EPTTLO on Macro Mechanics - Page 10
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Jj_82
Swaziland419 Posts
| ||
NonY
8748 Posts
And this is where they mess up from a game design perspective, because the macro mechanics were made BECAUSE of the improved controls. Why improve the controls at all if your just going to INTENTIONALLY try to make things more difficult in exchange? They did it for the same reason that people to now want the macro mechanics to be removed: replace some "brainless" mechanics with mechanics that are more fun and/or require decisions to be made. This worked for chronoboost and it worked for scan vs mule (not so much drop supply) but it mostly failed for zerg, especially when queens are being made exclusively for inject larva and because queens served an important combat role as well as being the macro mechanic conduit. They weren't trying to reduce the number of actions a player has to make but rather change the nature of those actions to more frequently be interesting or fun. And I hate to cast a really harsh judgment here, but it seems kinda crazy for you to be writing long posts on this topic and game design when you didn't know the answer to that question because it's kinda at the heart of this topic. | ||
|
Jj_82
Swaziland419 Posts
With SC2, you have not only fans of the SC2 game, but many of us are also SC/BW fans as well. Part of the problem is SC2 developers changed many aspects of SC1 that the general public was actually happy with. Adding macro mechanics was one of the things added in SC2 that was NOT in SC1. And I would argue that the whole idea since inception has been a poor one - simply because controls were improved in SC2 and BW required more clicks, so they made something to use up more clicks... That is poor game design! Taking that in to consideration, here is the thing I have to say in response to the paragraph I quoted... In my opinion (and many others) these mechanics never belonged in StarCraft from the start, and they directly changed the idea of the game itself, much as you described in your quote. If the idea and intent behind the mechanic is not for the best of the game, but rather to simply "make the controls harder", why upgrade the controls in the first place? Why take half-measures? Half-measures = nobody wins and the design is sub-par. I believe SC2 should have been the place where innovative mechanics were added. I still do think Blizzard should be the ones innovating. SC2 does not even have a good reputation anymore... And for good reason. Blizzard don't have the best track record for vanilla games at release, but they are a reputation for improving their games steadily with expansions and patches until they are in a better state. Even D3. The D3 team was wiling to do MAJOR CHANGES to the design of the game, even drastic changes such as removing the AH. With as horrible of a release as it had, is in much, much better shape now days. More of my friends have been playing D3 in this recent patch than have played at vanilla D3 release. That is the type of treatment SC2 has needed for years, but the game has not been given the attention it deserves from the developers... Rather than these macro mechanics, if we need something to "require players attention" and "require more clicks" then by all means add something that does that, but make the mechanics add positive substance to the game. From a strategic POV, these mechanics are crap. And regarding TLO's defense of these mechanics... To be honest I did not see very much at all defending the mechanics themselves - their functionality. He defended that they were another place to spend attention, and he defended that some people may build their playstyles around them. But not the actual mechanics themselves. This does not send me a message that says these mechanics should stay in the game, this sends me a message that says players need elsewhere to spend their attention and Blizzard should give us an ideal mechanic in that place, rather than this garbage. Final note - my prior post wasn't really about starting points for other games. Sad as it sounds, SC2 is all that is really left of the true RTS genre. And it is a damn shame that the game is being treated like this... Improvement and innovation should be here if it is going to be anywhere. It's been 5 years... and it is still arguable if SC2 is truly a better game than it was at release.] Then - instead of talking so much in an abstract language - why don't you put up some real ideas on how to do it better? Secondly, why do you think a "modern, updated" RTS should always need less clicks? I really don't agree on this, and follow TLO's points much better. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On October 08 2015 02:17 NonY wrote: They did it for the same reason that people to now want the macro mechanics to be removed: replace some "brainless" mechanics with mechanics that are more fun and/or require decisions to be made. This worked for chronoboost and it worked for scan vs mule (not so much drop supply) but it mostly failed for zerg, especially when queens are being made exclusively for inject larva and because queens served an important combat role as well as being the macro mechanic conduit. They weren't trying to reduce the number of actions a player has to make but rather change the nature of those actions to more frequently be interesting or fun. And I hate to cast a really harsh judgment here, but it seems kinda crazy for you to be writing long posts on this topic and game design when you didn't know the answer to that question because it's kinda at the heart of this topic. I think you may have misunderstood what I was talking about, because I see no relation with the part you quoted to "reducing the number of actions" or "replacing brainless mechanics". Quite the opposite, the macro mechanics increased the number of actions players had to make,. And I am not sure what "brainless" mechanics were replaced?... the macro mechanics did not replace anything... If you look back at the commentary way back from WoL