|
On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth.
|
On October 05 2015 02:33 skatbone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth.
Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games.
|
Hello, my name is oracleking and I approve this message.
|
On October 05 2015 02:36 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 02:33 skatbone wrote:On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth. Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games.
There is value in executing things, you seem to imply that strategy is the most important thing though.
It's pretty simple imo: Executing mechanical tasks is FUN, maybe the macro mechanics itself are not fun, that certainly is debatable, but real time (video) games are fun BECAUSE strategy doesn't overshadow execution, they complement each other.
|
On October 05 2015 02:28 Aocowns wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 01:59 mishimaBeef wrote:On October 05 2015 01:39 Aocowns wrote:On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote:
I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining Elfi has best decision making? It's not farfetched to think that relatively bad overall players will pull more wins with neat strategies is what i meant
It's far fetched to think worse players will beat better players consistently.
It's not far fetched to think that what constitutes a "good player" will change, obviously when you shift the design elements of the entire game.
I think having to execute a meaningful decision every 0.5-1 seconds is pretty cool, skillful, and more approachable if designed properly.
|
On October 05 2015 02:56 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 02:28 Aocowns wrote:On October 05 2015 01:59 mishimaBeef wrote:On October 05 2015 01:39 Aocowns wrote:On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote:
I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining Elfi has best decision making? It's not farfetched to think that relatively bad overall players will pull more wins with neat strategies is what i meant It's far fetched to think worse players will beat better players consistently. It's not far fetched to think that what constitutes a "good player" will change, obviously when you shift the design elements of the entire game. I think having to execute a meaningful decision every 0.5 seconds is pretty cool, skillful, and more approachable if designed properly.
If the mechanical aspect is holding back Elfi, Elfi would be better off with a more strategical game. and having to execute a meaningful decision every second would just be convoluted, no? I have a hard time imagining a RTS where every action has to be meaningful
|
On October 05 2015 02:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 02:36 NewSunshine wrote:On October 05 2015 02:33 skatbone wrote:On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth. Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games. There is value in executing things, you seem to imply that strategy is the most important thing though. It's pretty simple imo: Executing mechanical tasks is FUN, maybe the macro mechanics itself are not fun, that certainly is debatable, but real time (video) games are fun BECAUSE strategy doesn't overshadow execution, they complement each other.
Much of the value in an execution-based mechanic comes from the visibility of the execution, and the skill involved with said execution. When the quality of one's execution is invisibile to the opponent, it opens the door to frustrating scenarios. When the skill in question is timing, in particular with macro boosters, it creates situations where one players has a lot less stuff than the other, and they lose, and they can't tell why. Then they find out it was because they were 2 seconds slower on each inject compared to their opponent, something very easy to do and very hard to spot, even in a replay.
I'm not against having difficult executional elements in the game, don't get me wrong, but considering it's supposed to be a strategy game too, I'm sure as hell going to advocate the development of more strategy in the game. It's not an RTS without strategy at every turn.
|
On October 05 2015 02:36 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 02:33 skatbone wrote:On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth. Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games.
If the interactions in the line are dependent upon verbal cues--as in the placement of an 'x' can be blocked by your opponents use of a certain verbal technique--then you've created a deeper tic-tac-toe. I would not play tic-tac-toe save with my son because the game lacks both complexity and depth.
Generally, black and white distinctions are untenable. With regard to the distinction between complexity and depth, they are particularly untenable in that a player's experience of depth changes with regard to what he or she finds monotonous. Story, in my opinion, would add depth to tic-tac-toe because the lining up of x's and o's is boring. Injecting is enjoyable for me. I don't find it monotonous. I find it requires something of me, in moments of pressure, that challenges me.
I have nothing against you but I am baffled as to your seeming confidence that the line between depth and complexity is obvious. This conversation is largely pushing buttons because that line is not universally agreed upon.
