On November 17 2014 06:05 Jazzman88 wrote: 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.
Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro. Giving a banshee more range and more speed so it doesn't die as easily isn't adding more micro, it's making already-existing micro easier to do. We're talking about adding more micro across the board, not more buttons to click in specific unit interactions.
On November 17 2014 06:05 Jazzman88 wrote: 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.
Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro. Giving a banshee more range and more speed so it doesn't die as easily isn't adding more micro, it's making already-existing micro easier to do. We're talking about adding more micro across the board, not more buttons to click in specific unit interactions.
"Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro"
Euh yes it actually is, maybe you don't like the approach though.
On November 17 2014 06:05 Jazzman88 wrote: 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.
The entire point of the blog is to highlight important topics that would be beneficial things to discuss within the community with the hopes that Blizzard may notice and hopefully incorporate these changes. Waiting until beta to discuss important topics will be too late to implement some of these big, fundamental changes, as the game will already be balanced based on the old economy / old unit movements. I'm not totally sure what you mean about beating a dead horse in regards to the Depth of Micro and damage reduction to prolong fights, as the two are definitely separate topics, and although related, very much mutually exclusive. You could have one without having the other, but ideally we would want to have both. Please let me know if you have any other questions and I will try my best to answer them. As I said in the original post, the main goal here was to simply spotlight three important topics in the hopes that more people will be aware of these discussions and we can have a stronger push overall towards change.
On November 17 2014 06:05 Jazzman88 wrote: 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.
Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro. Giving a banshee more range and more speed so it doesn't die as easily isn't adding more micro, it's making already-existing micro easier to do. We're talking about adding more micro across the board, not more buttons to click in specific unit interactions.
"Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro"
Euh yes it actually is, maybe you don't like the approach though.
No. great example is Hydras vs Stalkers offcreep. Without Blink it required more micro from both P and Z to win that battle, but if P uses blink (even bad blink), Z has absolutely no chance to win that battle. Also less required micro for P and zero for Z.
On November 17 2014 06:05 Jazzman88 wrote: 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.
Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro. Giving a banshee more range and more speed so it doesn't die as easily isn't adding more micro, it's making already-existing micro easier to do. We're talking about adding more micro across the board, not more buttons to click in specific unit interactions.
"Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro"
Euh yes it actually is, maybe you don't like the approach though.
No. great example is Hydras vs Stalkers offcreep. Without Blink it required more micro from both P and Z to win that battle, but if P uses blink (even bad blink), Z has absolutely no chance to win that battle. Also less required micro for P and zero for Z.
That is about unit interactions, you obviously can say that zerg has no countermicro to the micro blinkstalkers are able to do. But adding abilities = micro, you have to use the ability to be more efficient, instead of amoving. That doesn't mean you have to like that approach, but denying that there is micro in the first place is kinda weird
On November 17 2014 06:05 Jazzman88 wrote: 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.
Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro. Giving a banshee more range and more speed so it doesn't die as easily isn't adding more micro, it's making already-existing micro easier to do. We're talking about adding more micro across the board, not more buttons to click in specific unit interactions.
"Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro"
Euh yes it actually is, maybe you don't like the approach though.
No. great example is Hydras vs Stalkers offcreep. Without Blink it required more micro from both P and Z to win that battle, but if P uses blink (even bad blink), Z has absolutely no chance to win that battle. Also less required micro for P and zero for Z.
That is about unit interactions, you obviously can say that zerg has no countermicro to the micro blinkstalkers are able to do. But adding abilities = micro, you have to use the ability to be more efficient, instead of amoving. That doesn't mean you have to like that approach, but denying that there is micro in the first place is kinda weird
Sounds like that a ferrari-racer has more skill than a fiat-racer (faster -> because he won the battle). Actually "skill" is definied that both have the same conditions (both drive ferrari or fiat cars). Hydras vs Stalkers (without blink) is definitely closer to play under same conditions than with blink.
anyway, few abilities offers rather amove than micro. In PvP, if you placed timewarp pretty well then you can just amove your army into opponents army.
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.
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.
On November 17 2014 06:05 Jazzman88 wrote: 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.
Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro. Giving a banshee more range and more speed so it doesn't die as easily isn't adding more micro, it's making already-existing micro easier to do. We're talking about adding more micro across the board, not more buttons to click in specific unit interactions.
"Adding abilities isn't the same thing as adding micro"
Euh yes it actually is, maybe you don't like the approach though.
