|
On August 22 2015 22:54 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 22:22 Big J wrote:On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote:
I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well. But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc.
Not everything has to have a meaningful choice? The examples you gave are all examples of meaningful choice. I'm not sure what you're referring to with "l-cancel", but the type of units you build and when are both important choices in BW. Last hitting is one of the main things you do in a MOBA - the players are constantly interacting with each other positioning, harassing while attempting to get as many last hits as possible. Not only that but there are situations in which you don't want to last hit, such as when you roam, or when you suspect the jungler is going to gank you, or when you're at low health.
Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion.
Wanting things to have meaning is new? You need evidence for meaningful choice being a good thing? What other game had a mechanic similar to inject, that was then removed to the detriment of the game? And why are you now talking about the skill floor? I thought you said earlier that removing skill barriers doesn't work, as there will always be methods of differentiating players?
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote:
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful.
|
there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc.
Not comparable. Last hitting creates an incentive to be out on the map, and thus gives options for the enemy team to attack you. Inject doesn't do anything like that. It doesn't interact with anything and you are just playing a minigame with yourself.
Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar,
The decision is which units should you get.
|
What I dont understand is why is it so important for casual players to have things like especially inject removed?
Its not like the system will put them against other players that hit every inject/production cycle.
For me it seems to only lower the ways of creating a skill gap for players that put effort into their game and fun/casual gamers.
At the end though the casual remains someone that puts little effort into it and then will just get outplayed another way.
And I guess then this way has to be made easier as well...
Anyway, I never played BW I do play all 3 races since 3 years on a noob level and I feel happy seeing my apm/ability to multitask go up. Doesnt matter it doesnt go up that high I can compete at high levels, but I constantly see improvement as small as they may be and its fun. This definitly takes one part of improving away.
|
Really, inject doesn't affect the rest of the zerg gameplay? Pretty sure if somethings difficult enough it impacts other facets of the game. Try microing properly while injecting like 5 bases, it's not possible.
On another note, I think you're reaching pretty hard by saying building units is a decision that needs to be taken. 99.9% of the time the unit choice is decided before the game gets going, copied from people better then them. Marine, Marauder, Widowmine was developed by flash/innovation and pretty much everyone followed there flowchart of playing the game. At the 15 minute mark the decisions of what units were coming out of the barracks were fairly linear.
And yeh, I can find so many games of dota with a safelane 2/3 v 1 farming for the first 10 minutes. There is literally no decision making for the am, he just hits everything he possibly can. Funnily enough one of the things dota players always detract from league is the lack of denying creeps. Theres another no brainer, if you can get a deny is there any situation you would ever not want to?
|
On August 22 2015 23:00 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 22:22 Big J wrote:On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote:
I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well. But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc. I think you're reaching when you list the decisions behind pylon and supply depot placement. They are almost always placed in the same location's on the various maps. Same with overlords. Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion. Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 22:40 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote:
I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument. I agree with Big J's response to you. Show nested quote +I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". Not only was it not a strawman, but macro mechanics are an extremely good method of adding options of play. The only time they're not is when everyone is able to do them. By making something difficult enough to differentiate players you open avenues of play for people to play around there skill level. Flash is notable in broodwar for having the best macro at his time of play. If the macro mechanics were removed in broodwar (lets say they added mbs, infinite unit selection, auto build units, auto rally etc) that would suddenly not be an option of play, it would just become standard. In fact I'd go as far as to say that by making everything more difficult there will be more options of play, not less. And theres the benefit of tasteless not talking out his ass when he talks about how difficult it is to mass produce marines.
Straw Man
What options do macro mechanics add?
|
The mechanics you listed are all more entertaining than macro mechanics though.
L cancelling in melee can make a complicated combo possible and lead to crowds screaming their heads off.
Last hitting in Mobas are fun because it involves players actually fighting each other and competing for last hits, and sometimes it even leads to kills.
Creating units is just a fundamental part of an RTS game, so i wouldn't even consider that an example.
Those are all more in depth than a player going back to his base and casting a few spells on a set routine. And more entertaining too, because those mechanics involve actual competition between the players, whereas macro mechanics are just busy work that the players dip into by themselves, usually off screen. Perhaps macro mechanics would be better if players had to actually work for their boosts, rather than just wait for energy to build up.
|
On August 22 2015 23:28 bo1b wrote:
Try microing properly while injecting like 5 bases, it's not possible.
Exactly!
|
On August 22 2015 23:30 Quineotio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 23:28 bo1b wrote:
Try microing properly while injecting like 5 bases, it's not possible.
Exactly!
So how is that not an option of play? Is that not literally the definition of a macro based player? Ie. One that focuses on producing units instead of microing them?
|
On August 22 2015 23:29 Spawkuring wrote:
The mechanics you listed are all more entertaining than macro mechanics though.
L cancelling in melee can make a complicated combo possible and lead to crowds screaming their heads off.
