|
On August 03 2015 14:45 Parcelleus wrote:
One thing to keep in mind which some seem to have overlooked, is the macro changes are a response to the extra units and actions that LOTV has compared with HOTS.
- They are not proposing that Macro wont matter, a slight nerf to accommodate the extra actions in LOTV. Does this sound so unreasonable ? I dont think so.
- Also, the reliance on chrono and mules decreasing I would welcome.
- As for injects, there has been some good suggestions in this thread how to make it interesting like 2-3 auto larve and queens give 4-5.
I think we should test it out.
For me, and I think for many others in the thread, the problem isn't the total mechanical requirement of the game, which as you say will still be very high in lotv, with or without macro mechanics. What bothers me is that the mechanical requirements would shift from economy to unit control. I'm not saying that a game needs to have super hard economy mechanics to be a good game. but I think many of us, maybe especially people that have played sc1/2 for a long time, are used to and enjoy having macro skills as a huge factor in who wins the game, especially at lower levels. Removing inject, as a reaction to the increased micro requirement, would be a step away from that, which I'd be a bit sad to see.
I feel that it'd move sc2 towards "all the other games" that typically are more about unit control than demanding economy. Again, I don't try to claim that having a hard-to-handle economy is required to make a good game, and it may be less inviting for new players, I am not sure, but it is at the heart of why I have played starcraft 1 and 2 since it was released, and that may very well the case for others as well.
So this is a purely emotional argument from my side, nothing right or wrong, just explaining why I am not personally happy to see this suggestion.
|
Like most people, I disagree with removing macro mechanics, especially injects. They defo should rework MULEs and Chronos though.
|
On August 03 2015 15:55 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 14:45 Parcelleus wrote:
One thing to keep in mind which some seem to have overlooked, is the macro changes are a response to the extra units and actions that LOTV has compared with HOTS.
- They are not proposing that Macro wont matter, a slight nerf to accommodate the extra actions in LOTV. Does this sound so unreasonable ? I dont think so.
- Also, the reliance on chrono and mules decreasing I would welcome.
- As for injects, there has been some good suggestions in this thread how to make it interesting like 2-3 auto larve and queens give 4-5.
I think we should test it out. For me, and I think for many others in the thread, the problem isn't the total mechanical requirement of the game, which as you say will still be very high in lotv, with or without macro mechanics. What bothers me is that the mechanical requirements would shift from economy to unit control. I'm not saying that a game needs to have super hard economy mechanics to be a good game. but I think many of us, maybe especially people that have played sc1/2 for a long time, are used to and enjoy having macro skills as a huge factor in who wins the game, especially at lower levels. Removing inject, as a reaction to the increased micro requirement, would be a step away from that, which I'd be a bit sad to see. I feel that it'd move sc2 towards "all the other games" that typically are more about unit control than demanding economy. Again, I don't try to claim that having a hard-to-handle economy is required to make a good game, and it may be less inviting for new players, I am not sure, but it is at the heart of why I have played starcraft 1 and 2 since it was released, and that may very well the case for others as well. So this is a purely emotional argument from my side, nothing right or wrong, just explaining why I am not personally happy to see this suggestion.
Thanks for posting this and I hope others realized the emotional influence on their stand. It is a hard pill to swallow for those who attained their ladder ranks through hard work on macro mechanics knowing that it will not pay off in LotV. What we see now is very similar to the reaction to the removal of MBS and unlimited unit selection. Any game mechanic can be a skill set that differentiate players, but that does not make it a good enough reason to warrant it's stay.
|
On August 03 2015 15:55 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 14:45 Parcelleus wrote:
One thing to keep in mind which some seem to have overlooked, is the macro changes are a response to the extra units and actions that LOTV has compared with HOTS.
- They are not proposing that Macro wont matter, a slight nerf to accommodate the extra actions in LOTV. Does this sound so unreasonable ? I dont think so.
- Also, the reliance on chrono and mules decreasing I would welcome.
- As for injects, there has been some good suggestions in this thread how to make it interesting like 2-3 auto larve and queens give 4-5.
