|
On August 01 2015 23:53 Henno12 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 21:01 cabal] wrote:On August 01 2015 20:32 mishimaBeef wrote:
please realize that with the macro mechanics gone your opponent will be throwing more challenges at you (diverse, varied, unknown beforehand challenges)
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 Game gets dumped down. It's not impressing to see such things now because you know that the player can now focus 100% on these things. Multitasking nerfed hard. And it's most seen with the auto inject ****** Haha, you sound like the retards of 2010:" THE GAME IS TOO EASY! I WONT EVER IMPROVE! IAM AT THE PEAK OF MY SKILL! THERE IS NO ROOM TO IMPROVE!" Basically every american pro. Brood war had non of these macro mechanics. And even top tier player cant catch up with the macro in brood war.
thats because there were a ton of unintentional mechanics that were bigger time sinks than the current inject stuff
|
or my favorite argument "even though it took 10 years for brood war to get figured out, we are a lot smarter about RTS in general these days and sc2 will be figured out in ... " (what, 1 year?)
|
On August 01 2015 23:53 Henno12 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 21:01 cabal] wrote:On August 01 2015 20:32 mishimaBeef wrote:
please realize that with the macro mechanics gone your opponent will be throwing more challenges at you (diverse, varied, unknown beforehand challenges)
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 Game gets dumped down. It's not impressing to see such things now because you know that the player can now focus 100% on these things. Multitasking nerfed hard. And it's most seen with the auto inject ****** Haha, you sound like the retards of 2010:" THE GAME IS TOO EASY! I WONT EVER IMPROVE! IAM AT THE PEAK OF MY SKILL! THERE IS NO ROOM TO IMPROVE!" Basically every american pro. Brood war had non of these macro mechanics. And even top tier player cant catch up with the macro in brood war.
Broodwar didn't have this type of macro mechanics but they required you to go back to your base and spend actions on sending workers to mine and building units. In SC2 both of these can be done whilst watching your army and quite easily, there's very little room for pro players to show superior macro play.
|
For the pro player I would like it if macro boosters were half the strength. For the casual I think the removal is better.
I don't like the automated option: But maybe if you were able to Inject/Chrono an already Injected/Chronoed building and it automatically queued it up, the same way production facilities work, when they produce.
|
one thing that turns me off pro play is seeing players mess up... like if one guy micros bad i'm like uhh ok... it turns me off, sure he might have been doing his 'macro mechanics' and it doesn't matter, but it's not cool
i would much prefer the removal of these macro mechanic demands in hope that it will improve the quality of visible engagements and map presence (including macro of additional bases when map control is in favor of a player)
|
Macro mechanics are boring and only add mindless clicks most of the time. Take'em out!
|
On August 01 2015 22:56 Sholip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 22:43 BingbingBOPOMOFO wrote:
I think there is a misconception due to a lack of a coherent message from Blizzard. Let me try to simplify and interpret: Blizzard wants to make the game more action packed. Removal of these "apm-sinks" allows the already available APM of players to be allocated to something more. This "something more" has yet to be identified.
Please, until Blizzard announces a complete removal of these APM-macro-tasks and what their replacements will be, consider if you are willing to try a different approach to macro mechanics in SC2 not how their are "dumbing down" the game
I think this "something more" is actually more micro. They are introducing units that require more attention (Disruptor, Warp Prism, Cyclone), and they are encouraging more expanding, more harassment, etc. which is again a good opportunity for smaller scale, "micro" battles and positioning. This is good, in my opinion, and also does not dumb down the game, only changes it.
I agree with both posts above. The removing of the macro mechanics is the first change that's made me sit up in my chair and grin, excitedly starting to imagine what is to come. I really want this change to go in and stay for quite a while to see what develops from it.
I love SC2 to death, but I think a lot of people would agree that the game needs something fresh. It's understandable that there's resistance to this change. There's definitely huge skill and tactics in balancing all the spinning plates that are macro while microing on multiple fronts. The problem is that to most people, these spinning plates are invisible and not part of the viewing experience. It's always been a problem.
Now, if you want the audience and the players back in droves to at least give the game another go, the game needs something very fresh. One radical move towards a different style of RTS than what SC2 has become.
This change might just be it.
Let's try it out. Let's see how it develops. Let's see what other tweaks and changes will be needed or wanted as a consequence of this.
