MBS Discussion

[SilverCrusader]

All right guys, rip each other apart. I expect IR quality stuff though. Not some, "ZOMG YOU GUYZ R NUBZ!"

If your going to make a claim, then back it up with a legit resource. Don't be like, "BOXER CALLED ME ON THE PHONE YOEZ AND TOLD ME I AM TEH 1337"

I know we've been trying to get at each others throats to do in the other thread. But the other thread is for a intellectual tea and crumpet debate between the two representatives.

Now we can have our FFA here :) (AJ told us to make a thread if we really wanted to discuss it).

[neobowman]

In my opinion, MBS is an unneed addition to SC2. I do not support it as I find that it will make macro much too easy to make it an important factor in regular games.
In SC games these days, it's hard to macro excellently do to the many steps needed to do this and the time involved to click every single barracks. This effectively forces the need to balance macro and micro. Sure I suck and would do better with MBS but what's the point. I need to improve to have fun. SC is basically for fun in amatuer levels. Simply making 10 marines with 2 clicks isn't my kind of fun.

[ForTheSwarm]

Maybe they should make only some units able to be MBS'd, like turrets. Then it would be easier to make them attack the carriers instead of the interceptors. >.>

[Ahzz]

IMO there should be MBS and all, but there should also be the option to be without it

[Ktan]

Do you mean like an option, as in 'MBS games' or 'Non-MBS' (like in DoW, you can toggle between standard, quick-start, etc.) or simply making it a personal choice? With regards to the latter, that's simply a case of self discipline, but I'm assuming you meant the former?

[PaiN]

I think anyone that were to play without MBS would be ad a large disadvantage. I think it would be used as fun with friends mayeb but not in any comptetive play. As in toggling it on and off everyone would be sync with their opponent

[ChimTheGrim21]

I definitely think offering it in the options menu would be cool. So if you wanted to play a friend 1v1 in a custom melee game without MBS (classic style), then you could.

[neobowman]

I've heard an idea from someone where u don't use MBS for tournaments and such but only for games that are for fun. (u could do either one in regular games)

[GroG]

I'd personally be OK with it being where you could select all the buildings at once, but you had an "active building" in the submenu (ie: one is highlighted). Then you could press the hotkey to build a unit there. Then you could press a key, such as tab, to cycle through the buildings and create units. That way, if you had 7 gateways on group 1, you could go 1, z, tab, z, tab, d, tab, t, etc. So each tab press would make the next building "active". WC3 does this, but it does it for building types not for individual buildings.

But I also have no problem with total MBS where you can just press z and create zealots on all gateways, but it's just my opinion. Just trying to find some middle ground.

[PaiN]

I agree with GroG. Figuring that MBS is going to be in SC2 somehow, being able to select all gates and set all rallies for example could make sense but you had to cycle through for the actuall unit. I also thing that when miners are rallied to minerals they do not mine, and that idle miners dont auto mine.

[Ahzz]

yes exactly what I could be satisfied with it. It would be totally OK as long as you'd have to CYCLE through each building to build a unit. With mass build and smart build like I mentioned in my post over at mbs debate thread (w/e) it'd be just idiotic and no skill game.
but thats fine since there is hardly any benefit in it.

[Borgorb]

the main point here is you CAN do it
no one is forcing you to do it
if u dont like it dont ruin it for the rest of us
besides there are no major bonuses about mbs until u have maybe 6 or more barracks, factories, etc in scattered locations and then i could giv you a slight advantage

[PaiN]

Err, no simply not using it is just retarded. MBS-users will always be at an advantge over people that do not use MBS

[Protogod]

the main point here is you CAN do it
no one is forcing you to do it
if u dont like it dont ruin it for the rest of us
besides there are no major bonuses about mbs until u have maybe 6 or more barracks, factories, etc in scattered locations and then i could giv you a slight advantage

Worst point ever.

"not using it" isnt an option. Try again.

That's just putting yourself at a disadvantage by letting them use it while you dont.

Why dont YOU stop ruinging it for US by forcing us to use it?

[Anoiktos]

I think that MBS should be included because it facilitates macro.

The easier macro is, the more people will find strategic ways in which to gain an advantage. Instead of individually selecting five buildings and telling each and every one of them to build a given set of units, you select all five buildings and tell them all to build the given set of units. Great, fine. You're still losing against the person who chose to carefully balance his army against yours. You're still losing against the person who scouted better. You're still losing against the person who carefully timed his buildings' unit creation so that each of them reach the right place at the right time instead of massing uselessly somewhere random.

If you're against MBS, why do you tolerate such things as building rally points? they make macro easier, yet somehow they're seen as useful enough that they're in every RTS post-starcraft. Why do you tolerate queued unit creation? That makes macro easier, yet for some reason I don't hear people wanting to go back to the days of warcraft 1's unit selection schemes.

As the technology advances, as the capability of a game to automate mundane tasks advances, two things happen: One, the game becomes easier to play. Two, advanced players gain advantages by abusing the failings of that same automation. Units in Warcraft 3 have auto-attack AI, yet if you micro a hero to cancel his attack animation, you can end up attacking *and* moving faster. Good players in starcraft can micro units to perform at many times their conventional worth. Even in WOW, people figured out that you can start casting before your cast bar ends, taking advantage of the lag inherent to the server and casting faster than they would otherwise.

That said, I absolutely do not want 'auto-cast' AOEs (psi storm, maelstrom, stasis field, recall), or any kind of major ability. Those should be relegated to strategic use, or be almost useless when autocast (like an autocast mindcontrol: yay, the AI mindcontrolled a zergling, who cares). Things like the sorceress's slow or medic's heal, though (single-target, relatively minor abilities) *should* be autocast. If you have to ask why, you never played Warcraft 1 as a human. (oh gods, not the damn clerics again)

One thing I *do* want to see: Supreme Commander's 'ferry' command. Fantastic both because it made getting units where you wanted them easier, and created a 'supply line' effect, where a smart opponent could go and disrupt your reinforcements with a well-timed AA strike.

[Ahzz]

Why do you tolerate queued unit creation? That makes macro easier
at higher level, not really, but until you have spent thousands of games on starcraft the game will be hopeless for you without queue and thus it is added with a good reason. Good players do not queue units.


