|
Most everyone agrees that LOTV's success will depend on whether or not the game is FUN TO PLAY.
Poll: Which Version of Macro Boosters have you had the most Fun with?No Macro Boosters (Chrono, Mule, Inject Removed) (1029) 61% Fully Manual Macro (aka. HOTS Macro Boosters) (415) 24% Semi-Auto Macro (Current Patch) (252) 15% 1696 total votes Your vote: Which Version of Macro Boosters have you had the most Fun with? (Vote): Fully Manual Macro (aka. HOTS Macro Boosters)
(Vote): No Macro Boosters (Chrono, Mule, Inject Removed)
(Vote): Semi-Auto Macro (Current Patch)
Hopefully this will help the Dev team decide what to do. Thanks for participating.
EDIT: It has been pointed out that Inject was never removed, sorry for the mistake.
|
Include this on Bnet forums and Reddit.
|
|
|
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
|
On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ
|
Completely remove those dirty macro boosters.
|
dont know why people like the hots maco mechanics... really.. this is terrible terrible not fun. With hots maco mechanics the game has no future.
|
On September 14 2015 00:25 Schakal111 wrote:
dont know why people like the hots maco mechanics... really.. this is terrible terrible not fun. With hots maco mechanics the game has no future.
Personally I see them as something with room for improvement, not something to be removed. The current mechanics are flawed, however for example the choice between mules and scans is something I think works well. Injects and creep could also work like this if zerg wasn't so reliant on making queens for defence anyway.
There are problems these mechanics present, such as mule hammers lategame and 100 larva tech switches. However I think the mechanics could be changed to prevent these issues, ie, mule being replaced with a SCV AoE speed buff, larva capping at say 5 with injects or not....
As long as we don't have automated injects I'm happy though. Automated macro just makes me sick a bit in my mouth. It fixes zero problems.
I think there's a fair division between people who think macro mechanics a pointless APM sink and people who think they cause metagame problems. I'm only really interested in the latter, I don't see much of an argument that removing macro mechanics will make loads of fun multitask based games when we already have APM monsters who have no issue with the multitasking, who don't currently play like that. That suggests people don't split up their armies a lot..... because splitting it up is often just bad. Making macro easy won't change that.
|
On September 14 2015 00:36 Iksf wrote:
Personally I see them as something with room for improvement, not something to be removed.
My argument for getting rid of them would be that I don't think they'll be willing to retool the economy while still including them. The speed of the game is what I want from removing the mechanics, I actually like the mechanics themselves.
|
I really enjoyed playing (terran) without boosters!
Personally, I really wish macro boosters were moved higher up the tech tree (especially for protoss...) and left manual.
e: I wish fast expanding was much more macro/economy friendly than rax/pool first.
|
After playing many games without the manual inject mechanic, I dread the idea of going back. I just find the game to be much more fun being able to focus on other things.
I've made masters and I am usually high diamond. In hots, when I practice macro in a custom game, running a cycle of injects, creep, spending/build structures, and unit movement... at the start of the game was manageable.
However, I find after my creep spreads across the map and I am managing 8 + tumors over a wider area I become over taxed.
I can't find the time to get my injects, spread the creep and keep up on the cycle. At the very best I can do injects, creep, spend, but then I don't even get to move units because I am already back again at the top of the inject cycle.
Keep in mind NONE of this includes, defending counter attacks, making a push, or harassment.
Without macro boosters I find the time to focus on micro (something I couldn't do before without making a macro sacrifice), following my army, creep spread is easier, overall strategy.
For what its worth I do think automation fixes some things, for example, as zerg it frees up a good chunk of my attention and actions per macro cycle.
|
On September 14 2015 01:04 y0su wrote:
I really enjoyed playing (terran) without boosters!
Personally, I really wish macro boosters were moved higher up the tech tree (especially for protoss...) and left manual.
Wow, this is a really interesting idea... Manual macro boosters up the tech tree... hmmm.
However, I think it might be too hard to balance such a thing. I think you probably need to balance for one mechanic or the other, but I'm not sure. maybe manual macro boosters with certain units? cheaper units like lings or marines? Make them aspects of individual buildings?
Frankly I'm happier with the simplicity of the current automation with diminished boosters patch.
|
On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ
calm down junior, it was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Like it or not, the mass amounts of early game larva contribute to a lot of cheese/information based wins early game ZvZ.
maybe next time respond to more of the general message of what I'm saying instead of letting one sentence crawl up your ass.
|
On September 14 2015 01:22 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ calm down junior, it was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Like it or not, the mass amounts of early game larva contribute to a lot of cheese/information based wins early game ZvZ. maybe next time respond to more of the general message of what I'm saying instead of letting one sentence crawl up your ass.
He has a history of being a d*ck.
Agreed, as a T, that Terran sucked when they removed the macro boosters - but they could have addressed that in the next patch. Just remove the macro boosters and balance please.
|
No automation, either leave it out or put it in. But dont do something stupid as to let the game play itself
|
anyone who votes semi-auto macro should be banned
|
On September 14 2015 02:02 woopr wrote:
anyone who votes semi-auto macro should be banned
Or votes for full manual!
Anyway screw freedom of speech, lets just remove MM :D
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
No boosters was best. Current system is worse than none or all
|
I wish there was an option for "toned down, manual macro boosters." Ie. Mules instead of mining 30 or 45 minerals per trip, only mine 15. Injects are manual, and give 2 larvae. Chrono boost % is halved from HOTS.
This way, they are less punishing if you aren't as good, but are still there to differentiate yourself.
|
|
|
Never been a fan of the artificially inflated economies from the Macro Boosters.
|
No macro booster pleaseeee!
|
Going to be interesting to see how Blizzard reacts to polls like this.
|
Guys please, SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE!!!
I and the OP shared this on Reddit and Bnet forums (But reddit as usual did not upvote it to get seen at all). So please help us trying to get this everywhere so we can give those assholes at blizzard what we really need so we leave them no excuse to hide behind.
HELP US!
|
On September 14 2015 02:31 WrathSCII wrote:
Guys please, SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE!!!
I and the OP shared this on Reddit and Bnet forums (But reddit as usual did not upvote it to get seen at all). So please help us trying to get this everywhere so we can give those assholes at blizzard what we really need so we leave them no excuse to hide behind.
HELP US!
Posting "those assholes at Blizzard" probably does not help your cause.
|
On September 14 2015 03:00 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 02:31 WrathSCII wrote:
Guys please, SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE!!!
I and the OP shared this on Reddit and Bnet forums (But reddit as usual did not upvote it to get seen at all). So please help us trying to get this everywhere so we can give those assholes at blizzard what we really need so we leave them no excuse to hide behind.
HELP US! Posting "those assholes at Blizzard" probably does not help your cause.
I just can't contain my feelings 
|
On September 14 2015 01:36 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 01:22 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ calm down junior, it was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Like it or not, the mass amounts of early game larva contribute to a lot of cheese/information based wins early game ZvZ. maybe next time respond to more of the general message of what I'm saying instead of letting one sentence crawl up your ass. He has a history of being a d*ck. Agreed, as a T, that Terran sucked when they removed the macro boosters - but they could have addressed that in the next patch. Just remove the macro boosters and balance please.
If pointing out how ridiculous someones statement is by referencing their probable league is being a dick then sure, stating that 90% of ZvZ is zergling balls is just wrong on many levels.
On September 14 2015 02:06 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 02:02 woopr wrote:
anyone who votes semi-auto macro should be banned Or votes for full auto!
Fixed that for you.
On September 14 2015 02:22 ffadicted wrote:
Finally a fair poll lol
Umm no? Where's the option of manual macro mechanics but toned down?
|
Would be interesting to see how the game plays out without macro boosters but also balanced around having no macro boosters.
|
Finally results that I was expecting hahaha. That's where I stand too, either no mechanics and try to redesign/rebalance from there, or HotS' mechanics.
I answered "no mechanics". I just want to see how the game looks without them.
|
The key here is NO macro boosters. Including no inject. Not fucking auto inject, Blizzard. That's the worst option of all, even though it isn't on the poll.
|
I saw tech plays, more skirmishes, more small battles that mattered, when the pace was slowed down without the macro mechanics in that one recent patch. I had more fun than I thought, and with all 3 races. I vote for this hands down. Just keep tweaking to get the battle vs. base management the same for all 3 races.
|
Umm no? Where's the option of manual macro mechanics but toned down?
Until there is a patch with "toned down macro" we cannot say whether it is fun or not. This is an experience based poll, not theory.
|
No macro boosters would be best for the pace of the game but would also be the hardest to balance with only 2 months to go.
|
Why is everyone thinking the game should be balanced at LoTV release? won't happen no matter why, we will see a ton patches afterwards even if it is balanced at/since release.
I am a big fan of NO Macro boosters.
|
I am PRAYING that Blizzard will remove macro mechanics again, but I feel strongly that they will not. They mentioned the team is split between HotS macro and auto cast macro, and did not even mention no macro mechanics. Please Blizzard, please please please remove these macro mechanics that are the source of SO many problems in this game.
|
Agreed, I would gladly buy LOTV even if it was unbalanced, if there were no Macro Boosters. I can wait for balance.
|
On September 14 2015 04:36 Dingodile wrote:
Why is everyone thinking the game should be balanced at LoTV release? won't happen no matter why, we will see a ton patches afterwards even if it is balanced at/since release.
I am a big fan of NO Macro boosters.
Because people who haven't played in a while will just quit in frustration in the first month like they did due to reaper spam in WoL and hellbat drops in HotS.
|
On September 14 2015 03:35 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 01:36 DeadByDawn wrote:On September 14 2015 01:22 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ calm down junior, it was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Like it or not, the mass amounts of early game larva contribute to a lot of cheese/information based wins early game ZvZ. maybe next time respond to more of the general message of what I'm saying instead of letting one sentence crawl up your ass. He has a history of being a d*ck. Agreed, as a T, that Terran sucked when they removed the macro boosters - but they could have addressed that in the next patch. Just remove the macro boosters and balance please. If pointing out how ridiculous someones statement is by referencing their probable league is being a dick then sure, stating that 90% of ZvZ is zergling balls is just wrong on many levels. Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 02:06 WrathSCII wrote:On September 14 2015 02:02 woopr wrote:
anyone who votes semi-auto macro should be banned Or votes for full auto! Fixed that for you. Umm no? Where's the option of manual macro mechanics but toned down?
calm down, this thread isn't about ZvZ specifically nor is about you spouting off retarded statements based on an exaggerated sentence you disagreed with. Go ahead and tell me that the mass amounts macro boosted larva don't contribute to a ton of ZvZs ending 5 minutes in due to early ling bane attacks.
Try to form an argument this time instead of (incorrectly) guessing my league and embarrassing yourself.
|
On September 14 2015 03:57 Blacklizard wrote:
I saw tech plays, more skirmishes, more small battles that mattered, when the pace was slowed down without the macro mechanics in that one recent patch. I had more fun than I thought, and with all 3 races. I vote for this hands down. Just keep tweaking to get the battle vs. base management the same for all 3 races.
This is exactly what I saw, but the knee jerk reaction of the elitist reddit community, most of whom do not even play the game, got worried they wouldn't be a part of the HARDCORE MELT YOUR FACE APM game anymore. That is the core of the problem here. The 1% of masters and pro level players have so much sway on public opinion because again, most of the community does not play the game to form their own opinions. Reactionary public opinion has so much sway on the developers. Obviously listening the community is important but Blizzard gave up on this idea almost instantly.
|
On September 14 2015 04:53 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 03:35 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 01:36 DeadByDawn wrote:On September 14 2015 01:22 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ calm down junior, it was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Like it or not, the mass amounts of early game larva contribute to a lot of cheese/information based wins early game ZvZ. maybe next time respond to more of the general message of what I'm saying instead of letting one sentence crawl up your ass. He has a history of being a d*ck. Agreed, as a T, that Terran sucked when they removed the macro boosters - but they could have addressed that in the next patch. Just remove the macro boosters and balance please. If pointing out how ridiculous someones statement is by referencing their probable league is being a dick then sure, stating that 90% of ZvZ is zergling balls is just wrong on many levels. On September 14 2015 02:06 WrathSCII wrote:On September 14 2015 02:02 woopr wrote:
anyone who votes semi-auto macro should be banned Or votes for full auto! Fixed that for you. On September 14 2015 02:22 ffadicted wrote:
Finally a fair poll lol Umm no? Where's the option of manual macro mechanics but toned down? calm down, this thread isn't about ZvZ specifically nor is about you spouting off retarded statements based on an exaggerated sentence you disagreed with. Go ahead and tell me that the mass amounts macro boosted larva don't contribute to a ton of ZvZs ending 5 minutes in due to early ling bane attacks. Try to form an argument this time instead of (incorrectly) guessing my league and embarrassing yourself.
I'm completely calm, it's quite funny that you'd think I'm not you are valuing your retorts too highly.
They're all stoppable with good control, the only way it's not stoppable is if it's not scouted which is only going to happen on a 4 player map but that's due to the 12 worker change not the macro mechanics.
How have I embarrassed myself what a stupid statement to make. If you want to disprove my point you'd be saying your league, so since you've not specified I'm going to say you're not gold but platinum.
I'm not prepared to right out a long post addressing you as I feel it will be pointless, you have your opinion on the macro mechanics and I have mine and I think both out mindsets aren't going to budge.
