|
A lot of RTS games have a button that will continuously build or auto queue units at production facilities. I remember this feature being used in Age of Mythology's expansion back in the day, also more recently, Grey Goo.
I Think SC2 Is Ready For Such a Feature
SC2 is a fast game, and LotV is going to make it even faster. Many units are being added that require the player to focus 100% of their time on the battle and control the units for the best results possible.
The changes coming to LotV will definitely help to distinguish the players that can micro and macro the best even further then ever before.
^
The Issue With This?
Many players will not be able to keep up with the extra amount of multitasking needed with the faster economy (more money floating) and the potential for 'cheap' tactics. New strategies like Medivac lifted tanks, or warp prism micro may cause players to not be able to keep up because it requires more than just A-moving to stop. For example, a gold Zerg may simply die to early Medivacs with tanks because of the difficulty of stopping it while remembering to inject / build units at the same time.
Initially the thought of such a feature would have turned me off years ago.
I think the game is at a place now that this feature is fitting for the game.
This feature will help combat hacks such as the automatic queen inject hack. It will make the players with superior strategies, tactics, and experience shine and even possibly allow Blizzard to add even more micro opportunities to the game. At the top I believe it will help make players a lot more consistent than ever before, and things like jet-lag will be less of a factor in determining who the true champions are.
I think an audience is less aware or impressed that a Terran remembered to queue up his marines at home than if he did some amazing splits or dropped in 3 places at once.
Thoughts?
|
Not a fan at all of that idea. I'm not sure why you think it'll help distinguish the players who can micro and macro the best, it seems like it's just a crutch for macro. I also don't understand how you think it'll help players with superior strategy, tactics and experience either. While macro isn't as flashy as micro it is very much a skill and part of the game.
Additionally using auto-queue engenders bad habits for newer players. You don't want auto-queue to be always enabled especially in the earlier stages of the game. In fact managing auto-queue correctly is probably as hard as simply building the units at the right time, which means it is purpose defeating. However the fact that it exists will lead the newer players to use it incorrectly, which will ultimately harm them as they become better at the game. For more experienced players auto-queue will mostly be a trap, something that they forget they have one when they should be spending all their money rebuilding their economy for example.
|
I like the idea a lot as it will improve the experience for casuals a little bit. Pro´s wont do that anyway as you have to strategicaly choose between larva inject or creep spread, mule or scan, depending on time, build etc. whereas noobs can autocast inject or mule.
|
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?
|
On April 23 2015 15:11 GiveMeCake wrote:
A lot of RTS games have a button that will continuously build or auto queue units at production facilities. I remember this feature being used in Age of Mythology's expansion back in the day, also more recently, Grey Goo.
I Think SC2 Is Ready For Such a Feature
SC2 is a fast game, and LotV is going to make it even faster. Many units are being added that require the player to focus 100% of their time on the battle and control the units for the best results possible.
This will definitely help to distinguish the players that can micro and macro the best even further then ever before.
The Issue
Many players will not be able to keep up with the extra amount of multitasking needed with the faster economy (more money floating) and the potential for 'cheap' tactics. New strategies like Medivac lifted tanks, or warp prism micro may cause players to not be able to keep up because it requires more than just A-moving to stop. For example, a gold Zerg may simply die to early Medivacs with tanks because of the difficulty of stopping it while remembering to inject / build units at the same time.
Initially the thought of such a feature would have turned me off years ago.
I think the game is at a place now that this feature is fitting for the game.
This feature will help combat hacks such as the automatic queen inject hack. It will make the players with superior strategies, tactics, and experience shine and even possibly allow Blizzard to add even more micro opportunities to the game. At the top I believe it will help make players a lot more consistent than ever before, and things like jet-lag will be less of a factor in determining who the true champions are.
I think an audience is less aware or impressed that a Terran remembered to queue up his marines at home than if he did some amazing splits or dropped in 3 places at once.
Thoughts?
NO. Just NO.
|
Zergs larvae and Protoss warp-in just simply wouldn't work with autocast. The only race that theoretically could use this is Terran.. But only in the lower leagues like bronze or silver.. The game is more reactive than "build unit A and do nothing else".
|
It can be added on customs games or stuff like that, but I don't think it should be added on ladder or competitive games. Maybe even add a ladder system for new players with such features (I belive it exist, but I'm not sure).
I'd go as far as to say that some of the beauty of Starcraft relies on making mistakes and forgetting things, but also it is very important that the game allows the player to make those mistakes, many imporant moments in the game are just forgetting to build something or missing an inject. If people just auto-make their units there will be less focus on Macro and thus Macro players will just get punished unfairly, while Micro players get rewarded.
It will just dumb down the game, it is part of the skill of a player to remember to produce stuff and check his production. Perhaps the skill cieling/floor of LotV will be way too high, but people will soon learn the game. Ideas like this, while noble, just make bad habits for the new people and punishes Macro way too heavily.
I think an audience is less aware or impressed that a Terran remembered to queue up his marines at home than if he did some amazing splits or dropped in 3 places at once.
Starcraft should have the player as the N°1 priority and not the viewer in my honest opinion.
|
I think Destiny recommended something like this be available for lower leagues.
|
It will just dumb down the game
You're saying it requires intelligence and wit to press a sequence of keys in a practiced way?
|
On April 23 2015 15:52 HewTheTitan wrote:You're saying it requires intelligence and wit to press a sequence of keys in a practiced way?
No, but it requires skill. Two completely different things.
|
On April 23 2015 15:52 HewTheTitan wrote:You're saying it requires intelligence and wit to press a sequence of keys in a practiced way?
It requires intelligence and wit to press the correct sequence of keys in a practiced way. Everything else is mindless spamming, which won't get you very far in the game.
Mechanics are a part of RTS games, but mechanics without strategical knowledge and tactical awareness are useless.
|
On April 23 2015 15:24 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Not a fan at all of that idea. I'm not sure why you think it'll help distinguish the players who can micro and macro the best, it seems like it's just a crutch for macro. I also don't understand how you think it'll help players with superior strategy, tactics and experience either. While macro isn't as flashy as micro it is very much a skill and part of the game.
Additionally using auto-queue engenders bad habits for newer players. You don't want auto-queue to be always enabled especially in the earlier stages of the game. In fact managing auto-queue correctly is probably as hard as simply building the units at the right time, which means it is purpose defeating. However the fact that it exists will lead the newer players to use it incorrectly, which will ultimately harm them as they become better at the game. For more experienced players auto-queue will mostly be a trap, something that they forget they have one when they should be spending all their money rebuilding their economy for example.
I mean that because LotV is faster and has new units with micro potential it will distinguish player skill even further. My concern with this is that it will turn a casual player off. If you can make it so your workers automatically build you can take time to do other things such as scout (important) or harass (fun). It will also allow the opponent to counter by shutting the scouting down, stopping your harassment effectively or even doing harassment of their own. Players of great skill could defend and attack at the same time knowing that their production is on point.
I think that auto-queue should be a button that must be actively clicked by the player and shouldn't turn on automatically. Some players will not want auto-queue on, and that is perfectly fine. Players still need to make decisions on what units to queue up, when to expand, where to build their buildings, what upgrades to choose, etc. etc. I also think players not knowing they need to continuously make workers, or how many production buildings they require holds them back more than auto-queues ever would. Players will learn to build more production buildings if they can see that they have 300 minerals left over after auto-queuing one marine (50 minerals) rather than having only 100 left over because he queues 5 marines at once.
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?
It is a huge factor in determining who is better, yes. And multitasking IS a valuable skill, but should using hotkeys while controling your units on the map to continue your production back at home be considered SKILL?. Almost any player can use control groups and hotkeys to build stuff, but most players don't understand the value/importance of it, or simply don't want to be try-hard enough to learn. Better players will still be able to macro better because they have a better understanding of timings and what they can get away with. Build orders are equally as important in SC2.
On April 23 2015 15:42 bananashell wrote:
Zergs larvae and Protoss warp-in just simply wouldn't work with autocast. The only race that theoretically could use this is Terran.. But only in the lower leagues like bronze or silver.. The game is more reactive than "build unit A and do nothing else".
It could absolutely work if implemented properly. For example, you can order your Nexus to permanently chrono boost your Gateway, and your Gateway can be ordered to permanently produce units. Yes this would mean that Warpgate could not be used, but that is a fair trade off for having auto-queued units. Good players could continue to manually warp in their own units, the option is there.
Queens could automatically inject the Hatch, while the Hatch is told to constantly make Zerglings as long as the Larva / supply is there.
On April 23 2015 15:43 ImPrOVE wrote:It can be added on customs games or stuff like that, but I don't think it should be added on ladder or competitive games. Maybe even add a ladder system for new players with such features (I belive it exist, but I'm not sure). I'd go as far as to say that some of the beauty of Starcraft relies on making mistakes and forgetting things, but also it is very important that the game allows the player to make those mistakes, many imporant moments in the game are just forgetting to build something or missing an inject. If people just auto-make their units there will be less focus on Macro and thus Macro players will just get punished unfairly, while Micro players get rewarded. It will just dumb down the game, it is part of the skill of a player to remember to produce stuff and check his production. Perhaps the skill cieling/floor of LotV will be way too high, but people will soon learn the game. Ideas like this, while noble, just make bad habits for the new people and punishes Macro way too heavily. Show nested quote +I think an audience is less aware or impressed that a Terran remembered to queue up his marines at home than if he did some amazing splits or dropped in 3 places at once. Starcraft should have the player as the N°1 priority and not the viewer in my honest opinion.
That is actually a really interesting comment you made about the beauty of Starcraft relying on players making mistakes or missing injects, etc.
