EPTShould Building Automation Be Added? - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
| ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
SC2's macro was massively simplified compared to SCBW, this idea is just a tiny step in the same direction. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On April 24 2015 02:41 Haukinger wrote: Example: splitting marines. repeatedly boxing and moving those guys around is actually brainless, and could easily be automated (anyone remember c&c? that one had a hotkey for split) Example: inject. cycling each of your bases every 40 seconds, selecting a queen, selecting inject, clicking on the hatch is actually brainless, and could easily be automated (toggle auto-inject on those queens) Of course, it is an actual decision which queen should inject, but that decision isn't removed by giving the player the option to tell a queen to inject until further notice. this is sarcasm, right? | ||
|
Supersamu
Germany296 Posts
| ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On April 24 2015 02:46 spinesheath wrote: Anyone saying this is a bad idea should look back at SCBW and all the people crying about SC2 introducing rally to minerals, multi building selection, arbitrarily large control groups and all that stuff. The same arguments, the same tears. SC2's macro was massively simplified compared to SCBW, this idea is just a tiny step in the same direction. People love SCBW despite its flaws, not for its flaws. I remember when you could only select 4 units at a time in the original Warcraft (1). Should we go back to that? No because it's bad. But the whole game was slower back then and that didn't take away from the game too much. SC2 is a very fast paced game. There are so many things that a player needs to do already. Would 12 unit max selection make it more difficult and mechanically demanding? Sure. Would it do so in any way that is at all interesting? No. Because the faster you are the better period and it doesn't lead to or reward different play styles at all. The fact that macroing and microing are 2 separate things and require your attention individually leads to varying play styles. Some people focus on one or the other. And those who are really good can do both at the same time. But in the last example, nobody would, say, only attack with 12 units at a time ever. Because that's dumb. So I don't really like the idea of automating production, aside from the fact that it would only work for Terrans anyway... | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19216 Posts
On April 24 2015 02:46 spinesheath wrote: Anyone saying this is a bad idea should look back at SCBW and all the people crying about SC2 introducing rally to minerals, multi building selection, arbitrarily large control groups and all that stuff. The same arguments, the same tears. SC2's macro was massively simplified compared to SCBW, this idea is just a tiny step in the same direction. I completely missed out on this. People were crying about that stuff? | ||
|
Chernobyl
Brazil143 Posts
I want to make every single unit of my army. | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On April 24 2015 02:41 Haukinger wrote: Example: splitting marines. repeatedly boxing and moving those guys around is actually brainless, and could easily be automated (anyone remember c&c? that one had a hotkey for split) Example: inject. cycling each of your bases every 40 seconds, selecting a queen, selecting inject, clicking on the hatch is actually brainless, and could easily be automated (toggle auto-inject on those queens) Of course, it is an actual decision which queen should inject, but that decision isn't removed by giving the player the option to tell a queen to inject until further notice. And what about what I mentioned in my previous post? Choosing when to look at your army and when to look at your base? You are choosing to mention only the parts that are purely skill based, but not the parts that aren't, which would also disappear when removing what's based on skill. If you have enough apm to do everything at the same time, then there is no choice in how to spend your apm. And therefor, there is less to think about, fewer decisions to be made. The entire apm management part of the game disappears. It also removes diversity. I want there to be multiple viable choices. And in so many cases, there are. One can choose micro or macro to varying degrees in so many of the situations that occur, which allows for different kinds of people to play differently. Diversity is a great thing. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
| ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On April 24 2015 02:46 spinesheath wrote: Anyone saying this is a bad idea should look back at SCBW and all the people crying about SC2 introducing rally to minerals, multi building selection, arbitrarily large control groups and all that stuff. The same arguments, the same tears. SC2's macro was massively simplified compared to SCBW, this idea is just a tiny step in the same direction. How would that even work for zerg or Protoss warpin. I can think of so many issues on top of my head that'd be a headache to take care of since terran is the only race that has a fitting macro mechanic. Apart from the skill being removed, it's just a stupid idea in general thats not really thought through | ||