Just as a general overview, this poll is of poor quality. You need to include manual macro mechanics but toned down, you also need to realize that people are not taking into account the impact of the 12 worker change, the game has been largely accelerated by that for very little time gain and toning down the macro mechanics repairs that effect. My ideal would be to pretty much get a bit closer back to Hots, toned down macro mechanics and 6 workers again.
|
On September 14 2015 05:15 Ovid wrote:
Just as a general overview, this poll is of poor quality. You need to include manual macro mechanics but toned down, you also need to realize that people are not taking into account the impact of the 12 worker change, the game has been largely accelerated by that for very little time gain and toning down the macro mechanics repairs that effect. My ideal would be to pretty much get a bit closer back to Hots, toned down macro mechanics and 6 workers again.
Poll's fine as it is, toned down macro mechanics still comes under either manual or semi-automated. At the moment its probably more important to see if people want macro mechanics or not before deciding whether they should stay the same strength or be toned down.
|
On September 14 2015 05:15 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 04:53 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 14 2015 03:35 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 01:36 DeadByDawn wrote:On September 14 2015 01:22 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ calm down junior, it was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Like it or not, the mass amounts of early game larva contribute to a lot of cheese/information based wins early game ZvZ. maybe next time respond to more of the general message of what I'm saying instead of letting one sentence crawl up your ass. He has a history of being a d*ck. Agreed, as a T, that Terran sucked when they removed the macro boosters - but they could have addressed that in the next patch. Just remove the macro boosters and balance please. If pointing out how ridiculous someones statement is by referencing their probable league is being a dick then sure, stating that 90% of ZvZ is zergling balls is just wrong on many levels. On September 14 2015 02:06 WrathSCII wrote:On September 14 2015 02:02 woopr wrote:
anyone who votes semi-auto macro should be banned Or votes for full auto! Fixed that for you. On September 14 2015 02:22 ffadicted wrote:
Finally a fair poll lol Umm no? Where's the option of manual macro mechanics but toned down? calm down, this thread isn't about ZvZ specifically nor is about you spouting off retarded statements based on an exaggerated sentence you disagreed with. Go ahead and tell me that the mass amounts macro boosted larva don't contribute to a ton of ZvZs ending 5 minutes in due to early ling bane attacks. Try to form an argument this time instead of (incorrectly) guessing my league and embarrassing yourself. I'm completely calm, it's quite funny that you'd think I'm not you are valuing your retorts too highly. They're all stoppable with good control, the only way it's not stoppable is if it's not scouted which is only going to happen on a 4 player map but that's due to the 12 worker change not the macro mechanics. How have I embarrassed myself what a stupid statement to make. If you want to disprove my point you'd be saying your league, so since you've not specified I'm going to say you're not gold but platinum. I'm not prepared to right out a long post addressing you as I feel it will be pointless, you have your opinion on the macro mechanics and I have mine and I think both out mindsets aren't going to budge. Just as a general overview, this poll is of poor quality. You need to include manual macro mechanics but toned down, you also need to realize that people are not taking into account the impact of the 12 worker change, the game has been largely accelerated by that for very little time gain and toning down the macro mechanics repairs that effect. My ideal would be to pretty much get a bit closer back to Hots, toned down macro mechanics and 6 workers again.
Please show me where I wrote that mass ling early game was "unstoppable" lol. I clearly meant that it was very common. And it is, because bad players can beat better players sometimes by hiding lings out of plain site and snowballing whatever advantage they get with mass larva.
Still got the wrong league btw, not that it matters as it's just a way for you to write a lazy "my league>your league" argument instead of proper discussion
|
The current patch is fully automated.
Now you see the tremendous difference in poll numbers when you include no macro mechanics. Almost no one supports automation in this poll.
I did like the no macro mechanics. I'd like Blizzard to explain why they changed it or whether they gave up on it in a community update.
|
On September 14 2015 05:28 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 05:15 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 04:53 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 14 2015 03:35 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 01:36 DeadByDawn wrote:On September 14 2015 01:22 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ calm down junior, it was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Like it or not, the mass amounts of early game larva contribute to a lot of cheese/information based wins early game ZvZ. maybe next time respond to more of the general message of what I'm saying instead of letting one sentence crawl up your ass. He has a history of being a d*ck. Agreed, as a T, that Terran sucked when they removed the macro boosters - but they could have addressed that in the next patch. Just remove the macro boosters and balance please. If pointing out how ridiculous someones statement is by referencing their probable league is being a dick then sure, stating that 90% of ZvZ is zergling balls is just wrong on many levels. On September 14 2015 02:06 WrathSCII wrote:On September 14 2015 02:02 woopr wrote:
anyone who votes semi-auto macro should be banned Or votes for full auto! Fixed that for you. On September 14 2015 02:22 ffadicted wrote:
Finally a fair poll lol Umm no? Where's the option of manual macro mechanics but toned down? calm down, this thread isn't about ZvZ specifically nor is about you spouting off retarded statements based on an exaggerated sentence you disagreed with. Go ahead and tell me that the mass amounts macro boosted larva don't contribute to a ton of ZvZs ending 5 minutes in due to early ling bane attacks. Try to form an argument this time instead of (incorrectly) guessing my league and embarrassing yourself. I'm completely calm, it's quite funny that you'd think I'm not you are valuing your retorts too highly. They're all stoppable with good control, the only way it's not stoppable is if it's not scouted which is only going to happen on a 4 player map but that's due to the 12 worker change not the macro mechanics. How have I embarrassed myself what a stupid statement to make. If you want to disprove my point you'd be saying your league, so since you've not specified I'm going to say you're not gold but platinum. I'm not prepared to right out a long post addressing you as I feel it will be pointless, you have your opinion on the macro mechanics and I have mine and I think both out mindsets aren't going to budge. Just as a general overview, this poll is of poor quality. You need to include manual macro mechanics but toned down, you also need to realize that people are not taking into account the impact of the 12 worker change, the game has been largely accelerated by that for very little time gain and toning down the macro mechanics repairs that effect. My ideal would be to pretty much get a bit closer back to Hots, toned down macro mechanics and 6 workers again. Please show me where I wrote that mass ling early game was "unstoppable" lol. I clearly meant that it was very common. And it is, because bad players can beat better players sometimes by hiding lings out of plain site and snowballing whatever advantage they get with mass larva. Still got the wrong league btw, not that it matters as it's just a way for you to write a lazy "my league>your league" argument instead of proper discussion
The reason why I said about how it's stoppable is because that's what makes it very scarce on a higher level, it relies on many factors to be successful which makes it unreliable, the only catch being in order to defend it you require decent micro which is why it's popular lower down on ladder but not so common higher up.
I don't know why you wouldn't just say your league at this point unless you're worried it's going to prove my point.
I find very little point in discussing things with players lower than masters and ones that are playing currently hence why my most common question is about peoples league.
Just went on Nios.kr did LittleChimp you're 1 game this season gold league on america server?
|
On September 14 2015 05:49 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 05:28 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 14 2015 05:15 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 04:53 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 14 2015 03:35 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 01:36 DeadByDawn wrote:On September 14 2015 01:22 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ calm down junior, it was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Like it or not, the mass amounts of early game larva contribute to a lot of cheese/information based wins early game ZvZ. maybe next time respond to more of the general message of what I'm saying instead of letting one sentence crawl up your ass. He has a history of being a d*ck. Agreed, as a T, that Terran sucked when they removed the macro boosters - but they could have addressed that in the next patch. Just remove the macro boosters and balance please. If pointing out how ridiculous someones statement is by referencing their probable league is being a dick then sure, stating that 90% of ZvZ is zergling balls is just wrong on many levels. On September 14 2015 02:06 WrathSCII wrote:On September 14 2015 02:02 woopr wrote:
anyone who votes semi-auto macro should be banned Or votes for full auto! Fixed that for you. On September 14 2015 02:22 ffadicted wrote:
Finally a fair poll lol Umm no? Where's the option of manual macro mechanics but toned down? calm down, this thread isn't about ZvZ specifically nor is about you spouting off retarded statements based on an exaggerated sentence you disagreed with. Go ahead and tell me that the mass amounts macro boosted larva don't contribute to a ton of ZvZs ending 5 minutes in due to early ling bane attacks. Try to form an argument this time instead of (incorrectly) guessing my league and embarrassing yourself. I'm completely calm, it's quite funny that you'd think I'm not you are valuing your retorts too highly. They're all stoppable with good control, the only way it's not stoppable is if it's not scouted which is only going to happen on a 4 player map but that's due to the 12 worker change not the macro mechanics. How have I embarrassed myself what a stupid statement to make. If you want to disprove my point you'd be saying your league, so since you've not specified I'm going to say you're not gold but platinum. I'm not prepared to right out a long post addressing you as I feel it will be pointless, you have your opinion on the macro mechanics and I have mine and I think both out mindsets aren't going to budge. Just as a general overview, this poll is of poor quality. You need to include manual macro mechanics but toned down, you also need to realize that people are not taking into account the impact of the 12 worker change, the game has been largely accelerated by that for very little time gain and toning down the macro mechanics repairs that effect. My ideal would be to pretty much get a bit closer back to Hots, toned down macro mechanics and 6 workers again. Please show me where I wrote that mass ling early game was "unstoppable" lol. I clearly meant that it was very common. And it is, because bad players can beat better players sometimes by hiding lings out of plain site and snowballing whatever advantage they get with mass larva. Still got the wrong league btw, not that it matters as it's just a way for you to write a lazy "my league>your league" argument instead of proper discussion The reason why I said about how it's stoppable is because that's what makes it very scarce on a higher level, it relies on many factors to be successful which makes it unreliable, the only catch being in order to defend it you require decent micro which is why it's popular lower down on ladder but not so common higher up. I don't know why you wouldn't just say your league at this point unless you're worried it's going to prove my point. I find very little point in discussing things with players lower than masters and ones that are playing currently hence why my most common question is about peoples league.
I'm only a lowly diamond player (I do play currently) but I watch several GM level streams and you see tons of lingbane cheese recently, especially right now around the auto inject 3 larva patch. Are you GM? Are you better than those streamers?
|
On September 14 2015 05:56 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 05:49 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 05:28 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 14 2015 05:15 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 04:53 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 14 2015 03:35 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 01:36 DeadByDawn wrote:On September 14 2015 01:22 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ calm down junior, it was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Like it or not, the mass amounts of early game larva contribute to a lot of cheese/information based wins early game ZvZ. maybe next time respond to more of the general message of what I'm saying instead of letting one sentence crawl up your ass. He has a history of being a d*ck. Agreed, as a T, that Terran sucked when they removed the macro boosters - but they could have addressed that in the next patch. Just remove the macro boosters and balance please. If pointing out how ridiculous someones statement is by referencing their probable league is being a dick then sure, stating that 90% of ZvZ is zergling balls is just wrong on many levels. On September 14 2015 02:06 WrathSCII wrote:On September 14 2015 02:02 woopr wrote:
anyone who votes semi-auto macro should be banned Or votes for full auto! Fixed that for you. On September 14 2015 02:22 ffadicted wrote:
Finally a fair poll lol Umm no? Where's the option of manual macro mechanics but toned down? calm down, this thread isn't about ZvZ specifically nor is about you spouting off retarded statements based on an exaggerated sentence you disagreed with. Go ahead and tell me that the mass amounts macro boosted larva don't contribute to a ton of ZvZs ending 5 minutes in due to early ling bane attacks. Try to form an argument this time instead of (incorrectly) guessing my league and embarrassing yourself. I'm completely calm, it's quite funny that you'd think I'm not you are valuing your retorts too highly. They're all stoppable with good control, the only way it's not stoppable is if it's not scouted which is only going to happen on a 4 player map but that's due to the 12 worker change not the macro mechanics. How have I embarrassed myself what a stupid statement to make. If you want to disprove my point you'd be saying your league, so since you've not specified I'm going to say you're not gold but platinum. I'm not prepared to right out a long post addressing you as I feel it will be pointless, you have your opinion on the macro mechanics and I have mine and I think both out mindsets aren't going to budge. Just as a general overview, this poll is of poor quality. You need to include manual macro mechanics but toned down, you also need to realize that people are not taking into account the impact of the 12 worker change, the game has been largely accelerated by that for very little time gain and toning down the macro mechanics repairs that effect. My ideal would be to pretty much get a bit closer back to Hots, toned down macro mechanics and 6 workers again. Please show me where I wrote that mass ling early game was "unstoppable" lol. I clearly meant that it was very common. And it is, because bad players can beat better players sometimes by hiding lings out of plain site and snowballing whatever advantage they get with mass larva. Still got the wrong league btw, not that it matters as it's just a way for you to write a lazy "my league>your league" argument instead of proper discussion The reason why I said about how it's stoppable is because that's what makes it very scarce on a higher level, it relies on many factors to be successful which makes it unreliable, the only catch being in order to defend it you require decent micro which is why it's popular lower down on ladder but not so common higher up. I don't know why you wouldn't just say your league at this point unless you're worried it's going to prove my point. I find very little point in discussing things with players lower than masters and ones that are playing currently hence why my most common question is about peoples league. I'm only a lowly diamond player (I do play currently) but I watch several GM level streams and you see tons of lingbane cheese recently, especially right now around the auto inject 3 larva patch. Are you GM? Are you better than those streamers?