I feel that this is a major reason that foreign players cannot complete with 'Korean robots' even if they're game knowledge is on the same level. I don't think that a lot of people want to go back and watch a replay of them selves losing a game because they forgot one inject on a Hatchery. I don't even think that most players COULD figure out why they lost unless it was a very short game. I think that a lot of casual players do not want the game to be decided by such a tiny mistake, and such things make the game stressful to play.
What you speak of is more of the mind set of a Hardcore player, and SC needs both casual and Hardcore players to flourish in the long run.
|
I think this could work. I don't think it will dumb down the game (keep in mind people also said auto-mining in HotS would dumb down the game), and I have an idea how it could be implemented for Zerg and Protoss (will explain more later).
|
I think this is the worst idea i've ever seen.
And then I include all the balanced changes Avilo and Tumescentpie asked for.
|
I don't think that Starcraft is strategic enough that you can automate everything mechanical and still be able to reward skill. In fact, the strategic aspect of Starcraft takes into account, in its core, that people can only make a limited number of actions per minute, so I don't see why you would need to remove the number of actions to execute.
On April 23 2015 16:12 starimk wrote:
I think this could work. I don't think it will dumb down the game (keep in mind people also said auto-mining in HotS would dumb down the game), and I have an idea how it could be implemented for Zerg and Protoss (will explain more later).
Auto-mine does make the game easier, no doubt about it. The hope is that what is left is still mechanically difficult enough that you don't need extra hurdles like that. And I think it's true. But you really don't need to remove everything mechanical.
|
So basically "we are lazy as ****" hey game, play the game for us...
Ffs... since when when is a decreasing skill cap a good way to develop the game?
It is nothing personal, but you should be forced to learn and train a lot to be good at your fav. game.. its not a case in LoL,CS:GO, so at least in StarCraft
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On April 23 2015 15:11 GiveMeCake wrote:
This will definitely help to distinguish the players that can micro and macro the best even further then ever before.
I don't think this does anything like this and is directly opposed to that goal. I mean, you're literally taking macro out if someone just has to press one button, and macro is already so simple in SC2 that any top player is largely indistinguishable from another in that aspect.
I'm not a big fan of the idea because I don't think we should be aiming to cater to gold players for any particular reason, and I don't think this adds anything to the game. All your examples of people being too busy with other aspects of the game to macro are the things that make StarCraft beautiful.
|
Even better, they should add a mode where you can just get another person to do the tedious tasks that a newbie might find too difficult. They could call it The_Templar mode or something?
|
"I mean that because LotV is faster and has new units with micro potential it will distinguish player skill even further."
Remember that Micro isn't only the basis of skill in Starcraft. Multitasking is one if not, the most significant aspect of Starcraft, so you can't take it out without destroying the competitive side of the game.
but should using hotkeys while controling your units on the map to continue your production back at home be considered SKILL?
Uhh.. yes.
Others suggestion like putting a custom map or a separate games with it is plausible tho. or like a separate ladder. Ranked / Unranked / EZ mode ranked
|
I mean they sort of have this... in Archon mode production is almost effectively automated for one of the players. It's just that rather than an insensitive AI doing it it's an intelligent person who can respond to the needs of his/her partner (or actively ignore them, for that matter!)
|
On April 23 2015 16:52 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 15:11 GiveMeCake wrote:
This will definitely help to distinguish the players that can micro and macro the best even further then ever before. I don't think this does anything like this and is directly opposed to that goal. I mean, you're literally taking macro out if someone just has to press one button, and macro is already so simple in SC2 that any top player is largely indistinguishable from another in that aspect. I'm not a big fan of the idea because I don't think we should be aiming to cater to gold players for any particular reason, and I don't think this adds anything to the game. All your examples of people being too busy with other aspects of the game to macro are the things that make StarCraft beautiful.
What I mean is that LotV will further distinguish player skill because of the economy changes and units focused around micro. I proposed that this increase will make it even difficult for casual players to enjoy the game because it is too demanding.
I just wanted to add that auto-queues aren't always beneficial and there are exceptions which is important.
I also don't believe that upgrades should automatically queue, and I think that abilities on units should generally not be auto cast to make up for the freed up APM.
Times when you don't want auto-queue turned on:
- You have enough workers
- You need to cut workers for a specific rush/cheese
- You need to stop making workers early on to defend a rush / cheese / all-in
- Zerg - If your re-maxing and want to tech switch to throw your opponent off
- You only want one unit or a limit set of units (all races)
- Terran - swapping out add-ons (eg. getting one Raven early on)
- Terran - may need to save energy for scans (Cloaked Units, Vision)
- Protoss - may need to save chrono for specific timings or may need to prioritize other buildings such as upgrades at different times
- Protoss - You need to warp in units at specific locations or based on unit counters
Mistakes can still be made by using auto-queue. What if a player fails to tech switch at the right moment because he forgets to adjust the queue?
|
if any of you guys watched some aom titans gameplay, its very complex and very strategical. And it has autoque, but trust me its still way to much u can do for the autoque to matter in that game. Sc2 is 100x more dumbed down so i guess auto que in this game would not be good.
|
the moment they add auto build feature, im out. i understand for scarabs or interceptors...but buildings and units...ughhhh
OP makes it sound like everyone should be able to tank/medivac micro, shuttle/reaver and im certain blizzard wants some part of that too but here is the thing, IF they do, i as a avid player for over a decade will shit on this game beyond reason and part ways never looking back. i never understood how some fans can hate a movie or game's successor on what they did with it, but if they do implement such thing, i would finally understand what they mean.
the game is easy enough already this does not need to turn into tic-tac-toe.
a player who can keep up with difficult fundamental tasks on top of everything else should have advantage, not everyone having this fundamental skill given to them and then play the evened playing field. this takes away from game play.
what was impressive to me watching progamers do were things i couldnt do, being perfect with "mundane" tasks while doing other things. sc2 already took away these mundane tasks to make the game easier and yet people WANT MORE!?!? it already has select all army button for god sakes, SELECT ALL ARMY BUTTON!!!
seriously, this game isn't about micro or macro or build order, its the combination of all and a progamer's job is to do all aspects perfect as possible and those who can't, taking advantage of what they're good at. forcing away some aspect(s) to focus on the other is just bad (starcraft) game design.
|
I would love that and it would make me enjoy playing the game much more. However posting this on TL is just funny, you will find no understanding here in the land of "skill".
|
This feature will be great for people who want to get a big lead early on, leave to use the restroom, and return with a 200/200 army.
It will also be useful for people who don't want to pause when they go open the door for the pizza guy just to return with an excess of minerals and gas.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Autobuild is not going to work the intended way in SC2, the OP just didn't do his research. It only works well in games that have gradual spending (like C&C or Grey Goo, you spend 0 resources to order a unit, then they are spent gradually across the unit's build time). Resource starvation in such a game means everything just builds slower because emerging resources are spent equally across all the building units, and everything you order is completed at the same relative rates.
In SC2, you actually spend all the resources at once (at the moment when ordering a unit, to make autobuild even possible - at the moment when the unit starts building), which would lead to race conditions and conflicting priorities when faced with starvation, heavily skewed towards cheaper units for obvious reasons (actually, given enough scale, you're not gonna see your expensive units being produced at all - every time resources are available for something cheaper, it gets ordered). It's gonna cause more harm that good in a serious game because the very point of an efficient economy is to stay as close to resource starvation as possible.
EDIT: also, most of the people who propose some kind of automation in the macro game miss the real issue. Ordering units is the easiest thing in the world. It's done using just hotkey presses (in other words, very fast). What's hard in the macro game is building because it involves precision mouse clicks and screen movement (two most prominent time sinks in RTS mechanics) and also some worker order queuing with more screen movement. What you're trying to do here is blindfolded optimization, stop and look for the real bottlenecks first.
|
For me, beeing able to micro and keep constant production going is a big part of sc2. It is what really distinguishes good from really great players - splitting your attention without missing a beat.
Even so, I agree that this might be a nice feature for lower leagues and new players. However, I see big problems when a player gets promoted to a league where this feature isn't available any more. He or she would all of a sudden hit a brick (skill) wall and probably be super frustrated.
|
On April 23 2015 17:48 BluzMan wrote:
Autobuild is not going to work the intended way in SC2, the OP just didn't do his research. It only works well in games that have gradual spending (like C&C or Grey Goo, you spend 0 resources to order a unit, then they are spent gradually across the unit's build time). Resource starvation in such a game means everything just builds slower because emerging resources are spent equally across all the building units, and everything you order is completed at the same relative rates.
In SC2, you actually spend all the resources at once (at the moment when ordering a unit, to make autobuild even possible - at the moment when the unit starts building), which would lead to race conditions and conflicting priorities when faced with starvation, heavily skewed towards cheaper units for obvious reasons (actually, given enough scale, you're not gonna see your expensive units being produced at all - every time resources are available for something cheaper, it gets ordered). It's gonna cause more harm that good in a serious game because the very point of an efficient economy is to stay as close to resource starvation as possible.
Please go look at Age of Mythology: Titans expansion.. It proves that this can work as units build the exact same way in that game as they do in SC2.
Also, if a Terran has 2 factories making siege tanks and 5 barracks making marines, but cannot afford to keep all of his production going on at once, he should be punished by having marines take priority over the tanks. Players have the OPTION and the CHOICE to disable the auto queues for the marines if they need more tanks, the same control they have now.
Edit: Auto Queues would only make you stay as close to starvation as possible. Even better than you do now. What it would do is make it so more people could do this, raising the skill cap of the game. Different things will be prioritized such as scouting, harassing, defending, expanding, battle micro. If your death ball dies in the middle of the map you already have units building back home to possibly stage a come back where normally the game would be over even though you have resources...
