Blizzcon last week was particularly exciting for me because Blizzard really seems much more intent on improving the game by listening to the community, having active discussions, and incorporating changes based on that feedback than they have in the past. Times of change are always very exciting and this could be a very pivotal moment for StarCraft II and its future. I'm thinking that if the Blizzard is willing to listen and willing to work with the community, a resurgence of SC2 is definitely possible.
While writing this, all I can think of is CounterStrike: Global Offensive, and how absolutely abysmal it was when it first came out. Although I'm not an expert on its history, I do know that for the first year or so pros absolutely hated it, and even casual players disliked it quite a bit (I don't think it even had basic things like a ranking system) - there was pretty much no eSports scene for the game. However, Valve started listening to the community and incorporating changes, and within a year or two transformed CS:GO into the eSports juggernaut it is today. The reason for all of this success is Valve's willingness as a developer to listen to the community and let the community actually hold the reins somewhat. We all know how much power is in the hands of the community, simply let them work together and they can create masterpieces like DotA. By that same logic, you can let a community work together and make vast improvements to an already existing game, to the point of raising it from the depths of oblivion to one of the biggest eSports today. Occasionally I have browsed the Reddit for CS:GO and seen all the awesome suggestions that are made by people who are attempting to improve the game, and it is so immensely refreshing to see that almost without fail, Valve staff are actively participating in the discussion in those very Reddit threads. Not only that, but often times a few weeks later, the idea is incorporated into the game, or the bug is fixed. This quick turnaround time really makes the community feel super involved and vested in the health of the game.
Blizzard's recent attitude towards LotV has given me a little bit of that feeling I get when I see Valve working with the community to improve their games. It seems Blizzard, after all this time, has been listening to us, and working hard to incorporate our feedback into the game. In particular, Psione, who is quite active in the Starcraft Reddit, is really making me draw analogies to Valve and their participation with the CS:GO community. This is really the best opportunity Blizzard has to make some huge changes and really turn this game from something great to something absolutely amazing.
If that is the case, and Blizzard really is willing to work with the community to improve StarCraft, I would like to present three important topics that everyone should know about. These are topics that are possible improvements that could be made to Legacy of the Void, and I am calling for the community to have active, constructive discussion on these topics (and all the other topics as well). I truly believe that if we are loud enough, this new Blizzard that seems to have learned a page or two from companies like Valve and Riot may very well work towards incorporating some of these changes.
Of course everyone wants to talk about things like the new units and how they will be balanced, adding skins, the automated tournaments, additional game modes, improving the sound effects, improving the arcade, etc. etc. And all of these are EXTREMELY important topics (I could spend a whole other blog talking about the arcade and urging Blizzard to make some changes that the community has been calling for for a while now). However, for me, I think the three biggest changes are the ones that will fundamentally affect gameplay, as this is the most opportune time to incorporate them and they have the potential to completely change how the game is played and observed.
In this video, LaLush goes over all the problems with the current micro in StarCraft II, such as inconsistencies and poor handling and responsiveness - all of these which limit the ability of a player to make the most out of a unit through micro and differentiate their skill level in comparison to other players.
I think this is one of the most well thought, well put-together videos in the entire community. Not only does LaLush go over problems with current units, but he also provides quick and EASY fixes that could greatly improve microability. This is one topic which I find incredibly important because the micro in Broodwar was so awesome and exciting to watch, and a lot of that has really been lost in the transition to Starcraft II. Blizzard could easily implement a lot of these changes and make a huge difference in how the game can be played at the high levels, vastly improving the spectator experience and keeping the casual player's experience completely intact (with the exception that they will be able to see highlight video's of pros doing amazing things with the same units, and thus spur these casual players to improve and try to micro like the pros themselves).