Who are you watching? I'm unaware of any (Hots) GM level zerg players that stream legacy of the void regularly. If you're talking about Lotv GM then I can say I'm equal or better than the lower half of GM since they're mostly high masters players or lower.
When you were talking about 90% ling flood were you talking about Hots or pre-macro change Lotv?
|
On September 14 2015 06:15 Ovid wrote:
Who are you watching? I'm unaware of any (Hots) GM level zerg players that stream legacy of the void regularly.
There's Fenner. He's the only one that I'm aware of.
|
Option I would like is : macro mechanics like they were in HotS, but toned down. Automated injects, because they introduce no interesting choice.
|
On September 14 2015 06:15 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 05:56 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 14 2015 05:49 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 05:28 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 14 2015 05:15 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 04:53 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 14 2015 03:35 Ovid wrote:On September 14 2015 01:36 DeadByDawn wrote:On September 14 2015 01:22 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:
[quote]
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ calm down junior, it was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Like it or not, the mass amounts of early game larva contribute to a lot of cheese/information based wins early game ZvZ. maybe next time respond to more of the general message of what I'm saying instead of letting one sentence crawl up your ass. He has a history of being a d*ck. Agreed, as a T, that Terran sucked when they removed the macro boosters - but they could have addressed that in the next patch. Just remove the macro boosters and balance please. If pointing out how ridiculous someones statement is by referencing their probable league is being a dick then sure, stating that 90% of ZvZ is zergling balls is just wrong on many levels. On September 14 2015 02:06 WrathSCII wrote:On September 14 2015 02:02 woopr wrote:
anyone who votes semi-auto macro should be banned Or votes for full auto! Fixed that for you. On September 14 2015 02:22 ffadicted wrote:
Finally a fair poll lol Umm no? Where's the option of manual macro mechanics but toned down? calm down, this thread isn't about ZvZ specifically nor is about you spouting off retarded statements based on an exaggerated sentence you disagreed with. Go ahead and tell me that the mass amounts macro boosted larva don't contribute to a ton of ZvZs ending 5 minutes in due to early ling bane attacks. Try to form an argument this time instead of (incorrectly) guessing my league and embarrassing yourself. I'm completely calm, it's quite funny that you'd think I'm not you are valuing your retorts too highly. They're all stoppable with good control, the only way it's not stoppable is if it's not scouted which is only going to happen on a 4 player map but that's due to the 12 worker change not the macro mechanics. How have I embarrassed myself what a stupid statement to make. If you want to disprove my point you'd be saying your league, so since you've not specified I'm going to say you're not gold but platinum. I'm not prepared to right out a long post addressing you as I feel it will be pointless, you have your opinion on the macro mechanics and I have mine and I think both out mindsets aren't going to budge. Just as a general overview, this poll is of poor quality. You need to include manual macro mechanics but toned down, you also need to realize that people are not taking into account the impact of the 12 worker change, the game has been largely accelerated by that for very little time gain and toning down the macro mechanics repairs that effect. My ideal would be to pretty much get a bit closer back to Hots, toned down macro mechanics and 6 workers again. Please show me where I wrote that mass ling early game was "unstoppable" lol. I clearly meant that it was very common. And it is, because bad players can beat better players sometimes by hiding lings out of plain site and snowballing whatever advantage they get with mass larva. Still got the wrong league btw, not that it matters as it's just a way for you to write a lazy "my league>your league" argument instead of proper discussion The reason why I said about how it's stoppable is because that's what makes it very scarce on a higher level, it relies on many factors to be successful which makes it unreliable, the only catch being in order to defend it you require decent micro which is why it's popular lower down on ladder but not so common higher up. I don't know why you wouldn't just say your league at this point unless you're worried it's going to prove my point. I find very little point in discussing things with players lower than masters and ones that are playing currently hence why my most common question is about peoples league. I'm only a lowly diamond player (I do play currently) but I watch several GM level streams and you see tons of lingbane cheese recently, especially right now around the auto inject 3 larva patch. Are you GM? Are you better than those streamers? Who are you watching? I'm unaware of any (Hots) GM level zerg players that stream legacy of the void regularly. If you're talking about Lotv GM then I can say I'm equal or better than the lower half of GM since they're mostly high masters players or lower. When you were talking about 90% ling flood were you talking about Hots or pre-macro change Lotv?
Mainly vibe, but also fenner as mentioned above. I'm not really following HOTS right now so perhaps under those macro mechanics ZvZ is completely under control, although last time I played it seemed to be pretty common. Mainly under 3 larva autoinject does it seem to be worse now than ever.
As someone just mentioned, toned down macro mechanics would also be a great solution. I just think they have too big of a factor on the game, they make the game too forgiving in some cases (saccing SCVs, emergency phoenix), or can be extremely punishing if one forgets to inject earlier in the game.
|
If this poll doesn't change Blizzard's mind, I don't know what will.
|
On September 14 2015 02:31 WrathSCII wrote:
Guys please, SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE!!!
I and the OP shared this on Reddit and Bnet forums (But reddit as usual did not upvote it to get seen at all). So please help us trying to get this everywhere so we can give *censored* blizzard what we really need so we leave them no excuse to hide behind.
HELP US!
I personally appreciate your passion, and I hope we can get as many people to participate in this poll as well.
Spread the word guys! :D
EDIT: Sorry for censoring you, just trying to keep things positive. Thanks again for participating.
|
On September 14 2015 07:54 usopsama wrote:If this poll doesn't change Blizzard's mind, I don't know what will.
The release date is right around the corner, which is probably the reason they suddenly pulled a 180 with macro mechanics in the first place. They're on the track to release, despite current standing problems they should be working on.
|
Get rid of macro mechanics or AT LEAST have them manually operated like WOL and HOTS but with only like a 5% or 10% boost instead of the current 50% or whatever large game changing percentage that makes it the number 1 priority if you want to be competitive at the game.
|
Whether or not macro mechanics stay in the long run I'm still undecided about. What I do want them to do is to remove them and try to balance the game, then we could properly see what SC2 looks like without them.
Isn't that what the beta should be for?
|
looks like its fairly stable at
10% wants current
30% wants hots
60% wants no MMs
in terms of numbers [no MMs] outnumber [hots] by a 2:1 ratio
I think 2/3rds majority is enough to vote to change real-life laws, I think the community sentiment is clear.
but we will see what blizz ends up doing.
|
Poll is representing who exactly ?
Top Korean pros ? I dont think so.
|
On September 14 2015 12:50 Parcelleus wrote:
Poll is representing who exactly ?
Top Korean pros ? I dont think so.
Who cares? The vast majority of players are not top Korean pros.
|
On September 14 2015 12:50 Parcelleus wrote:
Poll is representing who exactly ?
Top Korean pros ? I dont think so.
We are trying to spread this to everyone so we can have the biggest possible sample and present it to Blizzard. Will Blizzard care? I doubt, but at least we can say we did try and it is Blizzard's fault if they refused to listen.
They said they are 50-50 internally. Here so far it does not seem 50-50 at all. Lets try to get this as spread as possible for now.
|
you should really reorder the vote list so it lines up with the bigger list
|
if removing Macro boosters slows down Zerg remax. then im down :D
|
On September 14 2015 04:59 coolman123123 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 03:57 Blacklizard wrote:
I saw tech plays, more skirmishes, more small battles that mattered, when the pace was slowed down without the macro mechanics in that one recent patch. I had more fun than I thought, and with all 3 races. I vote for this hands down. Just keep tweaking to get the battle vs. base management the same for all 3 races. This is exactly what I saw, but the knee jerk reaction of the elitist reddit community, most of whom do not even play the game, got worried they wouldn't be a part of the HARDCORE MELT YOUR FACE APM game anymore. That is the core of the problem here. The 1% of masters and pro level players have so much sway on public opinion because again, most of the community does not play the game to form their own opinions. Reactionary public opinion has so much sway on the developers. Obviously listening the community is important but Blizzard gave up on this idea almost instantly.
Reddit is the source of all disasters in SC
EDIT: I got downvoted the 2 times I posted this on reddit... I have no idea what to do with these guys...
|
On September 14 2015 05:26 ThatGuy101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 05:15 Ovid wrote:
Just as a general overview, this poll is of poor quality. You need to include manual macro mechanics but toned down, you also need to realize that people are not taking into account the impact of the 12 worker change, the game has been largely accelerated by that for very little time gain and toning down the macro mechanics repairs that effect. My ideal would be to pretty much get a bit closer back to Hots, toned down macro mechanics and 6 workers again.
Poll's fine as it is, toned down macro mechanics still comes under either manual or semi-automated. At the moment its probably more important to see if people want macro mechanics or not before deciding whether they should stay the same strength or be toned down.
I voted for removal, but I would rather see vastly reduced macro mechanics (something like 1/3rd effectiveness of mules, chrono and inject) without automation.
|
BUMP, this thread cannot be allowed to get burrowed yet.
Before giving me a warning... Is bumping recent threads like less than 24 hours old warnable?
|
Awfully biased poll, just 'I love SC1 it's the best game ever, I want everything to be like SC1' syndrom.. that's what it is. And no one complained for the boosters that they existed since WoL... - this is part of what made SC2 what it is, scan or MULE for example..
Zerg's inject could have been made easier but not autocast where it makes things better for Z than any other race, but for T and P esp T yes we terrans where a look at the base can cause a baneling spash - it didnt take pro skill to casually click 'Drop a MULE' (calldown MULE)
|
On September 14 2015 20:33 ElitePlaying wrote:
Awfully biased poll, just 'I love SC1 it's the best game ever, I want everything to be like SC1' syndrom.. that's what it is. And no one complained for the boosters that they existed since WoL... - this is part of what made SC2 what it is, scan or MULE for example..
What the hell is biased here? You want MM just vote that you want. Simple as that, because people said they want no MM it became biased? Seriously?
|
No I am saying that since the forum is mostly of people who like SC1 and prefer that all is back to it, even tho these mm made sc2 what it is, these results are expected.
|
On September 14 2015 20:36 ElitePlaying wrote:
No I am saying that since the forum is mostly of people who like SC1 and prefer that all is back to it, even tho these mm made sc2 what it is, these results are expected.
That is why I said over a 100 times already that I need help to spread this everywhere so we can get the largest sample possible. To make this poll better would you like me to make on Reddit for example?
|
|
|
Would add a more interesting choice for Terran early game, since you could choose to skip an Orbital and save the 150 minerals. You'd have no scan/supply drop, but just keeping something as a CC would be an option.
Hell, you could turn your natural into a PF if you're facing an all-in, but then it would never be able to fly away.
Even the main could become a PF even though having atleast one Orbital for scans would be very nice, all of which I find to be interesting choices.
Can't say much for Protoss or Zerg as I play Terran, other than that Protoss upgrades not having chronoboost anymore is something that will have to be looked at by Blizzard if it turns out that chronoboosting them was required for certain things.
I'd say remove them and just see how it goes.
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
TL is a small community which has lots of bias in certain areas therefore polls don't mean much in terms of representation of general opinions.
However, I'm fairly surprised by this poll results. I remember a similar poll a couple of months before which had nearly opposite distribution of votes.
|
On September 14 2015 20:36 ElitePlaying wrote:
No I am saying that since the forum is mostly of people who like SC1 and prefer that all is back to it, even tho these mm made sc2 what it is, these results are expected.
When did you get the idea that all in here prefer SC1? There's been massive discussion in here between SC2 and BW fans.
This forum has a huge BW following, obviously, but it also has an equally if not bigger SC2 following. And most BW fans don't bother reading anything SC2 related.
|
So as I said in another topic, if TL mostly wants macro boosters gone, in other less hardcore communities you can be sure huge majority also wants them gone.
And if it is true that Koreans wanted them gone as well, Blizzard just shot themselves in the foot by going mid way or bringing them mostly back.
|
I'd like to know how many of those who are voting No Macro Boosters are based on theorycraft reasons (like "contraction of time" or whatever nonsense is trending this week) instead of actual gameplay time with that patch.
|
Bisutopia19200 Posts
On September 14 2015 22:17 Tiaraju9 wrote:
I'd like to know how many of those who are voting No Macro Boosters are based in theory craft nonsenses like "contraction of time" instead of actual gameplay in that week patch.
Yup, people are most likely voting without giving each iteration a chance. I thought I'd dislike the current version, but chrono boost is actually pretty cool in this version.
|
On September 14 2015 09:52 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 07:54 usopsama wrote:If this poll doesn't change Blizzard's mind, I don't know what will. The release date is right around the corner, which is probably the reason they suddenly pulled a 180 with macro mechanics in the first place. They're on the track to release, despite current standing problems they should be working on.
maybe activision is the problem not blizzard, dont know..
|
On September 14 2015 22:18 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 22:17 Tiaraju9 wrote:
I'd like to know how many of those who are voting No Macro Boosters are based in theory craft nonsenses like "contraction of time" instead of actual gameplay in that week patch. Yup, people are most likely voting without giving each iteration a chance. I thought I'd dislike the current version, but chrono boost is actually pretty cool in this version.
I like auto chrono or hots chrono, don't think there is a reason to remove it.
For injects and mules i think the removal is reasonable, but i do have fun with those too.