beta, there is mention of the macro mechanics being added for 3 reasons: Because SC2 has improved controls and since macro was easier than BW they added something else to emulate that, because they thought SC needed a "come back mechanic", and because it could be a way to differentiate the races from each other. Not the reason you just said. And "intentionally making the macro controls more difficult" is the primary aspect of their first reason. Although if they actually added the mechanics for the reason you mentioned, that would be a great thing. That's what designers are supposed to do. But that shows the problem in this games direction from the very beginning. They were explicitly "trying" to build an eSport, rather than a good fun game. They SHOULD have been changing the game to make it more interesting or fun. Hell, they should be doing that right now. But how many times lately have you heard their reasoning behind changes in the community updates have anything to do with "fun" as the ultimate goal? There is only one mention of "fun" in the last 3 community updates and that was talking about faster creep spread/recede... and with all the major changes they made, fun was not their reasoning behind any of it. Their reasons include "public perception", but you do not see their reasons being "because it makes the game more fun for players" or "because it is the best design for the game"... On October 08 2015 02:30 Jj_82 wrote: Then - instead of talking so much in an abstract language - why don't you put up some real ideas on how to do it better? Secondly, why do you think a "modern, updated" RTS should always need less clicks? I really don't agree on this, and follow TLO's points much better. I have been giving them feedback, and ideas, ever since joining LotV beta when they asked for feedback and started doing the community updates. But that ship has sailed once they completely switched up their direction when they announced the release date. At that point, not only did it become obvious they were rushing the game in order to meet the release date, but they also proved with their own words that game designers are not giving us the best design they are capable of. And saying a modern RTS "always needs less clicks" is bending my words. Modern games should feature improved controls to the current standards. "Less clicks" is pertaining to the specific situations of getting the game to do what you intend. You should not have to jump through hoops to do what you want, once you get the thought in your mind of what you want to do, the controls of a game are supposed to offer a way for you to do that as efficiently as possible. That does not mean the game itself needs less clicks. Just less wasteful clicks. Those freed up clicks can, and should, be used elsewhere with well designed mechanics that offer strategic/competitive game play. Which is the complete opposite of what the current macro mechanics offer. Even in TLO's explanation, the merit of the mecahnics was not their well designed competitive functions, rather that they were just "another place to spend attention and some players styles may focus on doing that more efficiently". Nearly any mechanic can offer those advantages, the mechanics offered should contribute more to the competitive aspect of the game rather than being requirements where if you do not meet the reqs you lose. | ||
|
Jj_82
Swaziland419 Posts
| ||
|
jake1138
United States82 Posts
| ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
|
Emperor_Earth
United States824 Posts
Decision-making itself is a skill. You won't have the attention and APM to do everything. Not even pros do. Not even in archon mode. So you must make a decision based on imperfect information where to spend your attention and actions. And the more important the decision, the more likely there is time pressure to make it, so don't dawdle! The very decision to eschew an inject to reposition your sling/bling flank or to delay a round of warpins to land a key storm/forcefield is itself a skill that is learned. Your attention, if used correctly, is an optimization of your resources, whether mineral/gas or production cycles or units. Not all optimizations are equal. Removing "mindless clicks" only removes decisions and lowers the skill cap at ALL levels, not just the pro level. Removing the "little decisions" that seem innocuous only removes the "little edges" that are so great to build up. The community claims to hate 1a battles where a micro mistake is potentially game-ending. If that's the case, stop trying to reduce the game to one big fight! Fight for the little edges. Fight for the little decisions. | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
On October 08 2015 11:19 Emperor_Earth wrote: The key is: Decision-making itself is a skill. You won't have the attention and APM to do everything. Not even pros do. Not even in archon mode. So you must make a decision based on imperfect information where to spend your attention and actions. And the more important the decision, the more likely there is time pressure to make it, so don't dawdle! The very decision to eschew an inject to reposition your sling/bling flank or to delay a round of warpins to land a key storm/forcefield is itself a skill that is learned. Your attention, if used correctly, is an optimization of your resources, whether mineral/gas or production cycles or units. Not all optimizations are equal. Removing "mindless clicks" only removes decisions and lowers the skill cap at ALL levels, not just the pro level. Removing the "little decisions" that seem innocuous only removes the "little edges" that are so great to build up. The community claims to hate 1a battles where a micro mistake is potentially game-ending. If that's the case, stop trying to reduce the game to one big fight! Fight for the little edges. Fight for the little decisions. +1 | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On October 08 2015 02:47 Spyridon wrote: And I am not sure what "brainless" mechanics were replaced?... the macro mechanics did not replace anything... This, is directly answered by you, on the next paragraph: On October 08 2015 02:47 Spyridon wrote: If you look back at the commentary way back from WoL beta, there is mention of the macro mechanics being added for 3 reasons: Because SC2 has improved controls and since macro was easier than BW they added something else to emulate that, because they thought SC needed a "come back mechanic", and because it could be a way to differentiate the races from each other. So in the end, I'm not sure where you are tying to go to with all this. | ||
