|
On August 01 2015 04:47 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote:
I agree with the macro mechanics.
People dont know how hard is to Inject on 5-6 bases.
LotV is way harder, terran and protoss have easiest marco.... but zerg is way more complex by far.
I think the Koreans ask them this because it really is hard to do it, some pro players cant even have injects perfectly !
You can always use MULES and CHRONO, Inject is not the same.
It doesn't have to be the same.
Injecting 5 or 6 hatcheries can be insanely powerful. Even if you don't do it perfectly, having 20 or 24 additional larvae can make a difference.
With reducing the autocast inject to 2 or 3 larvae, I (a zerg player) would need more hatches to get the production capability. I rather would prefer to inject than spending a drone and 300 minerals. (Since the hatchery provides 6 instead of 2 supply, I also save half an overlord, bringing the effective cost down to a drone and 250 minerals. Still, those are expenses.)
|
On August 02 2015 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 04:47 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote:
I agree with the macro mechanics.
People dont know how hard is to Inject on 5-6 bases.
LotV is way harder, terran and protoss have easiest marco.... but zerg is way more complex by far.
I think the Koreans ask them this because it really is hard to do it, some pro players cant even have injects perfectly !
You can always use MULES and CHRONO, Inject is not the same. It doesn't have to be the same. Injecting 5 or 6 hatcheries can be insanely powerful. Even if you don't do it perfectly, having 20 or 24 additional larvae can make a difference. With reducing the autocast inject to 2 or 3 larvae, I (a zerg player) would need more hatches to get the production capability. I rather would prefer to inject than spending a drone and 300 minerals. (Since the hatchery provides 6 instead of 2 supply, I also save half an overlord, bringing the effective cost down to a drone and 250 minerals. Still, those are expenses.)
That's why they are also nerfing mules and chrono.
|
On August 02 2015 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 04:47 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote:
I agree with the macro mechanics.
People dont know how hard is to Inject on 5-6 bases.
LotV is way harder, terran and protoss have easiest marco.... but zerg is way more complex by far.
I think the Koreans ask them this because it really is hard to do it, some pro players cant even have injects perfectly !
You can always use MULES and CHRONO, Inject is not the same. It doesn't have to be the same. Injecting 5 or 6 hatcheries can be insanely powerful. Even if you don't do it perfectly, having 20 or 24 additional larvae can make a difference. With reducing the autocast inject to 2 or 3 larvae, I (a zerg player) would need more hatches to get the production capability. I rather would prefer to inject than spending a drone and 300 minerals. (Since the hatchery provides 6 instead of 2 supply, I also save half an overlord, bringing the effective cost down to a drone and 250 minerals. Still, those are expenses.)
There's two core differences between those things though.
If you miss those injects, you're essentially 4 short. On 5 bases you get 15 "almost guaranteed", and in the worst case(missed all 5 injects) you don't end up having 20 extra. Which, depending on the unit composition, can be huge as we all know.
If injects now would be less effective but easier to do(due to auto-injecting you only have to make sure queens are in range, I assume), you end up with more hatcheries and thus more "guaranteed larvae" + a higher chance of getting the extra larvae, resulting in a higher larvae count all round.
It's certainly something that can change balance, but if you nerf terran's and protoss' macro mechanics accordingly, I can see it working out.
|
My main problem with auto-inject is Zerg production may either lose its identity or become OP. If you have auto-inject, basically you can build units every X seconds, when a new Larva spawns. It is exactly like Terran, you build units every X seconds when the previous one finishes. You don't have queues, sure, but you can stockpile Larva and make massive amounts of units very fast if need be.
The way this problem is dealt with in HotS is adding the inject mechanic, whose only goal is to be there and be hard to execute. Literally it is an added weight for Zerg players, so that there be some drawback to the amazingly fast and amazingly flexible production. This is, in my opinion, the most inelegant way of addressing a problem, far worse than any Photon Overcharge or Warp-in or anything people are generally upset about.
Now if you remove the burden of injecitng, suddenly Zerg production will be OP, so you will have to nerf it somehow. Either by reducing the Larva output or reducing the maximum amount of Larvae per Hatchery. Either way, Zerg production becomes less and less like it was, and will resemble Terran production more and more. I don't say that it is necessarily bad, but if Zerg loses too much of its uniqueness, it may be.
|
|
|
On August 02 2015 19:59 Matt` wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2015 19:19 IcemanAsi wrote:On August 02 2015 19:05 Matt` wrote:On August 02 2015 18:50 IcemanAsi wrote:
I don't get people who complain about losing complexity or difficulty in regards to reducing these macro mechanics.
Zerg inject has zero complexity ( you always want to inject ) but I can understand it for Terran and Protoss, but difficulty?
I don't get that.
Let's say we eliminate all macro mechanics, completely. Macro won't be easier, it will just be different, supply timings will become more critical, both players won't be able to actually make up for lost macro time so it will become MORE punishing to let your macro slip up. You will have more time to focus on your micro, but so will your opponent.
The game will be different for sure, but easier? Why?
Do you really think that eliminating these mechanics will leave you with enough time to do all the other micro perfectly?
Of course not.
Now, as a Zerg player, let me tell you something, inject sucks, it isn't fun, it isn't interesting, it's difficult in all the wrong ways. Now, after five years, we gotten used to it and yeah it is fun doing something difficult well, so I like injecting well.
But I would love, LOVE, to never have to do it again and focus on stuff like actual macro 'Decisions'. What to make, when to make it, how many overlords to get. And be punished when I make those decisions wrong instead of when I miss a timing test that people have literally made metronome apps for.
Down with injects! Five years too long!!