What people cannot understand is this does not take control AWAY from the player unless he forgets to turn auto queue off, and turning auto queue off requires just as much effort as building a unit as we do now...
|
On April 23 2015 17:56 GiveMeCake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 17:48 BluzMan wrote:
Autobuild is not going to work the intended way in SC2, the OP just didn't do his research. It only works well in games that have gradual spending (like C&C or Grey Goo, you spend 0 resources to order a unit, then they are spent gradually across the unit's build time). Resource starvation in such a game means everything just builds slower because emerging resources are spent equally across all the building units, and everything you order is completed at the same relative rates.
In SC2, you actually spend all the resources at once (at the moment when ordering a unit, to make autobuild even possible - at the moment when the unit starts building), which would lead to race conditions and conflicting priorities when faced with starvation, heavily skewed towards cheaper units for obvious reasons (actually, given enough scale, you're not gonna see your expensive units being produced at all - every time resources are available for something cheaper, it gets ordered). It's gonna cause more harm that good in a serious game because the very point of an efficient economy is to stay as close to resource starvation as possible. Please go look at Age of Mythology: Titans expansion.. It proves that this can work as units build the exact same way in that game as they do in SC2. Also, if a Terran has 2 factories making siege tanks and 5 barracks making marines, but cannot afford to keep all of his production going on at once, he should be punished by having marines take priority over the tanks. Players have the OPTION and the CHOICE to disable the auto queues for the marines if they need more tanks, the same control they have now. What people cannot understand is this does not take control AWAY from the player unless he forgets to turn auto queue off, and turning auto queue off requires just as much effort as building a unit as we do now...
oh how wrong you are with that statement.
lets not divert from the fact that this is simply to make the game easier.
example: have you ever forgotten to do your upgrades? do you never skip a beat from 1 attack to 2 attack? if you missed it, do you simply say the game should have done that for you?
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On April 23 2015 17:56 GiveMeCake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 17:48 BluzMan wrote:
Autobuild is not going to work the intended way in SC2, the OP just didn't do his research. It only works well in games that have gradual spending (like C&C or Grey Goo, you spend 0 resources to order a unit, then they are spent gradually across the unit's build time). Resource starvation in such a game means everything just builds slower because emerging resources are spent equally across all the building units, and everything you order is completed at the same relative rates.
In SC2, you actually spend all the resources at once (at the moment when ordering a unit, to make autobuild even possible - at the moment when the unit starts building), which would lead to race conditions and conflicting priorities when faced with starvation, heavily skewed towards cheaper units for obvious reasons (actually, given enough scale, you're not gonna see your expensive units being produced at all - every time resources are available for something cheaper, it gets ordered). It's gonna cause more harm that good in a serious game because the very point of an efficient economy is to stay as close to resource starvation as possible. Please go look at Age of Mythology: Titans expansion.. It proves that this can work as units build the exact same way in that game as they do in SC2. Also, if a Terran has 2 factories making siege tanks and 5 barracks making marines, but cannot afford to keep all of his production going on at once, he should be punished by having marines take priority over the tanks. Players have the OPTION and the CHOICE to disable the auto queues for the marines if they need more tanks, the same control they have now. Edit: Auto Queues would only make you stay as close to starvation as possible. Even better than you do now. What it would do is make it so more people could do this, raising the skill cap of the game. Different things will be prioritized such as scouting, harassing, defending, expanding, battle micro. If your death ball dies in the middle of the map you already have units building back home to possibly stage a come back where normally the game would be over even though you have resources... What people cannot understand is this does not take control AWAY from the player unless he forgets to turn auto queue off, and turning auto queue off requires just as much effort as building a unit as we do now...
Please show me a procsene for that game.
|
On April 23 2015 18:07 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 17:56 GiveMeCake wrote:On April 23 2015 17:48 BluzMan wrote:
Autobuild is not going to work the intended way in SC2, the OP just didn't do his research. It only works well in games that have gradual spending (like C&C or Grey Goo, you spend 0 resources to order a unit, then they are spent gradually across the unit's build time). Resource starvation in such a game means everything just builds slower because emerging resources are spent equally across all the building units, and everything you order is completed at the same relative rates.
In SC2, you actually spend all the resources at once (at the moment when ordering a unit, to make autobuild even possible - at the moment when the unit starts building), which would lead to race conditions and conflicting priorities when faced with starvation, heavily skewed towards cheaper units for obvious reasons (actually, given enough scale, you're not gonna see your expensive units being produced at all - every time resources are available for something cheaper, it gets ordered). It's gonna cause more harm that good in a serious game because the very point of an efficient economy is to stay as close to resource starvation as possible. Please go look at Age of Mythology: Titans expansion.. It proves that this can work as units build the exact same way in that game as they do in SC2. Also, if a Terran has 2 factories making siege tanks and 5 barracks making marines, but cannot afford to keep all of his production going on at once, he should be punished by having marines take priority over the tanks. Players have the OPTION and the CHOICE to disable the auto queues for the marines if they need more tanks, the same control they have now. What people cannot understand is this does not take control AWAY from the player unless he forgets to turn auto queue off, and turning auto queue off requires just as much effort as building a unit as we do now... oh how wrong you are with that statement. lets not divert from the fact that this is simply to make the game easier.
No you need to open your mind and think for a second. The game would get harder, that's what people don't understand! The overall skill will be higher. That means that games are closer. Players have more time to do things around the map such as: scout, harass, do multiple attacks in different areas, control individual units, etc It will also help with the death ball problem where if you lose your entire army the game instantly ends. Now with auto-queues you will already have units started the moment your supply drops down, letting you defend better (closer game, more fun).
Edit: This is only going to be an issue because LotV is a faster game, with a faster economy and all new units needing lots of micro. You need to think about how LotV game play will be, I agree that HotS or WoL didn't need this feature near as much.
|
On April 23 2015 17:56 GiveMeCake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 17:48 BluzMan wrote:
Edit: Auto Queues would only make you stay as close to starvation as possible. Even better than you do now. What it would do is make it so more people could do this, raising the skill cap of the game. Different things will be prioritized such as scouting, harassing, defending, expanding, battle micro. If your death ball dies in the middle of the map you already have units building back home to possibly stage a come back where normally the game would be over even though you have resources...
that completely contradicts your statement. "raise the skill cap of the game" by making things easier for you so you dont have to worry about making units while you do your micro stuff, as if macro is a mundane task. micro+macro is what makes the game hard and should keep it hard. you want to make it easier...yet you say it raises skill cap.
there's a term often used when people try to advice players, "keep your mineral low", basics of macro 101. you want that done for you by the game.
|
It is simple as this: Putting automation in the game will just bring down the skill ceiling in a ridiculous level. Like a plat player beating GMs or even worse. Idk how many explanation and how many people it will need for the OP to realize that multitasking (esp macro) is the core mechanic of the game.
Players have more time to do things around the map such as: scout, harass, do multiple attacks in different areas, control individual units, etc
That's actually separate Pro/High Level/Good Players from the others in the current SC. They can do that without the automation you are suggesting, whereas lower level players cannot. How can the game be harder when everyone can focus on fewer things. As one poster said above micro is the easier part of SC2
|
On April 23 2015 18:13 GiveMeCake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 18:07 jinorazi wrote:On April 23 2015 17:56 GiveMeCake wrote:On April 23 2015 17:48 BluzMan wrote:
Autobuild is not going to work the intended way in SC2, the OP just didn't do his research. It only works well in games that have gradual spending (like C&C or Grey Goo, you spend 0 resources to order a unit, then they are spent gradually across the unit's build time). Resource starvation in such a game means everything just builds slower because emerging resources are spent equally across all the building units, and everything you order is completed at the same relative rates.
In SC2, you actually spend all the resources at once (at the moment when ordering a unit, to make autobuild even possible - at the moment when the unit starts building), which would lead to race conditions and conflicting priorities when faced with starvation, heavily skewed towards cheaper units for obvious reasons (actually, given enough scale, you're not gonna see your expensive units being produced at all - every time resources are available for something cheaper, it gets ordered). It's gonna cause more harm that good in a serious game because the very point of an efficient economy is to stay as close to resource starvation as possible. Please go look at Age of Mythology: Titans expansion.. It proves that this can work as units build the exact same way in that game as they do in SC2. Also, if a Terran has 2 factories making siege tanks and 5 barracks making marines, but cannot afford to keep all of his production going on at once, he should be punished by having marines take priority over the tanks. Players have the OPTION and the CHOICE to disable the auto queues for the marines if they need more tanks, the same control they have now. What people cannot understand is this does not take control AWAY from the player unless he forgets to turn auto queue off, and turning auto queue off requires just as much effort as building a unit as we do now... oh how wrong you are with that statement. lets not divert from the fact that this is simply to make the game easier. No you need to open your mind and think for a second. The game would get harder, that's what people don't understand! The overall skill will be higher. That means that games are closer. Players have more time to do things around the map such as: scout, harass, do multiple attacks in different areas, control individual units, etc It will also help with the death ball problem where if you lose your entire army the game instantly ends. Now with auto-queues you will already have units started the moment your supply drops down, letting you defend better (closer game, more fun). Edit: This is only going to be an issue because LotV is a faster game, with a faster economy and all new units needing lots of micro. You need to think about how LotV game play will be, I agree that HotS or WoL didn't need this feature near as much.
how about this: as you suggest, scout, harass, do multiple attacks in different areas, control individual units, etc. and *gasp* MACRO!
surely that raises the skill cap more than what you suggest.
|
On April 23 2015 18:16 shin_toss wrote:
It is simple as this: Putting automation in the game will just bring down the skill ceiling in a ridiculous level. Like a plat player beating GMs or even worse. Idk how many explanation and how many people it will need for the OP to realize that multitasking (esp macro) is the core mechanic of the game.
