|
Update:On December 01 2009 Archerofaiur wrote:What are the new Protoss Macro Mechanics you are experimenting with? Thank you 
Sorry, I thought this was a good answer. Yes, there have been some changes and we hope to be able to give you details on them quite soon, as personally I love them already. But we want to make sure that the developpment team is happy with how they play out before announcing details.
While you wait, feel free to speculate and write down your own ideas of how you'd like them to work.
-Xordiah
Original Post:
The #StarCraft2 balance team is experimenting with new protoss macro mechanics.
-Starcraft Twitter
http://twitter.com/Starcraft
What does everyone think of this? What are your hopes for the new mechanics? What would you like them to look like?
|
They are just trying to figure out a way to evolve 1a2a3a win into 1b2b3b win to deal with the recent ZvP imbalance.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Be back in 20 pages of speculation!
|
Braavos36388 Posts
Maybe you'll get 10 minerals for every forum post you making whining about ZvP imbalance.
|
On December 01 2009 05:56 Hot_Bid wrote:
Maybe you'll get 10 minerals for every forum post you making whining about ZvP imbalance.
That would be so overpowered its not even funny. I dont think the game should reward mindless forum spamming over decision making.
|
|
|
On December 01 2009 05:58 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 05:56 Hot_Bid wrote:
Maybe you'll get 10 minerals for every forum post you making whining about ZvP imbalance. That would be so overpowered its not even funny. I dont think the game should reward mindless forum spamming over decision making.
This. And for gods sake don't let it be a Mothership mechanic!
|
|
|
On December 01 2009 05:52 Slaughter wrote:
They are just trying to figure out a way to evolve 1a2a3a win into 1b2b3b win.
oh no he didn't.... *finger snap*
|
On December 01 2009 06:02 Lovin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 05:58 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 01 2009 05:56 Hot_Bid wrote:
Maybe you'll get 10 minerals for every forum post you making whining about ZvP imbalance. That would be so overpowered its not even funny. I dont think the game should reward mindless forum spamming over decision making. This. And for gods sake don't let it be a Mothership mechanic!
Omg can you imagine if they made the Mothership a Macro caster like the Queen? That would be awesome!
|
On December 01 2009 06:08 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 06:02 Lovin wrote:On December 01 2009 05:58 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 01 2009 05:56 Hot_Bid wrote:
Maybe you'll get 10 minerals for every forum post you making whining about ZvP imbalance. That would be so overpowered its not even funny. I dont think the game should reward mindless forum spamming over decision making. This. And for gods sake don't let it be a Mothership mechanic! Omg can you imagine if they made the Mothership a Macro caster like the Queen? That would be awesome!
Awesomely terrible, the last thing we want is for the macro mechanics to be similar to each other.
|
Totally called for, the whole obelisk probe speed thing seemed really forced.
|
On December 01 2009 06:16 Retsukage wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 06:08 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 01 2009 06:02 Lovin wrote:On December 01 2009 05:58 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 01 2009 05:56 Hot_Bid wrote:
Maybe you'll get 10 minerals for every forum post you making whining about ZvP imbalance. That would be so overpowered its not even funny. I dont think the game should reward mindless forum spamming over decision making. This. And for gods sake don't let it be a Mothership mechanic! Omg can you imagine if they made the Mothership a Macro caster like the Queen? That would be awesome! Awesomely terrible, the last thing we want is for the macro mechanics to be similar to each other.
lol why does everyone keep saying that. Your making the macro mechanics less similar to each other.
Here lets just speed through the difficult parts. Youll say they are both units and then I point out the Obelisk and OC are both buildings.
|
for every mouse1 click you instantly spawn a free DT at a random location on the map.
|
1a2a3a guys really? protoss are going to make 30 zlot in one click and just 1a2a with a 80 man army with their larger selection then 12.
|
"They'd NEVER make such drastic changes so late in development; they are basically ready for beta!"
Wow, I guess that sentiment has been completely wrong. I wonder if Archerofaiur is now going to rightfully take his vengeance with furious pelvic thrusts to their metaphorical faces.
|
Somehow I knew they weren't only held back by bnet2.0...
|
On December 01 2009 06:44 Deviation wrote:
"They'd NEVER make such drastic changes so late in development; they are basically ready for beta!"
Wow, I guess that sentiment has been completely wrong. I wonder if Archerofaiur is now going to rightfully take his vengeance with furious pelvic thrusts to their metaphorical faces.
Seriously people have been saying that "nothing drastic will ever change cause beta around the corner" line for years and they will continue. Heck they can drastically change things during beta or even in patches and expansion packs.
|
On December 01 2009 06:38 grobo wrote:
for every mouse1 click you instantly spawn a free DT at a random location on the map.
Not bad, maybe an Archon instead
|
On December 01 2009 05:56 Hot_Bid wrote:
Maybe you'll get 10 minerals for every forum post you making whining about ZvP imbalance.
pretty much won
thread over
|
When in a pylon's psionic matrix the mothership can go "flying nexus"
|
This will continue as the macro mechanics continue to misfire. They're a stupid idea.
|
Im hoping for something like this
Macro Mothership
Proton Charge
Wormhole Transit
Tractor Beam - Ability that allows a Mothership to suck up Vespene gas from an unoccupied geyser
|
This will continue as the macro mechanics continue to misfire. They're a stupid idea. \
Thisssssss
|
Cool. As someone who likes the Macro Mechanics in general (and Spawn Larva in particular), anything that makes them better/cooler is very welcome. Can't wait for updates.
|
On December 01 2009 07:33 Captain Peabody wrote:
Cool. As someone who likes the Macro Mechanics in general (and Spawn Larva in particular), anything that makes them better/cooler is very welcome. Can't wait for updates.
Gasp! Someone who likes the Macro Mechanics. And here I thought I was the only one.
|
On December 01 2009 07:14 Archerofaiur wrote:Tractor Beam - Ability that allows a Mothership to suck up Vespene gas from an unoccupied geyser
However, the gas depletes after a few moments for 5 sec, so you have to micro back and forth for optimum collecting.
|
On December 01 2009 08:05 liger13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 07:14 Archerofaiur wrote:Tractor Beam - Ability that allows a Mothership to suck up Vespene gas from an unoccupied geyser However, the gas depletes after a few moments for 5 sec, so you have to micro back and forth for optimum collecting.
Well it would be a channeled ability where the mothership hovered over the geyser and sucked up gas at a rate of say 2 gas per 1 energy.