David Kim has previously addressed this video, stating that he would not like to incorporate these changes because he feels like the complexity of the micro would be too difficult for the casual viewer to understand. However, this point is one that frustrates me a lot. I don't know the subtleties of basketball very well, or the complex strategies that go into American football and allow amazing plays to happen . . . but does that detract from my viewer experience at all? I can still very easily appreciate and get excited when I see something amazing happen, even if I don't really know all the nuances of how a certain play was executed or performed. When Kobe spins past 3 guys and does a sick behind the back layup or when Tom Brady makes a sick pass to the wide receiver to score a touchdown - there are many small things that my eye missed, but I still recognize that it was a sick play. It's like with Super Smash or any fighting game too. I suck at all of them and I am the most casual of casuals when it comes to those types of games. All I know is that there is combos that are immensely difficult to pull off in games like Street Fighter that come down literally to single frames, and that there's a bunch of techniques in Super Smash like wave dashing and directional influence and what-not, but I have no idea how to perform them. That still doesn't stop me from being amazed when I see the pros play, and doesn't stop me from seeing that there is a huge difference from when I play Smash and when a pro plays Smash. Players in Smash literally move around twice as fast as I can. I gain a huge amount of appreciation in knowing that such a huge skill gap exists. Thus, when it comes to Starcraft, it doesn't matter if someone knows if the damage point of a banshee is 0 or 0.167 or whatever and how that effects the attack animation or WHATEVER of a banshee. They will still be able to tangibly see how much better a pro player can control a banshee and do amazing, clutch plays with it, and they will get excited and appreciate how good the play was. THAT is what we should be aiming for, and thus I feel it is a completely moot point to say that "a viewer wouldn't understand all the complexities of the micro."
I think this segue's quite well into my second topic, which is based off a blog recently posted here on Teamliquid and another that was posted a while ago but I have been wholeheartedly supporting ever since. The second topic: Prolonging Battles and Increasing Opportunities for Micro by Reducing DPS and/or Incorporating Dynamic Unit Movement The Downfall of Starcraft 2 Dynamic Unit Movement
Although I don't necessarily agree with how pessimistic the first writer's view is, I do very much like his point that battles simply do not last long enough nowadays. The improved pathing and huge damage bonuses that units get against certain unit types leads to 5-second battles that are not as engaging or thrilling to watch and don't allow enough time for players to differentiate themselves by the skill of their micro. In addition, the battle is often the most fun and exciting part of both a casual and competitive player's game, by reducing it to such a short battle the game becomes much less engaging for a big majority of the player base, as the game becomes much more about build order and composition rather than actually interacting with units.
Funnily enough, Husky made a IMBA LEAGUE - All Units Do Half Damage video that was supposed to make the game silly to watch. However, what resulted was an unintended effect in that the battle's lasted longer and actually to many people were much more interesting to watch than in normal Starcraft! Now I'm not calling for a WarCraft 3-esque ten-minute battle where all the units have ten million HP and do 5 damage, but I do think that the game could benefit a lot from a battle that lasted a slightly more moderate amount of time. Battles in Broodwar lasted much longer than in Starcraft II but not as long as in Warcraft, which begs the question - what happened?
Well as I pretty much pointed out already, the first change was that units seem to be dealing slightly more DPS in general. We see many units doing 15, 20, 30, 50, even 125 damage in quick bursts. Compare that to the slow attacking, bulky dragoon which did 20 damage but explosive (so often it only did 10 damage) which often made up the bulk of the Protoss army (there were no void rays, tempests, immortal, and colossus that did insane amounts of damage with little micro. Only the reaver and high templar). The easily mass-able roach that does 16 damage to the 10 attack (5 damage to small units since it was explosive) hydralisk, or slow-attacking, positional lurkers to the high impact burst damage of the banelings. All of the buffs in unit damage contribute to battles that are simply way too short. An across the board reduction in DPS could help a lot in increasing the time battles take and thus increasing amount of micro opportunities and excitement when you see an epic engagement that actually lasts for longer than a split second.