You act like the difference between a plat player and a GM is macro. It has a LOT to do with macro, but there are so many things the GM player is going to be doing better than the plat that it's impossible to compare. Game knowledge, build orders, decision making are all = or more important... so no I don't agree that it's going to eliminate the skill ceiling for the game.
|
On April 23 2015 18:20 GiveMeCake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 18:16 shin_toss wrote:
It is simple as this: Putting automation in the game will just bring down the skill ceiling in a ridiculous level. Like a plat player beating GMs or even worse. Idk how many explanation and how many people it will need for the OP to realize that multitasking (esp macro) is the core mechanic of the game. You act like the difference between a plat player and a GM is macro. It has a LOT to do with macro, but there are so many things the GM player is going to be doing better than the plat that it's impossible to compare. Game knowledge, build orders, decision making are all = or more important... so no I don't agree that it's going to eliminate the skill ceiling for the game.
i can tell you this right now, i'm no gm level but i sure as hell can micro like gm or pro. im never impressed by micro plays from pros since its something i can do too. what impresses me is not skipping a beat in macro while doing all the micro.
i dont understand why you can't understand that macro+micro is what makes the game hard.
|
You can do anything you want to micro. But if you touch to macro it's to make it harder, not the other way. What makes me win games is my macro, and I would like to keep it that way.
|
Italy12246 Posts
Assuming we want to play Starcraft, no, it shouldn't be added.
If you decide to play some other, completely different game it's one design decision you can make...but again, doing so would make LotV a game that isn't Starcraft
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
I still think that Blizzard should implement these features for lower leagues. I mean in car racing games you can turn on some helping aids. Why we cannot have this in SC2 in some way with disabling them automatically if you advance into higher league. And as usual, you can turn them off completely if you wish so.
It would help lower players and on high level they(aids) would be disabled because, well, on high level you are good enough 
So this feature would be awesome for, lets say, silver and bronze.
|
On April 23 2015 18:39 Teoita wrote:
Assuming we want to play Starcraft, no, it shouldn't be added.
If you decide to play some other, completely different game it's one design decision you can make...but again, doing so would make LotV a game that isn't Starcraft
exactly my thoughts
|
Starcraft is not meant to be an easy game. It has already become a lot easier since Broodwar.
The game needs a good design, not easy mechanics.
|
Absolutely not. Macro is one of the most important parts of Starcraft and it should stay that way. Being able to both micro AND macro is what makes Starcraft Starcraft.
|
I don't think it smartens up or dumbs down the game. It just makes it harder and more... drilled. There's more to automate. Hard mechanics don't make the game smarter though.
That's fine. It's part of the game people like. I wish people wouldn't talk about it dumbing the game down. It just makes it harder and more mechanical, more skills to develop.
edit: to the OP
Try Grey Goo  Great new rts, same developers as the original command and conquer, and uses the automated production. I must say, it is very relaxing to not have to spam macro all game.
|
|
|
this is a terrible idea, and like others have said, archon mode kinda does the same thing in a much better way
|
You are just asking in the wrong website.
A lot of casual would appreciate it, TL is more esport/competitive driven here.
I wish they could make a newbie ladder for newcomers which have more auto features such as auto inject.
The high skill floor just push away too many players.
|
Fewer necessary mechanics = lower skill ceiling. There are other games that focus only on micro and not on macro... please don't turn StarCraft into one of those.
|
Fewer necessary mechanics = lower skill floor. There are other succesful games that focus on player vs player interactions rather than repetitive mindless actions. Let's learn from them.
|
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2.
|
Bisutopia19216 Posts
This is a prefect idea for Nexus Wars. Let's keep this in the arcade and away from the game. I enjoy watching a player macro hard. It' s what literally defined  BeSt's career.
|
On April 23 2015 20:29 BisuDagger wrote:This is a prefect idea for Nexus Wars. Let's keep this in the arcade and away from the game. I enjoy watching a player macro hard. It' s what literally defined BeSt's career.
And iloveoov iirc.
|
Yes take out all skill elements in sc2 until the outcome of a game is purely decided by luck please.
|
On April 23 2015 20:55 KingAlphard wrote:
Yes take out all skill elements in sc2 until the outcome of a game is purely decided by luck please.
Next up: Remove Fog of War. And just start everyone off with 200 available psi.
|
I will fight this idea to the death! Please let's keep the stuff that makes sc2 unique, there is nothing wrong with having a hard game. We don't have to compare sc2 to other games of other genres all the time. Age of Mythology has this feature, well where is the Age of Mythology pro scene? How big is Grey Goo? Learn from other games? I think the other rts games could learn from Starcraft2, it's is the only successful rts and that's for a good reason.
Sc2 is hard and unique and should stay that way, let's not try to water it down to something it's not to cater to the casuals. Things like the macro and multitasking is what makes sc stand out, it's Starcraft's strength, if we destroy this sc will have to compete with other games in areas where it can't compete.
I completely support things like the archon mode and a better arcade. I have friends that only play ARAM in LoL, I could totally see the same being the case for sc2 and archon mode. Just give more casual/easy options for different player bases, but keep 1on1 as it is. Hardcore!
This will definitely help to distinguish the players that can micro and macro the best even further then ever before.
I think it's the opposite as others have explained.
|
Bisutopia19216 Posts
On April 23 2015 20:55 KingAlphard wrote:
Yes take out all skill elements in sc2 until the outcome of a game is purely decided by luck please.
A starcraft version of hearthstone. That's bloody brilliant. I hope I draw the 6pool rush card.
![[image loading]](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeV9r62N36JeuVlytK2hfNVH-wApnxvsbfX8S1buxM_jkSzOvn) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jUN68n5.jpg)
|
There's an article from TheDwf talking about the lack of control. Read that please.
|
On April 23 2015 15:11 GiveMeCake wrote:
A lot of RTS games have a button that will continuously build or auto queue units at production facilities. I remember this feature being used in Age of Mythology's expansion back in the day, also more recently, Grey Goo.
I Think SC2 Is Ready For Such a Feature
SC2 is a fast game, and LotV is going to make it even faster. Many units are being added that require the player to focus 100% of their time on the battle and control the units for the best results possible.
The changes coming to LotV will definitely help to distinguish the players that can micro and macro the best even further then ever before.
^
The Issue With This?
Many players will not be able to keep up with the extra amount of multitasking needed with the faster economy (more money floating) and the potential for 'cheap' tactics. New strategies like Medivac lifted tanks, or warp prism micro may cause players to not be able to keep up because it requires more than just A-moving to stop. For example, a gold Zerg may simply die to early Medivacs with tanks because of the difficulty of stopping it while remembering to inject / build units at the same time.
Initially the thought of such a feature would have turned me off years ago.
I think the game is at a place now that this feature is fitting for the game.
This feature will help combat hacks such as the automatic queen inject hack. It will make the players with superior strategies, tactics, and experience shine and even possibly allow Blizzard to add even more micro opportunities to the game. At the top I believe it will help make players a lot more consistent than ever before, and things like jet-lag will be less of a factor in determining who the true champions are.
I think an audience is less aware or impressed that a Terran remembered to queue up his marines at home than if he did some amazing splits or dropped in 3 places at once.
Thoughts?
I absolutely agree.
I played SC2 for many years but mechanical grind in this game is tiresome and takes away a lot of fun from the game.
As it is SC2 is much less about decision making and much more about excercise in mechanical grind. I guess I am not the only one who thinks that, because in the spam of several years SC2 lost a lot of players and spectators - let's face it, as it is it is a dying game, appreciated only by "old guard".
Some say that automatic production would take mechanical skill from the game; in my opinion it wouldn't, it would just shifted skill into other aspects of the game (army positioning, builds, army composition).
Look at LoL - game is pretty easy from the mechanical point of view yet there is a lot of room for distinction between good and bad players - namely decision making.
|
As someone who has wanted Nexus Wars to be promoted more than even SC 2 or at least to the same degree, I'm ready for this. When I think about how hard Zerg was compared to SC 2, I'm disgusted. When I think about Terran in SC 2, it seems like everyone macros "just the same" to me. Gone are the days of being able to be impressed. Once the ability to impress is gone, you're merely left with a repetitive chore.
In this case, I think extremes are where it lies. And since Blizzard gets hard off the thought of Koreans winning everything, even a senior citizen cup for Idaho residents... I see little choice but to give the poor little wrinkled chap, on his last breath, a chance to fend off Jaedong by not having to worry about his own macro ability.
This game is so dead and everyone at Blizzard is so bad. Change is needed. If I heard they fired their trash man, I'd fist pump. Anything... just make it something.
|
|
|
How about just having progamer-mechanics level AIs play for us and we just get given some choices every now and then like 'do you want to drop the main or the natural?' and 'what do you want your Marine:Marauder production ratio do you want to be for the next 5 minutes?'
|
So funny all these people pretending they macro/micro like pro haha. Someone not impressed by some top players macro (Cure vs Snute IEM qualifier was magnificient) is just not able to look at what a good macro is supposed to be. You see macro mistakes all the time in the production bar of top players (they could get it perfect, it's just that your apm is often best used to do something else) or even some piling tons of ressources like Maru when focusing too much on micro/multitask.
But yeah keep dreaming about your "pro" micro/macro when you can't get top gm with it lol.
|
On April 23 2015 15:52 HewTheTitan wrote:You're saying it requires intelligence and wit to press a sequence of keys in a practiced way?
Deciding how to spend your actions per minute and attention requires intelligence and efficient thinking
If you have enough actions to do everything, then there is no decision to be made, and the game is dumbed down, requiring less thinking and less decision making.
Good macro also takes skill. StarCraft (and I assume StarCraft 2 as well) is a game of intelligence and skill. And most importantly, it is a game in which intelligence meets skill and works in unison. That's what makes it unique and different from other games. It is not just one of the two, or even both at the same time. It is a fusion of both which creates something new and greater than the sum of its parts.
There was once a rookie Terran who's name I can't remember, who played against Jaedong. He had two opportunities to win, but both times, he failed, because he focused on keeping his money low. He should have let his money skyrocket, to micro that vulture in Jaedong's base against unupgraded slowlings. Then his marine and medic follow up (which was also mismicroed, but could have won the game) would certainly have destroyed Jaedong.
