|
On October 03 2015 23:48 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will. That's entirely subjective, and you're generalizing. I love lining my build up perfectly because i used chronoboosts just right. I can see why you'd think something like inject isn't fun if your mindset is "i must play this game to improve and the only way to do that is to macro perfectly" though. Show nested quote +Likewise, the lack of their presence can be explained by a lack of depth too: there really aren't as many viable unconventional strategies as you say. "Viable" is a horribly defined word though. You can't easily compare ladder Bo1 play between two amateurs with modern tournament play between pros, which is the standard that people look at to define something as "viable". Plenty of wierd shit that works on ladder would be shut down horribly in a tournament by watching a replay or two, but that doesn't mean it will hold back someone's "improvement" (another term that is defined pretty badly). Then I'll define so you catch my meaning properly.
Viable is relative to skill level, but is objective. That is, there are definitely strategies that will more often secure victory at certain skill levels. What I'm saying, again, is that there could be many more viable strategies at most or all levels of play if macro wasn't so gosh dang important and complex, and micro had more depth.
But I don't get what you mean about improvement. There are such things as skill development and mastery, and intuitiveness directly impacts these things. Both are made harder if things are unintuitive.
Edit 50000: You don't fall into the "vast majority" that the other gentleman talked about, sir, that's all there really is to that.
Fun isn't just subjective, it's normative. Normally, complexity that doesn't add 'enough' (the subjective element) depth is not fun for people. For most people, it isn't enough.
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with his generalization. It's an accurate one methinks.
|
Excellent and eloquent work, TLO. Bravo.
Could become standard reading, especially for newcomers who might be intimidated by the community's focus on, "understanding the game," which roughly translates into the strict metas that you spoke of.
|
On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
I love injecting, it's fun for me. It's fine as longs as it's fun for 30% of the players, since there are two more races the others can choose. Not every race has to be fun for everyone and the races being so different is great imo.
|
On October 03 2015 23:53 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will. I love injecting, it's fun for me. It's fine as longs as it's fun for 30% of the players, since there are two more races the others can choose. Not every race has to be fun for everyone and the races being so different is great imo.
I love injects too. They're my biggest joy when offracing as zerg. it's so satisfying when you manage to maintain perfect injects while being under pressure.
|
Great write-up Dario!
Nice suggestion to lower level players, encouring them to deal with a problem which if simplified, would do more harm than good at the higher levels.
|
On October 03 2015 23:53 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 23:46 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will. I love injecting, it's fun for me. It's fine as longs as it's fun for 30% of the players, since there are two more races the others can choose. Not every race has to be fun for everyone and the races being so different is great imo.
In lotv with hatcheries giving 6 supply and inject just 3 larva I think it becomes viable to not rely on inject so much anymore. Inject is still more economical than macro hatcheries but now I think it will be fine to just inject once in a while and have more hatcheries until you reach high masters if you prefer to play a micro oriented style.
|
I couldn't agree more with the general outline of that article, however I hold the stance that - in particular the power of - inject leads to the opposite effect.
It leads to zerg not being playable "the way you want to", but always relying on great macro play. There is no cutsie play from zerg with certain techs and micro, the race relies on large numbers. And for those numbers you need inject.
I mean, there is cutsie play from zerg. But it usually features large amounts of drones behind your cutsie move, or, large scale techswitches. What blizzard has done with the last patch - nerfing inject (amongst other macro boosters) - is the minimum direction to be taken so that what TLO writes can actually become more true.
|
Macro mechanics, especially inject, just aren't fun to use. That's the problem. TLO looks at this from the pro level and that's fine, he's a pro, but the vast majority of players are not pro and are playing for fun. I'm not sure how we can change this, but a change to make it feel less like a "do this repetitive task every 30 seconds" mechanic would be welcome. We already have unit building macro that sort of functions as that, but that at least feels more natural and like there's decision making involved. Macro mechanics like inject feel very "tacked on" if you will.
Didn't you read the article? Injecting creats a more fun,interesting and complex game. Not directly but indirectly.
And many things in Starcraft aren't fun on its own like creating supply but this mechanic has a big impact on other things and through them it makes Starcraft indirectly more fun even though the action itself is rather plain.
And it might be personal but injecting is satisfying for me. Having low energy queens on min XY creats a bigger satisfaction for me than a big baneling hit.
|
Succinct and to the point. It still blows my mind that some people think they have lost games because they didn't have enough mechanics to use chrono boost.
|
On October 04 2015 00:22 ZAiNs wrote:
Succinct and to the point. It still blows my mind that some people think they have lost games because they didn't have enough mechanics to use chrono boost. Enough APM?
They're right, though.
Proper utilization of the macro boosters is one of the most important skills at all skill levels given all else is equal with the opponent or scenario in question.
|
TLO explained his opinion well. In perfect game you would still want to get rid of macromechanics and make engagements hard enough to players make enough mistakes. But TLO might be right and in current SC2 we need "mindless boring" macro. It's shame, but it might be more realistic. At least for progamers, for casuals no inject for example is way better and a lot more fun.