No. great example is Hydras vs Stalkers offcreep. Without Blink it required more micro from both P and Z to win that battle, but if P uses blink (even bad blink), Z has absolutely no chance to win that battle. Also less required micro for P and zero for Z.
That is about unit interactions, you obviously can say that zerg has no countermicro to the micro blinkstalkers are able to do. But adding abilities = micro, you have to use the ability to be more efficient, instead of amoving. That doesn't mean you have to like that approach, but denying that there is micro in the first place is kinda weird
Sounds like that a ferrari-racer has more skill than a fiat-racer (faster -> because he won the battle). Actually "skill" is definied that both have the same conditions (both drive ferrari or fiat cars). Hydras vs Stalkers (without blink) is definitely closer to play under same conditions than with blink.
anyway, few abilities offers rather amove than micro. In PvP, if you placed timewarp pretty well then you can just amove your army into opponents army.
Uh yeah sure (about your first point), i never really argued that though. (and hydras melt stalkers ) But that is basically just a specific unit interaction^^
if you placed timewarp pretty well
Yeah exactly, if you placed it well, the IF is the important part. I am not really arguing that it is diffcult here btw, but abilties ARE micro interactions. You obviously are looking for micro in movement interactions, but as i said, that is just preference in the end.
I think David Kim is totally wrong about his thougths on advanced micro. That was what got me into BW in the first place, watching sick pro-micro and then learning the tricks myself.
Depth of micro had some interesting part, and some rather weak parts. Putting the attack point of vikings to 0 is dumb because it will simply make vikings the best AA in the game. No more corruptors in ZvT, no more battlecruisers in TvT, no carriers/void rays in PvT. I find myself agreeing more with Jakatak's videos (like how the aggro range of stalkers is set to the default of 5, this is why they die to widow mines. If it were to 7, we would have a better, more consistent game)
Reducing damage output : 100% agree. We could start with an overall 20% increase of the HP of every unit in the game, because life points are always a multiple of 5. We would of course need to adjust some things (such as banelings damage)
Dynamic Unit movement : I like smart AI. I think just increasing collision boxes would do an overall similar effect
Hey guys, I am loving the back and forth debate of the pros and con's of this discussion.
I just want to add that when you are discussing the 'observer' remember that the observer can either be a person watching a televised/online match with/without commentary or an opponent player.
It is just as important for a player who plays on the ladder and has not watched pro matches to understand that the opponent is using advanced micro techniques. They need to think "Hey I can tell he is doing something skillful to make his units do that, I need to google it or work out how to do that myself". If the player just keeps losing engagements and can not tell why and gets angry and quits that's bad design. The Vulture and in SCBW did have this effect. You could tell there was more to it. Hold lurkers did not relay this well at all tho, because often a new player would just think they were not paying enough attention.
I am all for enhancing the micro in this game. But the micro does have to hint to the player that there's something skillful being done.
On November 16 2014 05:41 Lumi wrote: Blizzard is not Valve or Riot. I think that most of us have already accepted this, and with ample reason.
I don't think so. Whenever people talk about Blizzard they always add: "recently they have shown more promise in listening to the community", usually after they've thrown some pittance to the community like putting tournament maps on the ladder. It's like a universal truth, I've heard it for like five years during my time playing WoW, now it repeats itself in SC2.
Yeah, they listen but it's always too little, too late. What they showed in the LotV demo should've been in HotS. People have been saying practically since release that the game could use more micro to separate the good from the great. They're finally doing some changes to the economy (even though it's not exactly what people have asked for) after 2 years of the community complaining about it. If they were to continue releasing expansions indefinitely may be we'd finally get the game we want in 2020.
On November 17 2014 12:57 DeCoup wrote: Hey guys, I am loving the back and forth debate of the pros and con's of this discussion.
I just want to add that when you are discussing the 'observer' remember that the observer can either be a person watching a televised/online match with/without commentary or an opponent player.
It is just as important for a player who plays on the ladder and has not watched pro matches to understand that the opponent is using advanced micro techniques. They need to think "Hey I can tell he is doing something skillful to make his units do that, I need to google it or work out how to do that myself". If the player just keeps losing engagements and can not tell why and gets angry and quits that's bad design. The Vulture and in SCBW did have this effect. You could tell there was more to it. Hold lurkers did not relay this well at all tho, because often a new player would just think they were not paying enough attention.
