|
Sweden33719 Posts
In the words of our beloved longtime moderator, ToKoreaWithLove
The MBS discussion thread
This is the last MBS thread you will ever see. We are remaking it as an official thread because quite honestly the previous ones became quite large and quite damaged by spam, stupidity, and useless arguing.
This will be heavily moderated. We will accept no rulebreaking, we will delete posts that don't follow the rules, and we will swing the mean 'ol ban hammer. We will tell you to back off if your clearly don't know what you are talking about. Too harsh? Go somewhere else.
When all is said and done we want this to be a meaningfull thread about something we are all concerned or enthusistic about. We want YOUR opinion, your arguments, your enthusiasm, your fears and your concerns about how this will change the gameplay we all love.
Rules:
1. Educate yourself. If you don't know something, find out. Search, read our articles or find out otherwise. Many of our members are knowledgeable, and if they make a point you don't understand, admit your lack of said knowledge and fix it.
2. Stay ON TOPIC. (!!! !! !! 111 !!!). This thread is meant for MBS discussions, nothing else. Nobody gives a rat's ass about misspelling or your gamei score 200 years ago. If you have something good to say, say it. One-liners or funny remarks does not belong in this thread. A good idea is to state your stance on the matter in your post.
3. Be civil. Insult other members in any way and you are gone.
4. Be smart. Think about your own post, check if it has been said before. When replying to someone else's post - make sure you know what his/hers post is about, that you understand it, and that your disagreement, agreement or addition is properly worded and shows your opinion clearly.
5. Constructive criticism. You are allowed to tell other posters that they are wrong. Criticism should be allowed in any discussion, but it should be done nicely, and you are expected to back up your claims.
6. No polls. I've already read two posts today where forum users (not this forum) admits to making multiple votes on our last poll on this matter. Polls can not be trusted, and should be avoided
7. For the purpose of discussion in this thread, the term "Macro" takes the meaning given to it by StarCraft players. It means "Economy and Production Management", not whatever you think it should mean.
Old MBS threads Why MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 Let's imagine SC1 with MBS MBS suggestions and UI ideas Competitive play issues Multiple building selection
|
Baltimore, USA22222 Posts
This should be fun... good to have you two dedicated to this forum with full powers now. GJ FA/Steve!
|
Korea (South)11558 Posts
I don't want another flame war between fastest map possible players and those who dont play infinite money maps. It all comes down to the same argument....
I think a majority of the veterans can agree that MBS will cause SC II to be "noobified" and should not be allowed.
While a majority of the newer posters think that it's a newer game so it should be treated as such and we should jump on the bandwagon and have MBS too, then throw it away and come back to SC:BW 2 months after its release...
|
Based off Blizzcon demo information I've very against the addition of an MBS system. Personally I feel that it slows the game down and tries forcing a larger focus to micro. Blizzard has responded to this by saying that extra things will be added to take up time, but have so far not given an example, unless you count warp gates and prisms, which personally I don't think counts in these regards nor makes up for it. The thing is it's not just about taking up clicks and whatnot, it's about the overall flow of the game, a player's style and battle tactics. Currently with BW there is a forced balanced between micro and macro functions, largely reproduction of units during combat situations. Deciding to take those few seconds during a fight to keep production going or focus solely on microing your control groups is very often game deciding. With mbs it is nearly completely taken out of the equation, frantic clicks and time with your screen away from the battle replaced by a simple, 4z,5d combo to make another wave. Now I know the blizzcon demo was rather limited in these regards but even things like a zealot rush showed just how powerful mbs really was to keep those zealots coming while microing people down.
|
I completely agree with what NotSorry said above: in my opinion, MBS will take away a HUGE portion of the macro part away. Many said it's just the "mechanics" part and that SC:II is a strategy game, and therefore should sort out the same old parts of the game, and focus on the actual "strategy" of the game.
