| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
xtorn
4060 Posts
On August 15 2015 07:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Perhaps you should take your own advice and make sure you read things carefully before responding. i missed that part; in that respect the post is well written (design-wise). | ||
|
v_lm
France202 Posts
"Mechanics is Stategy" there you have it. Or rather mechanics add deepness to strategy, Inno vs Flash today Inno knew that if he was able to stabilize he'd win. And the awesome part is : Flash knew it too. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
Yes, mechanics might be an important part to the game and it being mechanically demanding does give mechanically better players a chance to come back from behind, but you have to keep in mind, that the skill ceiling in this regard is already incredibly huge. I would go out and say that it is physically impossible for a human to have perfect mechanics in SC2. The potential for micro is off the charts and being able to micro each individual unit is nigh impossible. Even if the macro mechanics are removed and the game gets mechanically less demanding does not mean that the skill ceiling is any lower or that a mechanically worse player can now win against a superior opponent. It means that your APM will simply be used in different places. Instead of using APM for dropping mules or injecting larva you will use your APM to harass or split or expand or something. There is still enough things to do to keep you occupied. What we have to look at is: What are the more important mechanics and what are the less important mechanics. Macro boosters are, in my opinion, far less important and it is a good thing that these are gone. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On August 15 2015 08:16 RoomOfMush wrote: Even if the macro mechanics are removed and the game gets mechanically less demanding does not mean that the skill ceiling is any lower or that a mechanically worse player can now win against a superior opponent. It means that your APM will simply be used in different places. Instead of using APM for dropping mules or injecting larva you will use your APM to harass or split or expand or something. There is still enough things to do to keep you occupied. If this were true, Protoss would have never gained the reputation of being an A+move race because Protoss players would have constantly found things to do. If this were true, Blizzard wouldn't have gone on record saying that Protoss and Zerg were "slightly" easier to play than Terran, because again Protoss and Zerg players would just keep finding new things to do to demonstrate their skill. And maybe it is true in Gold League. But it's not true at the level balance is built around - the competitive, GSL Code S, level. | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
ZERG: Keep spawn larva, but require the spawn larva on the tech building associated with that unit. That larva can now only build that unit. Hatch -> drones, Pool -> lings, Roach Warren -> Roaches, etc ... You get the idea. You keep spawn larva, now it's a strategic choice, and the good players can demonstrate awesome skill. Note: larva spawned at hatches can still build anything, obviously. TERRAN: Keep the mule, but give it a range around the OC it's called down from. If called down out of range, it cannot mine and can only repair for it's lifecycle. PROTOSS: Make Chronoboost more expensive, and give it a range around the Nexus. This would require the strategic positioning of buildings, and more care when casting it. p.s. great OP, MorroW. | ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
On August 15 2015 06:52 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: This why i cant take your post seriously, its clearly biased. That is some 100% condensed irony right there. | ||
|
PcH
United States83 Posts
On August 15 2015 06:31 MorroW wrote: When people talk about mechanics they make it sound like it is the beast that keeps the casuals from playing it but they don't see our (hardcore players) perspective. mechanics is very important for the better players to win, a strategy can be copied by other players so strategy alone doesn't cut the skill-ceiling that we want Starcraft to have. Mechanics is great in that regard because it allows players to simply "play better" so they can consistently win from even situations or from slightly behind(!), mechanics is the underlying factor which keeps the "worse player" from challenging the "better player" in macro games. This had a much bigger impact in a game like Broodwar and we could see that in the results too of top level players performing. Simply knowing a game has high mechanics makes it THAT much more impressive and entertaining to watch, whenever you as an observer feel like you could re-act the same fight or game as a progamer could, that's when you know the game isn't hard enough mechanically. Injects, building supply depots, sending 3 probes into a geyser when it's done are not fun things, they are not very strategical yet we don't want to remove these aspects of the game. When you look at a game like Starcraft you should take it as a whole. While