Implications of MBS

[AJ]

I know you all love to debate this to death.

I would like to propose that those in favor and those considering MBS a detriment to the game both choose their best representative and perhaps work together to draft an editorial for both viewpoints.

These would then both be put on SC.org for more SC fans to read and see both points of view. I would very much like to be able to do this, so please if you have an interest in either view, please step forward and work towards this goal - i think it would be a great asset to our site, and a great chance to showcase your various views.

All credit would go to the original authors, of course. =]

[Ktan]

If I might add, perhaps if each poster can write each arguement more as an essay than the typical 'quote quip quip' style that often dogs forums. The slanging matches and inefficiency and inelegance of such posts often leads to a rather contrived and circular argument.

Therefore, as such, I'd recommend that if you use quotes or counter anyone's arguments, I'd avoid doing so unless they are someone in a very public domain, such as a Pro player or one of the Devs.

Of course, I don't plan to enforce this as a rule, but it would make the posts much more cohesive and easy to comprehend to outsiders if you detached yourself from proving the other debaters wrong and instead focussed on the strengths of your own argument. Not every point can be denied so, as such, focus on your strengths.

By all means though, use counter-arguments and such. However, if someone makes a good point, perhaps amend your own post, instead of posting in the thread to counter their argument. Ultimately, it should be the case where you don't have to read other poster's contributions, because your goal is to write a single and cohesive argument, not chip away at another. Just my view on this.

[Amake]

Can I represent the side of "players with physiological disabilities"? It's a minority, but you wouldn't want to be discriminating against minorities now would you? :)

Of course we're totally in favor of everything that makes interfacing with the game easier; we don't offer a unique standpoint, but maybe a unique viewpoint.

[Protogod]

I'd like to nominate myself and/or Ahzz to write the editorial against MBS.

Any naysayers?

[anderoo]

A joint effort between Protothegod and tehAhzzinator would be good.

[TychusFindlay]

I might write my own essay sometime but for now I just want to post some points that I think are relevant. But, first, I would like to state my "StarCraft credentials", since a few people have tried to cut down some people's opinion based on their "credentials" as a StarCraft player and what games they like.. So, here it is...

I started playing StarCraft when I was 9 years old. I am 18 now, will be 19 in August. My brother was a huge WarCraft and Diablo fan, so we bought StarCraft one day and we brought it home. He taught me how to play so I began completeing the campaign. I played the campaign for a few weeks to a month or two, read the manual, etc. I loved the story and was totally captured by it. I first got on battle.net when I got the internet, and I was still 9 years old. Everyone who played with my brother and knew my age from him telling them was impressed by how much I could play for my age. I had a decent record with about 25%-33% wins when I first started. But, once I got better, around age 10-11, I could keep 50/50 pretty consistently. I've been playing melee since then pretty much daily during the times I'm in a StarCraft "mood", and during the times I took breaks from it, I never stopped playing StarCraft for more than a few weeks and never stoppped playing melee for more than a few months.

Okay, now. Here's my points...

1. I think that, judging from the videos, Q&A, screenshots, etc, that Blizzard is trying their best to add as many different micro tactics as possible. Many units have been changed or removed based mostly on how many new ways to micro it introduces. The collosus was changed because it's initial way of attacking didn't provide "any new" strategy (I forgot the word Karune used.), and the Carrier/Tempest was changed to provide more strategy instead of just pressing the 'A' button and clicking on a part of the map. So, I think that at Blizzard they are trying to make StarCraft II as much micro-oriented decisions as possible. Now, I know they could try to get rid of all automatic features and try to make it as much StarCraft like as possible, but that would cause problems, in my opinion. The way I see it, they could either decrease the micro and increase the macro (More like what StarCraft was, and what the naysayers of MBS seem to want.), or decrease the macro and increase the micro (The direction that StarCraft II seems to be heading at the moment). I vote the latter. Micro was, to me, what I loved about StarCraft and what separates it from other RTSs. I know that some people think the automatic features would make it more like other RTSs, but I disagree.

2. I don't think that the automatic features would make n00bs become like the average player/professional gamer that much easier. Through out all my thousands and thousands of games, I've never felt that macro was the main focus of StarCraft and what made me win or lose. Sure, you have more units than in other RTS and you have to control a lot of them and build your base, but good micro was what, I think, seperated a n00b from an average player (Of course, I'm talking about professional maps and Blizzard maps, not money maps). I usually spent my time trying to micro my units when attacking. Yes, I always came back to my base to do the usual base maintenance, but micro was the focus for me and, I feel that's what made me win or lose in StarCraft, not my macro.

