| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Schakal111
20 Posts
On August 05 2015 23:15 BisuDagger wrote: There is no MBS and automining in BW. Therefore there are still things to macro constantly. It's a tradeoff so your argument doesn't stick. ya ur right i think about it after my last post... anyway i dont like the macro mechanics and sc2 is still hard to master without chrono, larva etc. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
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. Just cause the game is around now doesn't mean it will be around later. If this game doesn't have a large base then wcs support will slowly disappear, and big tournaments like dreamhack, iem, and gsl will follow. Because why spend money and time on a game with a small base, that's shrinking over time, when there are alternatives with currently humongous presence and a bright future in terms of growth. Of course I enjoy the moment, but with current outlook we can't say with certainty that gsl or wcs will be around in 2017 | ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
On August 06 2015 00:12 mishimaBeef wrote: Yeah it's great but even Code S games still have strategic blunders... hmm players must be spending much more time practicing mechanics and not so much refining dynamic strategy and decision making... Yes, and that is part of what makes Starcraft such an amazing game, the way that very high level player like classic, Innovation or Dark are better in this game because no matter how much they face build that tried to disrupt their macro they still keep it perfect is amazing. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
And this is Code S... losing games from strategic blunders! Even if the mechanics were easier, they'd be losing for the same reason! | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19276 Posts
On August 06 2015 00:41 Schakal111 wrote: ya ur right i think about it after my last post... anyway i dont like the macro mechanics and sc2 is still hard to master without chrono, larva etc. Just so you know, I actually had your exact thought. I was trying to walk through BW comparisons to see if I could talk myself out of my defense in keeping the abilities. I ultimately don't care if they are removed as long as there are still clear cut macro mechanics that can define a player. So that may mean something new has to be introduced. Mid-Late game macro and unit+upgrade+ability+expansion selection are really important things that a player who is amazing at this should have an edge on their opponent. | ||
|
sh1RoKen
Russian Federation93 Posts
On August 06 2015 00:35 StasisField wrote: If this were even remotely true, CoD would be the biggest Esport in the world. It's not as simple as "easier game = more $$$ and viewers" and it never has been. Quit trying simplify the problem by simplifying the answer. The problem is a big mixture of a lot of things, like not being free to play and being part of a genre that isn't trending at the moment to name a couple. It is not a simple issue. If it was, Blizzard would have made the simple fix by now. CoD is not a competitive game. It has never been positioned as a Cybersport. Of cause it is not so simple. We are talking about equal quality AAA products which are designed to create a competitive cybersport scene. | ||
|
nottapro
202 Posts
That being said, there's only so much repetition I can take; If I could make the game less imbalanced and tedious by removing chrono, mules and inject, id vote for that. If I could make it so I didn't have to mindlessly shift click every single building to a hotkey, id vote for that. If I could make the first three camera positions start at the bases, id vote for that. I don't think changing any of these things makes the game less impressive. I've never watched or played a single game where I was impressed by the inject mechanic ending the game early because the tech switches are impossible to match, or that mules won a game with an unfair advantage, or that clicking the same cybercore 5 times in a row just to get warp-gate came across as good design. Never been in awe that a pro player bound a building to a hotkey, never been excited when the same camera position was set up at the same spot at the beginning of every single game. Literally zero games were this was impressive to me, but hundreds of games were this felt like a chore and painfully redundant. I don't know what is so great about doing tedious crap over and over, why the game has to be as redundant as possible or people consider it "dumbed down." I think the opposite, I think these things the way they are now make the game really dumb, changing them would make it smarter. | ||
|
Alves
United States9 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9404 Posts