He had a lot of skill, but his decision making faltered. He should have focused more on micro and less on macro. WIth automated production, he wouldn't have had to choose.
But it's not as simple as choosing one or the other. You can choose most of one and a little of the other, or split them half in half. And with smart planning, you can get more out of the same amount of actions. 250 apm with bad planning is not equal to 250 apm with good planning. If you can look in to the future, you can predict when you'll be able to go back and macro without losing anything on the micro front, and macro at such times. You can even tactically force such situations. A very simple example is if you want to move your mutalisks from one base to an other. During that time, you don't have to control your mutalisks, so you are free to macro.
If you are actively harassing a Terran base, you may have to retreat with your mutalisks to place an extra hatchey. But this may not be worth it if you're doing extreme damage. You have to judge whether the damage that can be done is greater than the gain of placing an extra hatchery as fast as possible.
|
If this change happened I would never play another game of Starcraft. This is without a doubt the single worst idea I have ever read on starcraft related forums -.-
|
On April 23 2015 21:58 sAsImre wrote:
So funny all these people pretending they macro/micro like pro haha. Someone not impressed by some top players macro (Cure vs Snute IEM qualifier was magnificient) is just not able to look at what a good macro is supposed to be. You see macro mistakes all the time in the production bar of top players (they could get it perfect, it's just that your apm is often best used to do something else) or even some piling tons of ressources like Maru when focusing too much on micro/multitask.
But yeah keep dreaming about your "pro" micro/macro when you can't get top gm with it lol.
I don't understand your point. Who pretends to micro/macro like a pro? Did someone write this in this topic?
The fact that pros got perfect macro and we, mere mortals, don't doesn't change the fact that for a average player macroing is fucking tiresome.
You can say all you want that it is what makes SC2 unique and beautiful but the facts are harsh, SC2 is facing a constant departure of its players. Game without players won't attract viewers, game without viewers is dead as e-sport.
I am afraid in the near future there won't be many people to admire mechanical grind, they all will shift to playing/spectating other games.
Max Planck once said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Accidentaly this quote is perfect for describing current situation in SC2, just change scientific truth with idea of good design; there are old ideas in SC2: about macro, mechanical grind and taking all the fun in the name of highest possible skill requirement - but those ideas probably will die out, along with SC2 in its current form. Look at LoL, this game was ridiculed by many members of SC2 community as no-skill game for kids. Meanwhile LoL tournaments gathers huge crowds of spectators, who also are in huge part gamers, in the same time SC2 is feeding on scraps and only active personalities are some veterans.
|
On April 23 2015 21:55 playa wrote:
As someone who has wanted Nexus Wars to be promoted more than even SC 2 or at least to the same degree, I'm ready for this. When I think about how hard Zerg was compared to SC 2, I'm disgusted. When I think about Terran in SC 2, it seems like everyone macros "just the same" to me. Gone are the days of being able to be impressed. Once the ability to impress is gone, you're merely left with a repetitive chore.
On April 23 2015 18:23 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 18:20 GiveMeCake wrote:On April 23 2015 18:16 shin_toss wrote:
It is simple as this: Putting automation in the game will just bring down the skill ceiling in a ridiculous level. Like a plat player beating GMs or even worse. Idk how many explanation and how many people it will need for the OP to realize that multitasking (esp macro) is the core mechanic of the game. You act like the difference between a plat player and a GM is macro. It has a LOT to do with macro, but there are so many things the GM player is going to be doing better than the plat that it's impossible to compare. Game knowledge, build orders, decision making are all = or more important... so no I don't agree that it's going to eliminate the skill ceiling for the game. i can tell you this right now, i'm no gm level but i sure as hell can micro like gm or pro. im never impressed by micro plays from pros since its something i can do too. what impresses me is not skipping a beat in macro while doing all the micro. i dont understand why you can't understand that macro+micro is what makes the game hard.
For reference.
And prove me viewers and players are departing for the game (hint it's absolutely false as far as viewers go)
|
This goes against everything that a manual (as opposed to much further along the automation curve, such as CnC), mechanically focused game like StarCraft stands for. There's already ENOUGH automation in SC2 (just enough to constitute tasteful, bordering on too much). It's really important to analyze exactly what intentional automation does in a REAL TIME system (real time being the most empowering and game changing component of RTS by far). You cannot make a drastic change like this without removing a large gradient of player skill.
There are a lot of games out there that drive towards the automated side of the manual control vs. automation curve, and not a whole lot that specifically emphasize manual control meant to empower players and put them in the driver seat. That's because it's much harder to do right. But done well it brings out the best that a real time system has to offer.
You want people with superior tactics and strategy to shine. In a game like SC, depth of strategy is tied directly to the depth and focus (automated vs. manual) of the real time component. How long before we have a little splash page at the beginning of the game that lets you choose a build to execute on the fly with these units producing in cycles? Because last time I checked, a large part of becoming a great SC player involves reducing the idle time between series of input commands. That's why the best macro players are the best.
Besides, if you're having trouble cycling out units without any idle time ,there's already another tool available to you. It's used even at the highest level. Queuing is far from optimal, but hey, neither is your suggestion!
|
Starcraft isn't the right RTS for this kind of idea considering how highly people value mechanics in this game, and I think that's ok since it makes Starcraft stand out from other RTS games.
|
I and I believe many others like starcraft because it is hardcore, and this is not hardcore.
|
On April 23 2015 22:40 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 21:55 playa wrote:
As someone who has wanted Nexus Wars to be promoted more than even SC 2 or at least to the same degree, I'm ready for this. When I think about how hard Zerg was compared to SC 2, I'm disgusted. When I think about Terran in SC 2, it seems like everyone macros "just the same" to me. Gone are the days of being able to be impressed. Once the ability to impress is gone, you're merely left with a repetitive chore.
Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 18:23 jinorazi wrote:On April 23 2015 18:20 GiveMeCake wrote:On April 23 2015 18:16 shin_toss wrote:
It is simple as this: Putting automation in the game will just bring down the skill ceiling in a ridiculous level. Like a plat player beating GMs or even worse. Idk how many explanation and how many people it will need for the OP to realize that multitasking (esp macro) is the core mechanic of the game. You act like the difference between a plat player and a GM is macro. It has a LOT to do with macro, but there are so many things the GM player is going to be doing better than the plat that it's impossible to compare. Game knowledge, build orders, decision making are all = or more important... so no I don't agree that it's going to eliminate the skill ceiling for the game. i can tell you this right now, i'm no gm level but i sure as hell can micro like gm or pro. im never impressed by micro plays from pros since its something i can do too. what impresses me is not skipping a beat in macro while doing all the micro. i dont understand why you can't understand that macro+micro is what makes the game hard. For reference.
And prove me viewers and players are departing for the game (hint it's absolutely false as far as viewers go)
Some links:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/10/18/starcraft-2-struggles-as-league-of-legends-rises/
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/466333-upcoming-changes-to-wcs-2015?page=61#1214
Also check any Top 50 streamers thread, as numbers indicate there is constant departure of SC2 streams viewers.
|
On April 23 2015 23:01 Embir wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 22:40 sAsImre wrote:On April 23 2015 21:55 playa wrote:
As someone who has wanted Nexus Wars to be promoted more than even SC 2 or at least to the same degree, I'm ready for this. When I think about how hard Zerg was compared to SC 2, I'm disgusted. When I think about Terran in SC 2, it seems like everyone macros "just the same" to me. Gone are the days of being able to be impressed. Once the ability to impress is gone, you're merely left with a repetitive chore.
On April 23 2015 18:23 jinorazi wrote:On April 23 2015 18:20 GiveMeCake wrote:On April 23 2015 18:16 shin_toss wrote:
It is simple as this: Putting automation in the game will just bring down the skill ceiling in a ridiculous level. Like a plat player beating GMs or even worse. Idk how many explanation and how many people it will need for the OP to realize that multitasking (esp macro) is the core mechanic of the game. You act like the difference between a plat player and a GM is macro. It has a LOT to do with macro, but there are so many things the GM player is going to be doing better than the plat that it's impossible to compare. Game knowledge, build orders, decision making are all = or more important... so no I don't agree that it's going to eliminate the skill ceiling for the game. i can tell you this right now, i'm no gm level but i sure as hell can micro like gm or pro. im never impressed by micro plays from pros since its something i can do too. what impresses me is not skipping a beat in macro while doing all the micro. i dont understand why you can't understand that macro+micro is what makes the game hard. For reference.
And prove me viewers and players are departing for the game (hint it's absolutely false as far as viewers go) Some links: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/10/18/starcraft-2-struggles-as-league-of-legends-rises/http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/466333-upcoming-changes-to-wcs-2015?page=61#1214Also check any Top 50 streamers thread, as numbers indicate there is constant departure of SC2 streams viewers.
Look at the 2015 numbers and come back, IEM blew out everything, we got way more content than what we got since 2011/2012, and probably still more than this due to the rising strenght of the scene in korea, community streams are working and getting some nice numbers (nothing was done that rivaled what BasetradeTV is doing now, in quality and quantity)
|
On April 23 2015 23:06 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 23:01 Embir wrote:On April 23 2015 22:40 sAsImre wrote:On April 23 2015 21:55 playa wrote:
As someone who has wanted Nexus Wars to be promoted more than even SC 2 or at least to the same degree, I'm ready for this. When I think about how hard Zerg was compared to SC 2, I'm disgusted. When I think about Terran in SC 2, it seems like everyone macros "just the same" to me. Gone are the days of being able to be impressed. Once the ability to impress is gone, you're merely left with a repetitive chore.
