EPTCommunity Feedback Update - September 10 - Page 8
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19230 Posts
| ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On September 11 2015 07:05 varsovie wrote: How hard is it to strap a "de-chronoboost" ability so you can stop it on the building of your choice. You'll still have to check which building gets de-chronoboosted in case of nexus lost, but otherwise it's consistent. This is a really good solution actually. Though Blizzard probably won't like it because it's more clicks. On September 11 2015 06:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I really don't understand their thinking on the macro mechanics... everything they stated could have been though of beforehand. I feel we will end up with some weird solution (design by comittee) instead of a clear design decision. The only way to get good feedback is to get good players to play the game and to do that they had to patch the game. | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On September 11 2015 03:53 [PkF] Wire wrote: I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about. you have to understand though that mechanics is almost exclusively the result of playing a fuckton of starcraft, not much else... it's mostly if not all of it building muscle memory | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On September 11 2015 08:38 ROOTFayth wrote: you have to understand though that mechanics is almost exclusively the result of playing a fuckton of starcraft, not much else... it's mostly if not all of it building muscle memory ^ this, though I don't know if I agree that this is necessarily bad. For instance: I play tennis at a competitive level. Technique is important, sure, but the guy who plays more has a huge advantage (assuming similar technique levels). Decision making and strategy are important, but so is execution, and executing in a competitive match is all about muscle memory, and practice. Where I think eSports can differentiate--beside the numerous obvious ways--is that some of this rote muscle memory is not as necessary. Right now, in SC2, if you're much better than me, it's probably because you've played thousands more games, not because you have superior strategies. Mechanical efficiency--a direct benefit of rote muscle memory, as Fayth accurately observed--reins supreme almost all the way to the pro level of play. | ||
|
Isarios
United States153 Posts
keep working blizz. --- as to larvae: hoenstly its more skill inducing to remember to always inject larvae at all times. What about making it so that if you hit injects your larvae are FASTER. not more numerous? | ||
|
hitpoint
United States1511 Posts
On September 11 2015 08:38 ROOTFayth wrote: you have to understand though that mechanics is almost exclusively the result of playing a fuckton of starcraft, not much else... it's mostly if not all of it building muscle memory That's why there's leagues though...people with no macro can play against other people with no macro. What's wrong with that? | ||
|
DeadByDawn
United Kingdom476 Posts
On September 11 2015 08:30 NyxNax wrote: Haha DAMN, its funny how when they announced they were removing Macro Mechanics, everrryyyone and their mom was like " OMG BLIZZARD WTF. they've lost their minds im not buying this game.".. now they change them back and everyone is like "OMG Blizzard WTF removing MM was the best thing they ever did! im not buying this game". lol I do think they could have found a happy median, have the option to use auto cast or manual. It would be interesting to see who is saying this - is it the same people or two different camps of thought. As Blizz said they were split 50:50 on this and there was definitely a split in the community. Like BisuDagger above, I was one of the ones who said WTF originally, came round to their way of thinking (after the recent update) and now I am once again thinking WTF. However I have already bought the game, and there is at least one more copy that I will buy. | ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
On September 11 2015 08:32 BisuDagger wrote: As someone who was outspoken against removing the three macro abilites, I actually came to agree with the change. Now that I'm pro removal I'm upset again lol. This is pretty much where I'm at. I can't believe I'm saying this after waiting so impatiently for WoL to come out: I wish the SC2 team had more control over the release date and could push the release back a few months to do more testing/development. | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On September 11 2015 08:59 hitpoint wrote: I didn't mention it but it was to point out that it's not more interesting than someone who came up with a better strategy with lesser mechanicsThat's why there's leagues though...people with no macro can play against other people with no macro. What's wrong with that? | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3099 Posts
