EPTAs far as macro mechanics go, they definitely should not be removed as they give more than simply another layer of skill, but also a strategic option for players: focus mainly on micro, or make more units but accept that they will be less cost effective without as much micro. They could be streamlined, but I don't think that the suggested changes are really ideal. It would be nice if terran didn't rely as heavily on mules, and had slightly better scouting, so maybe a slight nerf to mules while slightly decreasing scv build time would accomplish that: less punishment for missing a mule, less income forgone when scanning. For zergs, maybe a good compromise would be to allow queens to queue the next inject. That way zerg still have to put as many clicks into macroing, but have more flexibility as to when they do it, allowing them to micro more at important skirmishes. I'm not sure what protoss need, as their straight up macro is not as strong as the other races, so nerfing chronoboost would only aggravate that. The only thing I can think of here is again a build time reduction, although that isn't really the direction in which I want to see things go.
Community Feedback Update - July 31st - Page 12
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
feanaro
United States123 Posts
As far as macro mechanics go, they definitely should not be removed as they give more than simply another layer of skill, but also a strategic option for players: focus mainly on micro, or make more units but accept that they will be less cost effective without as much micro. They could be streamlined, but I don't think that the suggested changes are really ideal. It would be nice if terran didn't rely as heavily on mules, and had slightly better scouting, so maybe a slight nerf to mules while slightly decreasing scv build time would accomplish that: less punishment for missing a mule, less income forgone when scanning. For zergs, maybe a good compromise would be to allow queens to queue the next inject. That way zerg still have to put as many clicks into macroing, but have more flexibility as to when they do it, allowing them to micro more at important skirmishes. I'm not sure what protoss need, as their straight up macro is not as strong as the other races, so nerfing chronoboost would only aggravate that. The only thing I can think of here is again a build time reduction, although that isn't really the direction in which I want to see things go. | ||
|
trifecta
United States6795 Posts
| ||
|
NyxNax
United States227 Posts
Trying to imagine terran without mules would be quite weird. SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN.... ahhhhh My ears... I can hear it now... I have kinda thought they should bring back a bit less minerals though, like 25 instead of 30 but I could be wrong there as well. I guess im just going to stay open minded about this macro mechanics removal. The more I think about it, the more potential I see overall as a game for new players and pros, especially with the early game cut. | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
About the warpgate, I'm usually the first one on the line to blame the protoss race for its structural flaws. However, none can be said about the fact that protoss building placement is harder than with terran or zerg. So when the protoss wants to warp defensivly, he's supposed to look for a pylon with a warpgate in range? With the big blue circles overlapping? I like the idea to nerf offensive warpin and buff the defender's advantage especially in PvP. But that's certainly not the way to go. Now about macro mechanics : I'm hesitant between laughing or crying. The main argument we have here is "we want the action that's non-noticable by viewers to be decreased for army management and microgestion to be emphasized". Macro mechanics may not be noticed by people not playing the game, but larva gestion, mule vs scan choices and chronoboost placements are a huge part of stracraft 2 strategies and builds that SC2 players watching stream look towards. For example, when I see a professional protoss going for DTs and sending them one at a time in the terran army for force scans, while teching towards a big timing attack that will see its potency increased by the lack of mules (therefore army) of the terran, I, as a stream watcher, enjoy the protoss strategy. In "RTS", there is STRATEGY. And how you want your economy to be designed is a HUGE part of strategy. Simplfying the way macro mechanics work is direclty stating you want the depth of build orders and economic choices to be generic and allow less choice for players. Which is an ATROCIOUS direction to take, and I was glad to see that the community spits on the proposed macro changes in the polls. You even state : "The thought here is just do away with these added clicks, we do lose a little bit of strategy and decision making but we wonder if that’s ok, and have a clean version where players don’t need to do the extra clicks.". YEAH RIGHT so why should we even clic on upgrades when we build an Ebay, why not make the Ebay 650 mineral and 525 gaz, and when you build it, it automatically cues +1+2+3 bio weapons so you don't even have to clic them. And to finish on a general note on a point this community feedback update indirectly touches : a RTS is also about defensive play, and armies fighting each other. It's not ONLY about mobile units raping defenseless workers until one of the players has run out of money. I'm terran, I love to play a mobile bio style, but I also like sometimes to play a slower mech style. TvT in HOTS is already a drop/runby fest, and while I'm not fond of line of siege tanks looking at each other, I'd still like defensive play to be a part of the game. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19299 Posts
| ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
If the macro mechanics are cut - something has to be done to address the fact that Terran will retain reactors...and Protoss warpgates. I know they're doing something in the Protoss department, but seriously! Dem reactors! Although income will be cut significantly. Jeesh, sounds almost like an entirely different game. Supply will climb so slowly if macro mechanics are cut... Actually the more I think about it, the more exciting it seems...though Zerg are going to have to make a LOT of hatcheries, LOL. | ||
|
BlackCompany
Germany8388 Posts
No, keep it as it is (with changes in numbers for the sake of balance of course). | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1085 Posts
If you Auto-Inject, Why dont make the Barracks, Factory and starports "Auto Produce" a certain unit ? you right click the marauder icon and 3 barracks will try to start training of the marauder, while not queing them. Like "Auto Repair" and "auto Charge" Its not about the game playing itself, until you can clash your deathballs. Or setting the rally point and let infinite waves of minions clash into each other like in MOBA games. For the Warpgate change: Agreed ! Make the "Turbo-Warpin" Fields a slightly other color, like Purple. Also the Warp-in time should add upon gate cooldown ( I think it does already but i never look at gates while wooooooorpin). Protoss building placement is not that hard. It's playing simcity while the other races have to work hard  . Also placing warpgates near expansions is ALREADY standard at least in PvZ. 150 minerals extra per base couldn't hurt eh? Terran has to spent them since wol. | ||
|
LoneYoShi
France1348 Posts
I can't state how much I'm appreciative of Blizz's continued community feedback, it's so good ! <3 Regarding the nature of the changes, I like the idea behind the gateway change (nerf all the bullshit all-ins, buff the defense so P players can expand more easily). Not sure if that's the best way to do it, but I like their intention. Regarding macro mechanics, I'm less convinced. As a terran, if I don't get MULES, i'll just be making 1 orbital, then PF all the way baby. | ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
On August 01 2015 14:54 feanaro wrote: Not a big fan of the warpgate changes, even if they are somewhat in the right direction. Defensive warpins don't need a buff compared to HoTs, and if they do stick to some sort of position based warpin time then the nexus definitely needs to count in someway to give more flexibility in defensive warpins. This offensive warpin nerf isn't really even, as some builds are basically unaffected (immortal sentry with warp prism, sentry dropping on ramps, pvt colossus allin, etc) while others, like 3gate blink, are heavily nerfed. 16 seconds seems too long, especially considering the protoss isn't exactly doing well in LotV . . . they are in much more need of a buff than a nerf. Also, 16 seconds will really screw with any kind of harass not utilizing a warp prism, leading to less action, which is the opposite direction blizzard claims to want to go. It's not a buff for defensive warp-in, because you usually don't build a warpgate at any of your expansions as all of them are at your main base. Therefore, if your expansion is under attack, it's gonna take SIXTEEN bloody seconds to warp-in reinforcements! | ||
ZodaSoda
Australia1191 Posts
NUMBERS ARE NOT FINAL changes to warp ins like this is a huge upset in the way Protoss is played at all levels and the time it takes to Warp in defensively and offensively will need to be tweaked based on how its used. Stop commenting like 2 seconds and 16 seconds are final and LotV releases tomorrow... I like the change to warp ins i like the direction, I've always hated Proxy Pylons warping in non stop its just so meh to watch and play as or against. Changes to macro seems unnecessary but understandable at the same time, Players who can micro well and still perform decent or great macro at home is part of what creates an RTS pro in any game. That being said it doesn't look like they're worried about unit creation and expanding in terms of macro and only on the macro assists built into Sc2. Mule Boost Spawn Larva The mule is already pretty basic and dumb when you think about its core use, its a lot simpler than Boost and Larva spawning so it could be nerfed or cut and it wouldn't effect terran too bad with changes to boost and larva as well. Boost gets out of control the longer a game goes on is what i think Blizzard is focusing on, even the best Protoss in the world consistently miss use or forget about boosts while they're focused on other parts of the game, I like that they're looking at it but Thinking about changes or replacement leads me towards just cut... Larva also gets out of control as the game goes on guess you could say the same about mules in the basic mechanic of use of the skill, but the larva themselves and how many you have where on the map is something people tend to ignore and just rely on having a steady amount as long as they're on top of their injects, Thinking about changes again i wouldn't mind a cut... Cutting all 3 makes me think of BW with numbers on many things re-timed after removal of the 3 macro abilities i think it could be interesting i would love to see a return of unique workers to compensate a removal of macro abilities. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On August 01 2015 17:33 KT_Elwood wrote: nay, dont change mechanics. If you Auto-Inject, Why dont make the Barracks, Factory and starports "Auto Produce" a certain unit ? you right click the marauder icon and 3 barracks will try to start training of the marauder, while not queing them. Like "Auto Repair" and "auto Charge" Exactly. Why not? Also, if you like macro mechanics, why not remove production queues to add more macro to the game? Suppose that it was possible to control SC2 perfectly using the player's mind and implement macros (i.e. a set of automated instructions) using the player's mind. Would SC2 cease to be a hard game? Will you never lose under such a setup? | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
| ||
|
Steelghost
24 Posts
On August 01 2015 09:09 ShambhalaWar wrote: Pretty disappointing update (by disappointing, I mean worst to date, imho) Since when were macro mechanics ever an issue in sc2?! Seriously, with everything the community is talking about... I don't think I have ever seen someone complain about macro mechanics... Where does this shit come from, outer space? Did some alien on planet z-knar complain?! Someone please correct if I am just out of touch with reality... -_- Cause the suggestion to "cut macro mechanics" is insane. This is a flippin RTS game, macro should be at least 50% of it. If you diminish macro you truly do move toward making this a moba game where you control the creeps and buildings automatically make shit. The most impressive part of watching a pro player play is how he (or she) multitasks with engagements and building an army. I would even vote for macro mechanics to become harder for certain races like zerg before they became easier. Let the macromechnic define skill even more that it already does! If you want to demonstrate macro there are MANY ways to do that and instead your answer is, "Meh, lets just cut it." What about having a constant inject timer running during the cast of a game and one for nexus/mule? What about more first person view? What about a number showing the accumulation of seconds between injects, mules and nexus? These are just a couple ideas that can demonstrate these mechanics to viewers. If we strip macro out of rts, this game is dead to me. I feel that strongly about it. How does the logic of "Well, since viewers cant really notice how difficult macro mechanics are... we should just cut it from the game. Right?" Are you fucking kidding me? Does the viewer get to play the game for me? Are they the one sitting in my seat trying to enjoy it? Well shit let me sit back and get some popcorn and a soda! Maybe I should pay blizzard $40 and the viewer and I should sit back and both watch! Since watching is the most important thing and dictates the decisions about game design! I had NO idea until now that the true way to enjoy the game was to pay other people to play it and watch. What else can we do to make it more fun to watch? I think we have officially reached the point at which LOTV is about making an "esport" and not making a game that is fun to fucking play for me and other people that payed for it. This also the first time I have considered NOT BUYING LOTV. Truly didn't see that coming. Also, I am a zerg player, and I think a 16 second offensive warp in is insane. I just don't get the logic of a complete nerf for protoss. If you nerf warp gate that hard you have to buff something else instead of just crippling the race. What pylon doesn't get sniped on a 16 second offensive warp in? Why can't you offer a sensible suggestion like the one mentioned by SC2John, "For the record, I still support the idea of making gateways produce faster while warpgates have a higher cooldown. Logically, this makes sense and requires fairly little rebalancing (just lower the production rates by a hair for gateways while giving warp gates an extra cooldown of ~10 seconds per unit and perhaps change the transformation time). It doesn't require any forced interaction in the game, and gives defender's advantage a strong buff while severely cutting the power of continued warpin aggression. At the very least, I'd like to see it tried and have significant amount of data collected before we write it off as "just a community nag" Sir,I totally agree with you, I think Blizzard is totally heading the wrong direction and I think your points are spot on. It also feels like they are ignoring the community even though they hide it a little with these "Community Feedback Updates" that make it look like they are doing stuff. They are coming up with these changes that no one is asking for and they are simply not discussing things we are giving them feedback on. Economy, Bad Design, Game UI, AntiCheat systems, Balance... I have to see as of yet if they are really willing to listen to us, the community is constantly discussing and investigating on changes that can make the game better and time and time again its like DK just ignores us. And its funny to me that we are still licking his boots when thanks to him we have been through a lot of bullshit. I have lost almost all hope in LOTV, nothing of it has kept me hyped or even interested except for archon mode. I also think a big part of