you're moving around with your army dropping here and there, scouting etc you gotta keep in mind to do the underlying mechanics parts, keep the rhythm flowing. THAT'S what make it so fun to play. One thing that's so beautiful about Starcraft is that you can excel at so many different things. Some people are great at macro, some at micro, some have great mechanics while others make stellar decisions. Dumbing down or "nerfing" any parts of this list of branches you can be good at removes persona from the players. Already today I feel like players are too similar. Maru? Oh well he's a great aggressive Terran who has sick mechanics and multitasking. Cure? Oh well he's a great aggressive Terran who has sick mechanics and multitasking (I see the similarity, do you?). Of course the most the involved people will be able to deviate their styles to differentiate them but in general I feel there is a lack of "personality" in players play. So back to mechanics - making it easier is going to dumb down areas where a player can show who he is. Amen. | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
I like what you said about the more impactful chronoboost, but one thing I would've liked for you to touch on is the notion of having a competing spell at the Nexus to give players more of a choice in how and when they elect to use Chronoboost. An idea that I just hit upon was to make each Nexus able to warp in units within a range of 13 in only 2 seconds, as per the patch notes, for a cost of 25 energy each. These units, unlike those warped in by a warp prism, would not suffer the x2 damage upon being attacked while warping in, thus giving it even more utility. They'd still cost resources, obviously. I'm worried that the complete removal of Mules will make scanning go from feeling too expensive to feeling too cheap. Calldown Supplies is still a bit underwhelming. Maybe a 25 energy Mule that can only be used for repairing units, but it repairs them for only 50% of their normal cost? | ||
|
BeStFAN
483 Posts
| ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On August 15 2015 08:24 pure.Wasted wrote: If this were true, Protoss would have never gained the reputation of being an A+move race because Protoss players would have constantly found things to do. If this were true, Blizzard wouldn't have gone on record saying that Protoss and Zerg were "slightly" easier to play than Terran, because again Protoss and Zerg players would just keep finding new things to do to demonstrate their skill. BS. *IF* Protoss is an A-move race it is not because there is nothing to micro, it is because there is no reason to micro. If you have 6 Colossus that vaporize anything on sight why bother doing fancy micro. But pure Blink Stalker is pretty micro intensive and two players who both go Blink Stalker can show off their skill and beat their opponent with superior micro. This is interesting mechanical skill. This is important mechanical skill. Nobody will know you for having the greatest Chrono Boost micro. But having the best Blink Stalker micro is a nice achievement. On August 15 2015 08:24 pure.Wasted wrote: And maybe it is true in Gold League. But it's not true at the level balance is built around - the competitive, GSL Code S, level. You are talking about balance, not about game design. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On August 15 2015 09:35 RoomOfMush wrote: BS. *IF* Protoss is an A-move race it is not because there is nothing to micro, it is because there is no reason to micro. If you have 6 Colossus that vaporize anything on sight why bother doing fancy micro. Because as we all know, Protoss players with 6 Colossus never lose high stakes games, and would therefore never, not under any circumstances, want their 6 Colossus to perform even better than they already are. "Some races are designed very poorly" may be a balance concern, but it's a game design concern first and foremost. | ||
|
Communism
United States176 Posts
The one thing I wish you had delved deeper into in your post is the "Devil's Advocate" argument you mentioned, because I think if you are to really approach this discussion from a design based perspective as opposed to a balance based one, this is in my opinion a cornerstone of that discussion. I think that people fail to realize that even if they were to completely remove macro mechanics entirely, it does not mean that the game will be less mechanically demanding, because it signifies a shift in the design philosophy of what the mechanics in starcraft 2 actually are. You briefly alluded to it but the idea could be that they would make more "micro" based mechanics which could theoretically maintain the skill ceiling where it is OR possibly even raise the skill ceiling higher then it is. (which you also mentioned) One important aspect of this change is pretty simple : (opinion statements incoming) Micro mechanics are WAY more interesting than macro mechanics. This is a lesson that I'm sure Blizzard has learned from the MOBA explosion, which is that watching someone utilize 5 different units with 3 spells each in a large battle while strategically engaging in an intelligent manner is WAY more exciting than watching someone