EPTI have the bad feeling we are ending with Hots 2.0, since there is not much time left and a lot is beeing reverted.
POLL: Macro Booster Community Feedback - Page 9
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
IceBerrY
Germany220 Posts
I have the bad feeling we are ending with Hots 2.0, since there is not much time left and a lot is beeing reverted. | ||
|
crazedrat
272 Posts
On September 17 2015 06:14 WrathSCII wrote: Just like your poll? LOL We are trying to focus on the concept here, if we want to add a specific detail for every concept then sure as hell everyone will vote for different things and the result will be more of a split. I understand, you're trying to get what you want conveyed to Blizzard: No Macro Boosters. Here is the problem. You diminish and disinclude most other options. The current patch is not represented properly. The diminished HOTS macro is not included. The new mechanics Blizzard has mentioned are not included. You accurately represent two choices: manual HOTS macro and No Macro boosters. The 3rd option is misrepresented; I didn't choose it myself; I did not feel represented by it. Say what you want about my poll: I took what Blizzard stated they were considering adding in the community update and put it into a poll. The backlash from this community didn't surprise me - most people here are constantly whining at Blizzard like a teen over his absentee father. That reaction is predictable to me, I see it all the time already, and I place no value on it. This poll is its own poll. This is, from my understanding, intended to give a voice for no macro mechanics. Problem is it's not even a valid test of that due to limiting alternative viewpoints. | ||
|
tegla
Croatia1 Post
The game needs new players, and the way to achieve that isn't balancing for korean pros. I'm not saying it should be a casual game, as it never was, but removing macro mechanics would ease the skill floor needed to get into the game, and it would be more fun in general as you can focus on other aspects of the game. | ||
|
AgamemnonSC2
Canada254 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
On September 17 2015 05:30 wjat wrote: Guys if they took out macro boosters from the game, what are the tweak you think Blizzard should do to balance lotv? mule remove queen 1 larva auto chrono remove or 5-10% terran: lower several structure costs, also probably costs of a few units slightly (e.g. tank less minerals) protoss: lower hp/weaken some units especially gateway, faster build time for some high tier units zerg: some adjustments depending on what is getting changed at t/p continue from there something like that | ||
|
crazedrat
272 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
On September 17 2015 08:05 crazedrat wrote: The no macro boosters was fun but I think there's all kinds of problems with that design that will pop up which people are not anticipating. The game has been so balanced around the mechanics that at this point it's ingrained into the fabric of the game. Let's say you get the the no macro mechanics and play with it for a while; yes it's fun and new at first, but that feeling wears off. Gameplay and metagame with macro boosters and limited strategy has worn off after 5 years. The pressure of the ability to rush and macro up to 200/200 that quickly is too high in order to allow versatile strategical choices by players. Imo this lowers the skill ceiling of the game as in most cases there is not much to choose from and playing passive macro into 3-4 base push is the obvious one, paired with the business as usual harassment options like bio/prism drops, orcacle, helions, reapers, ling runby or muta harrassment. Or you go full commitment all-in. Without the macro boosters I am sure semi commitment play is getting alot more viable so that in a situation e.g. where one player has 3OC and the other 3 hatch, zerg is not fully all-in when delaying his 4th as the damage he can do to t is noticeable and can even out things, depending on both players performance in the battle. With macro boosters in place this would end up in a do or die situation for zerg as little dmg to eco of terran is getting overshadowed by 3+ OC mules afterwards and he couldn't catch up anymore so that he has to fully commit on all-in and kill the terran or write gg himself. Without the pressure of the macro boosters alot more styles of play get viable (e.g. bly aggressive Z play) that require all players to widen their overall skill ceiling while just the requirement of apm for injects is being lowered by a bit. Especially the TvP meta can only benefit from a slowed down macro pace as well. The lower availability of larva for zerg will also be good for the game as it requires better dealing with harassment and prevent spamming mass drones after an attack or in a general phase of inactivity. Zergs cannot hoard larva while building drones before an opponents attack anymore and build units only in last second, if the attack comes late z has big advantage, if attack comes 10 sec too early z dies and boredom/frustration amongst players and audience is being spread as all games go that way. How can a better metagame wear off? | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
On September 16 2015 02:38 hitpoint wrote: So many ugly things about this game stem from these macro boosters. Cheeses, allins, and imbalances. Not to mention they only speed up the game, which just makes it harder to scout dangerous things. Pros have been saying since the start of WoL that the game is ridiculously fast compared to BW. More specifically though, here are some things I hate about macro boosters. Terran losing huge amounts of SCVs and it barely even matters = bad. Terran sacrificing all their SCVs late game to have a large army is something I hate with a burning passion. Terran pulling the boys but it's okay because they have orbitals = volatility. Protoss always being ahead on upgrades = volatility. Protoss gimmicks become ultra strong with chrono = volatility. Zerg losing their whole army and then remaxing a different comp = volatility. Yes, it may be fun and entertaining but does it really make the game better? I'm not sure. Zerg pooling larvae in zvz