EPTWhat do you think about suggested changes to macro mechani…
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
Captain Peabody
United States3128 Posts
| ||
|
lurchpanda
United States51 Posts
Either way I'm glad they are asking these kinda of questions about the game, I havr never even thought about removing those mechanics. It seems like they are actually trying to see what aspects of the game they need to focus on, and I'm fine with any testing phase to see if an aspect/mechanic of the staecraft is really necessary or not. | ||
|
MidnightZL
Sweden203 Posts
| ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
| ||
|
Havik_
United States5585 Posts
| ||
|
iloveav
Poland1482 Posts
Ill try to add my own opinion: First, we should not compare bw to sc2. While both are RTS games,their fundamentals are different. If we were to compare bw and sc2 to military conflicts, i would say that BW is a game where a general would have to issuie orders to each soldier individually, while sc2 would be a general issuing orders to officers. Bw is harder in term of mechanics, sc2 is harder in terms of game understanding (thats not to say sc2 mechanics are easy, just not as hard as in bw). This is something rather comprehensive and if BW had better AI, it would also evolve more into how sc2 nowdays is played. Lets put a clear example: If we play a game like say DOTA or LOL, by controlling only one unit, its efficiency is extreamy high. However, each time more units are added into the mix, the less value an individual unit has, and also the less control we give it (due to being more efficient to just produce and control bigger size armies). If we would watch a movie like rambo 1, the guy is alone fighting against just a few humans, but if we had rambo in an army of say, 400 men going against 100000, we would probably not consider rambo himself as the key element to focus on. We would not be seeing the 400 men fall fast and still think "its ok, they have rambo". So, what should we "do" with sc2? Hard to say. We cant change things to broodwar style mechanics due to inheent differences in AI and unit types. We also cant make everything easier and easier, as the games willbe more and more based on clever moves, and less on skill (kinda like watching chess but with some explosions). Broodwar still has a lot of fans (me one of them), and the main reason for me is the challenge of hard mechanics. People who dont enjoy mechanics based games might enjoy sc2 more, but it will alwas be an opinion based on subjective enjoyment, not objective facts on whats better. As a personal example I will say taht I always hated in sc2 how units tend to group when I send them to the same location. It would not be better to change that, but it would be better for me. I think what im trying to say is that there is no way to please everyone. On August 04 2015 17:21 Scarecrow wrote: Let's make the pathing shit. BW had shit pathing and it was a successful game with tons of views. Your logic is ridiculous. A lack of macro mechanics was why BW succeeded? BW had a bunch of other repetitive mechanical tasks that were replaced with MBS and auto-mine. Lowuarantee of success either way). I dont think he meant it that way. lowering the skill ceiling/mechanical demands of SC2 even further would make it even less like BW (though there is no g One of the reasons why BWs hard mecahnics eventually lead to a lot of views was something a bit more complex: Most players who started playing broodwat and continue to play today improved vastly in their skill over the time. The most commited players were highly regarded due to being able to do things otehrs did not even thin were possible (I remmber the first time I heard about what APM was). You start to play, win a game here or there, lose probably more, eventually you get better, and soon you get beated by someone far better than you again. Constant strugle and competition, not to beat a certain player but to improve yourself. This meant, that even without money on the line, players kept playing the game. I did not become something boring not repetitive, even if the game does have a lot of repetitive items. The problem that blizzard has not noticed is that trying to make the game better for viewers and having more tournaments does not make it more interesting for the gamers or the viewers. First of all, the people who are making the decisions are not gamers and are not viewers. They do not know from their own expirience what makes a game interesting. This is like taking medical advice from your uncle who studied mathematics...bad bussiness. The reason most viewers watch pros play is because they played the game themselves. They know what was hard for them and they want to see something the can relate to. Its like talking with a friend about a movie: Only makes sense if you saw the movie as well. If the game is too easy, and basically everyone can do the same things.... it looses interest. For both players and viewers. Is it really that interesting to watch a doble proxy rax vs a zerg, even it its flash vs life? Maybe some, but id argue its less interesting than a 30 minute game. Thats moreless how I see it. | ||
|
iloveav
Poland1482 Posts
| ||
|
dyDrawer
Canada438 Posts
For example: Spawn Larva has a duration of 40 seconds. How about we develop an auto-inject, but make the period of auto-inject longer (maybe 50 or 60 seconds, you can override the auto-inject and reset the timer by injecting manually yourself). You can choose to turn it on or off. This won't affect pro matches at all (I don't think any pro player would want to use the auto inject), but for entry level players, this can relieve their APM a lot. They don't have to worry about periodically injecting Larva. If they want to get good, they'll have to practice manual larva injection, but if they just want to play casual then auto inject is fine. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
- they contain a lot of choices: you can't do everything perfectly, so you prioritize - they are very visible, especially when in first-person view - you will see the player frantically clicking on factories/gates etc, and you must click in BW, it's not just a button In SC2 they are more of an invisible chore, just be diligent and precise, not that much choice involved, and your perfection of that diligence remains quite invisible to the viewer even in first person view for a bigger extend than in BW. So yeah, I can't foresee how the game would be affected by full removal of them, but I welcome a change in this area. I want choice and visibility; instead of routine and invisibility. I want Starcraft to still require insane APM, but I want all these actions to contain important decisions and to be as much visible as possible. Even to completely new viewers. Otherwise, a new viewer to the game really can't appreciate the effort that these players put into their macro, it's not easy to see or understand the way it is now. | ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
On August 09 2015 09:45 MidnightZL wrote: I just say it like this, i better play the game now when its still fun, this changes + lotv gonna kill the game totally for me, ive already decided to quit sc2 and start focusing on hots instead, if sc2 could stay like it is now with heart of the swarm forver then i would have stayed. Sad they're turning sc2 into some casual game of shit... Casual game of shit? And you're switching to Heroes instead? Have you even played LotV? Game is so fast and the whole reason macro mechanics are even being considered to be removed is because koreans found the game TOO HARD. | ||
|
Cam Connor
Canada786 Posts
- remove mbs - Max unit selection at 12 | ||
| ||
