On November 16 2014 09:06 metroid composite wrote:
On November 16 2014 08:42 Falling wrote: Thing is typically the micro moves people are talking about are not invisible at all. Sure people may not be sure as to the specific button inputs the pro is doing, but the result is VERY visible. A move vultures in or do a bit of surround and back up micro is the norm. Then a pro suddenly pulls out patrol micro- the vulture is suddenly moving back and forth very quickly, taking pot shots every time it faces back towards the enemy. It's pretty obvious what is going on even if you don't know the right-click, patrol left-click key combination.
Some of those ways of moving your units being incredibly hard to pull off in ways that a casual observer is not going to understand? No, I don't think that's a good design choice.
So you would remove any depth from the game that a casual observer is not going to understand? That seems like an awful idea for a competitive game.
No.
Notably I wouldn't remove multitasking in multiple places; I wouldn't remove macroing and microing at the same time. These are things that brand new players don't always understand. (Partially because casters and observers don't do a good job of pointing these things out). I think economy and multitasking are a big draw to the RTS genre, and it wouldn't be Starcraft without them.
But I don't see value in adding micro that looks easy but is hard. There are lots and lots and lots and lots of micro tricks that you can add to SC2. There is plenty of micro you can add to SC2 that is hard AND looks hard. Add that kind of micro instead.
On November 16 2014 08:42 Falling wrote: Thing is typically the micro moves people are talking about are not invisible at all. Sure people may not be sure as to the specific button inputs the pro is doing, but the result is VERY visible. A move vultures in or do a bit of surround and back up micro is the norm. Then a pro suddenly pulls out patrol micro- the vulture is suddenly moving back and forth very quickly, taking pot shots every time it faces back towards the enemy. It's pretty obvious what is going on even if you don't know the right-click, patrol left-click key combination.
It's obvious that it's different if you watch a good amount of SC. It's not obvious that it's hard.
And sometimes these techniques are not hard. I thought stacked mutas were the coolest thing I had ever seen when I first saw them used in a pro match. Like, Stacked mutas made JulyZerg (the first pro I saw using them) into my personal hero, and by far my favourite BW pro. But once magic boxes were described to me, I was able to hotkey an overlord with my mutas in SC1. Stacked mutas, no problem, very minimal extra inputs. I had 30 APM at that point as I was just learning SC1 and had played very few RTS--I was slow as hell back then, and played almost strictly against a few friends. Still able to stack mutas.
Different ways of moving your units? Sure, that sounds great! Some of those ways of moving your units being incredibly hard to pull off in ways that a casual observer is not going to understand? No, I don't think that's a good design choice.
There are lots and lots of ways to make tricky micro in a way that is visible to a casual audience. Dodging skillshots. Splits. Picking up a unit at the last moment. Timely use of a grappling hook. Redirecting raven shots onto the enemy army. Warping in such that the enemy army can't escape. Cloning your mutas to fly them in 8 different directions so that corsairs can't kill them all. We don't need things to be hard in a way that looks like it might just be an alternate movement mode, but requires a lot more inputs.
I don't understand the problem. Part of the attraction of moving shot is that it is very visual- it's easy to see the results of good micro vs not and you as a player can turn around and do the same maneauver yourself. What's not to like? You get to feel awesome pulling the same move as a pro. The tricky part is keeping up on your macro, expanding, etc on top of microing your small band of vultures or mutalisks. The intrinsic interest factor in moving shot is not that we've movement onerously hard. It's that you pull off awesome moves with your units... it just so happens that these moves are time intensive enough that it makes doing everything else more difficult.
Furthermore, I maintain that moving shot is more specatator friendly to the casual than including more spells. The greater then number of spells in play, the greater the cluster of information, and the more difficult it is for the average spectator to parse what is going on in front of them. It's easy to get overwhelmed by a volume of different spells that suddenly clutter the screen. In contrast, moving shot adds no new information onto the screen- the viewer just needs to track a small group of units bouncing back and forth, picking off units, slipping out, and bouncing around to find a new hole.