Alternatively it could be a temporary effect that the Macro Mothership casts on unoccupied geysers. So for 50 energy you would open a portal above the geyser that sucks the vespene up into it for 30 seconds. It could look like the portal storm from Half Life 2.
|
I say keep it simple:
New Mothership Macro Ability
Air Brush - 50 energy
Paint speed stripes on a probe making it go faster
|
On December 01 2009 08:12 Appendix wrote:
New Mothership Macro Ability
Air Brush - 50 energy
Paint RED speed stripes on a probe making it go faster
Fixed
Why?
CUS DA RED WUNZ GO FASTA!!!!!
|
I really hope it is not Mothership based macro. I like the current Zerg=Unit Macro, Protoss=Building macro, Terran=Building which creates unit macro mechanics. It is a great form of differentiation, and I hope that the new Protoss macro mechanics are still building based.
|
I hope its not Mothership based macro either. I think that Blizzard needs to tweak the Obelisk a bit more, specifically making Proton Charge a) not last as long b) cost more energy/add minerals/gas to cost or c) both.
|
so when is blizzard not expermenting around with something in sc2?
how does this need its own thread ><
|
On December 01 2009 08:51 StorrZerg wrote:
so when is blizzard not expermenting around with something in sc2?
how does this need its own thread ><
Cause its one of the most important things in the game. A mechanic you will use hundreds if not thousands of times in the near future.
|
How about something like this:
Mineral warp-
100 energy, warp one of your mineral patches into a high yield patch for a short time, but the mineral patch loses 250 minerals upon reverting.
That way you have to balance a quick burst in production with a long run loss.
|
ROFL, is this because David Kim lost to Nada TvP ???
pS - btw why wasn't there a thread about that?
|
I wonder if this is the result of the "additive vs. exponential macro mechanics" article on I believe it was SCLegacy. That would be way cool.
|
On December 01 2009 09:26 edahl wrote:
I wonder if this is the result of the "additive vs. exponential macro mechanics" article on I believe it was SCLegacy. That would be way cool.
That was Demosquid's article about how Proton Charge was impossible to balance. Without going into too many details for how he is completly wrong, Blizzard has never said anything about the Obelisk being imbalanced. Rather they said that there wasnt allot of tension.
While were on the subject have you checked out this shameless plug?
http://sclegacy.com/feature/9-contributor/543-examining-the-macro-mechanics
|
Idea for a replacement for the Obelisk (let's face it, the Obelisk was all about Proton Charge anyway):
Protoss Starbase Link
The Protoss Starbase Link is a building enhancement that turns a production building into a Starbase, bypassing all the tolls and red tape normally associated with interstellar travel. With this enhancement, buildings can speed up and drastically reduce the cost of summoning reinforcements from space.
Once a Protoss player obtains Gateway tech, every Nexus will generate a single Starbase Link that a Probe can take and install on the following buildings: Gateway, Stargate, Robotics Facility. This link will power up the selected building, reducing costs by X (where X is determined through gameplay balancing) and speeding up unit production by Y. At the same time, the building will suffer from the psionic strain this link causes, and after Z amount of units produced, the link will cease to function until a Probe retrieves it and reinstalls it on a different building.
If a building with the Starbase Link is destroyed, or a Probe carrying the link is destroyed, the Nexus that created it will have to reestablish the link, which takes time.
|
On December 01 2009 09:10 CharlieMurphy wrote:
ROFL, is this because David Kim lost to Nada TvP ???
pS - btw why wasn't there a thread about that?
link/vidya or it didn't happend
Also, maybe nexus can be upgraded to either shoot laz0rs, or reveal a part of the map or call down a STEROIDPROBE?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 01 2009 08:14 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 08:12 Appendix wrote:
New Mothership Macro Ability
Air Brush - 50 energy
Paint RED speed stripes on a probe making it go faster Fixed Why? CUS DA RED WUNZ GO FASTA!!!!!
<3
|
|
|
They'll just settle this 1 little thing, and then they'll put beta out.
|
Here's an idea, give the obelisk a new ability to replace proton charge:
Psi charge (cost = some undetermined amount of energy): Ranged ability that increases production speed of a unit or building being produced by some factor for a set amount of time.
- The factor should either be a function of food requirement or resource cost.
Food requirement example:
Units with food requirement of 1 - build time is 50% of normal build time
Units with food requirement of 2 - build time is 65% of normal build time
Units with food requirement of 4 - build time is 80% of normal build time
Units with food requirement of 6 - build time is 90% of normal build time
Structures - build time is 80% of normal build time
All values are arbitrary.
Resource cost example:
Cost 0-99 total resource - build time is 50% of normal build time
Cost 99-199 total resource - build time is 60% of normal build time
Cost 199-299 total resource - build time is 70% of normal build time
Cost 299-399 total resource - build time is 80% of normal build time
Where: total resource = mineral cost + vespene cost
All values are arbitrary.
Just throwing an idea out there, I particularly like it because it's not purely resource based.
|
Hey, you know what would be really cool?
Instead of a macro ability that increases your own gather rate, why not have one that negatively impacts your opponent?. Like a reverse proton charge, or a big cork that goes into their gas, or manner pylons that drop from the sky. That would be awesome! Not to mention so much more fun to use that some dumb worker buff.
dude, manner pylons that drop from the sky!
WHO'S WITH ME!
|
Lotta Resource haters here. What do people not like getting big armies?
|
konadora
Singapore66357 Posts
Lol the reponses in this thread are so good
But yeah, this
On December 01 2009 05:54 Kennigit wrote:
Be back in 20 pages of speculation!
|
On December 01 2009 09:02 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 08:51 StorrZerg wrote:
so when is blizzard not expermenting around with something in sc2?
how does this need its own thread >< Cause its one of the most important things in the game. A mechanic you will use hundreds if not thousands of times in the near future.
i never said anything about the importance of it just pointing out that threads pop up a shit ton on every twitter about sc2
im sure we have plenty of threads concerning macro mechanics all ready.
|
On December 01 2009 11:25 StorrZerg wrote:
im sure we have plenty of threads concerning macro mechanics all ready.