These are a few key points that I feel keep getting bashed by the more arrogant members of the forum. I know there's more that I have forgotten since reading the other topics a few minutes ago, but instead of waiting for them to come back to me, I'm just going to post this and edit in my other points later..

So a short summary for the above points is...

If Blizzard introduces as many new micro tactics as I think they will, then they will need to offset that with slightly less macro. And what I mean by less macro is they need to spend less time clicking on unit groups and buildings, and more time microing their units when attacking. I think that just pressing 'A' and watching the battle would will be more effective in StarCraft than StarCraft II (I'm not saying either will be a good idea in either games.) Plus, I feel that micro is what seperates the average gamer from the professional gamers and that is only increasing in StarCraft II. So, I think the gap between n00bs and average and professional will be the same if not bigger because of the extra micro.

[Ktan]

I'd like to nominate myself and/or Ahzz to write the editorial against MBS.

Any naysayers?

I'd assume that the idea was that everyone who wants to writes one.

[T-Dawg]

The point, as AJ and I were discussing last night, was that both sides have a representative write an article to create a "point-counter-point" or "opposing views" sort of article for starcraft.org so that we can bring the debate to a much wider audience and educate the population at large.

Everyone is obviously free to write one, but the idea was to create two ultimate arguments encasing, as masterfully as possible, all the ideas of each side.

[Ktan]

Sorry, my bad, I fail at reading comprehension.

[SilverCrusader]

I've already compared this to running.

All right, so MBS is like a standard track. Ya know, the ones they use in high school track meets. And No MBS is like a cross country course, with hills and trees and mud and grass that has various turns.
We all know that on a track, a runner's times will be much faster, they have the advantage of flat terrain, superb traction with no resistance (like long grass), and no sharp turns. So you might get a personal record, or run very well.
However, on that good ol' woods course out back the runner's times will be much slower due to up hills and down hills, sharp turns, changes in terrain, and variations of traction.
The track course is faster, but that muddy hilly course is 100x more fun than that track could ever be.
I rest my case.

[lammas]

[quote=lammas;594185]This MBS makes me feel happy because Iam not going to play sc2. There was addon program for bw that did that too, it was better known as macro hack.

If ahzz doesnt want to write I can too.

[Protogod]

These are a few key points that I feel keep getting bashed by the more arrogant members of the forum.

I'm just gonna throw it out there that with your 1 post, you may not be the best judge of who is and who is not arrogant here. Moreover, I'd like to point out that points are not bashed because we are arrogant, but because they are easily bashable.

[SilverCrusader]

Anyone that has at least the slightest skill in playing StarCraft will not support MBS.
Anyone that absolutely sucks at it and is a total noob will.

I feel that's what made me win or lose in StarCraft, not my macro.
You sir, are sadly mistaken. I use lammas as an example.
No matter how well you can micro, it won't make a bit of difference if all your opponent has to do is mass a quadrillion units while your too busy microing.
Yes, while your dicking around killing off SCVs and other units with mutas your opponent charged in your main with 50 M&M crushing your base into oblivion.
Yeah... damn, if only I could of microed those mutas better eh?

[AJ]

Guess what - this thread isn't about your personal views.

This is about you guys finding people with similar opinions and finding the best way to express your views in words so that we can share that with other SC players on the large audience that sc.org has.

I want to create two small groups of people who can collaborate and generate a written response to their feelings towards MBS. We've already had more than enough strong attacks at both sides, by both sides, let's try and do our best to present our thoughts and opinions and then share that with an even larger audience.

[T-Dawg]

Anyone that has at least the slightest skill in playing StarCraft will not support MBS.
Anyone that absolutely sucks at it and is a total noob will.



ugg -- i hate to rehash things already said, but the PROS ie SAVIOUR have stood in support of MBS.

[anderoo]

Anyone that has at least the slightest skill in playing StarCraft will not support MBS.
Anyone that absolutely sucks at it and is a total noob will.


It's not a question of skill level, it's a preference.

Anyway, I vote for Proto/Ahzz/Lammas (whoever is willing) to do the essay against MBS, so why don't the people supporting MBS nominate their representative?

[SilverCrusader]

I vote Proto/Ahzz/Lammas as well.

[Anoiktos]

If by 'Multi Building Selection', I would be happy to contribute to the 'pro' side of the argument.

I believe the 'Nominating' idea is kind of silly, because if you have a limited number of people contributing to each side, you'll get that same limited number of ideas. The more the merrier, sort of thing. That said, it makes more sense to limit the number of people *writing* each - because differing writing styles can really make it more difficult to get to the point - but this might be better served by creating one thread for 'for', and one thread for 'against', in which proponents and opponents can share their ideas without the more standard 'let's have massive quotefests' arguments between the two sides that have taken place.