Secondly, units nowadays simply move too intelligently. They "hug" each other while moving, meaning that almost as soon as you enter an engagement, all of your units are able to shoot at once. Before, it took a lot of skill to make sure your units were positioned correctly and in flanking positions in order to get your army to all attack at the same time, whereas tactical positioning has very much taken a backseat in Starcraft II to composition and timing windows. This is where dynamic unit movement comes in. Obviously we don't want to dumb down the Starcraft II AI to the point that they are bumping into each other and getting stuck on ramps like in Broodwar. However, there are minor tweaks to how units path that can bring back some of the skill required to take good engagements. I will let you read the thread itself to see what I am talking about, but here are the key points I'd like to say about it.
1. It's simply aesthetically a lot more pleasing. No longer will you have giant balls of units walking around until they finally slam into each other. It will look a lot more like a real army that is traveling across the map. Battles will potentially stretch across several screens and be much more epic. 2. Battles will last longer as units take longer to get in range of their enemy. This makes tactical positioning and flanking much more important as otherwise your units will simply arrive to the battle too slowly. As mentioned before, this also increases micro opportunity. 3. Splash can be buffed instead of nerfed to oblivion as it was in SC2, making it more impactful in battles and exciting to watch. Skilled usage of splash can very much lead to comebacks. A common argument against Dynamic Unit Movement is that "it will make splitting easy mode since you are already split against banelings and don't have to split anymore." This is countered by the fact that you can buff splash damage so that splitting is still very much necessary. Overall this will make splash much more exciting - remember guys storms used to be a huge deal and now they are pretty much just an afterthought, something you see in every battle anyways. 4. Ranged units take longer to reach that "critical mass" where melee units simply can't deal with them anymore. This is an indirect buff to melee units since there is more surface area for them to attack ranged units, but this creates a micro dynamic where a player using ranged units will actively have to get into better positioning and push his units closer together rather than already having them in the ideal "ball" formation.
The only real argument I remember that I encountered when I posted on that thread was really that "oh, clumping is a part of SC2." Well now is the perfect time to change that!
Also, here is a great related point brought up in the thread on page 3 by ledarsi.
On November 17 2014 20:09 ledarsi wrote: 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.
This thread has already gotten quite a bit of attention, but I felt like it is one of the most important discussions that needs to be had during this period before LotV. Although most of us are already quite pleased with the direction Blizzard is heading in LotV for economy, this thread details some of the problems that will still exist even with lower resources per base and outlines some ways to improve the economy even further heading into Legacy of the Void. The author explains his suggestions far better than I could, so I suggest you all go over and take a look and join in on the discussion, and perhaps Blizzard will consider an even more significant and all-encompassing change to the economy in StarCraft II!
Alright, well I wasn't planning on writing something so long (I was mostly just intending to make a quick blog where I highlighted three topics that I thought were interesting) so if my thoughts were rambling or disorganized I hope it wasn't too bad! I really hope this can inspire some good discussion about these potential changes, and hopefully Blizzard will take an active role in participating with us! I really think LotV has the potential to be absolutely huge, it will take a lot of patience and thinking from both sides as well as open mindedness to change, but be excited for the change! We can make Starcraft II one of the best again, I believe!
Also Blizz fix sounds pls lurker sounds so weak and same with all the other unit attacks I cry evrytim :'(
I don't know what else to say other than express my great hope that Blizzard reads this post and seriously makes some changes towards this. Not to beat a dead horse, but I really don't understand why they haven't done some of these things. Thanks for this great post.
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.
Regardless of whether or not Blizzard is listening more to the community now, they've at least shown that they are willing to make bigger risks in changing SC2 going into Legacy of the Void, which means this is the perfect time to be talking about big fundamental changes to the game like the above three topics. At the very least, I was merely hoping to troduce these topics to people who may have not seen them before and could learn a lot about what many progamers/spectators are hoping for when they are in discussions about SC2's future.
On November 16 2014 06:55 Superiorwolf wrote: Regardless of whether or not Blizzard is listening more to the community now, they've at least shown that they are willing to make bigger risks in changing SC2 going into Legacy of the Void, which means this is the perfect time to be talking about big fundamental changes to the game like the above three topics. At the very least, I was merely hoping to introduce these topics to people who may have not seen them before and could learn a lot about what many progamers/spectators are hoping for when they are in discussions about SC2's future.