Theres never enough of those
|
If they put the mothership they will need to put her way lower in the tech tree because the toss macro unit is un tier 3
|
On December 01 2009 11:30 JohannesH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 11:25 StorrZerg wrote:
im sure we have plenty of threads concerning macro mechanics all ready. Theres never enough of those
o then we should make a zerg one and terran one asap cause blizzard will be experimenting with them in the next week after toss!!!!!!
|
On December 01 2009 11:35 KhAlleB wrote:
If they put the mothership they will need to put her way lower in the tech tree because the toss macro unit is un tier 3
Yes the mothership would have to be dropped down to tier 1 like the queen or Orbital Command. I think it could probably keep its massive hit points because of its slow speed. Its attack might have to be nerfed or removed though.
|
On December 01 2009 09:02 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 08:51 StorrZerg wrote:
so when is blizzard not expermenting around with something in sc2?
how does this need its own thread >< Cause its one of the most important things in the game. A mechanic you will use hundreds if not thousands of times in the near future.
but there is nothing to discuss yet. This is like making a thread titled "SC2 release date!!" then in the thread say "Blizzard knows the day they are releasing sc2 but they havnt told us yet"
|
On December 01 2009 11:58 Mastermind wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 09:02 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 01 2009 08:51 StorrZerg wrote:
so when is blizzard not expermenting around with something in sc2?
how does this need its own thread >< Cause its one of the most important things in the game. A mechanic you will use hundreds if not thousands of times in the near future. but there is nothing to discuss yet. This is like making a thread titled "SC2 release date!!" then in the thread say "Blizzard knows the day they are releasing sc2 but they havnt told us yet"
Just to settle this, many of us have been debating for months about the macro mechanics specifically the protoss one and if/how they should be changed. Now this may not be big new to you but it certainly is to us.
|
is awesome32277 Posts
On December 01 2009 05:58 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 05:56 Hot_Bid wrote:
Maybe you'll get 10 minerals for every forum post you making whining about ZvP imbalance. That would be so overpowered its not even funny. I dont think the game should reward mindless forum spamming over decision making.
y not
|
obviously they are going to give probes blink so they can reach the minerals faster.
|
all I can say is thank god. I am not a fan of the obelisk charge.
|
On December 01 2009 11:52 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 11:35 KhAlleB wrote:
If they put the mothership they will need to put her way lower in the tech tree because the toss macro unit is un tier 3 Yes the mothership would have to be dropped down to tier 1 like the queen or Orbital Command. I think it could probably keep its massive hit points because of its slow speed. Its attack might have to be nerfed or removed though.
mother ships is actualy 8 dmg(8x1)
|
On December 01 2009 12:19 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 11:58 Mastermind wrote:On December 01 2009 09:02 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 01 2009 08:51 StorrZerg wrote:
so when is blizzard not expermenting around with something in sc2?
how does this need its own thread >< Cause its one of the most important things in the game. A mechanic you will use hundreds if not thousands of times in the near future. but there is nothing to discuss yet. This is like making a thread titled "SC2 release date!!" then in the thread say "Blizzard knows the day they are releasing sc2 but they havnt told us yet" Just to settle this, many of us have been debating for months about the macro mechanics specifically the protoss one and if/how they should be changed. Now this may not be big new to you but it certainly is to us.
exactly why there does not need to be sc2 twitter threads
|
On December 01 2009 13:48 StorrZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 12:19 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 01 2009 11:58 Mastermind wrote:On December 01 2009 09:02 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 01 2009 08:51 StorrZerg wrote:
so when is blizzard not expermenting around with something in sc2?
how does this need its own thread >< Cause its one of the most important things in the game. A mechanic you will use hundreds if not thousands of times in the near future. but there is nothing to discuss yet. This is like making a thread titled "SC2 release date!!" then in the thread say "Blizzard knows the day they are releasing sc2 but they havnt told us yet" Just to settle this, many of us have been debating for months about the macro mechanics specifically the protoss one and if/how they should be changed. Now this may not be big new to you but it certainly is to us. exactly why there does not need to be sc2 twitter threads
The news of them changing the obelisk mechanic is what we have been waiting for for almost a year now. How does that NOT warrant a thread alerting people of this massive change?
|
so updating a previous macro/protoss macro thread is to hard yes?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 01 2009 09:40 Archerofaiur wrote:
You an Ork fanboy FA?
Waaaagh imo.
Red ones go faster, blue ones are lucky.
Yeah, I love the 40k Orks, so cute =]
|
On December 01 2009 13:57 StorrZerg wrote:
so updating a previous macro/protoss macro thread is to hard yes?
I could have but I dont think as many people would notice it. To clarify I dont think a thread is nessisary every time there is twitter news. But this specific news certainly is!
Consider if they said the Mothership was being removed and the protoss were getting a new capital ship. Would you stick it as a footnote in a Carrier thread?
|
On December 01 2009 06:38 grobo wrote:
for every mouse1 click you instantly spawn a free DT at a random location on the map.
Don't even joke about this
|
On December 01 2009 06:07 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 05:52 Slaughter wrote:
They are just trying to figure out a way to evolve 1a2a3a win into 1b2b3b win. oh no he didn't.... *finger snap*
this is funny :D
|
I think macro mechanics is the right way to go - if they can pull it off. With each race having a unique mechanic, I can see it being very difficult to balance. Obviously they aren't happy, who knows how long this will take them to figure out. This will probably delay beta even more 
|
I have a macro mechanic for all three races: build as many workers as you want when you want, and expand when you want.
|
I wonder what was wrong with the old macro. I thought the zerg midgame was the biggest issue in balance
|
qft meeple and others that said the same about nothing being wrong with SC1 macro.
I love blizzard after 4-5 years+ of development on this vaporware of a game still is refusing to acknowledge they are looking for solutions to an imaginary problem.
SC1 macro is perfect. SC1 interface ended up being perfectly balanced between human input and how much the game helps you.
SC2 is not going to come out at this rate with such condilluded development over and over again on unneeded macro mechanics.
How come the cnc developer Dustin Browder appeases the SC community by saying a few times, "if things do not work, we can always go to SC1 macro," yet there has been NO SIGN AT ALL that Browder has attempted pure SC1 macro within their SC2 development process at this stage.
It is time for Browder to try a "different solution" that is "out of the box" for what they are currently trying -> aka SC1 macro which is already tried and tested for 10 years. That's right, a decade.
Solution to macro mechanics? There never was a problem in the firstplace.
/facepalm.
Browder claims to want to make the game great and that it is possible to attempt SC1 macro as a "solution" yet at this stage of development he has not considered it as an option.
|
I disagree with you 100%.
there have been many many many posts and topics on TL alone which say that the Protoss macro mechanic (Proton Charge) is not up to par with thenother two races. Reasons vary from the effect of Proton Charge on new (low saturated) bases thru to the lack of decision making requirements that it shares with the other oblisk abilties.
Furthermore the Zerg and Terran macro mechanics appear to not only work, but to enrich the entire play experience, creating more diversity and individuality to both the race and to that of the players.
