominem fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

This is exactly what I mean, Protogod. It's as if you hold yourself higher than filling your posts with facts, but instead use cheap generalisations and red herrings. Which, by the way, I don't understand at all. You have enough facts and points to hold a strong argument, and yet, you use the above devices rather than concrete premises. Why?

[ChimTheGrim21]

Protogod, I notice how you used the shady devices of mainstream media to cut out the rest of the sentence.

My real quote:
"You can now use the time that you were clicking on 8 different buildings to send a probe/drone/scv to expand on your resources--this is what people tend to use their time for in Warcraft3 solo matches."

As you can see I am suggesting that MBS gives you more time to focus on a major point of the game--to expand your resources.

How popular are wc3 solo matches? How many sc pros have honed wc3 pros? How many pros even play wc3? Why isnt wc3 the #1 esports game instead of sc?

It's entirely possible that this is a related issue.

There are many pros who still play WC3. Moon and 4k.Grubby are the best known. In which case, Moon is already testing SC2.

[PaiN]

The whole point of this argument is that the game is getting more automated and its easier for lower level players to keep up. Honestly. sending a probe to expo is probably one of the least possible time consuming things i can do. So saying that sending a probe to expo is going to take the time it took to macro is retarded. Secondly I think we really need to leave WC3 out of this. We had a great game without MBS and a great game with it, and we want SC2 to stay like that, we can drop the whole WC3 thing.

[RavenCrusade]

I agree with leaving WC3 out of this, mostly because I hate the game (no offence), and I would be unable to bring anything useful about it to the table.

Honestly. sending a probe to expo is probably one of the least possible time consuming things i can do. So saying that sending a probe to expo is going to take the time it took to macro is retarded.

Are you implying that probes will now automatically expand for you?

[PaiN]

ChimTheGrim21 said that now because we dont need to spend all the time macroing from each production building we can spend the time expanding. What im saying is the time it takes me to expand is incredibly little. F2, hotkey a probe, click on mini map. Then when he is there double click hotkey, bn, and done. The time it takes me to do those things, and they are seperate i dont just wait inbetween, is so minimal it does not make up for the time it takes for me to build all units.

[anderoo]

Yeah, setting rally points and scouting with a worker aren't good examples of macro activities at all, because they take such little time and you don't need to do them constantly.

[T-Dawg]

To be honest -- scrolling through hotkeys to build units takes a relatively short time to do as well. The part is where you REMEMBER to do it -- which MBS won't help you do.

[ChimTheGrim21]

Even if we don't talk about Warcraft3, most RTS games utilize this type of automation. The genre has improved over the years to make the games more accessible to everyone. In which case, the games can be easier for newbie players, but in the end pros are going to own a newb. So you may think it's taking the SC formula and making it easy for noobs, but the truth is there is more to SC than just clicking 8 different buildings. Remembering to make units at the right time and controlling those units well is the key to the game.

[GroG]

Yeah, setting rally points and scouting with a worker aren't good examples of macro activities at all, because they take such little time and you don't need to do them constantly.

Really? I reset my rally points all the time when I play. I rally to my choke if I don't have map control. I rally to a push if I'm pushing. I rally to their choke if I'm containing. I have to rerally again if they are pushing to where I was rallying.. etc, etc. If I forget to rerally, units just sit there in a spot I've forgotten about.. the list goes on. I probably rerally like 100 times in a game.

Other examples I gave for macro activities was still building supply buildings at the right timings, still remembering to produce units, still producing the production buildings at the right times and the right number, still expanding, still making probes/scv/drones, still researching upgrades, still using the right unit mixture, still scouting, still expanding, still cannoning up..

Probably more actions that I missed if you can think of any. Seems like plenty of macro stuff left to do still. Then of course you could use your extra time to actually control your units.

[anderoo]

Really? I reset my rally points all the time when I play. I rally to my choke if I don't have map control. I rally to a push if I'm pushing. I rally to their choke if I'm containing. I have to rerally again if they are pushing to where I was rallying.. etc, etc. If I forget to rerally, units just sit there in a spot I've forgotten about.. the list goes on. I probably rerally like 100 times in a game.

