|
Russian Federation80 Posts
On August 26 2015 07:57 mishimaBeef wrote:
A reporter once asked: How many moves do you see ahead? (a despised question among chess masters)
The GM answered: one
... the best one. (ohhh... sick burn)
This historical quote is more like a joke to be fair, although it's one of my favourites  The person it belongs to is Jose Raul Capablanca, 3rd chess world champion. The point is that computing far ahead in non-forced situations on board is mere waste of time, and in these cases any strong player will evaluate the position based on its markers. And for these cases it is true, of course, but there are situations where a strong player would prefer to calculate moves (mostly forced or semi-forced combinations).
I think the poster above, who said that GMs do not normally calculate 20 moves ahead is correct. But still they do it (cut the number off, sometimes it's less than 20, sometimes even more) a few times a game, and not having the time to do it would definitely affect the quality of play.
PS: I don't think you've been arguing with the point in general, I just wanted to add my 2 cents on the game I love
On topic: this topic is very well written, I enjoyed reading it. At glance all concerns seem legit or at least worth consideration.
|
On August 26 2015 14:28 Kharnage wrote:
Chargelots are AMAZING now. I went for chargelot archon with a sprinkling of adepts and stalkers vs a terran to great effect. Mines and a PF on the 3rd pretty much stopped my advance from just killing him outright though.
It was great feeling like gateway units have some real teeth to them now and that terran might actually want to get something other than pure MMM.
You only see this from one side. Terrans are not forced to play something that is not pure MMM (it was already the case against chargelots/archons and once colossi or HTs were on the field). They're litterally forced into not playing MMM.
Honestly, the bio needs some love right now. The only buff they got is some movement speed on the ghost, a useless snipe, and a medivac buff.
I'm okay with that, but what do you expect, really ? You give the Protosses a very strong chargelot buff, a very powerful and cheap unit with a ton of HP, and you nerf the marauder, expecting the bio player to multitask and harass only. Terrans can't avoid the fight forever, and Protosses just got a warp buff too.
Then you buff the hardest thing to deal with as a bio player : the Warp Prism.
Playing bio right now makes no sense, you'd better turtle a little more and crush the opponent with liberators or cyclones.
It's much worse than what you may think, once the timings are worked on, it won't be "my gateball can compete with MMM, yay !", but "Oh, you're playing bio, I remember when it used to work against any unit at all".
|
Mostly agree with OP ,especially the last point about zerg
|
Interesting article, but I don't agree with this point at all:
Time Compression Reduces the Skill Gap
In a faster game, small differences in APM result in much greater differences in capability. If you take it to extremes (e.g. to such a speed that a game only takes on average 0.1 minutes), a player with 200APM gets to perform 20 actions in the entire game, a player with 300APM gets to perform 30 actions. That is a huge difference in skill level - I would expect the 300APM player to always win, regardless of strategy. Taking it to the other extreme, (0.01% the current speed), APM becomes completely irrelevant as everyone has enough time to complete all of their actions perfectly - the game becomes solely strategy.
To me a decrease in speed means a high focus on strategy over mechanics - and a smaller skill gap.
The reason SC1 had a wider skill gap at the top was it had much much higher mechanical requirements - which more than compensated for the slower game progression. In essence it was "faster" overall because more actions needed completing in less time - SC2 has far fewer actions (i.e. no manual worker rallying), but is slightly faster in its game speed to compensate.
|
i like the post makes sense but if we are talking top level many people on these forums over the years have said the strategy of the game doesnt come in till you are top masters / gm mmr, otherwise ur just massing units and sending them across the map copying some build idea you saw in some pro game earlier today.
|
*sidles back into the room and pretends like he never left*
I agree with some of the OP, but not all.
Overbearing opportunity costs limiting strategies, for instance. Protoss? No way. Protoss has used - and won with - chronoboost in every imaginable way, from macro to warpgate to upgrade timings to tech. Zerg? What is building queens and injecting stopping you doing, exactly? Same with Terran.
