|
On August 01 2015 09:00 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 08:56 GGzerG wrote:
with no macro mechanics StarCraft 2 becomes a lot more like BroodWar in terms of mechanics.
With no macro mechanics for any race, it will also theoretically slow down the pace of the game, which most people are already complaining about. With no macro mechanics it will leave more room open for skill, the engagements / deathballs will be toned down, engagements will take longer as players will be safer, because it takes longer to macro.
With no macro mechanics the hypeness and the climax of each match in starcraft 2 will be more epic, as it will remove the fast paced gimmicky aspect, and introduce straightforward skill. Remember Broodwar had plenty of unnecessary macro APM sinks too, they just weren't added intentionally.
I understand that, I strongly believe though after playing this game since WOL Beta with my experience with over 10k 1v1 ladder games played & GM in HOTS and LOTV, that removing the macro mechanics completely would make this game more like SC1:BW in the sense that the flow of the game would be a little slower, there would be a little more time to execute things because the Macro Mechanics drastically increase the speed / progression of the game, and how fast your bases mine out. With no macro mechanics players have more time not only to execute strategies, build orders, micro / macro, they also have more time in general to do them as the bases would mine out slower, especially for Terran.
Economic macro mechanics aside, it would make Zerg have to manage there larva much more usefully, we would see more builds like 3 hatch Mutalisk in ZvT, and larva Spamming 1 unit to try and win would cease to exist up until the late game potentially.
This would help balance out the game right now as Protoss is struggling extremely vs Zerg at the moment as well, it is a drastic change but it makes a lot more sense than much of the other proposed changes. I for one have been saying removing macro mechanics is a good idea since Wings of Liberty beta, one could argue whether it takes away or adds skill ceiling to the game, needless to say without it I strongly believe StarCraft 2 would be in a much better place.
Things would have to be altered though as auto larva popping would mean Zerg could spread creap proactively much easier, so creep would have to be adjusted as well. Overall, I think this is an amazing change, and it would make StarCraft 2 much more like Broodwar, which in general just isn't a bad idea.
|
On August 01 2015 09:05 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 09:04 Caihead wrote:On August 01 2015 08:54 Ej_ wrote:On August 01 2015 08:48 Caihead wrote:On August 01 2015 08:37 ejozl wrote:
I dno I'm pretty torn. On one hand I love players like Maru, Parting, Life a lot more than Innovation, Rain and SoO, but on the other hand if everyone plays like Maru, Parting and Life are these players then still special? Even if everyone played like Maru, Parting and Life of yesterday, the Maru, Parting, and Life of the future would just play even better than before with more effective APM. Remember how people were saying that Gumiho would be crazy good with boosted medivacs? Then everyone else became Gumiho. Not sure what you are trying to say there, given a choice of watching two Gumihos playing competitively against each other and a choice of watching Gumiho stomping someone with boosted medivacs what would you choose? Gumiho was good at dropping. They made dropping easier and then his skill at dropping became irrelevant. His dropping skill was effectively removed from the game.
Well at the competitive level all that matters is the absolute top percentiles, let's say Gumiho was previously a 90 at dropping and everyone else was at a mere 70. Even if drops were made easier and everyone else could now score a 90 (a 20 increase), if it helped Gumiho out even slightly and boosted his score to a 95, that tiny advantage should mean he always beats out other players in the department. I don't see how it makes his skill irrelevant. And if the argument is simply that Gumiho was only good at dropping and other players were beating him in other departments, and that after dropping became easier Gumiho couldn't improve himself enough in other aspects of the game to be competitive, then one could argue that Gumiho was a one-dimensional player who failed to adapt.