I think we should test it out. For me, and I think for many others in the thread, the problem isn't the total mechanical requirement of the game, which as you say will still be very high in lotv, with or without macro mechanics. What bothers me is that the mechanical requirements would shift from economy to unit control. I'm not saying that a game needs to have super hard economy mechanics to be a good game. but I think many of us, maybe especially people that have played sc1/2 for a long time, are used to and enjoy having macro skills as a huge factor in who wins the game, especially at lower levels. Removing inject, as a reaction to the increased micro requirement, would be a step away from that, which I'd be a bit sad to see. I feel that it'd move sc2 towards "all the other games" that typically are more about unit control than demanding economy. Again, I don't try to claim that having a hard-to-handle economy is required to make a good game, and it may be less inviting for new players, I am not sure, but it is at the heart of why I have played starcraft 1 and 2 since it was released, and that may very well the case for others as well. So this is a purely emotional argument from my side, nothing right or wrong, just explaining why I am not personally happy to see this suggestion.
Thing is, Blizzard has already made an RTS that's almost entirely focused on unit control, it's called Warcraft. Warcraft 3 was an incredible game, best they've ever done really (along with Brood War) but had mechanics that were super adapted to the micro part of things : heroes, low number of units, splendid spell-casting system, etc. This "philosophy" doesn't fit Starcraft 2 because of how retardedly quick fights are and how little of a difference you can make by actually microing better.
|
On August 03 2015 17:44 playnice wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 15:55 Cascade wrote:On August 03 2015 14:45 Parcelleus wrote:
One thing to keep in mind which some seem to have overlooked, is the macro changes are a response to the extra units and actions that LOTV has compared with HOTS.
- They are not proposing that Macro wont matter, a slight nerf to accommodate the extra actions in LOTV. Does this sound so unreasonable ? I dont think so.
- Also, the reliance on chrono and mules decreasing I would welcome.
- As for injects, there has been some good suggestions in this thread how to make it interesting like 2-3 auto larve and queens give 4-5.
I think we should test it out. For me, and I think for many others in the thread, the problem isn't the total mechanical requirement of the game, which as you say will still be very high in lotv, with or without macro mechanics. What bothers me is that the mechanical requirements would shift from economy to unit control. I'm not saying that a game needs to have super hard economy mechanics to be a good game. but I think many of us, maybe especially people that have played sc1/2 for a long time, are used to and enjoy having macro skills as a huge factor in who wins the game, especially at lower levels. Removing inject, as a reaction to the increased micro requirement, would be a step away from that, which I'd be a bit sad to see. I feel that it'd move sc2 towards "all the other games" that typically are more about unit control than demanding economy. Again, I don't try to claim that having a hard-to-handle economy is required to make a good game, and it may be less inviting for new players, I am not sure, but it is at the heart of why I have played starcraft 1 and 2 since it was released, and that may very well the case for others as well. So this is a purely emotional argument from my side, nothing right or wrong, just explaining why I am not personally happy to see this suggestion. Thanks for posting this and I hope others realized the emotional influence on their stand. It is a hard pill to swallow for those who attained their ladder ranks through hard work on macro mechanics knowing that it will not pay off in LotV. What we see now is very similar to the reaction to the removal of MBS and unlimited unit selection. Any game mechanic can be a skill set that differentiate players, but that does not make it a good enough reason to warrant it's stay.
Well, the difference from MBS and auto rally is that this is a shift of what is difficult, removing MBS and auto rally was removing things that are difficult. Removing MBS and adding auto rally almost certainly made the game easier to get into, while there is no such certainty in shifting macro to micro difficulty.
So yes, my argument was emotional, but that doesn't mean that everyone arguing the same cause are also purely responding emotionally, nor does it mean that arguing the opposite automatically isn't emotional...
So if you read my post as me admitting that removing injects is the logical choice, not sure if you did, you got it wrong. Actually I was arguing that there probably is a group of people, the StarCraft veterans, that possibly will be very sad to see inject go.
|
Nig thanks to Roblin for pointing out how I misunderstood the warpin proposed idea. I think it kinda proves how it is kinda confusing and not elegant imo.
I agree it might be better than the current warpin mechanic, but I'm sure there's big room to improve. 16 second might as well be no warpin allowed really. We'd rather warp them at home and walk there, than have a unit unable to attack and vulnerable for 16 seconds?
|
On August 03 2015 18:19 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 17:44 playnice wrote:On August 03 2015 15:55 Cascade wrote:On August 03 2015 14:45 Parcelleus wrote:
One thing to keep in mind which some seem to have overlooked, is the macro changes are a response to the extra units and actions that LOTV has compared with HOTS.