Edit: Wrong names on the quotes! Bad Ano! I can has Libel suit NAO! Thanks to Anderoo for keeping me on-topic: This is not a forge, and so I should not be grinding axes in it.

[anderoo]

Your second quote was not protogod, it was silver.

The reason for the nominating system is because in the last thread "Starcraft II Criticism" everyone was throwing their input out there and nothing really got solved.

MBS is multiple building selection, not multiple unit selection, I think that's being increased slightly for SCII anyway.

Not that it's my business but complaining about the "quotefests" and then quote, quip, quipping right after is somewhat hypocritical.

[Anoiktos]

Thank you for pointing out the quote names, I misattributed them when typing them in. Fixed now with edit.

As for Hypocrisy, you make an excellent point. I thought I was trying to resolve something having to do with the topic of the thread, but upon reflection I was just going off on an irrelevant tangent. Thanks for pointing that out.

[PaiN]

I thought that anyone that wanted to could right down their point of veiw as long as it was articulate.

But if anyone i think Ahzz or Lammas simply because they have the most skill here :smirk:

Sure, you have more units than in other RTS and you have to control a lot of them and build your base, but good micro was what, I think, seperated a n00b from an average player (Of course, I'm talking about professional maps and Blizzard maps, not money maps). I usually spent my time trying to micro my units when attacking. Yes, I always came back to my base to do the usual base maintenance, but micro was the focus for me and, I feel that's what made me win or lose in StarCraft, not my macro.

And I had to get this out there simply because it was bugging me. I have always found that when a player decides to actually start playing comptetively, like iCCup or online to win a record, not just own some comps with freinds, micro is never a problem. Sit down and play like 3 hours of micro tourny and you learn like 80%+ of all the micro you need to learn. Macro, on the other hand, takes a LONG time to get good at and almost impossible to master. Also, i love micro, but im pretty sure macro > micro =[

[Protogod]

ugg -- i hate to rehash things already said, but the PROS ie SAVIOUR have stood in support of MBS.
Not to nit pick your uber argument, but "PROS" would be plural, while "Savior" would be singular. This is understandable as "A PRO" would lend far less weight to your argument, despite its greater accuracy.

I believe the 'Nominating' idea is kind of silly, because if you have a limited number of people contributing to each side, you'll get that same limited number of ideas.
The idea is that people nominate others who share their own beliefs, and are more articulate than themselves. It saves time, and just ends up a lot neater. We're big boys, I think a republican system can work one little time here.

The reason for the nominating system is because in the last thread "Starcraft II Criticism" everyone was throwing their input out there and nothing really got solved. right. People come in late, re hash stupid bullshit, stop paying attention, and misunderstand what is being discussed. People are stupid.

MBS is multiple building selection, not multiple unit selection, I think that's being increased slightly for SCII anyway.

ATM unit selection is still unlimited. Blizzard will need to work on this later, after other things have nbeen balanced.
I thought that anyone that wanted to could right down their point of veiw as long as it was articulate.


Most people here arent as articulate as we'd like, and mroe importantly, having a hodgepodge of random people's opinions makes an editorial less cohesive, and therefor harder to read/less convincing.

[T-Dawg]

Thanks Proto for nitpicking, see, as when I say PROS I mean PROS. Unless you think Dustin Broder would just casually lie to me. Thanks though.

I say Savior -- because I know FOR SURE he stood in support of it, as Broder specifically mentioned him. Kthx.

[Protogod]

Unless you think Dustin Broder would just casually lie to me.

Not that I'm calling Browder a liar, but I do not trust developers. Theres always a ton of misinformation and hype considered before anything they say. It's a performance, which I do not usually appreciate.

I'd take their implications with a grain of salt.

[T-Dawg]

You are, indeed, correct Proto. It would be grossly wrong of me to say that all Pros support MBS, and you are right, it is very misleading especially using Savior because he is pretty hyped right now.

So, while I stand by what I have heard, I agree that my previous statement shouldn't hold as much weight as I originally intended, because it is possible Broder was hyping its support.

[Protogod]

In that case, this is something we can agree on.

[AJ]

ok so. start another thread to discuss MBS again if you wish - stop derailing my thread that has an actual purpose that I want to get started already.

[Protogod]

ok so. start another thread to discuss MBS again if you wish - stop derailing my thread that has an actual purpose that I want to get started already.

Just waiting on the pro-mbs side to nominate someone.