Just because you don't have the apm to inject perfectly doesn't mean you should remove it. It's an important part of what separates players even at the very top. Someone like Jaedong has perfect injects all the time and is still able to micro amazingly, lots of european pros have sub par injects and it can really hold them back in matchups like tvz. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't complex. It's fucking hard to have perfect injects and anyone who says they do who isn't even grandmaster is lying. You won't see any increase in micro by removing injects, good players are already doing it all. - I don't miss injects beucase of APM, I miss injects mostly because I'm thinking about something else ( I shouldn't be, it's the most critical thing as zerg ) - No one can "Do it all", SC2 is designed to and is impossible to play perfectly - Seeing it has nothing to do with complexity, it isn't complex because there are no decisions involved ( for zerg ) - Yes, it is extremely hard, a boring, simple, tedious hard. - Of course you will see a change in micro, those seconds you spent on macro mechanics will now be used to micro units - I agree it currently separates players, so what? I prefer macro decisions and micro mechanics separate players. You seem to be confusing complexity with difficulty, inject is difficult but not complex. It might be complex to do it perfectly, but that's not a complexity of the task in itself. What your asking for is for bad players like yourself to have an easier time, injecting is a technique that can take literally years to master there are many layers to injecting and its not just as simple as "oh its monotonous and everyone has do it". You seem to be under the impression it will increase micro (it won't for good players it might for bad ones). You keep talking about decisions and having time to think, good players have already decided what they're going to do minutes before they even do it. You just don't understand the game well enough and that's why you're having to think about things which is something everyone goes through in playing sc2. Injecting does not get in the way of decision making if you're at a high enough level.
and you would consider yourself such a good player to judge that?
Injects are terribly punishing to anything below rank 1-8 masters (and even there), to a level where zerg is barely playable effectively.
Why should the game have mechanics that are punishing to 99% of the players, when its not even something that is needed for the top 1%.
The game doesnt get complexer just because you add in some busy work at your base.
|
On August 02 2015 21:29 weikor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2015 19:59 Matt` wrote:On August 02 2015 19:19 IcemanAsi wrote:On August 02 2015 19:05 Matt` wrote:On August 02 2015 18:50 IcemanAsi wrote:
I don't get people who complain about losing complexity or difficulty in regards to reducing these macro mechanics.
Zerg inject has zero complexity ( you always want to inject ) but I can understand it for Terran and Protoss, but difficulty?
I don't get that.
Let's say we eliminate all macro mechanics, completely. Macro won't be easier, it will just be different, supply timings will become more critical, both players won't be able to actually make up for lost macro time so it will become MORE punishing to let your macro slip up. You will have more time to focus on your micro, but so will your opponent.
The game will be different for sure, but easier? Why?
Do you really think that eliminating these mechanics will leave you with enough time to do all the other micro perfectly?
Of course not.
Now, as a Zerg player, let me tell you something, inject sucks, it isn't fun, it isn't interesting, it's difficult in all the wrong ways. Now, after five years, we gotten used to it and yeah it is fun doing something difficult well, so I like injecting well.
But I would love, LOVE, to never have to do it again and focus on stuff like actual macro 'Decisions'. What to make, when to make it, how many overlords to get. And be punished when I make those decisions wrong instead of when I miss a timing test that people have literally made metronome apps for.
Down with injects! Five years too long!!
Just because you don't have the apm to inject perfectly doesn't mean you should remove it. It's an important part of what separates players even at the very top. Someone like Jaedong has perfect injects all the time and is still able to micro amazingly, lots of european pros have sub par injects and it can really hold them back in matchups like tvz. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't complex. It's fucking hard to have perfect injects and anyone who says they do who isn't even grandmaster is lying. You won't see any increase in micro by removing injects, good players are already doing it all. - I don't miss injects beucase of APM, I miss injects mostly because I'm thinking about something else ( I shouldn't be, it's the most critical thing as zerg ) - No one can "Do it all", SC2 is designed to and is impossible to play perfectly - Seeing it has nothing to do with complexity, it isn't complex because there are no decisions involved ( for zerg ) - Yes, it is extremely hard, a boring, simple, tedious hard. - Of course you will see a change in micro, those seconds you spent on macro mechanics will now be used to micro units - I agree it currently separates players, so what? I prefer macro decisions and micro mechanics separate players. You seem to be confusing complexity with difficulty, inject is difficult but not complex. It might be complex to do it perfectly, but that's not a complexity of the task in itself. What your asking for is for bad players like yourself to have an easier time, injecting is a technique that can take literally years to master there are many layers to injecting and its not just as simple as "oh its monotonous and everyone has do it". You seem to be under the impression it will increase micro (it won't for good players it might for bad ones). You keep talking about decisions and having time to think, good players have already decided what they're going to do minutes before they even do it. You just don't understand the game well enough and that's why you're having to think about things which is something everyone goes through in playing sc2. Injecting does not get in the way of decision making if you're at a high enough level. and you would consider yourself such a good player to judge that? Injects are terribly punishing to anything below rank 1-8 masters (and even there), to a level where zerg is barely playable effectively. Why should the game have mechanics that are punishing to 99% of the players, when its not even something that is needed for the top 1%. The game doesnt get complexer just because you add in some busy work at your base.
Lots of things are punishing in sc2 doesn't mean they are bad. Injects are important in the 1% there's a big difference between someone like tlo's injects and someone like jaedongs, a big difference. It does go some way to separating player A from player B even in the pro scene.
|
TL;DR: I really, really, really want to continue to do manual injects with my queens in LOTV (and I like the other races' macro mechanics too). This is the first LOTV change I have felt strongly about.
