|
On August 06 2015 03:42 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2015 03:41 jpg06051992 wrote:On August 06 2015 03:38 mishimaBeef wrote:On August 06 2015 03:35 Little-Chimp wrote:On August 06 2015 03:32 mishimaBeef wrote:
I want to bring up the analogy of a sports team with few superstars vs a sports team with great team cohesion and strategy. Mechanical skill is like the first team. Deep strategic understanding (with still execution being a factor obviously) is the second team. But we can't have the 2nd team winning championships if the rules are rigged such as anyone who can reach top speed of > 40 km/h during a game automatically gets his team extra points. Sports teams run drills and cardio practices non stop, unless conditioning is at least similar, the team with better "mechanics" will always win. This is a horrible example. Starcraft isn't even a team game god damn. The idea is that the player with god-like mechanics is able to reach top speed of very high during a game (and is rewarded greatly for it). Whereas the other player might have all the correct pieces in place, in terms of their strategy, and their strategic pieces might be superior to the god-like-mechanics player but they can't get those extra reward boosts. Ok I see what your saying, but it's just wrong man, your talking like these players with God like mechanics just have those mechanics compared to the poor foreigners that are making all of the right moves but not fast enough. I'm not trying to be an elitist here man but those players with god like mechanics trained way harder then any foreign player besides Snute maybe to get them that way. Notice how Snute trains non stop in Korea and therefore he is able to at least semi go toe to toe with Koreans? Yea, so do you want to punish people like him that trained hard to get Korean level mechanics so the rest of the crappy foreigners can "have a chance" so to speak? O__o Yeah it's like if they rigged the rules of basketball so if you can jump extra-extra high during a slam dunk you get an extra 5 points. I think Lebron James will suddenly be carrying his team a lot more, but that's okay because he practiced and is skilled in his mechanics right?
Right, except nothing in SC is rigged for anything but the better player to win, frankly man your example is just terrible lol
Even if that was the case, if there was a player that was naturally talented or worked hard enough to use that advantage, should the game be toned down so the lesser players can compete? Or should Lebron James just be better then your average basketball player?
It's like your saying the Koreans are better because they are Koreans and have awesome mechanics and that's just not fair to the poor foreigners who don't train all day everyday to be excellent at the game.
|
I think you guys are missing Sentinel's point (and then making a bunch of analogies irrelevant to the argument). He's never arguing for having worse players be able to beat better players. Instead, what he means is that strategic preparation and decisions should have a greater impact on the game than it has now. The way it is now is that to a great extent, you can be very successful just by having very good mechanics. This is in general caused by context-free energy based macrobooster mechanics, which makes SC2 a game of who can use these mechanics most efficiently. Because you need to employ them, there is no strategic choice involved. Macroboosters marginalises strategy because windows of vulnerability caused by your strategic choice tend to be smaller, the better you employ those mechanics. That's why Triple CC was so prevalent for a long period of time.
In contrast to context-free energy macrobooster mechanics, the choice between expanding your infrastructure, economy or army is always a strategic choice. There is always a tradeoff.
Mechanics will be a differentiating factor regardless, changing or removing macrobooster mechanics won't change that in any way. But this also means that it's not necessary to hold on to macroboosters in order to "save" mechanics.
|
On August 06 2015 04:01 jpg06051992 wrote:
Right, except nothing in SC is rigged for anything but the better player to win, frankly man your example is just terrible lol
Even if that was the case, if there was a player that was naturally talented or worked hard enough to use that advantage, should the game be toned down so the lesser players can compete? Or should Lebron James just be better then your average basketball player?
It's like your saying the Koreans are better because they are Koreans and have awesome mechanics and that's just not fair to the poor foreigners who don't train all day everyday to be excellent at the game.
I'm saying I would rather have players that have strong strategic elements in their game over players with superior mechanics.