I don't think its happening but blizzard should judge what happens with each booster individually. Example is inject removed, mule automated and hots chrono.
|
On September 14 2015 23:55 Superbanana wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 22:18 BisuDagger wrote:On September 14 2015 22:17 Tiaraju9 wrote:
I'd like to know how many of those who are voting No Macro Boosters are based in theory craft nonsenses like "contraction of time" instead of actual gameplay in that week patch. Yup, people are most likely voting without giving each iteration a chance. I thought I'd dislike the current version, but chrono boost is actually pretty cool in this version. I like auto chrono or hots chrono, don't think there is a reason to remove it.
There is one, however. Removing artificial macro mechanics leaves spaces for more meaningful mechanics. Chronoboost is a bad example since it has the most choice out of the 3 artificial mechanics, but Inject and Mule are much more "just additional clicks to keep a player occupied".
So if Blizzard was to cut those, other parts could be improved and made more fun.
|
removal without a economic change to pricing will be a disaster
|
How about if you set automatic inject you get only 2 larva and when you have manual you get 4 larva?
I find hots chronoboost A LOT easier and more fun.
Terran hots mule was really fucking fun when you could just make "mule base" in corner of map and spam mules in that base.
I've played full manual and fully automatic only but I'd find it interesting to have queen removed all together.
As zerg I like to see WHICH building protoss is chronoboosting. As protoss I like chronoboost to emphasize my build and strategy.
If they remove mule people will just make depots instead of scans and that will be the decision then but it'd be impossible to balance scv for bio play then... so~~
|
On September 15 2015 00:00 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 23:55 Superbanana wrote:On September 14 2015 22:18 BisuDagger wrote:On September 14 2015 22:17 Tiaraju9 wrote:
I'd like to know how many of those who are voting No Macro Boosters are based in theory craft nonsenses like "contraction of time" instead of actual gameplay in that week patch. Yup, people are most likely voting without giving each iteration a chance. I thought I'd dislike the current version, but chrono boost is actually pretty cool in this version. I like auto chrono or hots chrono, don't think there is a reason to remove it. There is one, however. Removing artificial macro mechanics leaves spaces for more meaningful mechanics. Chronoboost is a bad example since it has the most choice out of the 3 artificial mechanics, but Inject and Mule are much more "just additional clicks to keep a player occupied". So if Blizzard was to cut those, other parts could be improved and made more fun.
Yes, chrono is a bad example and should be evaluated as such. Chrono specifically is not really artificial and it does increase protoss flexibility.
In my opinion its a bad reason to remove and a good one to keep.
|
Maybe someone has already mentioned this. But the poll is terribly flawed. It asks which is the most fun we've had. But we've never had a version with no inject.
No Macro Boosters (Chrono, Mule, Inject Removed) (347)
How can so many people vote that this is the most fun they've had, when it never happened? Anyway, I voted that way also because I think they should all be removed. But the wording in the poll is just bad, the results are tainted. And that's enough for Blizzard to totally discredit/ignore this poll.
|
Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I edited the op. I still think the poll is meaningful, just a typo.
|
no macro mechanics, rebalance the game.
|
put macro mechanics further up in the tech tree to encourage expanding
|
On September 15 2015 03:19 y0su wrote:
put macro mechanics further up in the tech tree to encourage expanding
Neat idea, but I just don't think that will happen, nor do I want it to.
|
Guys its the same story every time.
Blizzard will not listen to this poll and they are right to do so. Forum polls never accuratly represent the playerbase. Its a pre selected sample group of people who tend to have a problem or are unhappy with the state of the game.
People that are unhappy with the state of the game tend to complain and seek to reinforce their opinion with same minded people which they find on the forums. People happy with the game play the game...
|
Can't believe the results I'm seeing.
|
I think they need to remove all of them.
Mule hammers late game solved.
Sudden supply spikes from z solved (unfavorable to T and P).
Protoss BS reduced.
I think it will be alot more interesting but this would mean that units require re-balancing.
|
On September 15 2015 12:03 DooMDash wrote:
Can't believe the results I'm seeing.
What did you expect?
|
On September 15 2015 11:35 eyk123 wrote:
Guys its the same story every time.
Blizzard will not listen to this poll and they are right to do so. Forum polls never accuratly represent the playerbase. Its a pre selected sample group of people who tend to have a problem or are unhappy with the state of the game.
People that are unhappy with the state of the game tend to complain and seek to reinforce their opinion with same minded people which they find on the forums. People happy with the game play the game...
Thank you for the quite first optimistic post you made. Mind suggesting how can we get an actual sample from the player base? We are trying to spread this everywhere we can. Do you know any other way that could help us? Or we are just doomed to fail?
|
What hitpoint said is indeed a big flaw.
But eyk123, i think there is no problem with forum polls, just take it as what it is, something that represents a specific community. Its not supposed to represent all players. I think the opinion from this community is relevant, its a pretty big group, just put a "e-sport enthusiast and forum peep" tag.
I never voted btw, still not sure.
edit: maybe people in other places will vote too and it becomes less biased towards whatever TL community thinks.
|
On September 15 2015 13:18 Superbanana wrote:
What hitpoint said is indeed a big flaw.
But eyk123, i think there is no problem with forum polls, just take it as what it is, something that represents a specific community. Its not supposed to represent all players. I think the opinion from this community is relevant, its a pretty big group, just put a "e-sport enthusiast and forum peep" tag.
I never voted btw, still not sure.
edit: maybe people in other places will vote too and it becoms less biased towards whatever TL community thinks.
This is not limited to TL. I shared this on BNET Forums and on Reddit (Typical reddit because I'm not a known person I get downvoted)
We are trying to spread this everywhere to get the largest possible sample. If you know other places that we could spread this it would be nice.
|
On September 15 2015 13:09 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 12:03 DooMDash wrote:
Can't believe the results I'm seeing. What did you expect?
I figured TL of all places would enjoy the macro mechanics. This poll scares me.
|
On September 15 2015 13:23 DooMDash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 13:09 WrathSCII wrote:On September 15 2015 12:03 DooMDash wrote:
Can't believe the results I'm seeing. What did you expect? I figured TL of all places would enjoy the macro mechanics. This poll scares me.
Macro is awesome. Macro mechanics are the best part of the game. And by that I mean building supply, units, and structures. Macro boosters are cancer and make the game too volatile. That said, anything is better than automation.
|
On September 15 2015 13:50 hitpoint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 13:23 DooMDash wrote:On September 15 2015 13:09 WrathSCII wrote:On September 15 2015 12:03 DooMDash wrote:
Can't believe the results I'm seeing. What did you expect? I figured TL of all places would enjoy the macro mechanics. This poll scares me. Macro is awesome. Macro mechanics are the best part of the game. And by that I mean building supply, units, and structures. Macro boosters are cancer and make the game too volatile. That said, anything is better than automation.
I always felt it was consistent. Can you explain why you feel this way? I always felt it was just a quirk of the race, like anything else unique to that race. I like that they are different, the same way I appreciate the other differences.
|
Once again, the quiet majority is quite enjoyable to hear.
|
On September 15 2015 13:23 DooMDash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 13:09 WrathSCII wrote:On September 15 2015 12:03 DooMDash wrote:
Can't believe the results I'm seeing. What did you expect? I figured TL of all places would enjoy the macro mechanics. This poll scares me.
You would be mistaken by reddit in that case 
|
On September 15 2015 15:04 Daswollvieh wrote:
Once again, the quiet majority is quite enjoyable to hear.
Lets hope Blizzard notices this poll...
|
On September 15 2015 09:32 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 03:19 y0su wrote:
put macro mechanics further up in the tech tree to encourage expanding Neat idea, but I just don't think that will happen, nor do I want it to.
I like the overall idea of each race having more uniqueness (especially concerning macro). With WG protoss has taken a huge step in being different from terran (they were much more similar in BW). However I like the idea of making choices like should I PF my 3rd or not. I think things of that nature are good for the game. The mechanics (as they currently are or were in HotS) however come so early in the tech tree (or immediately for  ). Instead of providing an early economy (or production) boost they were further up and provided a way to jump into the late game easier....
actually even typing that it reminds me why I just want them removed! I don't want a mechanic that boosts income (or production). Want more income, build more workers. Want to increase worker production, build more town halls.
Mechanics like creep spread add a cool dynamic and something to fight over (too bad it seems to only really affect ZvT). I like the choice of orbital vs pf and scan vs supply call down.
|
My preferred macro mechanics:
Zerg
No injects AT ALL. Have Z make extra hatches to up their production, more in line with P&T making production buildings.
Queens still have creep, transfuse (and general base defense) to attend to.
Terran
Remove mules COMPLETELY.
Orbitals still have scans and supply call down.
Protoss
Keep (a form of) chrono boost.
To give P something they have to consider too.
|
On September 14 2015 20:33 ElitePlaying wrote:
Awfully biased poll, just 'I love SC1 it's the best game ever, I want everything to be like SC1' syndrom.. that's what it is. And no one complained for the boosters that they existed since WoL... - this is part of what made SC2 what it is, scan or MULE for example..
Zerg's inject could have been made easier but not autocast where it makes things better for Z than any other race, but for T and P esp T yes we terrans where a look at the base can cause a baneling spash - it didnt take pro skill to casually click 'Drop a MULE' (calldown MULE)
What? People used to whine about mules since they got introduced. Basically, everyone complained about the boosters depending on what race was most dominant at the time.
|
On September 15 2015 17:34 gTank wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 20:33 ElitePlaying wrote:
Awfully biased poll, just 'I love SC1 it's the best game ever, I want everything to be like SC1' syndrom.. that's what it is. And no one complained for the boosters that they existed since WoL... - this is part of what made SC2 what it is, scan or MULE for example..
Zerg's inject could have been made easier but not autocast where it makes things better for Z than any other race, but for T and P esp T yes we terrans where a look at the base can cause a baneling spash - it didnt take pro skill to casually click 'Drop a MULE' (calldown MULE) What? People used to whine about mules since they got introduced. Basically, everyone complained about the boosters depending on what race was most dominant at the time.
I never played BW. But playing sc2 without the macro boosters felt so much better.
|
On September 13 2015 23:52 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2015 23:40 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not only is no macro boosters more fun, but also helps balance the metagame away from mass cheap unit type stuff and slows the game down slightly to a favorable pace where worker deaths matter more.
Bye bye giant zergling balls winning or losing 90% of zvz, or Terran being played like zerg. And yes, Terran had an extremely difficult time at first with no mules, but this can be fixed with some balance changes. In fact, balance of the game in general would be easier with removal of such massively variable mechanics.
At this point the only "issue" is that zerg would be a little easier than the other two, which is either a non issue or an easily solvable one by just giving zerg something else to do that isnt inject.
Guessing you've never played at beyond gold league if you think "zergling balls" = 90% of ZvZ
Ling allin and LingBaneAllin was still 90% of ZvZ in Diamond. Roach wars were really uncommon since it depends of IF you can wall your ramp....
|
I noticed since first day that zerg has a too big focus on economy-simulation strategy. Never liked it.
All MM have to go. We need more focus on army than economy.
|
I like these macro mechanics the way they used to be. When I watch my low lvl friends play (diamond/master leaguers) their problem usually is lack of game understanding; their injecting is almost always spot on.
While it doesn't really change much making mules and injecting auto-cast (there will still be situations where it's better to inject manually), I'm worried about the change to chrono-boost; they're essentially taking away the ability to pool chrono boost which is going to take away depth from the early and mid game build orders.
|
I am glad to see that the majority of people intuitionally votes for the right thing. Macro mechanics schould be either removed or reduced to roughly 1/3 of their efficiency. For a better metagame!
|
What do you guys think we can do to improve this poll and have Blizzard notice it?
Any ideas?
|
As long as you can not come up with a samplesize of at least 150-1000 games, F you and your subjective opinion about what "zvz is now 95% of all the times in High Diamond".
Thank you.
Half-ass auto Mule and Chronoboost sucks.
Chronoboost:
One can never see what Nexus is actually casting chrono right now. And you have to single-select every nexus to chrono. Interface-wise it sucks. If you are chronobooting 4 structures (forge,forge, Robo, Robo bay) but you need to go (forge,Forge, Robo, Robo) you better go to every nexus, select chrono back on nexus 4x, then in reverse order nexus-building 4x.
Mule:
Even worse.
Terran could always get additional commandcenters, now almost useless when not yet planted at a mineral line. Also if a base mines out, you better relocate the CC, or hit 1/4 of your mules manually, and better watch the cooldown.
While 3/4 of the mules are now mining automatically.
Also the mule-Timing. If you mule after a trade-off, when your's and the opponent's Army count is low, you can spam mules, and protect the base you are spamming at (just an example).
Same goes for hidden bases.
And because every base is mining out faster now, terran has to relocate one CC every 4-6 mins.
So for Terran and Protoss, the Half-Ass-Auto things are crap. It is beyond annoying if you have to work around the flaws manually. Making it a "macro Waypoint" in orange would help very much, at least for protoss (also if you can just CG all nexi and Spam Chrono in a circle...or you can select the boosted building and transfer chrono directly without clicking nexus)
Auto-Inject or removed inject ?
Does not matter. If you remove the inject you got to balance the larva production.Both result in Zerg getting automated production capable of mass-reproduce without any skill. Queens will be build either way, to defend and spread creep.
Inject is what defined zerg macro. It was hard, and it was unforgiving. But so was forgetting to build or use Barracks and Cycles of Warp-ins.
But yes it is not fun. It is hard, just for the sake of being hard, and instead of building the correct production facilities at the right time, in the right place, it was pretty mindnumbing. More Larva, always good.