I don't mind if injects are nerfed a bit (e.g. hatcheries spawn 4-5 larva in the time they used to spawn 3, and queen injects only spawn 2 or 3). I don't mind if there is an optional autocast which is slightly less effective than manual at my level (I'm mid diamond). I don't even mind if in the late game it becomes better to switch autocast on, to focus more on micro at that time.
But I want to manually inject, at least until the mid game, and for doing that well to make at least some difference to my performance in the game (and not to automatically be worse than auto-injecting).
I've been playing SC2 casually since release, and I was gold league until 2 seasons ago, when I realised that macro was the only thing i needed to focus on. Having concentrated solely on spending my money, building overlords, spreading creep and injecting, I'm rushing up the ranks, and will hopefully hit masters in a couple of seasons (at age 28 & working long hours, my time is very finite for reaching the higher ranks!  ) I am really proud of my queen injects having had a big impact on my ranking. It feels so good hitting them all when the queens have exactly 25 energy.
I just don't agree with the "if you can't see it easily when observing, it's a bad mechanic" line of thought. So new players won't be able to understand why the pros have loads of extra units compared with them at that same time. But that's largely due to constant worker production. That was also hard to see until modders added "worker count" as standard to the Observer UIs. It would be simple to also provide some stats on queen/Nexus/CC energy (e.g. total injects completed, total number of scans currently available, etc). We also have casters to point things out.
It's rewarding to understand what's happening in a pro game by more than just the face value of what's on screen. The building zealot which will be cancelled if there's no ebay. The widow mine placement that would have intercepted an oracle if the Protoss had been building one (even though he's not). The +1 armour upgrade first in PvT because terran units have high attack speed. The saved up chrono boost which indicates the protoss is going to rush warp tech. Soo's perfect injects that just make him ahead. Terran taking a risk on an Orbital instead of PF for his 3rd base meaning he can drop more mules. These are all things that a casual viewer wouldn't necessarily appreciate, but to someone dedicated to watching and learning the game really add reward. Taking away subtle differences of player's skills and preferences - to reluctantly use the cliché - "dumbs down" viewing SC2. Having a game which takes mastery to learn and understand is very, very rewarding, and this can be retained even within the constraints of making it easier to "get into" the game for new players.
I also find the general idea of "all micro all the time" to be bad for tactics - at least for me. I don't mind the game being harder, and more multitask intensive: theoretically it should equally be harder for my opponent too, plus the best pros will shine more (Bonjwas, hurray!), but there needs to be a bit of thinking time for "right he's probably doing X so I'll try and do Y now". That downtime for me is often during injects + creep spreading. I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but when I'm having a long drawn out micro battle it's really hard not to tunnel vision and keep building the same units. I'm worried this will happen much more if the game is all micro and no downtime/macro (a little more action is OK by me, but please don't go overboard).
Too much micro isn't good for viewers either; there are already PvMaru HOTS games where the observer literally can't keep up with showing us all the action. It's going to be even more hectic in LOTV - yes it will be more exciting, but will I even be able to see it all? When will Tasteless have time to tell me how his latest game of Battle Toads was?
I want my hard work on macro, and specifically on inject timings to continue mean something, and games not to be dictated by micro only (admittedly largely because I'm old and slow these days). I also want for viewing starcraft to be a combination of showcasing flashy micros skills but also subtle advantages that players are getting for being both smart and having superlative macro mechanics - some of which only dedicated starcraft viewers will appreciate fully.
|
On August 02 2015 22:05 Haighstrom wrote:TL;DR: I really, really, really want to continue to do manual injects with my queens in LOTV (and I like the other races' macro mechanics too). This is the first LOTV change I have felt strongly about. I don't mind if injects are nerfed a bit (e.g. hatcheries spawn 4-5 larva in the time they used to spawn 3, and queen injects only spawn 2 or 3). I don't mind if there is an optional autocast which is slightly less effective than manual at my level (I'm mid diamond). I don't even mind if in the late game it becomes better to switch autocast on, to focus more on micro at that time. But I want to manually inject, at least until the mid game, and for doing that well to make at least some difference to my performance in the game (and not to automatically be worse than auto-injecting). I've been playing SC2 casually since release, and I was gold league until 2 seasons ago, when I realised that macro was the only thing i needed to focus on. Having concentrated solely on spending my money, building overlords, spreading creep and injecting, I'm rushing up the ranks, and will hopefully hit masters in a couple of seasons (at age 28 & working long hours, my time is very finite for reaching the higher ranks! ) I am really proud of my queen injects having had a big impact on my ranking. It feels so good hitting them all when the queens have exactly 25 energy. I just don't agree with the "if you can't see it easily when observing, it's a bad mechanic" line of thought. So new players won't be able to understand why the pros have loads of extra units compared with them at that same time. But that's largely due to constant worker production. That was also hard to see until modders added "worker count" as standard to the Observer UIs. It would be simple to also provide some stats on queen/Nexus/CC energy (e.g. total injects completed, total number of scans currently available, etc). We also have casters to point things out. It's rewarding to understand what's happening in a pro game by more than just the face value of what's on screen. The building zealot which will be cancelled if there's no ebay. The widow mine placement that would have intercepted an oracle if the Protoss had been building one (even though he's not). The +1 armour upgrade first in PvT because terran units have high attack speed. The saved up chrono boost which indicates the protoss is going to rush warp tech. Soo's perfect injects that just make him ahead. Terran taking a risk on an Orbital instead of PF for his 3rd base meaning he can drop more mules. These are all things that a casual viewer wouldn't necessarily appreciate, but to someone dedicated to watching and learning the game really add reward. Taking away subtle differences of player's skills and preferences - to reluctantly use the cliché - "dumbs down" viewing SC2. Having a game which takes mastery to learn and understand is very, very rewarding, and this can be retained even within the constraints of making it easier to "get into" the game for new players. I also find the general idea of "all micro all the time" to be bad for tactics - at least for me. I don't mind the game being harder, and more multitask intensive: theoretically it should equally be harder for my opponent too, plus the best pros will shine more (Bonjwas, hurray!), but there needs to be a bit of thinking time for "right he's probably doing X so I'll try and do Y now". That downtime for me is often during injects + creep spreading. I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but when I'm having a long drawn out micro battle it's really hard not to tunnel vision and keep building the same units. I'm worried this will happen much more if the game is all micro and no downtime/macro (a little more action is OK by me, but please don't go overboard). Too much micro isn't good for viewers either; there are already PvMaru HOTS games where the observer literally can't keep up with showing us all the action. It's going to be even more hectic in LOTV - yes it will be more exciting, but will I even be able to see it all? When will Tasteless have time to tell me how his latest game of Battle Toads was? I want my hard work on macro, and specifically on inject timings to continue mean something, and games not to be dictated by micro only (admittedly largely because I'm old and slow these days). I also want for viewing starcraft to be a combination of showcasing flashy micros skills but also subtle advantages that players are getting for being both smart and having superlative macro mechanics - some of which only dedicated starcraft viewers will appreciate fully.