Strategic diversity has mostly been a tug of war between the individual races, in my view. If one race has a lot of strategic diversity in a matchup, then it is almost inevitable that the other race will have very little, because it is natural for only a very few strategies to be safe against a wide range of threats. In early WoL Zerg had a terrible time against both Protoss and Terran in that respect, struggling to even find one stable strategy that had a fighting chance against everything. And as was proved later, that inequality of strategic diversity was a double edged sword (Winfestor Broodlord, anyone?).
Time compression lowering the quality of the game? First, while macro mechanics might compress windows of time, they don't speed the game up. They mostly create greater quantity. And narrow windows do present opportunities for individual brilliance.
I don't buy your chess analogy. Would the quality of a game of starcraft be higher if it were played at 0.1x speed? 0.01x? No, so clearly we are looking for a sweet spot, not pursuing an extreme.
While a slower game might allow more control, it reduces the significance of the controlling you do. Look at roach vs roach: long fights, fast units, plenty of opportunity to micro - and does anything other than tech/upgrades/numbers ever matter? Not so much. Compare to ling/bling/muta vs marine/medivac/mine: low health, high damage, fights over super quickly - but they are the most vital and exciting and positional interactions in SC2.
|
Thank you all for the responses I avoided discussing balance because the game isn't finished, all I looked at are the effects of Macro Boosters on the game across all three races, except #7 which is Zerg only, but not about balance.
On August 26 2015 10:08 AkashSky wrote:
Are you implying that tier 3 units can be nerfed, (in a manner similar to the collosus) as a direct result of the tier 1 units being nerfed due to the economy not exploding because of lack of macro mechanics?
**on a side note, your post was amazing, and if I think logically about what is better for the game, I very well would agree with you. But my emotions, and feelings toward macro mechanics simply will not let me make a rational choice. I simply love cronoboost too much for its versatility, I love the miracles that mules bring about, and I love the larva injects which actually make zerg swarmy. These emotions compel me to fight against the removal of macro mechanics for no rational reason. That, and it seems that I have grown old and hate change**.
Yes, I think either low tech units can be buffed following the reduction in economy, or high tech units can be nerfed. Balance isn't my focus. My point is that if the numerical gap isn't so big between low tech and high tech units, then the efficiency gap doesn't need to be so big either. A smaller efficiency gap will allow low tier units to scale better in the late game, and we have less death ball plays.
On August 26 2015 21:00 Haighstrom wrote:Interesting article, but I don't agree with this point at all: In a faster game, small differences in APM result in much greater differences in capability. If you take it to extremes (e.g. to such a speed that a game only takes on average 0.1 minutes), a player with 200APM gets to perform 20 actions in the entire game, a player with 300APM gets to perform 30 actions. That is a huge difference in skill level - I would expect the 300APM player to always win, regardless of strategy. Taking it to the other extreme, (0.01% the current speed), APM becomes completely irrelevant as everyone has enough time to complete all of their actions perfectly - the game becomes solely strategy. To me a decrease in speed means a high focus on strategy over mechanics - and a smaller skill gap. The reason SC1 had a wider skill gap at the top was it had much much higher mechanical requirements - which more than compensated for the slower game progression. In essence it was "faster" overall because more actions needed completing in less time - SC2 has far fewer actions (i.e. no manual worker rallying), but is slightly faster in its game speed to compensate.
I agree with your analysis on APM. However, my post wasn't focused on player speed differences, it looked at the effects of Macro Boosters on the game for all players. If you imagine both players having the same APM, then the amount of actions they can perform during each phase of the game is determined by time, or how long that phase lasts.
I believe the difficulty of macro lies in multitasking. Any pro can have perfect injects if he has no opponent in the game. It is the ability to produce stuff while dealing with a million other things that define who has good macro, not just pure mechanical speed. The removal of Macro Boosters will slow down the economy, but won't affect other game speeds like unit movement, so the effect is that each phase of the game lasts longer, but players and units still retain their normal speed. This gives both players more time and opportunity to demonstrate their skills, thus increasing the skill gap.
On August 26 2015 22:20 Umpteen wrote:
I agree with some of the OP, but not all.
Overbearing opportunity costs limiting strategies, for instance. Protoss? No way. Protoss has used - and won with - chronoboost in every imaginable way, from macro to warpgate to upgrade timings to tech. Zerg? What is building queens and injecting stopping you doing, exactly? Same with Terran.