On the topic of the LotV economy, have you seen this post?
On November 16 2014 06:55 Superiorwolf wrote: Regardless of whether or not Blizzard is listening more to the community now, they've at least shown that they are willing to make bigger risks in changing SC2 going into Legacy of the Void, which means this is the perfect time to be talking about big fundamental changes to the game like the above three topics. At the very least, I was merely hoping to troduce these topics to people who may have not seen them before and could learn a lot about what many progamers/spectators are hoping for when they are in discussions about SC2's future.
Hey, I actually agree, if there was ever a time to talk about fundamental change, it's definitely now. Fixed my post.
On November 16 2014 04:56 Superiorwolf wrote: Also Blizz fix sounds pls lurker sounds so weak and same with all the other unit attacks I cry evrytim :'(
seconded! 1 of the resons why StarBow is freaking awesome ;D (although i think the Lurker sound is the sc2 one, but the Zergling sound omg :O)
I feel like battle in SC2 are too short because units are really clumped up which lead to a lot of burst damage.
Actually the only matchup where this truly doesn't happen is TvZ because aoe on both sides prevent players from being able to just a move or try to maximize directly the surface area of their army.
This thing combined with the very high DPS makes it for very short battles.
Also, blizzard is willing to force the players into fighting more. But in SCII, units have so much mobility that once you've destroyed your enemy army you've got a lot of chances to just find yourself across the map and do critical damages. Well I generalize a lot on that last point but that's pretty much my feeling.
Concerning the lotv economy: I feel Blizzard isn't actually responding to community concerns. If you read the very indepth posts about the starcraft economy and compare it to blizzards changes it doesn't match up. Their design philosophy for lotv was just more action throughout the game. That's why they made the mineral change. Also the worker change comes out of nowhere, I don't remember anybody asking for that (not judging this one yet, just saying).
I'm coming at this from a bit of a mixed perspective (game developer/involved in lots of competitive communities).
Point 3 (Economy changes) I absolutely agree stuff being changed is excellent.
Point 2 (reduced unit clumping) I could take or leave. In BW as a newbie with about 1/5 my current APM I spent most of my time....well macroing, but then the rest of my time I spent gathering my units together so that they wouldn't attack single file. This is assuming that I used ground units at all. (There's a reason why noobs in BW liked carriers--carriers mean that pathing isn't too big of an issue for you...granted, the fact that carriers required very few army hotkeys helps too).
I'm going to disagree on Lalush's depth of micro, however, and agree with David Kim. Hear me out on this.
Suppy, I know you're familiar with SSBM, so I'm going to use that as an example here. My first time at a real SSBM tournament, I literally spent the whole tournament not understanding what SHFFLC was. And bear in mind I had read the mechanics overview written by Mew2King. I had a vague sense of how the mechanic worked, I just didn't notice when people were doing it. It wasn't until I saw a low tier tournament, and then tried to replicate a combo I saw with Mr Game & Watch (a bottom tier character with massive landing lag) that I realized "ohhh, that was L-cancelling the whole time."
Take this L-cancelling tutorial video, for instance, and look at the section on Fox. The way it recommends telling if you L-cancelled or not with Fox is to go into training mode and check whether a combo is listed as connecting or not.
This is what I would call invisible skill, which is to say, anyone below the SSBM equivalent of mid-masters can't tell if someone missed their L-cancel or not. And actually, even SSBM casters will very rarely point out "ooh, he missed his L-Cancel". They'll notice bad DI, but not bad L-cancelling.
Now, so far, I haven't said anything about whether this is good or bad, I've just been describing a mechanic and how noticeable it is.
Why I think invisible skill mechanics are bad for an esport is that to an outsider they don't look impressive. A SHFFL Nair in SSBM is about five inputs in half a second with with narrow input timing on all of them. 5 inputs in 0.5 seconds is 600 APM. Want to know what it looks like to an outsider? It looks like a jump kick. It doesn't look like five inputs with very narrow timing windows. It looks like two inputs with loose timing windows. Street Fighter players look at that, and say "Huh? Why is this supposed to impress me? All he did is a jump kick." And smash, in fact, was looked down upon by most of the rest of the fighting game community for...about 10 years. People called it not a real fighting game. People would say stuff like "you don't even have to do fireball motions! All the inputs are so easy! Why should I be impressed by someone playing something like that?" Which is clearly just factually incorrect; they should be impressed.