On November 16 2014 10:35 Falling wrote: Furthermore, I maintain that moving shot is more specatator friendly to the casual than including more spells. The greater then number of spells in play, the greater the cluster of information, and the more difficult it is for the average spectator to parse what is going on in front of them. It's easy to get overwhelmed by a volume of different spells that suddenly clutter the screen. In contrast, moving shot adds no new information onto the screen- the viewer just needs to track a small group of units bouncing back and forth, picking off units, slipping out, and bouncing around to find a new hole.
Yeah, you do raise a good point that adding more abilities doesn't necessarily make things easier to parse for a new player. But I will also note that stacking air units on top of each other similarly does not read well for newbies...and isn't great for experienced players either because it makes it hard to determine army sizes. There's a reason they nerfed the viking flower.
That said, the viking flower does not matter for ground units; I have considerably fewer objections when it comes to ground units.
Although as far as ground units go, I will say that stutter stepping already exist and is widely used on multiple units. Is the goal just to make the advantages gained from stutter step micro larger?
you clearly aren't even watching a video game if you think micro is invisible and that no value is gained from it just because you personally think it "looks easy"
why is a sport a sport? why is soccer a sport when I can kick a ball around? it is a sport because it is those tiny things that on paper seem easy (knowing how to kick a ball effectively, keep control of it, take it from other players) but are actually extremely hard to accomplish. they are so hard to accomplish that i know that while i can play the game, i will never, ever, play it like the professionals. that is sports. and that is esports as well. i wholeheartedly disagree with you.
sports isn't necessarily easily parsed by the viewer; the ones that exist today have the benefit of decades of entrenchment. what makes sports is the skill involved, and purposefully removing skill requirement cheapens the effect.
The casual viewer doesn't NEED to understand what makes the game so hard.
Your SSBM example is really all the proof you need of this. Lots of people love watching competitive Melee, and the combos the pros do are hypnotic they're so awesome. Does the spectator need to know that the long dashy movement they're doing is called a "wavedash" and is done by air-dodging into the ground? Do they need to know that they're Lcancelling every time they're about to hit the ground? No, of course not. Knowing these things doesn't make the match any more or less cool to watch from a purely spectator perspective. It just means that those pros are able to do a bunch more cool things that no one else is able to do, and makes watching a pro's play a completely different experience from watching your buddies. If you care about learning how to do it, you can look up and learn, but you don't NEED to know.
(in fact, L-cancelling was actually an intentional part of the game that the original website for Smash told you about and how to do, and it was just-as-intentionally removed for Brawl)
Do you think people who watch sports know all the details of every play, every position, and every rule? Of course not. I'll bet you most football fans don't know half the penalties or even a quarter of the positions. They just watch it because the pure spectacle of the match itself is something worth watching.
daigo's just parrying. i can do that in third strike. that's easy. it's so easy to parry it's invisible. we should take it out in the next street fighter. that way more people might understand it.
perhaps we can take out all of the moveset too, lets just leave jumping and kicking. why don't we call it divekick? the one true esport.
daigo's just parrying. i can do that in third strike. that's easy. it's so easy to parry it's invisible. we should take it out in the next street fighter. that way more people might understand it.
perhaps we can take out all of the moveset too, lets just leave jumping and kicking. why don't we call it divekick? the one true esport.
See, I would argue that parrying is an example of a GOOD micro mechanic. It IS visible, there is a clear sound and animation every time a parry happens.
I would also argue that equivalent micro can and has already happened in SC2. See: picking up units before they get hit by an attack:
(ok, that video isn't quite as impressive, since he does get hit once or twice, but the potential is certainly there).
On November 16 2014 12:39 ShiroKaisen wrote: Your SSBM example is really all the proof you need of this. Lots of people love watching competitive Melee, and the combos the pros do are hypnotic they're so awesome.