[TychusFindlay]

The replies here make it incredibly hard not to reply.. But for the sake of the topic creator, I will not post my views. But, I will say this.. I'm not a newb at all, I was raised on StarCraft even from the beginning with a personal trainer I guess you could say (My brother.). But, what I mean is once you get to a certain plateau with your macro skills (After playing for a few years and you learn the ins and outs of base development.) what seperates the average gamer from the professionals is macro... Ohhhh, how I won't to say more, but I won't..

Protogod you ARE arrogant.. Face it. Many people on this board have already called you out on that

[anderoo]

Protogod you ARE arrogant.. Face it. Many people on this board have already called you out on that

He knows.

Now just nominate your person to write the pro-MBS essay already. . .

[RavenCrusade]

(Sorry AJ, but you're calling us out on it and not them)

None of you have nominated your one person to write the essay either, so stop breaking the rules of this thread by replying to this and be patient.

[ChimTheGrim21]

You are, indeed, correct Proto. It would be grossly wrong of me to say that all Pros support MBS, and you are right, it is very misleading especially using Savior because he is pretty hyped right now.

So, while I stand by what I have heard, I agree that my previous statement shouldn't hold as much weight as I originally intended, because it is possible Broder was hyping its support.

It's funny, I used to hate on browder too. But if you guys are going to start hatin' on him just because he supports MBS, I think I'm just going to sit back and let Blizzard do their job--they haven't failed me in the past.

[Ktan]

(Sorry AJ, but you're calling us out on it and not them)

None of you have nominated your one person to write the essay either, so stop breaking the rules of this thread by replying to this and be patient.

Thank you. Someone else who thinks AJ should be listened to, it seems.

[AJ]

I'm ok with you guys selecting one to a couple people to work on either argument.
I think it'd be best if one person wrote each for the sake of clarity and ease in the writing - though i do think it'd be best for you to help assist in the writing of it with that person - at least the sharing of ideas..

but yes. i'd like to see something actually come out of this maybe?

[GroG]

I wouldn't mind writing for the pro-MBS side, but unless we get someone on our "team" who is ranked A or B on ICCUP it won't matter, they will just fall back on Ahzz or Lammas being ranked on ladder on ICCUP - and they will say their skill > ours (which is based on SC1). I was barely ranked on East solo ladder on WC3:TFT (I was ranked 800 something) - which would be my strength to contribute, but I don't know anyone high level ranked on ladder for ICCUP in support of MBS, not because there isn't any, but because I just don't know people.

AJ, I think for this to be successful you need to determine the audience and the writers, are you meaning for this to be geared towards the average gamer? Or geared towards pros (or highly competitive amateur play, such as soloing on ICCUP). If geared towards highly competitive players, then you need to recruit someone who is high ranked on ICCUP to do the pro-side of the editorial, or else the author won't be credible.

If this is for casual gamers, I wouldn't mind Tychus or Anoiktos writing this for our "side", both of their posts seem to coincide with most of mine, although if we discussed it I could probably point out some additional information to them to think about. Otherwise, like I said at the beginning, I could write as well. I think if this was the case, you'd probably want Protogod to write for the "anti-MBS" side, since he'd be more credible in that area (Ahzz and Lammas would have too much ICCUP experience to be considered casual gamer).

[Protogod]

Protogod you ARE arrogant.. Face it. Many people on this board have already called you out on that
Cool, now make yourself useful and write an editorial or stop spamming this thread.

You act as though you are this lone crusader calling me out for some corrupt injustice I am doing you all. I assure you that you are mistaken.


None of you have nominated your one person to write the essay either, so stop breaking the rules of this thread by replying to this and be patient.
Nice attempt to gain credibility by saying I broke the rules. The sad irony is that you havent done any better, and that I have already been nominated, as has Ahzz. Stop breaking rules and nominate someone. My side is finished with that.

Try harder, guys.
It's funny, I used to hate on browder too. But if you guys are going to start hatin' on him just because he supports MBS, I think I'm just going to sit back and let Blizzard do their job--they haven't failed me in the past.
Although I do have a sincere distrust of Browder, the comment in question was aimed more broadly at all game developers. The profession, really, is rather geared towards misinformation (in public, at least). I've been trying to accept Browder despite the level of disagreement.

[AJ]

You're all so funny.

Proto/RC/Tychus/PaiN/TDawg.. stop.
I love your debate though it tends to stoop beneath your understandings and appreciations for the game more often than not, but I honestly am trying to produce something here.. and your squabbling does no one any good.

Grog: Valid points, though I believe that between yourself and Anoiktos and Tychus and some of the others I've seen mentioning their opinions in line with the pro-side, you could present a logical, lucid argument for MBS' benefits.