You think I am "confusing complexity for depth" and I think you are too quick too assume that the line between the two is objective.
|
On October 05 2015 03:23 skatbone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 02:36 NewSunshine wrote:On October 05 2015 02:33 skatbone wrote:On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth. Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games. If the interactions in the line are dependent upon verbal cues--as in the placement of an 'x' can be blocked by your opponents use of a certain verbal technique--then you've created a deeper tic-tac-toe. I would not play tic-tac-toe save with my son because the game lacks both complexity and depth. Generally, black and white distinctions are untenable. With regard to the distinction between complexity and depth, they are particularly untenable in that a player's experience of depth changes with regard to what he or she finds monotonous. Story, in my opinion, would add depth to tic-tac-toe because the lining up of x's and o's is boring. Injecting is enjoyable for me. I don't find it monotonous. I find it requires something of me, in moments of pressure, that challenges me. I have nothing against you but I am baffled as to your seeming confidence that the line between depth and complexity is obvious. This conversation is largely pushing buttons because that line is not universally agreed upon. You think I am "confusing complexity for depth" and I think you are too quick too assume that the line between the two is objective.
But it is objective. Saying you find fun in complexity doesn't turn complexity into depth. Most people prefer depth of strategy in their strategy game, so obfuscating the argument is counterproductive. If you want to describe what it is you enjoy about a game that's fine, but it doesn't detract from my arguments.
Bringing up use of verbal techniques for my hypothetical example goes outside the scope of what I describe, so of course it ends up behaving differently. Flat out, the speaking I describe in my example has no nuances or interaction, it's something you have to do exactly one way or you can't play, plain and simple. And the macro boosters we have come dangerously close to fitting that description.
|
On October 05 2015 03:01 Aocowns wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 02:56 mishimaBeef wrote:On October 05 2015 02:28 Aocowns wrote:On October 05 2015 01:59 mishimaBeef wrote:On October 05 2015 01:39 Aocowns wrote:On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote:
I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining Elfi has best decision making? It's not farfetched to think that relatively bad overall players will pull more wins with neat strategies is what i meant It's far fetched to think worse players will beat better players consistently. It's not far fetched to think that what constitutes a "good player" will change, obviously when you shift the design elements of the entire game. I think having to execute a meaningful decision every 0.5 seconds is pretty cool, skillful, and more approachable if designed properly. If the mechanical aspect is holding back Elfi, Elfi would be better off with a more strategical game. and having to execute a meaningful decision every second would just be convoluted, no? I have a hard time imagining a RTS where every action has to be meaningful
Well let's consider speed chess. You basically have to make a meaningful decision every second (or few seconds). However, there is no ability for the player who 'sees further into the game' to get ahead in real-time (i.e. player A knows 10 good moves to play now, but player B wants to study the game board a bit longer - of course you have to use your imagination to abstractly insert fog of war dynamics).
Heck, let's consider pseudo-realistic war scenarios. The general can only command as fast as the medium of communication allows him to talk to his troops. I believe if it's too short, then mechanics and brute force trumps strategy too hard and becomes a game for machines.
|
On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote:
I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump
I'm glad your wish won't come true. Sounds awful
|
Play like yourself – not like a pro
I second this. How many people have incredible fun playing football like total noobs ? I can't understand why they can't have the same fun while playing a SC2 game.
I agree with the rest of the article too. Dario so smart.
|
Czech Republic12133 Posts
On October 05 2015 05:32 [PkF] Wire wrote:I second this. How many people have incredible fun playing football like total noobs ? I can't understand why they can't have the same fun while playing a SC2 game. I agree with the rest of the article too. Dario so smart.
They try, they fail. The same way as they fail in SC2 :-)
I play football a lot(well, played, this year has been bad to my legs, injury after injury  ) and I can tell you most of people I meet try to play like pros. Some of them can get there because their difference from us, noobs, is so big. I play with a guy who almost made a national team(knee injury stopped him) and even with his broken knee he is still so good he can do cute moves in full run. Those moves which are forbidden to noobs even when you try it without running and opponent 
But most people play like noobs who tries their best. Though you cannot go 10 pool in football, it just does not work, you can try to go full Messi but you will fail when you meet the first defensive player
But I agree. I myself play my weird SC2 P with PvT storm opening(fake colossus) and PvZ colossus into storm(yes, I open with colossus and it works). On low level you can do anything you want and it works Football is just way worse IMO, you actually cannot do anything because you will end up with twisted legs
|
On October 05 2015 05:21 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote:
I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump I'm glad your wish won't come true. Sounds awful
What if the game had a 0.5 second cooldown on actions... ?_?
|
A quick google search yields a reaction time average of 268 ms = 224 apm. Mind you this is reaction time not sense-analyze-react cycle.
|
Thanks for the feedback TLO, some interesting points !
|
I always considered myself a good macro player, I was fairly successful in Brood War because of it. I jumped into SC2 with little experience and knowledge and shot up the ranks with my own macro play. I didn't go by any of the styles I was seeing in videos, I just did what I knew best. Most games I lost was either cheese or I was outplayed early because I had a poor build/unit choice.