On April 23 2015 18:23 jinorazi wrote:On April 23 2015 18:20 GiveMeCake wrote:On April 23 2015 18:16 shin_toss wrote:
It is simple as this: Putting automation in the game will just bring down the skill ceiling in a ridiculous level. Like a plat player beating GMs or even worse. Idk how many explanation and how many people it will need for the OP to realize that multitasking (esp macro) is the core mechanic of the game. You act like the difference between a plat player and a GM is macro. It has a LOT to do with macro, but there are so many things the GM player is going to be doing better than the plat that it's impossible to compare. Game knowledge, build orders, decision making are all = or more important... so no I don't agree that it's going to eliminate the skill ceiling for the game. i can tell you this right now, i'm no gm level but i sure as hell can micro like gm or pro. im never impressed by micro plays from pros since its something i can do too. what impresses me is not skipping a beat in macro while doing all the micro. i dont understand why you can't understand that macro+micro is what makes the game hard. For reference.
And prove me viewers and players are departing for the game (hint it's absolutely false as far as viewers go) Some links: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/10/18/starcraft-2-struggles-as-league-of-legends-rises/http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/466333-upcoming-changes-to-wcs-2015?page=61#1214Also check any Top 50 streamers thread, as numbers indicate there is constant departure of SC2 streams viewers. Look at the 2015 numbers and come back, IEM blew out everything, we got way more content than what we got since 2011/2012, and probably still more than this due to the rising strenght of the scene in korea, community streams are working and getting some nice numbers (nothing was done that rivaled what BasetradeTV is doing now, in quality and quantity)
I provided you links so I hope you will provide links too.
|
On April 23 2015 20:24 Big J wrote:
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2.
Agree with this. There is imo no doubt that the future of the RTS genere is to get rid of the macro-production/pointless extra click-part of the genre, and focus more on interesting micro interactions (which is where most "casual-friendly" RTS's sucks).
|
You created this post with the idea that sc2 should be more newbie friendly. The game by far is not newbie friendly and has never been newbie friendly.
|
|
|
Perhaps a part of unranked or a tutorial, but for competition/ranked? Absolutely, positively not.
|
On April 23 2015 23:12 Rukis wrote:
You created this post with the idea that sc2 should be more newbie friendly. The game by far is not newbie friendly and has never been newbie friendly.
Besides, it's beyond hilarious to see some people asking for more of what made the game unplayable for low level players to begin with.
|
On April 23 2015 23:11 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 20:24 Big J wrote:
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2. Agree with this. There is imo no doubt that the future of the RTS genere is to get rid of the macro-production/pointless extra click-part of the genre, and focus more on interesting micro interactions (which is where most "casual-friendly" RTS's sucks).
But can they be called "RTS" then? Additionally, don't "interesting micro interactions" call for MOBA-like micro, which would bring us even further from the "RTS" genre?
|
On April 23 2015 23:21 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 23:11 Hider wrote:On April 23 2015 20:24 Big J wrote:
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2. Agree with this. There is imo no doubt that the future of the RTS genere is to get rid of the macro-production/pointless extra click-part of the genre, and focus more on interesting micro interactions (which is where most "casual-friendly" RTS's sucks). But can they be called "RTS" then? Additionally, don't "interesting micro interactions" call for MOBA-like micro, which would bring us even further from the "RTS" genre?
Macro is "toxic" yo
|
On April 23 2015 23:21 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 23:11 Hider wrote:On April 23 2015 20:24 Big J wrote:
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2. Agree with this. There is imo no doubt that the future of the RTS genere is to get rid of the macro-production/pointless extra click-part of the genre, and focus more on interesting micro interactions (which is where most "casual-friendly" RTS's sucks). But can they be called "RTS" then?
Of course: ARTS.
|
One word..........................NO
|
On April 23 2015 21:58 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 15:52 HewTheTitan wrote:It will just dumb down the game You're saying it requires intelligence and wit to press a sequence of keys in a practiced way? Deciding how to spend your actions per minute and attention requires intelligence and efficient thinking If you have enough actions to do everything, then there is no decision to be made, and the game is dumbed down, requiring less thinking and less decision making. Good macro also takes skill. StarCraft (and I assume StarCraft 2 as well) is a game of intelligence and skill. And most importantly, it is a game in which intelligence meets skill and works in unison. That's what makes it unique and different from other games. It is not just one of the two, or even both at the same time. It is a fusion of both which creates something new and greater than the sum of its parts. There was once a rookie Terran who's name I can't remember, who played against Jaedong. He had two opportunities to win, but both times, he failed, because he focused on keeping his money low. He should have let his money skyrocket, to micro that vulture in Jaedong's base against unupgraded slowlings. Then his marine and medic follow up (which was also mismicroed, but could have won the game) would certainly have destroyed Jaedong. He had a lot of skill, but his decision making faltered. He should have focused more on micro and less on macro. WIth automated production, he wouldn't have had to choose. But it's not as simple as choosing one or the other. You can choose most of one and a little of the other, or split them half in half. And with smart planning, you can get more out of the same amount of actions. 250 apm with bad planning is not equal to 250 apm with good planning. If you can look in to the future, you can predict when you'll be able to go back and macro without losing anything on the micro front, and macro at such times. You can even tactically force such situations. A very simple example is if you want to move your mutalisks from one base to an other. During that time, you don't have to control your mutalisks, so you are free to macro. If you are actively harassing a Terran base, you may have to retreat with your mutalisks to place an extra hatchey. But this may not be worth it if you're doing extreme damage. You have to judge whether the damage that can be done is greater than the gain of placing an extra hatchery as fast as possible.
The thing is, Starcraft had such different mechanics from Starcraft 2 that I don't know if that kind of strategic decision making is applicable anymore. Let's consider what that same Terran player would have to do in Starcraft 2 to keep his money low as opposed to continue the micro against Jaedong.
-Make new buildings. Auto-queue wouldn't affect this in any way b/c in both games you have to turn away from the fight to place down the building.
-Make new units. In SC1 you had to turn away and manually select each building in order to produce the unit. In SC2, with Multiple Building Selection, you can just hit "5" or whatever hotkey you've designated for your barracks and queue your production within a second, all the while keeping your screen focused on the battle.
-Research upgrades. Again, with MBS the amount of time required for such actions is significantly reduced in SC2 compared to SC1.
The other difference between SC1 and SC2 is that in SC2, battles usually happen a lot faster, and the time you have to turn the battle around through good unit control is a lot smaller. For most players (at least up to gold league) you don't have enough time to make that decision between unit control and macro; if you don't take that extra second to dodge those Banelings, or that Widow Mine, or those Colossus pot-shots, you're screwed. In LOTV there's even more emphasis on unit control. So it's even more punishing to turn focus away from your army.
And like I said before, there's still a ton of mechanical aspects to the game besides queuing units. Building placement, hotkeys, research/expansion timings, resource banking - I think SC2 will still be plenty mechanically challenging with auto-queuing.
|
On April 23 2015 23:21 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 23:11 Hider wrote:On April 23 2015 20:24 Big J wrote:
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2. Agree with this. There is imo no doubt that the future of the RTS genere is to get rid of the macro-production/pointless extra click-part of the genre, and focus more on interesting micro interactions (which is where most "casual-friendly" RTS's sucks). But can they be called "RTS" then? Additionally, don't "interesting micro interactions" call for MOBA-like micro, which would bring us even further from the "RTS" genre?
I don't know why people cannot accept that a game can be with more than one genre.
Most of actions games have overlap with lots of genre.
Uncharted has TPS, action-adventure, puzzle solving And platform.
Interesting micro interactions can also stems from a player's decision on when to build how many what units as well
MOBA micro interaction is fun, but it is not going to apply to RTS because you control more than one unit.
But yes, Big J is right. SC2 is not it, every thing about the game right now is not going to work well with auto queue.
|
Bisutopia19216 Posts
On April 23 2015 23:36 starimk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 21:58 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2015 15:52 HewTheTitan wrote:It will just dumb down the game You're saying it requires intelligence and wit to press a sequence of keys in a practiced way? Deciding how to spend your actions per minute and attention requires intelligence and efficient thinking If you have enough actions to do everything, then there is no decision to be made, and the game is dumbed down, requiring less thinking and less decision making. Good macro also takes skill. StarCraft (and I assume StarCraft 2 as well) is a game of intelligence and skill. And most importantly, it is a game in which intelligence meets skill and works in unison. That's what makes it unique and different from other games. It is not just one of the two, or even both at the same time. It is a fusion of both which creates something new and greater than the sum of its parts. There was once a rookie Terran who's name I can't remember, who played against Jaedong. He had two opportunities to win, but both times, he failed, because he focused on keeping his money low. He should have let his money skyrocket, to micro that vulture in Jaedong's base against unupgraded slowlings. Then his marine and medic follow up (which was also mismicroed, but could have won the game) would certainly have destroyed Jaedong. He had a lot of skill, but his decision making faltered. He should have focused more on micro and less on macro. WIth automated production, he wouldn't have had to choose. But it's not as simple as choosing one or the other. You can choose most of one and a little of the other, or split them half in half. And with smart planning, you can get more out of the same amount of actions. 250 apm with bad planning is not equal to 250 apm with good planning. If you can look in to the future, you can predict when you'll be able to go back and macro without losing anything on the micro front, and macro at such times. You can even tactically force such situations. A very simple example is if you want to move your mutalisks from one base to an other. During that time, you don't have to control your mutalisks, so you are free to macro. If you are actively harassing a Terran base, you may have to retreat with your mutalisks to place an extra hatchey. But this may not be worth it if you're doing extreme damage. You have to judge whether the damage that can be done is greater than the gain of placing an extra hatchery as fast as possible. The thing is, Starcraft had such different mechanics from Starcraft 2 that I don't know if that kind of strategic decision making is applicable anymore. Let's consider what that same Terran player would have to do in Starcraft 2 to keep his money low as opposed to continue the micro against Jaedong. -Make new buildings. Auto-queue wouldn't affect this in any way b/c in both games you have to turn away from the fight to place down the building. -Make new units. In SC1 you had to turn away and manually select each building in order to produce the unit. In SC2, with Multiple Building Selection, you can just hit "5" or whatever hotkey you've designated for your barracks and queue your production within a second, all the while keeping your screen focused on the battle. -Research upgrades. Again, with MBS the amount of time required for such actions is significantly reduced in SC2 compared to SC1. The other difference between SC1 and SC2 is that in SC2, battles usually happen a lot faster, and the time you have to turn the battle around through good unit control is a lot smaller. For most players (at least up to gold league) you don't have enough time to make that decision between unit control and macro; if you don't take that extra second to dodge those Banelings, or that Widow Mine, or those Colossus pot-shots, you're screwed. In LOTV there's even more emphasis on unit control. So it's even more punishing to turn focus away from your army. And like I said before, there's still a ton of mechanical aspects to the game besides queuing units. Building placement, hotkeys, research/expansion timings, resource banking - I think SC2 will still be plenty mechanically challenging with auto-queuing.