- They are not proposing that Macro wont matter, a slight nerf to accommodate the extra actions in LOTV. Does this sound so unreasonable ? I dont think so.
- Also, the reliance on chrono and mules decreasing I would welcome.
- As for injects, there has been some good suggestions in this thread how to make it interesting like 2-3 auto larve and queens give 4-5.
I think we should test it out. For me, and I think for many others in the thread, the problem isn't the total mechanical requirement of the game, which as you say will still be very high in lotv, with or without macro mechanics. What bothers me is that the mechanical requirements would shift from economy to unit control. I'm not saying that a game needs to have super hard economy mechanics to be a good game. but I think many of us, maybe especially people that have played sc1/2 for a long time, are used to and enjoy having macro skills as a huge factor in who wins the game, especially at lower levels. Removing inject, as a reaction to the increased micro requirement, would be a step away from that, which I'd be a bit sad to see. I feel that it'd move sc2 towards "all the other games" that typically are more about unit control than demanding economy. Again, I don't try to claim that having a hard-to-handle economy is required to make a good game, and it may be less inviting for new players, I am not sure, but it is at the heart of why I have played starcraft 1 and 2 since it was released, and that may very well the case for others as well. So this is a purely emotional argument from my side, nothing right or wrong, just explaining why I am not personally happy to see this suggestion. Thanks for posting this and I hope others realized the emotional influence on their stand. It is a hard pill to swallow for those who attained their ladder ranks through hard work on macro mechanics knowing that it will not pay off in LotV. What we see now is very similar to the reaction to the removal of MBS and unlimited unit selection. Any game mechanic can be a skill set that differentiate players, but that does not make it a good enough reason to warrant it's stay. Well, the difference from MBS and auto rally is that this is a shift of what is difficult, removing MBS and auto rally was removing things that are difficult. Removing MBS and adding auto rally almost certainly made the game easier to get into, while there is no such certainty in shifting macro to micro difficulty. So yes, my argument was emotional, but that doesn't mean that everyone arguing the same cause are also purely responding emotionally, nor does it mean that arguing the opposite automatically isn't emotional... So if you read my post as me admitting that removing injects is the logical choice, not sure if you did, you got it wrong. Actually I was arguing that there probably is a group of people, the StarCraft veterans, that possibly will be very sad to see inject go.
No, I did not read your post as admitting that removal of injects is the logical choice. I'm appreciating the fact that you highlight the existence of an emotional stake here. I don't assume all argument against the change are responding emotionally nor the opposite, but there are some who are but are not aware of it.
|
On August 03 2015 15:55 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 14:45 Parcelleus wrote:
One thing to keep in mind which some seem to have overlooked, is the macro changes are a response to the extra units and actions that LOTV has compared with HOTS.
- They are not proposing that Macro wont matter, a slight nerf to accommodate the extra actions in LOTV. Does this sound so unreasonable ? I dont think so.
- Also, the reliance on chrono and mules decreasing I would welcome.
- As for injects, there has been some good suggestions in this thread how to make it interesting like 2-3 auto larve and queens give 4-5.
I think we should test it out. For me, and I think for many others in the thread, the problem isn't the total mechanical requirement of the game, which as you say will still be very high in lotv, with or without macro mechanics. What bothers me is that the mechanical requirements would shift from economy to unit control. I'm not saying that a game needs to have super hard economy mechanics to be a good game. but I think many of us, maybe especially people that have played sc1/2 for a long time, are used to and enjoy having macro skills as a huge factor in who wins the game, especially at lower levels. Removing inject, as a reaction to the increased micro requirement, would be a step away from that, which I'd be a bit sad to see. I feel that it'd move sc2 towards "all the other games" that typically are more about unit control than demanding economy. Again, I don't try to claim that having a hard-to-handle economy is required to make a good game, and it may be less inviting for new players, I am not sure, but it is at the heart of why I have played starcraft 1 and 2 since it was released, and that may very well the case for others as well. So this is a purely emotional argument from my side, nothing right or wrong, just explaining why I am not personally happy to see this suggestion.