I completely agree with this. Good post
|
On August 02 2015 20:08 IcemanAsi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2015 20:00 Salteador Neo wrote:On August 02 2015 19:20 IcemanAsi wrote:On August 02 2015 18:40 Salteador Neo wrote:
Just move the warp gate tech into the lategame seriously. The proposed idea is horribad. Why do you think so? Does not solve anything and it's confusing. Actually it also makes the warp prism the best toss unit, if it wasnt already, and prism allins stronger. And doesnt buff defensive warpins at all. "Does not solve anything and it's confusing" - Solves aggressive warp in being too strong, I'll definitly agree that suggested change is confusing "makes the warp prism the best toss unit" - How is this a problem? "prism allins stronger" - Good point, I have to give you that. "doesnt buff defensive warpins at all" - That's just wrong, you go from 5 seconds to 2
The 2 second warpin is only from the gateways that are in the same pylon lol. That is jokingly bad.
So if you warp in to defend a base, how do you know how many of the gateways that are touching your warping pylon are not in cooldown? If you mass warpin you will have 2 or 3 units warp in 2 second and the rest in 16?
Sounds awful imo.
|
On August 02 2015 22:27 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2015 22:05 Haighstrom wrote:TL;DR: I really, really, really want to continue to do manual injects with my queens in LOTV (and I like the other races' macro mechanics too). This is the first LOTV change I have felt strongly about. I don't mind if injects are nerfed a bit (e.g. hatcheries spawn 4-5 larva in the time they used to spawn 3, and queen injects only spawn 2 or 3). I don't mind if there is an optional autocast which is slightly less effective than manual at my level (I'm mid diamond). I don't even mind if in the late game it becomes better to switch autocast on, to focus more on micro at that time. But I want to manually inject, at least until the mid game, and for doing that well to make at least some difference to my performance in the game (and not to automatically be worse than auto-injecting). I've been playing SC2 casually since release, and I was gold league until 2 seasons ago, when I realised that macro was the only thing i needed to focus on. Having concentrated solely on spending my money, building overlords, spreading creep and injecting, I'm rushing up the ranks, and will hopefully hit masters in a couple of seasons (at age 28 & working long hours, my time is very finite for reaching the higher ranks! ) I am really proud of my queen injects having had a big impact on my ranking. It feels so good hitting them all when the queens have exactly 25 energy. I just don't agree with the "if you can't see it easily when observing, it's a bad mechanic" line of thought. So new players won't be able to understand why the pros have loads of extra units compared with them at that same time. But that's largely due to constant worker production. That was also hard to see until modders added "worker count" as standard to the Observer UIs. It would be simple to also provide some stats on queen/Nexus/CC energy (e.g. total injects completed, total number of scans currently available, etc). We also have casters to point things out. It's rewarding to understand what's happening in a pro game by more than just the face value of what's on screen. The building zealot which will be cancelled if there's no ebay. The widow mine placement that would have intercepted an oracle if the Protoss had been building one (even though he's not). The +1 armour upgrade first in PvT because terran units have high attack speed. The saved up chrono boost which indicates the protoss is going to rush warp tech. Soo's perfect injects that just make him ahead. Terran taking a risk on an Orbital instead of PF for his 3rd base meaning he can drop more mules. These are all things that a casual viewer wouldn't necessarily appreciate, but to someone dedicated to watching and learning the game really add reward. Taking away subtle differences of player's skills and preferences - to reluctantly use the cliché - "dumbs down" viewing SC2. Having a game which takes mastery to learn and understand is very, very rewarding, and this can be retained even within the constraints of making it easier to "get into" the game for new players. I also find the general idea of "all micro all the time" to be bad for tactics - at least for me. I don't mind the game being harder, and more multitask intensive: theoretically it should equally be harder for my opponent too, plus the best pros will shine more (Bonjwas, hurray!), but there needs to be a bit of thinking time for "right he's probably doing X so I'll try and do Y now". That downtime for me is often during injects + creep spreading. I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but when I'm having a long drawn out micro battle it's really hard not to tunnel vision and keep building the same units. I'm worried this will happen much more if the game is all micro and no downtime/macro (a little more action is OK by me, but please don't go overboard). Too much micro isn't good for viewers either; there are already PvMaru HOTS games where the observer literally can't keep up with showing us all the action. It's going to be even more hectic in LOTV - yes it will be more exciting, but will I even be able to see it all? When will Tasteless have time to tell me how his latest game of Battle Toads was? I want my hard work on macro, and specifically on inject timings to continue mean something, and games not to be dictated by micro only (admittedly largely because I'm old and slow these days). I also want for viewing starcraft to be a combination of showcasing flashy micros skills but also subtle advantages that players are getting for being both smart and having superlative macro mechanics - some of which only dedicated starcraft viewers will appreciate fully. I completely agree with this. Good post
2:nding as well. I like the feeling of doing my injects well!