Strategic diversity has mostly been a tug of war between the individual races, in my view. If one race has a lot of strategic diversity in a matchup, then it is almost inevitable that the other race will have very little, because it is natural for only a very few strategies to be safe against a wide range of threats. In early WoL Zerg had a terrible time against both Protoss and Terran in that respect, struggling to even find one stable strategy that had a fighting chance against everything. And as was proved later, that inequality of strategic diversity was a double edged sword (Winfestor Broodlord, anyone?).
Time compression lowering the quality of the game? First, while macro mechanics might compress windows of time, they don't speed the game up. They mostly create greater quantity. And narrow windows do present opportunities for individual brilliance.
I don't buy your chess analogy. Would the quality of a game of starcraft be higher if it were played at 0.1x speed? 0.01x? No, so clearly we are looking for a sweet spot, not pursuing an extreme.
You made some good points, strategic diversity varies by race, and also the game cannot be slowed down infinitely.
My point on opportunity cost wasn't race specific, it was comparing between the economic option vs tech vs army options, and that Macro Boosters make the economic option superior to the others, thus all builds that are not all-ins tend to focus on economy. Without Macro Boosters inflating the economic option, we can potentially see more tech or fast army builds that aren't necessarily all ins. That is the strategic diversity I was focused on.
Completely agree that we need to find a sweet spot on game speed. I do believe that more time will give players more control, which means less mistakes and higher quality games. Obviously we cannot slow down the game so much that it is not fun anymore.
|
Double Post 
|
Questioning the premise: Why must we bundle together Mechanical Difficulty and Macro Boosters in a single discussion? How do Macro Boosters affect the game other than mechanics? Can we not inject Mechanical Difficulty in other areas of the game even if Macro Boosters are removed?
I think I can answer these.
1. Mechanical difficulty and boosters are tied together because the macro elements within Starcraft 2 are too easy without them. This is a result of the engine improvements moving from Brood War to SC2. If there is a way to achieve mechanical difficulty without macro boosters, I have yet to see anyone mention it.
2. I think there are plenty of pieces that answer this question and I think that's what your article is mostly discussing.
3. If there is a way, I have yet to see it. Blizzard's idea is to add a bunch of spells and shit to make the micro more difficult. If there is a good way to make the macro more difficult while also keeping it somewhat friendly for newer players, I'm all for it. The only solution I have come up with is a retooling of the engine which is just too impractical.
|
Sin #1 : yeah right because 2 hours long games are always so much fun in SC2. Did someone say swarm host?
Sin #2 : yeah right because in SC2 the ability to do a lot of things in a restricted amount of time isn't the definition of skill. Did someone said Real Time Strategy?
Sin #3 : yeah right, because when I poorly defend an allin as terran but have 3 CCs, mules don't help me make a comeback at all. Did someone said fuck logic?
Sin #4 : only kindda makes sense for mule, the rest is heavy theorycrafting.
Sin #5 : YEAH, right. Less action packed. Let's just see how many passive terran players won a TvP lately. None. The lack of action is mainly due to band aid units such as the MSC, and mech play immobility.
Sin #6 : complete theorycrafting.
Sin #7 : "zergs go mass roaches => deathball". Yeah because in any RTS ever, if you gain an advantage early/mid game with "timed" units (less effective in the late game), your main option to finish the game is to build a tech heavy army deathball style and stomp the enemy. The fact that you can produce a high amount of low tier units and then have to transition into something more lategame is the macro mechanics fault. Of course.
This post is an insult to logic. I'm sad to see some people have so little understanding the the game that they agree with this post.
The only reason to blame macro mechanics that's not complete bullshit ("it's not enjoyable for the viewers so let's remove it" : yeah because the game is made to be watched, not to be played?), is that inject and chronoboost are mindless APM sinks. Terran macro mechanics lead to strategic choices : if I mule, I won't have a scan, if I scan, I loose money for 90 secs, and if I fucked up, I'm forced to supply drop and loose a mule/scan.