Im not sure, but from Dayvie's post, he says 'a few clicks' worth, so going by that it would hardly be noticeable but it would be less nevertheless (sorry bout that wording). If thats the case, I dont see it shifting the focus to unit micro very much if at all. At least that would be my hope.
- I agree that macro should be one the main pillars in SC2 gameplay and that we should not mess with it. Having said that, 'a few clicks' sounds ok and worth a try at least in the beta I would say. Only because Dayvie backed up that comment with a reason that might make sense (more apm required for LOTV).
- I also agree that it gets hairy with Zerg and injects. It's a different kettle of fish when comparing it to T and P's mules and chrono. I dont have a solution this minute, its an interesting one.
|
One theme I keep seeing repeated in the pro-macro-removal camp is that Zerg injects are "just mindless clicks", and "boring".
My response to this is that the reward for Zerg players is in the making of it becoming "mindless", i.e. learning a new and unique skill. Committing inject cycles to muscle memory and getting the timer into your brain is really hard at first, but becomes automatic after you practice enough - and feels great when you do it well.
This is comparable in Pool to potting balls becoming "automatic" (at which point positioning of the white ball becomes all that matters), or serving in Squash becoming "mindless" once you've perfected your serve. Potting easy balls in Pool and Snooker still feels damn good, even when you can do it trivially (I can clear off the break, FYI). You perform these tasks the same every time, but they still give you a great feeling because you worked hard to perfect them and not everyone you play has. The reward is in the results, not the doing, specifically.
Secondly, when injects become "mindless", it then allows you to use that time to think strategically. If you are always concentrating on "active decision" clicks (like microing your army), you don't have time to think and form a plan based on what you have seen and initiate a response.
My main objection, is not in the removal of injects, per se, but in the removal of different types of multitasking. I am happy for the game to increase to more heavy multitasking, as long as those tasks to be managed are varied in nature (I don't consider clicking speedbanes on a mineral line and mutas in another one to be different "types" of tasks).
For example, consider a simple model for Zerg that HOTS tasks consists of: Army x 2, Creep, Injects, Units/Buildings. LOTV currently consists of Army x 3, Creep, Injects, Units/Buildings. The new proposal is Army x 4, Creep, Units/Buildings. My issue is that LOTV already increases the multitasking requirement on Army as a task which needs to be prioritised. Removing injects removes one unique facet of the game and race, and replaces it with a clone of a facet we already have in abundance.
And we won't even be able to see the pros using that extra time on their armies because they will perform those actions on multiple areas of the map faster than we can watch them (macro requirements temper what is visible, which is a good thing!)
By all means, remove injects and replace it with another hard-to-master macro skill which is more "visible", but please don't replace some parts of macro with micro when we already have more micro requirements in LOTV; it's a bridge too far for me.
Ultimately, most Zerg players choose the race because it is the "macro" race: this is its unique selling point, and I am sad to see a (however small) shift away from that.
|
To me, making inject automatic seems like a very good change. When I played actively, I developed good routine to inject throughout the game and I feel that most of the commenters in this topic are fond of these habits they have become accustomed to. However, going through 5 bases to spam injects is pretty mindless for a strategy game, especially when you anticipate something interesting to happen. I would rather spend that time poking, scouting and finding ways to get an advantage. Dropping injects might make Zerg a bit more appealing race to master?
|
The two options as I see them or would like to see them:
1)
Nerf Mule/Inject to almost 50% the power level. Thus making it more a decision of, do I build a Queen for extra defense+later creep spread, or do I add an expansion for about the same amount of Larvae and it's an expansion.
Mule would be about the same power level as Supply Drop+Scan, thus really helping low level players, if they need extra information/help with Supply blocking or even if it just fits better in a build, as opposed to just always Muling. Adding on a CC for extra SCV production would also be closer to the income gain of an Orbital Command, thus making any decision in the game much harder.
Chrono already has decision in the spell, though I suppose you could nerf it's power on Upgrades moreso than when producing units/workers.
I think the correct way to nerf them is their strength over their mana cost, since that would keep the skill ceiling higher, while making it harder for players to decide if they want to give their attention to macroing or to microing, thus hopefully creating more playstyles and differentiate players.