|
On August 01 2015 09:12 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 09:05 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:On August 01 2015 09:04 Caihead wrote:On August 01 2015 08:54 Ej_ wrote:On August 01 2015 08:48 Caihead wrote:On August 01 2015 08:37 ejozl wrote:
I dno I'm pretty torn. On one hand I love players like Maru, Parting, Life a lot more than Innovation, Rain and SoO, but on the other hand if everyone plays like Maru, Parting and Life are these players then still special? Even if everyone played like Maru, Parting and Life of yesterday, the Maru, Parting, and Life of the future would just play even better than before with more effective APM. Remember how people were saying that Gumiho would be crazy good with boosted medivacs? Then everyone else became Gumiho. Not sure what you are trying to say there, given a choice of watching two Gumihos playing competitively against each other and a choice of watching Gumiho stomping someone with boosted medivacs what would you choose? Gumiho was good at dropping. They made dropping easier and then his skill at dropping became irrelevant. His dropping skill was effectively removed from the game. Well at the competitive level all that matters is the absolute top percentiles, let's say Gumiho was previously a 90 at dropping and everyone else was at a mere 70. Even if drops were made easier and everyone else could now score a 90 (a 20 increase), if it helped Gumiho out even slightly and boosted his score to a 95, that tiny advantage should mean he always beats out other players in the department. I don't see how it makes his skill irrelevant. And if the argument is simply that Gumiho was only good at dropping and other players were beating him in other departments, and that after dropping became easier Gumiho couldn't improve himself enough in other aspects of the game to be competitive, then one could argue that Gumiho was a one-dimensional player who failed to adapt.
In your example, being 5% better at dropping is clearly far less of an advantage than being 20% better at dropping. In addition, the medivac boost removed one of the most crucial skills that Gumiho possessed but many others didn't; when to pick up and leave and where to move your medivacs so they didn't die. Sure, maybe Gumiho was playing one-dimensionally, but the fact remains that this skill was essentially removed. When you make things easier, it doesn't raise the skill cap. It lowers it, and players who were previously a lot worse and couldnt' compete then are able to.
|
|
|
I haven't seen any cyclones. Maybe you should watch it?
|
On August 01 2015 09:21 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:I haven't seen any cyclones. Maybe you should watch it?
semifinalls had cyclones... i watched it unlike you
|
Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 08:04 Yiome wrote:On August 01 2015 07:48 Roblin wrote:
regarding warp gate: it may need some tweaks but I think it will definitely be better than what we have now, is it too much? is it not enough? time will tell.
regarding macro mechanics: I know I'm in the minority but I actually like the approach blizz is suggesting, in particular (and I'm saying this as a zerg player) I think inject should definitely be nerfed in terms of larvae output. why? lets do the math:
hatcheries produce 1 larvae per 15 seconds and costs 300 minerals + a drone
queens produce (with optimal play) 4 larvae per 40 seconds (1 larvae per 10 seconds) and costs 150 minerals + 2 supply.
lets say the drone cost and the 2 supply cost even each other out so we just compare the mineral cost : larvae produced ratio.
the smallest common denominator for the larvae production is 30 seconds, in 30 seconds queens produce 3 larvae while hatcheries produce 2 larvae, lets divide these by the costs of the units to get
larvae produced / (minerals spent * 30 seconds)
hatchery = 2 / 300 = 1/150
queen = 3 / 150 = 1/50
i.e. queens are 3 times more efficient at producing larvae than hatcheries, even when ignoring the fact that queens have shorter build times.
these numbers comparatively help hatcheries when reducing the larvae production for queens:
3 larvae: 2.25 / 150 = 1/67
2 larvae: 1.5 / 150 = 1/100
so even at 2 larvae it is still beneficial to produce queens rather than macro-hatcheries, even when ignoring the added utility of queens.
as for whether it should be auto-cast, I can see that being a contested point, but I think it would be worth it to try it out, I know I'm not flawless on my injects and injecting just to not lose literally more than half of my larvae production (literally 60% of potential larvae production comes from queens, 100% of larvae production comes from queens when saving up larvae) has always been the most tedious part of the game in my opinion and it would be interesting to see how much more accessible the game would be if that was more lenient.
I have no opinion regarding MULE and CB.
tl.dr. I think the proposed macromechanic approach can be worth exploring and I think it will probably be significantly less detrimental to strategy/skill ceiling than one might initially think.
time will tell. Thanks for the analysis. As I said I hope they can make injects more of a choice than a must. Do wish they can try this out. Maybe twerk the number a little bit more to strike a good balance on larva injects vs hatchery.
Dude, if the queens are going to start "twerkin" the numbers, I think the zerglings are going to pitch a tent.
|
|
|
For 5 Years the community has complained about the terrible design of Inject, Mules, Chronoboost and Warp-Gate, the way it makes strategy and macro imbalanced and Blizzard finally responds.