You are way more screwed if your buildings are auto-queuing the wrong composition of units.
Terran Example:
I forgot to turn of my tank auto-queue after the factory made two and now I have 4 when I needed that for vikings.
Protoss Example:
My warpgate auto-queue is warping in units at my desired pylon. Pylon is killed without me noticing because I'm newb. Warpin queue stops and I don't have the units I expected to have a minute later.
Zerg Example:
Oh shit I'm out of larva because I didn't turn drone auto-queue off. I can't make units to defend.
The idea here is not thought through. Even if you want auto-queuing you can't have it. It would make things way worse and stressful.
|
On April 23 2015 23:50 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 23:21 OtherWorld wrote:On April 23 2015 23:11 Hider wrote:On April 23 2015 20:24 Big J wrote:
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2. Agree with this. There is imo no doubt that the future of the RTS genere is to get rid of the macro-production/pointless extra click-part of the genre, and focus more on interesting micro interactions (which is where most "casual-friendly" RTS's sucks). But can they be called "RTS" then? Additionally, don't "interesting micro interactions" call for MOBA-like micro, which would bring us even further from the "RTS" genre? I don't know why people cannot accept that a game can be with more than one genre. Most of actions games have overlap with lots of genre. Uncharted has TPS, action-adventure, puzzle solving And platform. Interesting micro interactions can also stems from a player's decision on when to build how many what units as well MOBA micro interaction is fun, but it is not going to apply to RTS because you control more than one unit.
Obviously genres don't have hard boundaries and often overlap, but there is in the vast majority of games a "dominant" genre. That a RPG has strategical elements in it doesn't make it a RTS, just a RPG with RTS elements, much like WC3 having RPG elements doesn't make it a RPG but a RTS with RPG elements.
|
This is a terrible idea. Why would you want to take the skill out of an E-sport? It's detrimental to the scene and will kill the interest of so many people. Those other RTS' s have those features because they aren't competitive RTS' s. You'll notice most of those games also have minimal micro. They aren't meant to be competitive. SC2 is.
|
I definitely think something like this will be the future of rts, but it isn't starcraft and most people (i would imagine) who love starcraft NOW would hate starcraft with that idea.
I sure would.
|
Yes and you should add :
- Auto split
- Auto worker build
- Auto spells
- Auto build that counter what the autoqueue of the other player is building
- Auto game pilot so you can watch some stuff while playing.
and of course
- Auto win.
EDIT : I FORGOT ! Micro battles should be QTE
|
And while you are at it, make everything automatic so we watch cpus fighting :D.
|
On April 23 2015 23:21 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 23:11 Hider wrote:On April 23 2015 20:24 Big J wrote:
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2. Agree with this. There is imo no doubt that the future of the RTS genere is to get rid of the macro-production/pointless extra click-part of the genre, and focus more on interesting micro interactions (which is where most "casual-friendly" RTS's sucks). But can they be called "RTS" then? Additionally, don't "interesting micro interactions" call for MOBA-like micro, which would bring us even further from the "RTS" genre?
RTS is a very large genre and its not a necesity that macro is a part of it. It makes sense to think of two subcategoires to RTS:
(1) Action-RTS
(2) Macro-oriented RTS
Action-RTS can be further divided into two sub-sub cateogires.
(1) MOBA's
(2) A-RTS with each player controlling multiple units.
Thus, it is the latter that I believe is extremely underexplored atm. I know other companies have experiemnted with it, but those game developers have had no idea how to create interesting interactions and generally the speed of those games have been way too low.
|
SupCom gives you the ability to do that but it uses a lot more factories to the point where it would be impossible to manage yourself, I don't think that would be a good idea in sc2 where you have maybe 6-8 production buildings active for most of the game.
|
On April 23 2015 23:36 starimk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 21:58 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2015 15:52 HewTheTitan wrote:It will just dumb down the game You're saying it requires intelligence and wit to press a sequence of keys in a practiced way? Deciding how to spend your actions per minute and attention requires intelligence and efficient thinking If you have enough actions to do everything, then there is no decision to be made, and the game is dumbed down, requiring less thinking and less decision making. Good macro also takes skill. StarCraft (and I assume StarCraft 2 as well) is a game of intelligence and skill. And most importantly, it is a game in which intelligence meets skill and works in unison. That's what makes it unique and different from other games. It is not just one of the two, or even both at the same time. It is a fusion of both which creates something new and greater than the sum of its parts. There was once a rookie Terran who's name I can't remember, who played against Jaedong. He had two opportunities to win, but both times, he failed, because he focused on keeping his money low. He should have let his money skyrocket, to micro that vulture in Jaedong's base against unupgraded slowlings. Then his marine and medic follow up (which was also mismicroed, but could have won the game) would certainly have destroyed Jaedong. He had a lot of skill, but his decision making faltered. He should have focused more on micro and less on macro. WIth automated production, he wouldn't have had to choose. But it's not as simple as choosing one or the other. You can choose most of one and a little of the other, or split them half in half. And with smart planning, you can get more out of the same amount of actions. 250 apm with bad planning is not equal to 250 apm with good planning. If you can look in to the future, you can predict when you'll be able to go back and macro without losing anything on the micro front, and macro at such times. You can even tactically force such situations. A very simple example is if you want to move your mutalisks from one base to an other. During that time, you don't have to control your mutalisks, so you are free to macro. If you are actively harassing a Terran base, you may have to retreat with your mutalisks to place an extra hatchey. But this may not be worth it if you're doing extreme damage. You have to judge whether the damage that can be done is greater than the gain of placing an extra hatchery as fast as possible. The thing is, Starcraft had such different mechanics from Starcraft 2 that I don't know if that kind of strategic decision making is applicable anymore. Let's consider what that same Terran player would have to do in Starcraft 2 to keep his money low as opposed to continue the micro against Jaedong. -Make new buildings. Auto-queue wouldn't affect this in any way b/c in both games you have to turn away from the fight to place down the building. -Make new units. In SC1 you had to turn away and manually select each building in order to produce the unit. In SC2, with Multiple Building Selection, you can just hit "5" or whatever hotkey you've designated for your barracks and queue your production within a second, all the while keeping your screen focused on the battle. -Research upgrades. Again, with MBS the amount of time required for such actions is significantly reduced in SC2 compared to SC1. The other difference between SC1 and SC2 is that in SC2, battles usually happen a lot faster, and the time you have to turn the battle around through good unit control is a lot smaller. For most players (at least up to gold league) you don't have enough time to make that decision between unit control and macro; if you don't take that extra second to dodge those Banelings, or that Widow Mine, or those Colossus pot-shots, you're screwed. In LOTV there's even more emphasis on unit control. So it's even more punishing to turn focus away from your army. And like I said before, there's still a ton of mechanical aspects to the game besides queuing units. Building placement, hotkeys, research/expansion timings, resource banking - I think SC2 will still be plenty mechanically challenging with auto-queuing.
When you only have four production buildings and two groups of units, you have each building on a hotkey, so that you can look at your army while controlling your units. This means that, just like in SC2, you only have to return the vision to your base to place new buildings. When the Terran rookie got a vulture in to Jaedong's undefended base (apart from six slowlings) it was just like having hellions inside a Zerg base (except that SCV's needed to be manually placed on minerals) - everything except for building placement could be done from the vision of the vulture.
Choosing where to put ones attention is just as important before something happens. It's not just about making a choice fast after one is presented with a situation. I lose a lot because my army is moving while I'm macroing, and I run in to an enemy army. So battles happening quickly doesn't matter - I should have been looking at the army before it ran in to the enemy. SC2 has banelings and widow mines, BW has mines, siege tanks, and lurkers. Not to mention TvZ in general. If you're not ready for the ultralisk a move with scourge vs your vessels, then your marines will die under dark swarm. You need to be ready in advance.
Everything that I mentioned applies to SC2, but parts of it are much easier, so it's just not at the same level as SC1. But it's still there, and I don't see how it being less than BW means that it should be removed all together. It is still a factor. I know this because I played SC2 and was GM at it for 2010 - 2012. I know that the game has changed strategically, but I know that the fundamentals are still the same.
|
No, please. Automated tasks should not be present in SC2.
|
In addition to all the other objections against automation, this just doesn't make any sense. You make a ton of decisions in building units that you can only make if you control unit building on an individual action basis. Having automated production would be inferior to doing it "by hand" even if you could implement it because you'd constantly be building the wrong things at the wrong time without your input.
|
Please automate everything that can be automated - it doesn't make the game easier, but it reduces the brainless part. It should also make the game more interesting for viewers, as the players can spend their apm on things that actually do stuff. If you don't actually play at a decent level, as a viewer you can't appreciate stuff like perfects injects or splits anyway... you just keep wondering why those marines stand clumped when banelings roll in, when they could easily spread out or run away.
|
On April 24 2015 01:50 Haukinger wrote:
Please automate everything that can be automated - it doesn't make the game easier, but it reduces the brainless part. It should also make the game more interesting for viewers, as the players can spend their apm on things that actually do stuff. If you don't actually play at a decent level, as a viewer you can't appreciate stuff like perfects injects or splits anyway... you just keep wondering why those marines stand clumped when banelings roll in, when they could easily spread out or run away.
