EPTOr how about Nexuses can take in a probe and turn it into a permanent super probe that produces more.
Blizzard is experimenting with new Protoss Macro! - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
R-Rated
United States10 Posts
Or how about Nexuses can take in a probe and turn it into a permanent super probe that produces more. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
They have no yet made changes that are ready for discussion, but overall, they would like to incorporate more decision making needed by the player, to use or not to use the macro ability. For example, if you are playing Terran, you may not want to call in additional MULEs if you know that the enemy Protoss player could be going for a Dark Templar timing rush. Instead the additional energy can be used on a ComSat in case of a stealth attack. -Karune Wouldnt it be crazy if they did something really wild? Like removed probes as the way Protoss gets resource so Protoss players would only need 1 or 2 for a whole base? | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5458 Posts
 Probes are so... awesome and iconic to me! Meeeow. I'm glad they're trying to make it more decision based though. It's definitely true that a scan can be very important and worth losing out on MULE resources temporarily. The supply call-down could also be worth it if it was like 6 supply or something; could make some neat timing builds. There's still the odd "make the macro mechanics not 'artificial'" comment out there, and this would make the mechanics more legitimized in my mind. I guess they'd have to strengthen the queen's other abilities then too, perhaps? | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
Oh and here is the reason for the macro mechanics You know a great example I love reading on Teamliquid and elsewhere were not so much that you guys were missing clicks – some people said that and I didn't agree with that – but that we were missing the difference between a macro player and a micro player. That we were destroying the sense of style of the player. I could be playing a micro game and you could be playing a macro game with both the same race, and we are still playing a very different game from one another. And when I saw that I was like “Ohh!” I was opening my eyes like “Thanks! THERE IT IS! That's great! That's genius! That's exactly what we need to try to accomplish”. -Dustin Browder | ||
|
Icks
France186 Posts
Wouldnt it be crazy if they did something really wild? Like removed probes as the way Protoss gets resource so Protoss players would only need 1 or 2 for a whole base? This reminds me Age of Mythology (yes, sorry for the reference :r ) where they added a new race whose peons count as 3 normal peons. It became the noobrace@easymacro. On December 08 2009 06:30 Misrah wrote: Considering the complains about automine, this kind of decision makes sense.the entire problem with the the macro mechanics is this: you HAVE to use them in EVERY game and they are currently the BEST decision to use. I don't understand why blizz does this. Why make this mechanic if it is something that is paramount to success? there is no strategical use of not using the macro mechanic, instead it is a must. There is no decision making, only more hand work that has to go into the game and gives SC2 a dry APM sink with little to no possibility of personal style or strategy use in sight. But i agree, and i hope it's not that easy, like what Karune said for the Terran... And at least, if you're a Zerg player, your ennemy can "play" with your macro mechanic (the Queen), so it adds some sort of challenge, you have to care about it. | ||
|
Knee_of_Justice
United States388 Posts
1) Fast expand, 2) macro mechanic, 3) normal (a double gate or something) Each would give you different options and have different sacrifices. Lategame, you have to choose whether or not to constantly spend money on macro (scouting/raiding would be very important, then, to stop the opponent from getting their full use out of the macro mechanic) or to just expand. And if you choose to use the macro mechanic, you also have to balance into its use the other abilities it would have (like sweep/creep tumor or whatever). Basically, the macro mechanics would be used to get short strategic boosts to your economy rather than a basic chore (tasking probes) or a longer term investment (expanding). Some examples with the following stats: 1) Obelisk costs 200m and has 200 energy 2) Proton charge costs 30M per probe in affected area + a flat 50 energy 3) Lasts 30 seconds and energy does not recharge at the obelisk during this time 4) For example! 1 Probe normally mines roughly 30 minerals in 30 seconds. This upgrade would mean that the probe would mine 75-ish (up to balance) minerals in that same 30 seconds, dramatically increasing your income at that expo for half a minute. Say you have 10 probes at your expo and you use PC on all 10 of them: that is a down payment of 300 minerals (+200 for the obelisk). However, after 30 seconds, you get a net gain of 450 minerals! If though, your opponent raids you 5 seconds into your PC, you have paid 300 minerals, but you only get 125 minerals back from the probes during those 5 seconds, effectively losing you around 175 actual minerals and 450 potential minerals (more if he kills probes). And if you use it 4 times successfully in succession, you have gained an extra 1800 minerals over 2 minutes BUT for the next 50 seconds (energy recharge time), at least, you cannot get any extra minerals. Also consider that if they balance shield/energy recharge well, that energy is competing with those abilities as well. Remember that 300 minerals is 3 zealots and that you would have to consider the use of this carefully. Also, if you dont want to waste 300 minerals (say you only want to use 200) it would require precise calculation and aim (you would have to ensure that only ~7 probes were caught in the AoE instead of 10). If you have 2 expos each with 10 probes, maybe you dont want to spend 600m to PC both of them right? What if you had 15 probes per expo... do you want to spend 450M per expo now in order to get a net gain of 675 per expo over 30 seconds? I can see lots of strategic decisions if they tried to balance this. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5754 Posts