|
Haukinger
Germany131 Posts
And speaking of diversity - as long as I watch sc2, diversity was the last thing anyone ever desired. Everything's always about getting a stable meta, learing builds, no patches, no creative maps... just get the game as static as possible. Add a new unit every other week, and you're guaranteed diversity :-) | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On April 24 2015 03:43 Haukinger wrote: I don't get it. Nothing non-mechanical would be removed if only mechanical stuff is automated. You still would have to use all the apm you have and still decide what to spend them on, but on different things. And speaking of diversity - as long as I watch sc2, diversity was the last thing anyone ever desired. Everything's always about getting a stable meta, learing builds, no patches, no creative maps... just get the game as static as possible. Add a new unit every other week, and you're guaranteed diversity :-) People want diverse playstyles but consistency within a playstyle. Just like SK terran is a distinct style but it's basically the same thing whenever it's played. Having lots of units does not help that as it tends to erode playstyles instead of differentiating them past a certain point. Mech TvP in BW is spectacular to watch but it's only 2 units (tank and vulture) in most games with a 3rd (goliath) being added in the long ones. In other words it seems that it's best when there's several ways to win but they are not easy to mix/transition into one another (adding just one slow unit to a fast composition breaks the way it moves across the map, so you're better off adding many) and they are moderately independent of the way the opponent reacts to them. Counter rotation (air switches and such) does not count as diversity. | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On April 24 2015 03:43 Haukinger wrote: I don't get it. Nothing non-mechanical would be removed if only mechanical stuff is automated. You still would have to use all the apm you have and still decide what to spend them on, but on different things. If you automate things that take apm, then you have fewer things to spend your apm on. As the amount of apm required approaches the amount of apm available, decision making about how to spend apm is reduced. And speaking of diversity - as long as I watch sc2, diversity was the last thing anyone ever desired. Everything's always about getting a stable meta, learing builds, no patches, no creative maps... just get the game as static as possible. Add a new unit every other week, and you're guaranteed diversity :-) Diversity is one of the main reasons that I went back to BW from WoL. There are more ways to win in BW, more styles for me to explore. I haven't played or watched HotS so don't murder me if this is no longer the case. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 24 2015 02:46 spinesheath wrote: Anyone saying this is a bad idea should look back at SCBW and all the people crying about SC2 introducing rally to minerals, multi building selection, arbitrarily large control groups and all that stuff. The same arguments, the same tears. SC2's macro was massively simplified compared to SCBW, this idea is just a tiny step in the same direction. That's nonsense. Take for example multiple building selection; that's my idea of a beneficial change (though some people may disagree even with this), as it is simply making the process of building units more streamlined, removing basically a multitasking dump, allowing players to focus on more important things. This change doesn't do any such thing. In fact adding auto-queue is openly harmful to newer players, as it doesn't give them the opportunity to play reactively, steals their minerals when they may need them, and gives them the bad habit of relying on auto-queue in general. And of course this change doesn't work for Protoss or Zerg. The key difference is that rallying to a mineral patch or multiple building selection are things that a top player will use, while using auto-queue will actively harm your game. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On April 24 2015 03:43 Haukinger wrote: I don't get it. Nothing non-mechanical would be removed if only mechanical stuff is automated. You still would have to use all the apm you have and still decide what to spend them on, but on different things. And speaking of diversity - as long as I watch sc2, diversity was the last thing anyone ever desired. Everything's always about getting a stable meta, learing builds, no patches, no creative maps... just get the game as static as possible. Add a new unit every other week, and you're guaranteed diversity :-) That's fine but point is do that with custom maps and leave core game alone. People argue "it's not making it easier" but essentially this idea is to take 1 thing out from 5 things to do so players can focus on remaining 4; making it easier. Having 5 things to do is harder than having 4 things to do. If people want a cusual game there are plenty in arcade and even ladder can be played casually. It's about playing the game and not climbing the ladder, people seem to want this so they can climb easier. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5414 Posts