2)
Remove all the Macro Boosters, even Inject, if it's automated I don't see why it's even in the game, other than to confuse new players. Another reason would be needed for the Queen to stay at home and have it be a target of harass. Killing Queens would still need to be important. This option really cater to the casual and the spectator side of Starcraft. It would stop Players screwing up their micro, not because they have bad micro, but because they CHOSE to macro up instead. The viewer would then be under the impression that the Player is not as good as thought to be, yadda yadda.
Really don't see one option being much greater than the other, but this is how I ideally would see them split up, instead of auto inject and the not nerfed enough option.
Another area you could make the macro side a little easier, would be to reduce the build time of Supply Depots/Pylons/Overlords. It can be quite frustrating to get supply blocked. Having this in addition to option 2, might be stretching it, but might be a better reason to pick option 1.
|
Oh and when i say remove the macro mechanics I couldnt care less about the viewers. It's about
a) me as a player not liking them conceptually: singleplayeresque with no decision behind because they are way to strong to not use all the time, in particular injects
b) mechanically: tell me of one zerg who in the midst of mutalisk harass and a combat and a runby went like: "gosh I really would like to inject some hatcheries now and park my mutalisk in this corner for a few seconds" but it's actually true. If you have to make the decision to inject or micro the injections are more important.
c) strategically: inject attacks are ruining ZvZ early game because they generate too many units too fast. Mass mulehammers are often instantwins for terrans if they can acquire a certain xth base in the lategame, while for the other races its a big investment and risk to place another base on location. Also the notion to kill all your workers to have a bigger army size while maintaining the income is stupid when the other races dont have free units as workers.
Chronoboost is actually not bad in any way besides fuelling stupid proxy rushes. But even those could be "saved" simply by tuning the build times.
They already did ages ago and for that reason terrible units like carries take ages too build without chronoboost.
Besides what about giving Senties the ability to automatically place forcefields? I mean if you place them wrong you lose or whats next automatically worker build?
B: what else is Zerg doing besides Larva Injects and Creep spread since i dont recall doing alot else what the other races arent already doing besides hoping you dont overdrone....and Zerg units lack abilities so besides positioning and a moving arround it cant be much else.
All does changes are so silly, terrible and desperate.
Mostly the only thing Zerg is doing besides a moving arround the map is Queen and Larva control. They dont have blink, or things like overstimming in fact most zerg units dont even have abilities and every race has positioning so please dont come up with that.
While Mules and Chroneboosts are boring and easyer they are still part of the game. With protoss if you fu-up your chronoboosts, your all-in is maybe delayed for too long and you lose. And all-ins is basically the only thing Protoss can do atm.
Chronoboost is also one of the reasons why every Protoss unit take 15 years to build.
With Mules well making Terrans waste energy with scans instead of Mules in the early and mid game or even the late game if Terran lack Orbital Commands with things like DT's and Burrowed zerglings or something like that at something to the game sure most of the time it's not game breaking. Also removing the mule is a nerf for units like DT's and Banshees not even the fact that hiding your tech is like 500x harder since the whole map is getting scanned 24/7.
It seems to me, they are only care about the clueless viewer who is watching SC2 for the first and last time.
The massive stupid warpin nerf wont change the all-ins they just take a Warp Prisms with them or die trying. Also often you see a Protoss player withdraw or straightup lose if the proxy pylon or Warp Prisms is killed both early too late game ever wondered why? Even if they make defensive warpins faster warpgate units still suck and often not a option or the counter. Also Protoss is already a very defensive race if you nerf offensive warpins it only get worse. Warpgate units suck in small numbers or while outnumbered and you cant warpin when your maxed. Protoss also really sucks at defending multiple bases since they dont have creep highways or things like planetaries and mobilitiy and in most cases you dont want to warp in warpgate units everytime one of your bases is under attack. Since in the late game warpgate units are basically cannon folder while some of the decent units are doing there work.
And can we please just remove the Disruptor it's a terrible designed unit and it always will be.
Besides where are the changes to units like Lurkers it seems to me they are only bussy in nerfing or changing the crap out of Protoss? They are 1 of the reasons protoss players all-in so much since not a single unit counters them. Atleast that is one of the reasons i all-in every zerg if i play Protoss. Which is another part of the problem not single person who is working on the development for this game is even wondering why Protoss is all-in in almost every game in LOTV.