That could even spawn some hybrid openings: 1 base aggression/tech 1 base macro mechanic FE aggression/tech FE macro mechanic ^____^ | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 04 2009 00:20 Archerofaiur wrote: Poll: Which would be more appropriate for Protoss macro? (Vote): Mineral Mechanic (Vote): Gas Mechanic Please explain why you think minerals or gas would be a better mechanic. Wow thats more people than I expected. Combined with Karune's comments about increasing decision-making I really think gas is the way to go. The question is what kind of gas mechanic and whether or not it should compete with other abilities like the queen and OC do. Also out of curiosity how many minerals do you guys think 100 gas is worth? ![[image loading]](http://www.creepcolony.com/vespeneorb.gif) | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
a big enough game needs no apm sinks, but blizzard's sc2 does because the maps are so small, otherwise you get wc3 | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 10 2009 16:12 jalstar wrote: if they made the maps bigger and the game larger scale they wouldn't need all these "macro mechanics", look at long pro games on big maps, especially tvt's. there's a lot of un-macroed units, idle scvs, etc. a big enough game needs no apm sinks, but blizzard's sc2 does because the maps are so small, otherwise you get wc3 Did you read the recent Dustin/TL interview? If not stop and go read it. Its awesome. Among other things it explains that the Macro issue is not so much about apm sinks as it is about seperating Macro and Micro playstyles. They want there to be a macro way to play the zerg and a micro way to play the zerg. | ||
|
Sandrosuperstar
Sweden525 Posts
On December 08 2009 05:50 Archerofaiur wrote: Wouldnt it be crazy if they did something really wild? Like removed probes as the way Protoss gets resource so Protoss players would only need 1 or 2 for a whole base? It would be awsum if they did somthing really daring like terren and zerg mine but toss does something completly diffrent. I really like how all thte races finally produces ther units in a diffrent way but still produces them with the core mechanics. (a big step forwad) Maybe they could find a way with the way toss mines aswell...  | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On December 10 2009 22:08 Archerofaiur wrote: Did you read the recent Dustin/TL interview? If not stop and go read it. Its awesome. Among other things it explains that the Macro issue is not so much about apm sinks as it is about seperating Macro and Micro playstyles. They want there to be a macro way to play the zerg and a micro way to play the zerg. I'm just worried that there won't be a macro way to play Zerg if the maps are as small and constrained as the ones we've seen. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 11 2009 04:29 jalstar wrote: I'm just worried that there won't be a macro way to play Zerg if the maps are as small and constrained as the ones we've seen. Even the smallest map weve seen has 10 resource groups. ![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/thumb/d/d6/SteppesOfWar_SC2_Map1.jpg/800px-SteppesOfWar_SC2_Map1.jpg) | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 11 2009 08:07 DeCoup wrote: That's a 4 player map. Nope. It aint. "Another way 1v1 maps differ from other map types is that they generally have the most expansions per player. This is a result of the way that the original StarCraft’s 1v1 gameplay was shaped by certain 4-player maps that were heavily used for 1v1, such as Lost Temple, where players had many expansions available to them. We stay true to this tradition by making sure that StarCraft II’s dedicated 1v1 maps generally retain that high expansion-to-player ratio. By the way, those 4-player maps still exist in StarCraft II and can be used for 1v1, 2-vs.-2, and 4-player free-for-all, just as before." -Starcraft2.com | ||
|
Muey
Finland149 Posts
On December 01 2009 10:21 sob3k wrote: manner pylons that drop from the sky WHO'S WITH ME! This. Make it happen. Seriously. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On December 11 2009 08:18 Archerofaiur wrote: Nope. It aint. "Another way 1v1 maps differ from other map types is that they generally have the most expansions per player. This is a result of the way that the original StarCraft’s 1v1 gameplay was shaped by certain 4-player maps that were heavily used for 1v1, such as Lost Temple, where players had many expansions available to them. We stay true to this tradition by making sure that StarCraft II’s dedicated 1v1 maps generally retain that high expansion-to-player ratio. By the way, those 4-player maps still exist in StarCraft II and can be used for 1v1, 2-vs.-2, and 4-player free-for-all, just as before." -Starcraft2.com I'd hope it's not, since 2 nat expansions have high-yield minerals. Also, kind of OT, but where's the maneuverability? With MBS, automine, and unlimited select we have the potential for much bigger armies, yet there doesn't seem to be much room on the map. Maybe it's a skill thing, and you'll need to micro huge armies through those chokes? | ||
|
Sentient66
United States651 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On December 11 2009 12:29 Sentient66 wrote: This is slightly off-topic, but I just noticed when looking at the map in the post a few before this one that there are no more mineral-only expansions in these new Blizzard maps. I'm wondering how this will alter the flow of the game. I realize that this isn't the same as SC1, but I think that players might miss the option of taking a more easily-defendable mineral-only expo, or a farther away gas expo. Fighting Spirit has no min-only expos, and it's played in every league. | ||
| ||
