|
On August 10 2015 12:51 TokO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 11:08 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous. I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics.
A lot of people said some situations were like giving basketball teams extra points if their players could jump a certain height, or things along these lines.
|
On August 06 2015 04:04 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2015 04:01 jpg06051992 wrote: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.
I still defend my own sports analogy.
|
On August 10 2015 13:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 12:51 TokO wrote:On August 10 2015 11:08 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous. I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics. A lot of people said some situations were like giving basketball teams extra points if their players could jump a certain height, or things along these lines.
That comparision doesn't make any sense, tho. Starcraft doesn't reward points for good macro, just as jumping higher doesn't get you points in basketball. The addional units you produce are the reward, which tend to be quite helpful at winning a match.
Compared, removing macro mechanics is more like prohibiting basketball players from jumping over a certain hight.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On August 10 2015 23:31 Temeter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 13:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:On August 10 2015 12:51 TokO wrote:On August 10 2015 11:08 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous. I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics. A lot of people said some situations were like giving basketball teams extra points if their players could jump a certain height, or things along these lines. That comparision doesn't make any sense, tho. Starcraft doesn't reward points for good macro, just as jumping higher doesn't get you points in basketball. The addional units you produce are the reward, which tend to be quite helpful at winning a match. Compared, removing macro mechanics is more like prohibiting basketball players from jumping over a certain hight.
Starcraft 2 is a Strategy game. It should be like a chess. It is very easy to move figures, but only a very good player make it look like a sport. We are competing here with our minds!
It's not like a basketball or football at all! Your opponent's mind should be the only thing that makes game hard for you. You should not be stopped from achieving an advantage by some activities which are not against your opponent. Right now it's more like "My skill in playing vs computer is better than your skill playing vs computer".
Current mechanic in sport metaphor: "If you want to castle you king, you must walk 50 meters on your hands before".
|
On August 10 2015 23:58 sh1RoKen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 23:31 Temeter wrote:On August 10 2015 13:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:On August 10 2015 12:51 TokO wrote:On August 10 2015 11:08 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous. I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics. A lot of people said some situations were like giving basketball teams extra points if their players could jump a certain height, or things along these lines. That comparision doesn't make any sense, tho. Starcraft doesn't reward points for good macro, just as jumping higher doesn't get you points in basketball. The addional units you produce are the reward, which tend to be quite helpful at winning a match. Compared, removing macro mechanics is more like prohibiting basketball players from jumping over a certain hight. Starcraft 2 is a Strategy game. It should be like a chess. It is very easy to move figures, but only a very good player make it look like a sport. We are competing here with our minds! It's not like a basketball or football at all! Your opponent's mind should be the only thing that makes game hard for you. You should not be stopped from achieving an advantage by some activities which are not against your opponent. Right now it's more like "My skill in playing vs computer is better than your skill playing vs computer". Current mechanic in sport metaphor: "If you want to castle you king, you must walk 50 meters on your hands before".
I'd argue it's a bit of both. StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, so the faster you can do things, the more of an advantage you have. APM is an important part of the game. That being said, I agree with you that macro mechanics that are there for the sake of APM are ridiculous. How you spend your APM should be more of a strategic choice, not a necessity like it is now.
|
That OP was like the first thing that I've actually gotten excited about in regards to SC2 in a looooooong time.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On August 11 2015 00:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 23:58 sh1RoKen wrote:On August 10 2015 23:31 Temeter wrote:On August 10 2015 13:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:On August 10 2015 12:51 TokO wrote:On August 10 2015 11:08 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous. I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics. A lot of people said some situations were like giving basketball teams extra points if their players could jump a certain height, or things along these lines. That comparision doesn't make any sense, tho. Starcraft doesn't reward points for good macro, just as jumping higher doesn't get you points in basketball. The addional units you produce are the reward, which tend to be quite helpful at winning a match. Compared, removing macro mechanics is more like prohibiting basketball players from jumping over a certain hight. Starcraft 2 is a Strategy game. It should be like a chess. It is very easy to move figures, but only a very good player make it look like a sport. We are competing here with our minds! It's not like a basketball or football at all! Your opponent's mind should be the only thing that makes game hard for you. You should not be stopped from achieving an advantage by some activities which are not against your opponent. Right now it's more like "My skill in playing vs computer is better than your skill playing vs computer". Current mechanic in sport metaphor: "If you want to castle you king, you must walk 50 meters on your hands before". I'd argue it's a bit of both. StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, so the faster you can do things, the more of an advantage you have. APM is an important part of the game. That being said, I agree with you that macro mechanics that are there for the sake of APM are ridiculous. How you spend your APM should be more of a strategic choice, not a necessity like it is now.