It does make the game easier, but hopefully it also introduces new high-level decision/judgement-based tasks that are more fun to do and watch.
In principle I agree with you though, automate everything that can be. That doesn't work for production though because it's very decision oriented.
|
On April 24 2015 01:50 Haukinger wrote:
Please automate everything that can be automated - it doesn't make the game easier, but it reduces the brainless part. It should also make the game more interesting for viewers, as the players can spend their apm on things that actually do stuff. If you don't actually play at a decent level, as a viewer you can't appreciate stuff like perfects injects or splits anyway... you just keep wondering why those marines stand clumped when banelings roll in, when they could easily spread out or run away.
How is managing a third resource brainless? And how is making decisions that have different outcomes not actually doing stuff?
You can say that you don't like the choices that apm management creates, and then I can say that I do like it, and we can end the discussion there. (I'm better off though, because StarCraft has those choices ). But don't act as if it's purely mechanical. That either shows ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
Terran Example:
I forgot to turn of my tank auto-queue after the factory made two and now I have 4 when I needed that for vikings.
Protoss Example:
My warpgate auto-queue is warping in units at my desired pylon. Pylon is killed without me noticing because I'm newb. Warpin queue stops and I don't have the units I expected to have a minute later.
Zerg Example:
Oh shit I'm out of larva because I didn't turn drone auto-queue off. I can't make units to defend.
The idea here is not thought through. Even if you want auto-queuing you can't have it. It would make things way worse and stressful.
This is a good point. It would introduce a different kind of real time related difficulty, giving people who want "pure strategy" and no speed something new to complain about
|
as an option for custom games sure. as an actual feature on ladder games I'd prefer not
|
shift key? Queue on units not enough? It doesnt take long to get the mins for anything really after 3 mins to if u remember you can add an already shifted command, just float that money otherwise until it starts, i do this all time with gas and mins for when i want muta, i float mins along side gas while still; building mineral things but still equaling gas and larva needed
The idea of queing units is a bit silly because lets say u really need 2 marines and u have a depot auto, well ur going to lose the game if the que runs up and the depot is made
I dont think sc is ever ready for something which automates the game. The day that comes u can expect massive drop in players. We play this game because it isnt press f to pay respects
|
Dont really see how this would work out for protoss due to warp ins.
And it would be a buff for terran players if it lets players focus more on dropping etc cos well they do the most dropping >.>.
|
On April 24 2015 01:58 vOdToasT wrote:How is managing a third resource brainless? And how is making decisions that have different outcomes not actually doing stuff? You can say that you don't like the choices that apm management creates, and then I can say that I do like it, and we can end the discussion there. (I'm better off though, because StarCraft has those choices ). But don't act as if it's purely mechanical. That either shows ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
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.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
while i don't think automation is neccesary, i feel as if changing just the economy is not the best thing. First of all, why are we changing it to begin with? People don't stop playing/watching starcraft because the first minutes are boring, they stop because it is frustrating to play. Changes should be made to fix that, not just changing the economy just because.
|
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.
|
On April 24 2015 02:41 Haukinger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 01:58 vOdToasT wrote:How is managing a third resource brainless? And how is making decisions that have different outcomes not actually doing stuff? You can say that you don't like the choices that apm management creates, and then I can say that I do like it, and we can end the discussion there. (I'm better off though, because StarCraft has those choices ). But don't act as if it's purely mechanical. That either shows ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. 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?
|
The one thing I hate the most is worker pairing in SC2. There is no strategic decision involved in pairing your workers so that you mine optimally. But it is a RTS, so you have to strategize how you spend your APM, part of the appeal is that you can't do everything correctly/100%efficiently. Without tasks like injecting/producing units, there would be way more focus on the army aspect which also would break some balance aspects.
|
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...
|
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?
|
I don't like this idea.
I want to make every single unit of my army.
|
On April 24 2015 02:41 Haukinger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 01:58 vOdToasT wrote:How is managing a third resource brainless? And how is making decisions that have different outcomes not actually doing stuff? You can say that you don't like the choices that apm management creates, and then I can say that I do like it, and we can end the discussion there. (I'm better off though, because StarCraft has those choices ). But don't act as if it's purely mechanical. That either shows ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. 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.
|
No - this is bad, that's one of the main few differences between skilled and less skilled players, a better player has better feeling of "time cycling".
|
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
|
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 :-)
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On April 24 2015 03:00 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
On April 24 2015 03:15 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +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
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.
|
On April 24 2015 03:59 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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...
|
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
|
On April 24 2015 04:33 spinesheath wrote:
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."
Yeah, the “correct reaction” from extremely naive people who foolishly think that mechanics are not related to strategy, and can be removed without any impact on the gameplay... History laughs at those who deplore the effects of which causes they cherish.
|
On April 24 2015 04:33 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 03:59 ZigguratOfUr wrote: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. 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.
No. It is a Real Time Strategy game. For me personally that means that you do NOT have enough time to do all the actions you want to do in the game because your time is limited and part of your strategy and playstyle should be how you invest the time available to you and setting priorities. REAL TIME STRATEGY. It isnt only about mechanical difficulty. If you dont want time in a strategy game, play a roundbased game please.
Rant on:
Also how is it exciting to watch if there is an autosplit button? Everyone then can do it. There are plenty of games already that have these things, if people want to play these games they should but leave Starcraft to the people who dont.
So far the only argument is: "oh my god I cant do the same stuff as progames can who practice 8 hours a day, thats stupid". And to be honest that is a retarded statement in itself. If a gold is facing another gold, there shouldnt be a problem because they are too slow to micro.
TLDR; l2p
On April 23 2015 15:11 GiveMeCake wrote:
determining who the true champions are.
Also lol on this
|
So we basically want a nexus wars on a normal melee map?
That doesn't sound fun at all, at least to me (and i would think most sc2 people think the same)
|
On April 24 2015 04:47 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:33 spinesheath wrote:
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." Yeah, the “correct reaction” from extremely naive people who foolishly think that mechanics are not related to strategy, and can be removed without any impact on the gameplay... History laughs at those who deplore the effects of which causes they cherish.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I stopped playing SC2 ladder during the beta of WoL because it just doesn't compare to SCBW. Still sad about the damage it did to SCBW. But if you prefer SC2 over SCBW you really should be open towards this proposition.
On April 24 2015 04:51 404AlphaSquad wrote:
Also how is it exciting to watch if there is an autosplit button multi building selection? Everyone then can do it. There are plenty of games already that have these things, if people want to play these games they should but leave Starcraft to the people who dont.
So far the only argument is: "oh my god I cant do the same stuff as progames can who practice 8 14 hours a day, thats stupid". And to be honest that is a retarded statement in itself. If a gold ICCup D- is facing another gold ICCup D-, there shouldnt be a problem because they are too slow to micro.
TLDR; l2p
I shifted that post back a few years. Maybe people didn't write TLDR; back then.
|
People fought worker rallies to the death, and it ended up doing nothing harmful to gameplay.
No other RTS fanbase holds menial tasks in such high regard. It doesn't make any sense. It's not what makes starcraft good.
|
On April 24 2015 04:56 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:47 TheDwf wrote:On April 24 2015 04:33 spinesheath wrote:
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." Yeah, the “correct reaction” from extremely naive people who foolishly think that mechanics are not related to strategy, and can be removed without any impact on the gameplay... History laughs at those who deplore the effects of which causes they cherish. Oh, don't get me wrong, I stopped playing SC2 ladder during the beta of WoL because it just doesn't compare to SCBW. Still sad about the damage it did to SCBW. But if you prefer SC2 over SCBW you really should be open towards this proposition.
Ah, never mind then. SC2 players are champions in desiring more of what hurt the game in the first place.
|
On April 24 2015 05:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:56 spinesheath wrote:On April 24 2015 04:47 TheDwf wrote:On April 24 2015 04:33 spinesheath wrote:
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." Yeah, the “correct reaction” from extremely naive people who foolishly think that mechanics are not related to strategy, and can be removed without any impact on the gameplay... History laughs at those who deplore the effects of which causes they cherish. Oh, don't get me wrong, I stopped playing SC2 ladder during the beta of WoL because it just doesn't compare to SCBW. Still sad about the damage it did to SCBW. But if you prefer SC2 over SCBW you really should be open towards this proposition. Ah, never mind then. SC2 players are champions in desiring more of what hurt the game in the first place.
Wait what ? Downfall... you know you want QTE in Starcraft just admit it
|
i dont say its bad let me say it in this way
you sir won the medal for the worst idea in the history of starcraft !
CONGRATULATIONS ! xD
dude its esport mekka sc and you mention some C class rts jokes who did it xD
edit: sry didnt even read ur post completly this fight against "automatic queen inject hack." means it also auto injects ?
like doing the most importent thing of the whole z race for you in when you do it perfect a gold player is insta diamond ?
wow ^^ sir your idea gets even worse reading more of your post, didnt expect that to be even possible xD
|
On April 24 2015 04:35 Haukinger wrote:Show nested quote +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...
Mechanical difficulty is important, you honestly think bw esports got big from build orders and strategy? It was about seeing pros do what was so difficult. You young bloods are driving me crazy trying to label everything as brainless tasks, you want the rims lowered so everyone can dunk.
If you only care for strategy, play chess. This isn't some generic strategy game, it's a real time strategy that is starcraft.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
This is probably better suited to Bnet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