The easier macro is, the more people will find strategic ways in which to gain an advantage. Instead of individually selecting five buildings and telling each and every one of them to build a given set of units, you select all five buildings and tell them all to build the given set of units. Great, fine. You're still losing against the person who chose to carefully balance his army against yours. You're still losing against the person who scouted better. You're still losing against the person who carefully timed his buildings' unit creation so that each of them reach the right place at the right time instead of massing uselessly somewhere random.
you know what made starcraft so great, and how it's still alive and kicking, and why the best players are truly the best?
Because they could combine all of this almost flawlessly, they didn't need extra 'tools' that help them do it, they were able to almost flawlessly build and do what they needed AND have a great strategic thinking all this while. In my opinion true strategy is if you can use it with extreme speed and make correct decisions with almost no time to make those decisions.

Why don't we just create a game where you need to do nothing except stare at the screen and make a few strategic decisions in the game. funnnnnn.....

yet somehow they're seen as useful enough that they're in every RTS post-starcraft.
No post-starcraft RTS worked the same way as starcraft. They were totally different.
In warcraft 3 the main point was never unit production, macro, or anything like that. It was only micro. Near to no strategy required, only one clump moving around. Even doing sneaky strategies like attacking when they leave is almost useless with all sorts of town portals and so on.
I find it funny how some warcraft 3 players brag how much more micro warcraft 3 needs compared to other games and how its totally more than in starcraft. Where one battle takes 5 minutes in warcraft 3, where no unit dies quickly, where the armies can often be counted with your toes and fingers, one battle takes 5 seconds in starcraft and the units die faster than in almost any other game unless you control them well and how you need to control about five times the army far more carefully than in warcraft 3. Micro is billion times easier in warcraft 3 than starcraft. Though this will only show at higher skill levels. Just try making a warcraft 3 player micro in starcraft, then starcraft player micro in wc3. you will see the difference

Heh, why not make micro automatic too? After all, it will give more time to strategic thinking!

Command&conquer macro cannot even be compared. The only useful MBS in it would be with cannons, and defence turrets etc, which I'm completely fine with. They don't take skill away, and careful control with them is so rarely needed that only thing it would make different is that you need to be a tiny bit faster in 1/10 games maybe.


As the technology advances, as the capability of a game to automate mundane tasks advances, two things happen: One, the game becomes easier to play. Two, advanced players gain advantages by abusing the failings of that same automation. Units in Warcraft 3 have auto-attack AI, yet if you micro a hero to cancel his attack animation, you can end up attacking *and* moving faster. Good players in starcraft can micro units to perform at many times their conventional worth.
um, automatic attack is in starcraft too, and really, its part of any RTS (even the shitty new ones) that you have to control your army otherwise besides just 'all of you attack this location, I'll go take a beer'.


Meh, don't take me wrong, I'm not hating you or anything, and I'm glad that you bring up new points, I'm just sharing my view ;)

[GroG]

No post-starcraft RTS worked the same way as starcraft. They were totally different.
In warcraft 3 the main point was never unit production, macro, or anything like that. It was only micro. Near to no strategy required, only one clump moving around. Even doing sneaky strategies like attacking when they leave is almost useless with all sorts of town portals and so on.
I find it funny how some warcraft 3 players brag how much more micro warcraft 3 needs compared to other games and how its totally more than in starcraft. Where one battle takes 5 minutes in warcraft 3, where no unit dies quickly, where the armies can often be counted with your toes and fingers, one battle takes 5 seconds in starcraft and the units die faster than in almost any other game unless you control them well and how you need to control about five times the army far more carefully than in warcraft 3. Micro is billion times easier in warcraft 3 than starcraft. Though this will only show at higher skill levels. Just try making a warcraft 3 player micro in starcraft, then starcraft player micro in wc3. you will see the difference

Ahzz, I highly recommend you actually go play some ladder in WC3 before you make these statements.

My counterpoints:
1) You only get 1 townportal, unless you buy more which cost 350 more gold (which is a large amount).
2) There's tons of strategy, and yes you can attack their base when they leave since if you wait a good amount of time they begin creeping, and then you can go kill peons/burrows/shop. Or you can creepjack them, which is huge if done well.
3) Tons of units die quickly in WC3, especially ghouls, gargs, casters, dryads, dotts, archers.. yeah.
4) IMO, micro is easier in SC since you barely have time due to macroing, and most micro is done using control groups as opposed to individual units such as heroes, manual cast spells, items, etc.
5) I see lots of players traverse the two games and have no problems microing and I see no difference.

[SilverCrusader]

4) IMO, micro is easier in SC since you barely have time due to macroing, and most micro is done using control groups as opposed to individual units such as heroes, manual cast spells, items, etc.
If you barely had time to micro wouldn't that make it harder? Because you have to be flawless while doing other things?

[GroG]

The actual process of microing is easier (sieging tanks = easier than cycloning w/ dotts), using the old macro system of completely leaving the scene of battle to select each building individually and create a unit is "harder" I suppose, which in turn makes the micro "harder". Or I guess the better word is "more frustrating". Why should I have to completely leave battle to make units? That's ridiculous. Generals don't leave the battlefield to call for backups.

I think it's funny how you have to be "flawless" to be a good SC player. First, I see plenty of people lose units and have imperfect macro and be good SC players. Second, I see the same in WC3 - plus there's more timing and scouting required due to creeping. So no, I guess it's not a requirement of SC to be "flawless".

[anderoo]

I think people need to stop comparing Starcraft to Warcraft III, every time it comes up it always causes more grief then it's worth. They're very different games.

[Ahzz]

The actual process of microing is easier (sieging tanks = easier than cycloning w/ dotts), using the old macro system of completely leaving the scene of battle to select each building individually and create a unit is "harder" I suppose, which in turn makes the micro "harder". Or I guess the better word is "more frustrating". Why should I have to completely leave battle to make units? That's ridiculous. Generals don't leave the battlefield to call for backups.
funnily enough I haven't had that problem for a while, not as a big problem I mean. It's all part of improving and being capable of balancing when/how you macro and when you micro.

[Anoiktos]

Ahzz, each of the counterpoints you made can be equally applied:

- Queues: 'until you have spent thousands of games on starcraft the game will be hopeless for you without queue' - the same thing can be said of MBS. Until you've played thousands of games of starcraft, you cannot hope to compare to a pro's ability to micromanage buildings without MBS.