and suddenly wins the game with 30 speedlings when he sees the other guy hatching drones = volatility. A defending Zerg losing two queens to harass, and then having their crippled production snowball into 2k banked minerals and a slow painful death = volatility. Not to mention, mule is not a macro mechanic. Macro is building units, and structures. "Macro mechanic" is a phrase that get's thrown around, but for terran it really is just an economy "booster". Terran get's free income spikes at no cost, not even attention. There is no cooldown on mules, or penalty for missing them as long as your energy doesn't cap. Terran's real "macro mechanic" that can be compared with chrono and inject is having to build addons. So the mule, as a "macro mechanic," only makes the game worse in every regard. If terran is a bad race without mules, then that's something to be addressed through balance patches. Maybe then they can buff the siege tank finally. Also, I think zerg would actually get much harder to play if inject was removed and we could only build from larvae that hatcheries naturally spawned. Instead of just using 20 larvae at once we would need to hit production cycles, essentially, to keep from being capped. Which is WAY harder than injecting every once in a while, and then building all of our units at once. Except that queens are no longer a source of vulnerability, which also adds stability to the game. +1. Couldn't have said it better! | ||
|
AgamemnonSC2
Canada254 Posts
On September 17 2015 08:05 crazedrat wrote: The no macro boosters was fun but I think there's all kinds of problems with that design that will pop up which people are not anticipating. The game has been so balanced around the mechanics that at this point it's ingrained into the fabric of the game. Let's say you get the the no macro mechanics and play with it for a while; yes it's fun and new at first, but that feeling wears off. Absolutely false. Macro Boosters didn't even exist until WOL. If you ever played SC1, than you would know that "no macro mechanics" is not new at all. And try telling the people who still love, stream, and watch BW that the "feeling wears off". I lol'd | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
The reason why SC:BW was different and in alot of aspects better than SC2 was not only the lack of unit ai, MBS and the limited group selection but as well the slower game pace with alot of options to choose from and be creative with as timings didn't appear and go as fast as they do in SC2. There were ways to come back into the game and players and audience experienced this on a daily basis in BW. Macro boosters are the main reason that prevent this to happen in SC2. Lets do it Blizzard, now or never! | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
I highly doubt that pro-gamers on average make better game designers than others I'd expect someone who has played the game for 1000 hours in the last year to be able to make better game design choices than someone who has played for 20-50 hours. Probably the majority of the sc2 community is viewers and hypercasuals; i don't even bother to play if i'm playing less than like 20 games a week | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
On September 17 2015 09:23 Cyro wrote: I'd expect someone who has played the game for 1000 hours in the last year to be able to make better game design choices than someone who has played for 20-50 hours. Probably the majority of the sc2 community is viewers and hypercasuals; i don't even bother to play if i'm playing less than like 20 games a week Let me ask you one thing: Do you believe that the creators of Starcraft Broodwar were or became progamers of their own game before/after/while they created and tweaked it when it became as successful as it was? Why do you think a soccer team is being coached and managed by people that are not actively playing the game? Why is not the headplayer of the team making the strategy and deciding about signups but the coach and management? He should know best as he is the best player in your view of things. etc. Everything requires different ressources and to put it simple it doesn't require you to hit your injects perfectly in order to design a good game. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
On September 17 2015 09:42 Cyro wrote: You don't have to be a progamer to design a game, it's just better to take suggestions from people who played your game for 200 hours on the recent patch, compared to those who played for 2 hours on it For sure it is good to take suggestions from anyone who has anything worthy to say on whatever basis. In this very SC2 issue tho, most former BW pros disliked and denied SC2 in the beginning when I remember things right. What is wrong about listening to their advice now after so many got bored/quitted/never started and still the same problems as in the beginning happen to be in the game? Such as too fast game pace, too much unit massing, too quick hitting 200/200. I could argue that those who do (still) play SC2 now are only those that managed to deal with all their dislikes that they had in the beginning or never had them or managed to create benefits for themselves with e.g. learning the macro booster gameplay no matter if they liked it or not in the beginning. Why should only them have a voice and not the others who turned their back to the game and therefore you can't read them here? Why do you think the vast majority of people here is against the macro boosters while most pros that voiced their opinion initially argued for them (I assume alot have turned around already)? They put alot of efforts into training the current meta. Changing those fundamental things is a shuffle and noone really knows where he is exactly at after. Ppl want to conserve their status. Is this a good basis of decisionmaking for the sake of creating a better game? Just like the soccer player on the field who couldn't see what else is wrong when he complains about another player in his team that made a mistake, pros in SC2 here on this issue failed to see and evaluate the big impact of metagame changes which by far outweigh the little less mechanical requirements of zerg due to autoinjects. Why