EPTWhat do you think about suggested changes to macro mechani…
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
| ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
| ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
| ||
|
Yiome
China1687 Posts
Slower economy, lower difficulties and give a more enjoyable experience to new/causal/low level players, (combined with other changes, for example increase both effect and cost of chrono/ larva injects) make macro more strategy and less mechanics requiring | ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
The implementation would be: the queen has a button you can right-click to turn on autocast of larval inject. This is similar to how SCVs have auto-repair right now. | ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
| ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
On August 02 2015 04:15 phantomfive wrote: Automating something like larval inject could be a good thing. Why? Because pros do it perfectly already, so it's not an issue for them (I don't think I've seen a game where it mattered since 2013 or something). Making larval inject automatic would only help noobs have more time for fun stuff, like strategy. The implementation would be: the queen has a button you can right-click to turn on autocast of larval inject. This is similar to how SCVs have auto-repair right now. pros absolutely do not do it perfectly, like at all. It is, and pretty much always has been, one of the specific strenghts of players like Soo no matter if you feel like you've seen it or not, as far as i know | ||
|
VGhost
United States3613 Posts
On the other hand, a macro mechanic really would be useful if it were rarer and had a real strategic value instead of there being a clear "right" way and it being just something fiddly to take care of. E.g. if a Mule were 200 energy there's more of a choice "minerals now and do without scan, or have scan available for the next 5 minutes" or whatever. Automation is clearly the worst option. | ||
|
shin ken
Germany612 Posts
If I want more action and micro I would be playing warcraft 3 which is a much better game for that style of rts and awesome in its own right. Maybe toning it down a bit is ok if it's a better experience for the majority of people, but at least keep it as a viable option for players who actually like to do that and don't punish players who like to look to their base and optimise their macro even in the middle of great pressure. Also auto-inject sounds lame. That's just like regular larva spawning but accelerated. If you really had to simplifie the mechanic, I would rather suggest being able to inject bases multiple times, and tweak queen mana and queen starting mana accordingly. | ||
|
TheDougler
Canada8304 Posts
Larva inject is almost none of those things. You know when you fuck up, but it's not as obvious to spectators. If you miss injects you lose, at any point in the game. If you accidentally bank energy, hopefully you spent money on macro hatches. Or else you can't inject again, might as well spend that energy on creep. Macro hatch is fine for one base, but newer players won't see pros building macro hatches for every expansion so they might not realize why they're losing. Chrono and Mules share more with creep spread (in my opinion) than they do with larva inject. I know that sounds crazy, but hear me out. 1. If they're banked, it's not the end of the world, you can fire off a few of them (moreso for mules, but there's always things to Chrono). 2. If you miss them, it's not the end of the world. You can still make guys and get them where they need to go, it just takes a bit longer. K, fine, maybe they do have more in common with larva inject now that I type it out. I still think overall they're far superior mechanics. Tho while we're talking about macro mechanics... It seems like supply drop could use a buff. | ||
|
Cyanocyst
2222 Posts
But Then i thought ...i wonder how the pros would spend the extra apm they have to spare. Could this lead to more tactical play of units, get rid of 1a syndrome? Make more small skirmishes all over the map more, where were just left in awe as each player keeps up and micros every fight? Or would it lead to simply a lower skill cap? Either way a decision on this shouldn't be made to appease casuals (myself included), it should be made because it makes for a better esport on the pro level. In order to steer it towards the former, the economy might need to be looked at. Edit: And Automation is the laziest option. Tweaking or getting rid of the mechanics will require some rebalancing. Automation seems like it just serves to make things easier for lesser players. | ||
|
imJealous
United States1382 Posts
The macro mechanics feel like something that increases skill and difficulty while also hitting the fantasy aspect just right. If you take a step back away from the esports side of things and remember your 12 year old self playing starcraft for the first time again, it makes sense to imagine yourself as the insidious insectoid horror planting eggs in your hive. It makes sense as the human colonists to be calling down mechanical labor machines to help you develop your settlement. And as the super advanced, psionic, teleporting aliens, it feels right to have the ability to manage the flow of quantum energies throughout your base to super charge your powerful alien technologies. This was an aspect of the game that was right for the hardcore player because of what it meant for mechanics and skill differentiation, but was also right for the casual or first time player because it reinforced the fantasy of what this game is a simulation of: space exploration and conflict. It would suck to see it disappear or become marginalized. | ||
|
SuperHofmann
Italy1741 Posts
| ||
|
swag_bro
Japan782 Posts
| ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On August 02 2015 22:24 swag_bro wrote: Remove them totally. Brood War didn't have them and it was a successful game with tons of views Exactly. They're not fun as well. | ||
|
NyxNax
United States227 Posts
| ||
|
Wrathsc2
United States2025 Posts
| ||
|
Bastinian
Serbia177 Posts
| ||
|
CycoDude
United States326 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19234 Posts
| ||
|
Creager
Germany1894 Posts