They can practice what they saw from professional games with the aid of other person Can they? I think alot of new players do not neccesarily know any other peple who play the game, but just want to try it out by them selves. Like if it was mandatory to due que in League of Legends (soloq que didn't exist) I am sure that game would also be a ton less succesful. And from my experience, playing archon mode with strangers isn't a good experience. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On August 06 2015 06:00 Hider wrote: Can they? I think alot of new players do not neccesarily know any other peple who play the game, but just want to try it out by them selves. Like if it was mandatory to due que in League of Legends (soloq que didn't exist) I am sure that game would also be a ton less succesful. And from my experience, playing archon mode with strangers isn't a good experience. I don't know, I feel like a lot of people get into these games by word of mouth or because their friend(s) play it. Like LoL isn't really that fun when you aren't playing with any friends either. It's still a great game, but a lot is stripped from the experience. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
I do not understand why people feel the game is more "challenging" competitively with macro mechanics. I don't really call that a "challenge", it's just emulating the feeling of the bad bad UI/interface/hotkey controls that BW had. Except it's a weird mechanic, because this is INTENTIONALLY making the game repetitive and redundant just to keep up... The design does not make sense and I'm shocked so many people support this???.... In my honest opinion it was a bad idea to add these macro mechanics in the first place. It's a step back to try to emulate bad controls, and any mechanics in a competitive game should be competitive mechanics against the other player. These macro mechanics are playing against the GAME, rather than playing against your OPPONENT. A fatal flaw in the game design of a game that's supposedly designed for the competitive level. Your opponent will usually have no idea how your doing on your macro mechanics, and can't effectively use these mechanics against their opponent. They do not encourage competitiveness at all, and therefore I do not believe they fit in competitive game design. The game will still be just as difficult for pro players, instead of using their APM on macro it will be used elsewhere, and the APM will be COMPETITIVE vs the OPPONENT, rather than wasted APM competing vs the CPU. | ||
|
Superbanana
2369 Posts
We should stop discussing those changes as if the macro mechanics are the same thing for the 3 races. Injects: Some people think too much larvae is the problem, while others think its the requirement to click the inject button (or none, or both). 2 very distict issues that must be adressed in a different way. I think the extra larvae is what deffines zerg, tech switches and massive numbers. Zerg will have to be reworked completely. Im against reducing larvae production. However, Im ok with automated inject (though i prefer the way it is). I personally like the APM and attention required to inject larvae and spread creep, but i can see how its an issue for newcomers. Chrono: This opens a world of possibility for protoss. Boost economy, tech or production. I think protoss will be more stuck in the same builds after the game is figured out a bit, if chrono is removed or nerfed. Bad chrono usage (or lack of) is also not as punishing as bad creep spread or missed injects (at least mid-late game). I think chrono should remain untouched. Mule: Removing mules implies some really hard work to balance terran, since its not only a nerf but also a change in the mineral/gas ratio. If we also want bio to remain viable some changes to bunker build times won't do. An efficiency reduction will have the same effect but of course to a lesser extent. I think auto cast on mules (with the option to toggle on/off) is a better idea. The cons of the macro mechanics cannot justify reworking and rebalancing each race completely, and that would be required if the mechanics are simply removed.. Changes to macro mechanics shoudn't be too impactful unless we want another game instead of a sequel. Even if the current macro mechanics are bad, removing them is not a solution as things might get worse instead. But the nerfs proposed by blizzard are reasonable enough to be tested imo. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On August 06 2015 07:03 Superbanana wrote: There are 3 distinct changes proposed: removing/changing injects, removing/changing mules, removing/changing chrono. Each change has different pros and cons. Each change will affect the respective race in a different way. We should stop discussing those changes as if the macro mechanics are the same thing for the 3 races. Injects: Some people think too much larvae is the problem, while others think its the requirement to click the inject button (or none, or both). 