Community Feedback Update - August 21 - Page 13

On August 23 2015 09:56 parkufarku wrote:


Boohoo. Let's abandon the strongest race just because 1 unit isn't as broken as the Liberator

On August 23 2015 11:37 Qwyn wrote:
This would all be fine if they didn't have inject be autocast, and bump it up to 3 larva or so. Autocast just removes so much from the game that I'm set twiddling my thumbs. As a mechanical player, it's just not as satisfying to play Zerg anymore . Zergs are all starting to have the same, monster creep-spread. No more really differentiating yourself by being able to do both well at once.

Auto-inject also puts a big hole in proxy-hatch cheeses .

On August 23 2015 11:49 jazzbassmatt wrote:
The point is not "removing macro." Many of the game's core macro mechanics are working just fine. The point is removing useless mechanics like larvae injection that don't add any meaningful decisions or strategy to the game and, if needed, replacing them with mechanics that are more than just hit X every so often.

On August 23 2015 10:57 DilemaH wrote:
From what I understand, a few individuals are getting upsetti spaghetti over the concept of macro being a "play against the computer" thing that should be removed. Heres why I disagree:

1. Macro can never be removed in the first place
2. Macro creates depth and challenge, and makes a game timeless

1. Macro cannot ever be removed from the game. The reason is simple: You can make macro as easy as you want: auto-cast SCVs, auto-cast making marines, but there will always be a need to macro. You will still need to tell your barracks to start auto-producing units and when production will change, and you will always need to tell your SCVs where to build barracks and supply depots. You will always need to tell each overlord where it should be at any given them. Positioning overlords is a skill not everyone has, and it certainly something you can make automated.

2. I can understand that people get frustrated at the idea of "playing against the computer" when playing sc2. You can argue that is is obsolete as much as you want, but you cannot deny that it is important in creating a proper video-game or even e-sport. The example lies in broodwar and smash melee. Proffessional broodwar players are constantly at a fight against the computer, wrestling it while trying to beat the enemy. Yet, look at broodwar. This game is so timeless that it still lives on in korea to this day and just about 90% of this website worships it, whether or not you are for macro mechanics. The argument that "wrestling the computer being dumb" that anti-macroers use applies also to micro in broodwar. Is the timelessness of broodwar not enough to prove wrestling the computer is not dumb? Look at melee. After being beaten down by a large portion of the FGC, surviving a dark age, surviving under the threat of Nintendo and after 14 entire god damn years, the game is on its way to becoming a glorious e-sport. But why is melee so successful? Its partly the fast speed, depth of the game, the community, but also because of intense mechanical skill required. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXgpGBbh5r8

You'll hear this a lot from smash players, and theyre right: that freedom of movement, freedom of expression in every button press and the difficulty of the game is what keeps it alive. Can you think of any other game, not game series but game, that has been alive longer than broodwar and melee? I can't. And what do you know: in both games, players claim (and rightfully so) that wrestling against the computer/game is what makes the game so timeless, so hard and is what keeps it alive. Because it lets the best players be the best players.

You can argue that macro is dumb and unnecessarily hard, but its what makes those 2 games so legendary. And to remove macro from starcraft, to remove micro, is to remove starcraft 2 from the face of the earth.

On August 23 2015 12:05 ETisME wrote:

so where is the fight against computer part in the current biggest esport genre like league or csgo?

On August 23 2015 11:56 DilemaH wrote:


You're so obsessed with meaningful decision that you've come to believe that making critical decisions is the only way to prove ones skill in Starcraft. This is not true: Players prove their skill by injecting every 40 seconds, making a wave of marines every 25 in game seconds, etc. Its not meaningful decisions to do this for sure: but it shows a different kind of player skill, And you can't deny that it does. If you want a game based solely off of meaningful decisions, play chess or Civilization 5. Its the best game that takes no micro and is just meaningful decisions. Macro takes Micro, and those 3 things (Micro, Macro and decisions) are what make starcraft what it is.

On August 23 2015 12:21 jazzbassmatt wrote:



Injecting every 40 seconds and making a wave of marines every 25 seconds are entirely different things. The decision to make another wave of marines is situational--it involves strategy, even if the best strategy is to usually continue making marines. On the other hand, it's always the correct decision to inject every 40 seconds--there's no tradeoff, such as whether to build marines or some other unit. There's pretty much no situation in which you would want to save your energy for transfusion.

Not every mechanic has to have game ending significance, but I don't think there's really any interesting skill in repeating an action every 40 seconds. Sure, it requires memory and multitasking, but there's nothing strategic about it at all. Even the other race mechanics, like chronoboost and mules, occasionally offer interesting alternatives and can vary in their use depending on the situation. But in 99% of situations, the best choice will always be to inject larvae.

On August 23 2015 11:56 DilemaH wrote:
You're so obsessed with meaningful decision that you've come to believe that making critical decisions is the only way to prove ones skill in Starcraft. This is not true: Players prove their skill by injecting every 40 seconds, making a wave of marines every 25 in game seconds, etc. Its not meaningful decisions to do this for sure: but it shows a different kind of player skill, And you can't deny that it does..

On the other hand, it's always the correct decision to inject every 40 seconds

On August 23 2015 12:18 DilemaH wrote:


There is, albeit little. The reason why the two games are so big is not because of immense difficulty but because of the large casual audience. The reason why SC2 is pretty much a dead game right now is because it doesn't appeal to casuals and because it isn't immensly hard like broodwar. You either have an addicting game that people play and get enthralled when they see "professionals" going at it, or have a competitive game that brings people in because they hear about how hard the game is and how good the top players are. Not to mention, look how long the games have been out. League for 6~ years and counter strike 3~ years. So by running to league for a backup argument, you actively say that you want starcraft to appeal to and be played by casuals who don't know what they're doing.