You can spend your APM on 1000 different things but macro. You can attack multiple locations. You can outmicro your opponents. You can drop, run-in and attack meanwhile defending from all of these. But these actions are fun to watch!!! These actions are direct actions against your opponent. And who is better at those actions wins the game.
And it would be 10 times more interesting game for everyone if we will not have to spend 60-80% of our AMP on handling our own buildings, production, expanding, macro merchanics and supply.
|
On August 11 2015 00:12 sh1RoKen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 00:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On August 10 2015 23:58 sh1RoKen wrote:On August 10 2015 23:31 Temeter wrote:On August 10 2015 13:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:On August 10 2015 12:51 TokO wrote:On August 10 2015 11:08 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous. I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics. A lot of people said some situations were like giving basketball teams extra points if their players could jump a certain height, or things along these lines. That comparision doesn't make any sense, tho. Starcraft doesn't reward points for good macro, just as jumping higher doesn't get you points in basketball. The addional units you produce are the reward, which tend to be quite helpful at winning a match. Compared, removing macro mechanics is more like prohibiting basketball players from jumping over a certain hight. Starcraft 2 is a Strategy game. It should be like a chess. It is very easy to move figures, but only a very good player make it look like a sport. We are competing here with our minds! It's not like a basketball or football at all! Your opponent's mind should be the only thing that makes game hard for you. You should not be stopped from achieving an advantage by some activities which are not against your opponent. Right now it's more like "My skill in playing vs computer is better than your skill playing vs computer". Current mechanic in sport metaphor: "If you want to castle you king, you must walk 50 meters on your hands before". I'd argue it's a bit of both. StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, so the faster you can do things, the more of an advantage you have. APM is an important part of the game. That being said, I agree with you that macro mechanics that are there for the sake of APM are ridiculous. How you spend your APM should be more of a strategic choice, not a necessity like it is now. You can spend your APM on 1000 different things but macro. You can attack multiple locations. You can outmicro your opponents. You can drop, run-in and attack meanwhile defending from all of these. But these actions are fun to watch!!! These actions are direct actions against your opponent. And who is better at those actions wins the game. And it would be 10 times more interesting game for everyone if we will not have to spend 60-80% of our AMP on handling our own buildings, production, expanding, macro merchanics and supply.
Macro is still crucial. Instead of microing your 5 marines, you can macro, lose the 5, but then you'll have 10 marines which you can attack with. Or you can focus on micro and keep the 5 alive. That's a strategic decision where macro is involved. You can macro different things - do I build 10 marines, or do I tech up and get him with hellions or banshees?
Chrono has some strategic value (what do I chrono, units or upgrades?) but it must always be used, so it can be removed for balance purposes. MULEs have less (save some energy for scan, save more if there's DT's, otherwise, always drop mules), and injects have none at all. You always have to inject and there's no good reason not to.