Only 1/3 races has a problem, and that problem is being addressed. The proposal to scrap th entire macro mechanic system is both unjustified and laughable at this point in development with all that it brings to the table.
|
On December 01 2009 16:13 avilo wrote:
qft meeple and others that said the same about nothing being wrong with SC1 macro.
I love blizzard after 4-5 years+ of development on this vaporware of a game still is refusing to acknowledge they are looking for solutions to an imaginary problem.
SC1 macro is perfect. SC1 interface ended up being perfectly balanced between human input and how much the game helps you.
SC2 is not going to come out at this rate with such condilluded development over and over again on unneeded macro mechanics.
How come the cnc developer Dustin Browder appeases the SC community by saying a few times, "if things do not work, we can always go to SC1 macro," yet there has been NO SIGN AT ALL that Browder has attempted pure SC1 macro within their SC2 development process at this stage.
It is time for Browder to try a "different solution" that is "out of the box" for what they are currently trying -> aka SC1 macro which is already tried and tested for 10 years. That's right, a decade.
Solution to macro mechanics? There never was a problem in the firstplace.
/facepalm.
Browder claims to want to make the game great and that it is possible to attempt SC1 macro as a "solution" yet at this stage of development he has not considered it as an option.
I love to see how after 10 years when there is a problem in gameplay aka PvZ people don't really start using things that were in the game for the whole time but just think if they should.
Why progamers aren't the strongest force opposing this but random foreigners in red ranks?
|
On December 01 2009 09:10 CharlieMurphy wrote:
ROFL, is this because David Kim lost to Nada TvP ???
WUT
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On December 01 2009 05:56 Hot_Bid wrote:
Maybe you'll get 10 minerals for every forum post you making whining about ZvP imbalance.
To enhance community participation for everyone!
|
hope they wont mess it all up!
|
They're going to waste so much time trying to hammer in the macro mechanics. It's always harder to fit bad ideas into games.
|
On December 01 2009 09:31 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 09:26 edahl wrote:
I wonder if this is the result of the "additive vs. exponential macro mechanics" article on I believe it was SCLegacy. That would be way cool. That was Demosquid's article about how Proton Charge was impossible to balance. Without going into too many details for how he is completly wrong, Blizzard has never said anything about the Obelisk being imbalanced. Rather they said that there wasnt allot of tension. While were on the subject have you checked out this shameless plug? http://sclegacy.com/feature/9-contributor/543-examining-the-macro-mechanics
I don't remember his mathematics, because the notation was so horrible. My general model for mineral harvesting would look something like the following:
Let b be the number of probes built throughout the game (assuming a continuous buildup). If w is the number of starting workers, then clearly the number of workers at time b(t) would be w+b. If k is the number of minerals collected each round-trip, and r is the number of round trips, the expression would yield C=kr(w+b) where C is the number of minerals collected in total. To account for time, we let instead the two constants b and r account for the time it takes to build workers and collect minerals respectively. The new expression would be C(t)=krt(w+bt), which would assume a continuous rate of collection, and a continuous rate of worker production.
At which point I got bored for now, I should drink coffee and work on differential equations o_O
|
On December 01 2009 22:37 ix wrote:
They're going to waste so much time trying to hammer in the macro mechanics. It's always harder to fit bad ideas into games.
Can't blame them for the whines of players.
Personally, I think Dune 2 unit mechanics are perfect, and multiple unit select is the first step to failure. We all know that every unit should be controlled individually!~
|
On December 01 2009 10:21 sob3k wrote:
Hey, you know what would be really cool?
Instead of a macro ability that increases your own gather rate, why not have one that negatively impacts your opponent?. Like a reverse proton charge, or a big cork that goes into their gas, or manner pylons that drop from the sky. That would be awesome! Not to mention so much more fun to use that some dumb worker buff.
dude, manner pylons that drop from the sky!
WHO'S WITH ME!
I'm sure there's a reason for that to be completely retarded, but it sounds awesome!
|
On December 01 2009 Archerofaiur wrote:What are the new Protoss Macro Mechanics you are experimenting with? Thank you
Sorry, I thought this was a good answer. Yes, there have been some changes and we hope to be able to give you details on them quite soon, as personally I love them already. But we want to make sure that the developpment team is happy with how they play out before announcing details.
While you wait, feel free to speculate and write down your own ideas of how you'd like them to work.
-Xordiah
|
Why don't they turn warp in into a macro mechanic. Make it to where gateways can only turn into warpgates temporarily, say a minute to a minute and a half. Then they just automatically convert back into normal gateways. So you have to keep putting them into warpgate mode.
|
WarpIn is a macro mechanic. It was the first that showed macro could be fun.
|
Nice, how did you get that answer?
|
|
|
|
|
On December 02 2009 02:28 Jobbies wrote:
Personally I think that, since Terran has increased mining capabilities and Zerg has increased production capabilities, what if Protoss were to get reduced production times?
|
Despite the fact that units warp in faster than they build from a gateway, I believe there's a cooldown period, so it's not really very beneficial...
In essence it's not really increased productivity imo.
|
It decreases build time. Check Starcraftwiki or sc2armory.
|
-------normalbuildtime--------
----warp--- + --cooldown----
?
|
I believe the warp+cooldown is still less then normal. Can anyone who has played confirm this?
|
On December 01 2009 23:20 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Personally, I think Dune 2 unit mechanics are perfect, and multiple unit select is the first step to failure. We all know that every unit should be controlled individually!~
People that try to use the "Dune argument" need to be shot in the face. There is a concept known as interface balance, too easy is not good, too difficult is not good either. SC is at the center - it's perfectly balanced in how easy it is for a player to be in control of the game, yet not so easy that the game plays itself or does too many things for the player to eliminate skill differentiation.
So if you are fucking noobie that randomly pops up in a thread about mechanics don't think you are fucking witty with your sarcastic dune1/2 rts argument. just stfu.
|
People that try to use the "Dune argument" need to be shot in the face. There is a concept known as interface balance, too easy is not good, too difficult is not good either. SC is at the center - it's perfectly balanced in how easy it is for a player to be in control of the game, yet not so easy that the game plays itself or does too many things for the player to eliminate skill differentiation.
So if you are fucking noobie that randomly pops up in a thread about mechanics don't think you are fucking witty with your sarcastic dune1/2 rts argument. just stfu.
Peace. While the "Dune argument" is indeed stupid and invalid, being a jerk is doubly so.
