Why lowering the mechanics is a good thing - Page 4

On August 05 2015 23:40 Gullis wrote:
Making macro mechanics easier (less punishing) would make the game more focused on micro which could be a good thing. I think they should remain in some form but less punishing and be more of a "you did something good here is a reward" type of thing, of course on pro level this will still mean you have to do them.

However, currently, I don't think the unit interactions in the game is solid enough for it to work out as intended. I fear that it will be just turbovacs, mutas and warp prisms flying around sperm jerking apm while you dance back and fourth with your units without any real strategic choices to do, other than I need unit x to counter unit y.
I don't know.. maybe I am rambling but I feel like removing macro mechanics at this point would decrease strategic options, especially in conjunction with the new economy.

On August 05 2015 23:48 Linear wrote:


2 sides to the coin, all of us saying that we dislike this change don't understand how anyone can't see how this is bad for the game. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people in favor of removing the macro mechanics are below a masters level.
I'm yet to have heard a pro player agree with these changes.

On August 05 2015 21:50 Linear wrote:

http://www.esportsearnings.com/games
Look at this link, we're 3rd in tournament earnings the ones above SC2 rely on micro transactions to increase their prizepool.
I would love SC2 to be the biggest and the best, but catering to a perceived casual audience at the detriment of gameplay when we already have a strong community and tournament scene is a moronic direction to take.
Broodwar has had no gameplay input (besides mapmakers) pretty much since it's inception, it's still got a solid viewerbase/playerbase even though it has a direct successor.
+ Show Spoiler +

On August 05 2015 23:53 nTzzzz wrote:


Man, why do you think Blizzard keeps injecting so much money into WCS despite the declining viewercount? Could it be because they want to sustain a strong competitive scene at least until the final installment of SC2 and expect a return on investment through LOTV sales? What do you think happens once they're done selling LOTV copies and viewership stays at an abysmal level? Do you think they'll keep throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the window ad vitam eternam?

Macro boosters do not benefit gameplay, they are is detrimental to it. They add nothing to the game and are so punishing you have to spend most of your attention on them instead of scouting, thinking, adapting and microing. It is making SC2 less strategic, less fun and more mechanical. Right now the game is 90% mechanics and 10% strategy. Now if you want the game to be an APM competition, that's fine but I don't understand why anyone would think that is a good thing.

@ OP: thanks for the solid post.

On August 05 2015 23:42 weikor wrote:
Its always funny to hear the same people.

"Starcraft 2 is awful compared to broodwar, blizzard should really fix this dying game with big changes"
"ROFL Remove macro mechanics is worst idea ever, KEEP THE GAME AS IT IS OR IM OUT."

please, youre just embarrasing.

On August 06 2015 00:08 TokO wrote:
Removing macro mechanics would slow down the game progress and add more strategic depth in terms of how to invest your resources imo. Having such powerful macroboosters makes acquiring them a must and actually lowers your choices.

For every race, it artificially boosts a races capabilities in areas where they are strong, hence, forcing a nerf in the contribution of those strengths coming from units themselves.

For example, Chronoboost makes it take a lot less time to produce a really potent deathball. At the same time, Protoss units are nerfed so that the deathball strength does not become out of hand.

Zerg already has a really strong flexibility in larva selection. Inject amplifies this strength strongly. At the same time, Zerg units are nerfed so that their remax capabilities do not become overpowered.

Same thing with Terran and economic flexibility. In return for being able to enjoy much greater freedom in terms of when to take their expands, and then be able to rapidly mine with mules, they have the least flexibility in production and the most fragile units when their opponents decide to take a defined engagement.

Once Blizzard decide they want to 'mend' the imposed weaknesses of each of the races they do so with really wonky and extreme units such as the SH, WM and Disruptor.

Imo, scale back/remove macroboosters, scale back extreme units such as those mentioned above, buff core units, bigger blinding cloud, storm, stronger siege tanks, stronger immortals, hell, why doesn't Terran have irradiate anymore?

We don't need an adept that makes zealots feel like a slow fatass with toothpicks.

On August 06 2015 00:10 Vanadiel wrote:
Everyone keeps talking about sc2 being a dead game, but yesterday morning I had pro league, this morning I had GSL , tomorrow is starleague, this week until sunday I have IEM. If that's a dead game, then it's fine by me, I have SC2 content almost everyday.

On August 06 2015 00:10 Vanadiel wrote:
Everyone keeps talking about sc2 being a dead game, but yesterday morning I had pro league, this morning I had GSL , tomorrow is starleague, this week until sunday I have IEM. If that's a dead game, then it's fine by me, I have SC2 content almost everyday.

On August 06 2015 00:10 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
You bring up a good point with Zerg - it's partially the reason that two of the biggest massable units have 2 supply. With a bit of stats tinkering and weaker remaxes, 1 supply roach (and 2/3 supply ravager) might just be feasible.

Regarding Irradiate - Zerg has it now!

On August 06 2015 00:29 TokO wrote:


Definitely a lot of bad things went on with Zerg in SC2 from SC1. I think the point I'm trying to make with respect to macro boosters isn't that it's a problem that zerg has good remax. The remax is good, and should be strong. But I don't want to see it be possible because of inject, because inject is simply a context-free energy-based mechanic, which means that the zerg had to do it and that there was no strategic choice in whether not to. What would be much cooler was seeing the difference between a zerg who built a lot of extra hatcheries, gambling on a critical remax, versus the zerg who sustained themselves on a lower hatchery count relying on unit control and casters. Because there would always be the investment choice.