Either I'm a lazy n00b, or you have OCD, I don't think I've ever hit 100 re-rallies in a single game. Are all of you guys doing it that often because it seems like a lot of rallying to me? :S:S


To be honest -- scrolling through hotkeys to build units takes a relatively short time to do as well. The part is where you REMEMBER to do it -- which MBS won't help you do.

How often do all of your unit producing buildings fit into your hotkeys? 5sz, 6sz, 7sz, 8sz, 9su, 0su is easy, sure, but once you have more than 5-6 unit production buildings they spread across your hotkeys and you don't have room for units, you still need to go back and take care of all of the other things at your base i.e. the bottom of grog's post.

[T-Dawg]

My point was that I don't think MBS takes away from macro because you still have to remember to flip through your hotkeys. Flipping through hotkeys takes a short amount of time. Hence MBS doesn't really do much. Sure it saves 2 seconds every time you have to build units but the major part is REMEMBERING to build them in the first place.

[PaiN]

I think its easier to remember to go 1z2d then it is to hotkey back, build units, etc because u press all of four keys. And we have gone over the whole fucking point that pros are still going to own noobs and this is really agrivating me how people just jump in and dont read the whole conversation. The point is that noobs will have an easier time keeping up with someone who is not because macroing is easier and UC is easier so the gap between noob and mediocre ~ decent players is smaller, where most of us will fit in.

[ChimTheGrim21]

I agree with T-Dawg, but I disagree with PaiN's statement that it will be easier for noobs to close the gap between noob and mediocre players. I think your choice of units and the management of them in battle is what it comes down to. If a noob doesn't know what units to make vs mass "X" unit, then that particular noob is done--Gameover for him. There is a lot more to SC than just clicking buildings. I don't see how MBS will take the macromanagement out of SC2. It will take more thinking and less clicking.

[PaiN]

...wow...

How many times do I needa say read the whole fucking thing before jumping in...

Ok,

Here is Proto defining the type of noobs we are talking about : Someone with 50-150 games is still a noob. Nuff said.

We're talking about noobs with maybe a couple hundred (note: 200) games who dont just spam x unit. We arent tlaking about money noobs or kirbyman. We're talking about people who are less experienced vs people with a few more hundred. One should know more strategies, granted,but on average, the defining factor for an average player is the ability to macro.

And then heres me doing it again: The noobs we are talking about are the people that know units counters, know build orders, but cannot suffiecently execute this because a lack of macro. When MBS is implemented its much easier to match up. After 100+ games you know 95% of what someone with 1000 games knows. You just cant actually do it in a game. With MBS it makes macroing much easier so yes, people that normally cannot keep up would be able to beat higher level players.

So if you had read the whole thing then you would know what type of 'noob' we are talking about.

And what you said: I don't see how MBS will take the macromanagement out of SC2. It will take more thinking and less clicking.

Correct, it will take out more clicking...but its not just magically going to require it to be more thinking. Actually, when things were not automated it required more thinking, laying mines in combat, seiging, repairing, hotkeying back to get SCV's because they dont just rally to mine, storming, upgrading, and building units. etc.

[anderoo]

And we have gone over the whole fucking point that pros are still going to own noobs and this is really agrivating me how people just jump in and dont read the whole conversation.

Sorry, I did read the whole conversation but I wanted to express my humble opinion anyway.

[GroG]

We're talking about noobs with maybe a couple hundred (note: 200) games who dont just spam x unit. We arent tlaking about money noobs or kirbyman. We're talking about people who are less experienced vs people with a few more hundred. One should know more strategies, granted,but on average, the defining factor for an average player is the ability to macro.
So there's some small faction of n00bs out of the overall majority of n00bs you are afraid might gain some sort of edge because of MBS. OK then. Sounds to me you are just afraid you are on the brink of being that n00b yourself. Are there not any other qualities in SC that you possess that would push you above said n00b? The only thing that makes it so you beat them is because you can select 10 buildings and hit z faster and more often?

Oh, and I don't think I've ever heard such a narrow definition of a n00b. I always thought a n00b/newb/noob/nub/whatever was someone who just sucked at the game.

[PaiN]

Hmmm...How should I make myself clear.