Proto: As you and the others have so frequently pointed out, it's swell that you've all "nominated" you three to write something. Since your so keen on that honor, do something with it - and write, perhaps.

[Protogod]

Proto: As you and the others have so frequently pointed out, it's swell that you've all "nominated" you three to write something. Since your so keen on that honor, do something with it - and write, perhaps.

I'm actually in the process of writing. I listed out all my quotes and am separating the individual points out for reiteration in an editorial.

[TychusFindlay]

I nominate GroG.

AJ: What do you mean our debates "stoop beneath our understandings and appreciations"

[anderoo]

@Proto: How do you want to gather everyone's ideas, PM, what's up in the other thread, IRC meetup, or just go with what you know?

[PaiN]

Agreed. Im not writing this Essay but I would definetly like to have proto add some of my points of veiw.

[TychusFindlay]

If GroG is interested, and he does, in fact, accept my nomination and become chosen, then I wouldn't mind throwing some of my opinion to him so he can work with them. Has the Pro-MBS side been chosen?

[ChimTheGrim21]

I 2nd the nomination of Grog, I'll help him with some ideas if he needs it. I'm ranked 900 something in WC3 solo ladder. I have also played SC since 1998.

[Protogod]

@Proto: How do you want to gather everyone's ideas, PM, what's up in the other thread, IRC meetup, or just go with what you know?
I'll be using the thread as a guideline. Anyone with suggestions should feel free to PM me their ideas for consideration.

[GroG]

Aww man, does this mean I have to do work now? Bleh. When is this due, anyways? You "pro-siders" want to PM me some ideas of yours to articulate? Or maybe just post them, not like it's secret.

[PaiN]

I think it would be easier, at least for my side i figure proto will write everything he remembers and once we see it we can tell him things to add. =/

[anderoo]

I think it would be easier, at least for my side i figure proto will write everything he remembers and once we see it we can tell him things to add. =/

Pretty much, it's not like any of us have doubts about Proto's ability to get his point across. And I'm sure he'll try to include everything from the past thread, where a lot of different things got contributed.

[GroG]

Here's my article. Feel free to proofread/edit/suggest things. Thanks.

-----

The Fight for Multiple Building Selection
By: Tom (GroG@USEast), casual gamer
04/19/08

As Blizzard developers release information about StarCraft 2, both casual and competitive gamers alike argue about which features should be included and which could be a detriment to the game. In this article, I will present to you my arguments on why multiple building selection should be including in the game. I will first talk briefly about the functionality itself, then about the change in the “metagame” of StarCraft 2 from StarCraft and how it effects MBS, and finally about the core competency of the StarCraft franchise.

MBS? Is that a disease?

MBS stands for multiple building selection. In StarCraft, players were only allowed to select 1 building at once, and up to 12 units at a time. Players could also create control groups using these selections using the 1 through 0 and the control keys. From a macro standpoint, this meant you generally limited your hotkeying of buildings, which forced players to build all your buildings together so when you double-tapped that hotkey you could quickly select each building individually and hit the hot-key for the unit you wanted to produce. You can also use the function keys to location areas of the map.

Just from this information alone, we can see a few key points to remember about single building selection. First, this type of selection made it much more important to group production buildings all together – the loss of your “main” is that much more important to production. Also, setting rally points is a pain in the butt – you have to select each building individually and set your rally point. Most games have many times where map control changes, so players change their rally points frequently to reinforce pushes, they lose control of the center and can no longer rally there, or for whatever reason choose to change the rally. Finally, we can also see that this requires players to completely leave the battlefield to order the training of new troops.

“So, let’s get rid of this system and do multiple building selection!” may be what you are thinking. Well, a lot of people feel that to just introduce multiple building selection would radically reduce the “skill” required to play StarCraft 2. But, is that really the case? I personally think not. Let’s explore some changes from StarCraft to StarCraft 2.

Evolving into StarCraft 2

Looking over the history of StarCraft, we can clearly see how the game evolved competitively. Starting with micro intensive Protoss reaver drops dominating the first year, 1st~Tsunami style Zerg with little macro later on, to Grrr… and Boxer combining micro and macro, which lead into Nada and his many Terran siege tanks and perfect macro. Nowadays, macro is the name of the game. Maps are designed with macro in mind. So the question is: with the game being so macro oriented late in its life, would MBS be a detriment?

I argue that this is not the case. I think the reason why macro is so important and such a huge factor in “skill” is because of how archaic and old the system is. The game was meant for us to control the units in battle and to defeat the opponent using tactics and strategy. MBS will not remove the element of creating units, it would only streamline it and make it more management. You would no longer have to completely leave the battlefield to make more siege tanks and M/M/F. You would no longer have to spend 15 seconds to re-rally your gateways when your Terran opponent takes control of the center of the map by pushing.