Ah well, we will see what changes are gone make it, atm i refuse too preorder anyway, infact i refuse too play the beta and switched back to the live servers. Good thing i have beta acces without paying for it like alot of people who preordered.
Long post 
Hewrmelien
|
Hmmm... I think Blizz right to look at macro-mechanics. Becuz one of the main problems with SC2 is looking away from army for 2 sec could mean army is dead. However I think it would be good to have some statistics. I'm guessing a pro-player uses 2-5 percent of time and keystrokes on machro-mechanics, however nub-players probably spends way more percent time and keystroke. So this change would favor nub-players Then someone should to evaluate how much impact the mechanics make in a game, both in terms of macro and strategy. I think taking away mules and chrono will mess with early game, but be less of a factor late game.
I guess one here is weighing micro vs. early game strategy and macro. Force vs. Finesse or something like that lol. But in pro-scene I don't think there would be an incredible change in play.
But seriously someone calculate the percent keystroke and time that macro-mechanics use, then we can argue more validly on this point
|
On August 03 2015 16:48 CptMarvel wrote:
Like most people, I disagree with removing macro mechanics, especially injects. They defo should rework MULEs and Chronos though.
Why? Far as I can tell, MULES are better designed than Inject larvae is because they are actually a choice. Larva Inject is something every Zerg always HAS TO DO. MULEs have strategic importance and only really become a no brainer late in games when Terrans can build a lot of Orbitals. If Terrans MULE at the wrong time then they could be without a scan that can lose them the game outright. Zerg has to both inject larva and spread creep constantly over the course of the game just as a basic part of playing their race.
You could remove Larva Inject completely and rebalance Hatchery innate larva production and you won't miss that much from Zerg other than freeing up a ton of APM for them to control armies with.
IMO, if they're going to mess with macro mechanics than mess with all of them not just one.
|
PLZ BLIZZARD cut the mechanics, they are very stressfull and not fun at all, its more fun to play with units and i want to feel free, not click every minute on the mechanic button. The most people here are wrong.
|
People cry for years to remove mules injects and chrono, so many rage posts and hate on TL and finally Blizzard responds and tries to make room for more outstanding micro and decisionmaking .... and people whine again?
I love the warpgate change, 2 sec. warpin defensively is awesome. Offensive warpin is nerfed as it should, now one almost not spotted pylon can't win the game anymore ore not that easily. Curious what they will do to the disruptor.
|
It's kind of weird to see them take a look at all these drastic changes when they really didn't change this kind of stuff in the WoL or HotS beta.
Making the macro mechanics less significant is an interesting idea imo. I don't think they should be removed, just lessened.
I really like all this feedback. I just kind of wish they do another expansion or something and continue supporting Starcraft with the same level of experimentation.
|
Long time TL forums reader here. When I read the community update, I was pleasantly surprised, and actually expected the same overall reaction from the community.
When it comes to discussions about macro mechanics, there seem to be two main thrusts of argument that emphasize different aspects. Let's call them macro mechanics as an APM sink and macro mechanics as a strategic resource.
Macro mechanics as an APM sink
I think Blizzard's reasoning mostly focuses on the first aspect. The idea is that there should be something going on in your bases that requires your attention, thereby challenging your ability to multitask. Our current macro mechanics achieve that purpose, but that does not mean that they are good mechanics. Basically everything that requires attention could fill that role. I'd make semi-hyperbolic comparisons to mechanics that require you to solve a math problem every 30 seconds or all your bases stop mining, but I'm almost convinced you would find people on this forum arguing against its removal, if it was actually part of the game, on the grounds that it's something that distinguishes players.
Basically everything that you extraneously insert into the game requires some skill and distinguishes players. That's almost a tautological argument.
Therefore I think that Blizzard's approach is right: if we want to occupy the players' attention with multiple things (and we do), then it's preferable that these things are fun. As a player, it's more fun to be out there on the map doing things with my units, on all levels of skill. Because that's what you're looking for when playing an RTS. As a viewer, it's more satisfying to see another front unfold or watch better micro, than having pros waste APM on macro mechanics that are not immediately rewarding. And in my view, professional archon mode games have shown that there's lots of room for fun stuff to do if macroing requires less attention.