Zerg without having to do injects is very fun, sending out never ending rivers of ling bling against protoss :D so good.
"But the Game is so fast now!" Yeah, so it is for terran and protoss.
Zerg with automated Larva, be it inject or just the hatch, feeels wrong for the other races. Or you add a spell that instantly calls down units for unspent resources like in the Campaign (WoL)
The fact that some matches TEND to be dominated by low-Tier units (looking especially at Terran streams by Demuslim, and Narut0 from TakeTV) is based on the 12 Worker start and need of spending your ressources very fast into mobile units.
TvT is now marine tank again ( I LOVE THAT BTW) . Marines in greater numbers are good vs. almost any Terran unit in low numbers.
You simply don't have the time to get into mech, at least right now, so you go with marines and add tanks later.
Vs Protoss terran need to fight of the cannonpylons, the adepts, the warp prism. Again Bio, as always is the way to go. + Lib harass
|
I doubt many people who answered this poll even played the beta in the removed macro state. I played hundreds of games and it felt awful.
|
On September 16 2015 00:30 DooMDash wrote:
I doubt many people who answered this poll even played the beta in the removed macro state. I played hundreds of games and it felt awful.
So did I and I loved it. Care to actually have an argument or are we just discussing opinions here?
|
I've actually cancled my pre-order of sc2 LOTV because of the direction they're taking with the game. I really liked when they took away mules and chrono boost but when they added it back, and even buffing mechanics that i was hoping they'd take away, such as photon overcharge, I just gave up hope.
I really hope that blizzard sees this thread and takes it into consideration.
|
I dislike that the macro mechanics boost the economy, i like that they make the game harder mechanically.
If you remove them ADD something macro related to the game (at least for zerg)
That would be my initial opinion i guess.
|
On September 16 2015 00:30 DooMDash wrote:
I doubt many people who answered this poll even played the beta in the removed macro state. I played hundreds of games and it felt awful.
False, I've played 300+ games and no MM was great, minus auto inject which is terrible.
|
On September 16 2015 01:55 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 00:30 DooMDash wrote:
I doubt many people who answered this poll even played the beta in the removed macro state. I played hundreds of games and it felt awful. False, I've played 300+ games and no MM was great, minus auto inject which is terrible.
On September 16 2015 00:51 Bazik wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 00:30 DooMDash wrote:
I doubt many people who answered this poll even played the beta in the removed macro state. I played hundreds of games and it felt awful. So did I and I loved it. Care to actually have an argument or are we just discussing opinions here?
Okay, guys, please tell me why. Now, when I say I love the macro mechanics keep in mind I feel they do not detract from ANYTHING since they are literally only a second or so of your time of your time, they are not that hard, and 2 of them actually make for some interesting choices (occasionally).
Do you feel that looking at your base for 1-2 seconds every minute+ is detracting from the battles? Do you prefer the game being SUPER slow (it was for Terran at least, didnt get anywhere near maxing or having the money required for nice sim cities/upgrades).
The battles were the same for me, but less often since people were afraid to move out. If you lost workers on both sides the game essentially went to a slow crawl with huge times between action. Less expanding since you don't mine out bases as fast, making less multipronged attacks. More crazy all ins designed to take out workers that made the game incredibly random and slow. At least that was my experience.
What do you really think it brings to the table, you can't possibly tell me the macro mechanics took away from battles or micro?
|
On September 16 2015 01:55 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 00:30 DooMDash wrote:
I doubt many people who answered this poll even played the beta in the removed macro state. I played hundreds of games and it felt awful. False, I've played 300+ games and no MM was great, minus auto inject which is terrible.
He didn't specify you.
The game feels lackluster, I play SC2 because it's the most engaging game out there, the fact that I feel my actions are often useless (although in theory you can endlessly move your army most of the time it's worthless or doesn't require all my actions/speed)
|
On September 16 2015 02:06 DooMDash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 01:55 Little-Chimp wrote:On September 16 2015 00:30 DooMDash wrote:
I doubt many people who answered this poll even played the beta in the removed macro state. I played hundreds of games and it felt awful. False, I've played 300+ games and no MM was great, minus auto inject which is terrible. Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 00:51 Bazik wrote:On September 16 2015 00:30 DooMDash wrote:
I doubt many people who answered this poll even played the beta in the removed macro state. I played hundreds of games and it felt awful. So did I and I loved it. Care to actually have an argument or are we just discussing opinions here? Okay, guys, please tell me why. Now, when I say I love the macro mechanics keep in mind I feel they do not detract from ANYTHING since they are literally only a second or so of your time of your time, they are not that hard, and 2 of them actually make for some interesting choices (occasionally). Do you feel that looking at your base for 1-2 seconds every minute+ is detracting from the battles? Do you prefer the game being SUPER slow (it was for Terran at least, didnt get anywhere near maxing or having the money required for nice sim cities/upgrades). The battles were the same for me, but less often since people were afraid to move out. If you lost workers on both sides the game essentially went to a slow crawl with huge times between action. Less expanding since you don't mine out bases as fast, making less multipronged attacks. More crazy all ins designed to take out workers that made the game incredibly random and slow. At least that was my experience. What do you really think it brings to the table, you can't possibly tell me the macro mechanics took away from battles or micro?
Terran being shitty without mule is a balance issue and doesn't excuse having macro mechanics in there. Terran needed adjusting numbers wise, they didn't necessarily need the Mule back. Personally no, I don't mind injecting at all but they are unecessary and I'm pretty sure if blizz could go back and do it all again, macro boosters would be left out. I LOVE that killing workers meant something without macro boosters
For me it goes properly balanced game without MM>>> hots macro mechanics >>>> this new halfway shit >>>>autocast stuff
|
On September 15 2015 14:10 DooMDash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 13:50 hitpoint wrote:On September 15 2015 13:23 DooMDash wrote:On September 15 2015 13:09 WrathSCII wrote:On September 15 2015 12:03 DooMDash wrote:
Can't believe the results I'm seeing. What did you expect? I figured TL of all places would enjoy the macro mechanics. This poll scares me. Macro is awesome. Macro mechanics are the best part of the game. And by that I mean building supply, units, and structures. Macro boosters are cancer and make the game too volatile. That said, anything is better than automation. I always felt it was consistent. Can you explain why you feel this way? I always felt it was just a quirk of the race, like anything else unique to that race. I like that they are different, the same way I appreciate the other differences.
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.
|
Thanks for making this OP. It seems to be the type of thing that help the Beta process, as long as people are being honest about what they've played and are not theorycrafting.
|
On September 16 2015 00:51 Bazik wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 00:30 DooMDash wrote:
I doubt many people who answered this poll even played the beta in the removed macro state. I played hundreds of games and it felt awful. So did I and I loved it. Care to actually have an argument or are we just discussing opinions here?
He probably doesn't evaluate design but the balance during this period.
|
During that period the game was alot slower and build orders all seemed streamlined into CC first / triple hatch / nexus 1st, etc. The game went from being very volatile to almost no volatility. It wasn't a perfect design. I think it was an interesting novelty but it was too slow and bland.
|
On September 16 2015 02:38 hitpoint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 14:10 DooMDash wrote:On September 15 2015 13:50 hitpoint wrote:On September 15 2015 13:23 DooMDash wrote:On September 15 2015 13:09 WrathSCII wrote:On September 15 2015 12:03 DooMDash wrote:
Can't believe the results I'm seeing. What did you expect? I figured TL of all places would enjoy the macro mechanics. This poll scares me. Macro is awesome. Macro mechanics are the best part of the game. And by that I mean building supply, units, and structures. Macro boosters are cancer and make the game too volatile. That said, anything is better than automation. I always felt it was consistent. Can you explain why you feel this way? I always felt it was just a quirk of the race, like anything else unique to that race. I like that they are different, the same way I appreciate the other differences. 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.
I guess we just don't agree that those are volatile. I think they added build variety that made this game exciting. You may not like terran pulling the boys but I think it makes for some pretty exciting games, and I even like the design of terran needing to sack scvs late game to be on par with Z and P. Makes the game even more unique than your generic RTS game.
It is what it is though, I guess we just don't agree. At the end of the day though, if they get removed again the game will take forever to be balanced, and by that time I fear it will already be dead. I could at the very least give it another chance had the game not been coming out any time soon, but no way that's happening now.
|
Do you think 800+ votes makes it big enough to get some attention?
|
Was thinking about this some today, and I ultimately think the best options are either remove them, or alternatively, make Mule and Chrono more challenging.
The biggest issue right now between the macro mechanics is the balance of "difficulty." I don't want to go down the path of how tough it is to use chronos or the balance between a scan or a mule. I get that they all add a depth of strategy.
Ultimately though the real issue is that inject is simply more click and "brain power" consuming if you will than the other two mechanics(and by the way I play random). If I miss mules, no big deal drop 2. If I miss chrono or save energy late game no worries I'll spam it. If I miss injects? I'm in trouble.
This means that no matter how much you balance the mechanics themselves, there is always this lopsidedness. And it is worse at the lower levels but still bad even at pro level.
How can it be fixed? One thing I was thinking that could be an option is to work to make mule/chrono more in line with manual injects, instead of trying to figure out how to bring injects down to the level of chrono. How can that be done? Fairly simple.
For mules, instead of making it an energy cost just make it a cooldown use. Make the length of that cooldown the same amount of time it takes to save 50 energy. This means you are more rewarded for using your mules as soon as the cool down ends(just like hitting an inject) and you can't "save" up your mules all game. You can also then drop mules anywhere on the map instead of the current setup which is a pain. That still leaves the problem of mass mules, the simple fix there is to only allow the number of mules mining at a CC as their are mineral patches. This means the most benefit you could ever get is 8 mules at a base, and you'd need essentially 8 CC's to maximize that. At that level you could throw away some SCVs, but it would prevent getting rid of all of them.
For chrono you make a very similar change. Make it a cool down instead of an energy related ability. This cooldown again would be roughly the time it takes to save 25 energy, again making it so that you are benefited most if you find a way to use the chrono right when the cooldown ends. From that point instead of saving up tons of energy to spam chrono, you'd only have 1 per nexus to use at any given time. The player that more effectively uses their chrono when it is off cooldown would benefit, just like a player that hits their injects most often.
I think those two changes would bring the mechanics in line with inject and make all 3 more demanding. For lower level players it would balance out because one player missing injects probably stays even with a player who misses their mules. For pro level they might not miss injects/mules and that is something the commentators could point out.
I'm also for getting rid of them as well which would be fine too. But this in between garbage they are doing is the worst, either balance them or get rid of them.
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
If I miss chrono or save energy late game no worries I'll spam it. If I miss injects? I'm in trouble.
You lose ~7.5 seconds of real time per HOTS-chrono missed and you have to apply them almost 1.5x more often than injects to keep full uptime.
I don't think making nexus store up to 1 chrono is the answer; that leads to an optimal way to use chronoboost every game like X chrono's on probes (because X is how many you have before the cyber core finishes) instead of the interesting interactions that we have especially in the first 5 minutes with chrono. The whole point of the chrono boost mechanic is being able to choose what you want to augment and get a significant boost to it; it's not fun at all as passive, uncontrolled power. If it gets to that point, just remove it and buff other stuff.
|
On September 16 2015 06:24 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +If I miss chrono or save energy late game no worries I'll spam it. If I miss injects? I'm in trouble. You lose ~7.5 seconds of real time per HOTS-chrono missed and you have to apply them almost 1.5x more often than injects to keep full uptime. I don't think making nexus store up to 1 chrono is the answer; that leads to an optimal way to use chronoboost every game like X chrono's on probes (because X is how many you have before the cyber core finishes) instead of the interesting interactions that we have especially in the first 5 minutes with chrono. The whole point of the chrono boost mechanic is being able to choose what you want to augment and get a significant boost to it; it's not fun at all as passive, uncontrolled power. If it gets to that point, just remove it and buff other stuff.
It isn't about the optimal chrono in the current form though. Things can be adjusted as needed and balanced. The point is from my point of view, the biggest complaint being that these "macro mechanics" are so unbalanced not in terms of functionality but in ability to be used evenly. Again this is coming from a random player not a zerg.
So the point is not about the actual ability itself, that can be tweaked however needed, the point is to either make the macro features more equally demanding, or get rid of them. Keeping them but making them automatic is a wonky approach to either making them all equally hard or removing all of them, it is an middle ground that is just not working as intended, at least as I've found playing each race.
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
the point is to either make the macro features more equally demanding, or get rid of them
I'd say that chrono is even more demanding than inject to use well, it just has several things going for it
1; less punishment for minor mistakes or mis-timing when below top level of play
2; way less important than inject
if inject gave 30% of zergs larvae instead of 60%, it would be an entirely different matter. The only reason chrono looks bad is because larvae inject is insanely powerful. Actually mentally timing and counting chrono's from 2-3 nexii and applying them 1.5x more often than inject without overlap is harder than injecting, you can just afford to fuck it up.
|
On September 16 2015 04:02 WrathSCII wrote:
Do you think 800+ votes makes it big enough to get some attention?