I want to watch tennis players who have great shots and know how to tool their opponent around the court, not players who win the point automatically because they reached a g-force level of god-like acceleration during the rally.
|
On August 06 2015 04:01 jpg06051992 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2015 03:42 mishimaBeef wrote:On August 06 2015 03:41 jpg06051992 wrote:On August 06 2015 03:38 mishimaBeef wrote:On August 06 2015 03:35 Little-Chimp wrote:On August 06 2015 03:32 mishimaBeef wrote:
I want to bring up the analogy of a sports team with few superstars vs a sports team with great team cohesion and strategy. Mechanical skill is like the first team. Deep strategic understanding (with still execution being a factor obviously) is the second team. But we can't have the 2nd team winning championships if the rules are rigged such as anyone who can reach top speed of > 40 km/h during a game automatically gets his team extra points. Sports teams run drills and cardio practices non stop, unless conditioning is at least similar, the team with better "mechanics" will always win. This is a horrible example. Starcraft isn't even a team game god damn. The idea is that the player with god-like mechanics is able to reach top speed of very high during a game (and is rewarded greatly for it). Whereas the other player might have all the correct pieces in place, in terms of their strategy, and their strategic pieces might be superior to the god-like-mechanics player but they can't get those extra reward boosts. Ok I see what your saying, but it's just wrong man, your talking like these players with God like mechanics just have those mechanics compared to the poor foreigners that are making all of the right moves but not fast enough. I'm not trying to be an elitist here man but those players with god like mechanics trained way harder then any foreign player besides Snute maybe to get them that way. Notice how Snute trains non stop in Korea and therefore he is able to at least semi go toe to toe with Koreans? Yea, so do you want to punish people like him that trained hard to get Korean level mechanics so the rest of the crappy foreigners can "have a chance" so to speak? O__o Yeah it's like if they rigged the rules of basketball so if you can jump extra-extra high during a slam dunk you get an extra 5 points. I think Lebron James will suddenly be carrying his team a lot more, but that's okay because he practiced and is skilled in his mechanics right? Right, except nothing in SC is rigged for anything but the better player to win, frankly man your example is just terrible lol Even if that was the case, if there was a player that was naturally talented or worked hard enough to use that advantage, should the game be toned down so the lesser players can compete? Or should Lebron James just be better then your average basketball player? It's like your saying the Koreans are better because they are Koreans and have awesome mechanics and that's just not fair to the poor foreigners who don't train all day everyday to be excellent at the game.
It would actually be like increasing each dimension of the court by 2. So twice as long from end to end, baskets are twice as high off the ground, etc. It would be a different game and disadvantage the players who are more reliant on height/layups, while advantaging the players who shoot from farther away since they're used to the distance and now the basket is bigger. It doesn't mean your average joe is being coddled, it's testing different aspects of your play at the expense of others.
|
On August 06 2015 04:03 TokO wrote:
I think you guys are missing Sentinel's point (and then making a bunch of analogies irrelevant to the argument). He's never arguing for having worse players be able to beat better players. Instead, what he means is that strategic preparation and decisions should have a greater impact on the game than it has now. The way it is now is that to a great extent, you can be very successful just by having very good mechanics. This is in general caused by context-free energy based macrobooster mechanics, which makes SC2 a game of who can use these mechanics most efficiently. Because you need to employ them, there is no strategic choice involved. Macroboosters marginalises strategy because windows of vulnerability caused by your strategic choice tend to be smaller, the better you employ those mechanics. That's why Triple CC was so prevalent for a long period of time.
In contrast to context-free energy macrobooster mechanics, the choice between expanding your infrastructure, economy or army is always a strategic choice. There is always a tradeoff.
Mechanics will be a differentiating factor regardless, changing or removing macrobooster mechanics won't change that in any way. But this also means that it's not necessary to hold on to macroboosters in order to "save" mechanics.
If what you were saying is true in any way shape or form, then Jaedong would be a Code S level player because of his godly mechanics.
Strategic decisions have a massive impact on the outcome because the macro boosters marginalize who truly has better macro then the other guy, thats why macro in BW was a total 50% of the skill set because it was so difficult compared to the strategy which was extremely well mapped out and usually the better mechanics almost always won.