Does this mean that pressing 4, 4, z, click, z, click, d, click, t, click, etc is gone? I argue not completely. It will just be replaced with different ways of grouping your buildings and pressing the hotkey (and potentially an interface for tabbing through buildings and pressing a hotkey in the sub-menu). You will be able to do this making sure all your units don’t die on the battlefield, unlike StarCraft where we left the battlefield screen completely to macro. Will the game tell you when to build a gateway? No. Do you still need to realize when you are queuing too many units and need to build additional gateways? Yes. Do you still need to build more supply structures? Yes. Do you still need to remember to pump units? Yes. Do you still need to understand what units to produce in which situations? Yes. I’d like to point out that most people’s macro stinks because they forget to macro during battles, not that it takes them 2 years to create units. So, even with MBS, people will still micro during large battles and forget to create units.

Another huge factor from StarCraft to StarCraft 2 is mobility not only mid-game, but early game and mass mobility late game. Terrans have reapers who can jetpack early game and ghosts dropping drop pods later. Protoss have Stalkers that can blink and harass, as well as Phase Prism triple functionality as transports, mobile pylons, and quick reinforcement using a warp gate. Zerg not only have the standard harass in the form of Mutalisk, but a still in works mobile defense set up as well as the Nydus worm for mass transportation. Just with this information alone, we can see how quickly the importance will be not only to be “everywhere at once” unit wise, but it seems this game is really pushing for decentralized production.

Core Competency of the StarCraft Franchise

Many people I have talked to seem to think StarCraft 2 needs to keep to its roots of StarCraft. In fact, I have seen discussions talking about how new units may ruin the game, new mechanics ruin game play, and now even members on the development team don’t know what a good game is.

The fact of the matter is, if we just upgraded the graphics and kept the same game, most of us wouldn’t buy the damn game. Why play the same game twice? Sure, new people would buy the game and play, but we all know the die-hard StarCraft fanatics are going to bitch about what is missing from the first game, no matter what. I may be wrong, but I think we all want a new experience in the same universe, the StarCraft universe. It seems that the developers are trying to stay true to that idea, and even asking for input from the gamers this time. How awesome is that?

I think this game engine is going to produce a competitive, new, and engaging game. Will all the Koreans instantly jump on board? I’m not sure. I think when something is so intertwined with culture like StarCraft and Korea, it will be hard to introduce a new game to replace it. But I think there is a good chance this will succeed and be as competitive, if not more competitive than the original. Only time will tell.

The developers wouldn’t just create a feature that removed the competition from the game. They know there is a hardcore following of players that play competitively on ladders. That much is clear. They know what they are doing, and they have play testers rigorously testing the product and ensuring the replay value. We need to trust them in this matter. If something as small as MBS ruins the game in your opinion, you might want to consider yourself in the group of StarCraft fanatics I described above. I’m not saying that’s bad, but I don’t think any new RTS mechanics are going to make you happy, and new mechanics are inevitable or else it’s just the old product with a new face.

[Amake]

A spot of proofreading:
MBS will not remove the element of creating units, it would only streamline it and make it more management.
I'm guessing you mean manageable.

Generally I like it. No mention of how this interface feature takes the game a little closer to being about strategy rather than the ability to click precisely with the mouse a thousand times per minute, but maybe that's not important to anyone except me. ^_^

[TychusFindlay]

My hats off to you GroG. Very well thought out ... I'll read more in-dephth into it again later, when I have more time. But here is something I noticed right off the bat ...

Including in first paragraph should be included.
-----
EDIT
-----
I just replayed a few minutes of WarCraft II. Here's a few things that I noticed that were missing in WarCraft but was added in StarCraft ....

1. No building que.
2. No rally points.
3. Extremely limited unit selection, even in the Battle.net Edition which improved on this greatly.
4. HORRIBLE pathfinding. You literally need to guide the units
5. For anything other than move or attack (If all units in a selection CAN attack) you have to select each unit individually

These three basic things carry over into MUCH, MUCH MORE .. I'll write more on this later because at moment I am both tired from work and excited to replay WarCraft II.

What I'm trying to say is that a lot was changed in StarCraft. What if they had left it at WarCraft and didn't bring any of the other UI features. I think that anti-MBS have no argument until they can play the game. StarCraft introduced a lot of micro, but at the same time decreased the macro. That's what I've been trying to say .. They can do that too with StarCraft 2. They can introduce much more micro, but they need to offset that with less macro.