On April 24 2015 03:00 BisuDagger wrote: I completely missed out on this. People were crying about that stuff? Yep. That's the reason why we have queen's larva inject, mules, and chrono boost in the game. So people have more of a reason to go back to their base. MBS/auto mining were both huge issues for a long period of time. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 24 2015 03:15 KeksX wrote: How would that even work for zerg or Protoss warpin. I can think of so many issues on top of my head that'd be a headache to take care of since terran is the only race that has a fitting macro mechanic. Apart from the skill being removed, it's just a stupid idea in general thats not really thought through I think you are right that this doesn't make sense to be introduced into Starcraft. And it really isn't well thought-through or represented by the OP or anyone else in the thread. But in general I do believe this could make sense if production was designed for it. The one big example that is floating around these days is of course grey goo. Though I'm not even sure it would work with that. However, with a classic CnC production menu, I think this could work out very well. And yeah, of course it "removes skill" from the game. But I think it is not an interesting task to cycle your production all the time. So the idea in itself is a very good one to make the game more enjoyable. And the skill that would be removed in SC2 is first and foremost an entry-barrier, not so much something that greatly differentiates two progamers from each other. That's the point where people will come up with names such as Bomber, soO or Rain, but that's actually not really true. The way they get production edges is largely due to innovations in their builds and setups that other players don't use. Their skill to line up production very well isn't all that different from anybody else. | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On April 24 2015 03:59 ZigguratOfUr wrote: That's nonsense. Take for example multiple building selection; that's my idea of a beneficial change (though some people may disagree even with this), as it is simply making the process of building units more streamlined, removing basically a multitasking dump, allowing players to focus on more important things. This change doesn't do any such thing. In fact adding auto-queue is openly harmful to newer players, as it doesn't give them the opportunity to play reactively, steals their minerals when they may need them, and gives them the bad habit of relying on auto-queue in general. And of course this change doesn't work for Protoss or Zerg. The key difference is that rallying to a mineral patch or multiple building selection are things that a top player will use, while using auto-queue will actively harm your game. You're missing my point. I'm not even arguing that it's a good idea. People strongly opposed Bizzard's simplification of mechanics going from SCBW to SC2. Now they wouldn't want to go back. Yet the moment someone suggests a simplification of mechanics, they are back to opposing. It doesn't really matter if the idea is particularly well thought out, people straight up oppose it. The correct reaction would be "That's a reasonable proposition, but not quite practical yet. Let's think about how to improve it and then we'll decide if it's actually good for the game or not." Mostly I'm just pointing out that people still have the same elitist view of playing a "mechanically hard game". Even though this mechanical difficulty might not even be of importance for the quality of the game. | ||
|
Haukinger
Germany131 Posts
On April 24 2015 04:02 jinorazi wrote: People argue "it's not making it easier" but essentially this idea is to take 1 thing out from 5 things to do so players can focus on remaining 4; making it easier. Having 5 things to do is harder than having 4 things to do. It's not like there are five things to do now, it's more like 100 things to do while being able to do 10. Now remove 10 mechanical brainless things to do, you still have 90 to chose from, while being able to do perhaps 15. Side note: it's a bit silly to think that mechanical difficulty is required to make the game hard to win. Any five year old could beat Kasparow, as long as he's able to physically move the chess pieces... | ||
|
TwiggyWan
France328 Posts
On April 23 2015 15:30 OtherWorld wrote: Multitasking is the first thing that makes the difference between a skilled and a less skilled player, why would you want to remove/diminish it? what you said should not be true in a STRATEGY game. Superior plan and tactics should be this first thing. But it has never been the case in starcraft games. Adding such a feature, while needed to relieve player stress, would render the game even more shallow than it already is | ||
| ||
). But don't act as if it's purely mechanical. That either shows ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