|
quick disclaimer: I don't claim to speak for blizzard, I'm just presenting reasoning from a game-developers general perspective. Think of it as me playing the devil's advocate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate
On August 02 2015 13:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/491453-community-feedback-update-july-31st?page=15#292 I see the point you are trying to make, I suppose I didn't see this distinction before. Thank you for pointing it out. It still strikes me as strange that the answer is cutting or diminishing the mechanic rather than making it more visible, which probably wouldn't be that hard.
there are 2 counter arguments to this point:
1. the game without macro-mechanics is mechanically demanding enough and there is no need for further attention-demanding mechanics, therefore it wouldn't make sense to add such attention-demanding mechanics and therefore it does make sense to remove them from the game that has them.
I personally try to stay out of this argument since the debate here is over the statement "the game without macro-mechanics is mechanically demanding enough". some say no, others say yes, further others such as myself say I'm not sure.
I believe it is worth it to note that blizzard seem to at least partially agree with this.
"With Legacy of the Void becoming more difficult to play due to our main goals - more action, micro on both sides during engagements, less downtime, etc. - we have been exploring areas that we can make easier." - David Kim 2015
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18300016914
2. making macro mechanics more visible might be way more difficult than it seems.
personally I can't think of a good way to make the effects of macro-mechanics visible but I'm open to suggestions and I agree that if we assume that argument 1 doesn't hold (again I want to reiterate that I am undecided on that point) then making macro-mechanics more visible would definitely be the best option.
Again, if the biggest problem with the mechanics is that you can't visibly measure the other person's progress in game, is that really a big problem?
the problem comes at the end of the game and inbetween games, see last section, but you might be right that this is not enough of a problem to warrant a change.
Please tell me how removing this is going to make the game richer and more fun to play?
lets say we add a rule to chess that states "after making move you must tell a limerick featuring the piece you moved, you may not tell the same limerick twice in the same game".
then there is a suggestion from the chess community to remove this rule, this suggestion is met with contestion.
some say the rule makes the game more complex and rewards players that are inventive and poetic, and therefore removing it would make the game much worse, furthermore, new players are entertained by the limericks, old players have memorized hundreds of limericks for each piece so to them the rule is not an issue other than having to remember which limericks they have said in the game, which adds an aspect of memorization which is a skill in itself.
others say the rule contributes little to the main gameplay of chess and it would make more sense to streamline the move-making by removing the limerick part, thereby allowing players to concentrate more on the main gameplay of the game, furthermore, new players are typically not very good at inventing new, original limericks on the fly and have not learned the recorded banks of hundreds of existing limericks, so it just presents an introduction-barrier to new players.
further others say removing the limericks would change the game into something new, but wouldn't stop the fun and difficult game from being fun and difficult, just fun and difficult in a different way. such a change would make chess-lovers happy and limerick-lovers sad but ultimately if the rule-change accomplishes a secondary goal that would be good for the game, then trying it out can't hurt, right? nothing says we can't change it back if we don't like it.
people in the first cathegory ask:
"Please tell me how removing this is going to make the game richer and more fun to play?"
people in the second category ask:
"Please tell me how adding this to the game without it is going to make the game richer and more fun to play?"
people in the third category watch the discussion with popcorn.
who is right?
this is a rhetorical question, there is no need to answer.
Removing it just makes macro less difficult, does that make it easier for me to measure the progress of an opponent? What does this accomplish from blizzards perspective?
I think this design goal of "cutting down" (note it doesn't say "remove") on high-difficulty low-visibility (arguably high-reward also belongs as a prefix) tasks are for the purpose of player retention more than player inflow. (it might help with inflow too, but I don't think that's the main goal)
note that "high-difficulty low-visibility tasks" include macro mechanics but are not limited to them and blizz has never said they want to remove or cut down on everything that fits this cathegory, for example, enemy resource banks and knowing how well the enemy spends their money is a high-difficulty low-visibility task, but there has been no indication that blizz wants to make the resource counters visible to both players or anything of the sort, another thing in a similar vein (but not as invisible) is attack/armor upgrades. true most good players check the enemy upgrades by clicking on the enemy units but I am willing to bet that a large majority of players don't do this as often as they should.
so how does this help with player retention? because it reduces the severity and frequency of frustrating losses by making losses less frustrating, which in turn helps to prevent tilt which in turn helps to prevent toxicity.
the time when players are the most likely to leave the game forever is when they are frustrated and don't see any clear way to improve/ dont see why they lost a game they were convinced they were even or ahead in, if in fact they weren't even or ahead and in fact were far behind because the enemy had been stocking up on invisible advantages which ends up crushing the player unexpectedly, this leaves the player perplexed and frustrated.
furthermore, players that are on tilt are much more unlikely to check replays to actually find out why they lost to cure/remedy/soften their own tilt, therefore one should not expect players to check replays to find these things out.
again I would like to reiterate that I don't speak for blizzard, but I think the above are valid arguments that blizzard could use if they wanted to.