Chrono and inject are kinda mindless and HAVE to be done for the P/Z to win. The right way to change that would be to give P/Z a CHOICE. If queens could instantly spawn 2 larvae for 25 energy on a hatch, but giving the hatch a 40 sec cooldown where it cant be injected or targeted by this ability, it'd give zergs a choice : do I want half the larvae now to defend a push or do a strong timing, or do I want optimal production capacity?
Give people a choice in the macro mechanics blizzard, so that macro stays an important and decisive part of the game.
|
On August 26 2015 19:30 Yiome wrote:Mostly agree with OP ,especially the last point about zerg
Yeah now Zerg moslty waits for a deathball cuz less larva means no more fast remax.
Maybe this will mean buffed units at least.
|
I want to take the time to write a response to each of your points:
1&2. Time compression lowers the quality of the game/Time Compression lowers the skill gap
These are the main points that made me want to write this response, particularly with the examples that you used. You gave the example of two chess grandmasters having a 3 hour time limit versus a 1 minute time limit and stated that the 3 hour limit would lead to a more thought out game. However, in doing so, you focused entirely on quality and not on the rest of the picture.
This point carries on into your second point, and they can both are highly related. Therefore, I will cover both points at once.
The first problem with your post is that you talk about quality of the game, but do not define it in a definite manner. You state that the quality of the game is related to how close to perfection the players preform. The question that needs to be asked is "Is this a positive thing?" which in turn raises the question "What about it is positive?" Your paragraph begins with how a quality game is "epic" -due to this I believe that quality refers to entertainment value, which is what I will be covering.
Right now, you equate quality with both the skill level of the players (Higher skill = Higher Quality) and the entertainment value to the game to the viewer (Higher Quality = More fun to watch). However, both of these comparisons are flawed.
To start, let us talk about skill. You state that having a longer time to react gives a player more chance to show their skill. This a half true. A player can show off their macro skill better with a longer game, but it minimizes their other skills which benefit in a faster game. The large aspects of the game that benefit from a fast early game are decision making and micro. This raises the question, which aspect of the game is more important? Is trading more opportunities for macro skill worth the lessening of micro and decision making?
Let us answer that question by talking about your first point. What are some of the most entertaining games that you can remember? In addition, what makes a game entertaining? When you think of exciting SC2, what do you think of? Most people think of close, back-and-forth games or comebacks. Furthermore, some of the most entertaining SC2 I can remember were scrappy matches which came down to micro. Macro games tend to be boring.
The point is that entertain value does not mainly come from macro. Entertainment comes from micro - watching units fight with one another. In that sense, it is better for the game to have an accelerated time frame, so that these compositions are reached sooner. Macro mechanics are one way to speed up the game.
Blizzard also agrees that micro is more entertaining then macro, which is why they put the accelerated start in LotV.
That said, do macro mechanics benefit macro oriented players? The answer is yes. Perfect injects are better than someone who misses some injects. MULEs influence Terran greatly. One of the defining factors of a top Protoss is that they use chronoboost constantly though out the game. Macro mechanics are a way for macro players to set themselves apart.
Furthermore, while macro mechanics may lessen the visibility of macro, they do not take anything away from it. A viewer might not see the amazing macro going on behind the scenes, but a person knows that it is there. While it might not be the focus, it still exists.
To conclude this first point, I want to directly state what I had already said. Macro is a one of many aspects of SC2, in addition to being a skill players have. However, Macro is less entertaining than other aspects of SC2. This is why Macro mechanics exist to cut to the action, so to speak. Macro mechanics lead to more entertaining games. Additionally, Macro mechanics offer a way for players to demonstrate there macro, which would be lost if not for these mechanics. Finally, macro is one of many skills needed to play SC2. While macro mechanics may "lower the skill gap" of direct macro, they offer opportunities for other skills to shine in macro's stead.
3. Time Compression Lowers Comeback Potential
This is another statement that I disagree with very much. The main disagreement I have with it, however, is how you worded it. It should say that Macro mechanics lowers comeback potential. This is because you are discussing macro mechanics. The reason that I make this distinction is that I will not argue with the fact that time compression lowers comeback potential. It is harder to come back in a faster paced game. There is a difference between simple time compression and macro mechanics, which is what I wish to discuss.