"Play like yourself - not like a pro" I don't know why he put it there. It's partly true, but he forgets that there is big number of players that don't choose progamers build because they think it's better than massing roaches in their league. They want to do the same stuff as progamers that they watch. That's a very strong motivation for 1v1 players. They also want a build that will work as they improve. Sure they are playing at disadvantage, but they don't have to worry about not being able to progress with the build. What TLO is saying will work for some players, but it seems to me he is just saying that because of his narrow field of view.
|
"Play like yourself - not like a pro"
Couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
The only thing I can agree with here is the "Play like yourself - not like a pro". Seriously I hate anyone try to copy paste a pro build and when you point out a mistake he did in the game he goes "but it is a pro build". Copying like a retard without understanding what is going on in the game and can he do with his own skill to win.
But about the part that MM are important in the game, I couldn't disagree more. The whole point of those MM existence is to cover the gap of MBS left compared to BW. You needed to go back to your base and start producing from every single production building instead of selecting your hotkey and mass production hotkey. So there was a need to make macro harder.
The issue these MM made is the super boost in economy. Example:
Terrans thanks to mules they can sac SCVs late game to gain larger army supply to have more fair late game fight due to no transition point from bio due to bastardized mech state. This seems kinda balanced but it is not fun thing at all. It is super frustrating for both parties.
Zerg another example. Because their supply comes from overlords, they don't even need to go back to base and make depots / pylons. So it will be much simpler than Terrans or Protosses macro by miles. So injects were introduced. The hardest of the 3 MM to balanced that.
Because of how larva stacks in huge numbers, Zerg went from huge army swarm the enemy into a tech switches and instant remaxing.
So basically you want harder macro? Simple. Remove MBS and lets see the harder macro. But making macro boosters as a way to make macro harder is just plain bad and horrible for the game. I'm against making macro super easy mode to focus on battle. I'm against the macro boosters. So again, want harder macro? Remove the MBS and we see harder macro. But macro boosters are not the right method.
|
On October 04 2015 00:26 Jaedrik wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 00:22 ZAiNs wrote:
Succinct and to the point. It still blows my mind that some people think they have lost games because they didn't have enough mechanics to use chrono boost. Enough APM? They're right, though. Proper utilization of the macro boosters is one of the most important skills at all skill levels given all else is equal with the opponent or scenario in question.
No it's not... The first few chronos are super easy because you don't have much else to do. Beyond that it's mainly forges/upgrades/colossi you chrono, for low-level players being supply blocked or just having late forges/upgrade buildings are gonna be way more impactful than them forgetting a chrono or 2. It won't even make a difference let alone ever cost them the game. MULEs are also super forgiving, low-level players are always gonna float too much money any ways so it's no big deal if they don't MULE.
|
On October 04 2015 00:55 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 00:26 Jaedrik wrote:On October 04 2015 00:22 ZAiNs wrote:
Succinct and to the point. It still blows my mind that some people think they have lost games because they didn't have enough mechanics to use chrono boost. Enough APM? They're right, though. Proper utilization of the macro boosters is one of the most important skills at all skill levels given all else is equal with the opponent or scenario in question. No it's not... The first few chronos are super easy because you don't have much else to do. Beyond that it's mainly forges/upgrades/colossi you chrono, for low-level players being supply blocked or just having late forges/upgrade buildings are gonna be way more impactful than them forgetting a chrono or 2. It won't even make a difference let alone ever cost them the game. MULEs are also super forgiving, low-level players are always gonna float too much money any ways so it's no big deal if they don't MULE. You're right, I made a steak with my argument.
I forgot my original position. D:
Err--let me see, it was--macro in general is complex because macro boosters take precious APM and thought away from stuff like remembering to upgrade / construct pylons, or make facilities to spend the money.
Chrono Boost is probably the least offensive of the boosters in this regard, because it's the least significant to macro as a whole in that way.
I'm still gonna say they (the boosters) ought to be decreased or removed, because its proportion of complexity and consumption of the APM economy doesn't justify the meager depth it provides.
|
Very well written. and I agree with almost everything. However this does not mean changing some macro mechanics is not a good idea. For instance, the new chrono boost is indeniably for the better.
|
Yess! This is why I trust pro opinions much more than random posters on reddit/TL this article is excellent, very clearly thought out. Macro mechanics are a needed part of the game. If all we did was move units around the game would be far less fun to watch and play at the highest level.
|
On October 04 2015 01:20 TheoMikkelsen wrote:
Very well written. and I agree with almost everything. However this does not mean changing some macro mechanics is not a good idea. For instance, the new chrono boost is indeniably for the better.
If reducing strategical depth means improving the game, sure.
|
This article expresses exactly what I think, and also the reason why macro mechanics in some form should stay in the game.
Seriously, though, TLO's comments on lower-level play are spot on. It really is possible to do crazy things at lower levels, as well as to play many different ways. The main thing constricting lower-level SC2, in my opinion, is the fixation on pro play and build orders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
