On August 22 2015 03:32 DeadByDawn wrote: Time to ditch Terran and pick up P or (especially) Z. Does Kimbo not realise that T cannot proactively tech switch to counter Zerg compositions because it takes a fucking long time to do build a new composition and they will likely have no upgrades. Siege tanks have received nothing but nerf after nerf since the WoL Beta.
Boohoo. Let's abandon the strongest race just because 1 unit isn't as broken as the Liberator
You only consider the Liberator broken because it's effective at doing the Siege Tank's job.
Siege Tanks are just terrible in SC2 and there's no ifs about that.
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 You can argue that is is obsolete as much as you want, but you cannot deny that it is important in creating a proper video-game or even e-sport.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.
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.
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 11:37 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 .
Inject, Producing and spreading Overlords, Creep spread and ling scouting all over the map are all parts of zerg macro, and taking away Injects makes the race much easier since all the other ones are all much less impactful.
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 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.
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 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.
so where is the fight against computer part in the current biggest esport genre like league or csgo?
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.
so where is the fight against computer part in the current biggest esport genre like league or csgo?
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.
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.
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.
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 11:49 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.
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.
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..
I do agree that maybe they can add an alternate cost for queen energy for more meaningful decisions, but its not necessary for the reason mentioned above
On the other hand, it's always the correct decision to inject every 40 seconds
In the early and early mid game there's plenty of decision making for how many queens to make, as well as which sets of 25 energy go to one or more creep tumors vs injects. You can actually take ~44.4 seconds to regen 25 energy IIRC.
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.
so where is the fight against computer part in the current biggest esport genre like league or csgo?
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. setting up tactics etc are not fighting against computer. aimhack is removing the precision micro, that's a world difference.
Having a fight against the computer would be something like needing to turn 360 degree every 5 seconds in order to reload a gun. All of the above you mentioned do not require you to fight against BW style poor AI or pathing and does not require you to press repetitive mechanical actions that offers very little tactics value/action.
Smash is fast and the action looks fast because the actions are visible and are MICRO. This is what SC2 is now striving for, visible mechanics rather than invisible.
Also there are a LOT of ways for players to seperate themselves in league. I suppose you don't really watch it? Faker?? League is successful because it appeal to BOTH audience, with the market big enough to cover both, while the more hardcore may enjoy Dota.
I don't see your point at all. CS:GO already do not have fight against the computer.
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. Not a CS:GO player so take it with a grain of salt, but that's how the game seemed to me - it was way more frustrating than the few other FPS games that i used to play and be good at because there were delibrate game mechanics to fuck with you a lot unless you played by specific rules.
I don't see your point at all. CS:GO already do not have fight against the computer.
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.
I don't think that's fighting against computer. That would be more like microing a hero in moba
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.
I don't see your point at all. CS:GO already do not have fight against the computer.
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.
I don't think that's fighting against computer. That would be more like microing a hero in moba
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 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.
I am arguing against pointless and non visible mechanics. you seems to think that is equal to removing micro macro, in some ways yes, in the sense that if I were to remove a restrictions such as press T for 100times in order to a move, I would still be removing micro.
Chrono boost is lots of fun. If used too often, it has the potential to have balance implications (like requiring blink, warpgate research times to be increased) but i think it can be controlled and balanced fairly well. It improves the feeling of protoss to matter what you're doing, just very satisfying. My nexii never hit full energy before max supply, ever - and that's not particularly hard to do, as it takes like 3 game minutes for a nexus to go empty to full and you'll always be chrono boosting something.
Zerg still has queens with all of their spells. Terran still has orbitals with scan and supply drop, as well as PF's. Having a nexus just be a nexus feels overwhelming - there could be more to it, and chrono boost filled that gap very nicely.
---
Mule feels bad to me, always hated to play with it and against it. It gives a disproportionate amount of income, has a history of allowing some very abusive all-ins (anything involving worker pull, particularly rax all ins vs toss, 1-1-1 one base with all workers pulled again and again and again over a 15 minute time period, the 3rax 1depot supply drop and then pull almost all workers and reinforce under the power of mule while you have all of your workers killing the opponent) and contributes a lot to the lack of return from harassing and killing terran workers. Terran does have supply drop and scan already, which provide some interesting uses of orbital command energy and can be balanced without the mule existing. They also have PF's which are very useful for keeping a number of bases secure in the midgame.
---
Larvae inject - i agree that it was probably too powerful to be fun before, it was almost always the right choice to inject rather than to micro even when microing gave you good returns.
I've done the math. With 1 queen per hatchery in HOTS, perfect injects (counting from the time it takes for energy to regen, so 44.4 seconds per inject, not 40 seconds) the queens would give you 57.4% of your larvae. That is, putting a queen on a hatchery in HOTS would be a cost increase of +50% but a production rate increase of +135% (2.35x) which was just huge, something that no player could ever ignore and your default state for most of the game (aside from potential exceptions in the very early game) should be to have a queen injecting per hatchery.
2 larvae per inject means that from the moment the queen spawns, zerg is getting 4 larvae per minute from the hatch and 2.7 larvae per minute from the queens. In HOTS, zerg from that point had 1.4x as much larvae available per hatchery/queen combo.
My favourite solution, overall, is to increase the larvae spawn rate of the hatchery itself. You could bring larvae generation rates up, maintaining them a bit higher than they are now (though not neccesarily at the WOL/HOTS rate!) while reducing the relative dominance of the queen's larvae as it will provide a much smaller % of your overall larvae. You could even raise the larvae cap, making hatcheries continue to generate larvae naturally until they have 4, 5 or 6 larvae, which would allow weaker players to keep up and stronger players to focus elsewhere - looking away for 10 seconds instead of doing larvae things wouldn't set them behind much. They'd be missing a bit of opportunity cost from not having units/drones some seconds earlier, but they would not have this voice screaming in their ear about losing larvae forever for every second that they don't have inject running.
Supplementing that change, you could even mess with the energy cost of inject. Since it's less of an important mechanic, queens could be expected to use other spells more. Autocast might not be neccesary, since instead of queens increasing your production to 2.35x of normal, they might only increase it to 1.4x of normal - you wouldn't lose the game because you didn't pay attention to them for 20 seconds, not nearly as often - but injecting would still be beneficial.
---
It's a little funny how i'm that focused on zergy stuff as a protoss player, but that's where i feel the biggest problem (or well, furthest from optimal situation) is at the moment in terms of macro mechanics. Very few others are doing the math and posting solid stuff, so here's my attempt.
I don't see your point at all. CS:GO already do not have fight against the computer.
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.
I don't think that's fighting against computer. That would be more like microing a hero in moba
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.
I suppose if that is considered as fighting against computer, that would mean a hero vision radius and turn rate are part of fighting against computer? Also lots of shooter have bullet spread...and it is simply part of characters of the gun, bullet spread, reload speed, movement speed etc
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.
BW is your argument? BW had no macro mechanics. Look at popular esports games like LoL, CS:GO. No macro.
If want to play against to computer, I suggest Diablo 3.
Actually, it is possible to imagine SC2 with no macro. Suppose the game can be perfectly controlled with your mind. In that case, would SC2 cease to be popular, cease to be hard, cease to be impressive? No, no and no. In that case, winning in the game would be entirely based on strategy.