EPTIssues with removing the macro mechanics - Page 5
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
Suppose you`re playing SC against.. somebody; you should do your opening build(called gambit, right?) and the 'strategy' steps in. 'Should I block the entrance with supply depot? how many overlords should I build in case of its loss?' like this, your choice influences the process of the game; if you do not block with the depot, you may permit zergling`s intrusion but you can build it faster when you build it somewhere nearby. when it comes to Overlords, you may save 100 minerals but also have a risk of supply block caused by control miss. however, those pumping-up macros like mule and larvae, there`s no room for 'choice'; you`ll lose unless you do it repeatedly. | ||
|
HellHound
Bulgaria5962 Posts
On August 23 2015 02:13 Thouhastmail wrote: Building pointless overlords is called bad macro :DOkay, sorry for late respond, cause my English is not that good and I`m watching Canata`s streaming. Suppose you`re playing SC against.. somebody; you should do your opening build(called gambit, right?) and the 'strategy' steps in. 'Should I block the entrance with supply depot? how many overlords should I build in case of its loss?' like this, your choice influences the process of the game; if you do not block with the depot, you may permit zergling`s intrusion but you can build it faster when you build it somewhere nearby. when it comes to Overlords, you may save 100 minerals but also have a risk of supply block caused by control miss. however, those pumping-up macros like mule and larvae, there`s no room for 'choice'; you`ll lose unless you do it repeatedly. Chosing whether to mule or save for a scan can change the outcome of the game. If you are going for a +1 zealot timings vs zerg you chrono your forge. What if you scout and see he has an early roach warren? Do you still chorono the forge? Anyhow why is everyone so focused on that whole choice thing? There is no choice to making scvs you just lose if you don't make them constantly there is no room for 'choice' There is no choice in splitting marines vs banes/storm you just do it as well as you can and if it's not good enough you lose. There is no choice in how fast you can run or how well you can aim or how far you can jump yet they all let sport players stand apart from each other. | ||
|
linuxguru1
110 Posts
| ||
|
HellHound
Bulgaria5962 Posts
On August 23 2015 02:31 linuxguru1 wrote: If we make everything cheaper and build faster, the slowness will be compensated for and harassment will be less game-ending? The question shouldn't be how to patch up the problems it should be how to resolve them. In this particualr case the problem is there is too much harrass options and they are too good/cheap it makes it impossible to have spread out bases because they will get sniped very easily. Hence we have deathballs and maps that cater to turtling. Because otherwise the game devolves into who can kill more workers faster. Kind of like the state it is in now in lotv. | ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
(someone says that I`m pulling it out of my arse, but I can present other adversarial links'http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=starcraft_new&no=3646407&page=2&search_pos=&s_type=search_all&s_keyword=%EC%86%8D%EB%8F%84 직접 읽어라 공고충놈아.) well, I admit that I cannot represent whole Koreans and there`s some points that looks like sweeping but I wanna note that there`re some blokes with different view. | ||
|
loft
United States344 Posts
Also, I think its crazy to say 2 larva injects is BETTER for everyone but Pro Koreans. LOL | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On August 23 2015 02:13 Thouhastmail wrote: 'Should I block the entrance with supply depot? how many overlords should I build in case of its loss?' like this, your choice influences the process of the game; if you do not block with the depot, you may permit zergling`s intrusion but you can build it faster when you build it somewhere nearby. when it comes to Overlords, you may save 100 minerals but also have a risk of supply block caused by control miss. however, those pumping-up macros like mule and larvae, there`s no room for 'choice'; you`ll lose unless you do it repeatedly. Macro isn't just the choices you make in what to build. Macro is everything you to do make stuff. That involves the choices you make but also all the actions you must take to get there. Macro requires dedicated thought and attention to execute properly, and you must properly prioritize what gets your attention. This includes building workers and army and infrastructure. The game has been so severely built around the macro boost from those mechanics that the game simply feels poor in comparison to the previous setup. Terran bio in particular was built around super saturated mineral lines. Yes, it can be rebalanced, but will the feel of the game be superior? No guarantee. Why can't I use your same argument in support of macro mechanics? I get a boost from my macro mechanics and can quickly setup the infrastructure I want so I can. In PvT I can chrono an oracle instead of probes and now I must do damage because I have traded economy for harass or cheese. What if we remove that? Now any damage I do is a win. There is no pressure to do a bunch of damage because any lost worker on the Terran side is damage to my advantage. The risk is gone, the opportunity cost decisions are gone. How boring. Look at how many people are complaining about instant auto inject when the queens pop. This alone has knocked the wind out of the 'never a choice' argument for the one that had the strongest argument for it. In many ways the way you describe macro sounds like if someone described micro only in terms of map presence and positioning while ignoring things like microing individual or groups of units in fights. | ||
BluemoonSC
SoCal8933 Posts
There was choice but one choice was clearly better than the other in the majority of situations. I hope that they figure out a proper balance with the current changes before scrapping it bc I gotta say I'm happy that they're trying this out. I truthfully hope they increase the spawn rate of larva and make queens not auto inject but give 2 extra larva if they do. | ||
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
If you just mule mindlessly you can lose many games, I know have. | ||
|
linuxguru1
110 Posts