In addition, it is worth pointing out that, while of course the macro issue comes down to a balance of competing things, it is by no means self-evident that Starcraft's balance in this area is perfect and cannot be improved upon. There are many legitimate reasons why Blizzard and various players would wish to alter the SC2 macro model from the SC1 original; and many legitimate arguments that could be made for the current SC2 one.
|
On December 02 2009 05:55 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +People that try to use the "Dune argument" need to be shot in the face. There is a concept known as interface balance, too easy is not good, too difficult is not good either. SC is at the center - it's perfectly balanced in how easy it is for a player to be in control of the game, yet not so easy that the game plays itself or does too many things for the player to eliminate skill differentiation.
So if you are fucking noobie that randomly pops up in a thread about mechanics don't think you are fucking witty with your sarcastic dune1/2 rts argument. just stfu. Peace. While the "Dune argument" is indeed stupid and invalid, being a jerk is doubly so.
Excelent point. While were on topic the "movie arguement" were every game process is automated is equally invalid.
|
The main "problem" with warp-in is it adds a step to macro that wouldn't be there. Instead of 4 (select gateways) z z z z s s s s, the number of clicks are doubled: 4 z click z click z click s click s click s click. Also, you sort of have to remember when the cooldown is up, rather than just queueing more units with surplus funds. Finally, instead of being anywhere while macroing, your screen has to be on the location that your units are warping in.
It's an awesome mechanic, but far more difficult to use than the classic macro style, and would best be used in the late mid game or later when you absolutely need good army positioning, or need your next units to arrive for flanks.
|
United States20661 Posts
I thought Dune = instant ban
|
On December 02 2009 04:33 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 23:20 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Personally, I think Dune 2 unit mechanics are perfect, and multiple unit select is the first step to failure. We all know that every unit should be controlled individually!~
People that try to use the "Dune argument" need to be shot in the face. There is a concept known as interface balance, too easy is not good, too difficult is not good either. SC is at the center - it's perfectly balanced in how easy it is for a player to be in control of the game, yet not so easy that the game plays itself or does too many things for the player to eliminate skill differentiation. So if you are fucking noobie that randomly pops up in a thread about mechanics don't think you are fucking witty with your sarcastic dune1/2 rts argument. just stfu.
What makes you think that Starcraft has perfect "interface balance"? Why are for example production queues and rally points fine, but MBS and smartcasting not? Why is 12 just the right maximum for unit selection? Why not 6 or 9 or 20?
There is no objective point where the "interface balance" is just right. I fully accept that in your opinion, Starcraft strikes that perfect balance, but you also need to recognise that the vast majority of potential sc2 customers disagrees with you.
Blizzard is not a charitable organisation, so they want to sell their game to as many people as possible. They don't really need to market the game to the Starcraft fans, because we will buy the game anyway, but Joe Average won't buy the game if it has archaic controls.
|
On December 01 2009 16:13 avilo wrote:
qft meeple and others that said the same about nothing being wrong with SC1 macro.
I love blizzard after 4-5 years+ of development on this vaporware of a game still is refusing to acknowledge they are looking for solutions to an imaginary problem.
SC1 macro is perfect. SC1 interface ended up being perfectly balanced between human input and how much the game helps you.
SC2 is not going to come out at this rate with such condilluded development over and over again on unneeded macro mechanics.
How come the cnc developer Dustin Browder appeases the SC community by saying a few times, "if things do not work, we can always go to SC1 macro," yet there has been NO SIGN AT ALL that Browder has attempted pure SC1 macro within their SC2 development process at this stage.
It is time for Browder to try a "different solution" that is "out of the box" for what they are currently trying -> aka SC1 macro which is already tried and tested for 10 years. That's right, a decade.
Solution to macro mechanics? There never was a problem in the firstplace.
/facepalm.
Browder claims to want to make the game great and that it is possible to attempt SC1 macro as a "solution" yet at this stage of development he has not considered it as an option.
http://www.starcraftzone.com/forums/index.php?topic=962.0
I can't be arsed to rewrite what this guy had mind. Enough said about why they should change the macro mechanics in my opinion.
|
The "definition" of interface balance can change over time.
I recently read in an old FAQ about Warcraft: Orcs and Humans:
Why can I only select 4 men per group?
In an earlier, pre-release version, you could select as many men as you
wanted, but it made the game too easy and boring. You'd build for a while,
then select all your men to attack, go get some coffee, and start the next
scenario.
With every subsequent RTS release, Blizzard changed the interface balance drastically! And every potenial SC2 buyer, with the exception of some SC1 fanatics, expects an equally drastic change in SC2.
|
On December 02 2009 07:22 Zexion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 16:13 avilo wrote:
qft meeple and others that said the same about nothing being wrong with SC1 macro.
I love blizzard after 4-5 years+ of development on this vaporware of a game still is refusing to acknowledge they are looking for solutions to an imaginary problem.
SC1 macro is perfect. SC1 interface ended up being perfectly balanced between human input and how much the game helps you.
SC2 is not going to come out at this rate with such condilluded development over and over again on unneeded macro mechanics.
How come the cnc developer Dustin Browder appeases the SC community by saying a few times, "if things do not work, we can always go to SC1 macro," yet there has been NO SIGN AT ALL that Browder has attempted pure SC1 macro within their SC2 development process at this stage.
It is time for Browder to try a "different solution" that is "out of the box" for what they are currently trying -> aka SC1 macro which is already tried and tested for 10 years. That's right, a decade.
Solution to macro mechanics? There never was a problem in the firstplace.
/facepalm.
Browder claims to want to make the game great and that it is possible to attempt SC1 macro as a "solution" yet at this stage of development he has not considered it as an option. http://www.starcraftzone.com/forums/index.php?topic=962.0I can't be arsed to rewrite what this guy had mind. Enough said about why they should change the macro mechanics in my opinion.
Thanks for registering dude!
|
Lack of smartcaster is good because it does two things. It links spellcaster power very directly to your skill and as a result it lets spells be made very powerful as they're naturally kept in check by the difficulty of their use. You're very unlikely to be able to unload them all before your opponent can snipe a couple of casters or respond.
In SC2 it will be more like WC3 where unloading a cast quantity of spells is trivial, which will knock on to create either a need to nerf the spells or a persistent balance problem as the nerf hurts other aspects of the game like harassment with spells.
The Dune argument is a classical bit of rhetoric- the reductio ad absurdam (take something to the ludicrous extreme to belittle it) and the slippery slope (the implication that one change takes you inevitably to the extreme). I've not yet seen a good argument for the macromechanics though, it's not like the game needs new things to occupy my attention, SC does that fully already. The only argument I see is that it's a newbie helper feature (no need to tell workers to rally) with a dodgy hack on top to try to make macro skillful again.
|
Can someone tell what is exactly wrong with new macro mechanics in general (putting balancing them aside)?