Statistically it's a large enough sample size to be valid. On the flip side, you could argue that it's also "inherently flawed" due to it being voluntary, posted on TL, etc., but you could really do that for any kind of poll. Really, it all just comes down to whether or not Blizzard wants to notice.
|
On September 16 2015 06:42 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +the point is to either make the macro features more equally demanding, or get rid of them I'd say that chrono is even more demanding than inject to use well, it just has several things going for it 1; less punishment for minor mistakes or mis-timing when below top level of play 2; way less important than inject if inject gave 30% of zergs larvae instead of 60%, it would be an entirely different matter. The only reason chrono looks bad is because larvae inject is insanely powerful. Actually mentally timing and counting chrono's from 2-3 nexii and applying them 1.5x more often than inject without overlap is harder than injecting, you can just afford to fuck it up.
You will find very few people that aren't biased that would agree the chrono is even remotely as demanding as inject especially once you get further into the game. You are very bias with your assertion on this one.
|
I want to vote, but really don't know the drawbacks. It all seems like speculation. How can you even pretend to predict the meta of the game with no macro mechanics? Unit would become so valuable.
Does it create more of a back-and-fourth game or not? Or a slow game where units are so precious that you take a huge risk moving them out.
|
On September 16 2015 07:21 loft wrote:
I want to vote, but really don't know the drawbacks. It all seems like speculation. How can you even pretend to predict the meta of the game with no macro mechanics? Unit would become so valuable.
Does it create more of a back-and-fourth game or not? Or a slow game where units are so precious that you take a huge risk moving them out.
I think the point is that we did not receive even ONE PATCH, after the Macro Boosters were removed.
This is not "speculation", this poll is based on the experience players had when the MBs were removed, changed or like HOTS.
Also, we are not "pretending to predict the meta" we are simply trying to determine which Macro Version the community would like Blizzard to balance the game around.
Hence the question, "Which was more Fun?"
The answers to your other questions could only come after play-testing patching and balancing.
|
On September 16 2015 07:21 loft wrote:
I want to vote, but really don't know the drawbacks. It all seems like speculation. How can you even pretend to predict the meta of the game with no macro mechanics? Unit would become so valuable.
Does it create more of a back-and-fourth game or not? Or a slow game where units are so precious that you take a huge risk moving them out.
Your own units would become more valuable, but so would your opponents. It would literally just even out on its own without much interference. Maybe some units and things related directly to the macro mechanics would need to be tweaked, like scans for terran, tech research time for protoss and queens for zerg.
|
The option "some automation (current patch)" is inaccurate. It's fully automated.
|
On September 16 2015 09:29 crazedrat wrote:
The option "some automation (current patch)" is inaccurate. It's fully automated.
No it is not. For example, chrono has to be manually moved to the building of choice.
|
On September 16 2015 09:31 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 09:29 crazedrat wrote:
The option "some automation (current patch)" is inaccurate. It's fully automated. No it is not. For example, chrono has to be manually moved to the building of choice.
Zerg is fully automated, Terran is fully automated, and the click you're talking about for Protoss is nothing.
|
On September 16 2015 09:32 crazedrat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 09:31 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:On September 16 2015 09:29 crazedrat wrote:
The option "some automation (current patch)" is inaccurate. It's fully automated. No it is not. For example, chrono has to be manually moved to the building of choice. Zerg is fully automated, Terran is fully automated, and the click you're talking about for Protoss is nothing.
Anyone else feel that the "click you're talking about for Protoss is nothing?"
|
Well it's alright, not meaning to be rude, it's just a badly worded poll option which does not reflect the actual patch.
|
On September 16 2015 09:44 crazedrat wrote:
Well it's alright, not meaning to be rude, it's just a badly worded poll option which does not reflect the actual patch.
I intended for it to be a general description of the toned down/hybrid/semi-auto version. No description will keep up with every single change in a patch.
I think most everyone understands the descriptions, despite being "badly worded."
|
Well if you don't accurately describe the patch the poll is gona be skewed. And the current patch isn't semi auto, it's fully auto minus a few clicks by protoss. Otherwise Zerg doesnt touch the queens, Terran doesn't touch MULE button. ... Nearly fully auto if you want to be completely accurate, but semi-auto no
|
On September 16 2015 10:18 crazedrat wrote:
Well if you don't accurately describe the patch the poll is gona be skewed. And the current patch isn't semi auto, it's fully auto minus a few clicks by protoss. Otherwise Zerg doesnt touch the queens, Terran doesn't touch MULE button. ... Nearly fully auto if you want to be completely accurate, but semi-auto no
Really dude??? A better description in your opinion is "fully auto minus a few clicks by protoss???"
Give me a freaking break. Go away.
|
No, I'd call it: "automated macro" or "fully automated macro".
|
On September 16 2015 10:56 crazedrat wrote:
No, I'd call it: "automated macro" or "fully automated macro".
|
Then... in your own words... make your own poll.
|
If you label it: "semi auto (current patch)" while the macro is fully auto, your polling will not reflect the current patch; it's interpreted as an unclear, halfassed option, and your polls are skewed.
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
On September 16 2015 07:08 FLuE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 06:42 Cyro wrote:the point is to either make the macro features more equally demanding, or get rid of them I'd say that chrono is even more demanding than inject to use well, it just has several things going for it 1; less punishment for minor mistakes or mis-timing when below top level of play 2; way less important than inject if inject gave 30% of zergs larvae instead of 60%, it would be an entirely different matter. The only reason chrono looks bad is because larvae inject is insanely powerful. Actually mentally timing and counting chrono's from 2-3 nexii and applying them 1.5x more often than inject without overlap is harder than injecting, you can just afford to fuck it up. You will find very few people that aren't biased that would agree the chrono is even remotely as demanding as inject especially once you get further into the game. You are very bias with your assertion on this one.
I explained well why HOTS-chrono is considered mechanically difficult to use very efficiently (most toss even at low masters do not use it properly) but way less punishing than inject to fuck up. Especially in the early-midgame. Inject isn't particularly hard, it's just something that you absolutely can't mess up since it gives 60% of your larvae.
I've also said that WOL/HOTS chrono gets easier to use as you get later into the game while the current implementation of chrono gets substantially harder
If you label it: "semi auto (current patch)" while the macro is fully auto, your polling will not reflect the current patch
It's not fully auto, new chrono boost is more annoying to use than HOTS chrono when you're on 5 nexus.
|
It's not more difficult to use.
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
The way i'd inject (one of the best ways with a lot of control) would be 4 actions (camera hotkey-click-v-click) per base every 44.4 seconds (optimally)
chrono has the same cooldown as inject, takes a similar amount of actions (on few bases) but lasts less time than the energy regen time so you have to put more effort into timing it and remembering the CD on multiple nexii if you want to keep it up with a high uptime %. It gets easier the more nexii you have and the later in the game you are, while inject becomes probably hardest in the midgame and the "new" chrono gets harder for every nexus that you add.
Just saying it's not like inject is actually that difficult, it's only hard to inject because you're usually busy with 5 other things - and you have to stop whatever you're doing to inject, while that's not true for chrono because chrono boost isn't anywhere near that powerful.
|
i absolutely HATE the current patch with AUTOCAST, and if it stays like this im for sure not going to buy lotv, even tho i was once obsessed with this games (stopped playing 3 months ago because of the upcoming lotv)
Why does it have one of these 3 options?
why cant you just make the influence of these macromechaniks less important, so that its not too bad for someone to fuck them up and just concentrate on something else, but you still profit if you keep a good eye on it?
and lets be honest, you cant really compare the 3 macromechaniks of each race... Muling and Chronoboosting is something way different than injecting! you can safe the energy and just use it later on with terran and protoss, and it doesnt require much skill. you could leave those two. Its basicly making the life easier for zergs, they have and should have the hardest macro mechanics, since they are the "macro race". whenever in the past i was asked why do i have to split so much with my marines and the zerg a moves and movecommands the banelings, i got the answer the zerg has the harder macro.
with giving them the option of more micro with ravager and all that lotv crap,you could do a change inbetween. Zergs who dont inject are a little less punished if you do something like following:
-Give the Hatchery an auto increase of 1 larva per 20 sec that comes without doing anything (and doesnt stop at 3 larvae) while reducing the injects of a queen by 1 larva
|
On September 16 2015 10:18 crazedrat wrote:
Nearly fully auto
In other words: Semi auto.
It is called English pal, it is not a bad thing, you should give it a try.
|
On September 16 2015 16:34 Coffeee wrote:
i absolutely HATE the current patch with AUTOCAST, and if it stays like this im for sure not going to buy lotv, even tho i was once obsessed with this games (stopped playing 3 months ago because of the upcoming lotv)
Why does it have one of these 3 options?
why cant you just make the influence of these macromechaniks less important, so that its not too bad for someone to fuck them up and just concentrate on something else, but you still profit if you keep a good eye on it?
and lets be honest, you cant really compare the 3 macromechaniks of each race... Muling and Chronoboosting is something way different than injecting! you can safe the energy and just use it later on with terran and protoss, and it doesnt require much skill. you could leave those two. Its basicly making the life easier for zergs, they have and should have the hardest macro mechanics, since they are the "macro race". whenever in the past i was asked why do i have to split so much with my marines and the zerg a moves and movecommands the banelings, i got the answer the zerg has the harder macro.
with giving them the option of more micro with ravager and all that lotv crap,you could do a change inbetween. Zergs who dont inject are a little less punished if you do something like following:
-Give the Hatchery an auto increase of 1 larva per 20 sec that comes without doing anything (and doesnt stop at 3 larvae) while reducing the injects of a queen by 1 larva
That might have been true in the past but HotS introduced Widow mines which are no maintenance banelings. So now there is no reason for Zerg to have hardest macro, if there ever was.
|
On September 16 2015 18:42 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 16:34 Coffeee wrote:
i absolutely HATE the current patch with AUTOCAST, and if it stays like this im for sure not going to buy lotv, even tho i was once obsessed with this games (stopped playing 3 months ago because of the upcoming lotv)
Why does it have one of these 3 options?
why cant you just make the influence of these macromechaniks less important, so that its not too bad for someone to fuck them up and just concentrate on something else, but you still profit if you keep a good eye on it?
and lets be honest, you cant really compare the 3 macromechaniks of each race... Muling and Chronoboosting is something way different than injecting! you can safe the energy and just use it later on with terran and protoss, and it doesnt require much skill. you could leave those two. Its basicly making the life easier for zergs, they have and should have the hardest macro mechanics, since they are the "macro race". whenever in the past i was asked why do i have to split so much with my marines and the zerg a moves and movecommands the banelings, i got the answer the zerg has the harder macro.
with giving them the option of more micro with ravager and all that lotv crap,you could do a change inbetween. Zergs who dont inject are a little less punished if you do something like following:
-Give the Hatchery an auto increase of 1 larva per 20 sec that comes without doing anything (and doesnt stop at 3 larvae) while reducing the injects of a queen by 1 larva
That might have been true in the past but HotS introduced Widow mines which are no maintenance banelings. So now there is no reason for Zerg to have hardest macro, if there ever was.
that post shows me you have never ever played a game with wms. In fact they are one of the hardest to micro units in the game, they need to be constantly spread out so they don't all die to 3 banelings, you have to slowly leapfrog them forward and also unburrow micro if he tries to defuse them with single zerglings.
Pls don't post if you have no clue about the game.
|
On September 16 2015 21:35 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 18:42 -Archangel- wrote:On September 16 2015 16:34 Coffeee wrote:
i absolutely HATE the current patch with AUTOCAST, and if it stays like this im for sure not going to buy lotv, even tho i was once obsessed with this games (stopped playing 3 months ago because of the upcoming lotv)
Why does it have one of these 3 options?
why cant you just make the influence of these macromechaniks less important, so that its not too bad for someone to fuck them up and just concentrate on something else, but you still profit if you keep a good eye on it?
and lets be honest, you cant really compare the 3 macromechaniks of each race... Muling and Chronoboosting is something way different than injecting! you can safe the energy and just use it later on with terran and protoss, and it doesnt require much skill. you could leave those two. Its basicly making the life easier for zergs, they have and should have the hardest macro mechanics, since they are the "macro race". whenever in the past i was asked why do i have to split so much with my marines and the zerg a moves and movecommands the banelings, i got the answer the zerg has the harder macro.
with giving them the option of more micro with ravager and all that lotv crap,you could do a change inbetween. Zergs who dont inject are a little less punished if you do something like following:
-Give the Hatchery an auto increase of 1 larva per 20 sec that comes without doing anything (and doesnt stop at 3 larvae) while reducing the injects of a queen by 1 larva
That might have been true in the past but HotS introduced Widow mines which are no maintenance banelings. So now there is no reason for Zerg to have hardest macro, if there ever was. that post shows me you have never ever played a game with wms. In fact they are one of the hardest to micro units in the game, they need to be constantly spread out so they don't all die to 3 banelings, you have to slowly leapfrog them forward and also unburrow micro if he tries to defuse them with single zerglings. Pls don't post if you have no clue about the game.
That is a zerg view on them, just like terrans had their view about banelings for years. I am sorry you don't like receiving what you have been giving for years.
|
On September 16 2015 17:38 WrathSCII wrote:In other words: Semi auto. It is called English pal, it is not a bad thing, you should give it a try.
Speaking with you is a waste of time. You do not get the point and you confuse the conversation.
|
On September 17 2015 02:11 crazedrat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 17:38 WrathSCII wrote:On September 16 2015 10:18 crazedrat wrote:
Nearly fully auto In other words: Semi auto. It is called English pal, it is not a bad thing, you should give it a try. Speaking with you is a waste of time. You do not get the point and you confuse the conversation.