This is the problem with invisible skill. People don't notice it.
Now let me provide another video, this one from a Japanese bullet hell game called Touhou:
This level is actually pretty easy. Like...actually, all the bullets are really slow and easy to dodge, and your hitbox is like...one pixel, so there's actually quite a bit of room to dodge. And even if you do get hit, you have a massive timing window in which to "death bomb" which causes you to not actually die. But if I open up my laptop and play Touhou in a public area, people come by and say "wow, holy crap, that looks sooooo hard. How are you even doing that??? That looks insane!!!!"
When designing a spectator esport, you should make something that looks hard. I don't think you should be designing something that looks easy but actually is actually very hard (ex: invisible skill).
Ideally, for Starcraft, what you want to design is something that looks hard to a casual audience AND is hard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Nice read! I for one would love blizzard to just remove forcefields and the need for them in the game, they destroy so much micro potential, they make it very easy for protoss to deflect hatch/lair ground unit armies and I honestly think they are one of the big troublemakers when it comes to the need of Swarmhosts and passive games. Perhaps with a different unit movement (and of course stronger gateway units and weaker warpin mechanic and nerfed support units) that would be possible!
On November 18 2014 00:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Nice read! I for one would love blizzard to just remove forcefields and the need for them in the game, they destroy so much micro potential, they make it very easy for protoss to deflect hatch/lair ground unit armies and I honestly think they are one of the big troublemakers when it comes to the need of Swarmhosts and passive games. Perhaps with a different unit movement (and of course stronger gateway units and weaker warpin mechanic and nerfed support units) that would be possible!
Aren't they already trying to do that via unit skills with the Ravager? Let's be honest, Sentries are not a unit you generally make en masse versus Terran in nearly all game situations. Frankly, if you're getting ranged upgrades, you can afford to build some Roaches, then morph Ravagers and just run the Protoss over with Hydra-ling after their first Forcefield line gets shattered.
Edit: @Suppy, Thanks for the response, your reasoning makes more sense to me now.
On November 17 2014 20:09 ledarsi wrote: 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.
This is an absolutely great point and I will add it to the OP. Thanks!
On November 17 2014 22:59 Boonbag wrote: 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
You may be absolutely correct especially if we go off what's happened in the past, but I would very much rather be optimistic about the possibilities than completely lose all hope of improving Starcraft back to what it once was!
On November 17 2014 22:27 Startyr wrote: 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.
I can see where you are coming from. I think a better analogy though is that yes, Kobe spinning past three guys is slowed down, giving the three guys an opportunity to stop him, but Kobe also has more time to make even sicker plays to get past them regardless. As it currently stands, it's almost as if Kobe isn't spinning at all, it's moving so quickly that he simply can't spin - he is just running past the three guys in a straight line and neither side has any opportunity to do anything flashy.
I do agree with you that if we do reduce unit damage / increase health across the board, we want to preserve those unique unit interactions such as the zealot +1 upgrade interaction. Although to be honest I don't think we have many problems with too high of DPS at the lower end of the spectrum, it's really once we start getting to Tier 2 and Tier 3 units that we begin seeing huge damage increases that are contributing to the 5 second battles. So I guess I'm mostly referring to those units that we need to reduce damage for, down to things a bit more reasonable.
On November 18 2014 00:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Nice read! I for one would love blizzard to just remove forcefields and the need for them in the game, they destroy so much micro potential, they make it very easy for protoss to deflect hatch/lair ground unit armies and I honestly think they are one of the big troublemakers when it comes to the need of Swarmhosts and passive games. Perhaps with a different unit movement (and of course stronger gateway units and weaker warpin mechanic and nerfed support units) that would be possible!