As an aside, it's kind of disappointing that macro mechanics are suddenly regarded as the lynchpin of macro around here. Is macro really all about clicking a button at the right moment so that you don't waste an opportunity? When it comes down to active unit abilities you all seem to hate that approach. LotV has changed the macro game significantly with the new economy, and the fact that you have to expand much faster is already an aspect that requires additional attention compared to HotS, and it only seems fair to compensate for that.
Macro mechanics as a strategic resource
This is why I'm hesitant to completely support an outright removal of macro mechanics. For Terran and Zerg, their macro mechanics compete in some way with a strategic advantage. Terrans have to divide their energy between Mules and scans. For Zerg, injects compete with creep spread. This is great because it allows interesting decisions and strategy. It also enables enemy interaction with macro mechanics: if you force Terran scans, you have in turn weakened their economy even if you did not accomplish anything else. If you snipe Queens, you've hurt the Zerg's production. These are immediate causative relations that should be apparent to viewers and can be (and in my experience are) easily pointed out by casters. I think it would be to the detriment of the game to see this angle of complexity removed.
On the other hand, most of this can be kept with inject on autocast for Queens, provided the conditions for triggering the autocast are right.
Notice how I didn't mention Chronoboost? Yeah. Some people argued that it has to be used right to hit your timings, but since all Protoss build orders are designed around the availability of CB anyway that's not all that different from other races' build orders. So CB should be reworked in any event. Personally, I'd say that making photon overcharge a Nexus ability with energy cost is a very elegant solution, because not only would it introduce a similar trade off between economic and strategic (in this case defensive) advantages for Protoss, but also allow us to hopefully get rid of the MSC.
Other considerations
Still, there are other reasons to remove macro mechanics. Many people dislike that 200/200 armies are reached too early, and removing macro mechanics would slow that progression down. This also aligns with Blizzard's goal to make LotV more about scrappy low-econ games.
Also, macro mechanics are rather out of whack in the late game. Zerg are stockpiling too many larvae if they have many bases, which makes trading with them very frustrating because they remax so fast. I don't think anyone considers Terran Mule spam a good aspect of the game, and similarly frustrating is their ability to play on 200 army supply in long games.
In conclusion, losing the strategic interplay around macro mechanics would be a detriment to the game. On the other hand, and I know this is a matter of personal preference, SC doesn't need an extraneous mechanically challenging element in its macro. So reducing the impact of our current macro mechanics without removing them is certainly the wrong way to go, as it would only reduce their strategic importance but keep the APM requirement the same.
Instead, I think Blizzard should focus on getting rid of the late game balance problems, and either retool the current macro mechanics to make them more interesting or replace them with something that is. Things like having to hit your injects correctly no matter your situation really can go.
|
On August 05 2015 00:42 Valyrian wrote:
Long time TL forums reader here. When I read the community update, I was pleasantly surprised, and actually expected the same overall reaction from the community.
When it comes to discussions about macro mechanics, there seem to be two main thrusts of argument that emphasize different aspects. Let's call them macro mechanics as an APM sink and macro mechanics as a strategic resource.
Macro mechanics as an APM sink
I think Blizzard's reasoning mostly focuses on the first aspect. The idea is that there should be something going on in your bases that requires your attention, thereby challenging your ability to multitask. Our current macro mechanics achieve that purpose, but that does not mean that they are good mechanics. Basically everything that requires attention could fill that role. I'd make semi-hyperbolic comparisons to mechanics that require you to solve a math problem every 30 seconds or all your bases stop mining, but I'm almost convinced you would find people on this forum arguing against its removal, if it was actually part of the game, on the grounds that it's something that distinguishes players.
Basically everything that you extraneously insert into the game requires some skill and distinguishes players. That's almost a tautological argument.
Therefore I think that Blizzard's approach is right: if we want to occupy the players' attention with multiple things (and we do), then it's preferable that these things are fun. As a player, it's more fun to be out there on the map doing things with my units, on all levels of skill. Because that's what you're looking for when playing an RTS. As a viewer, it's more satisfying to see another front unfold or watch better micro, than having pros waste APM on macro mechanics that are not immediately rewarding. And in my view, professional archon mode games have shown that there's lots of room for fun stuff to do if macroing requires less attention.