On August 03 2015 12:24 BisuDagger wrote: Remove these and what macro is left? MBS eliminates any remaining macro skill beyond these abilities. SC2 would have no macro game at all. Pretty much this. Although I'm keeping in mind these are just ideas for now, I think the direction to weaken the importance of macro while promoting micro is just plain wrong, as this shifts a classic RTS game like StarCraft more into the MOBA-corner instead of promoting it's core differences to potentially attract more players. | ||
|
tokinho
United States792 Posts
| ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19234 Posts
On August 03 2015 18:10 tokinho wrote: I have the opposite opinion as everyone else. I think there needs to be a casual ladder with options like this, but i also think the real ladder should not touch it at all. Really the game needs a casual ladder with things like this, but the game needs to have these items since they allow more flexibility for high level players. The arcade has plenty of casual versions of SC2. | ||
|
Deleted User 352407
12 Posts
| ||
|
Rustug
1488 Posts
For most starting players the "Fun" part of an RTS game is moving your army around and attacking stuff, not spending several hours/days to master basic macro. Give players the options to pick whether they want Manual or a more Automated Macro. Optimize automated Macro, but do make it perfect. Leave room for Manual players to Out-Macro their automated opponents and this could also be the incentive for players who want to develop their skill to kick of the training wheel and go full manual. I think having automated macro could entice more people to play ladder. But I would turn-off the option for automated macro at Masters and GM. Also, tournaments should never have automated Macro. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
Imagine there was a button appearing in the top left corner of the screen every minuten and when you click it fast enough you get 250 minerals instantly. Thats the same idea as mules. Substitute minerals with larvae and you got inject. | ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
| ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
| ||
|
NyxNax
United States227 Posts
| ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On August 02 2015 22:24 swag_bro wrote: Remove them totally. Brood War didn't have them and it was a successful game with tons of views 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. Lowering the skill ceiling/mechanical demands of SC2 even further would make it even less like BW (though there is no guarantee of success either way). | ||
|
Sakat
Croatia1599 Posts
Let's go over MULEs first. To me, MULEs are perfectly fine. MULEs give you an income boost, and they provide a strategic choice in correlation with scan. You risk losing income by scaning, but you can be rewarded if you see what your opponent is doing. With MULE-ing, you risk not seeing what your opponent is doing, or risk DTs, but you are rewarded with a better economy. You can even save MULEs and then dump them on a fresh base. Risk/reward, that's good. Next, Chronoboost. This one is also okay. But I feel it doesn't involve a very particular risk in it's use, while the reward is pretty high in the early to mid game, because you can "quickly" catch-up in upgrades, tech, or boost your production early on (workers or units) using it. And you can save it to use it on multiple buldings at once. I think this one could be toned down a bit. Maybe making it more expensive in terms of energy. But it doesn't have to be. It's fine as it is. And now.larva-inject. From my low-APM perspective, this one just sucks. It's literally like a chore. You must do it. If you don't - you lose. There is no strategic choice in the matter here. If you want to spread creep - better get another queen then to not inject. Want to save for transfuse - again, better get another queen. There is no reason not to inject. You must always use it, otherwise, you won't win a game. You can't even save injects and dump them on a single hatchery. What I would like is for Blizzard to implement the option to have automated injects in unranked play, and maybe in the ladder, but only up to gold league. From then on, put it back to manual. MULEs. and Chronoboost to be left as they are. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
| ||
|
Riquiz
Netherlands402 Posts
but it is all about intent here. If they want to take the game and make it more accessible for the consumer, it is probably a good step to take. If they want to make the game a skillful 1v1 game, this might not be the correct course of action. Changing the game to still be mechanically demanding but more accessible to the average consumer seems like a hard thing to pull off! | ||
|
Sade
Germany10 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
I'm all for nerfing macro mechanics though. Larva inject should yield a maximum of 2 larva. And a hatchery should be limited to a maximum of 5 larva. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On August 03 2015 18:10 tokinho wrote: I have the opposite opinion as everyone else. I think there needs to be a casual ladder with options like this, but i also think the real ladder should not touch it at all. Really the game needs a casual ladder with things like this, but the game needs to have these items since they allow more flexibility for high level players. Better yet. Leagues up to platinum have the 'easy mechanics' such as chronoboost, mule, etc, while platinum and higher don't. There is a possible balance problem but one may hope chronoboost, mule and queens negate each other. | ||
|
ProBell
Thailand145 Posts
did they hire world of warcraft dev or somethin? | ||
|
GunLove
Netherlands105 Posts
Macro mechanics are good, why? Because they only take 1 click, and they are a meaningful decisionmaking moment (and not solely a mechanical obligation!). Do you mule or save a scan? Chrono on the warpgates or the upgrades? But for Zerg there is no choice in the matter, injects are a necessity. It's fine to automate the injects, but the Queen needs a compelling alternative energy dump next to creep. Also it needs to be spammable, so it's not too punishing if you let your Queens get high on energy. | ||
|
i)awn
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
Ciryandor
United States3735 Posts
| ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3110 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
Poland1478 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
Poland1478 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 | ||
| ||
