EPTTLO on Macro Mechanics - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
TelecoM
United States10717 Posts
| ||
|
Juaks
United States384 Posts
I really hope LoTV get's starcraft to an interesting stage plenty of choices and strategies fun to play and watch once it matures. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On October 03 2015 23:09 Liquid`TLO wrote: If the game mechanics are too easy, there will less space for innovation and amazing come backs. Few cookie-cutter build orders will dominate. Players will have to follow a mainstream metagame more strictly and the sandbox will shrink significantly. If you take away macro mechanics, or make macro easier in general, you take away the choice and freedom that players have to differentiate themselves. Ironically micro players, who are often said to benefit the most from LotV, will actually be the ones who suffer the most from that - when everyone can focus on micro, they won't be able to set themselves apart as much anymore. Great article, this definitely has me more in the middle of the MM discussion than on the side to greatly simplify or remove them. I also loved how you encouraged non-pro players to play like themselves, reminding us how much is viable before the highest level of play. In regard to these comments I quoted, consider that the most popular games or sports have a "simple ruleset" and yet there is much differentiation amongst the highest players. Tennis is two people hitting a ball across a net, yet it has many different personalities and approaches to play (power vs. control). Csgo is an esport example I would like to reference. The rule set is extremely simple relative to SC2 and yet there are many ways to differentiate skill. Comebacks happen far more often and are more exciting in csgo, relative to their occurrence in starcraft (In my opinion). Imagine if you every time you reloaded in csgo you had to press "r, shift, click, f1, f2, f3, f4" instead of just "r." Do you think that would make the game more fun or allow players to differentiate skill? I think simpler mechanics wouldn't diminish a pro-players ability to differentiate skill. Last but not least, I simply had more fun playing the game during the automated MM patch. I've come to believe FUN is the highest priority of design, period. I haven't played the game since the revert, and haven't really felt the desire to do so (avid sc2 fan here). | ||
|
gneGne
Netherlands697 Posts
| ||
|
lastride
2390 Posts
 Because of TLO | ||
|
Plecto
Norway30 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On October 04 2015 01:51 ShambhalaWar wrote: In regard to these comments I quoted, consider that the most popular games or sports have a "simple ruleset" and yet there is much differentiation amongst the highest players. Tennis is two people hitting a ball across a net, yet it has many different personalities and approaches to play (power vs. control). Csgo is an esport example I would like to reference. The rule set is extremely simple relative to SC2 and yet there are many ways to differentiate skill. Comebacks happen far more often and are more exciting in csgo, relative to their occurrence in starcraft (In my opinion). Imagine if you every time you reloaded in csgo you had to press "r, shift, click, f1, f2, f3, f4" instead of just "r." Yes, but a lof of esports games also apply different rule sets for hardcore competitive gameplay as compared to general play. Let's take an example from CS:GO, where professionals play on shorter round timers and shorter bomb timers than on Valve's "competitive matchmaking" servers. SC is rare in the way that the most popular game mode uses the same exact rule set as is used in competitions. | ||
|
Xhiz
Portugal11 Posts
| ||
|
KrOmander
United Kingdom78 Posts
| ||
|
GronkleMcFadden
3 Posts
| ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2656 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
On October 04 2015 02:52 Xhiz wrote: Agreed 100%. Taking away macro mechanics is taking potencial skill diferencials out of the game. I disagree. We all were to busy with MM so the difference of potential skills in other aspects (micro, strategie etc) doesn't shine at all. The one LotV patch without MM shows clearly that view. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 04 2015 03:17 KrOmander wrote: Great thing about a 1v1 game like Starcraft is that there is no reason to even acknowledge the meta if you don't want. I love to watch better players and take tips, but straight up cookie cutter has always been a boring way to play RTS games. I don't know why people give so much of a fuck about "the meta" in Starcraft to begin with. This isn't MagicTG where you counter the overall best deck by bringing a supoptimal one for that one task. You are always equipped with the same options in starcraft and you should just play to your best knowledge and skill. Trying to get advantages by making blind assumptions is always going to be a bad way to play this game. "The meta" in starcraft is just a way to describe what is being played, but has no implications on your play whatsoever. | ||
|
Isarios
United States153 Posts
| ||
|
Steelo_Rivers
United States1968 Posts
| ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
aw come on we can`t beat Maru whether the macro things are removed or not. | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
Full HOTS MM narrow down strategic choices and ways to play as any little deviation from max macro gameplay puts you behind more than with lowered/removed MM and therefore you get quicker into do or die situations and more builds/strategies are being consideres all-in or semi all-in. If your third/fourth is late after you committed on anything else but standard macro play with full HOTS MM it is much worse for you than without or with lowered MM. MM help to put games quicker into imbalances because players with advantage can benefit more from an additional base then. Especially mules make alot of interesting choices of the game completely unviable (but mass larvas too). If you commit on anything that delays your own eco/macrogame a bit in order to kill a few SCV you are in most situations putting yourself behind more as mules negate your dmg while you are delayed still. This requires more commitment in order to be efficient and therefore we see that many full commitment all-ins vs. terran or pure defensive macro game in HOTS. On the other hand LOTV offers alot of new stuff like ravagers and adepts so this should get a bit better and more variable for sure even without MM reductions. This is the topic to discuss tho. On topic of auto vs manual I agree mostly. Blizzard has found a good solution. | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
| ||
|
Alves
United States9 Posts
On October 04 2015 04:02 Isarios wrote: Finally someone can finally tell all the people who scream about making micro more important to go away. Micro is absolutely the WRONG thing to focusing on. The macro mechanics need to be in the game and the game should not be micro focused. If you want micro focused go play warcraft or league. agree, instead of simplifying the macro mechanics, i hope blizzard could make it even more complicate especially for protoss and zerg, give them more options just like how terran's mule/supplies/scan works, so that players have a chance to make decision between chrono/injection and other options, and also balance the value behind each options so that none of them has a higher priority at all time, for example, making call down supplies becomes more comparable to mules | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 04 2015 05:12 ZAiNs wrote: It's sad how many people think they know more than someone who's played the game for 6-10 hours a day for the last 5 years... You can think larva inject is boring to use, or uninteresting to watch, but everything TLO said is undisputable. No. Just no. That argument doesn't work to begin with. Especially in this case you'd be contradicting yourself, because QXC is also a person who has been playing the game that much and he has voiced an opinion different than TLO's on some of the points here in multiple occasions. Some of the stuff is disputable. And really no, the whole notion that because someone is a pro he is always right is just stupid. (and I do agree with many of TLO's points, but I'm differing in some key aspects) | ||
| ||