I think he's dead on, be comfortable first, learn more about the game and you start to adapt and make minor tweaks. You are taking 20 steps backwards and only 1 forward when you try to mimic someone else's style of play entirely.
|
this guy is a genius. One of the best, if not the best, analysis on macro mechanics so far
|
On October 05 2015 04:08 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 03:23 skatbone wrote:On October 05 2015 02:36 NewSunshine wrote:On October 05 2015 02:33 skatbone wrote:On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth. Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games. If the interactions in the line are dependent upon verbal cues--as in the placement of an 'x' can be blocked by your opponents use of a certain verbal technique--then you've created a deeper tic-tac-toe. I would not play tic-tac-toe save with my son because the game lacks both complexity and depth. Generally, black and white distinctions are untenable. With regard to the distinction between complexity and depth, they are particularly untenable in that a player's experience of depth changes with regard to what he or she finds monotonous. Story, in my opinion, would add depth to tic-tac-toe because the lining up of x's and o's is boring. Injecting is enjoyable for me. I don't find it monotonous. I find it requires something of me, in moments of pressure, that challenges me. I have nothing against you but I am baffled as to your seeming confidence that the line between depth and complexity is obvious. This conversation is largely pushing buttons because that line is not universally agreed upon. You think I am "confusing complexity for depth" and I think you are too quick too assume that the line between the two is objective. But it is objective. Saying you find fun in complexity doesn't turn complexity into depth. Most people prefer depth of strategy in their strategy game, so obfuscating the argument is counterproductive. If you want to describe what it is you enjoy about a game that's fine, but it doesn't detract from my arguments. Bringing up use of verbal techniques for my hypothetical example goes outside the scope of what I describe, so of course it ends up behaving differently. Flat out, the speaking I describe in my example has no nuances or interaction, it's something you have to do exactly one way or you can't play, plain and simple. And the macro boosters we have come dangerously close to fitting that description.
How can you imply that Injects have no nuance or interaction? That is self-evidently untrue.
Depending on my strategy and execution, I am able to exert a certain degree of pressure on you. Depending on your mental fortitude, strategy, and experience, that pressure will affect your ability to Inject. Maybe your Injects will go on being flawless. Maybe you'll be so thrown that you'll forget to Inject for the next minute and a half. Or maybe it'll be any one of an infinite in-between outcomes.
Could Injects be more interactive? Yes. Is that the most profound issue with Injects? Hardly.
The two core issues with Inject Larvae are:
1. They aren't very strategic. Like a lot of other macro in the game, you just have to do them. But - as evident from my comparison to other macro - not everything has to be strategic. Every race has a mechanical requirement and Injects are Zerg's. In exchange for that, they don't have to split their units fifty times per engagement. I wish they had a better mechanical requirement, but if it's between Injects and having no mechanical requirement at all, which appears to be the case this late in the beta, then unfortunately this is the best we can do.
2. They have a very subtle but very huge impact on the game. This is actually the bigger issue. I remember to this day how out-of-nowhere Artosis's statements seemed that "soO has the best macro in the world." There had been no build up to the statement, despite the guy's constant presence in Code S up till that point. He had become a fixture in the upper ranks of Code S and Tasteless and Artosis were basically explicitly confused about why. And then all of a sudden it's clear - he has the best macro and that's why he just made the second finals in a row and is in the running for the third.
What the fuck? If it takes commentators multiple seasons of watching top tier play to realize why the best Zerg is the best Zerg, what hope do viewers have of making sense of the results they see? And we're talking about the core mechanical mechanic of one of three races. This isn't exactly a niche situation.
It sucks, but it is what it is.
|
On October 05 2015 11:11 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 04:08 NewSunshine wrote:On October 05 2015 03:23 skatbone wrote:On October 05 2015 02:36 NewSunshine wrote:On October 05 2015 02:33 skatbone wrote:On October 05 2015 02:21 NewSunshine wrote: Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways.