But, SC allowed people to choose their way of playing: micro over macro such as all in builds (3hatch hydra anyone? ^.-v), or macro over micro which we see a lot more with all the FE builds and what not. If then, MBS was implemented, the game certainly takes away the two distinct options that players can choose over. Not only this, it takes away the dexterity, and the hours players must put in to get their macro better and better.. resulting in the "noobified" version of the game.
MBS will take the SC:II down!!
Oh, and please, oh please bring back the reaver.. that was a futile attempt but hell, it's worth a try.
|
I'm a fastest map promoter and I don't think it should MBS should be allowed at all.
|
I agree with the above posters.
Starcraft was very macro intensive, however when you got into battles, only the VERY best could macro and micro their army at the same time. Most peoples macro stops completely when they get into battle, leaving macro more of a task to complete when you are not fighitng. Assuming that people are not constantly going to be in battles, its important that people are still challenged when they are in quiet periods of the game. By increasing the amount of micro to compensate the loss of macro, you still dont keep the 'quiet' periods of the game intense, which is what starcraft meant to many people (an intense game from start to finish).
Mbs takes away many macro actions, to keep up the intensity of the game, these MUST be replaced with other macro actions. Seeing as the only new macro actions we've seen so far will have little impact, Mbs cannot stay.
|
I'm against MBS because it would blur the line between a person that is truly skilled at macro and and micro and someone who isn't. While cycling through your gates is done in less than a second or two there is a chance you could mess up and miss a gate or put to many in a production line, etc. With MBS this will be nonexistent because people can just group as many as is allowed and press "D" or "Z" or whatever will be the new unit hotkeys and have an army on the way.
This has all been sad before but it really is the clear reason why MBS shouldn't be allowed in my opinion. Micro is important but any can micro, it takes a real skilled player to micro and macro and do it well.
Ex. OOv vs Boxer, both can micro well but OOv has better overall macro which gives him an edge but with MBS that advantage becomes less important because Boxer can keep up with macro because he doesn't have to jump back to his base and macro and he can just keep microing and press "5" or whatever hotkey he has it on when he sees a ping.
Although there is still the strategy involved and the micro, the lack of the macro aspect will severely detract from the game in my opinion.
So that's my two cents. It's been said before and in a much more eloquent way but this is how I feel.
|
MBS:
I'm for MBS myself, but only if Blizzard can maintain a high skill ceiling for the game with something that is more interesting (more interesting than repetitious building selection that is). It's good to have a large difference between a novice and a veteran, but I'd prefer if that macro gameplay were achieved through something that enhances large-scale-attack strategy as a balance to micromanaged tactics. This would balance macro and micro with true strategies and tactics (as a way to maximize the fun of player choices). If that can't be done, however, then SBS should remain. I don't want an endless number of micro-only choices.
I know many people complain that a large body of actions that can be performed hurts the ability of newbies to enjoy the game, but that to a degree is the sign of a good game. If you want a game in which newbies won't be destroyed by pros, then play tic-tac-toe and tell me if that's worth it. Either that or play a slow, turn-based game like Chess. However, there are ways to give newbies a nice learning environment.
Helping out Newbies:
Two separate b.net game-matching/game-finding systems would be the perfect way to help out novices to StarCraft 2. One could be called "Ranked" while the other could be called "Casual." Ranked would match people according to skill and Casual would rank everybody equally (except perhaps in terms of player feedback). Casual wouldn't even keep track of a record (only the number of games played) and would only allow games to be played on the normal speed.
Now, someone complained a while back telling me that to have two different speeds for Casual and Ranked games would be bad thing, since that would supposedly separate all of us gamers into two groups (each with a fundamentally different understanding of the game). However, the opposite would be true. Humans don't think of time like that. We all fundamentally understand that we can do something quickly or slowly and we wouldn't be separated according to that fact.
Of course there will be gamers who would prefer playing at normal speed, and will prefer the lack of a scoring system, but the human brain learns best when it practices things slowly and all gamers would eventually be able to move onto Ranked games (which will run on the fastest setting). Starting out novices at normal speed will actually better unify them with the verteran players who play ranked games.