The reward of high APM is that you can produce more units due to good macro, keep your army alive due to good micro, or do both with really high APM and dominate your opponent. It's a skill that can gradually be learned, but there shouldn't be obstacles in the way with mechanics like inject.
|
On August 10 2015 23:58 sh1RoKen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 23:31 Temeter wrote:On August 10 2015 13:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:On August 10 2015 12:51 TokO wrote:On August 10 2015 11:08 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous. I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics. A lot of people said some situations were like giving basketball teams extra points if their players could jump a certain height, or things along these lines. That comparision doesn't make any sense, tho. Starcraft doesn't reward points for good macro, just as jumping higher doesn't get you points in basketball. The addional units you produce are the reward, which tend to be quite helpful at winning a match. Compared, removing macro mechanics is more like prohibiting basketball players from jumping over a certain hight. Starcraft 2 is a Strategy game. It should be like a chess. It is very easy to move figures, but only a very good player make it look like a sport. We are competing here with our minds! It's not like a basketball or football at all! Your opponent's mind should be the only thing that makes game hard for you. You should not be stopped from achieving an advantage by some activities which are not against your opponent. Right now it's more like "My skill in playing vs computer is better than your skill playing vs computer". Current mechanic in sport metaphor: "If you want to castle you king, you must walk 50 meters on your hands before".
chessboxing!
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On August 11 2015 00:18 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 00:12 sh1RoKen wrote:On August 11 2015 00:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On August 10 2015 23:58 sh1RoKen wrote:On August 10 2015 23:31 Temeter wrote:On August 10 2015 13:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:On August 10 2015 12:51 TokO wrote:On August 10 2015 11:08 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous. I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics. A lot of people said some situations were like giving basketball teams extra points if their players could jump a certain height, or things along these lines. That comparision doesn't make any sense, tho. Starcraft doesn't reward points for good macro, just as jumping higher doesn't get you points in basketball. The addional units you produce are the reward, which tend to be quite helpful at winning a match. Compared, removing macro mechanics is more like prohibiting basketball players from jumping over a certain hight. Starcraft 2 is a Strategy game. It should be like a chess. It is very easy to move figures, but only a very good player make it look like a sport. We are competing here with our minds! It's not like a basketball or football at all! Your opponent's mind should be the only thing that makes game hard for you. You should not be stopped from achieving an advantage by some activities which are not against your opponent. Right now it's more like "My skill in playing vs computer is better than your skill playing vs computer". Current mechanic in sport metaphor: "If you want to castle you king, you must walk 50 meters on your hands before". I'd argue it's a bit of both. StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, so the faster you can do things, the more of an advantage you have. APM is an important part of the game. That being said, I agree with you that macro mechanics that are there for the sake of APM are ridiculous. How you spend your APM should be more of a strategic choice, not a necessity like it is now. You can spend your APM on 1000 different things but macro. You can attack multiple locations. You can outmicro your opponents. You can drop, run-in and attack meanwhile defending from all of these. But these actions are fun to watch!!! These actions are direct actions against your opponent. And who is better at those actions wins the game. And it would be 10 times more interesting game for everyone if we will not have to spend 60-80% of our AMP on handling our own buildings, production, expanding, macro merchanics and supply. Macro is still crucial. Instead of microing your 5 marines, you can macro, lose the 5, but then you'll have 10 marines which you can attack with. Or you can focus on micro and keep the 5 alive. That's a strategic decision where macro is involved. You can macro different things - do I build 10 marines, or do I tech up and get him with hellions or banshees? Chrono has some strategic value (what do I chrono, units or upgrades?) but it must always be used, so it can be removed for balance purposes. MULEs have less (save some energy for scan, save more if there's DT's, otherwise, always drop mules), and injects have none at all. You always have to inject and there's no good reason not to. The reward of high APM is that you can produce more units due to good macro, keep your army alive due to good micro, or do both with really high APM and dominate your opponent. It's a skill that can gradually be learned, but there shouldn't be obstacles in the way with mechanics like inject.
All of that is true. Macro is the ability to take an advantage from doing indirect actions against your opponent.
But it is just not fun to watch and play with this.
Imagine that we have 2 marines and a lurker in a silver league game. You can insane micro your marines and kill the lurker. Instead you can just a+move, lose your marines instantly, build 10 marines behind that, go to the lurker location with them, a+move and kill it instantly.