The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two.
Depends on how deep the speech is. This sounds like a version of tic-tac-toe I'd be interested in. When you add rhetoric, story, or narrative to an activity, such as "creating a line of 3 X's or O's" you can be adding quite a bit of depth. Not at all, you're confusing complexity for depth. The end goal is creating a line of 3 X's, the intermediate steps I made up add absolutely nothing to the interactions involved with creating said line. They're simply tasks you have to perform. You could increase the depth of tic-tac-toe by adding new rules to the way the board behaves. For example, if I sandwich an O with 2 X's on either side, I can switch all 3 symbols to O's and X's respectively. Whether it's the kind of depth you want is debatable, but it certainly adds depth, because it adds to the maneuvers players can do, it adds to possible strategies and mind games. If the interactions in the line are dependent upon verbal cues--as in the placement of an 'x' can be blocked by your opponents use of a certain verbal technique--then you've created a deeper tic-tac-toe. I would not play tic-tac-toe save with my son because the game lacks both complexity and depth. Generally, black and white distinctions are untenable. With regard to the distinction between complexity and depth, they are particularly untenable in that a player's experience of depth changes with regard to what he or she finds monotonous. Story, in my opinion, would add depth to tic-tac-toe because the lining up of x's and o's is boring. Injecting is enjoyable for me. I don't find it monotonous. I find it requires something of me, in moments of pressure, that challenges me. I have nothing against you but I am baffled as to your seeming confidence that the line between depth and complexity is obvious. This conversation is largely pushing buttons because that line is not universally agreed upon. You think I am "confusing complexity for depth" and I think you are too quick too assume that the line between the two is objective. But it is objective. Saying you find fun in complexity doesn't turn complexity into depth. Most people prefer depth of strategy in their strategy game, so obfuscating the argument is counterproductive. If you want to describe what it is you enjoy about a game that's fine, but it doesn't detract from my arguments. Bringing up use of verbal techniques for my hypothetical example goes outside the scope of what I describe, so of course it ends up behaving differently. Flat out, the speaking I describe in my example has no nuances or interaction, it's something you have to do exactly one way or you can't play, plain and simple. And the macro boosters we have come dangerously close to fitting that description. How can you imply that Injects have no nuance or interaction? That is self-evidently untrue. Depending on my strategy and execution, I am able to exert a certain degree of pressure on you. Depending on your mental fortitude, strategy, and experience, that pressure will affect your ability to Inject. Maybe your Injects will go on being flawless. Maybe you'll be so thrown that you'll forget to Inject for the next minute and a half. Or maybe it'll be any one of an infinite in-between outcomes. Could Injects be more interactive? Yes. Is that the most profound issue with Injects? Hardly. The two core issues with Inject Larvae are: 1. They aren't very strategic. Like a lot of other macro in the game, you just have to do them. But - as evident from my comparison to other macro - not everything has to be strategic. Every race has a mechanical requirement and Injects are Zerg's. In exchange for that, they don't have to split their units fifty times per engagement. I wish they had a better mechanical requirement, but if it's between Injects and having no mechanical requirement at all, which appears to be the case this late in the beta, then unfortunately this is the best we can do. 2. They have a very subtle but very huge impact on the game. This is actually the bigger issue. I remember to this day how out-of-nowhere Artosis's statements seemed that "soO has the best macro in the world." There had been no build up to the statement, despite the guy's constant presence in Code S up till that point. He had become a fixture in the upper ranks of Code S and Tasteless and Artosis were basically explicitly confused about why. And then all of a sudden it's clear - he has the best macro and that's why he just made the second finals in a row and is in the running for the third. What the fuck? If it takes commentators multiple seasons of watching top tier play to realize why the best Zerg is the best Zerg, what hope do viewers have of making sense of the results they see? And we're talking about the core mechanical mechanic of one of three races. This isn't exactly a niche situation. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I didn't mean for that comparison to be taken too hard, because my main complaint with the macro boosters is exactly what you describe here. I was simply linking it to my example about complexity in games. I agree wholeheartedly about the inordinate impact the macro boosters have, versus their visibility in game. Any complaint I might make about them is really secondary to these facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