Now, this isn't the same as 'the game will be hopeless for you', but I believe you are wrong on that point; Warcraft 1 was not considered a hopeless game, despite its lack of queues. People still played it and excelled in it.

you know what made starcraft so great, and how it's still alive and kicking, and why the best players are truly the best?
Because they could combine all of this almost flawlessly, they didn't need extra 'tools' that help them do it, they were able to almost flawlessly build and do what they needed AND have a great strategic thinking all this while. In my opinion true strategy is if you can use it with extreme speed and make correct decisions with almost no time to make those decisions.

Right, so you're saying that because the game doesn't have extra tools, pros are more pro. This same argument can be used to advocate the removal of unit autoattack, queuing, a windows interface vs. a command line interface, non-binary programming languages, etc. It is invalidated by the same points. The same argument can be made against the use of anything but sharp sticks to hurt your opponent, and flint and tinder to make fire. It's a luddite view.

The difference between things like MBS and 'auto-microing' is elementary: MBS does not cede command of your units to the computer, it facilitates commanding ones' own units. When the computer makes the decision for you, that's bad, but when the interface is designed to minimize the effort needed for a player to detail commands to his units, that's called good interface design.

If I were using some other program - say, microsoft word - and microsoft said one day "Hey, guys, we have this great plan to make Word's interface more efficient by reducing the number of keystrokes necessary to do a given operation", and someone said "God, that's stupid, that makes it too easy to write, true Word pros are just really good at clicking all the keystrokes in succession", I'd call them crazy. If, on the other hand, they were complaining about Microsoft's new idea to have word write large pieces of your essays for you, I'd agree with them.

[Ahzz]

If I were using some other program - say, microsoft word - and microsoft said one day "Hey, guys, we have this great plan to make Word's interface more efficient by reducing the number of keystrokes necessary to do a given operation", and someone said "God, that's stupid, that makes it too easy to write, true Word pros are just really good at clicking all the keystrokes in succession", I'd call them crazy. If, on the other hand, they were complaining about Microsoft's new idea to have word write large pieces of your essays for you, I'd agree with them.
Comparing microsoft word and starcraft is like, totally different. There is no competition on how fast you can write a specific word(s). In starcraft there is. Thus making things easier for people in a program like this is completely logical and wise.

Right, so you're saying that because the game doesn't have extra tools, pros are more pro. This same argument can be used to advocate the removal of unit autoattack, queuing, a windows interface vs. a command line interface, non-binary programming languages, etc. It is invalidated by the same points. The same argument can be made against the use of anything but sharp sticks to hurt your opponent, and flint and tinder to make fire. It's a luddite view.
My point wasn't that each and every game have to be made as hard as possible so that it will be almost impossible to play for newbies. What I've been trying to say is that we have to draw a line. I explained why starcraft has stayed popular even after a decade, and one reason is that it's so challenging and almost impossible to perfect. Yet, with all the things it 'lacks' it was never hard for newbies (except maybe now since most of the public games have rather high skill level) and it was never impossible to manage. Going back to Dune 2 where you could only select 1 unit at a time and no attack move command is ridiculous. Even for pros controlling the units well would have been impossible. Warcraft 1 was another example of a game that was too hard to manage. Sure, people can become good at it and manage things rather well, but its just not practical.

And those two games do not follow the guideline that blizzard keeps, "Easy to learn, hard to master". See? Starcraft has everything you need that makes the game easy to learn, rather easy to control, and nothing impossible. And really, I do not mind if blizzard adds certain new things that 'might' make the game a tiny bit easier. I'm saying that we HAVE TO draw a line. Sure, fine, add MBS if you really feel like it, but we cannot add every possible feature.

Let's see:

-automine
-MBS
-smart cast
-unlimited group size
-attack formations
-Units will move/act smarter
-queue up buildings
-smart build
-some things I forgot?

Starcraft doesn't have any of these.
Now, add all these to the game. Without a doubt the game becomes far easier, even newbies will have far easier time managing EVERYTHING, you no longer need even 50% of the speed you needed before to play well. The only BENEFIT that you gained from adding all these is that 12 year olds will be happy and you have 'more time for strategic thinking'. As I said, what truly made the best best was that they could have this strategic thinking and everything else all the same time. I wonder what will make the best best this time? I'd guess that at prolevel it will be only about luck since any pro can beat another pro and whoever gets the 'rock' against 'scissorcs' will win.
Maybe slightly exaggerated, but yeah.


- Queues: 'until you have spent thousands of games on starcraft the game will be hopeless for you without queue' - the same thing can be said of MBS. Until you've played thousands of games of starcraft, you cannot hope to compare to a pro's ability to micromanage buildings without MBS.
If you saw the other MBS thread, I explained quite well why MBS will make a huge difference even at pro level. It's all about smart build, which they will add without a doubt as it was in warcarft 3.

Now, this isn't the same as 'the game will be hopeless for you', but I believe you are wrong on that point; Warcraft 1 was not considered a hopeless game, despite its lack of queues. People still played it and excelled in it.
warcraft 1's popularity cannot even be compared to starcrafts popularity. One reason is that it was just stupid to manage. There's a line between ridiculously retardedly hard and hard to do well at pro level.
Yes, after hundreds of games people might have been good at the game but the point was never to make ridiculously hard game that you will gain no satisfaction of until you're pro.

Starcraft was easy to learn, and it had everything you needed so that the game was not frustrating (it certainly was on, say, dune 2).


Meh, bear with my confusing posts.

[SilverCrusader]

Actually the queue is less efficient to use, so it might add to the game in a sense "you have more time to stratergize." It makes it easy for noobs to do, but tough for pros to master.

[GroG]

funnily enough I haven't had that problem for a while, not as a big problem I mean. It's all part of improving and being capable of balancing when/how you macro and when you micro.
Aren't you easily able to get ranked A on WGTour in like a month or two? I would say you are an exception rather than the norm.

I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've lost the game where I'm doing fine, all is going well, and I leave the battlefield to macro and at that exact time I see a mass of shit on my minimap flanking the hell out of my push. It's extremely annoying and probably the greatest reason why I don't like to play. I think macro in SC requires too much time, and the fact that you have to leave the battlefield completely is the straw the breaks the camel's back. Just my opinion, anyways.

I can understand and appreciate your mindset, and I know neither of us is wrong since it is opinion. What I do have a problem with is you automatically thinking WC3 requires no skill and all this stuff, and on top of that you've never even played ladder on it. To me, your opinion isn't justified until you at least give the game a go and ladder. If you still think it's trash, fine. But I think if you did try it, you'd at least see the points I made earlier about the strategy in creeping and how wrong you are about the game itself and it's supposed "simplicity".