It is twice less action time, it is boring to watch and it is not fun for a player.
|
On August 11 2015 00:33 sh1RoKen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 00:18 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On August 11 2015 00:12 sh1RoKen wrote:On August 11 2015 00:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On August 10 2015 23:58 sh1RoKen wrote:On August 10 2015 23:31 Temeter wrote:On August 10 2015 13:33 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:On August 10 2015 12:51 TokO wrote:On August 10 2015 11:08 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:
Everyone pretending that macro mechanics are bad because of some strange analogs they create for actual sports clearly hasn't actually played or watched a lot of sports. Almost every single sport requires a very high level of fitness (much like a very high level macro) to even compete at a high level. And people practice basic mechanical skills in isolation (keepy-uppies anyone?) but it works anyway. In fact, good soccer youth programs focus almost entirely on mechanics and forget formations, tactics, etc. for a very long time. If what the OP says is true then that's actually great news but pretending that every other game or sport doesn't require a very high level of mechanics of some sort to improve is ridiculous. I think most sports analogies were made in the defense of macro mechanics. A lot of people said some situations were like giving basketball teams extra points if their players could jump a certain height, or things along these lines. That comparision doesn't make any sense, tho. Starcraft doesn't reward points for good macro, just as jumping higher doesn't get you points in basketball. The addional units you produce are the reward, which tend to be quite helpful at winning a match. Compared, removing macro mechanics is more like prohibiting basketball players from jumping over a certain hight. Starcraft 2 is a Strategy game. It should be like a chess. It is very easy to move figures, but only a very good player make it look like a sport. We are competing here with our minds! It's not like a basketball or football at all! Your opponent's mind should be the only thing that makes game hard for you. You should not be stopped from achieving an advantage by some activities which are not against your opponent. Right now it's more like "My skill in playing vs computer is better than your skill playing vs computer". Current mechanic in sport metaphor: "If you want to castle you king, you must walk 50 meters on your hands before". I'd argue it's a bit of both. StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, so the faster you can do things, the more of an advantage you have. APM is an important part of the game. That being said, I agree with you that macro mechanics that are there for the sake of APM are ridiculous. How you spend your APM should be more of a strategic choice, not a necessity like it is now. You can spend your APM on 1000 different things but macro. You can attack multiple locations. You can outmicro your opponents. You can drop, run-in and attack meanwhile defending from all of these. But these actions are fun to watch!!! These actions are direct actions against your opponent. And who is better at those actions wins the game. And it would be 10 times more interesting game for everyone if we will not have to spend 60-80% of our AMP on handling our own buildings, production, expanding, macro merchanics and supply. Macro is still crucial. Instead of microing your 5 marines, you can macro, lose the 5, but then you'll have 10 marines which you can attack with. Or you can focus on micro and keep the 5 alive. That's a strategic decision where macro is involved. You can macro different things - do I build 10 marines, or do I tech up and get him with hellions or banshees? Chrono has some strategic value (what do I chrono, units or upgrades?) but it must always be used, so it can be removed for balance purposes. MULEs have less (save some energy for scan, save more if there's DT's, otherwise, always drop mules), and injects have none at all. You always have to inject and there's no good reason not to. The reward of high APM is that you can produce more units due to good macro, keep your army alive due to good micro, or do both with really high APM and dominate your opponent. It's a skill that can gradually be learned, but there shouldn't be obstacles in the way with mechanics like inject. All of that is true. Macro is the ability to take an advantage from doing indirect actions against your opponent. But it is just not fun to watch and play with this.
So Starcraft isn't fun? Because that's always been a central element of Starcraft 2, and Broodwar was actually even more macro-heavy.
Challenging macro is a base the game is build upon. And a lot of that macro doesn't evolve decisions. Following an uninterrupted build order, buildings workers or units is purely 'busywork' too. Compare Dawn of War or Grey Goo, where you can actually toggle constant production.
|
So Starcraft isn't fun? Because that's always been a central element of Starcraft 2, and Broodwar was actually even more macro-heavy.
Challenging macro is a base the game is build upon. And a lot of that macro doesn't evolve decisions. Following an uninterrupted build order, buildings workers or units is purely 'busywork' too. Compare Dawn of War or Grey Goo, where you can actually toggle constant production.