It's a scientifically proven fact that a novice to something that requires high dexterity will learn best what to do when he (or she) first comes at that task slowly and methodically. In fact, that's what a newbie in StarCraft is: someone who does everything slowly. It's how we learn best. Having Casual matches—limited to normal speed—will give newbies a safe place on b.net to learn the game. Then, if they feel like it, they can move onto Ranked matches (which keep track of wins and skill level).
[Edit: fixed a mistake.]
|
I for one support MBS. The inclusion of MBS will most definitely alter the game flow of SC2 from what it was in BW, but not necessarily for the worse. My biggest argument is that not including MBS is a completely artificial way to increase the difficulty of the game and certainly not the best.
I think many people fail to appreciate how much the game has evolved. When progaming first took off in around 2001-2002, in most games, nobody required all their control groups. Few games involved players got more than 10 groups of units and production buildings combined. This was already four years after BW came out.
In other words, for about half of BW's lifetime, macro as we know it didn't even exist. Including MBS or not would barely have had made any difference. Of course this was largely due in part to the maps. Now any map with less than two easily accessible geysers and three easily accessible mineral clusters is unimaginable. Previously running out of resources could easily happen by mid-game so the rationing of remaining resources was a prime factor.
Many people claim that BW currently has the perfect "balance" of micro/macro and the optimal "game flow." However, SC2 is not supposed to be like BW, and in fact the balance and game flow in BW today is drastically different from BW 5 years ago. If you don't believe me, watch an OSL final from 2001 or 2002. If you still don't believe me, then I have nothing more to say to you.
In fact, I propose that the trend in maps becoming more macro friendly is an artificial one used to raise the multitasking level required to compete at the top level. In a similar way that not including MBS artificially"dumbs down" a game, I believe that increasing the number and accessibility of expansions artificially "inflates" a game. In my opinion, this trend towards more macro was in part in response to the fact that as time went on, more and more players could play well.
Perhaps one could argue that 5 years ago, the games were less interesting and indeed "dumber" since they involved less macro. Perhaps one could argue that the Lim Jin War was not as impressive because by today's standards, both of them were terrible at macroing. Perhaps one could argue that this is definitely true since progaming is getting more popular by the day in and out of Korea. Essentially, what I'm asking is how do we know if the current balance and game flow is indeed the very best one? Indeed, if map trends are any indication, we are currently moving towards even more macro with double gas in main, two easily accessible natural expansions, maps with 14 geysers, etc. Instead, why not add even more artificial limitations to make it harder to play SC2 (10 units per group, no rallying, etc.)?
As far as I can tell, any practice partner today could have made an OSL run 5 years ago. Killing a group of lurkers with a group of m&m is considered standard now. Stacked mutalisk micro is a prerequisite for playing zerg at the pro level. Plowing through tank lines with perfectly placed storms and zealot charges while macroing off of 3 bases and 12 gates is a daily routine. Moving maxed out armies with fluid control is rather straightforward. In every aspect of the game, micro, macro, timing, strategy, multitasking, the level of gameplay has risen spectacularly in the ten years since BW first came out.
Of course, the rate at which players improve at SC2 will no doubt dwarf that of BW, so many will argue that MBS is necessary to maintain a skill gap. However, I have strong faith in Blizzard to design SC2 to have incredible depth, even more than BW, that even after 5 years, any need to make the game even more difficult can at the very least be addressed by innovative mapmaking. Not including MBS to make a game harder is not the way to do it.
[As for everyone who has played the game (I haven't) and think that MBS dumbs the game down, I think that can be in part be attributed to not having opponents of a similar level. But this is another point altogether.]
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
The basic idea behind any game is to make a set of rules that a) gives the players an objective, and b) makes it reasonably challenging to reach that objective.
For the purposes of MBS, we will be focusing on B.
In any great sport or game, B (challenge) is accomplished by laying down a set of arbitrary rules. For example, soccer (football). The genius of soccer is that it is based around a single brilliant rule: You can't touch the ball with your hands. Why? Really, there is no good reason. But it is because of this rule that soccer is the beautiful game that it is.