Let us start by looking at a ZvZ. Both players are sending lings at one another, fairly evenly matched, until one player loses a queen. The other zerg acquires a large advantage due to his opponents crippled production. This is a situation where a comeback is difficult. The one player is ahead far more then he would be without macro mechanics. The issue I take with this is that the problem is not macro mechanics.
Why did one player lose the queen in the first place? Was it because they had less lings, as they built too many drones? Perhaps they miscontrolled their units. Whatever the case, the loss of the queen was not due to macro mechanics, but rather due to another mistake. The player would then push the blame to macro mechanics.
That is unique to a zerg situation, but this point is really only valid for zerg. If a Terran loses an orbital or a protoss loses their nexus early game, the game is probably decided even without macro mechanics. Without macro mechanics, the other player would still have an advantage.
The addition of macro mechanics do not increase that advantage what so ever.
Finally, as a counterexample, almost every massive comeback I can think of involved MULEs. Even if it did not, macro mechanics are something that a losing player can rely on to attempt to take a better position. There is a chance that the winning player will slip on his macro. Without, there is no extra ability to come back.
4&5 Opportunity Cost
Both of these points discuss opportunity cost. Both of these points need to consider the bigger picture and realize that the fault is not macro mechanics, but rather overall balance.
These points have a much larger scope than simply macro mechanics, and I agree that this is a huge problem with SC2 currently.
Protoss is completely innocent of these charges. No one ever built a nexus solely for chronoboost.
To be extremely short, Economy play is extremely powerful, but it would still be powerful without macro mechanics. I do not believe that macro mechanics are the cause, but rather a side effect of a powerful economy. Furthermore, I believe that the answer to this problem is not with removing macro mechanics, but buffing early game units.
6. Macro mechanics = Deathball
Macro mechanics do help build many low cost units. However, deathballs would still exist without macro boosters. It is wrong to state that macro mechanics lead directly to a preference of lower cost units. Rather, this is as a result of a build. A teching player needs to defend his base while he is teching. An attacking player wants to attack quickly. The teching player is looking for cost effective units, and probably wants them to be light on gas. The attacking player is looking for effective units to straight out kill his opponent, and they can't be too high tech. This leads to a situation where both players mass t1 untis.
This leads to deathball play. All macro mechanics do is increase the size of the deathball. The important thing is that it would still occur without macro mechanics.
In addition, chronoboost also does not really apply here.
7. Inject is OP
I have to get going, but this is a game design problem as well as a balance problem. Would nerfing inject help out much? That remains to be seen. However, I fail to see why this is a bad thing. If it were not for inject, the zerg would just have to build more hatcheries, at half the cost of a queen. Inject is a way for players macro to matter. I do believe inject is beneficial to the game.
|
I think I am gonna call workers now Macro Boosters. As thats what they do, speed up macro.
|
@Monochromatic, thank you for your detailed response, I can see you put a lot of time into it, really appreciate it.
On Time Compression:
I like your point that micro is more entertaining to watch. However, what makes a perfect game is a highly personal question. For me it is about the amount of mistakes the players make. Mistakes can happen in macro, micro, multitasking, or anything else, and the less mistakes a game has the higher it's quality in my eyes. A "perfect" game to me is one where neither player makes any mistakes. Obviously, this definition is not for everyone, so neither of us is wrong.
I disagree with you that a longer game diminishes micro. I think a longer game does not mean a slower game, players still operate at the same APM, and units still move just as fast, the difference is that with a lower economy, the amount of time it takes to go from one phase of the game to another increases. Longer phases actual give players more time and opportunities to do everything, including more micro opportunities. It's like having more smaller fights before peak saturation, rather than reaching peak saturation quickly and have fewer maxed out 200/200 fights.
Also, I think you are bundling Mechanical Difficulty with Macro Boosters, which I specifically tried to separate from this discussion. When you say "macro mechanics" differentiates good macro players, I believe you mean Mechanical Difficulty. I agree that Mechanical Difficulty can be good for the game, but my starting point was that we shouldn't bundle these two together. We should remove Macro Boosters for their other harmful effects, and perhaps find other ways to put Mechanical Difficulty back into the game.