My own thinking on this issue is that Starcraft is by definition a mechanical game, and that macro is a core part of that. Even if macro mechanics were totally removed, this would still be true. The only question is how that mechanical requirement ought to be distributed, what the proper balance of mechanical tasks and value should be to create the best experience for all kinds of users. The macro mechanics in their essence are very simple ways to translate mechanics into economic benefit--they generally do that in much simpler ways than do Starcraft's other macro tasks (building pylons at the right times, building the right number of production facilities, producing the optimal number of units, etc). The macro mechanics actually simplify macro, since they allow single clicks to have large benefits that would otherwise take far more time/attention/actions to gain--in their own way, they're really "macro shortcuts." Starcraft being a competitive game, though, the presence of these shortcuts is going to tilt the game to some degree towards people who can remember or are capable of performing them; this is just the other side of the coin. Remove the macro mechanics completely, and bad players like me will suffer because their one-click macro "shortcuts" have been removed--tune them really high, and bad players like me will suffer because their failures to consistently perform these actions are having too large of an effect on the balance between them and their opponent. I don't really like either of these options, and I'm convinced the answer lies in between, in finding the right balance. Now, I don't really think that there is a single optimal balance here (different people are going to appreciate different ratios, and these will often be based on their own particular strengths and weaknesses), but I do think it's perfectly possible to adjust the strength of the macro mechanics up or down so to optimize it as much as possible. I think that's basically what Blizzard should be doing here, and what they should be focusing on. | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
"We currently have autocast removed, but it is possible to stack Spawn Larva on a Hatchery. E.g. I can cast Spawn Larva three times on the same Hatchery at the same time, and each one will pop one after another." I feel this can be interpreted in 2 different ways: 1. casting spawn larvae 3 times on same hatchery will cause 3 sets of larvae to pop at the same time 40 seconds after injecting. 2. casting spawn larvae 3 times on same hatchery will cause 1 set of larvae to pop after 40 seconds, at which point a new 40-second duration will automatically start and spawn another set of larvae after the duration and then automatically start a third and final 40-second duration which will pop the third set of larvae. so basically: if I use spawn larvae on a hatchery (that is not already spawning larvae) 3 times simoultaniously, will the hatchery be done after 40 seconds or 120 seconds? (assuming I don't stack another set on top of those 3) fyi: I am a low-level player that is very happy with auto-inject but wouldn't consider it a dealbreaker if they reinstated manual injects that are less punishing than hots injects (something equivalent to chronoboost or mule in harshness). however reinstating hots injects as punishing as they always have been might eventually end up being a dealbreaker. assuming that you will be able to inject a hatchery even if it is already spawning larvae (which I feel is a reasonable assumption if it is possible to inject 3 times in a row as indicated by the feedback update) if it is the former (40 seconds to finish all 3): I could probably live with this version. my main concern is not with how difficult (or easy) this would be but rather whether mass queens for each hatchery will become a thing. this version pretty much officially kills the concept of a macro hatchery since the only benefits for extra hatcheries over extra queens are extremely situational (for example, having an extra building in base races, not costing supply, etc.) if it is the latter (120 seconds to finish all 3): then it only helps an extremely minor amount. it would still be almost as punishing as original hots (because missed larvae injects are not caught up to at any reasonable speed) and it doesn't really do anything different from original hots other than that the injection-timing-window becomes larger the more you fuck up. regardless of whether its the 40 second version or the 120 second version there are some pros and cons that they share, which I believe is what DK alludes to when he says "design-wise, the current version is arguably better, however players are losing a skill they’ve been practicing for years, which isn't ideal." the main positive thing about manual inject is that players regain their method of distinguishing skill (although diminished in this regard) and multi-tasking, as well as allowing professional players to keep the benefits of a skillset they have been practicing for years and making zerg return to base with their camera. it also solves the issue of queens instantly injecting the hatch they were built from even if you wanted it to make a creep tumor with the first 25 energy. as for the negative things, it reintroduces the unneccessary rote zerg mechanic that feels artificial, uninteresting and rigid to execute. as a sum total: I really don't like