Notice how JD isn't an S class Korean? Because mechanics already play a way diminished role in SC2 compared to BW and strategy IS paramount.
Yes, I do agree that the macro boosters in the game are kind of a needless APM sink that could be better spent on micro as I previously stated.
I completely understand what you are saying and none of my analogies are irrelevant to the argument at all, if anything the other dudes is or he's just failing to convey his idea in the same manner you did.
|
On August 06 2015 04:03 TokO wrote:
I think you guys are missing Sentinel's point (and then making a bunch of analogies irrelevant to the argument). He's never arguing for having worse players be able to beat better players. Instead, what he means is that strategic preparation and decisions should have a greater impact on the game than it has now. The way it is now is that to a great extent, you can be very successful just by having very good mechanics. This is in general caused by context-free energy based macrobooster mechanics, which makes SC2 a game of who can use these mechanics most efficiently. Because you need to employ them, there is no strategic choice involved. Macroboosters marginalises strategy because windows of vulnerability caused by your strategic choice tend to be smaller, the better you employ those mechanics. That's why Triple CC was so prevalent for a long period of time.
In contrast to context-free energy macrobooster mechanics, the choice between expanding your infrastructure, economy or army is always a strategic choice. There is always a tradeoff.
Mechanics will be a differentiating factor regardless, changing or removing macrobooster mechanics won't change that in any way. But this also means that it's not necessary to hold on to macroboosters in order to "save" mechanics.
That's exactly what I mean.
And to expand on my last addendum, you'd still see either a high code-S-like caliber of play, but it'll prioritize the players who aren't reliant on mechanics alone, but also playing based on what (they think) the opponent isn't used to. The sOs's, the TRUE's, the MC's of Code S.
|
On August 06 2015 04:07 jpg06051992 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 06 2015 04:03 TokO wrote:
I think you guys are missing Sentinel's point (and then making a bunch of analogies irrelevant to the argument). He's never arguing for having worse players be able to beat better players. Instead, what he means is that strategic preparation and decisions should have a greater impact on the game than it has now. The way it is now is that to a great extent, you can be very successful just by having very good mechanics. This is in general caused by context-free energy based macrobooster mechanics, which makes SC2 a game of who can use these mechanics most efficiently. Because you need to employ them, there is no strategic choice involved. Macroboosters marginalises strategy because windows of vulnerability caused by your strategic choice tend to be smaller, the better you employ those mechanics. That's why Triple CC was so prevalent for a long period of time.
In contrast to context-free energy macrobooster mechanics, the choice between expanding your infrastructure, economy or army is always a strategic choice. There is always a tradeoff.
Mechanics will be a differentiating factor regardless, changing or removing macrobooster mechanics won't change that in any way. But this also means that it's not necessary to hold on to macroboosters in order to "save" mechanics. If what you were saying is true in any way shape or form, then Jaedong would be a Code S level player because of his godly mechanics. Strategic decisions have a massive impact on the outcome because the macro boosters marginalize who truly has better macro then the other guy, thats why macro in BW was a total 50% of the skill set because it was so difficult compared to the strategy which was extremely well mapped out and usually the better mechanics almost always won. Notice how JD isn't an S class Korean? Because mechanics already play a way diminished role in SC2 compared to BW and strategy IS paramount. Yes, I do agree that the macro boosters in the game are kind of a needless APM sink that could be better spent on micro as I previously stated. I completely understand what you are saying and none of my analogies are irrelevant to the argument at all, if anything the other dudes is or he's just failing to convey his idea in the same manner you did.
Yes, there is a reason why I said that macroboosters were marginalising strategy. I never said that mechanics were the only factor in determining who was the better player. I haven't followed Jaedong closely, but I don't tend to see or hear about his mechanics being very godly in SC2.
Also, yes BW skill was determined by a larger proportion of mechanics, but that doesn't mean macroboosters are a good idea. I'm only arguing that macroboosters are unnecessary.
|
Yes, there is a reason why I said that macroboosters were marginalising strategy. I never said that mechanics were the only factor in determining who was the better player. I haven't followed Jaedong closely, but I don't tend to see or hear about his mechanics being very godly in SC2.