Which is actually the reason I don't play those specific games LOL I think Macro is a beautiful thing and I don't think them removing the macro abilities is necessarily a bad thing atleast at this moment in time. We will have to see how it works like DK said at gamescon....
Personally I think we are at a turning point where if we don't test it now we will never know because I don't think they will make a giant test like this like even 2 months from now being so close to release date...
|
The chess thing ... People love to invoke chess, and while there are certainly similarities: positional and material advantages, anticipation, etc, the comparison breaks down pretty hard, and pretty fast.
(1) Chess, you can see the whole board. SC2--for some reason--these hyper-advanced space-traveling races cannot. So, full information (save intention) vs. limited information (save intention).
(2) Chess is a mirror match, always. SC2 is not.
(3) Chess is always played on the same board. SC2 is not, unless you're considering "the game" the same thing as "the board", which I would probably argue against.
And ... for the big one ...
(4) Chess is turn-based. SC is real time.
Really, guys. I'd love to put this comparison to rest. Concepts can be borrowed from both, to enhance contextual understanding, and whatnot, but these are just basic strategy and head-to-head competition concepts. Virtually every contest includes these overlaps.
Moving on ...
Real Time basically means that the faster player has an advantage. There is just no way around this. So, the fact that it is real time very much means that part of the skill and fun and interaction with the game is your ability to interface with the game quickly, accurately, and consistently. If the game were only about strategy, then it would be turn-based.
The game is real-time and strategy.
Moving on ...
The inclination to implement regressive policies. Ugh. I suppose there is some room for this inclination, but it really does irritate me sometimes. For those who may not know: regressives want to return the game to a less sophisticated state, like it was "back in the day". Traditional sports hear this argument from over-the-hill commentators all the time. All the sports balance the advancements in technology with the elements of the game: fairness, spectator value, viability, etc ...
Limiting things like: (1) being able to select multiple units, (2) control-grouping buildings and units, (3) key-bindings, etc ... is absurdly regressive. I sincerely doubt the creators of the games of old: Red Alert, Warcraft 2, Starcraft, etc ... said, "the highest level play will be so much more rewarding if we limit the number of units they can select, and if we deny the ability to key bind buildings and queue units!" I strongly suspect that when these developers were pioneering the mechanics of the game, that is what we ended up with because that's (a) what they were able to think of, and/or (b) what they were technically limited to based on a variety of things. But I'm speculating. Maybe there is an old developer on record about this. Not sure.
Games advanced. Programming became more sophisticated. They all competed with each other. The tech running the games got better. And so the capabilities of in-game management and control also became more sophisticated.
The industry will progress. Period. Embrace it, is my humble suggestion.
|
On August 11 2015 00:48 Pirfiktshon wrote:Show nested quote +So Starcraft isn't fun? Because that's always been a central element of Starcraft 2, and Broodwar was actually even more macro-heavy.
Challenging macro is a base the game is build upon. And a lot of that macro doesn't evolve decisions. Following an uninterrupted build order, buildings workers or units is purely 'busywork' too. Compare Dawn of War or Grey Goo, where you can actually toggle constant production. Which is actually the reason I don't play those specific games LOL I think Macro is a beautiful thing and I don't think them removing the macro abilities is necessarily a bad thing atleast at this moment in time. We will have to see how it works like DK said at gamescon.... Personally I think we are at a turning point where if we don't test it now we will never know because I don't think they will make a giant test like this like even 2 months from now being so close to release date...
I honestly got doubts they can even test enough the remaining 2 to 4 months. This would completely throw over the current balance and how the races work at their core. Zerg are build around larva, terran buildorders around Orbitals, and protoss tech/economy around chronoboost. Might recreate an early WoL situation.
|
It doesn't matter right now... David Kim is gonna cut them in the next patch so we can TEST IT and see ourselves how the game goes without them
I can't wait to try it instead theorycrafting the whole wee about it.
|
On August 11 2015 01:39 Sogetsu wrote:
It doesn't matter right now... David Kim is gonna cut them in the next patch so we can TEST IT and see ourselves how the game goes without them
I can't wait to try it instead theorycrafting the whole wee about it.