The only thing I don't like is that Terran macro boost just falls from the skies to mine a bit and become piece of junk -_- it doesn't fit nomad race lift-offing and salvaging buildings.
How about Orbital Command making MULEs and launching them to far away expansions for small additional energy?
Once MULE is out of energy it becomes small, additional patch of ~30 minerals?
|
On December 01 2009 23:54 Archerofaiur wrote:
WarpIn is a macro mechanic. It was the first that showed macro could be fun.
Hmm, I just assumed that when they talk about changing Protoss macro mechanics they were refering more specifically to mineral generating mechanics which require a time investment (ie Proton Charge). So do you think they are talking about a non-mineral based macro change?
|
Warp-in is technically a macro mechanic, but I think the term makes most people think of the racial techniques from queen/obelisk/orbital. That's how I've always referred to it anyway.
|
On December 02 2009 08:32 ix wrote:
Lack of smartcaster is good because it does two things. It links spellcaster power very directly to your skill and as a result it lets spells be made very powerful as they're naturally kept in check by the difficulty of their use. You're very unlikely to be able to unload them all before your opponent can snipe a couple of casters or respond.
None
other
race
uses magic box during casting spells as much as Protoss and all it takes in most cases is 1 click - you have to go back few seconds later to your base and who cares anyways when in most situations even those size storms can't cover 100% of opponents army.
In short in BW good spell casting takes 1 click as opposed to SC2 where it takes few and I want to add how easier it will be to dodge them because of having more time to manage your units.
In SC2 it will be more like WC3 where unloading a cast quantity of spells is trivial, which will knock on to create either a need to nerf the spells or a persistent balance problem as the nerf hurts other aspects of the game like harassment with spells.
Why do you assume things without playing the game? If you think your point of view from the other thread is valid why you didn't even quote for example my criticism of your op there?
Dear FPS mods developer?
The Dune argument is a classical bit of rhetoric- the reductio ad absurdam (take something to the ludicrous extreme to belittle it) and the slippery slope (the implication that one change takes you inevitably to the extreme). I've not yet seen a good argument for the macromechanics though, it's not like the game needs new things to occupy my attention, SC does that fully already. The only argument I see is that it's a newbie helper feature (no need to tell workers to rally) with a dodgy hack on top to try to make macro skillful again.
I haven't seen a good argument against macromechanics.
As opposed to BW, player has a choice if he wants to use them or not - less skilled players can focus on other aspects of the game while more skilled will have to use them win games.
After beta balancing they won't be as big APM sink as BW macro because energy needed to use them can and in different scenarios most possibly will have to be spent on other things - there will be decision making involved.
In BW you either macro or have few k of resources and get rolled, decision making is dumbed down to get or not to get rolled.
|
why you didn't even quote for example my criticism of your op there?
You didn't say anything that wasn't being covered generally as far as I saw. A lot of what you said seemed tangential or unclear. That developers have an awareness they can cock things up doesn't protect them from cocking things up.
|
The dune argument or the movie argument kills the discussion, but is hardly so "invalid" as to be easy to reject, if you are looking at it from the following perspective.
First of all, is movies a bad thing? Consider people happily bought cutscene orgies of JRPGs with modern automation that practically plays itself (look up gambits in FF games), and of course people spend money on movies too, it is not a bad thing at all! The funniest thing would be mmorpg where people spend money to have a bot run their game.....
Second, is a huge amount of individual unit control a bad thing? Now pretty much all games have multiple select since not having it gets the arcane interface hate, but many is unplayable without micro-ing each unit individually, like commandos, fallout tactics or things like jane's fleet command.
One can make a workable game with just about any kind of interface, as long as the game is designed around it and there is a player base around it.
-----------
The only reason why people are talking as if SC has the perfect interface is because if they didn't like the SC interface they'd likely have spend time playing something else instead. Ask the TA/Supcom crowd of "we need 5000 units for a proper army" folks and the claim that SC has perfect interface would be laughed to hell and back.
The skill ceiling argument that started all this is simply the most absurd argument. I believe folks have seen the "almost perfect muta micro" and "perfect goliath/dropship micro" thread and should know that skill ceiling is an absurdity when you can't even master 35k APM to control one control group of units, let alone 200 supplies of units.
----
The only reason why this discussion has any point at all is that it is a sequel and will inherit the name and player base, so should maintain the feel of the game somewhat. Every other generalization is just smokes and mirrors of personal opinion.
In SC2 it will be more like WC3 where unloading a cast quantity of spells is trivial, which will knock on to create either a need to nerf the spells or a persistent balance problem as the nerf hurts other aspects of the game like harassment with spells.
One can just make spells work better in harass, eg storm the does 60 damage as opposed to 112. Alternatively, one can design a new tier of "higher apm required combo spells" for example maelstrom -> slow damaging storm so it can do more damage if you have more micro. We can have a armor reducing spell and another spell that does area effect 5damagex20 hits attack.....and so and so on.
It can be done if the developer knows what he is doing.
|
Oh boy...
Before this gets to out of hand lets just focus on what Blizzard thinks of the issue.
Also we have a bunch of macro mechanics in the game to encourage players to control their economy better, because as you know in Starcraft, economy is king. One of the things that we loved about the original Starcraft was not so much that we want you to click a bunch, but that there was a lot of tension between players who were micro-oriented and players who were economy-oriented. For instance, if you are playing Zerg and are micro-oriented and I'm playing Zerg and I'm economy-oriented, we're kind of playing two different races — not exactly, but a little bit. We're having a very different experience, and that style difference now becomes the interesting problem for both of us, and that is what we're really pursuing with a lot of this stuff.
-Dustin Browder
Q: So manual labor instead of automation?
A: Exactly. There is a nice story about this. Back then, I was working on addons to Mechwarrior 2. That's how I know that there was still automatic targetting in an early version: You only had to decide, which weapons to fire in what order, the Computer would guide them to the target. The only thing you had to watch out for was not to overheat. That might even have been interesting, but just for few players. The majority wanted action, and they got it in the end. The same applies to Starcraft: We want the players to go back to their base in order to produce reinforcements. We want them to really take care instead of relying on an automatic process.
-Dustin Browder
|
If they want to make macro-based player style work, they should make it more interesting than clicking on scv/obelisk/etc....