GroG you play iCCup as do I and the lowest rank can even be hard to pull out of. Getting into the C range is not an easy thing for most SC players without excessive practice. Yes that is almost my point entirely. Macro is a huge part of the game and if they can macro as well as almost all other people it will be a huge benifit.

And FYI almost everyone on WB is prolly D atm 'cept for Lammas and Ahzz

[Amake]

I'm for things that make the game easier to control. In my ideal world there wouldn't be any keyboard or mouse but simply thinking about what you want done makes it so. More thinking and less clicking indeed.

Does it take away the rewards of skill? Sure, your motor skills and finely honed reflexes would count for nothing. But there's other skills that, in my opinion, should be more important. I'm thinking of the principles outlaid in ye olde Art of War: Prioritizing, strategizing, knowing what the enemy does and preventing him from knowing what you do, never be without a plan and never rely on it and all those funny sayings.

I'd be delighted to see a game where that is possible, or at least one with an interface that doesn't have the purpose of getting in the way of your strategy. It wouldn't be orthodox Starcraft, no, and maybe I'd be better off waiting for another game while enthusiasts of the Starcraft way get what they want.

But, I like Starcraft. I like every part of it except that I have to accept I can never be a competitive player, not because I can't apply strategy in real time as well as the next guy but because I have a slight disability involving my fine motor functions. Which I think shouldn't be the case with a real time strategy game.

Of course, I'm biased. ^_^

[Protogod]

but I disagree with PaiN's statement that it will be easier for noobs to close the gap between noob and mediocre players. I think your choice of units and the management of them in battle is what it comes down to. If a noob doesn't know what units to make vs mass "X" unit, then that particular noob is done--Gameover for him.

Your definition of noob is very extreme. If a noob doesnt even know that goons >vultures or something like that, it's just beyond hope. There are plenty of noobs who know counters but lack the skill to implement them.

MBS makes up for that lack of skill, allowing them to keep up with mediocre players, who often are charictarized by better macro than a noob, but still not as much micro as pros.

If you're implying that a player becomes average/good when he learns that splash units > lings, I'd be seriously disappointed in you. That, too, isn't 'skill'. It's common sense.

So there's some small faction of n00bs out of the overall majority of n00bs Colorful language intended to mock and belittle an argument doesnt make yours fact. Bottom line is that there are more noobs who know counters than active noobs who do not know counters. Your "small faction" assertion seems made up.

Try again.

you are afraid might gain some sort of edge because of MBS. another baseless assertion intended to attack the opposition.

And you guys said I liked ad hominem

OK then. Sounds to me you are just afraid you are on the brink of being that n00b yourself. Are there not any other qualities in SC that you possess that would push you above said n00b? The only thing that makes it so you beat them is because you can select 10 buildings and hit z faster and more often? No one is arguing against the other qualities. We arent saying "remove strategy and make it a click-counter"

We're talking about NOT removing an element of the game. Preserving the original aspects rather than "removing" skill or other aspects. Grow the fuck up, Grog.


Oh, and I don't think I've ever heard such a narrow definition of a n00b. So? Now you have. What's your point? Your ignorance doesnt make our argument wrong.Congrats, ya learn something new everyday. I always thought a n00b/newb/noob/nub/whatever was someone who just sucked at the game.

So knowing a few counters makes you not-suck? I thought being unable to control your factories and units made you suck at the game. My mistake.

I'm done with this for now. This "debate" is a joke.

[GroG]

Colorful language intended to mock and belittle an argument doesnt make yours fact. Bottom line is that there are more noobs who know counters than active noobs who do not know counters. Your "small faction" assertion seems made up.

Try again.
Please explain to me what's going on, because you guys were the ones who created the different groups of n00bs, not me. A faction would be another word for a group, which you are stating there are different groups of n00bs. The fact that there is different groups of n00bs, is your assertion. So if it needs to be tried again, it sounds like you need to go back to the drawing board.

If that made any sense whatsoever. Stop confusing the hell out of me.

you are afraid might gain some sort of edge because of MBS.

another baseless assertion intended to attack the opposition.

And you guys said I liked ad hominem
Reasons why this statement is true:


PaiN agreed with the statement, and I'm assuming he considers himself a mediocre player.
You made this statement:

There are plenty of noobs who know counters but lack the skill to implement them.