The no-hands rule is totally, completely arbitrary: there's no logic behind it. It is also incredibly restricting. However, it creates the right level of difficulty and challenge. Because of that no-hands rule, players must develop a certain level of skill. And that's where all the fun and beauty lies.
Different players overcome the arbitrary no-hands rule in different ways, reflecting their personal strengths and style. Ronaldhino with ball-on-string control. Beckham with pinpoint manipulation. Henry with pace and grace. Pirlo with vision, Drogba with strength, and Gattuso with heart. Pele wouldn't have been Pele if he could have just picked up the ball and ran with it. In short, the no-hands rule gives each individual player a personality, an identity.
The same goes for any other good sport or game. Take basketball. Why is the goal 10 feet in the air? No reason. But it because of it, players develop silky smooth jumpshots, jaw-dropping fingerroll layups, and majestic dunks. Why do you have to dribble once every two steps? Again, no real reason. But because of it, fans get to enjoy killer crossovers and complicated pivot post moves.
The same basic concept is true with video games, especially multiplayer video games. Developers spend many sleepless nights trying to find the perfect set of rules, balanced between not restrictive enough, and too restrictive. The games that are wildly successful find the right balance between presenting a challenge yet leaving room for individual triumph. Street Fighter II. Halo. And StarCraft.
I understand that Blizzard is a corporation, and StarCraft II is a product. But SC doesn't need to be very noob-friendly to sell. In fact, the strength of SC:BW, the reason for it's longevity, is its value as a competitive game.
I also understand why MBS might make sense for developers. There are many good reasons: it makes the game more accessible, reduces the rote mechanics of play, etc. And there seem to be no real good reason to NOT have MBS. But you have to remember that the rules in sports - no hands in soccer, 10-feet hoop in basketball - they are all completely arbitrary. There's no good, logical explanation behind those rules either. There's no logical reason to not have MBS, but there's also no logical reason to force a basketball player to dribble every two steps. Except for the fact that it creates a challenge that makes the game better
I write all this because it feels that "MBS for beginners" would be akin to saying "beginners get to use their hands" in soccer. (Or "beginners get to dunk on a lower hoop; beginners are allowed to take five steps" in basketball) It would reduce the challenge level, and threaten to break the game.
I write this not as a SC veteran, or even a SC gosu. I'm a terrible player, and MBS is exactly the kind of feature that would make me much better. I'm not asking Blizzard to make the game needlessly difficult, like Ninja Gaiden Black. All I'm asking is that the SC II designers remember that I enjoy practicing my soccer ball control. I enjoy finding the right balance between my jumpshot and my ball handling. In that same vein, I enjoy struggling to improving my macro, and I enjoy finding the right balance between my macro and my micro.
|
Hungary11232 Posts
Honesttea, I am not sure if your analogy applies to broodwar /starcraft in the same way as it does to soccer. You say yourself The no-hands rule is totally, completely arbitrary: there's no logic behind it. It is also incredibly restricting. However, it creates the right level of difficulty and challenge. Because of that no-hands rule, players must develop a certain level of skill. And that's where all the fun and beauty lies. . Now, the reason to have this kind of restriction (play only with your feet) is to develop certain complex mechanics with the devices that remain to you - your feet. Now, if not including MBS would allow you to develop any kind of complex mechanics, where you could express yourself and form an individual style, it would be alright. But SBS creates the same need and the same environment for everyone, there is no room for creativity in this area, that is why I think your analogy is flawed in this point. For me MBS removes a purely mechanical aspect, not an aspect where you can display style and creativity.
It more resembles strapping a 50 kg weight to the back of the football player, which certainly makes it harder to accomplish mastery, but only on the basis of a purely mechanical limitation, not as a limitation which allows you to develop certain other skills.
To add some more meat to this post, the main reasons to HAVE MBS are in my opinion (not in any specific order):
- remove a purely mechanical limitation on gameplay (as stated above) - match the UI of comparable games - allow creativity and innovation in fields through freeing up "management time".