[Anoiktos]

I wonder what will make the best best this time?
The same thing that makes the best tacticians, the best real-world strategists: the ability to concentrate on both a single situation and the big picture simultaneously, and come up with new ways to address problems. Just because a newbie suddenly doesn't have to micromanage his buildings doesn't mean he'll suddenly have a deep enough understanding of the game or a good enough situational awareness to counter a difficult attack. Especially with the newer speed of StarCraft 2 (all the fast-moving units and abilities), I'm thinking that this is the direction Blizzard is heading for at the pro level.

Sure, a newbie can execute a pro's build order. That same newbie might not be able to intelligently scout, harass, expand, and defend against another opponent at the same time.

[Protogod]

I'm just ognna ignore anoiktos's post above me, since I really don't feel it's even worth answering. I'm sure Ahzz or Pain can do a well enough job on something like that, no offense. It's just really assumptuous to say that noobies are noobs because they dont know what scouting is. If you would care to RESEARCH the argument, you'd know our definition of newbie invalidates your post. Again, not worth my time re-explaining the whole spiel, but thats the idea.

I will say that the whole "WCIII's features > SC's features because it is new" argument is total bullshit. I bought and played WCIII right when it came out. I was excited about it. And then greatly disappointed - to the point where i dont have it anymore. I gave it away.

Now tell me again that the whole "WCIII is easy/trashy/stupid" assertion isn't true.

[GroG]

My assumption is that you played and didn't like RoC. RoC sucked. TFT did as much if not more for WC3 than BW did for SC - it made most if not all the units viable whereas in RoC only like 2 units were viable for each race, it introduced a smaller set of ladder maps better suited for 1v1, etc..

Now tell me again that the whole "WCIII is easy/trashy/stupid" assertion isn't true.WC3 isn't easy, trash, or stupid. I've laddered on it, and it is quite difficult. There's this whole concept of creeping/creepjacking that BW doesn't have that adds strategic depth to the game. I do agree that it's not perfect, I don't like the lower population cap, the upkeep system, or random drops, but I do honestly think it brought things to the table SC didn't have.

All I can say is that you honestly gave it a shot and you didn't like it. That's fine. But it's funny how it's a "newb game".

I have an example. I played and bought DoW when it came out. You can't select individual units - you control squads. The controls are extremely different in that game. You also don't constantly produce peons in that game, you capture points in the map and build buildings that gather resources for you. You also can build units in your squad with a button on that squad, and you can also add new attacks such as a flamethrower in this same way. Does this make DoW newbish since it's so different? In my opinion, no. It just plays drastically different and the strategy it brings to the table is more of positioning than of expansions.

[Protogod]

For the record I'm not calling WCIII newbish for being different, I'm calling it newbish for being a stupid, slow paced, unfulfilling game.

[Anoiktos]

It's just really assumptuous to say that noobies are noobs because they dont know what scouting is.
It's also really presumptuous to misquote me.
That same newbie might not be able to intelligently scout, harass, expand, and defend against another opponent at the same time.
Nothing in there about not knowing what scouting is.

[PaiN]

The same thing that makes the best tacticians, the best real-world strategists: the ability to concentrate on both a single situation and the big picture simultaneously, and come up with new ways to address problems. Just because a newbie suddenly doesn't have to micromanage his buildings doesn't mean he'll suddenly have a deep enough understanding of the game or a good enough situational awareness to counter a difficult attack. Especially with the newer speed of StarCraft 2 (all the fast-moving units and abilities), I'm thinking that this is the direction Blizzard is heading for at the pro level.

Sure, a newbie can execute a pro's build order. That same newbie might not be able to intelligently scout, harass, expand, and defend against another opponent at the same time.

Actually, I will appose that whole entire thread. I am almost positive a 10,11,12,13 year old kid who sits down and plays for even under a month can do that almost up to par with most people on battle.net

Simply enough, play fastest/zc maps. I think these are going to be the most comparison we can have to MBS. There is virtually no macro compared to a regular SC game. you press F2, click t click g down a row of factories and it takes all of 2 seconds, and then your back to battle for another 2-3 minutes. And it is very very easy. When i first started to play SC:BW i was playing money maps. I was like 10 or 11 and i was easily winning 50% of the games. So from what i've seen from these money maps younger players and "noobs" will be able to do much better if the macro game is significantly reduced :concern:

[Protogod]

It's also really presumptuous to misquote me.

Nothing in there about not knowing what scouting is.

Oh my mistake. In that case you're not worth my time because its assumptuous of you to assume noobies are incapable strategically.

Somehow that just dragged it out unnecessarily, but w/e, your call.

[Anoiktos]

Oh my mistake. In that case you're not worth my time because its assumptuous of you to assume noobies are incapable strategically.
Then I would counter that it is equally presumptuous (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumptuous) of you to assume new players are less capable in terms of macro or micro. Furthermore, I did not state that new players are incapable strategically - merely that they are less capable. I make this assumption based upon the fact that a new player is not, by definition, as familiar with game mechanics, and as such less capable of executing whatever strategies these mechanics make possible.

Simply enough, play fastest/zc maps. I think these are going to be the most comparison we can have to MBS. There is virtually no macro compared to a regular SC game. you press F2, click t click g down a row of factories and it takes all of 2 seconds, and then your back to battle for another 2-3 minutes. And it is very very easy. When i first started to play SC:BW i was playing money maps. I was like 10 or 11 and i was easily winning 50% of the games. So from what i've seen from these money maps younger players and "noobs" will be able to do much better if the macro game is significantly reduced
fastest/zc maps have little to nothing to do with MBS; they do not simplify the coordination of unit production, they simplify resource collection and map control.

Actually, I will appose that whole entire thread. I am almost positive a 10,11,12,13 year old kid who sits down and plays for even under a month can do that almost up to par with most people on battle.net
Considering the extent to which success in the current iteration of the game is reliant on overcoming UI limitations by brute force methods (i.e. unnecessary micro/macro), this is not a testable hypothesis. This does, however, bring up an interesting point - if your hypothesis is true, you are stating that StarCraft's actual strategical qualities are almost irrelevant compared to the ability to macro/micro at pro levels.

As such, I have no problem with a game whose determining factor is macro/micro over strategy, I'd just suggest that it not be referred to as a real-time strategy game, and rather a real-time clickfest.