reintroducing rote mechanics just for the sake of having rote mechanics and because "people have developed a skillset for it" that like saying we shouldn't build houses because people have perfected the art of digging caves. but if the game is not going to be any other way then fine, Ill tuck my tail between my legs and yield. after barking that it still shouldn't be as punishing as in hots. as for distinguishing players I feel that that can be done many other ways that does not necessitate reintroducing manual injects, same with multitasking, making zerg return to base with camera and the issue of the instantly injecting queen that you might want to have make an immediate creep tumor. on the subject of pros having practiced the skill for a long time: allowing pros to keep a niche skill they have been practicing for years, just because that niche was an extremely powerful (but also flawed) mechanic seems very much like arguing that people have learned to eat soup with a fork and giving them a spoon would hurt their feelings, and therefore we all should eat soup with forks to make those people feel like they haven't wasted their time learning the art of the fork. in this analogy the stackable inject would be to give everyone a spork. | ||
|
Little-Chimp
Canada948 Posts
| ||
|
crazedrat
272 Posts
The macro revert for Zerg... don't forget to increase the larvae back up to 4. You probably want to add diminishing returns for the inject since stacking queens will become a big thing otherwise. | ||
|
Varest
Austria44 Posts
| ||
|
crazedrat
272 Posts
On September 11 2015 09:23 Varest wrote: I really want to keep auto-inject. Yeah I like the auto inject. I'm still so busy spreading creep and scouting / doing all the little things Zerg needs, my APM is still taxed and it's around 190 right now. You look at leagues platinum and below - i.e. the majority of players, and they all play terran and protoss. They can't play zerg it's too many clicks. I don't see why new players need to be excluded from the game. How does that help anyone who plays starcraft? How is that good for the community? And then we have Protoss, the easiest race macro-wise and only race which keeps the autocast. ... Why? As long as they give Zerg the missing larvae back I am alright anyway. | ||
|
Penev
28474 Posts
On September 11 2015 03:29 Spyridon wrote: Add me to the disappointed list. Still BS that they claim their going to "handle the late game mule issue" and their fix for not stacking on minerals isn't going to make all that much of a difference. The problem is the fact that players still can be REWARDED for FORGETTING to drop mules... Which makes their whole logic as bringing back mules a silly argument... "Not really making macro that much easier"... of course not! Because mules took very little work to begin with relative to other races, and got the most reward for completely forgetting about their mechanics.. Zerg changes are equally retarded... they ADMIT the new version is better design. So why bring back a badly designed mechanic??? If players need a "skill" to master why not make a skill that contributes to the game strategically??? But no... lets bring back a mechanic that was relatively unbalanced since the beginning, and is admittedly badly designed... Risk vs reward is still skewed, not to mention the obvious exploits... Makes no damn sense... I never understood why mules don't have a cool down period (per orbital), make it so that you have to pay attention when to mule like a Zerg has to do with his injects (well, not anymore I guess lol). The spamming is the problem. | ||
|
crazedrat
272 Posts
| ||
|
BoxedCube
United States23 Posts
Are we chasing the best design for each of these mechanics or is taking away a skill that players have been practicing for years better for the game in the long-term? Why is this even a question asked. Why WOULDN'T you go for the best design of the game? There is no doubt that better design is better for the game in the long term as people begin to have more fun and less frustration with BETTER designed mechanics rather than maintaining the current balance of power. On another point, the removal of macro-mechanics provided a glimpse into a SLOWED DOWN game of starcraft, enabling people room for more strategic decisions and a better experience for lower leagues. The main problem with the economy in LOTV before macro-mechanic changes is that the hyper-developmental economy is extremely hard to manage for a lot of people, and removing macro-mechanics is a good way to slow down the game without affecting the unit handling. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16680 Posts
On September 11 2015 08:32 BisuDagger wrote: As someone who was outspoken against removing the three macro abilites, I actually came to agree with the change. Now that I'm pro removal I'm upset again lol. i was never strongly for or against it. i think this is where a really smart, visionary type game designer is needed. is DK that guy? | ||
|
crazedrat
272 Posts
I don't see the same argument: "It sucks seeing players lose a skill they're practiced for years" applies to larvae inject but does not apply to chrono boost. | ||
| ||