Cs:go does have a "fight against the computer", albeit not as visible. The macro of the game would be moving around the map and setting up tactics, but the micro (fight against the computer) would be player stacking (or whatever its called when people jump on top of eachother), or the players aim. If you brought the same spirit of this argument into a cs:go forum, you would be asking that all players have aimhacks, so that the only important thing left about the game would be flanks, positioning and tactics.

You can say the same thing about league, but its kindof already so. There is Very Little ways for players to define themself as good; a lot of things in league are guaranteed. In league, it would be like asking for players to never miss CS or players to only need to press 1 button to insec an enemy player.

I don't see your point at all.
CS:GO already do not have fight against the computer.

On August 23 2015 12:36 Cyro wrote:


CS:GO has you fighting against computer a lot. The guns all have invisible patterns of bullet spread that you have to memorize and alter your aim based on. You're also punished heavily for movement (your bullets won't land anywhere near your crosshair, depending on the weapon), so you have to time moving, stopping moving and shooting effectively - just those two skills alone take hundreds of hours to get truly good at.

On August 23 2015 12:47 DilemaH wrote:
Are you arguing for or against micro? Injecting is a form of macro which takes micro, so by agreeing that micro should exist, you argue that injects should exist. If you're against micro, you're against player mechanics such as aiming, waveshining, and marine splitting.

I never said that setting up tactics is fighting against the computer: thats the decision making part. Aimhack removes the precision micro, which is like removing injects from stacraft. It is a variable that, from a strategy purists point of view (which is the side you have taken) , shouldn't exist because it can alter what happens in the game and can overcome good strategy. Player skill creates variables that might alter the game and can negate strategy.

What you say about smash is true. But there are a lot of invisible things in smash: the decisions players make are all almost invisible, which is why people hate jiggs: she takes no micro, but takes a lot of decisions. but people dont see that. Its fine if some aspects are invisible in a game: and if you argue that decisions that are made by a jigglypuff are not invisible, then I dont understand why you would argue against injects being invisible.

There are ways to separate yourself in league, but a lot of things are guaranteed, limiting what you can do. Nautilus ult, Veigar ult are all guaranteed forms of damage that cannot be microed against. From a micro point of view, league is a pretty abysmal game. From a decision making point of view, it is a great game.

On August 23 2015 12:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:

Ofc it is fighting against the computer, you aim at the enemy and you don't hit it because of the patterns the csgo devs included.
Play another shooter and the bullets will go exactly where you aim, which pretty much removes this "playing against the computer" part.
The difference obviously is that you still interact with the enemy while trying to control your spray.


Still, even doing the spray against a stationary object feels rewarding when you hit most bullets.
Which is similar to (almost) perfect macro in a starcraft game.
Remove the difficulty of any task in a game and it becomes trivial and boring, you don't feel any accomplishment.

To come back to injecting, the auto inject does exactly that, playing zerg atm feels bad.
I don't think i deserve to win against terran or protoss cause i know that their macro is WAY more difficult now, it's not even close.

On August 23 2015 10:57 DilemaH wrote:
From what I understand, a few individuals are getting upsetti spaghetti over the concept of macro being a "play against the computer" thing that should be removed. Heres why I disagree:

1. Macro can never be removed in the first place
2. Macro creates depth and challenge, and makes a game timeless

1. Macro cannot ever be removed from the game. The reason is simple: You can make macro as easy as you want: auto-cast SCVs, auto-cast making marines, but there will always be a need to macro. You will still need to tell your barracks to start auto-producing units and when production will change, and you will always need to tell your SCVs where to build barracks and supply depots. You will always need to tell each overlord where it should be at any given them. Positioning overlords is a skill not everyone has, and it certainly something you can make automated.

2. I can understand that people get frustrated at the idea of "playing against the computer" when playing sc2. You can argue that is is obsolete as much as you want, but you cannot deny that it is important in creating a proper video-game or even e-sport. The example lies in broodwar and smash melee. Proffessional broodwar players are constantly at a fight against the computer, wrestling it while trying to beat the enemy. Yet, look at broodwar. This game is so timeless that it still lives on in korea to this day and just about 90% of this website worships it, whether or not you are for macro mechanics. The argument that "wrestling the computer being dumb" that anti-macroers use applies also to micro in broodwar. Is the timelessness of broodwar not enough to prove wrestling the computer is not dumb? Look at melee. After being beaten down by a large portion of the FGC, surviving a dark age, surviving under the threat of Nintendo and after 14 entire god damn years, the game is on its way to becoming a glorious e-sport. But why is melee so successful? Its partly the fast speed, depth of the game, the community, but also because of intense mechanical skill required. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXgpGBbh5r8

You'll hear this a lot from smash players, and theyre right: that freedom of movement, freedom of expression in every button press and the difficulty of the game is what keeps it alive. Can you think of any other game, not game series but game, that has been alive longer than broodwar and melee? I can't. And what do you know: in both games, players claim (and rightfully so) that wrestling against the computer/game is what makes the game so timeless, so hard and is what keeps it alive. Because it lets the best players be the best players.

You can argue that macro is dumb and unnecessarily hard, but its what makes those 2 games so legendary. And to remove macro from starcraft, to remove micro, is to remove starcraft 2 from the face of the earth.