didn't I see stuchio and co. (pros, nn to name them) debate about the pros and cons of a changing metagame due to the removal of macro boosters but only saw them poking on starcraft's need of mechanical requirement (which is not even changed at all) and zerg is boring without manual injects? Seriously the answer is easy: Because most of them don't know much about things that are outside of the current metagame. They don't train things daily that are out of meta, how should they have anything in advance over others? How would they have time and ressources to care on things that are outside of the current metagame (which is totally not important when being a pro) while training and focussing solely on the current metagame and having to do so in order to get the best of their kind? Other people who don't put as much ressources on the current metagame have had ressources left to to think through alternatives instead. It requires a bit of distance, the same distance that a coach has to the soccer field. If you deny all that, give me a better reasoning for the case that almost everyone that voiced their opinion solely focused on the mechanical requirements of SC2 instead of seeing and debating the huge potential of a changing metagame, especially in reference to moving closer towards SC:BW. | ||
|
AgamemnonSC2
Canada254 Posts
| ||
|
crazedrat
272 Posts
On September 17 2015 08:40 LSN wrote: Gameplay and metagame with macro boosters and limited strategy has worn off after 5 years. The pressure of the ability to rush and macro up to 200/200 that quickly is too high in order to allow versatile strategical choices by players. Imo this lowers the skill ceiling of the game as in most cases there is not much to choose from and playing passive macro into 3-4 base push is the obvious one, paired with the business as usual harassment options like bio/prism drops, orcacle, helions, reapers, ling runby or muta harrassment. Or you go full commitment all-in. Without the macro boosters I am sure semi commitment play is getting alot more viable so that in a situation e.g. where one player has 3OC and the other 3 hatch, zerg is not fully all-in when delaying his 4th as the damage he can do to t is noticeable and can even out things, depending on both players performance in the battle. With macro boosters in place this would end up in a do or die situation for zerg as little dmg to eco of terran is getting overshadowed by 3+ OC mules afterwards and he couldn't catch up anymore so that he has to fully commit on all-in and kill the terran or write gg himself. Without the pressure of the macro boosters alot more styles of play get viable (e.g. bly aggressive Z play) that require all players to widen their overall skill ceiling while just the requirement of apm for injects is being lowered by a bit. Especially the TvP meta can only benefit from a slowed down macro pace as well. The lower availability of larva for zerg will also be good for the game as it requires better dealing with harassment and prevent spamming mass drones after an attack or in a general phase of inactivity. Zergs cannot hoard larva while building drones before an opponents attack anymore and build units only in last second, if the attack comes late z has big advantage, if attack comes 10 sec too early z dies and boredom/frustration amongst players and audience is being spread as all games go that way. How can a better metagame wear off? If you want to talk about a better metagame, during the no macro boosters patch every game was a macro opening. triple hatch, 3CC, nexus 1st... Early aggression from Z and P was so weak it wasnt worth doing. Every game same opening. As far as damaging the enemy econ, there are other ways to make harassment stronger. Right now the MULE change has made early aggression against T stronger. If they adjust the pylon change correctly it will strengthen harassment against Protoss. Zerg already has enough larvae either way. It's the difference between building a macro hatch or not. Zerg dominated so hard in that patch. You will never eliminate Zergs ability to quickly replinish drones. The patch was fun, Zerg dominated alot, alot of Terrans quit the game and Blizzard changed their minds. That's how it went. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
Right now the MULE change has made early aggression against T stronger I've had a lot more trouble against terran in the early game (well, between ~3 and 6 minutes) post-mule. Losing 5 workers doesn't cripple them any more, they just drop the mules in the main and defend them well, keeping an economy lead | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
| ||
|
crazedrat
272 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:48 Cyro wrote: I've had a lot more trouble against terran in the early game (well, between ~3 and 6 minutes) post-mule. Losing 5 workers doesn't cripple them any more, they just drop the mules in the main and defend them well, keeping an economy lead Compared to hots mechanics, and im speaking as zerg, if you force a lift with roach ravager ling aggression or you make it into the main base you are further ahead now since the orbital is not massing energy during the time its lifted. So when 3 orbitals land there is no MULE spamming; and there are also vulnerable MULES during the whole harassment. Also they end up mining out the main very quickly if you end up containing them afterwards. Overall if you have a semi successful bust against Terran you are in much better shape now. Of course that is about to change when they introduce their new mechanics update (if they go through with it). | ||
|
Mahiriens
Finland12 Posts
On September 17 2015 08:53 AgamemnonSC2 wrote: Absolutely false. Macro Boosters didn't even exist until WOL. If you ever played SC1, than you would know that "no macro mechanics" is not new at all. And try telling the people who still love, stream, and watch BW that the "feeling wears off". I lol'd How is that absolutely false when the whole balance of the game was built on macro boosters for 5 years? Sc2 without MM is still a vastly different game than sc1, so if you're trying to brag about playing broodwar atleast try to be intelligent about it... | ||
| ||