[Ahzz]

WC3 isn't easy, trash, or stupid. I've laddered on it, and it is quite difficult. There's this whole concept of creeping/creepjacking that BW doesn't have that adds strategic depth to the game. I do agree that it's not perfect, I don't like the lower population cap, the upkeep system, or random drops, but I do honestly think it brought things to the table SC didn't have.

Sure it isn't easy. It's extremely hard. At least as hard as BW! For example one buddy of mine who's about B- level on iccup went like 30-2 with his first try at it. Believe it or not, your pick. Want to ask again why I and protogod are saying that its noobish? And I can't even recall how many BW players I know who have said that playing the game was ridiculously easy and thus gave it up almost instantly.
However you interpret this is your choice I guess?

And sure, it brought the might creepjacking and creeping that BW did not have, but want to start listing what it LOST compared to BW?

As such, I have no problem with a game whose determining factor is macro/micro over strategy, I'd just suggest that it not be referred to as a real-time strategy game, and rather a real-time clickfest.
Since when has ANY RTS been called that? Starcraft? Never ever I bet.
And fact is, since it's been a decade and all that it's evident that certain features will be added. What SC players are against, however, is adding every single 'nifty feature' such as:
-automine
-MBS
-smart cast
-unlimited group size
-attack formations
-Units will move/act smarter
-queue up buildings
-smart build
-some things I forgot?
just to give 'more time for strategic thinking'
I find it funny how almost every single newbie/wc3/c&c player even begins to talk about 'real time clickfest'. Clearly they do not even know what they're talking about.
I've already said several times what made the best the best, so I'm not bothering with it again. Never was anyone without a good sense of strategy able to beat someone who only played with micro/macro on the higher level, thus talking how people will have more time for strategic thinking is stupid. If you really want strategic thinking with almost no speed, how about chess? That will be an excellent game just for you.
The game, in fact, happens to be REAL-TIME STRATEGY, thus SPEED, multitasking and combining and balancing all that with strategic thinking is what makes the best the best. It was never about 'we want a game that requires lots of clicking', it was of 'we want a game where many essential features were not cut out'.
May I suggest http://www.progressquest.com/ for you guys? What an excellent game! :)

[Anoiktos]

As I've said before, Ahzz, things like progressquest, automated actions/etc I am not a proponent of; automine, autocast (with the exception of things like war3's ice arrows, medic's heal), and autobuild have no place in an RTS, because they take the control of the units away from the player.

A 'real-time' game does not have to be a clickfest, though StarCraft's success in pro tournaments is undoubtedly due to this particular aspect; Warcraft III is an example of how to do this wrong:

I dislike Warcraft III due to the fact that in addition to promoting all kinds of automatic abilities (frost armor, carrion beetles, and raise dead being some of those I feel should not have been automated), it also manages to simultaneously be micro-intensive due to the hero mechanic, slow due to the slow pace, and random due to the random drops.

It's competitive, yes, but it's really not so much an RTS as either a slow, grueling clickfest or a fast, hero vs. hero battle - depending on the gametype - even more so than StarCraft, and, at higher levels, is determined by chance more often than any form of skill.

Now, as StarCraft goes, I would like to see a game in which strategy actually plays enough of a role that it becomes relevant - because you are correct in noting that "Never was anyone without a good sense of strategy able to beat someone who only played with micro/macro on the higher level", but I might add equally that "Never was anyone without a good sense of micro/macro able to beat someone with a good sense of micro/macro, regardless of their strategical capabilities".

With StarCraft 2, the races seem faster, the methods of movement seem more streamlined and deadly, battles seem even less drawn-out, and harassment or placement of units are even more viable strategies. With all this speed, the people who are good at macro and micro from SC2 already have things to do ; why fight their army when you can use a nydus wyrm to shunt a group of banelings into the enemy base? This sort of thing, I should think, increases the amount of awareness and speed necessary to play the game at higher level, so MBS becomes more useful because the attention needed in SC to properly maintain ones' buildings is needed elsewhere.

Where one would have enough time to react to a quick marine drop in SC1, a reaper assault is much more deadly (due to their bombs), and less counterable by missile turrets or static defenses. Static defenses themselves seem weakened for at least the protoss and zerg, by the removal of shields from depowered buildings and the introduction of the queen instead of colonies.

A lack of MBS is perhaps more necessary for the current iteration of StarCraft, both because people are used to it and because the potential for devastating surprise attacks is much less than it appears to be heading in SC2.

The game, in fact, happens to be REAL-TIME STRATEGY, thus SPEED, multitasking and combining and balancing all that with strategic thinking is what makes the best the best.
Speed, yes - but speed can be (and, I think, has been) made an issue in other ways than artificially cockblocking a feature that both increases convenience and does not take unit control away from the player.

In short, your point is interesting, and probably accurate for the current iteration of StarCraft; I believe, however, that the artificially-induced elements of both speed and multitasking granted StarCraft by the lack of MBS are already being dealt with in StarCraft II. Furthermore, I hold that a non-limitation-based method of adding speed to a game is superior to a limitation-based one by default, both because it creates cool mechanics and doesn't limit players.

[Ahzz]

because you are correct in noting that "Never was anyone without a good sense of strategy able to beat someone who only played with micro/macro on the higher level", but I might add equally that "Never was anyone without a good sense of micro/macro able to beat someone with a good sense of micro/macro, regardless of their strategical capabilities".
yup, that was what I was saying, they all go hand in hand.
They're all a relevant part of real time strategy. if you do not wish that, go and play chess or something

With StarCraft 2, the races seem faster, the methods of movement seem more streamlined and deadly, battles seem even less drawn-out, and harassment or placement of units are even more viable strategies. With all this speed, the people who are good at macro and micro from SC2 already have things to do ; why fight their army when you can use a nydus wyrm to shunt a group of banelings into the enemy base? This sort of thing, I should think, increases the amount of awareness and speed necessary to play the game at higher level, so MBS becomes more useful because the attention needed in SC to properly maintain ones' buildings is needed elsewhere.

Where one would have enough time to react to a quick marine drop in SC1, a reaper assault is much more deadly (due to their bombs), and less counterable by missile turrets or static defenses. Static defenses themselves seem weakened for at least the protoss and zerg, by the removal of shields from depowered buildings and the introduction of the queen instead of colonies.