2 very distict issues that must be adressed in a different way. I think the extra larvae is what deffines zerg, tech switches and massive numbers. Zerg will have to be reworked completely. Im against reducing larvae production. However, Im ok with automated inject (though i prefer the way it is). I personally like the APM and attention required to inject larvae and spread creep, but i can see how its an issue for newcomers. Chrono: This opens a world of possibility for protoss. Boost economy, tech or production. I think protoss will be more stuck in the same builds after the game is figured out a bit, if chrono is removed or nerfed. Bad chrono usage (or lack of) is also not as punishing as bad creep spread or missed injects (at least mid-late game). I think chrono should remain untouched. Mule: Removing mules implies some really hard work to balance terran, since its not only a nerf but also a change in the mineral/gas ratio. If we also want bio to remain viable some changes to bunker build times won't do. An efficiency reduction will have the same effect but of course to a lesser extent. I think auto cast on mules (with the option to toggle on/off) is a better idea. The cons of the macro mechanics cannot justify reworking and rebalancing each race completely, and that would be required if the mechanics are simply removed.. Changes to macro mechanics shoudn't be too impactful unless we want another game instead of a sequel. Even if the current macro mechanics are bad, removing them is not a solution as things might get worse instead. But the nerfs proposed by blizzard are reasonable enough to be tested imo. As a Zerg player, I believe spreading creep should stay in game. But injects? For reasons I explained above, I do not believe they are a good thing for the game design of SC. Artificially making the game harder with "vs CPU" elements, rather than "vs Player" elements, is silly. If we really need any mechanics to keep the game "hard" after removing them (which I highly doubt...), then replace those mechanics with something competitive, that leads to mind games or strategic decisions that can be exploited. Not some repetitive action you have to do against the CPU that can not be exploited (or even monitored/scouted really) by the opponent in some form... The only mechanic I think that adds some real positive decision making to the strategic gameplay is Protoss. But even that can not be exploited, it is merely something Protoss needs to do in order to succeed right now. Gives them a lot of options though, which is positive. More positive than the other races mechanics, at least. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
Artificial macro boosters have no place cluttering the already high demand of pristine macro in addition to the many other aspects required of high level play. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On August 06 2015 07:09 mishimaBeef wrote: I want them cut. Not only is it additional clicks but it clutters a player's mind. I would rather see players have the mental clarity to play the game like an expert strategist than to have to cycle through their mind to finish the cyclical checklist of tasks. Artificial macro boosters have no place cluttering the already high demand of pristine macro in addition to the many other aspects required of high level play. Very refreshing to see someone else that agrees that these macro mechanics feel "artificial". Vs CPU does not feel like real skill-based gameplay in a competitive game. Needs to be something more interactable and exploitable by opponents. | ||
|
Superbanana
2369 Posts
On August 06 2015 07:06 Spyridon wrote: As a Zerg player, I believe spreading creep should stay in game. But injects? For reasons I explained above, I do not believe they are a good thing for the game design of SC. Artificially making the game harder with "vs CPU" elements, rather than "vs Player" elements, is silly. If we really need any mechanics to keep the game "hard" after removing them (which I highly doubt...), then replace those mechanics with something competitive, that leads to mind games or strategic decisions that can be exploited. Not some repetitive action you have to do against the CPU that can not be exploited (or even monitored/scouted really) by the opponent in some form... The only mechanic I think that adds some real positive decision making to the strategic gameplay is Protoss. But even that can not be exploited, it is merely something Protoss needs to do in order to succeed right now. Gives them a lot of options though, which is positive. More positive than the other races mechanics, at least. I never said the mechanics shouldn't be removed to keep the game "hard". I like manual injects because i like the multitask between micro and macro, cycle process included. I did mentioned its merely subjective tho. Chrono boost is exploited, you seen to agree with it. | ||
|
DSK
England1110 Posts
I can watch my brother play as Protoss and beat an easy AI by just building shit loads of cannons and doing nothing for 45 minutes before steamrolling the easy AI with 6 units (basically, he dicks around not knowing what the hell to do). It's quite another thing to watch two giants of the best SC2 league in the world go toe-to-toe in a nail-biting best of 7. My point is, one of the reasons why BW and SC2 appeal to viewers is the skill that the players portray and utilise in their games. If everyone could do what they could, there'd be less interest in it as a whole, because their skill set and abilities would be mainstream samey, not exciting and clutch. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