[Protogod]

StarCraft II and Multiple Building Selection: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
A Critical Essay By: E.S. "Protogod," Senior Content Editor of Starcraft.org

Starcraft, and it's expansion pack, Brood War, are timeless staples in the Real Time Strategy genre. I'm most certain of this much. The problem associated with epic games, especially older games, is deciding the difference between "Revamping" the game for its sequel and "Recreating" a game for its sequel.

Thus is the dilemma with Starcraft II, most specifically, with a gameplay dynamic known as Multiple Building Selection, or M.B.S. for short. In short, MBS is just what its name describes it as; it is the ability to select more than one building at a time, giving the player the capacity to macro from a currently unregulated number of factories simultaneously. When faced with this issue, many are quick to say things such as "This gets rid of needless clicking. Now it's more about strategy!", or as Blizzard has been sensing (as explained by Dustin Browder) "All the new games have it. It's a necessity for modern games." In reality, these assertions are quite possibly baseless, and there is raging debate as to whether or not MBS is good or bad.

The first and most glaring fault in logic lies in Blizzard's original reasoning, the fact that all new RTS games feature MBS. This thought is, in fact, nothing but a simply Bandwagon logical fallacy. The fact that something is included often, or done often, by no means makes it a necessity. Moreover, to conclude that it should be included based on the fact that others do it is illogical, as it wholly circumvents the potential benefits of MBS, and makes it near impossible to argue against such flawed logic. More importantly, though, is the immensely misleading argument that MBS will get rid of "mindless clicking."

Although the argument sounds attractive, making those who tout it feel superior, having seen through the "bullshit apm," this argument is most certainly a "Wolf in sheep's clothing" situation if I've ever seen one, for although the argument itself appears sound, the assumptions that it is based upon are shaky at best, and at worst, total frauds. The first faulty cornerstone is the belief that macroing is useless clicking. In this way, Starcraft is analogous to Football (or for foreigners, Rugby.) Strategy is always important, and vital to victory. In both games there are game plans and certian situations that one should react to and plan for. And yet both games do still rely on brute force. Pure unconcentrated strength and drive and skill of the players is part of what makes these games great. That skill will never replace strategy, nor should the strategy replace skill, lest Football become Chess.

By no means is chess a problemed game, but it is a wholly different game, appealing to totally different people with totally different styles. As such, to say that Starcraft was problemed as a "macro game" is to ignore that which made each of us love it in the first place. Starcraft was a game of intricacies, with an incredible balance between macro, micro, and strategy. And yes, the defining factor in a poor player vs average player 1v1 is the level of macro, however, by the same token, the difference between the average player and the good players is the micro, and the difference between a good player and a great player could be anything, especially the ability to shape and utilize new strategies or micro techniques. This made the game fun for everyone. This was the heart and soul of Starcraft.

I'm sure at this point there is someone out there gawking at the supposed "factoid" that I hate everything new and want SCII to be SC with new graphics. Again, it's a total fraud, aimed at destroying the credibility of people with legitimate concerns. The problem is not that MBS is new. The concept is almost as old as Starcraft, and I'm sure most RTS fans have already played a game or two with MBS. Sure it's a new thing that can go into a RTS, but why should it? It isn't as though all new things are bad, but to change a balance that was considered "the heart and soul" of Starcraft seems a tad drastic, don't you think? Yes we do want new things, but if you want to play a game that is completely different, why wouldn't you pick up a different franchise? The idea behind a franchise is that you are able to take what worked about the original and expand upon it. A series of games isn't supposed to become unrecognizable from it's original. There are things about new RTS games like C&C that are fun in their own right, sure, but to take dynamics that you liked in C&C and simply change the graphics to be Starcraft units, isn't playing Starcraft II, it's playing C&C still.

While reviewing through the last MBS debate I took part in, I found a quote that I totally agreed with. "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." (Anderoo). I think this is something that many people have lost perspective of. What exactly are we hoping to gain by utilizing MBS? Flashiness? A sense of "new-ness"? If we are going to change the game this drastically, I would expect a more fleshed out answer. If the aim of Starcraft II is to make the game feel more fast paced, wouldn't we want to add more multitasking? If the aim of the game is to turn it into a strategy-oriented game, why not automate even more to eliminate the difference in players multitasking skills? It seems to me as though we are adding MBS and explaining it away later, rather than explaining why we need it and then adding it. It's easy to play a game with a new face. It's hard to play one with a new soul.
------------------------------------------------------

To anyone wondering why I didn't add more quotes or maintain focus on more of the stuff argued about in the last debate thread, it's because most of that was just confusion about noob vs pro and noob this and noob that. I am of the opinion that keeping a more mature, less elitist argument would help maintain eloquence and lend some more credibility to the piece. I'm still open to some suggestions and I'd love to get some feedback.