A lack of MBS is perhaps more necessary for the current iteration of StarCraft, both because people are used to it and because the potential for devastating surprise attacks is much less than it appears to be heading in SC2.
wow, nice thinking, like really. You actually changed my mind on this case completely.
Though the games are similar by a huge lot otherwise, as far as what we have seen there will be harassing going on 24/7 requiring huge multitasking capabilities of both players all the time.
Okay, maybe MBS could be added.
And really, I never was totally against MBS. I was merely trying to bring up good discussion.
My main complaint ever was, that we need to draw a line. We cannot possibly add every single nifty feature out there. Fine, add MBS, but we cannot add everything. Some stuff of what the 'cool new RTS's' happen to have cannot be added

[Anoiktos]

I certainly agree. Dawn of War, for instance, has automatic squad reinforcement and upgrades. This has no place in SC2. Kohan 2 has entirely automated squads. Warcraft III has autocast summons. These things don't fit the playstyle of an E-sport with Starcraft II's resource mechanics (DOW's reinforcements work because it's not a game where expansions are an issue and battles for each individual point are constant and heated, and because it makes killing an entire squad more valuable than just hurting a bunch of separate squads; Kohan's auto-squads work because it's a huge army-on-army battle, Warcraft III's autocast works because the debuff spells are spammable, something that shouldn't have happened in any case in my opinion.)

Even Supreme Commander, which I love, and is pretty close in many ways to StarCraft's playstyle (surprisingly many ways) puts too much emphasis on base construction, defense, and superweapons for a game like SC2; Force fields and truly devastating nukes are all well and fine with specific counters, but these counters don't work in a game with three truly *separate* races - perhaps the greatest strength of Starcraft that few other games have been able to replicate. (DOW actually has some very good differences between races, but that's about it.)

[SilverCrusader]

I'm against all of it except in a few cases (like medic's heal). Or at least there should be options to turn them off. I'm all in for lets take StarCraft to the next level. If they are to supercede the previous game they have to step up their game. I'm seeing way too much WarCraft in StarCraft II as well. What ever happened to StarCraft's development team?

Apparantly if those features in modern RTS's are so good than why do I buy them, play them for a week, than set them on the shelf because of boredom? StarCraft is the only game to keep me captivated because of the speed and level of play.

[Anoiktos]

Apparantly if those features in modern RTS's are so good than why do I buy them, play them for a week, than set them on the shelf because of boredom?
Heh. While I'll agree that few other RTS's interest me as much as SC, I think this has more to do with Blizzard's attention to detail and ability to make games accessible and fairly balanced than anything else.

TBH, I feel both Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation are better games than SC currently is (despite my one beef: relatively cosmetic differences between races) - but their multiplayer support is pathetic, and e-leagues practically nonexistent due to lack of support. SupCom's graphical requirements are also through the roof to the point where there are many fewer players playing it.

What Blizzard has done so well with StarCraft (and the reason that Warcraft III, despite its negative qualities and tendency to get down to chance at pro levels, is still moderately successful as an e-sport, AND the reason that Diablo II is still so popular) is create Battle.Net: a free, convenient, and reliable (and yeah, you can tell me stories about battle.net sucking, but I've never seen *any* parallel system be as reliable) way to play with other people.

I'm just hoping SC2 lets me host like SC did, and not require port modification the way WCIII does. I'm hoping SC2 is a game that catches my eye more than SupCom did - and so far, I haven't been disappointed.

[SilverCrusader]

I played both supreme commander, total annihilation, and C&C3. All of which went on the shelf after around one week.
No game is superior to SC when it comes to RTS. It has a strong online play, greater fan base, high replay value (map editor), and near perfect balance. That last one is important. No other game comes close to the balance that SC has between races.

[Anoiktos]

No other game comes close to the balance that SC has between races.
I'd say Relic's done an amazing job with DOW's balance, considering the huge number of races, but no, the game itself is less balanced as a whole. TA was balanced based mainly on having enough different units that there was something capable of taking out something else at any point, which worked very well...

But I'll put it this way: StarCraft wasn't always as balanced as it is now. It's been over ten years. Give any game a wide playerbase and ten years of development and you'll get something pretty balanced. The problem is getting that playerbase, which, as I said, goes back to having a service as successful as battle.net's. Both Arena.net and Flagship studios recognize this, and have made equivalent systems for their games. Gas Powered Games has been trying (with moderate success) to do much the same, but the separation of the service from the game itself really hurts it.

As for the map editor, I have to agree - except that WCIII's is superior in power (and, frankly, ease of use). The same tricks don't work in both editors, locations are used in different ways, and JASS is both an amazing burden and an incredible resource, so I'll have people trying to crucify me for saying this, but I've managed things with the War3 editor I could never have done with the StarCraft one. (and more easily than doing the equivalent with SC's would have been.)

I'm hoping SC2's editor is the best of both worlds, with elements of SC's editor's trigger and location use, and War3's power.

I'm kind of saddened by the lack of imaginative use of triggers in War3, though; there were a ton of RPGs in SC which used really interesting methods to emulate levels and abilities, and in War3 people just take the easy way out. A mix is my best of both worlds.

And yes, you're right that no other company has come close to as good a map editor; Relic's are ridiculously bad, Morrowind's is impenetrable, Freespace 2's is equally obscure, etc, etc.

[SilverCrusader]

Thats true it really wasn't this balanced, several patches have fixed balance issues. But the last five years has mostly been fixing of "glitches." Basically it just ruined some fun games, like hydra stack D.

The reason SC mappers do such creative things is because we have to. The editor is limited so that we have to think creatively. But WC3 mappers have not pushed their editor to the extent we have with SC's simply because they don't have to, their editor is powerful enough to allow them to do most things.
I'm looking forward to the new editor. It is supposed to be more powerful than WC3's as well. I want to try and break it so badly...

[Anoiktos]

The reason SC mappers do such creative things is because we have to. The editor is limited so that we have to think creatively. But WC3 mappers have not pushed their editor to the extent we have with SC's simply because they don't have to, their editor is powerful enough to allow them to do most things.
Exactly. Precisely. 100% agree. I always wondered, when I ended up screwing with making really outlandish hero abilities, why I didn't see more nukes with particle and vector-controlled lightning effects; the game gives you radians to work with, so it's not even as though it's difficult to implement; I just never see anything that kind of flashy built into a map other than in doodads.

I'll have to go screw around with my old AoS map to see if I can bring it up to demo quality; not the best gameplay, but it shows off some of the stuff the War3 editor is capable of that people just don't bother doing.

...Including one effect which slowed everyone's computers to a crawl and broke the game, but that's a different story. I think it's probably something to do with the number of artificial units put in one place to cast the effect.