Let's start it and let's start it now!
|
That enthusiam around removing macro mechanics leaves me mesmerized. Do people really think that just removing those will make the game suddenly as popular as LoL and wipe out every flaw of the current LotV build ? There are far more important issues to deal with.
|
On August 02 2015 00:55 [PkF] Wire wrote:
That enthusiam around removing macro mechanics leaves me mesmerized. Do people really think that just removing those will make the game suddenly as popular as LoL and wipe out every flaw of the current LotV build ? There are far more important issues to deal with.
I don't think there's anything that says you can't deal with the removal of the macro mechanics as well as other changes at the same time.
Having said that though, the removal of macro mechanics would probably lead to a fairly lengthy period of needed changes and adjustments. If it's going to be done at all, better do it sooner rather than later.
Either way, just trying it out to see how it feels can't hurt.
|
On August 02 2015 01:14 snabel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2015 00:55 [PkF] Wire wrote:
That enthusiam around removing macro mechanics leaves me mesmerized. Do people really think that just removing those will make the game suddenly as popular as LoL and wipe out every flaw of the current LotV build ? There are far more important issues to deal with. Having said that though, the removal of macro mechanics would probably lead to a fairly lengthy period of needed changes and adjustments.
This is what bothers me the most. Why go into this when the benefit is by no means obvious and the consequences may even be detrimental in the end ? I'm pretty sure Blizzard is aiming for a release around Blizzcon, and time is running out. I think the potential downsides far outweigh what can be won. Don't be fools, every Zerg player won't be coming back because you tell them "you know, now you don't have to inject anymore !".
|
On August 02 2015 01:17 [PkF] Wire wrote:
This is what bothers me the most. Why go into this when the benefit is by no means obvious and the consequences may even be detrimental in the end ? I'm pretty sure Blizzard is aiming for a release around Blizzcon, and time is running out. I think the potential downsides far outweigh what can be won. Don't be fools, every Zerg player won't be coming back because you tell them "you know, now you don't have to inject anymore !".
It's a very valid point.
However, I'd rather try this and skip the Blizzcon timing.
The game is slowly eroding at this point. A lot is riding on the boost that comes from Lotv to be a sustained boost rather than a temporary high from everyone coming back to see what the buzz is about, then quickly tiring as not much has changed.
In the long run I think we'd win more from trying radical things like this and taking whatever time it takes to launch something different, something new, something fun.
I feel that what the game needs is not only, or maybe even mainly old players coming back, it's rather a sustainable stream of new players picking up the game. If that stream is there, the influx of talent will hopefully counteract the inevitable drain of people reaching the end of their careers or simply doing something different with their lives.
But of course, those are all opinions of what I'd want to see for this game.
It'd just be very interesting to see where that'd take us.
|
after a long time just got back to check how LotV is doing... and OMG, this is the direction I wanted it to go!
I want a game where I can build and destroy stuff with my army, where the winner is decided by what you built, when and why you built, and how your army fought in the battles.
The only stuff the current macro boosters do is make your game look like a job where you have to do the same stuff over and over again just so you don't fall behind, anyone who says these mechanics have any kind of meaningfull "strategy" on them are just lying to themselves.
Removing this will put more emphasis on army management and decision making.
I can only hope Blizz has the balls to do it.
|
Mule - Half the previous income, cannot be spammed (i.e. cool down on Mules will encourage solid usage like inject but be far less rewarding/punishing)
Inject - Only half as much Larvae, Zerg needs to expand a shit load anyways in LOTV so hatchery/larvae levels wouldn't be an issue, would free up more space for awesome creep spread (a visible mechanic, auto cast is a stupid idea, just reduce the risk reward)
Chronoboost - Rework this, I have no idea the implication of this ability being buffed/nerfed, I know most Protoss players say that Chronoboost is not skill rewarding and is lack luster and for the most part I agree (Click on building, it goes faster, LAME)
Since we want smaller fights, there needs to be less of a massive upswing from these macro mechanics.
This upswing I refer to is where 5 hatcheries will spaw larvae and Zerg will be ready for either a huge production flood or a huge tech switch, both of which contribute to balance issues, the same logic with the MULE, being able to call down 7 MULES onto one expansion and get an explosion of minerals i.e. an explosion of bio (mineral heavy units) leads to matches where Terran is outswarming Zerg rapidly after a good engagement.
This upswing sucks in LOTV with the super charged economy, if you want smaller fights/skirmish for map control, you have to reduce the flow of money and or unit production so the units come out slower, making them more important to micro and take good small engagements.
|
This could be the update that shaped the destiny of SC2.