As an aside, it's kind of disappointing that macro mechanics are suddenly regarded as the lynchpin of macro around here. Is macro really all about clicking a button at the right moment so that you don't waste an opportunity? When it comes down to active unit abilities you all seem to hate that approach. LotV has changed the macro game significantly with the new economy, and the fact that you have to expand much faster is already an aspect that requires additional attention compared to HotS, and it only seems fair to compensate for that.
Macro mechanics as a strategic resource
This is why I'm hesitant to completely support an outright removal of macro mechanics. For Terran and Zerg, their macro mechanics compete in some way with a strategic advantage. Terrans have to divide their energy between Mules and scans. For Zerg, injects compete with creep spread. This is great because it allows interesting decisions and strategy. It also enables enemy interaction with macro mechanics: if you force Terran scans, you have in turn weakened their economy even if you did not accomplish anything else. If you snipe Queens, you've hurt the Zerg's production. These are immediate causative relations that should be apparent to viewers and can be (and in my experience are) easily pointed out by casters. I think it would be to the detriment of the game to see this angle of complexity removed.
On the other hand, most of this can be kept with inject on autocast for Queens, provided the conditions for triggering the autocast are right.
Notice how I didn't mention Chronoboost? Yeah. Some people argued that it has to be used right to hit your timings, but since all Protoss build orders are designed around the availability of CB anyway that's not all that different from other races' build orders. So CB should be reworked in any event. Personally, I'd say that making photon overcharge a Nexus ability with energy cost is a very elegant solution, because not only would it introduce a similar trade off between economic and strategic (in this case defensive) advantages for Protoss, but also allow us to hopefully get rid of the MSC.
Other considerations
Still, there are other reasons to remove macro mechanics. Many people dislike that 200/200 armies are reached too early, and removing macro mechanics would slow that progression down. This also aligns with Blizzard's goal to make LotV more about scrappy low-econ games.
Also, macro mechanics are rather out of whack in the late game. Zerg are stockpiling too many larvae if they have many bases, which makes trading with them very frustrating because they remax so fast. I don't think anyone considers Terran Mule spam a good aspect of the game, and similarly frustrating is their ability to play on 200 army supply in long games.
In conclusion, losing the strategic interplay around macro mechanics would be a detriment to the game. On the other hand, and I know this is a matter of personal preference, SC doesn't need an extraneous mechanically challenging element in its macro. So reducing the impact of our current macro mechanics without removing them is certainly the wrong way to go, as it would only reduce their strategic importance but keep the APM requirement the same.
Instead, I think Blizzard should focus on getting rid of the late game balance problems, and either retool the current macro mechanics to make them more interesting or replace them with something that is. Things like having to hit your injects correctly no matter your situation really can go.
this is practically a carbon copy of my opinion and what I have been arguing for earlier in this thread, excellent post.
I would just like to note for people that didn't realize it that blizzard is fully aware of the consequences of removing macro mechanics, the update literally says immediately after presenting the options they are thinking about:
"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.
With that said, keep in mind neither of these versions are final, they’re just one of two potential directions we can go in this area."
fair enough, they don't talk about mechanics as player-distinguishing, but as Valyrian says, practically any attention-consuming arbitrary task achieves this. it would be significantly better to have a task more relevant to the rest of the game than "every x seconds you must click a button".
Blizz aren't idiots. But they are also not perfect. They don't have all the answers and they don't pretend to. They know your opinion and they know why you have it, but they also know about other peoples conflicting opinions and they know why they have those too.
honestly when viewing things from more than one perspective at a time it becomes painfully obvious that people with extremely strong opinions have either not actually read the content well enough or are blindsided by the assumption that everyone in the world agrees with their opinion, which is practically never true.
|
Blizzard has just confirmed to the ATVI Shareholders that SC2 is coming out in 2015.
Until today it was "Winter 2015" which is December 21 to March 21.
Thomas Tippl in his speech noted this is a recent change and they will adjust their guidance in 2015 accordingly with this additional new revenue source.
So I guess David Kim is happy with the progress of the beta test... or .. they are running out of resources allocated to this very small ATVI revenue source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