On Comeback Potential:
My view is that Macro Boosters speed up the economy, and the faster economy speeds up how fast you go from one phase of the game to another. Such as how long it takes to reach peak saturation, how long to set up all your production buildings, etc. The less time you have, the less opportunities you have to make a comeback.
For example, let's say Terran skips a third CC in favor of two additional barracks, if his first attack fails he is basically lost in the standard game. This is because the Macro Booster of his Zerg opponent can make him 20-30 drones ahead very quickly after holding the initial push. Without Macro Boosters, Zerg (all races) cannot explode in economy so fast, and the Terran who failed his initial attack has more time to catch up and make a comeback.
On Opportunity Cost:
I disagree here again. Macro Boosters are the cause of the super powerful economy, without them the growth of economy will be much slower, but other game speeds still remain the same. This will make the economic option less attractive relative to other options. Economy play can still be strong and perhaps the dominant meta, but without Macro Boosters inflating the economy so fast, other strategies like fast tech or fast army can perhaps compete with fast economy without going all-in.
Protoss is definitely affected by this. If you go two base immortal sentry vs Zerg, forgoing the third Nexus, you forfeit your Macro Booster while your opponent is using his. If the two base attacks fails Protoss has virtually no way of catching up in economy again, making the strategy all-in. Compare this to Protoss making the third nexus, and making full use of his Macro Boosters, he can then go toe to toe with the Zerg economy.
On Deathball and Zerg Inject:
Low tech units are only constrained by economy, which is sped up by Macro Boosters, whereas high tech units also have constraints like tech buildings, longer unit production time, and research, which are not sped up by Macro Boosters. (choroboost aside). This is why I think Macro Boosters direct impact low tech units but has less of a ripple affect on high tech units. Obviously more economy also means more high tech units, but the other constraints not affected by Macro Boosters lessen the impact they have on high tech units.
I'm not saying Macro Boosters give preference to low tech units, I'm saying they cause a larger numerical disparity between low tech and high tech units. Take LOTV Terran bio right now, with less economy the amount of bio you can produce is a lot fewer, but the impact on making ravens isn't that different, since ravens are mostly about gas and tech building and long unit production time, and less about just economy.
The smaller the numerical gap between low tech and high tech units, the less their efficiency gap has to be. If one colossus needs to face off 10 stalkers, it must have incredibly high stats to compete, but if one colossus only has to face off 3 stalkers, it no longer needs the insane stats anymore. That is my point, should the efficiency gap between stalker and colossus decrease, people will make more stalker based armies, and less mass colossus death balls.
Same concept for inject, by providing production capacity on top of the economic boost, it further increases the numerical gap between low tech and high tech units. Roaches can be masses as long as you have economy and larva, which are directly boosted by inject, but ultras require Hive, Cavern, Armor upgrade, and has a long production time, these constraints are not directly boosted by inject. Therefore larva inject boost low tech units more than high tech units. By removing inject, the numerical gap between roaches and ultras will decreases, which means either roaches can be stronger or ultras can be weaker to match the numerical change. A smaller efficiency gap between roaches and ultras will make roaches scale better into the late game.
I hope these make sense to you, and thank you again for the thoughtful response!
|
The OP is such a well written compelling argument. I felt like I was reading the distillation of only the best and most rational thoughts that were previously not spoken to the public of the entire Blizzard team and half of the gaming community over the recent changes. It is a truly great piece of writing.
I think most points are so well made you can't really argue with them logically. I mean sure, there are always small exceptions, but from a big picture perspective it all makes quite a bit of sense.
In conclusion, my own reasons for liking removal of inject/mule/chrono is solidified even more. The game is going to be healthier, more diverse, and just better when the dust settles. The big thing I am waiting for is the same treatment Zerg got for Protoss and Terran. Because right now, the new emphasis is lopsided in the Zerg direction. Some sort of equalization still must be in the works.
|
I disagreed with macro changes until I read your opinions. I think most of them are true. Bravo!
|
|
|
I agree with the OP. macro boosters should be removed. It was a bad game design from the start
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