On August 23 2015 02:40 HellHound wrote: The question shouldn't be how to patch up the problems it should be how to resolve them. In this particualr case the problem is there is too much harrass options and they are too good/cheap it makes it impossible to have spread out bases because they will get sniped very easily. Hence we have deathballs and maps that cater to turtling. Because otherwise the game devolves into who can kill more workers faster. Kind of like the state it is in now in lotv. LotV is now about "who can kill more workers faster". Isn't that by definition non-deathball-play? Isn't that exactly what we have been asking for all these years? If we keep things the way they are right now, we will see an entirely different SC2 from what we have since 2009. That could be interesting! However, I am not happy about the removal of macro mechanics. I feel like they increase the skill ceiling of the game and allow for clear distinction between players from different skill levels. I would actually like to see the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they're doing right now: buffing macro mechanics. I'm not sure about the details, but if we can find a way to make macro mechanics more rewarding and/or harder, while at the same time keeping micro-oriented strategies viable, SC2 would be much more interesting. For example: we could bring back the old macro mechanics and add in a new one for each race. It should be difficult for players to incorporate these new mechanics in their play while microing. Hence, it should also be very rewarding when done right, so as to make up for the sacrifices made in micro or the hits taken from harassment. I realise that is a very vague idea, but I'm convinced that buffing macro mechanics and making them a bit harder at the same time is the way to go. | ||
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
On August 23 2015 07:15 linuxguru1 wrote: LotV is now about "who can kill more workers faster". Isn't that by definition non-deathball-play? . Just means the game will be slower with small armies. I don't know if everyone being broke all game is the answer to stopping deathballs. LotV already had the multiple battles going on all across the map because of the fact you mined out so fast and had to spread out everywhere. Now it's slow and has less battles since you don't mine out quickly (no macro mechanics), and when you lose workers its even worse. Might as well go back to one base play. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On August 23 2015 07:21 DooMDash wrote: Just means the game will be slower with small armies. I don't know if everyone being broke all game is the answer to stopping deathballs. LotV already had the multiple battles going on all across the map because of the fact you mined out so fast and had to spread out everywhere. Now it's slow and has less battles since you don't mine out quickly (no macro mechanics), and when you lose workers its even worse. Might as well go back to one base play. Why small armies means it is slower? It is not possible to win or lose with smaller army? It is only slower if both players decide to turtle each game, but LotV punishes turtling. | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10851 Posts
| ||
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic627 Posts
On August 23 2015 09:50 GGzerG wrote: People blindly supporting this need to and actually play the game more, because the feel of SC2 at the moment is amazing. It feels a lot more like BroodWar and there is a lot more potential for basically everything in this game to take place, because of this change. Terran is not underpowered, Terran players are just used to having Mules lol i could not agree more. | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On August 23 2015 09:50 GGzerG wrote: People blindly supporting this need to and actually play the game more I think you should support your argument more instead of declaring yourself right on the basis that you are right. How is it like brood war? Why is that a good thing? How is there more potential? How does this not impact balance? | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
What blizzard has essentially done is change the ruleset of the game for no reason. It would be the equivalent of changing the size of the service box in tennis "just cuz." Or changing distance between goal posts in soccer or rugby. You get the idea. Blizzard should not be fundamentally changing the ruleset of the game in that way. They should be doing it through patches to unit stats, abilities, designs, new units...that is how SC2 can be improved upon and enhanced. The economic mechanics of the game are too fundamental to the game and imo should be reverted to pre-patch asap. I saw CnC3 die because developers thought they could do "eco changes." Same thing is going on here. | ||
|
i_am_Nite
Russian Federation66 Posts
no mules = decision is to grade cc to oc or not to grade. Or pf on natural/3rd. Anyway the game go better, now if you want eco - you must build it with buildings and units. Lose it? You fail. Terrans can't just place 20 oc and play with 18 gas workers. But there comes some troubles for terrs - they start too slow, construction buildings takes scvs from mining, production needs addons (resources+time) to be effective and bio units need upgrades to start being useful. It's realy hard to stop adept agression. Hatchery: 350 mineras, larva in 15 sec = 4 larvas/min. Old queen: 150 minerals, build not from larva, injection is 4 per 40 sec (6/min = +150%) larva, but manaregen is 50 energy in 44.(4) sec, so real average number is 4/~45 = 5,33 larva/min (+133%). So queen is cheeper, more production, can attack ground and air and later can spread creep or transfuse. New queen: same cost, but 2/45 = 2.(6) /min (+66%). At least it's not produce that much larva => can't ignore macro hatcheries if want to expand eco fast. As for toss - lose chrono, it cut some tech-rushes like fast wgp or blink and slow oracle for ~10 sec. But now tosses can take eco equality in mid-lategame... Maybe they lose not that much, and their early adepts too strong. | ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
On August 23 2015 14:00 avilo wrote: The macro mechanics never needed to be removed or re-worked. What blizzard has essentially done is change the ruleset of the game for no reason. It would be the equivalent of changing the size of the service box in tennis "just cuz." Or changing distance between goal posts in soccer or rugby. You get the idea. Blizzard should not be fundamentally changing the ruleset of the game in that way. They should be doing it through patches to unit stats, abilities, designs, new units...that is how SC2 can be improved upon and enhanced. The economic mechanics of the game are too fundamental to the game and imo should be reverted to pre-patch asap. I saw CnC3 die because developers thought they could do "eco changes." Same thing is going on here. I both disagree and agree with what you say. Changing the fundamentals of the game is doable, and sometimes it can be for the better. After all, that is what they did to the economy of the game, and although it's debatable that they find the best solution, I think most of us will agree that it is at least better than HoTS. But that the point, the change of economy was decided from the beginning, with clear objectives and many different tests, it has follow a clear and logical process: First identify a problem, then finding solutions. This change of macro-mechanics comes a bit out of nowhere, near the end of the big change of beta, with no clear objectives. | ||
|
Wrath
3175 Posts
| ||
| ||