My personal idea on the matter is to use high and low yield minerals that run out at different times and blocks each other to create strategies around it. For example gold minerals is blocked behind some blue minerals, so you want to mine that out to get access. The number of accessible patches would also change with new unblocked patches and depleted patches, forcing players to manage the worker force and shift them between different bases if they really want to optimize and make macro timing a map dependent science that a macro player can study for a long time. This also don't require specific mechanics to work.
|
On December 02 2009 14:34 SWPIGWANG wrote:
If they want to make macro-based player style work, they should make it more interesting than clicking on scv/obelisk/etc....
My personal idea on the matter is to use high and low yield minerals that run out at different times and blocks each other to create strategies around it. For example gold minerals is blocked behind some blue minerals, so you want to mine that out to get access. The number of accessible patches would also change with new unblocked patches and depleted patches, forcing players to manage the worker force and shift them between different bases if they really want to optimize and make macro timing a map dependent science that a macro player can study for a long time. This also don't require specific mechanics to work.
This is actually a pretty interesting idea. I would imagine this with patches that have much less than 1500 minerals. I wonder if Blizzard even considered trying this sort of thing.
|
On December 02 2009 08:39 beetlelisk wrote:
Can someone tell what is exactly wrong with new macro mechanics in general (putting balancing them aside)?
The only thing I don't like is that Terran macro boost just falls from the skies to mine a bit and become piece of junk -_- it doesn't fit nomad race lift-offing and salvaging buildings.
How about Orbital Command making MULEs and launching them to far away expansions for small additional energy?
Once MULE is out of energy it becomes small, additional patch of ~30 minerals?
hello terran turtle endgame; they could just sit behind a tank line somewhere and keep calling down minerals at an expansion while their opponent is sitting there mined-out
|
A: Exactly. There is a nice story about this. Back then, I was working on addons to Mechwarrior 2. That's how I know that there was still automatic targetting in an early version: You only had to decide, which weapons to fire in what order, the Computer would guide them to the target. The only thing you had to watch out for was not to overheat. That might even have been interesting, but just for few players. The majority wanted action, and they got it in the end. The same applies to Starcraft: We want the players to go back to their base in order to produce reinforcements. We want them to really take care instead of relying on an automatic process.
whoa... I like it, but this is not going to go well with the millions of newbs out there who have been fed the exact opposite of this concept for the last three years.
|
Id like to change my bet. Im calling it now. The Protoss are getting a mechanic that effects how they harvest and use Vespene Gas.
Trust me. I have a hunch 
|
On December 02 2009 12:21 ix wrote:You didn't say anything that wasn't being covered generally as far as I saw. A lot of what you said seemed tangential or unclear. That developers have an awareness they can cock things up doesn't protect them from cocking things up.
What does tangential mean? What is unclear about you being able to use only few examples and in case of Marauder not being able to defend it?
On December 02 2009 16:05 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 08:39 beetlelisk wrote:
Can someone tell what is exactly wrong with new macro mechanics in general (putting balancing them aside)?
The only thing I don't like is that Terran macro boost just falls from the skies to mine a bit and become piece of junk -_- it doesn't fit nomad race lift-offing and salvaging buildings.
How about Orbital Command making MULEs and launching them to far away expansions for small additional energy?
Once MULE is out of energy it becomes small, additional patch of ~30 minerals? hello terran turtle endgame; they could just sit behind a tank line somewhere and keep calling down minerals at an expansion while their opponent is sitting there mined-out
If terran has to turtle that means you have map control and that means it doesn't matter where does he call mule down because it has to make it to any CC. We don't even know if mule can attack to defend itself.
|
Its an excuse to prolong the beta
|
it should totally be telemining. probes warping all over the map and warping back with the minerals. It would be epic, and impossible to harass. This may seem OP, but... welll... it is... I say put it out there anyway. it would be funny to see a probe warp into your base, grab a few minerals and leave before you can get your marines/ lings turned around to attack.
(Edit: addition of the section on Being OP)
|
On December 03 2009 13:42 Burningsquash wrote:
it should totally be telemining. probes warping all over the map and warping back with the minerals. It would be epic, and impossible to harass.
You know I can almost see telemining working for the protoss. Where they become really nomadic and roam the map warping in and remote mining.
Nevertheless im sticking with my hunch that Protoss are getting a gas mechanic.
|
On December 03 2009 11:43 Archerofaiur wrote:Id like to change my bet. Im calling it now. The Protoss are getting a mechanic that effects how they harvest and use Vespene Gas. Trust me. I have a hunch
I think you are right and I think Blizzard is stupid for this crap.
|
I think they should give probes a small blink! harass would be half as effective...maybe not exactly a macro tool, but it would be fun
|
On December 03 2009 14:00 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2009 11:43 Archerofaiur wrote:Id like to change my bet. Im calling it now. The Protoss are getting a mechanic that effects how they harvest and use Vespene Gas. Trust me. I have a hunch I think you are right and I think Blizzard is stupid for this crap.
No its going be a fun and interesting gas mechanic. Much better than the old one.
|
Although I think a gas mechanic for Protoss would make the three races even more distinct, I don't see it happening. Gas is the most defining resource within a match because of its scarcity, and use. If Protoss had a gas mechanic either
- They would run out of gas faster than the other races because they are harvesting it more quickly, which would make Protoss less viable in late game (especially mined out situations); or
- They would gain the extra gas through some form of imposed refinement which would mean that you are mining 4 but gaining 6, but for this to happen it would just mean that the gas costs of all units are adjusted so that while using the ability effectively you are still balanced as a race with those who can mine minerals more efficiently.
Good idea, but I think it would create too many complications to be what is happening.
I suspect that they are just getting rid of proton charge because of the many problems it had (eg low saturation and lack of tactical choice with the other abilities) to go with another mineral macro mechanic which is more tactical.
|
I think it would be kinda cool if Protoss were the only race to get a gas mechanic, if they're anything like in sc1 they're definitely the most gas heavy race and getting more gas from proper macroing seems like a suitable protoss skill boon.
|
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.
|
Where's the poll option for remove all artificial macro mechanics?
|
The poll was which of the two would be more appropriate. If niether of the two chooses represents your oppinion feel free to post your specific thoughts.
|
(Vote): Mineral Mechanic
(Vote): Gas Mechanic
(Vote): Both
|
@Lobbo
There were a bunch of different options I could have put. Everyone has their own unique solution but I really just wanted this specific question answered. Feel free to pick which one you think is the best answer (or not vote if you cant) and then explain what you think and why.
Im really trying to get a sense of whether people think minerals or gas have a higher affinity for Protoss.
|
On December 04 2009 02:33 ix wrote:
Where's the poll option for remove all artificial macro mechanics?