I really miss the stuff people did in SC's editor, like the stacking TDs, the RPGs with corner-based spell controls, the MtG maps' global spells...

But, er, we're sort of getting off-topic. Yes, I'll agree that StarCraft's map editor made it great, but I hold that the editor never would have reached the levels of greatness it did, its potential would have been unplumbed, were it not for the unusually large playerbase; that that playerbase would not have been unusually large were it not for battle.net, and that battle.net would not have existed before Diablo (and, of course, that the playerbase of Diablo was subsequently hauled into StarCraft through its ads, helping its popularity)

So in the end, what made StarCraft was less any quality of the game itself (beyond being a good game, with an interesting and dark storyline and a style that contrasted both Diablo and WarCraft with the former's dark and brooding style and the latter's humor, and a fast-paced and approachable multiplayer), but rather its popularity due to battle.net...

...And, following this train of thought, that approachability, the ability for newbies to jump in and feel at home enough at least to begin, was paramount for StarCraft's success.

Of late, however, I've often heard the comment from newbies to starcraft: "I can't find anyone to play with; the people who play melee games are way too good, and the UMS maps are interesting but not what I'm looking for". Now, we could take the elitist argument, and say "Well, that's because you're N00b, suck it up and lose until you start to win or watch replays", but this approach alienates new players, forcing them not to play for some time (or to fail constantly for some time) before getting anywhere.

And perhaps that is it; the curve is too steep; the difference between 'new' (as in, just out of the singleplayer) and 'mediocre' players is too great. With the addition of UMS, new players might not find themselves being owned by someone who's been playing for two weeks, merely killed slowly. They get to feel as though they have a chance, instead of being ambushed out of the blue. When the game was released, this was not the case; everyone was new, and the micro tricks the pros use were not widely publicized (or even existent).

So, perhaps you ask, why should I care what newbies think? Why should we make this game initially easier for newbies? To which I reply:

As I said above, it is the playerbase that makes the game. The more people there are playing, the wider the stretch of available talent there is, the greater the number of skilled players that will eventually reach the top - and equally the greater the number of unskilled players but skilled mappers and avid gamers are willing to stick with the game.

Furthermore, the less people are forced to watch replays to succeed, the more different strategies will evolve, and not just cookie-cutter ones grabbed from better players.

Of course, this argument doesn't really apply very well to StarCraft 2: Blizzard could shit on a brick and sell it for a hundred dollars a pack in a snazzy box, and people would still buy it, and call maggots overpowered. It has an inherited fanbase, courtesy of its predecessor.

Yet, as Blizzard showed with WoW, even games with momentous playerbases, like EQ before its fall and rebirth, can be trumped by the footsteps of titans. I should hope - I can only hope - that StarCraft 2, through its initial accessibility and convenience and fluidity of play granted by some of these UI changes, will attract an even greater playerbase than before.

I also hope that through the changes in speed, unit power, and varied abilities, the game will become all the more competitive at a high level.

[GroG]

Sure it isn't easy. It's extremely hard. At least as hard as BW! For example one buddy of mine who's about B- level on iccup went like 30-2 with his first try at it. Believe it or not, your pick. Want to ask again why I and protogod are saying that its noobish? And I can't even recall how many BW players I know who have said that playing the game was ridiculously easy and thus gave it up almost instantly.
However you interpret this is your choice I guess?

All the people I've known from BF who has played solo ladder in WC3 from SC, including Superkiller (better than me), Capitalist (better than me), and theFazant (#1 Belgian player on PGTour, ranked A at some point), and me, none of them had that good of a rating. In fact, none of them had over 60-70% win I don't think. But I could be wrong.

Just wondering, but what's your friends WC3 account? I have to admit, I'm skeptical at his claim. I haven't heard of many people going more than 10-0 on ladder without losses, since the ladder ELL system will pair you against the highest level ladder players and once you get to 8-0 or so you are playing level 40+ players (high level..), and I doubt he beat those people consistently - at least not when he first started playing. Unless this was when WC3 first came out (and before they developed the ELL system), in which case it doesn't mean anything to me.

[Ahzz]

Just wondering, but what's your friends WC3 account? I have to admit, I'm skeptical at his claim. I haven't heard of many people going more than 10-0 on ladder without losses, since the ladder ELL system will pair you against the highest level ladder players and once you get to 8-0 or so you are playing level 40+ players (high level..), and I doubt he beat those people consistently - at least not when he first started playing. Unless this was when WC3 first came out (and before they developed the ELL system), in which case it doesn't mean anything to me.
I believe he did it 2+ years ago but yeah.

[TychusFindlay]

Ahzz: Near to no strategy required, only one clump moving around (Talking about WarCraft 3)

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D :D:D:D

.. Wrong ... Using strategy by it's true meaning, then WarCraft III requires much more strategy. I didn't like WarCraft III much, though, and .. obviously, think StarCraft is a much better game .. But definately not more "strategic" in the dictionary definition .. What you're talking about is skill.

[SilverCrusader]

.. Wrong ... Using strategy by it's true meaning, then WarCraft III requires much more strategy. I didn't like WarCraft III much, though, and .. obviously, think StarCraft is a much better game .. But definately not more "strategic" in the dictionary definition .. What you're talking about is skill.
You know what game has more strategy than WCIII?
Japanese Go.
If I wanted to play a game that had more strategy I'd be playing Go.

StarCraft on the other hand offers something truly unique. Speed and strategy. And it has the perfect balance of both. It isn't that you have to make the best move. It is that you have to make the best move faster than your opponent.

Thats what this argument is about. Not allowing more strategy. But rather keeping the balance between strategy and speed. Too much strategy is bad. Too much speed is bad. MBS steals from speed and adds to strategy, thus upsetting the balance.
Well I don't know about you, but speedily selecting buildings and building units gives me a much more sense of satisfaction than clicking once.

(Yay for QQQ argument!)

[TychusFindlay]

You know what game has more strategy than WCIII?
Japanese Go.
If I wanted to play a game that had more strategy I'd be playing Go.

StarCraft on the other hand offers something truly unique. Speed and strategy. And it has the perfect balance of both. It isn't that you have to make the best move. It is that you have to make the best move faster than your opponent.

Thats what this argument is about. Not allowing more strategy. But rather keeping the balance between strategy and speed. Too much strategy is bad. Too much speed is bad. MBS steals from speed and adds to strategy, thus upsetting the balance.
Well I don't know about you, but speedily selecting buildings and building units gives me a much more sense of satisfaction than clicking once.