Furthermore, I am not sure about the exact usage of the word "macro". But shouldn't it be referring to prioritizing what to build, adding production facilities as needed, setting up and managing expansions? All this goes beyond simply tabbing to your production facilities, clicking each and pressing a key. So only a part of what "macro" is is affected by MBS.
|
I'm against MBS (there's no topic about smartcasting and automining so I'm saying it here: I'm against these things, too). I was about to type "I think..." but that wouldn't be true because I know that MBS will decrease the skill level in SC2 compared to SC. Lets take "multitasking" as an example. Afaik nobody was talking about it before there was a pro-scene in Korea. This means that without a pro-scene, multitasking wouldn't even be known to amateurs. Now what is "multitasking" exactly? Multitasking is the way of handling many actions seemingly at once to gain advantage. In SC this makes people "superior" to others and is one main reason for new stars to rise up. Examples will be given by many other people in this thread (keywords: oov, boxer), I don't really want to talk about it for the 100th time. What makes multitasking possible? We know it from movies: the advocate is talking to somebody on his mobile phone while the office boy lets him sign papers. Or anything like that. This is multitasking and is made possible through the amount of informations to handle. In SC we have micro and macro - the most essential parts of the game, the basics. There are different kinds of players. There is one who goes to war like a soldier, he packs his stuff and is ready to fight and only to fight. Then there's one who isn't too interested in fighting so he just collects money, builds up and goes into holidays when the map is clean. They both are not aware of multitasking so no matter how good they may be at what they do - they will probably lose the war when their opponent simply is more active than them, when their opponent knows about multitasking. In other words: someone who combines micro and macro will most likely beat either player. Of course there is the strategy part left but this is a question of intelligence, knowledge and creativity, not activity.
Now some random thoughts. Shooter games. They are the definition of micro. I myself played Quake 3 Arena for some years. I would still play it if my computer wasn't so laggy. Well, when SC2 comes out I would have to buy a new computer anyway. Whatever. Q3 is very competitive and 100% balanced which makes it perfect for skilled players to prove what they are able to. I don't like CS but yeah, this counts for that game, too I won't go too much into detail about shooter games because this topic is all about RTS. Yet, I don't know a single game that is so competitive and only takes macro skills. Why is that? Do not argue that macro is not fun, because that's wrong. There are games that only take macro skills (they just aren't competitive as far as I know) Roller Coaster Tycoon, The Sims, Second Life, Sim City, Klo-Manager, Harvest Moon and many more. Many people actually like these games, there is no action involved, no fighting. These games are peaceful and enjoyable. And they are macro-based or to be more accurate they are nothing but macro. There are even games based on macro that actually have fighting involved like Pharao, but you have no control over the battle!! (what the? fun?) The following site is only available in german (sorry, I can't find comparable sites in english), it contains some more games like the ones I mentioned: http://www.staedtebauen.de/forum/ Now, why aren't these games competitive? I think it is because they don't appeal the big crowd, especially not the younger generations. Buf if they were boring they wouldn't sell! This should not give answers, this was just to make you think.
I will now try to explain why it is so important to make macro as hard as micro in a game of RTS. If you get minerals you get units. If you get units you can fight. If you can fight you can win. This is how SC worked, this is how SC2 will work. Minerals - Units - Fight. 3 steps to victory. Gathering, building and fighting. By taking out some of the skill needed for gathering and building and by forcing players to do mostly fighting you make a joke of the first 2 steps. You wouldn't take out any of the skill needed for micro, so why would you do this to macro?
On November 09 2007 17:45 Aesop wrote: It more resembles strapping a 50 kg weight to the back of the football player, which certainly makes it harder to accomplish mastery, but only on the basis of a purely mechanical limitation, not as a limitation which allows you to develop certain other skills.
I must say I am really disappointed about this analogy. If you think macro is a 50kg weight you don't know anything. Anything!
|
Hungary11232 Posts
On November 09 2007 19:50 ForAdun wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2007 17:45 Aesop wrote: It more resembles strapping a 50 kg weight to the back of the football player, which certainly makes it harder to accomplish mastery, but only on the basis of a purely mechanical limitation, not as a limitation which allows you to develop certain other skills. I must say I am really disappointed about this analogy. If you think macro is a 50kg weight you don't know anything. Anything!