edit addition:
On August 02 2015 22:39 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2015 20:08 IcemanAsi wrote:On August 02 2015 20:00 Salteador Neo wrote:On August 02 2015 19:20 IcemanAsi wrote:On August 02 2015 18:40 Salteador Neo wrote:
Just move the warp gate tech into the lategame seriously. The proposed idea is horribad. Why do you think so? Does not solve anything and it's confusing. Actually it also makes the warp prism the best toss unit, if it wasnt already, and prism allins stronger. And doesnt buff defensive warpins at all. "Does not solve anything and it's confusing" - Solves aggressive warp in being too strong, I'll definitly agree that suggested change is confusing "makes the warp prism the best toss unit" - How is this a problem? "prism allins stronger" - Good point, I have to give you that. "doesnt buff defensive warpins at all" - That's just wrong, you go from 5 seconds to 2 The 2 second warpin is only from the gateways that are in the same pylon lol. That is jokingly bad. So if you warp in to defend a base, how do you know how many of the gateways that are touching your warping pylon are not in cooldown? If you mass warpin you will have 2 or 3 units warp in 2 second and the rest in 16? Sounds awful imo.
you misunderstand the proposed warp gate change, you have read it as:
"if you warp in a unit on the pylon that the warp gate that you are using to produce is being powered by then it takes 2 seconds else it takes 16 seconds"
the actual thing is:
"if you are warping in on a pylon which is powering a warp gate, then it takes 2 seconds, else it takes 16 seconds"
a pylon powering any warp gate will warp things in in 2 seconds regardless of which warp gate was used to warp in the unit.
just wanted to clear up that misconception, my opinion on this matter is this model is far from perfect but its far better than what we have now.
this is basically a combination of the proposed solutions in http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18300015133#1
the two proposed soutions back then was:
option 1: warp gates make their own warp-in field and warp prisms also make warp-in fields and these warp-in fields are different from pylon power.
option 2: pylons need an upgrade to provide warp-in capability.
lets call this latest proposal option 3: pylons that are powering warp gates have fast warp-gate capability, other pylons have slow warp gate capability.
so option 3 is basically option 1 in the sense that warping-in in is strongest close to warp gates and option 2 in the sense that pylons need to be upgraded (by attaching a warpgate) to provide strong warp-in, the main difference is option 3 doesn't prohibit warp-ins in locations without strong warp-in, it only delays it by a lot.
|
On August 02 2015 20:39 Hider wrote:
Punishing bad players is actually a bad thing. What you want to do instead is to reward very good players as that's consistent with the easy-to-learn hard to master concept. Inject unfortunately does the opposite.
This I think is a key sentence in figuring out what the design goal should be to allow new players in.
No one says the game has to be dumbed down. But avoiding punishing you outright for being bad, while instad focusing on rewarding greatness, time spent, attention to detail and skill would go a long way towards that I think.
On August 02 2015 20:50 Matt` wrote:
Injecting is easy to learn and hard to master that's the point, and there are pro players out there who are still far from mastering it.
The idea of having several very different tasks to learn and then to choose which to prioritize is good.
I think most people arguing for the removal or drastic reduction in the current macro boosting skills feel that the ones we have are hard to master without being fun, and worst of all, very non-transparent for viewers or maybe even opponents. Those are not the design you want necessarily for those types of abilities.
|
On August 02 2015 22:05 Haighstrom wrote:I just don't agree with the "if you can't see it easily when observing, it's a bad mechanic" line of thought.
...
That was also hard to see until modders added "worker count" as standard to the Observer UIs. It would be simple to also provide some stats on queen/Nexus/CC energy (e.g. total injects completed, total number of scans currently available, etc). We also have casters to point things out. I would argue that achieving the same goal of having a tough multi-tasking game with priorities, don´t have to include tasks that are very hard to observe, comment on or see. The argument is that our current ones are more invisible than we´d like.
I would also argue that we already have more numbers and metrics than can be sanely followed or discussed.
Adding more numbers would not give casters and observers the ability to translate them into an easy to follow story as the information to be communicated is already at a very dense state.
Too much micro isn't good for viewers either; there are already PvMaru HOTS games where the observer literally can't keep up with showing us all the action. It's going to be even more hectic in LOTV - yes it will be more exciting, but will I even be able to see it all? When will Tasteless have time to tell me how his latest game of Battle Toads was? Yes. This is something that came to my mind even with the increased expanding.
Even if sending 1-2 harass units to 3-4 bases while a fight is going on will stretch what can be observed and translated into a coherent storyline for the viewers. Tricky. But I still don´t think that means we have to keep our current macro boosters, or keep them in their current state. Just that this needs to be considered.
|
Getting rid of injects and, hopefully, massive Larva banks, will be an enormously good change for the game, IMO.
Since you wouldn't be able to do those massive remaxes at the end of the game without an extra 5 macro hatches or so, you can finally balance Zerg units (perhaps buff them a little) without having to account for the ability of 20-30 Mutas or 10 BLs or whatever showing up at the same time.
Bad early decisions like overmaking or overcommitting with Zerglings would be much more consequential, since you couldn't just make 12 drones behind at once to instantly catch up in economy.
It'd reward good scouting more and punish bad army-making decisions more. You couldn't just throw your army away and remax instantly with the correct counter if you didn't figure out what your opponent was doing, but that same army (if the units were buffed) would be better holding its own and defeating an army it, compositionally, would be expected to counter.