Aren't they already trying to do that via unit skills with the Ravager? Let's be honest, Sentries are not a unit you generally make en masse versus Terran in nearly all game situations. Frankly, if you're getting ranged upgrades, you can afford to build some Roaches, then morph Ravagers and just run the Protoss over with Hydra-ling after their first Forcefield line gets shattered.
Edit: @Suppy, Thanks for the response, your reasoning makes more sense to me now.
Of course! Thanks for contributing to the discussion! ^^
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.
And I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all. I'm saying that even if you don't know exactly how hard it is to do what a fighting game player does, you can appreciate the overall effect of the gameplay.
On November 18 2014 00:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Nice read! I for one would love blizzard to just remove forcefields and the need for them in the game, they destroy so much micro potential, they make it very easy for protoss to deflect hatch/lair ground unit armies and I honestly think they are one of the big troublemakers when it comes to the need of Swarmhosts and passive games. Perhaps with a different unit movement (and of course stronger gateway units and weaker warpin mechanic and nerfed support units) that would be possible!
Aren't they already trying to do that via unit skills with the Ravager? Let's be honest, Sentries are not a unit you generally make en masse versus Terran in nearly all game situations. Frankly, if you're getting ranged upgrades, you can afford to build some Roaches, then morph Ravagers and just run the Protoss over with Hydra-ling after their first Forcefield line gets shattered.
Edit: @Suppy, Thanks for the response, your reasoning makes more sense to me now.
While everything you said is true, it will stick to the "x unit hardcounter y unit" design that ZvP/PvZ is right now, which I heavily dislike. While ravagers nullify forcefields I feel it would be a better game if both races had more options.
On November 18 2014 00:03 Laertes wrote: Speaking of Starbow, perhaps we should convince them to make a version for the LoTV economy to see how it works back to back with BW economy.
Poll: Should Starbow Make a "LotV Economy" Version?
Yes! (6)
46%
No! (5)
38%
Yes, but I wouldn't play it. (1)
8%
Why? (1)
8%
Yes, and I would play it a lot (0)
0%
13 total votes
Your vote: Should Starbow Make a "LotV Economy" Version?
(Vote): Yes! (Vote): No! (Vote): Yes, but I wouldn't play it. (Vote): Yes, and I would play it a lot (Vote): Why?
We had this eco in Starbow (except 12 starting workers) and it worked much worse than our current eco. Players were forced to expand instead on encouraged and you'd end up never having many mining bases at all since they ran out so fast. BW eco is far superior, especially for Starbow.
I think the economy part has the best chances of going though. The other parts have about zero chance.
And I'm not so sure an isolated economy change makes much of a difference anyway when supplies get inflated to max so rapidly. Without time to build a bank before supplies even out, the entire point of rewarding more bases sort of gets lost. When you play PvT in BW for example, as a Protoss the reason you expand aggressively is to build a remax bank by the time the turtling terran moves out with 2-2 upgraded 200 supply mech. If you play a game where that 200 timing hits 7 minutes earlier, I'm not sure you get the same effect.
Though in the case of compositions like swarmhosts, you could argue that there doesn't exist a timing to begin with. There is just endless turtling. So it could work out anyway.
Isn't one way to kinda fix the income to be a bit less cut and dry to not place so many minerals at the shortest distance but spread them out more (like it was on a lot of BW maps with some close some intermediate and a some far, rather than as many as possibly close and a few intermediate)? the effect wont be as big since the pathing is better but it will still mean that people would start by harvesting the closest patches and then eventually get to the furthest ones, but also the closest patches would be mined out first (especially for terrans with mules) making the bases less efficient the older it gets without reverting to 0 as drastically as it would with sc2 style mineral placement.
Im not sure if this has been discussed Ill read the whole thread tommorow but how can we realistically get Blizzard to see this if they already haven't? Does it need posted on Blizz forums ? Its extremely well written and Suppy is a pretty notable member of the community. I really wish they would take some of his advice.