(Yay for QQQ argument!)

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove (If anything) against my post since you're preaching to the choir but you did quote it so that means something...

I said that WarCraft III takes more strategy than StarCraft because someone said that WarCraft III takes no strategy.

Also, auto-mining has more impact than MBS .. I don't know why people get so into this non-issue since MBS doesn't give that big of an advantage..

[Ahzz]

.. Wrong ... Using strategy by it's true meaning, then WarCraft III requires much more strategy. I didn't like WarCraft III much, though, and .. obviously, think StarCraft is a much better game .. But definately not more "strategic" in the dictionary definition .. What you're talking about is skill.
Haha, I guess anyone oblivious of pro scene and someone who never REALLY got good in the game would say that. I have played WC3, I played it a lot, actually, and from what I've seen and heard, wacraft3 doesn't require half the strategy that starcraft does. Okay, sure, I exaggerated a bit when I said its a 'no strategy game', but I meant more like it's no strategy compared to starcraft. That's my view.

I don't know why people get so into this non-issue since MBS doesn't give that big of an advantage..
sure it gives a massive advantage, I could list several but if you read the other MBS thread you will already see my view of it.
And like I said, the main reason I got so into this discussion is that we have to draw a line. If we allow everything to it, then it will be a no skill game like C&C3.

[PaiN]

I guess, in my opinion, the best place to draw the line would be to accept MBS, but not any of the other automations. Along with MBS there should be no smart build. No auto mine, Auto Storm, Auto heal is fine. Miners rallied to mins should not mine. Idle miners should not mine. No 'smart' AI. I guess SC with MBS =/

[TychusFindlay]

I love StarCraft (It's my favorite game of all time.) and think it is the best RTS of all time ... But, still it's not as strategic as many, many of the other RTSs. What you're talking about is skill. Stop getting them confused.

EDIT: Oh, and making units 0.001 faster is a big advantage? I wasn't aware of that.. I guess you're right. By the way, I'm only talking about building selection, nothing else.

[ForTheSwarm]

I bet with MBS, you can make units actually 2-4 times faster (depending on how many buildings you select).

[TychusFindlay]

^ Which took split seconds to do.

[ForTheSwarm]

What took split seconds to do? I'm confused.

[SilverCrusader]

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove (If anything) against my post since you're preaching to the choir but you did quote it so that means something...
I prefer not exactly taking a dissident stance to all opinions. I was just using your quote as a introduction to my rant.

Come to think of it. MBS is fine. I will still select buildings one by one though. That way when I beat someone they can feel even worse. Because they had an advantage and still lost.

[ForTheSwarm]

How will they feel worse if they don't know whether or not you are using MBS?

[SilverCrusader]

How will they feel worse if they don't know whether or not you are using MBS?
Watch the replay and watch as each unit is building at a slightly different time.

[PaiN]

Uhh. Thats a dumb decision. Have fun winning =/

[TychusFindlay]

Watch the replay and watch as each unit is building at a slightly different time.

Do you really think people will do that?

What took split seconds to do? I'm confused.

Making units in StarCraft: Brood War took fractions of a second to do.

I prefer not exactly taking a dissident stance to all opinions. I was just using your quote as a introduction to my rant.

Okay, sorry. My fault.

[SilverCrusader]

Do you really think people will do that?
I could always tell them I didn't use it. If they don't believe me I'll just tell them to watch the replay.

[Protogod]

I can see it now:

"you used the slow build hack!"

Idiots.

[TychusFindlay]

I could always tell them I didn't use it. If they don't believe me I'll just tell them to watch the replay.

I doubt most people would do that.

[SilverCrusader]

I doubt most people would do that.
Then they have no right to speak out against me.

[TychusFindlay]

Then they have no right to speak out against me.

Who said they would? I certainly didn't.

[SilverCrusader]

Oh well, to get back on topic...

I think MBS would a fine implication because I don't have to use it.

But everything else is going too far. I can understand more unit selection, maybe 18 - 24. But unlimited is plain retarded.

[PaiN]

Unlimited is over the top. agreed.

But im still confused on why you would disregard MBS when it is going to be a large advantage when used. Im not for it at all but if its in the game then Ill use it. Its just like in SC we can select 12 units but im gunna only select one because previous games were like that and it will be cooler when I win. I dont get it lol

[SilverCrusader]

Unlimited is over the top. agreed.

But im still confused on why you would disregard MBS when it is going to be a large advantage when used. Im not for it at all but if its in the game then Ill use it. Its just like in SC we can select 12 units but im gunna only select one because previous games were like that and it will be cooler when I win. I dont get it lol

I play StarCraft without sound. I just like challenges like that. It isn't that I'm good at StarCraft or anything. I just like playing with a disadvantage.

[TychusFindlay]

I still don't see how it's such a big advantage. I even tried out the "Unlimited unit selection" and "Unlimited Building Selection" hack for StarCraft: Brood War .. It's really, really, really, really, really not that big of an advantage .. Try it out for yourself

And, if it's not in StarCraft 2, it'll be hacked in .. Might as well base the game around it when it's something simple like this .. I'm not saying that fog of war should be taken away just to cope with Map hacks or anything ... I think you get my point

[Ktan]

Unlimited selection isn't really pertinent to MBS. If you want to discuss Unlimited selection, feel free to make a new thread.

[TychusFindlay]

I WAS talking about MBS .. I just included UUS just to add my opinion on that, too.

[Ktan]

I wasn't just talking to you. A number of posters were mentioning it a side topic. A little side-stray is ok, but in such a targeted topic it's best to minimize it.

<3 (http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Love-Print-C10098742.jpeg)

[TychusFindlay]

Okay, sorry, Ktan.

[LDawgg]

I don't see whay you guys would want to make SC2 more inconvinient. Saying we souldn't be able to MBS, because it would make the game more fast paced, and easier, is like saying your not going to use a new tennis racket that is lighter, and hits better, because the old ones were so much harder to use and had more class.

[Ktan]

Was there any need for the necro?

[Protogod]

I don't see whay you guys would want to make SC2 more inconvinient. Saying we souldn't be able to MBS, because it would make the game more fast paced, and easier, is like saying your not going to use a new tennis racket that is lighter, and hits better, because the old ones were so much harder to use and had more class.

Was there any need for the necro?
Nor the stupidity wrought with it.