Like 1+2 = ? Easy because you have trained all your life. But if I present you with a tactical scenario that you have never seen before you will default to your un-innovative but insane-reaction-speed habits because that is overpowered even if your solution is pretty bad when mechanics aren't overpowered. | ||
|
TokO
Norway577 Posts
On August 06 2015 07:03 Superbanana wrote: There are 3 distinct changes proposed: removing/changing injects, removing/changing mules, removing/changing chrono. Each change has different pros and cons. Each change will affect the respective race in a different way. We should stop discussing those changes as if the macro mechanics are the same thing for the 3 races. Injects: Some people think too much larvae is the problem, while others think its the requirement to click the inject button (or none, or both). 2 very distict issues that must be adressed in a different way. I think the extra larvae is what deffines zerg, tech switches and massive numbers. Zerg will have to be reworked completely. Im against reducing larvae production. However, Im ok with automated inject (though i prefer the way it is). I personally like the APM and attention required to inject larvae and spread creep, but i can see how its an issue for newcomers. Chrono: This opens a world of possibility for protoss. Boost economy, tech or production. I think protoss will be more stuck in the same builds after the game is figured out a bit, if chrono is removed or nerfed. Bad chrono usage (or lack of) is also not as punishing as bad creep spread or missed injects (at least mid-late game). I think chrono should remain untouched. Mule: Removing mules implies some really hard work to balance terran, since its not only a nerf but also a change in the mineral/gas ratio. If we also want bio to remain viable some changes to bunker build times won't do. An efficiency reduction will have the same effect but of course to a lesser extent. I think auto cast on mules (with the option to toggle on/off) is a better idea. The cons of the macro mechanics cannot justify reworking and rebalancing each race completely, and that would be required if the mechanics are simply removed.. Changes to macro mechanics shoudn't be too impactful unless we want another game instead of a sequel. Even if the current macro mechanics are bad, removing them is not a solution as things might get worse instead. But the nerfs proposed by blizzard are reasonable enough to be tested imo. I agree that the removal of each one of the mechanics have distinct implications, however, I disagree that they are so distinct that they cannot be discussed as similar mechanics. Between MULE, Chronoboost and Inject Larva, they are all energy based spells that are so invaluable to which their usage is a necessity rather than a strategic choice. In addition, they are largely context-free, at least at most levels, 99% of the time, injecting is the optimal use of your action, 99% spending your chrono is the optimal way to play Protoss, etc. There is no strategic use of the energy, investing in the Queen or Orbital is mandatory regardless of the game regardless of strategy. (In contrast to other energy abilities from units, whom are context specific, e.g. for combat or for scouting in the case of sentry). I also wrote in an earlier post that every implementation of macrobooster had to come along with nerfs in a races core strengths to prevent imbalance. And then the gimmicky units needed to address those nerfs, e.g. frequently debated forcefields. I think reworking and rebalancing each race completely is justified (and it would be required), given the sentiments of the community and pro players. If you don't think it's impactful read the OP in other thread removing macro mechanics=good?!. Obviously it's highly doubtful that Blizzard would be willing to go to such lengths. | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
Blizzard has a tough job in that (a) you need to sell the game, and have revenue that justifies expenses, and (b) maintain or enhance the level of the eSport they've facilitated. Making the game "easier" for casual players might be the wrong way to look at it, because they are essentially required to balance the game around pro or near-pro-level play. And let's face it: pros have different marines than us scrubs, lol. Focusing on making the matches more fun for casual players is probably a more realistic approach, and this can be done almost entirely with matchmaking. I realize this is an anecdote, but I've a friend who loves games. Love them. He is an epic gamer with a gigantic collection. Loves RTS, TBS--the whole strategy genre, really. He dislikes multiplayer SC2. He's watched a few matches. He's given it a go, but strongly dislikes the "APM burden" as he calls it. Interesting perspective, right? *shrugs* Focus on matchmaking, because the game will never feel balanced for casual players, because it literally can't be. | ||
| ||
|
|
Online Event
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL Team Wars
Team Bonyth vs Team Dewalt
Dewalt vs kogeT
JDConan vs Tarson
RaNgeD vs DragOn
StRyKeR vs Bonyth
Aeternum vs Hejek
Replay Cast
Map Test Tournament
Map Test Tournament
The PondCast
Map Test Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