Also, yes BW skill was determined by a larger proportion of mechanics, but that doesn't mean macroboosters are a good idea. I'm only arguing that macroboosters are unnecessary.
Believe it or not I completely agree that macroboosters are unnecessary but I feel like there should be something in its place not necessarily macro boosters but something that adds difficulty that helps define the mechanically sound + strategically powerful players... for instance Polt is crazy good strategists arguably one of the best but his mechanics are lacking I don't think he should be GSL Code S Champion 3 years running because he is an amazing strategist...
So all in all I think the game should have a healthy balance of the two and not specifically skewed in one direction or the other so the more balanced the game is of the two the better of a game it will be though I would like to see that skill ceiling higher than it is currently so there is definitive difference between players... or let's say more so than now
|
^ I like both of your posts and perhaps I misunderstood a tad, for the record Sentinel came off alot better, I apologize for the uh, aggression.
I'm just passionate about the skill cap of this game remaining high, compared to MOBAS this is really the last game on Earth that is 100% skill based in a high skill cap design <3
|
On August 06 2015 04:45 Pirfiktshon wrote:
Believe it or not I completely agree that macroboosters are unnecessary but I feel like there should be something in its place not necessarily macro boosters but something that adds difficulty that helps define the mechanically sound + strategically powerful players... for instance Polt is crazy good strategists arguably one of the best but his mechanics are lacking I don't think he should be GSL Code S Champion 3 years running because he is an amazing strategist...
So all in all I think the game should have a healthy balance of the two and not specifically skewed in one direction or the other so the more balanced the game is of the two the better of a game it will be though I would like to see that skill ceiling higher than it is currently so there is definitive difference between players... or let's say more so than now
Yes!
Different kind of macro and more micro-positional play.
Maybe simply encourage more base play. All those DH economy models etc...
Then there will be more bases to manage and defend.
In the other thread stuchiu argues that those macro boosters, especially Larva Inject is crucial to the game rythm. However, we don't really know what would happen if it was removed - or better - replaced with something else. That's is theorycrafting... this one - there are actual games behind this. I like it!
|
On August 06 2015 04:45 Pirfiktshon wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yes, there is a reason why I said that macroboosters were marginalising strategy. I never said that mechanics were the only factor in determining who was the better player. I haven't followed Jaedong closely, but I don't tend to see or hear about his mechanics being very godly in SC2.
Also, yes BW skill was determined by a larger proportion of mechanics, but that doesn't mean macroboosters are a good idea. I'm only arguing that macroboosters are unnecessary. Believe it or not I completely agree that macroboosters are unnecessary but I feel like there should be something in its place not necessarily macro boosters but something that adds difficulty that helps define the mechanically sound + strategically powerful players... for instance Polt is crazy good strategists arguably one of the best but his mechanics are lacking I don't think he should be GSL Code S Champion 3 years running because he is an amazing strategist... So all in all I think the game should have a healthy balance of the two and not specifically skewed in one direction or the other so the more balanced the game is of the two the better of a game it will be though I would like to see that skill ceiling higher than it is currently so there is definitive difference between players... or let's say more so than now
I think everyone can agree on this. But I think instead of a context-free energy based ability, a better solution would be making strategic options more severe and dynamic. The mechanics should come from utilizing your bundle of investments to its limit and be able to prevail over your opponents, even though on paper your opponents composition might be on paper stronger strategically. In other words, mechanics should be embedded in the elements that costs resources. Obviously the investment in an orbital and a queen costs resources, but when the advantages severely outweighs the costs, it ceases to be a strategic choice and ends up being a necessity. [EDIT: Obviously what I'm describing is very BW-esque, but I think that this is a feature of BW that we can argue for strongly without being totally in the "I want BW 2.0" camp.]