The analogy was not directed towards saying that current macro is like this (note the "resembles"). It was to point out that there are at minimum two kinds of articifial limitations: Those that spark creativity (soccer analogy) and those that might not (weight analogy).
|
So you're saying that you didn't say that macro is a 50kg weight. Ok. You can sure tell me which limitation is your analogy for macro: soccer or weight?
|
On November 09 2007 16:35 HonestTea wrote: The basic idea behind any game is to make a set of rules that a) gives the players an objective, and b) makes it reasonably challenging to reach that objective.
For the purposes of MBS, we will be focusing on B.
In any great sport or game, B (challenge) is accomplished by laying down a set of arbitrary rules. For example, soccer (football). The genius of soccer is that it is based around a single brilliant rule: You can't touch the ball with your hands. Why? Really, there is no good reason. But it is because of this rule that soccer is the beautiful game that it is.
The no-hands rule is totally, completely arbitrary: there's no logic behind it. It is also incredibly restricting. However, it creates the right level of difficulty and challenge. Because of that no-hands rule, players must develop a certain level of skill. And that's where all the fun and beauty lies.
Different players overcome the arbitrary no-hands rule in different ways, reflecting their personal strengths and style. Ronaldhino with ball-on-string control. Beckham with pinpoint manipulation. Henry with pace and grace. Pirlo with vision, Drogba with strength, and Gattuso with heart. Pele wouldn't have been Pele if he could have just picked up the ball and ran with it. In short, the no-hands rule gives each individual player a personality, an identity.
The same goes for any other good sport or game. Take basketball. Why is the goal 10 feet in the air? No reason. But it because of it, players develop silky smooth jumpshots, jaw-dropping fingerroll layups, and majestic dunks. Why do you have to dribble once every two steps? Again, no real reason. But because of it, fans get to enjoy killer crossovers and complicated pivot post moves.
The same basic concept is true with video games, especially multiplayer video games. Developers spend many sleepless nights trying to find the perfect set of rules, balanced between not restrictive enough, and too restrictive. The games that are wildly successful find the right balance between presenting a challenge yet leaving room for individual triumph. Street Fighter II. Halo. And StarCraft.
I understand that Blizzard is a corporation, and StarCraft II is a product. But SC doesn't need to be very noob-friendly to sell. In fact, the strength of SC:BW, the reason for it's longevity, is its value as a competitive game.
I also understand why MBS might make sense for developers. There are many good reasons: it makes the game more accessible, reduces the rote mechanics of play, etc. And there seem to be no real good reason to NOT have MBS. But you have to remember that the rules in sports - no hands in soccer, 10-feet hoop in basketball - they are all completely arbitrary. There's no good, logical explanation behind those rules either. There's no logical reason to not have MBS, but there's also no logical reason to force a basketball player to dribble every two steps. Except for the fact that it creates a challenge that makes the game better
I write all this because it feels that "MBS for beginners" would be akin to saying "beginners get to use their hands" in soccer. (Or "beginners get to dunk on a lower hoop; beginners are allowed to take five steps" in basketball) It would reduce the challenge level, and threaten to break the game.
I write this not as a SC veteran, or even a SC gosu. I'm a terrible player, and MBS is exactly the kind of feature that would make me much better. I'm not asking Blizzard to make the game needlessly difficult, like Ninja Gaiden Black. All I'm asking is that the SC II designers remember that I enjoy practicing my soccer ball control. I enjoy finding the right balance between my jumpshot and my ball handling. In that same vein, I enjoy struggling to improving my macro, and I enjoy finding the right balance between my macro and my micro.
You are like taking the words directly out of my mouth, but you say it much better. I completely agree on every single point made here, I hope blizzard reads these O_o
|
On November 09 2007 20:20 ForAdun wrote: So you're saying that you didn't say that macro is a 50kg weight. Ok. You can sure tell me which limitation is your analogy for macro: soccer or weight? The idea isn't that there is a correct analogy, its that in this case no analogy works since depending on if you are pro or anti mbs you can easily choose the analogy which fits.