Blizzard is actually admitting that the route they took to accelerate progression of SC is actually wrong. Yes, accelerated progression is actually one of the main goal for the SC2 development team and it still is. They tried to integrate it into the gameplay by introducing Mules, Injects, and Chronoboost(or MIC). But the gameplay/strategic element is long diminished since the day people learn how to take a third base.
MIC is directly responsible for a lot of the frustrating elements in SC2, for all levels of play. Fundamentally there is nothing inherently fun about MIC - you just have to use it every time you get the chance to. One might argue there are strategic values such as scans need saving or Chronoboost needs to be planned. Well the former is actually compulsory for survival and not a choice, and as for the later, it is essentially the cause of why Protoss is BO dependent and perceived as a gimmicky opponent.
Touching more on BO, SC2 is a Build dependent game, with very very strong timings that just end the game when BO "crossed". This is a direct consequence of the resource boost introduced by MIC, enabling the creation of lopsided army strength in a very small window that an opponent have no time to respond correctly. Baneling bust, roach bust, 1-1-1, Gateway all-in etc. had it not been MIC this timings would be strong but not as clear cut, binary as it is today. Blizzard's remedy was to change the map pool to huge maps with great distance between spawning locations. It says a lot about map and strategic diversity when only huge maps are the ones considered "good".
I could go on, but maybe in a new thread. I see huge impact that this could bring to the gamplay of SC2 and with it it's popularity. What is disheartening is that the polls are actually against what is the clearest admission of mistake and first ever change that could actually lower the skill floor for SC2. The bottom line is that if you want less BO losses, less chore like actions, more strategic options in game and diversity in maps, you should endorse the removal of the existing "macro mechanic".
|
BLIZZARD PLEASE READ THIS!
Please test out the idea of only making some toss units accessible with gateway and some only accessible with warpgate: you mentioned how the adept and zealot share similar roles. make one only gateway accessible and the others warpgate accessible. this would make toss macro far more interesting: having some gates only used for warp ins, and some gateways for training stronger casters and beefier units
EX:
warpgate accessible units: stalker, zealot, sentry, dt
gateway accessible: adept, dragoon (better in straight of fights then stalker ie slower but stronger), and the HT?
Also, inject larvae is what makes z unique, would be open to macro changes for the other races though.
|
I only want to comment on the macro aspects of this game.
For players that have played this game for a long time the concept of simplifying macro may not look as good of an idea as it essentially removes one of the advantages that experienced players have over less experienced people.
That being said, over the years the player base has been steadily declining due to various reasons. One of them for sure is that the game is seen as too difficult - you need to spend a lot of time at this game before you get anywhere good at it.
With a lot of other games the learning curve is less steep. I am pretty sure this is also the reason why various other games are getting more popular.
The only way to break this is by making the game more simple; whether us, experienced players like it or not. I believe this will be better for the game in the long run.
|
I never thought I'd see the day they actually got rid of mules and chronoboost. Idra might come back. lol.
|
The Protoss offensive warpgate nerf is fine, but please don't make the macro mechanics even more easier. SC2 is a game of multitasking and it should stay like this.
|
On August 02 2015 01:17 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2015 01:14 snabel wrote:On August 02 2015 00:55 [PkF] Wire wrote:
That enthusiam around removing macro mechanics leaves me mesmerized. Do people really think that just removing those will make the game suddenly as popular as LoL and wipe out every flaw of the current LotV build ? There are far more important issues to deal with. Having said that though, the removal of macro mechanics would probably lead to a fairly lengthy period of needed changes and adjustments. This is what bothers me the most. Why go into this when the benefit is by no means obvious and the consequences may even be detrimental in the end ? I'm pretty sure Blizzard is aiming for a release around Blizzcon, and time is running out. I think the potential downsides far outweigh what can be won. Don't be fools, every Zerg player won't be coming back because you tell them "you know, now you don't have to inject anymore !".
It sure could take a longer period to test extensively, but it is a good idea IMO. To be honest, I felt this topic should come up for SC3 as a massive and even more radical macro overhaul (should such a game ever be made).
|
I very, very strongly disagree with removing macro mechanics. However, I would be okay with making them weaker, and this might be a good direction to go.
Honestly, at this point, I'm wondering if Blizzard aren't listening too much to the community. The offensive warp gate change just seems to be way too strong, and still a bit confusing. Is it really that necessary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