The whole point you are trying to make is kinda confusing and does not lead to anywhere.
|
Guys if they took out macro boosters from the game, what are the tweak you think Blizzard should do to balance lotv?
|
Fully manual but nerfed/weakened.
Didn't vote.
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
On September 17 2015 05:40 LaLuSh wrote:
Fully manual but nerfed/weakened.
Didn't vote.
That's what i want in simple terms, the problem is that people fall behind too much when not using them perfectly. They're not problematic by design, they just impact the game too much
|
On September 17 2015 05:40 LaLuSh wrote:
Fully manual but nerfed/weakened.
Didn't vote.
I agree.
Looking at this poll, it's weird how much teamliquid.net has changed.
|
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?
Beginning testing DH is good start. Simply since losing workers will be critical, then workers need to be more spread out so an attack on 1 base for example won't lead to 15+ worker death.
|
On September 17 2015 05:51 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 05:40 LaLuSh wrote:
Fully manual but nerfed/weakened.
Didn't vote. I agree. Looking at this poll, it's weird how much teamliquid.net has changed.
If this poll were worded more objectively, with the other options added, the spread in results would change.
|
On September 17 2015 05:59 crazedrat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 05:51 -_- wrote:On September 17 2015 05:40 LaLuSh wrote:
Fully manual but nerfed/weakened.
Didn't vote. I agree. Looking at this poll, it's weird how much teamliquid.net has changed. If this poll were worded more objectively, with the other options added, the spread in results would change.
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.
|
Having a blast since the removal. My friend who is a noob like myself, is loving the change as well.
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.
|
On September 17 2015 06:14 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 05:59 crazedrat wrote:On September 17 2015 05:51 -_- wrote:On September 17 2015 05:40 LaLuSh wrote:
Fully manual but nerfed/weakened.
Didn't vote. I agree. Looking at this poll, it's weird how much teamliquid.net has changed. If this poll were worded more objectively, with the other options added, the spread in results would change. 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.
|
Fully automated or removed for me.
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.
|
Getting a lot of requests to post this on Reddit lately. I don't use Reddit much personally, but if we hit 1,000 votes, I will post it on Reddit. So keep the votes up, and I will let you all know when this goes on Reddit. We will need your upvotes there too.
|
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
|
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.
|
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?
|
On September 16 2015 02:38 hitpoint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 14:10 DooMDash wrote:On September 15 2015 13:50 hitpoint wrote:On September 15 2015 13:23 DooMDash wrote:On September 15 2015 13:09 WrathSCII wrote:On September 15 2015 12:03 DooMDash wrote:
Can't believe the results I'm seeing. What did you expect? I figured TL of all places would enjoy the macro mechanics. This poll scares me. Macro is awesome. Macro mechanics are the best part of the game. And by that I mean building supply, units, and structures. Macro boosters are cancer and make the game too volatile. That said, anything is better than automation. I always felt it was consistent. Can you explain why you feel this way? I always felt it was just a quirk of the race, like anything else unique to that race. I like that they are different, the same way I appreciate the other differences. 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!
|
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
|
I loled and was scared a bit when I read/watched posts/streams of pros/semi pros/wannabe pros/former pros that all agitate(d) for keeping the macro boosters and gave proof of how few of an idea they in fact have about the generals of SC. They are probably captives of the small world of metagame they train every day and cannot imagine it to be changed and break out of it. Alot of ppl forgot why SC2 was and still is being denied by many and several others mostly argue for their own race's benefit. I highly doubt that pro-gamers on average make better game designers than others. Their strength probably is to care on the very details once everything is settled tho.
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!
|
United Kingdom20278 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
|
On September 17 2015 09:23 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote + 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
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.
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
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
|
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.
|
This poll excludes no one.
|
On September 17 2015 08:40 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
United Kingdom20278 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
|
Finally, a 1000 thousand!
|
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).
|
On September 17 2015 08:53 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +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
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...
|
On September 17 2015 17:50 Mahiriens wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 08:53 AgamemnonSC2 wrote: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 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...
As you said. The issue is that the game was build around them for over 5 years. So when removing them, obviously many issues will rise to the surface. But the question is; Is Blizzard willing to review and balance accord? or just "screw it and deal with what we give you" type of behavior and keep them?
|
i just started playing the beta again with the new patch, and im absolutely disgusted at how much worse it is compared to last patch
the pace of the game is ridiculously fast, especially as terran it feels like im just mining way way way too many minerals
removal of macro mechanics was the best change ever, just give terran some love, buffing the siege tank or maybe even go wild and include medics to help bio early on?
in my perfect world, sc2 would have way more units and abilities from the campaign anyways. i think way too many good ideas and units have been stripped from the game for the sake of easier balancing
|
On September 17 2015 12:07 crazedrat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 08:40 LSN wrote: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? 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.
The 2 larva and 0 mule state wasn't balanced. I'd prefer to try and see a 2 larva 15-25 mule or 1 larva and 0 mule scenario (chrono simply doesn't matter that much as it can be easily balanced with tweaking unit/upgrade production times of protoss). Of course the experience of an unbalanced state of the game isn't all that good, especially for the players of the disadvantaged race.
New metagames require everyone to sit back and explore the new pace first. Ppl usually do this in macro games as they then can better see when they and their opponents have which combination of units, upgrades and amount of bases etc. Hence the passivity in the games of the short period of testing this. Only after some time players can develop various early game strategies, applying pressure on opponents in this or that situation. This can take several months up to a year and will require the game to settle in this direction before it becomes fully visible.
The impressions you got probably are not a valid indicator of the general effects of the removal of these macro mechanics on the metagame and how they will play out in the end.
|
|
|
What else can be said that all pro player in Korea wants to REMOVE MACRO.
|
That post is way too old to upvote it. Also it is forbidden to ask for upvotes and it will likely get the post removed.
|
Oh, oops. Shows how much I know about reddit.
|
To be fair I don't see the value in posting in reddit. It is pointless.
|
Yes... Post in reddit and we can get all the votes needed to compel blizzard to change their minds.
|
It's funny. I played both WOL and HOTS for years with Chronoboost (I play protoss), and I never had a single complaint about it being in the game. In fact, I don't think I ever even questioned whether it should be in the game or not.
Until one day during the LOTV beta, Blizzard removed Chrono. My initial thoughts were: "Wow, that is a brave move by Blizzard! Such a fundamental change. They have guts. I'm glad to see that they are willing to make big changes for the benefit of the game." I was really impressed. Didn't know if it was good or bad, just impressed that they would try something so drastic.
Then I played. And I LOVED IT!!! I didn't know how nice it felt to not play with Chrono until it was gone. Timings became more predictable. I could focus more on my army, buildings, research. It also made me feel that I could really start to improve. You see, lower level players like myself, probably use Chrono (and to an extent Mules), after making a mistake or falling behind. It felt like a crutch to me now. For example: "Oh crap, he has DTs, CHRONO OUT THE OBSERVER!!!" As opposed to, scouting well and knowing that my opponent is probably going DTs.
I feel like Chrono and Mules essentially bail you out if you screw up. And therefore it's harder to learn and get better.
Bottom line, I was enjoying the game so much more!
The game was imbalanced of course. But from a design perspective, I just loved it. I was looking forward to the next patch, that would (hopefully) have some number/cost/time tweaks to help balance the game out further.
It never happened.
The very next patch Blizzard released saw the reintroduction of Macro Boosters in a different form. Automated Macro, sort-of. I hated it. And it killed my desire to play. I loved having no Chrono, but I disliked having my Chrono automated.
So, I made this poll.
Which I would have never done if Blizzard hadn't teased me with a game patch that I fell in love with.
|
"Calldown: MULE, Calldown: Extra Supplies, and Scanner Sweep now all function as they do in Heart of the Swarm."
hahaha
|
September 17. The dream is over. RIP Poll.
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
On September 18 2015 07:20 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:
It's funny. I played both WOL and HOTS for years with Chronoboost (I play protoss), and I never had a single complaint about it being in the game. In fact, I don't think I ever even questioned whether it should be in the game or not.
Until one day during the LOTV beta, Blizzard removed Chrono. My initial thoughts were: "Wow, that is a brave move by Blizzard! Such a fundamental change. They have guts. I'm glad to see that they are willing to make big changes for the benefit of the game." I was really impressed. Didn't know if it was good or bad, just impressed that they would try something so drastic.
Then I played. And I LOVED IT!!! I didn't know how nice it felt to not play with Chrono until it was gone. Timings became more predictable. I could focus more on my army, buildings, research. It also made me feel that I could really start to improve. You see, lower level players like myself, probably use Chrono (and to an extent Mules), after making a mistake or falling behind. It felt like a crutch to me now. For example: "Oh crap, he has DTs, CHRONO OUT THE OBSERVER!!!" As opposed to, scouting well and knowing that my opponent is probably going DTs.
I feel like Chrono and Mules essentially bail you out if you screw up. And therefore it's harder to learn and get better.
Bottom line, I was enjoying the game so much more!
The game was imbalanced of course. But from a design perspective, I just loved it. I was looking forward to the next patch, that would (hopefully) have some number/cost/time tweaks to help balance the game out further.
It never happened.
The very next patch Blizzard released saw the reintroduction of Macro Boosters in a different form. Automated Macro, sort-of. I hated it. And it killed my desire to play. I loved having no Chrono, but I disliked having my Chrono automated.
So, I made this poll.
Which I would have never done if Blizzard hadn't teased me with a game patch that I fell in love with.
Now is the time to post it everywhere and get in their throats. They'll never remove macro mechanics if it goes live in 8 weeks.
|
On September 18 2015 09:07 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2015 07:20 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:
It's funny. I played both WOL and HOTS for years with Chronoboost (I play protoss), and I never had a single complaint about it being in the game. In fact, I don't think I ever even questioned whether it should be in the game or not.
Until one day during the LOTV beta, Blizzard removed Chrono. My initial thoughts were: "Wow, that is a brave move by Blizzard! Such a fundamental change. They have guts. I'm glad to see that they are willing to make big changes for the benefit of the game." I was really impressed. Didn't know if it was good or bad, just impressed that they would try something so drastic.
Then I played. And I LOVED IT!!! I didn't know how nice it felt to not play with Chrono until it was gone. Timings became more predictable. I could focus more on my army, buildings, research. It also made me feel that I could really start to improve. You see, lower level players like myself, probably use Chrono (and to an extent Mules), after making a mistake or falling behind. It felt like a crutch to me now. For example: "Oh crap, he has DTs, CHRONO OUT THE OBSERVER!!!" As opposed to, scouting well and knowing that my opponent is probably going DTs.
I feel like Chrono and Mules essentially bail you out if you screw up. And therefore it's harder to learn and get better.
Bottom line, I was enjoying the game so much more!
The game was imbalanced of course. But from a design perspective, I just loved it. I was looking forward to the next patch, that would (hopefully) have some number/cost/time tweaks to help balance the game out further.
It never happened.
The very next patch Blizzard released saw the reintroduction of Macro Boosters in a different form. Automated Macro, sort-of. I hated it. And it killed my desire to play. I loved having no Chrono, but I disliked having my Chrono automated.
So, I made this poll.
Which I would have never done if Blizzard hadn't teased me with a game patch that I fell in love with. Now is the time to post it everywhere and get in their throats. They'll never remove macro mechanics if it goes live in 8 weeks.
Help please, I don't know what else to do.
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
On September 18 2015 09:30 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2015 09:07 Cyro wrote:On September 18 2015 07:20 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:
It's funny. I played both WOL and HOTS for years with Chronoboost (I play protoss), and I never had a single complaint about it being in the game. In fact, I don't think I ever even questioned whether it should be in the game or not.
Until one day during the LOTV beta, Blizzard removed Chrono. My initial thoughts were: "Wow, that is a brave move by Blizzard! Such a fundamental change. They have guts. I'm glad to see that they are willing to make big changes for the benefit of the game." I was really impressed. Didn't know if it was good or bad, just impressed that they would try something so drastic.
Then I played. And I LOVED IT!!! I didn't know how nice it felt to not play with Chrono until it was gone. Timings became more predictable. I could focus more on my army, buildings, research. It also made me feel that I could really start to improve. You see, lower level players like myself, probably use Chrono (and to an extent Mules), after making a mistake or falling behind. It felt like a crutch to me now. For example: "Oh crap, he has DTs, CHRONO OUT THE OBSERVER!!!" As opposed to, scouting well and knowing that my opponent is probably going DTs.
I feel like Chrono and Mules essentially bail you out if you screw up. And therefore it's harder to learn and get better.
Bottom line, I was enjoying the game so much more!
The game was imbalanced of course. But from a design perspective, I just loved it. I was looking forward to the next patch, that would (hopefully) have some number/cost/time tweaks to help balance the game out further.
It never happened.
The very next patch Blizzard released saw the reintroduction of Macro Boosters in a different form. Automated Macro, sort-of. I hated it. And it killed my desire to play. I loved having no Chrono, but I disliked having my Chrono automated.
So, I made this poll.
Which I would have never done if Blizzard hadn't teased me with a game patch that I fell in love with. Now is the time to post it everywhere and get in their throats. They'll never remove macro mechanics if it goes live in 8 weeks. Help please, I don't know what else to do.
Any blizzard guys to message on twitter?
|
This patch is absolutely ridiculous. Heart of the Swarm 2.0. No comments, no explanation. Is the "design team" actually trying to design anything or were they just screwing around the past months?