I can tell you: If they keep it as it is, then the beta is going to be completely broken. Zerg will be OP like nothing else. 
Can't remove two race's heavy macro booster and then slightly nerf the other. Zerg is build around a scalable economy, so they just drop a bunch of macro hatches. Why can they do that? Because the others have next to no pressure potencial.
|
On August 11 2015 00:58 Temeter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 00:48 Pirfiktshon wrote:So Starcraft isn't fun? Because that's always been a central element of Starcraft 2, and Broodwar was actually even more macro-heavy.
Challenging macro is a base the game is build upon. And a lot of that macro doesn't evolve decisions. Following an uninterrupted build order, buildings workers or units is purely 'busywork' too. Compare Dawn of War or Grey Goo, where you can actually toggle constant production. Which is actually the reason I don't play those specific games LOL I think Macro is a beautiful thing and I don't think them removing the macro abilities is necessarily a bad thing atleast at this moment in time. We will have to see how it works like DK said at gamescon.... Personally I think we are at a turning point where if we don't test it now we will never know because I don't think they will make a giant test like this like even 2 months from now being so close to release date... I honestly got doubts they can even test enough the remaining 2 to 4 months. This would completely throw over the current balance and how the races work at their core. Zerg are build around larva, terran buildorders around Orbitals, and protoss tech/economy around chronoboost. Might recreate an early WoL situation.
Considering their original intent was to create a sort of "SC2.5" with radical changes like 12 workers, new economy, mechanics that destroy existing staples like ravager shot destroying force fields or changing the warp gate mechanic, I think the loss of macro might be right in line with these changes. Obviously there will have to be new balancing accordingly, but it won't be game-breaking.
|
On August 11 2015 01:57 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 00:58 Temeter wrote:On August 11 2015 00:48 Pirfiktshon wrote:So Starcraft isn't fun? Because that's always been a central element of Starcraft 2, and Broodwar was actually even more macro-heavy.
Challenging macro is a base the game is build upon. And a lot of that macro doesn't evolve decisions. Following an uninterrupted build order, buildings workers or units is purely 'busywork' too. Compare Dawn of War or Grey Goo, where you can actually toggle constant production. Which is actually the reason I don't play those specific games LOL I think Macro is a beautiful thing and I don't think them removing the macro abilities is necessarily a bad thing atleast at this moment in time. We will have to see how it works like DK said at gamescon.... Personally I think we are at a turning point where if we don't test it now we will never know because I don't think they will make a giant test like this like even 2 months from now being so close to release date... I honestly got doubts they can even test enough the remaining 2 to 4 months. This would completely throw over the current balance and how the races work at their core. Zerg are build around larva, terran buildorders around Orbitals, and protoss tech/economy around chronoboost. Might recreate an early WoL situation. Considering their original intent was to create a sort of "SC2.5" with radical changes like 12 workers, new economy, mechanics that destroy existing staples like ravager shot destroying force fields or changing the warp gate mechanic, I think the loss of macro might be right in line with these changes. Obviously there will have to be new balancing accordingly, but it won't be game-breaking.
Lets hope so! Even Hots had a bunch of gamebreaking things being abused (think blink era).
|
Considering their original intent was to create a sort of "SC2.5" with radical changes like 12 workers, new economy, mechanics that destroy existing staples like ravager shot destroying force fields or changing the warp gate mechanic, I think the loss of macro might be right in line with these changes. Obviously there will have to be new balancing accordingly, but it won't be game-breaking
Dare I say it I agree with sentinel. I think there is going to be some re-balancing and some changes with units to make it more intense with micro... actually to really think about it I feel like DK is setting this up to be like BW .... don't be surprised if we have 12 unit max in control groups and workers have to be micro managed to mine next!!! LOL
|
it's probably going to be easier to balance without macro mechanics, they were all so different and affected the game in different ways sometimes in the late game, sometimes in the early game... either way I'd be pretty happy if they removed it, might be an incentive to play again
|
|
|
|
|
|
204
107
EPT