OP in this thread already laid out a lot of good developments that would come from not having macroboosters, many of which would increase mechanical difficulty. For example, more expanding would mean more points of defense and attacks and hence more multitasking. There's a million ways to substitute macroboosters that would make the game better, but we already know that Blizzard would have a hard time accepting most of them.
|
On August 06 2015 04:54 jpg06051992 wrote:
^ I like both of your posts and perhaps I misunderstood a tad, for the record Sentinel came off alot better, I apologize for the uh, aggression.
I'm just passionate about the skill cap of this game remaining high, compared to MOBAS this is really the last game on Earth that is 100% skill based in a high skill cap design <3
Oh yeah I totally agree with you there. That's why I'm still here after all these years.
I'm going to try out that mod when I have the time. What I'm really excited to try is PvP, since without the chrono'd warpgate, I feel like it'll be easier to have all kinds of tech paths like the OP suggests. Since 4 gate is delayed there's a lot more emphasis on expanding vs. robo vs. stargate vs. twilight builds, which makes for more interesting games in that matchup IMO.
|
Thanks for your post.
After reading it, I have changed my mind, now I think that a complete removal of macro boosters should be tested during the beta as Blizzard suggests. It seems that straight build order wins will be nerfed, and this is good for the game.
|
Wait, so what is the MOD? How can I play it? Still no idea about it lol.
If not I will play customs without using Macro Mechs, but I prefer to try the MOD overall and see if they changd something
|
Hey, game gets better when you cut the worst 10-20% and improve the best 10-20%. Macro mechanics are definitely in the worse group 
|
This is a really well put together post and takes a look at how the changes would actively change the game opposed to having a knee jerk reaction to things that many players have left untested.
I'm personally really excited to see what the pros will do with that APM now that they don't need to concentrate on tedious tasks. I'm not convinced auto inject is the way to go, I personally would rather the hatcheries just spit out a bit more larvae and have queens concentrate on creep spread and AA, but its a good start to take out some of these mechanics which only exist to make the game mechanically more cumbersome.
Thats not to say that the game being complicated is a bad thing, but the current mechanics are visually really poor to a spectator and not exciting to play either. A complete remax as Zerg is impressive to me because it tells me the player has been hitting injects all game, but until that single moment, the task is completely invisible and not adding anything, I would much rather see someone harassing mutliple bases at once with that APM than injecting back at base. Can't wait to see what the pros do without having to worry about the boring mechanics, especially with LOTV rewarding more expansions.
|
These aren't macro crutches, they are macro boosters.
And there is more to macro than isolated mule/chrono/inject.
|
On August 06 2015 05:10 TokO wrote:
OP in this thread already laid out a lot of good developments that would come from not having macroboosters, many of which would increase mechanical difficulty. For example, more expanding would mean more points of defense and attacks and hence more multitasking. There's a million ways to substitute macroboosters that would make the game better, but we already know that Blizzard would have a hard time accepting most of them.
Removing macroboosters alone will not cause more expanding, because of the practical worker cap. One of the community economy models would have to be used.
|
I'm all for nerfing macro mechanics. Larva inject should yield a maximum of 2 larva. Maximum larva for a hatchery should be 5 or 4. The game would be better for it.
But there's no reason to remove the current mechanical intensity of macro mechanics. I think macro mechanics would remain mechanically relevant even with 1 or 2 larva per inject. In fact, they'd probably be even more relevant in the lategame than they currently are in SC2.
|
On August 06 2015 15:07 BrokenSegment wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2015 05:10 TokO wrote:
OP in this thread already laid out a lot of good developments that would come from not having macroboosters, many of which would increase mechanical difficulty. For example, more expanding would mean more points of defense and attacks and hence more multitasking. There's a million ways to substitute macroboosters that would make the game better, but we already know that Blizzard would have a hard time accepting most of them. Removing macroboosters alone will not cause more expanding, because of the practical worker cap. One of the community economy models would have to be used.
Yeah, it was a weak example from me, but it's still conceivable that if you couldn't crank out an army fast enough on 3 bases you might want to keep ramping up your economy beyond 3 bases and beyond 70'ish workers. E.g. it's obviously less income for terran without mules, slower unit production for protoss. If zerg needs to add hatcheries they might as well expand with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