the already existing community is going to end up leaving when the new expansion comes out because they simply are not willing to play the game if this keeps going like this. As a final thought, I wonder if David Kim is the man Blizz needs in order to make a good game. Remember, this is the guy that had no clue about BL/Infestor being a problem when Demuslim and Grubby brought it up at a meeting, it took him two years to understand that free units were a problem as well, Hell! he even said he is not as good of a player and that he just watches games and streams in order to know how the state of the game is. He just focuses to much on the esports and viewer side and ignores the playing the game side. If LOTV is to become the great game Blizz wants, they have to wake him up or search for another person that understands starcraft better than he does, otherwise we are looking at a game that is going to end up killing itself eventually. So make this expansion more fun to play and please for gods sake stop playing ring around the rosie, we love this game more than you probably do David Kim. Sorry for the long post. | ||
|
Masayume
Netherlands208 Posts
It won't take away from skill this way since you have to focus more on micro because the amount of skirmishes may increase, and you also have the base mining management added in the game with the 100% and 60% patch approach. That alone is rewarding enough when managed well from a macro standpoint. To summarize, Legacy of the Void will: *Gain worker mining management moments because of the 100%/60% mineral patch approach  ecrease the amount of time spent executing existing macro mechanics*Increase the amount of time one can invest in positioning and micro In total you still end up doing as much or more, with perhaps 20% less time spent on macro compared to micro. Added benefit being that reaching the supply cap will be slowed down, which means more skirmishes and micro opportunities before you hit the ultimate production level and army composition. Lastly, this is Beta and they can test and change based upon findings. Nothing is final. So Yes to macro mechanic changes in my opinion. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24235 Posts
1) It's confusing. 2) It actually buffs all-ins that use a warp prism, to the point of retardedness. Adepts + warp prism all-ins are already broken enough. This is a huge problem for those who say that this warpgate "nerf" would open the door to gateway units buffs... So that 8 gates + WP all-ins become unbeatable ? That would allow nothing in the "buff gateway units" department. On the other hand, the solution they seemed to be considering in the previous updates seemed far more clever : separate warp-in power and pylon power, leave warp-ins as they are, and you really reduced the array of all-ins a P can do with reinforcing potential while leaving everything else untouched (warp-in power could be provided by warpgates, warp prism and maybe Nexi even while building so that expanding becomes easier). I've read all points and counterpoints about macro mechanics and I'm torn. I hate the idea of the game being dumbed down and the macro mechanical requirements being diminished in favor of micro ; this is a game of primarily macro, this is Starcraft, not Warcraft or a MOBA. Nevertheless, I agree that the pace of the game would benefit from it. The only thing I'm certain about is I despise the idea of automated injects. This would open the door to too many things. I'd rather have no macro mechanics at all with hatcheries spawning more larvae right from the get go than this. I still think this is one of the less inspired community updates to date. | ||
|
jackacea
66 Posts
| ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1612 Posts
On August 01 2015 19:04 RaFox17 wrote: I'm really worried by the direction of these changes. I enjoy having a game with macro and micro. The thing is that macro mechanics are not actually macro. Macro mechanics are maximizing your resource harvesting by doing similar things like it was in Brood War. It's not interesting to watch and it's not so funny to play. Really don't understand why everybody suddenly started to love Mules/Larva Injects/Chrono Boost. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On August 01 2015 20:08 [PkF] Wire wrote: I've read all points and counterpoints about macro mechanics and I'm torn. I hate the idea of the game being dumbed down and the macro mechanical requirements being diminished in favor of micro ; this is a game of primarily macro, this is Starcraft, not Warcraft or a MOBA. Nevertheless, I agree that the pace of the game would benefit from it. The only thing I'm certain about is I despise the idea of automated injects. This would open the door to too many things. I'd rather have no macro mechanics at all with hatcheries spawning more larvae right from the get go than this. I still think this is one of the less inspired community updates to date. Auto-cast is a cleaner change than Hatcheries auto-spawning extra larva. The latter would require more work from Blizzard to rebalance the game as Queen's would have less worth and sniping them would no longer slow down production. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
yes that's right! instead of the cyclical, mechanical, rote muscle memory demands of 'macro mechanics' your opponent will be testing you! you will have to observe, assess, think, respond... not mash the keys from muscle memory | ||
| ||