The communitys response "noooooooooooooo..... don't get rid of the thing we hate"
|
On August 01 2015 09:36 nottapro wrote:
For 5 Years the community has complained about the terrible design of Inject, Mules, Chronoboost and Warp-Gate, the way it makes strategy and macro imbalanced and Blizzard finally responds.
The communitys response "noooooooooooooo..... don't get rid of the thing we hate"
Ìt's almost as if not everyone shares the same opinion
|
Am I seeing this right ? Zerg makes hatches as usuall,but more queens because since I do not inject I can spreed creep. Less larvae makes more drones more important. Lots of queens who do not cost larvae,lots of creep spread and lots of drones because I will make more queens. Fast creep highways early on ? The terran would have more scans to kill creep... Just brainstorming here haha
|
On August 01 2015 09:19 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote:third time with TvT finalls, clearly T is balanced and Liberator and Cyclone is okay http://www.twitch.tv/redbullesportsUser was temp banned for this post.
Finally.
I watched almost the whole RedBull today and barely saw a Cyclone. Saw the liberators get wrecked a few times by ravagers - seems like a good counter. The games have mostly been great - archon mode is cool. But it is clear that balance needs some work for both T&Z - on the Zerg side I saw Parasitic Bombs destroy about 20 vikings in one go.
|
perhaps one should spread the vikings out
|
The idea that you can't tell what macro mechanics have been used correctly is obnoxious. You can tell when INnoVation has hit his mules and production timings perfectly when he's maxed out while trading by 14:30, and if a zerg overruns a terran off creep quick too. I recently remember a game on Coda in WCS of Polt vs Elazer, where Polt's parade push started and Elazer floated 800 minerals for like 4 in game minutes...why? Because he missed injects during Polt's early harass and it cost him the game. I know Sc2 is an amazing E-sport, and has grown in popularity heavily because of it. But don't take away macro mechanics from the game just so casual viewers can understand everything that's going on at any given point.
|
Man, idk, I'm so torn on this now. Initially reading, as a player I was thinking this is terrible, players need as many ways to differentiate themselves as possible. Doing this to injects would definitely free up a lot of time, but is that going to be too much time considering zerg haven't been having many problems in LotV? As not many have seemed to point out; Terran and Protoss macro will be indisputably harder than Zergs. I think this is the biggest problem with the change. It will definitely be interesting to see where this would go.
On the other hand as a spectator, allowing time for more consistent action is great. If every single game is a fast paced engagement-fest then I think we are on to a winner, and especially if that is more accessible to players.
But like I mentioned previously, this is great for Zerg, but it ultimately is the equivalent of giving Terran or Protoss auto renew on production facilities. It is said that Zerg need this because Mule/Chrono = no effort, but what in the actual fuck are people thinking? When Zerg don't have to inject and suddenly have all the time they need for perfect creep spread and really, REALLY easy late game production. Do you think it's going to be fun for Terran and Protoss to have to play against that when they have to do just as much as they do now. It's a massive multitasking buff for Zerg, and that is what defines a player ultimately. It's a terrible implementation if the same isn't allowed to the other races.
But yeah, I don't think it's a step in the right direction really, feels like an incredibly desperate reach to the casual crowd to reach bigger numbers and the game will pay the price. If it goes through I will be going Zerg and then going GM n_n
|
Think Blizz is (somewhat unsurprisingly) struggling with the difficulty of SC2's macro. On one hand, the hardcore audience seems to advocate a higher skill ceiling, but on the other, hard macro alienates casuals. Tricky one....
Not sure how I feel about the changes to warp ins. In WoL and HotS, I dislike the warp in mechanic intensely, but I'm sympathetic to Protoss players who feel 'core' gateway units are too weak.
|
i wonder how protoss is supposed to allin now. blizzard is essentially limiting our strategic options with the warpgate nerf, whereas all the other races still have a huge array of early game allins at their disposal (zerg even more so with the addition of ovi drops)
|
Nerfing warpgate but not nerfing overlord drop? Zerg can basicly do whatever they want if thats the case ... while we have to make constant unit just to hope to survive a cheese or drop play. Cant even macro in peace because they can drop mass roaches in your main ..,. and cant do anything against them going 4 hatch before pool lol
|
Never thought I would see the day where they would remove chrono, inject and mules. Can't understand why people don't want it removed.
|
warping in near a warpgate is buffed by 150%... warpgates only cost 150 minerals... offense is still possible too
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