And all of that would still happen if L-cancelling was automatic. Like...let's be clear: SSBM is a fantastic game to watch. But let's say someone made a hacked version of SSBM where all L-cancelling was automatic, and then had some pros play. I, as a spectator, would not notice. I as a spectator would still think the matches I was watching were really cool, and that the combos were great.
Now, making that one change doesn't modify the viewer experience. But imagine if the hackers then added a different, more visible way to micro instead of L-Cancelling. Now, the APM requirement is the same, but it looks more impressive to the viewer because there is more happening onscreen for the same number of inputs.
Does the spectator need to know that the long dashy movement they're doing is called a "wavedash" and is done by air-dodging into the ground?
Let's be clear, I like wavedashing. It's a really strategically interesting mechanic. I've worked on a game that literally added a mechanic like wavedashing, because the strategic option space it opens up is neat. Although sure, there are some fiddly things about how it controls in SSBM specifically (notably, because of the way it works, the controls end up different for each character depending on how many frames it takes them to leave the ground; if you're used to wavedashing with fox, and switch to Marth, you end up doing to input the command too early; same if you switch from Marth to Bowser. Which mostly means that players new to the scene only play one character). But regardless, there is a reason I did not mention wavedashing in my post, because the net positives of varying up the approach/fade game, and the number of combos it adds significantly improve watching SSBM for the casual spectator.
people went absolutely crazy over Mutalisk stacking micro in BW, crowds of people who had never even played the game. it got aired on prime time national television; it was definitely appreciable by the casual viewers. it's very, very visual because it's clear that the timing of the Muta swipes plays a huge part in the move, and there's an enormous difference between well micro'd mutalisks and poorly micro'd mutalisks. you can see how the pro player is minimising the amount of damage his Mutalisks receive by timing each swipe perfectly.. there's no invisible skill. most people don't need to know, or care about the mechanics behind it (overlord grouping, Hold position micro) to enjoy it.
same way a football (soccer) fan will go crazy after messi dribbles past 4 players. they might not notice the dummy runs or realise how pivotal the first touch was, but can still appreciate that it was a sick move.
So your approach is completely arbitrary. Some elements of micro are invisible to your eyes and they should be removed. Others brought up are not invisible. You have no stable platform here. This is infinitely regressive.
This entire thing is built up on your assumption that because there is a non-zero number of people who exist who find an element of micro to be 'invisible' it necessarily creates a net negative barrier to people's understanding of competitive video games and they should be removed (even if there is also a non-zero amount of people who derive some sort of positive out of its existence). There are a lot of leaps in that argument and you continue to fail to see why it is problematic.
Even if you win that some things are invisible to the viewer, I believe that I still win that skill is what determines what a sport is. You can throw all the advertising money, production value, and rigged tournament design at a bad game, but it won't fix it if it is fundamentally crippled in its design to not be competitive.
Imagine if F1 automated braking and acceleration. Imagine if they automated the steering. All of the players in those games do that, and if they automated it, no one would notice right? This is what you are proposing.
On November 16 2014 13:53 Espers wrote: people went absolutely crazy over Mutalisk stacking micro in BW, crowds of people who had never even played the game. it got aired on prime time national television; it was definitely appreciable by the casual viewers. it's very, very visual because it's clear that the timing of the Muta swipes plays a huge part in the move, and there's an enormous difference between well micro'd mutalisks and poorly micro'd mutalisks. you can see how the pro player is minimising the amount of damage his Mutalisks receive by timing each swipe perfectly.. there's no invisible skill. most people don't need to know, or care about the mechanics behind it (overlord grouping, Hold position micro) to enjoy it.
Nor do those mechanics need to be difficult to execute, and some of them are not difficult to execute (grouping an overlord with my mutas is something I did probably within the first month of playing BW as my first real RTS. And hey, you know what? I impressed a couple friends by doing so).