inject their hatcheries every minute. Not only is it more fun to watch but it is more fun to execute. ( end opinion statements) So this shift in design philosophy COULD potentially keep SC2's difficulty in execution right where it is at BUT also make it more fun to play and watch. Just as an aside to what I feel like is a central them of your post Morrow, I understand that the changes on the surface could remove more difficulty in execution from zerg than the other races, keep in mind that the specifics of the changes are part of a more "balance" oriented discussion. While altering these macro mechanics may lower the skillcap more, the point is Blizzard changing their design philosophy, so they could easily compensate for that difference in some other way that is more in line with their current vision for the future of SC2, which for the first time in a long time, I am actually excited about. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On August 15 2015 11:13 Communism wrote: While altering these macro mechanics may lower the skillcap more, the point is Blizzard changing their design philosophy, so they could easily compensate for that difference in some other way that is more in line with their current vision for the future of SC2, which for the first time in a long time, I am actually excited about. The problem is they just said they'd like to be done with design tweaks in a month's time. And they've traditionally taken about three weeks to a month between patches during this beta. And this patch isn't even live yet. It's hard to imagine where the "make Zerg more mechanically demanding" patch is supposed to fit into the schedule, especially considering they haven't even brought up the need to make any changes in this area. | ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
| ||
|
ThaReckoning
United States197 Posts
Mules, the most blatant offender, have been removed. However, this is just going to lead to more scans, which don't cost enough as it is. Also, I think everyone's forgetting that terrans will still have supply drop, which is still going to put them ahead of the other races, particularly now that protoss doesn't have a macro mechanic at all. Supply drop is something like half a mule worth of minerals, instantly. It's going to be pretty overpowered. Queen auto inject is also going to create problems. AI is already weird enough, and having to code a hierarchy of how queens should react when X happens won't be easy. A much better change would have been to just buff the rate of larva spawning. This allows players to choose how many queens they want, when they want, etc. More choice and less AI is always better for a game like SC2. The part that boggles my mind the most is that chronoboost, the most interesting macro mechanic, is the one that just got straight up removed, without a second thought. Chrono should have been the goal, not the only one to get properly axed. This doesn't even touch on how much more devastating harassment is going to be. Things like widow mines were designed to be as overpowered as they are partially because macro mechanics existed. | ||
|
Bazik
Portugal104 Posts
Also want to add that the viewpoint that skilled players that practiced their macro mechanics will be closer in skill to other players also assume that players will arrive at the skill ceiling at some point and without this macro mechanics they will become indistinguishable. That's assuming a lot. And since no one knows when that will happen the whole viewpoint becomes nonsensical. | ||
|
TheoMikkelsen
Denmark196 Posts
| ||
|
Kazien_
1 Post
| ||
|
HellHound
Bulgaria5962 Posts
On August 15 2015 07:41 xtorn wrote: It will make it easier for zerg without mules and chrono protoss and terran builds are slowed down enough that you can just afford macro hatches without too much hassle to boost your production.No this mention is not made anywhere, he refers to the change altogether as making it easier, obviously the conclusion is being drawn on the entire quote not just half of it, isnt it? He clearly should read the entire quote that he himself made and think twice before posting. It makes a bigger difference between builds like 3 hatch pool and pool first now. Auto inject is such a big deal imo zerg only has to look at their base to defend or build a tech build now so they can spend 100% if the time they aren't fighting on creep and spreading overlords. | ||
|
Koivusto
Finland542 Posts
On August 15 2015 15:17 Kazien_ wrote: Just trowing it out there how about make chronoboost take sheld energy from the nexus instead ? making it a sacrifice to use it but it still regen Hmm this proposal is interesting. Or anything that would have the same idea as viper consuming building hp for energy. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
LAN Event
Lambo vs Harstem
FuturE vs Maplez
Scarlett vs FoxeR
Gerald vs Mixu
Zoun vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
ByuN vs TBD
TriGGeR vs TBD
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
LAN Event
IPSL
dxtr13 vs OldBoy
Napoleon vs Doodle
BSL 21
Gosudark vs Kyrie
Gypsy vs Sterling
UltrA vs Radley
Dandy vs Ptak
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