On November 20 2014 10:48 salle wrote: Isn't one way to kinda fix the income to be a bit less cut and dry to not place so many minerals at the shortest distance but spread them out more (like it was on a lot of BW maps with some close some intermediate and a some far, rather than as many as possibly close and a few intermediate)? the effect wont be as big since the pathing is better but it will still mean that people would start by harvesting the closest patches and then eventually get to the furthest ones, but also the closest patches would be mined out first (especially for terrans with mules) making the bases less efficient the older it gets without reverting to 0 as drastically as it would with sc2 style mineral placement.
thats actually a good way to break the 3 base cap on eco without making worker ai worse or fiddle with the actual mining. Maybe expand on it and separate the further and the closer nodes even more to increase the impact?
I also think that's a good idea because if there isn't sufficient change, map makers themselves can do it. However it has been proposed before (to have like 1 or 2 gold patches per base to encourage expanding) but not really implemented. Because of the ladder system with fixed maps I think it would probably be hard to get everyone to adopt a map makers change unless all tournaments agreed to try it
On November 20 2014 10:48 salle wrote: Isn't one way to kinda fix the income to be a bit less cut and dry to not place so many minerals at the shortest distance but spread them out more (like it was on a lot of BW maps with some close some intermediate and a some far, rather than as many as possibly close and a few intermediate)? the effect wont be as big since the pathing is better but it will still mean that people would start by harvesting the closest patches and then eventually get to the furthest ones, but also the closest patches would be mined out first (especially for terrans with mules) making the bases less efficient the older it gets without reverting to 0 as drastically as it would with sc2 style mineral placement.
I've seen this suggestion and experimented with it 2-3 years ago.
What I think happens:
You have to spread out the mineral nodes substantially to get an effect with this (the kind of effect where players ignore saturating farther patches for nearer ones). In fact you have to put the farther patches like 3 grids back to change the saturation of the patch to require 3 workers per patch.
For starters that looks really ugly. Base layouts would be hideous. I wouldn't put it past Blizzard to care about aesthetics.
But then there is a secondary problem to it as well: Workers don't arrive with perfect timing to relieve each other on the nearer patches in SC2. And as long as you have one mineral patch in the vicinity which has 0 assigned harvesters on it, the worker AI works exactly like BW. That is: they always and immediately bounce towards the patch with 0 assigned harvester when reaching an occupied node.
You can't maintain 2 workers/patch on the nearer patches without heavily babysitting them or having at least 1 worker on each farther patch. So having 8 workers on a base and only utilizing the nearer patches was not possible, because they would self-regulate and bounce to the farther patches with 0 assigned harvesters on them.
So in order for this to work you needed at least 12 workers on a base (and it's true, then, that the nearer patches mined out faster than the farther ones). Another forced solution would be to move back the nearer patches one grid so the workers on nearer patches wouldn't disrupt each other.
But the question is whether players would use the bases as we think they would, or if they'd just saturate the farther patches anyway while staying on a lower base amount. 20 workers would be near optimal instead of the current 16. It's a difference from what we have now. But I'm not 100% sure it's enough of a difference to where players are incentivized to ignore the farthest patches.
It might just have proved to have the reverse effect in competitive play. Delayed expansions further. Especially because of the AI annoyance where you need to have 12 workers on a base in order to make full use of the nearer patches.
I do think this would have a lot of unforeseen consequences (which is part of the charm I think) since it widens the grey area of when to expand. I like the idea of widening the node placement since that also increases the area that the workers occupy which can lead to better harassment opportunities or at least bigger costs associated with protecting from harassment. But there are other ways of giving these diminishing returns based on workers at a base, everything from slowing down the movement speed of workers carrying resources* to straight up mathematical % "fee" per active worker to having a longer mining times for certain minerals (Sort of like reversing the gold or actually simply if you want to do it the other way, introduce two gold nodes per base, which increases the worth of those two nodes.)
I don't think increasing the speed with which people expand will make the game more exciting per se, but I think increasing the consequences and opportunities when to do so is the interesting choice. And also increasing the cost of turtleing.
(*this would maybe also solve the issue of 2 workers spreading out from a node)
EPT