So really because people don't go nuts over making it possible for zerg to build lots of units it's not good. Btw theres a clip called flashes macro which features fangirls losing there shit as he marches a zilion units down the map to attack his opponent. I suspect that if sc2 was ever as popular as broodwar, and there were highlights of drg marching a million zerglings across the map at innovation to win game 2/3 there would be people appreciating the injects that took place.
|
On August 22 2015 23:28 Quineotio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 23:00 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 22:22 Big J wrote:On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote:
I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well. But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc. I think you're reaching when you list the decisions behind pylon and supply depot placement. They are almost always placed in the same location's on the various maps. Same with overlords. Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion. On August 22 2015 22:40 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote:
I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument. I agree with Big J's response to you. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". Not only was it not a strawman, but macro mechanics are an extremely good method of adding options of play. The only time they're not is when everyone is able to do them. By making something difficult enough to differentiate players you open avenues of play for people to play around there skill level. Flash is notable in broodwar for having the best macro at his time of play. If the macro mechanics were removed in broodwar (lets say they added mbs, infinite unit selection, auto build units, auto rally etc) that would suddenly not be an option of play, it would just become standard. In fact I'd go as far as to say that by making everything more difficult there will be more options of play, not less. And theres the benefit of tasteless not talking out his ass when he talks about how difficult it is to mass produce marines. Straw ManWhat options do macro mechanics add?
Macro mechanics add in options in conjunction with other things.
|
On August 22 2015 23:27 loko822 wrote:
What I dont understand is why is it so important for casual players to have things like especially inject removed?
Its not like the system will put them against other players that hit every inject/production cycle.
For me it seems to only lower the ways of creating a skill gap for players that put effort into their game and fun/casual gamers.
At the end though the casual remains someone that puts little effort into it and then will just get outplayed another way.
And I guess then this way has to be made easier as well...
Anyway, I never played BW I do play all 3 races since 3 years on a noob level and I feel happy seeing my apm/ability to multitask go up. Doesnt matter it doesnt go up that high I can compete at high levels, but I constantly see improvement as small as they may be and its fun. This definitly takes one part of improving away.
The argument for the removal of macro mechanics is not based solely on the fact that it will improve the game for "casuals". It's not an argument for making the game easier. It's an argument for taking away a punishing mechanic that involves little choice or player interaction so that players will spend a higher percentage of their time making meaningful decisions, controlling their armies and interacting with their opponent.
The macro mechanics are an attention tax. Tax sucks.
|
On August 22 2015 23:36 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 23:28 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 23:00 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 22:22 Big J wrote:On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote:
I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well. But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc. I think you're reaching when you list the decisions behind pylon and supply depot placement. They are almost always placed in the same location's on the various maps. Same with overlords. Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion. On August 22 2015 22:40 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote:
I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument. I agree with Big J's response to you. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". Not only was it not a strawman, but macro mechanics are an extremely good method of adding options of play. The only time they're not is when everyone is able to do them. By making something difficult enough to differentiate players you open avenues of play for people to play around there skill level. Flash is notable in broodwar for having the best macro at his time of play. If the macro mechanics were removed in broodwar (lets say they added mbs, infinite unit selection, auto build units, auto rally etc) that would suddenly not be an option of play, it would just become standard. In fact I'd go as far as to say that by making everything more difficult there will be more options of play, not less. And theres the benefit of tasteless not talking out his ass when he talks about how difficult it is to mass produce marines. Straw ManWhat options do macro mechanics add? Macro mechanics add in options in conjunction with other things.
Such as?
|
On August 22 2015 23:37 Quineotio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 23:36 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 23:28 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 23:00 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 22:22 Big J wrote:On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote:
I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole.Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well. But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc. I think you're reaching when you list the decisions behind pylon and supply depot placement. They are almost always placed in the same location's on the various maps. Same with overlords. Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion. On August 22 2015 22:40 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote:On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote:On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote:
I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is.
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument. I agree with Big J's response to you. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone.
The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". Not only was it not a strawman, but macro mechanics are an extremely good method of adding options of play. The only time they're not is when everyone is able to do them. By making something difficult enough to differentiate players you open avenues of play for people to play around there skill level. Flash is notable in broodwar for having the best macro at his time of play. If the macro mechanics were removed in broodwar (lets say they added mbs, infinite unit selection, auto build units, auto rally etc) that would suddenly not be an option of play, it would just become standard. In fact I'd go as far as to say that by making everything more difficult there will be more options of play, not less. And theres the benefit of tasteless not talking out his ass when he talks about how difficult it is to mass produce marines. Straw ManWhat options do macro mechanics add? Macro mechanics add in options in conjunction with other things. Such as?
Such as styles of play? Theres a video were tastosis and nony discuss this sort of stuff before the release of sc2.
|
I'm not saying the crowd has to go crazy. Crowds don't go crazy for last hitting, but it stills allows for meaningful interaction between players, which is more than I can say for spamming a few mules on a base.
|
But yeh quineotio, can you name a single game which is considered a classic which doesn't have "attention taxes"
|
God I wish they removed armor and weapons from ut/quake, establising dominance in a duel then running around the map to a timer is just a tax. While we're at it remove recoil from cs pls, another tax on the game which doesn't do anything but introduce an arbitrary hurdle.
I think all mobas should be like heroes of the storm, where there's no gold or items, just xp. That way we can get to focusing on the interactions cause they're what matter.
Thats a strawman btw quin
|
On August 22 2015 23:41 bo1b wrote:
But yeh quineotio, can you name a single game which is considered a classic which doesn't have "attention taxes"
Doom.
|
Sorry, I should have said Starcraft: Brood War.
|
Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
|
On August 22 2015 23:45 bo1b wrote:
Broodwar has more attention taxes then just about any game ever made. Doom is not a multiplayer classic at all. And when sc2 is dead and burried in like 2-3 years, broodwar will still be being played, shitty macro mechanics and all.
Doom is still played multiplayer today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