In this case restricting soccer to not allow hands is necessary for the game and its impossible to argue against. However if you saw mbs as putting weights on the soccer players shoes it would only hurt the game and this too is impossible to argue against.
As such any metaphor is wasted since they only work if you already have the same opinion as the one who made the analogy in the first place.
And for those that haven't been here for a long time, I'm pro mbs but that doesn't matter in this post anyway. I'm done discussing this topic a long time ago, so I'm just keeping it on track now.
|
Hungary11232 Posts
On November 09 2007 20:20 ForAdun wrote: So you're saying that you didn't say that macro is a 50kg weight. Ok. You can sure tell me which limitation is your analogy for macro: soccer or weight? Once more, more condensed:
1) MBS is not the only aspect involved in what is commonly called "macro-management". This should be noted above all. 2) When implementing articifial limitations to what a player can do, check beforehand if it is more like a weight-limitation or a soccer-limitation. Of course, there are many shades of grey, but in general limitations should have the character of soccer limitations and not of weight ones.
To quote azndsh who made a similar point:
azndsh wrote: However, I have strong faith in Blizzard to design SC2 to have incredible depth, even more than BW, that even after 5 years, any need to make the game even more difficult can at the very least be addressed by innovative mapmaking. Not including MBS to make a game harder is not the way to do it. Once more: Not including MBS is ONE way of distinguishing good players from bad ones, but it might not be a good one. If there are valid other options (and I am too quite confident there WILL BE), MBS should be in the game.
|
Hmm, yeah Aesop. But you made the analogy so you must stand to it. When I asked you if I understood you correctly you said I didn't understand you correctly so you must either leave the analogy out or explain how you really mean it. Until now I don't see any explanation so I will handle your posts like you never made an analogy about 50kg weights. You can still admit that I understood your analogy correctly or you can try and find a better explanation, it's up to you. HonestTea made an analogy that we understand and are able to use for our own argumentation. This is how it goes in a debate.
Edit: I understood your analogy totally Aesop, you only said that I did not. Which was untrue and a bit offending. This way you can't argue. What polutes the topic is saying that a person doesn't understand this or that if he/she obviously did understand everything. If this topic turns out to be one of the past topics about MBS which all went like debates from politicians then the level of the discussion sinks below anything and the topic won't last much longer. This goes mostly to CuddleCuteKitten because of his following post.
|
On November 09 2007 21:44 ForAdun wrote: Hmm, yeah Aesop. But you made the analogy so you must stand to it. When I asked you if I understood you correctly you said I didn't understand you correctly so you must either leave the analogy out or explain how you really mean it. Until now I don't see any explanation so I will handle your posts like you never made an analogy about 50kg weights. You can still admit that I understood your analogy correctly or you can try and find a better explanation, it's up to you. HonestTea made an analogy that we understand and are able to use for our own argumentation. This is how it goes in a debate.
I think he explained it sufficently. I at least understand it perfectly. It seems more like you don't understand it.
There are different way to place aribitrary restrictions on players.
Some of them reward creativity and create a totally different type of game (no hands in soccer, using rackets in tennis etc). These change the entire idea and way the game has to be played.
But some restricitons add nothing to the game. If you give every player on a soccer field an additional 50 kg's of weigth the game would change but the idea of it would not change. The players would simply have to adapt to the weigth purely mechanically (by weigth training probably) and change their playstyle into something slower to compensate for the weigth. The ideas of the game has not changed, but the playstyle certainly has and brute strength counts for more.
Similarly, requiring players to click more could be an example of this. The question is if it would really be that negative since it actually speeds up the game and makes it more exciting. However it would still be preferble to do this in some other way.
I'm a huge proponent on just increasing the speed instead of having artifical limitations placed on the players. Should accomplish more or less the same thing.
Anyway, this is a poor way of debating as previous posters have allready said.
|
|
|
|