[Ahzz]

MBS - From challenging to easy and slow?

Every starcraft player with a little bit of experience is quite aware that it takes a great amount of skill to actually manage all your buildings at every single expansion, such as building constant workers for every expansion while constantly keeping flawless unit pump from every unit production building. Now, take that away for starcraft 2. Let's think a bit what it's going to be like. press ONE hotkey, for example, 0. This will select every hatchery, command center or nexus, whatever the amount, to one single group. now, press whatever hotkey you need to produce workers. There, its done. with automine, thats all you need. What took great skill and multitasking before doesn't even require a glance and can be done below a second. This alone, of course, doesn't make the game easy. There are several things that need to be taken to account. One thing is, that it's a ten year difference, it's basically a must to have MBS, smartcast and so on because every single new RTS out there has it. To not add could affect the sales, and that is one thing that nobody wants to happen.

Constant probes is far from the sole reason why it should NOT be there. Think about it a bit. Let's say you have 15 gateways. It takes great deal of multitasking and speed to manage all of them, and micro the same time too. Instead, you can once again, press one or two hotkeys if you wish, and a hotkey and BAM! It's building from every single building, without a glance. So far everyone I know who have defended this idea basically hide behind "but you will want to build 5 different units so that wont work...". Nope, not quite. Seeing what it was like on warcraft 3, and why not starcraft 2 as well since it's a newer game, the buildings will have SMART BUILD as well. And thats when things get real sick. To play at a very high level, say, even A-/A+ on iccup (starcraft), you only need to make constant unit pump with a slight variety. It's far more simple than people really think. What you do in, say, PvZ late game is basically high templars till you have no more gas left and then build zealots with the rest, perhaps build dragoons or dark templars once a while, but that can be done in one go. Every single time you build units you do not have to neatly divide every single from each gateway as if arranging some flower vase. Nope, if you can just keep constant unit pump and build different units once a while, you will be quite fine even at a very high level. And I should know, since I play at quite a high level (I don't want to brag but I guess I should mention this?).

Now, to return what I talked before, smart build. If you don't already know what I'm talking about, let me clarify things a bit. Smart build will build the specific units from whatever unit production buildings till you have no more resources or supply for it. Let's use an example for this one. First I build high templars till I have no more money from "H". Then I just press "Z" and I will have the rest of the buildings produce zealots, without any pressure or trouble, without stacking the training. Any average player can do this.

We also shouldn't forget that for example Tasteless, after he was interviewed in the Blizzcon said that the game lost a lot of its fun since you no longer had to manage your bases, it was quite sufficient to just press a few hotkeys and just stare blankly at your army. We don't want that. What especially made starcraft fun was how challenging it was and how HARD it was to do every single thing, manage all that stuff. The game is becoming more like warcraft 3 especially on the lower levels where you can just add your rally points to a high-hp unit like ultralisk or twilight archon which btw, happens with ONE click since you can select billion buildings and keep pressing just a few hotkeys and your macro will be excellent, if not close to perfect and your army will keep growing by itself, without trouble.

I'm not saying that MBS itself will ruin the game. I'm quite aware that its been 10 years and RTS have evolved to a more simple manner and it will be considered 'old' by all those 12 year olds who get dissapointed if all this was taken out etc.
What I'm saying is, that you cannot simply add everything in the game. Add smartcast, add MBS, add unlimited groups, add smarter AI, add automine, add this and add that and the game won't be fun anymore. It will be WAY too easy to 'perfect and way too easy to learn things which took years of diligent practise on starcraft.

Naturally MBS itself could be fine, but in that case you need to add certain limitations, such as you need to select every building in the group individually to actually build units from every single on them and so on.

Or take some other features which make the game easier.
If you wish for the game to live years after years, you MUST make it impossible to perfect and hard to master. Just like starcraft.

To close this up, naturally I don't know what you guys(blizzard) have in mind concerning the game becoming easier. We've all heard how you're thinking of ways so that the game will continue to live on and be hard on professional level and so on. I haven't played the game, I don't know what you guys have in mind, and thus this feedback lost a bit, and just a bit of its 'efficiency'.
However, what I do know is, that so far every single good player who really can play starcraft at a higher level have said that game is boring and not half as fun as the original, and that really does count. At least of those who have actually given feedback to the public

----------------------------------------------------------------

Meh, not too well laid out, sort of sloppy, but I guess this sort of sums up my ideas of MBS.

I also didnt make any document out of this. so no attachments 4 u