I am all for enhancing the micro in this game. But the micro does have to hint to the player that there's something skillful being done.
No it doesn't. I watched Brood War for years with functionally zero commentary other than hearing when Korean commentators yelled really loudly. I didn't need to have my hand held like it was Kindergarten all over again in order to derive enjoyment out of the level of skill and the competition shown in the games. Not everyone does.
If you want your hand held though, the vast majority of people watching StarCraft are doing so with the aid of commentary in their language. It is their job to explain things, just as things are explained in sports on television. It gets kind of ridiculous each time you hear John Madden explain the tiniest, most basic, detail about American football; it is important to remember that he exists for a reason.
Furthermore, the situation you cite as negative already exists in the present day. It is endemic and inevitable. I see no impact from it.
Finally, if a player is losing engagements, that player has the benefit of replays that show exactly what was going on at both a macro and micro level.
There's also the fact that there is an entire genre of ESPORTS (forgive me) that has zero commentary (in the crowd) and lots of 'invisible' micro that enjoys a significant amount of success and is experiencing a significant amount of growth in the present day.
Yeah, in a game like Street Fighter or Marvel, it looks like using your super or a specific combo attack is as easy as pressing a button, but reliably executing the stick movements to use your correct technique under pressure with a 100% success rate is actually not as easy as it sounds. I'd call that "invisible" skill.
On November 17 2014 15:45 ShiroKaisen wrote: Yeah, in a game like Street Fighter or Marvel, it looks like using your super or a specific combo attack is as easy as pressing a button, but reliably executing the stick movements to use your correct technique under pressure with a 100% success rate is actually not as easy as it sounds. I'd call that "invisible" skill.
Don't all fighting games suffer from that? The differences in skill can be vast but when you watch a game you just see someone jumping and kicking. With BW you always can see the effort put in.
An absolutely critical sub-point to the economy and micro issues is the problem of inflation of supply costs.
Starcraft 2 supply costs are much higher than Brood War supply costs across the board. The result is far fewer actual units, and a much higher ratio of workers to military units, and less total investment in military on the same amount of supply.
One of the simplest and most direct ways to create more micro opportunities is to simply put more units on the board, allowing more units to be spread across more locations. Most of the interesting types of micro also involve multiple units working in concert, such as rotating which units are taking damage, positioning, splitting, and so on. Adding more military units will very organically create more micro opportunities as there are more units that can accept commands for advantage.
Also, this will result in a slower hard max, which will mean there will be a lot more fighting when armies aren't both at the supply limit, which is very good. Trading at less than the supply maximum usually involves continuous reinforcements, skirmishing and maneuvering in the field. Maxed armies tend to just ball up to engage an enemy army doing the same, since it is not possible for the enemy to show up with more supply.
Man, Starbow looks awesome. I can't believe they even got the old attack sounds, and did I detect dynamic pathing? I can't believe I haven't played it yet, matter of fact I'm going to jump on now, later.
There seems to be some contradictions here. In depth of micro saying there are small things your eyes miss but you can still recognise a great play. Then for prolonging battles, slowing battles down would be the equivalent of limiting the basketball players to a certain speed. The 3 guys Kobe spins past can then easily stop him, removing the chance for that amazing play.
A general reduction in unit damage and increasing splash would mean there is less need to gain the economy necessary to make a lot of units. Even just thinking of many of the recent homestory cup games that would never have been as great as they were.
Hit and run makes for interesting game play and micro, with blanket damage reduction all the units that are not good in straight up fights or dont have strong aoe will be unable to get anything done before they have to 'run'. Altering the numbers on units defines what can be done with them, it is more interesting if they are flexible and can be used for more than a single function.
A blanket damage reduction defines certain units that can not get anything done in small numbers. Every unit interaction, say +1 zealots killing zerglings in 2 hits instead of 3, drastically changing their efficiency. Upgrades mean far less if they dont line up with certain breakpoints. changing the numbers on units needs far more thought put into them than a blanket damage reduction.
it's hard to believe how naive people are after beeing through all this stuff
the announced changes and the fact lotv will be standalone is pure marketing towards "esports" customers
"oh hey we made mistakes cuz making a competitive RTS is so difficult we couldn't even make it right twice in a row, now the third time around, everything's going to be fine, come, buy again" lol esports is only targeting of the hardcore gamers demographic, hardcore was pejorative, marketing changed hardcore into esports -
this has nothing to do with competitive gaming at all
EPT