On November 16 2014 13:55 itsjustatank wrote: Imagine if F1 automated braking and acceleration. Imagine if they automated the steering. All of the players in those games do that, and if they automated it, no one would notice right? This is what you are proposing.
Err...I think you misuderstand.
I am not proposing we get rid of micro. Everyone wants micro. I am proposing adding micro that is more visible.
We're not analyzing a game that is already complete here--we are choosing what mechanics goes into a NEW game. Everyone wants to add additional micro into the game. I'm saying we can choose to add mechanics that are more visible rather than choosing to add mechanics that are less visible. We can choose to add any kind of micro we want, so why don't we get picky and choose to add really flashy micro?
The developers of StarCraft purposefully removed elements of micro from an older version of the game in making what is played now. They continued to do so with patches and an expansion. We aren't talking about even adding new micro, we are talking about restoring what they removed and which also happens to be a fundamental reason why the game has been found lacking for the last few years.
Do you really think that the viewership is so insipid that they cannot comprehend your 'invisible' micro? You you really think to assume steady-state and believe that this viewership will continue to be at that level? You are constructing an arbitrary distinction here, and claiming that the construction is mutually exclusive.
Skill is good. Knowing that there are things that are fundamentally hard to do, even if they are on paper easy or not that visible (like game sense in StarCraft, footsies and spacing in fighting games, calling the right play in American football, pretending to be injured in soccer, and knowing where the grip is in the pouring rain if you are Senna) is what makes a sport. It is what creates the mystery around it, and the appeal for people to watch. If I want tame and boring, I'll go watch a talk show with an "APPLAUSE" sign that lets me know when to clap; that's functionally where your flashy micro is to me
Moving shot isn't a question of "adding micro" in the sense that giving a unit a grappling hook or a Blink is "adding micro." Adding moving shot is adding an entire new dimension of possible micro.
The idea of "moving shot" might not be that visible, but you know what IS visible? Dancing corsairs taking on scourge without losing a single one. You can't do that in SC2. You may not notice the act of moving shot itself, but you sure as hell notice people doing a whole bunch of cool things when it's there.
Both visible and invisible should be implemented. Visible makes you want to be able to also be able to do that stuff, invisible makes you go 'how the hell did he do that?'. A proper balance should obviously be found, but to say one is better than the other in general is bs. Fundamentally i think visibility not as a property of the technique, but of the watcher. You will see micro tricks only when you realise it's significance. Blinking back injured stalkers for example, is as visible as it gets. It still won't be seen by my youngest sister, because she doesnt realise it's an issue. Yeah, he blinks, so what? I tell her why you do it, and suddenly blink micro becomes obvious, and she'll pay attention to it. The same with muta micro, last hitting, or the mentioned moving shot.
Take a look at below vid. When I saw this live as a 9 year old, I was just happy the dutch scored a goal. It is only until you realise what's needed to execute the goal, you'll appreciate the moves. But even a casual viewer can see it's hard after understanding the principles.
The problem is not that casuals can't see micro or whatever. The problem, for me, is that people like DK regard that lack of knowledge something negative about the game instead of the observer. I think it's the caster's role to explain those parts ánd why they're so important. Why do they make a difference? Micro is in the eye of the beholder. Just explain, and people will understand.
This same holds for macro in RTS games. A casual observer won't notice all the work that goes into this, they'll just see one player having more units than the other and wonder why that is. Personally I think if you're going to dub these sort of things as problematic that you're putting arbitrary restrictions on what should and shouldn't be allowed in the game. In my opinion, anything that adds to the game is great no matter if it's invisible to newcomers or not. You should work to make it visible, but not outright dismiss it and not sacrifice interesting gameplay for it.
Also, reducing the damage point of banshees has visible results, so the argument doesn't even apply and is a distraction.