It'd allow Terran and Protoss to actually make tactical decisions in drops since there'd now be both Tech and Production (macro hatch) facilities along with workers to target. Do I want to go after the Spire? Do I want to cut out several hatches worth of production? Think of it as much like a Terran choosing to snipe Robos or depower Gateways before loading up and leaving, or a Zerg player choosing to go after Stargates pylons with their mutas instead of seeking out a researching tech structure or killing workers with a muta flock that flies in).
Finally, no more nonsense about Inject/MULEs/Chrono being better or worse than one another. I know some people love the satisfaction of spending their buildings or queen's energy perfectly, but I'd much rather see that attention demand being shifted into managing smaller armies in several places around the map.
You're also going to have a much easier time getting new players into the game with these changes by making macro easier to learn, which SC2 sorely needs.
|
On August 02 2015 23:07 Redfish wrote:
Getting rid of injects and, hopefully, massive Larva banks, will be an enormously good change for the game, IMO.
Since you wouldn't be able to do those massive remaxes at the end of the game without an extra 5 macro hatches or so, you can finally balance Zerg units (perhaps buff them a little) without having to account for the ability of 20-30 Mutas or 10 BLs or whatever showing up at the same time.
Bad early decisions like overmaking or overcommitting with Zerglings would be much more consequential, since you couldn't just make 12 drones behind at once to instantly catch up in economy.
It'd reward good scouting more and punish bad army-making decisions more. You couldn't just throw your army away and remax instantly with the correct counter if you didn't figure out what your opponent was doing, but that same army (if the units were buffed) would be better holding its own and defeating an army it, compositionally, would be expected to counter.
It'd allow Terran and Protoss to actually make tactical decisions in drops since there'd now be both Tech and Production (macro hatch) facilities along with workers to target. Do I want to go after the Spire? Do I want to cut out several hatches worth of production? Think of it as much like a Terran choosing to snipe Robos or depower Gateways before loading up and leaving, or a Zerg player choosing to go after Stargates pylons with their mutas instead of seeking out a researching tech structure or killing workers with a muta flock that flies in).
Finally, no more nonsense about Inject/MULEs/Chrono being better or worse than one another. I know some people love the satisfaction of spending their buildings or queen's energy perfectly, but I'd much rather see that attention demand being shifted into managing smaller armies in several places around the map.
You're also going to have a much easier time getting new players into the game with these changes by making macro easier to learn, which SC2 sorely needs.
At what level can you just throw your army away with few consequences, you certainly can't do that at any level above masters?
How would it reward good scouting more, good scouting is already greatly rewarded in lotv is it not?
Where's the evidence that this would do anything for getting new players into the game, are you saying what's been holding sc2 down all these years is macro mechanics?
|
Bisutopia19202 Posts
How is there no poll? Did I miss one?
Poll: Remove/nerf chronograph, inject, mule idea?Yes (20) 53% No (18) 47% 38 total votes Your vote: Remove/nerf chronograph, inject, mule idea? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
On August 02 2015 23:18 Matt` wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2015 23:07 Redfish wrote:
Getting rid of injects and, hopefully, massive Larva banks, will be an enormously good change for the game, IMO.
Since you wouldn't be able to do those massive remaxes at the end of the game without an extra 5 macro hatches or so, you can finally balance Zerg units (perhaps buff them a little) without having to account for the ability of 20-30 Mutas or 10 BLs or whatever showing up at the same time.
Bad early decisions like overmaking or overcommitting with Zerglings would be much more consequential, since you couldn't just make 12 drones behind at once to instantly catch up in economy.
It'd reward good scouting more and punish bad army-making decisions more. You couldn't just throw your army away and remax instantly with the correct counter if you didn't figure out what your opponent was doing, but that same army (if the units were buffed) would be better holding its own and defeating an army it, compositionally, would be expected to counter.
It'd allow Terran and Protoss to actually make tactical decisions in drops since there'd now be both Tech and Production (macro hatch) facilities along with workers to target. Do I want to go after the Spire? Do I want to cut out several hatches worth of production? Think of it as much like a Terran choosing to snipe Robos or depower Gateways before loading up and leaving, or a Zerg player choosing to go after Stargates pylons with their mutas instead of seeking out a researching tech structure or killing workers with a muta flock that flies in).
Finally, no more nonsense about Inject/MULEs/Chrono being better or worse than one another. I know some people love the satisfaction of spending their buildings or queen's energy perfectly, but I'd much rather see that attention demand being shifted into managing smaller armies in several places around the map.
You're also going to have a much easier time getting new players into the game with these changes by making macro easier to learn, which SC2 sorely needs.
At what level can you just throw your army away with few consequences, you certainly can't do that at any level above masters? How would it reward good scouting more, good scouting is already greatly rewarded in lotv is it not? Where's the evidence that this would do anything for getting new players into the game, are you saying what's been holding sc2 down all these years is macro mechanics?
1 - What I mean is that, for example, if you max out on Roaches without seeing that your opponent had mass Void Rays and without leaving supply to make yourself Vipers or Hydras, you could send that army off to an opponent's third or fourth and likely do a ton of damage, even though you made a bad choice by maxing on Roaches. Having a huge load of larva banked from injects would mean you could remax right away on Roach/Hydra/Viper, but if production were more linear, you'd probably suffer losing a base before being able to recover from your tactical mistake.
Also, I get the whole "it doesn't work in Masters" argument, but we can't forget that 95%+ of the people who play this game are not Masters and you can't just shit on them because they're not. If we have a chance to balance the game for all levels rather than saying "it works out once you get to Masters" and just leaving it there, it should happen.
2 - If early Zerg units are buffed a little and there are slightly less of them, it'd reward building the correct ones based on good scouting info instead of just simply building a lot of anything, which is what happens now. Good scouting is mostly rewarded in LotV, but the unit imbalances and timings (Liberator, Lurker) are too out of whack right now for it to be a really stable game.