|
MatteDaemon
8 Posts
Only when you reach the highest level will you have to master every aspect of StarCraft! At the highest level, it's improbable that every aspect of the game's mastered; what's "every aspect of StarCraft"? Progamers often have to cut corners and take conscious risks to get an edge in their matches. But for you it's perfectly fine to get a safety spore if you struggle with Dark Templar regularly. When trying really hard to micro your mutas or lings like Life does it's fine if you add extra hatcheries to spend your money more easily . A blind spore would do many more (Zerg) progamers good. It's interesting how many professional matches are (still) lost simply because at least one "blind" spore wasn't made (and a Dark Templar strategy (more or less) ends the game). "Getting behind" by making a few spores seems less desirable than a guaranteed loss; perhaps I don't fully understand because I'm not a progamer. Many Zerg progamers don't build enough macro hatches. If a Zerg has X,000 minerals where X is greater than or equal to 2 (and assuming we're in mid-to-late game), I doubt there's any decent justification to not build a macro hatchery (if at that time the Zerg has less than some number of hatcheries after which building another provides nonpositive benefit). Knowing whatever that exact limit is (or asymptotically approaches) would be useful. (In Wings of Liberty,) Stephano frequently did things that conventionally get Zerg "far behind". He'd invest heavily in static defense, he didn't hesitate to build macro hatcheries when floating several thousand minerals. It seems like his conscious risk taking by not cutting corners occasionally gained him an implicit edge that allowed him to: a) not immediately lose, allowing him to make a possible comeback; in most cases he was better than his opponents in later stages of the game. b) not lose vital tech structures during the mid-late game, which increased the likelihood of him being able to build the correct unit types post-engagement, consequently maximizing the damage done via follow-up attacks (or at least provide him the ability to adequately defend a counter / follow-up attack). It seems to've worked out well for him in the long run (as a WoL progamer). The less mistakes pros are making, the more it'll be about producing the perfect unit composition and we'll be back to what made SC2 stale previously. That's false. Many of the best and most interesting games were the product of "perfect" unit compositions, à la NesTea vs. Mvp, Squirtle vs. Mvp, etc. Only when macro and micro are relatively equal in importance magic happens. In the same vein as the quote previous to the last, most of the best games resulted from the (bitwise exclusive-OR) of macro or micro. What I mean by that is they were products of only macro or micro but not both macro and micro. The importance of both macro and micro in those "magical" situations wasn't directly proportional. In such cases, they were great games (or situations) because the games developed into a state where only micro mattered. Whichever player first lost their "über-army" ended up in a situation where macro mattered nought; the game'd been decided. Thank you for your post, Dario, and I'll continue supporting your stream and wish you all the best in LoTV! :-) | ||
|
IcemanAsi
Israel681 Posts
1. To be good, RTS games must be impossible to play perfectly - YES 2. To enable expression, there must be a possibility of focusing on different aspects of the game for different players - YES 3. Larave Inject assists in making Zerg impossible to play perfectly - YES and here comes the clincher: 4. Larvae Inject gives a possibility of focusing on different aspects of the game for different players - NO! focusing on Larvae Inject ( and presumbly, but not always, macro) or on combat management (micro) is a binary choice, yes, but this choice does not express itself within Larvae Inject itself. There are no choices made when you click Larave Inject, only if you click it or not, which is why it doesn't allow enough expression, which is why people don't like it, which is why it is boring. In a way the same can be said on mules ( they only mine resources ) but Larvae Inject is a much more central to Zerg gameplay then mules are to Terran, which compounds the issue, and Mules do allow some expression in mule drop location and spread. Basically, when you click Larave Inject you aren't making an expression about yourself as a player, in contrast a mech player making mech units express himself as a mech player, as a bio player express himself while making marines. Sure, you can say you just want to keep making units at all time, but there are a ton of very small decisions, what units do I make first, where, and each click reinforces your stylistic choices as a player. Larvae Inject doesn't do this, it feels the same when I am going macro 3 hatch pool and trying to rush sixtry drones and when I'm going for a seven roach rush. It doesn't deviate, doesn't allow for expression. Which makes it feel flat and external to the player. A possible solution could be to split the Larave Inject into two distinct abilities, both related to production, but one macro facing and the other micro facing. So for example you can have the old inject and a different ability that gives you special larvae that make only drones but cheaper or faster. It's about charging Larave Inject with meaning so that it can operate as a point of focus for different players in different ways. | ||
| ||