On November 16 2014 08:42 Falling wrote: Thing is typically the micro moves people are talking about are not invisible at all. Sure people may not be sure as to the specific button inputs the pro is doing, but the result is VERY visible. A move vultures in or do a bit of surround and back up micro is the norm. Then a pro suddenly pulls out patrol micro- the vulture is suddenly moving back and forth very quickly, taking pot shots every time it faces back towards the enemy. It's pretty obvious what is going on even if you don't know the right-click, patrol left-click key combination.
It's obvious that it's different if you watch a good amount of SC. It's not obvious that it's hard.
And sometimes these techniques are not hard. I thought stacked mutas were the coolest thing I had ever seen when I first saw them used in a pro match. Like, Stacked mutas made JulyZerg (the first pro I saw using them) into my personal hero, and by far my favourite BW pro. But once magic boxes were described to me, I was able to hotkey an overlord with my mutas in SC1. Stacked mutas, no problem, very minimal extra inputs. I had 30 APM at that point as I was just learning SC1 and had played very few RTS--I was slow as hell back then, and played almost strictly against a few friends. Still able to stack mutas.
Different ways of moving your units? Sure, that sounds great! Some of those ways of moving your units being incredibly hard to pull off in ways that a casual observer is not going to understand? No, I don't think that's a good design choice.
There are lots and lots of ways to make tricky micro in a way that is visible to a casual audience. Dodging skillshots. Splits. Picking up a unit at the last moment. Timely use of a grappling hook. Redirecting raven shots onto the enemy army. Warping in such that the enemy army can't escape. Cloning your mutas to fly them in 8 different directions so that corsairs can't kill them all. We don't need things to be hard in a way that looks like it might just be an alternate movement mode, but requires a lot more inputs.
I think a big problem with SC2 is that people simply don't want to play it. Focusing solely on how things look from a spectator perspective isn't enough. If you make learning the game more rewarding, I'm sure more people will play, create a healthy scene, which will lead to a healthy spectator sport. Why do you think League of Legends, Dota2 and most notably Hearthstone have so many viewers? Why does Trump get 40k viewers when he barely got 300 when he was streaming sc2? Because people play Hearthstone, not because Hearthstone is a better spectator sport. I really believe that adding depth to the game, like Suppy is suggesting, would make sc2 more enjoyable to play, even at a casual level. People are, were and will always lose games, adding more ways to improve your game and ways that make you feel good about yourself and the game WILL make people play more.
Lots of other great counter-arguments above me. Honestly it baffles my mind that there are people who would argue what you did, and even more that they are the ones making key decisions at Blizzard. At some point people are going to give up when they are so stubborn.
I am scared that Blizzard won't listen to these changes because they think that sc2 "failed" as a spectator sport because it's too hard to get into and too skill intensive, all the other games they've released/are about to release recently and are popular are casual and shallow (in my opinion). So they won't want to make sc2 even "harder" because they think that's why people don't play it. All we can do is hope that the people in charge either change or become smarter.
Since you discuss "inivislble skill" "its not obvious its not hard". Isnt it the same for sports on television.
When i watch pro players play tennis, tabletennis and so on, it looks extremely easy. Its first when i try the sport myself i say "wow, its really hard".
On November 17 2014 02:15 Foxxan wrote: Since you discuss "inivislble skill" "its not obvious its not hard". Isnt it the same for sports on television.
When i watch pro players play tennis, tabletennis and so on, it looks extremely easy. Its first when i try the sport myself i say "wow, its really hard".
Yes this is one definitions of what master skill is, make something difficult look easy.
Bring up another thread talking about how some people want Depth of Micro as discussed by Lalush as well as the reducing damage discussion seems kind of like beating a dead horse, particularly after Blizzcon where it became clear that the team was focusing on adding micro opportunities (maybe not identical ones to the ones you envision, but micro nonetheless). There is already a thread for LotV discussion, so I'm really not sure what we're doing with this thread here other than recapping previous topics?
Possibly it might be more productive to wait for Beta stuff to start showing up so we're doing less theory-crafty and recap-py kind of things? Just my two cents.
EPT