MBS makes up for that lack of skill, allowing them to keep up with mediocre players, who often are charictarized by better macro than a noob, but still not as much micro as pros.
In that conversation, you are basically saying the only difference between a mediocre player and a n00b is the ability to macro decently, which you seem to think MBS will "automate". So then, you don't want MBS because in your eyes it would make n00bs the same level as yourself (which btw, I don't think is true, but that's how you are coming off). Where is the baseless assertion? Seems like I just put 2 and 2 together.

We're talking about NOT removing an element of the game. Preserving the original aspects rather than "removing" skill or other aspects. Grow the fuck up, Grog.
Actually, this is where I think you are wrong. I'm not talking about removing any element of the game, you are. You see, with MBS, you still would have the capability to individually select each building and macro the same way as the original SC. But, you could also select multiple buildings. Anyways, what you are missing is that I'm trying to tell you including MBS in the game won't actually reduce any amount of skill required to play the game. But, you continue to miss my points on why. Which is perfectly fine, we don't have to agree. But the whole point of the message board is to discuss why or why not to do this. Running around telling people they need to "grow up", or that they are being "ad hominem", or that they are simply over their head doesn't allow that to happen - you are just shutting people down without a fair chance and that's really not cool at all.

So? Now you have. What's your point? Your ignorance doesnt make our argument wrong.Congrats, ya learn something new everyday.
..and again with the rudeness. Wheee.


So knowing a few counters makes you not-suck? I thought being unable to control your factories and units made you suck at the game. My mistake.
I'm done with this for now. This "debate" is a joke.
Alright, see you around. Might want to learn how to control your temper a bit in the future, it really is coming off to me that you hate me for some reason, instead of trying to prove your arguments you just name call or belittle me telling me to grow up. Prove your opinion with examples man. I seriously have no problem debating this, I mean this is purely opinion. But you come in here and get angry just because someone doesn't agree with you? You can do better than that.

[Protogod]

See, again you havent actually proven anything. It's just "you're mean -> wrong"

Srsly, a joke.

[RavenCrusade]

And you guys said I liked ad hominem
No one is arguing against the other qualities. We arent saying "remove strategy and make it a click-counter"
...

I was the guys, and I have not yet seen any evidence that my claim was false. You may as well have said "Well, RC said I liked ad hominem, but blue is a colour."

I agree this debate is a joke, because it's not a debate, it's simply a public denial. People can come in at anytime and spout nonsense, and their nonsense is used against actually valid points.

[PaiN]

Hmm...Ok

@ GroG: First off we agree we made factions, but what upset us was that you seemed to believe that the noob that just plain suck were the majority and the ones we talked about were a minority, hence proto talking about 'your little group'.

And yes, I think if you were to talk to Lammas and Ahzz, what are they going to say? Macro, Macro, Macro. Dont beleive me? Visit the replay thingy. So yhea, micro is much easier to learn than macro so most 'n00bs' fail in the macro category. If macroing because much easier they will be able to acomplish more.

You also said that you werent reducing an element but we were and then failed to point out that element.

And yes. I bet you, If we are both average players, and i can select buildings and hit z more often than you i will win. FYI, with MBS almost no one at our level would select each individual building. Thats like playing SC now without hotkeys. Sure, you can do it but why would you want to? And eys it is going to reduce macro and make it easier. Whether or not you consider macro a 'skill' (which i most certainly do its probably one of the biggest things in SC) than thats up to you but i think everyone will agree it is very important.

And both of you are really bitching at each other and its getting annoying. Just try and stick to the facts ^.^

@RavenCrusade: This is surely a debate, proMBS or not. Whether it seems that personal feelings get in the way i dont think anyone is just throwing out nonsense.

[RavenCrusade]

@PaiN: I wasn't referring to you, Protogod or T-Dawg. I was referring to what you and Proto refer to as imbeciles-that-don't-read-the-topic-before-posting.

Also; I wish we could somehow have an emotionless debate, though that would probably lose the whole point behind a debate, but oh well.

[Ktan]

"Over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal
The joy of repetition really is in you"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHB9F8tvGVM


That's what I feel like reading this 'debate'.

I don't think either side is saying anything new now