I thought we had some momentum going and what we get is even worse than the auto mechanics.
|
At this point I want them to focus on reworking units like the infestor and balancing the late game. Right now carriers are not fun to play against. I can only speak from a Zerg perspective. The swarm host sucks, too. The mechanics we have now are fine, Blizzard needs to move forward.
|
Why the fuck do so many people want the removal of macro mechanics. Just bring them back. No macro mechanics will make the game so boring short or long term. If you don't like macro and multitasking, SC2 is not your game. Play it on your level or move on to something else. This game doesn't have to be played by everyone ever. Why does LotV have to be so much more different from HotS than HotS was from WoL? The macro is fine, good unit design is all what is needed to make it more fun and everything. And by good unit design I do not talk about widow mines, oracles, medivac boost, disruptor, liberator...
|
I feel like I haven't played enough games to have a worthwhile opinion but I remember feeling like I really enjoyed the "pacing" of the game without macro boosters, so it's not the 'mindless clicking' part I'm against. I'm not sure what could replace/supplement that, though or if it's needed at all. I do like the idea of macro being difficult to master, I just liked the pace of the game when things weren't 'boosted'. That's probably not a very well worded opinion, that's what I get for commenting right before sleep
so I voted remove macro mechanics just on that premise but I'm actually pretty unsure.
|
On September 18 2015 10:49 Obsi wrote:
Why the fuck do so many people want the removal of macro mechanics. Just bring them back. No macro mechanics will make the game so boring short or long term. If you don't like macro and multitasking, SC2 is not your game. Play it on your level or move on to something else. This game doesn't have to be played by everyone ever. Why does LotV have to be so much more different from HotS than HotS was from WoL? The macro is fine, good unit design is all what is needed to make it more fun and everything. And by good unit design I do not talk about widow mines, oracles, medivac boost, disruptor, liberator...
SC2 is complex enough not to need MM Boosters. IMO.
|
On September 18 2015 10:37 Raionus wrote:
This patch is absolutely ridiculous. Heart of the Swarm 2.0. No comments, no explanation. Is the "design team" actually trying to design anything or were they just screwing around the past months?
I thought we had some momentum going and what we get is even worse than the auto mechanics.
I must agree that the lack of explanation on decisions in design is really frustrating.
|
On September 18 2015 09:30 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2015 09:07 Cyro wrote:On September 18 2015 07:20 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:
It's funny. I played both WOL and HOTS for years with Chronoboost (I play protoss), and I never had a single complaint about it being in the game. In fact, I don't think I ever even questioned whether it should be in the game or not.
Until one day during the LOTV beta, Blizzard removed Chrono. My initial thoughts were: "Wow, that is a brave move by Blizzard! Such a fundamental change. They have guts. I'm glad to see that they are willing to make big changes for the benefit of the game." I was really impressed. Didn't know if it was good or bad, just impressed that they would try something so drastic.
Then I played. And I LOVED IT!!! I didn't know how nice it felt to not play with Chrono until it was gone. Timings became more predictable. I could focus more on my army, buildings, research. It also made me feel that I could really start to improve. You see, lower level players like myself, probably use Chrono (and to an extent Mules), after making a mistake or falling behind. It felt like a crutch to me now. For example: "Oh crap, he has DTs, CHRONO OUT THE OBSERVER!!!" As opposed to, scouting well and knowing that my opponent is probably going DTs.
I feel like Chrono and Mules essentially bail you out if you screw up. And therefore it's harder to learn and get better.
Bottom line, I was enjoying the game so much more!
The game was imbalanced of course. But from a design perspective, I just loved it. I was looking forward to the next patch, that would (hopefully) have some number/cost/time tweaks to help balance the game out further.
It never happened.
The very next patch Blizzard released saw the reintroduction of Macro Boosters in a different form. Automated Macro, sort-of. I hated it. And it killed my desire to play. I loved having no Chrono, but I disliked having my Chrono automated.
So, I made this poll.
Which I would have never done if Blizzard hadn't teased me with a game patch that I fell in love with. Now is the time to post it everywhere and get in their throats. They'll never remove macro mechanics if it goes live in 8 weeks. Help please, I don't know what else to do.
The only thing that you can do at this point is try to get rid of David Kim. It's something the community should have tried years ago. People forget that Kim is responsible for almost every problem that we have in Starcraft 2, and has almost completely ignored community feedback since the inception of the game.
Michael Morhaime is the CEO of Blizzard. If you really care, you can try to contact him in some way. Maybe twitter. Maybe email, or a physical letter. If enough people do it, he might get the message and finally get Kim out of Starcraft.
|
On September 18 2015 12:45 SCST wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2015 09:30 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:On September 18 2015 09:07 Cyro wrote:On September 18 2015 07:20 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:
It's funny. I played both WOL and HOTS for years with Chronoboost (I play protoss), and I never had a single complaint about it being in the game. In fact, I don't think I ever even questioned whether it should be in the game or not.
Until one day during the LOTV beta, Blizzard removed Chrono. My initial thoughts were: "Wow, that is a brave move by Blizzard! Such a fundamental change. They have guts. I'm glad to see that they are willing to make big changes for the benefit of the game." I was really impressed. Didn't know if it was good or bad, just impressed that they would try something so drastic.
Then I played. And I LOVED IT!!! I didn't know how nice it felt to not play with Chrono until it was gone. Timings became more predictable. I could focus more on my army, buildings, research. It also made me feel that I could really start to improve. You see, lower level players like myself, probably use Chrono (and to an extent Mules), after making a mistake or falling behind. It felt like a crutch to me now. For example: "Oh crap, he has DTs, CHRONO OUT THE OBSERVER!!!" As opposed to, scouting well and knowing that my opponent is probably going DTs.
I feel like Chrono and Mules essentially bail you out if you screw up. And therefore it's harder to learn and get better.
Bottom line, I was enjoying the game so much more!
The game was imbalanced of course. But from a design perspective, I just loved it. I was looking forward to the next patch, that would (hopefully) have some number/cost/time tweaks to help balance the game out further.
It never happened.
The very next patch Blizzard released saw the reintroduction of Macro Boosters in a different form. Automated Macro, sort-of. I hated it. And it killed my desire to play. I loved having no Chrono, but I disliked having my Chrono automated.
So, I made this poll.
Which I would have never done if Blizzard hadn't teased me with a game patch that I fell in love with. Now is the time to post it everywhere and get in their throats. They'll never remove macro mechanics if it goes live in 8 weeks. Help please, I don't know what else to do. The only thing that you can do at this point is try to get rid of David Kim. It's something the community should have tried years ago. People forget that Kim is responsible for almost every problem that we have in Starcraft 2, and has almost completely ignored community feedback since the inception of the game. Michael Morhaime is the CEO of Blizzard. If you really care, you can try to contact him in some way. Maybe twitter. Maybe email, or a physical letter. If enough people do it, he might get the message and finally get Kim out of Starcraft.
David Kim's ideas aren't the problem, it's that he has to make everything a dick size competition with Brood War. He wants to try as hard as he can to make the game better than Brood War while making it as far off from Brood War as possible without angering hundreds of thousands of people.
|
On September 18 2015 14:00 Dickbutt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2015 12:45 SCST wrote:On September 18 2015 09:30 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:On September 18 2015 09:07 Cyro wrote:On September 18 2015 07:20 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:
It's funny. I played both WOL and HOTS for years with Chronoboost (I play protoss), and I never had a single complaint about it being in the game. In fact, I don't think I ever even questioned whether it should be in the game or not.
Until one day during the LOTV beta, Blizzard removed Chrono. My initial thoughts were: "Wow, that is a brave move by Blizzard! Such a fundamental change. They have guts. I'm glad to see that they are willing to make big changes for the benefit of the game." I was really impressed. Didn't know if it was good or bad, just impressed that they would try something so drastic.
Then I played. And I LOVED IT!!! I didn't know how nice it felt to not play with Chrono until it was gone. Timings became more predictable. I could focus more on my army, buildings, research. It also made me feel that I could really start to improve. You see, lower level players like myself, probably use Chrono (and to an extent Mules), after making a mistake or falling behind. It felt like a crutch to me now. For example: "Oh crap, he has DTs, CHRONO OUT THE OBSERVER!!!" As opposed to, scouting well and knowing that my opponent is probably going DTs.
I feel like Chrono and Mules essentially bail you out if you screw up. And therefore it's harder to learn and get better.
Bottom line, I was enjoying the game so much more!
The game was imbalanced of course. But from a design perspective, I just loved it. I was looking forward to the next patch, that would (hopefully) have some number/cost/time tweaks to help balance the game out further.
It never happened.
The very next patch Blizzard released saw the reintroduction of Macro Boosters in a different form. Automated Macro, sort-of. I hated it. And it killed my desire to play. I loved having no Chrono, but I disliked having my Chrono automated.
So, I made this poll.
Which I would have never done if Blizzard hadn't teased me with a game patch that I fell in love with. Now is the time to post it everywhere and get in their throats. They'll never remove macro mechanics if it goes live in 8 weeks. Help please, I don't know what else to do. The only thing that you can do at this point is try to get rid of David Kim. It's something the community should have tried years ago. People forget that Kim is responsible for almost every problem that we have in Starcraft 2, and has almost completely ignored community feedback since the inception of the game. Michael Morhaime is the CEO of Blizzard. If you really care, you can try to contact him in some way. Maybe twitter. Maybe email, or a physical letter. If enough people do it, he might get the message and finally get Kim out of Starcraft. David Kim's ideas aren't the problem, it's that he has to make everything a dick size competition with Brood War. He wants to try as hard as he can to make the game better than Brood War while making it as far off from Brood War as possible without angering hundreds of thousands of people.
Doesn't matter why David Kim thinks the way he does, or how he justifies his decisions. Because the community can't change either of those things. All that matters are the results of David Kim's decisions, which are bad. The game is less "fun". And as a consequence, viewer and player populations are declining.
The most important factors for Starcraft 2 are "fun", # players and # viewers, whilst still maintaining the "essence of Starcraft" (the strategic and tactical depth that is associated with the brand). Kim has failed in regards to improving any of these metrics for the last 5 years. He should go, plain and simple.
|
You will never get any response from the CEO of Blizzard, I promise you.
|
Removing these Macroboosters is the answer to make this game alive again.
|
|
|
On September 18 2015 16:15 RTSDealer wrote:
Removing these Macroboosters is the answer to make this game alive again.
This is so true. It makes me sad how soon the game is coming out because Blizzard would never be bold enough or have enough time to do what it takes.
|
On September 18 2015 18:29 -Archangel- wrote:
I guess 26% won.
|
Without macroboosters gameplay sc2 realy fun.
Strategy > Clicking!!!
|
Watching the GSL games today makes me feel strongly that macro mechanics shouldn't be part of this game.
|
I think the poll's choices description is still fairly accurate with the new Sept 17 patch. So keep voting I guess!
|
On September 18 2015 21:15 CheddarToss wrote:
Watching the GSL games today makes me feel strongly that macro mechanics shouldn't be part of this game.
That is the community's thought! But DK will come "You see? Without the MULEs, Maru would not make the come back and give us this awesome match. So MM stays!"
|
The revert back to HOTS MM might not be permanent, it's still testing. Relax on the David Kim bashing. If anything, it's the higher ups pushing him to finish it up quickly as possible rather than his decision. I'm sure he's trying his hardest
|
On September 18 2015 23:54 Little-Chimp wrote:
The revert back to HOTS MM might not be permanent, it's still testing. Relax on the David Kim bashing. If anything, it's the higher ups pushing him to finish it up quickly as possible rather than his decision. I'm sure he's trying his hardest
This. People need to realize that blizz is a business company, and david kim and the sc2 team are far from the top of the foodchain. They probably dont get to make calls about when the game is released etc, their job is the multiplayer, witch is after all not the franchises main selling point. And now when the campaign seems to be ready the game needs to be released, and their job right now is to make multiplayer playable. Big changes might still come tho, as they said they will patch lotv frequently and introduce changes after release more frequently than in the past. So dont give up hope just yet.
|
On September 19 2015 00:08 Mahiriens wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2015 23:54 Little-Chimp wrote:
The revert back to HOTS MM might not be permanent, it's still testing. Relax on the David Kim bashing. If anything, it's the higher ups pushing him to finish it up quickly as possible rather than his decision. I'm sure he's trying his hardest This. People need to realize that blizz is a business company, and david kim and the sc2 team are far from the top of the foodchain. They probably dont get to make calls about when the game is released etc, their job is the multiplayer, witch is after all not the franchises main selling point. And now when the campaign seems to be ready the game needs to be released, and their job right now is to make multiplayer playable. Big changes might still come tho, as they said they will patch lotv frequently and introduce changes after release more frequently than in the past. So dont give up hope just yet.
I completely understand all of that. But seriously for how long are we going to make excuses for him not even doing his job? Do a simple review for the beta since starting at the 31st of March until today. What did we exactly achieve in this? I'm talking about major changes not status balancing. Did the pathing got fixed? Did the economy got changed? Was the depth of Micro implemented as it should not half assed attempts?
I'm just tired of finding excuses for him...
|
I hope they remove the macro mechanics and make Inject auto again. Had the most fun with this version and i kinda stopped playing since they reverted back.
|
Bisutopia19200 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