3 - I'm not saying that macro mechanics are what's been holding this game back all this time - please don't put words in my mouth. However, I AM saying that making the game easier to play at a basic level will help attract new players.
I do have personal experience as far as this goes - I tried to get my brother into the game a couple years ago so we could play team games every now and then. We live far away from each other, so it'd be something for us to do together. He wanted to try Terran out, but for a beginning player with 30 APM or so on a good day, keeping his MULEs on schedule while trying to get upgrades and tech at the right time and maintaining worker production and also moving his army around was simply too much. He got stuck in low silver or something, even with coaching, and got frustrated and moved on to an MMO. Now, would he have stayed if he didn't have to MULE? That's impossible to say, but I do know from my conversations with him that the added macro clicks made him feel more like he was playing a needless game of whack-a-mole on the side rather than playing with the units and the armies, which is where the fun was for him.
|
I think it would be better if they redesigned Inject.
Chronoboost and MULE have the advantage that they don't have to hit a timer, you can spam them if you forget. so to redesign Inject
Only takes 5 seconds for larva to spawn
Costs 50 energy
(maybe change to 5 Larva?)
Max Larva/Hatchery when spawn larva has no effect=5-10 (as opposed to 19)
So for maximum larva/sec instead of 2 Queens you build 1 Hatchery
But Queens can 'Store' larva in the form of energy (and act as AA in the meantime) so Queens are good for remaxing, Hatcheries are good for buildup.
|
On August 02 2015 23:49 Redfish wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2015 23:18 Matt` wrote:On August 02 2015 23:07 Redfish wrote:
Getting rid of injects and, hopefully, massive Larva banks, will be an enormously good change for the game, IMO.
Since you wouldn't be able to do those massive remaxes at the end of the game without an extra 5 macro hatches or so, you can finally balance Zerg units (perhaps buff them a little) without having to account for the ability of 20-30 Mutas or 10 BLs or whatever showing up at the same time.
Bad early decisions like overmaking or overcommitting with Zerglings would be much more consequential, since you couldn't just make 12 drones behind at once to instantly catch up in economy.
It'd reward good scouting more and punish bad army-making decisions more. You couldn't just throw your army away and remax instantly with the correct counter if you didn't figure out what your opponent was doing, but that same army (if the units were buffed) would be better holding its own and defeating an army it, compositionally, would be expected to counter.
It'd allow Terran and Protoss to actually make tactical decisions in drops since there'd now be both Tech and Production (macro hatch) facilities along with workers to target. Do I want to go after the Spire? Do I want to cut out several hatches worth of production? Think of it as much like a Terran choosing to snipe Robos or depower Gateways before loading up and leaving, or a Zerg player choosing to go after Stargates pylons with their mutas instead of seeking out a researching tech structure or killing workers with a muta flock that flies in).
Finally, no more nonsense about Inject/MULEs/Chrono being better or worse than one another. I know some people love the satisfaction of spending their buildings or queen's energy perfectly, but I'd much rather see that attention demand being shifted into managing smaller armies in several places around the map.
You're also going to have a much easier time getting new players into the game with these changes by making macro easier to learn, which SC2 sorely needs.
At what level can you just throw your army away with few consequences, you certainly can't do that at any level above masters? How would it reward good scouting more, good scouting is already greatly rewarded in lotv is it not? Where's the evidence that this would do anything for getting new players into the game, are you saying what's been holding sc2 down all these years is macro mechanics? 1 - What I mean is that, for example, if you max out on Roaches without seeing that your opponent had mass Void Rays and without leaving supply to make yourself Vipers or Hydras, you could send that army off to an opponent's third or fourth and likely do a ton of damage, even though you made a bad choice by maxing on Roaches. Having a huge load of larva banked from injects would mean you could remax right away on Roach/Hydra/Viper, but if production were more linear, you'd probably suffer losing a base before being able to recover from your tactical mistake. Also, I get the whole "it doesn't work in Masters" argument, but we can't forget that 95%+ of the people who play this game are not Masters and you can't just shit on them because they're not. If we have a chance to balance the game for all levels rather than saying "it works out once you get to Masters" and just leaving it there, it should happen. 2 - If early Zerg units are buffed a little and there are slightly less of them, it'd reward building the correct ones based on good scouting info instead of just simply building a lot of anything, which is what happens now. Good scouting is mostly rewarded in LotV, but the unit imbalances and timings (Liberator, Lurker) are too out of whack right now for it to be a really stable game. 3 - I'm not saying that macro mechanics are what's been holding this game back all this time - please don't put words in my mouth. However, I AM saying that making the game easier to play at a basic level will help attract new players. I do have personal experience as far as this goes - I tried to get my brother into the game a couple years ago so we could play team games every now and then. We live far away from each other, so it'd be something for us to do together. He wanted to try Terran out, but for a beginning player with 30 APM or so on a good day, keeping his MULEs on schedule while trying to get upgrades and tech at the right time and maintaining worker production and also moving his army around was simply too much. He got stuck in low silver or something, even with coaching, and got frustrated and moved on to an MMO. Now, would he have stayed if he didn't have to MULE? That's impossible to say, but I do know from my conversations with him that the added macro clicks made him feel more like he was playing a needless game of whack-a-mole on the side rather than playing with the units and the armies, which is where the fun was for him.
Anecdotal evidence is pretty meaningless, there's a myriad of reasons new players lose and get frustrated and only attributing this to macro mechanics is disingenuous. The idea that players would stick with sc2 if they were only microing units is based on absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