It's in the SC1 thread.
|
Gas or mineral? What a TERRIBLE frame of mind. With that kind of thinking (a mechanic must involve resources and likely in the sense if increasing it) the possibilities are closed.
|
Maybe it will have something to do with the Protoss psi-matrix. Warp in already uses it to some extent.
|
On December 04 2009 13:26 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Gas or mineral? What a TERRIBLE frame of mind. With that kind of thinking (a mechanic must involve resources and likely in the sense if increasing it) the possibilities are closed.
Omg calm down. I just explained it two times. I want to know which of the two resources (if any) has a higher affinity to protoss.
|
It's impossible to say which would be more likely without knowing more about the game. If it was SC1, I'd say gas. But it isn't SC1.
Ideally, I'd like to see something involving neither. Blizzard has creative people -- much more creative than I. They'll come up with something good.
|
On December 01 2009 10:21 sob3k wrote:
Hey, you know what would be really cool?
Instead of a macro ability that increases your own gather rate, why not have one that negatively impacts your opponent?. Like a reverse proton charge, or a big cork that goes into their gas, or manner pylons that drop from the sky. That would be awesome! Not to mention so much more fun to use that some dumb worker buff.
dude, manner pylons that drop from the sky!
WHO'S WITH ME!
haha that sounds brilliant. Protoss should just get a new unit solely devoted to interrupting the opponent's macro - the Dark Probe. Extra fast, and with special abilites: can mind control enemy gas buildings, warp in cloaked pylons and cannons, force terran buildings to lift off, and burrow to block hatcheries. <_<
|
On December 04 2009 16:51 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 10:21 sob3k wrote:
Hey, you know what would be really cool?
Instead of a macro ability that increases your own gather rate, why not have one that negatively impacts your opponent?. Like a reverse proton charge, or a big cork that goes into their gas, or manner pylons that drop from the sky. That would be awesome! Not to mention so much more fun to use that some dumb worker buff.
dude, manner pylons that drop from the sky!
WHO'S WITH ME! haha that sounds brilliant. Protoss should just get a new unit solely devoted to interrupting the opponent's macro - the Dark Probe. Extra fast, and with special abilites: can mind control enemy gas buildings, warp in cloaked pylons and cannons, force terran buildings to lift off, and burrow to block hatcheries. <_<
What would protoss be without the threat of gas steal! Now that it's impact is severely reduced with 2 starting geysers, why not have a macro mechanic that does it from the safety of your own base? Gas Steal! Now without the annoyance of running a probe all the way into your opponent's main base, temporarily shut down enemy geysers with your manner obelisk - only 50 energy!
|
Im still taking bets for what the new Protoss Mechanic is going to look like. Winner gets a prize related to my upcoming project...
|
Make Protoss unique in that they require more gas and less minerals, giving them a gas mechanic to work with.
|
On December 07 2009 11:56 DanceDance wrote:
Make Protoss unique in that they require more gas and less minerals, giving them a gas mechanic to work with.
That could be interesting. Give them a very different resource system with an emphasis on more gas and a way to get that gas. Care to up your guess with any specifics?
|
I really think if any of the races should get a gas mechanic it should be zerg... they were the real gas users of SC1. When I think protoss I think high powered/ high mineraled units. (Excluding the scout from sc1)
My bet is that the new protoss mechanic will be neither gas/ nor mineral orintated... it will be Nexus oreintated...
My fake nexus example that could do 3 things ... just for laughs and giggles
1.Cloak nearby units.. including probes for a limited time (about 10 seconds max/ 50 energy)
2. Increase the speed of units nearby. (same cost,range and radius , and duration of the old proton charge except it affect their acceleration and max speed. Not their mining rate.) Thus making it easier for the nexus to be saturated with less probes.
or
3. Drain... Drains all the Nexus shields and current energy to instantly kill 1 unit on the map. (loong cooldown though like 4 minutes.)
Of course I went out of hand with some of my Nexus ideas, but the theroy of the Nexus being the new macro mechanic is what I think will happen.
|
prob will bring less mineral and more prob than terran and zerg
|
On December 08 2009 01:51 BeastofManjura wrote:
I really think if any of the races should get a gas mechanic it should be zerg... they were the real gas users of SC1. When I think protoss I think high powered/ high mineraled units. (Excluding the scout from sc1)
My bet is that the new protoss mechanic will be neither gas/ nor mineral orintated... it will be Nexus oreintated...
My fake nexus example that could do 3 things ... just for laughs and giggles
1.Cloak nearby units.. including probes for a limited time (about 10 seconds max/ 50 energy)
2. Increase the speed of units nearby. (same cost,range and radius , and duration of the old proton charge except it affect their acceleration and max speed. Not their mining rate.) Thus making it easier for the nexus to be saturated with less probes.
or
3. Drain... Drains all the Nexus shields and current energy to instantly kill 1 unit on the map. (loong cooldown though like 4 minutes.)
Of course I went out of hand with some of my Nexus ideas, but the theroy of the Nexus being the new macro mechanic is what I think will happen.
Can you explain how that would foster a macro playstyle as opposed to a micro playstyle. Seems to me like there is very little emphasis on unit production and resource gathering.
|
What if the nexus had a superpower field in a fairly small radius around it?
At the cost of 1-2(up to balance) shield points per second, the toss could make a temporary pylon field around their nexus that doubles as a mining buff to probes. You could sacrifice nex shields early game to get a gate out more quickly or use it at expos to save money. Maybe give a passive production or shield regen boost to buildings within range of this field, or units warped to this field cost 10-15% less resources or something instead.
Think about it though: apart from GPlay reasons, why would the toss main building NOT have a power radius?
I still think that macro mechanics should Cost resources to use instead of just energy so you take an economic hit before your economy starts to grow. Pay now, benefit later worked in SC in the form of fast expos, probe production and upgrades. I don't see why they don't mak the macro mechanics along those basic lines instead of the "something for nothing" deal we are getting now.
Resources+energy+competing abilities = more minerals in the long run at a short term cost AND a strategic decision, which is lacking so far I feel.
A toss gas mechanic would be interesting. I actually think all races should have some sort of gas boost because otherwise the gas:minerals ratio might become unbalanced as some report it already is (though gas supposedly mines at an equal rate to SC, the macro mechanic's increase in minerals makes the gas feel disproportionate).
|
PROBES SHOULD HAVE STIMPACKS THAT EAT THEIR SHIELDS
|
How about a mechanic that allows a probe carrying minerals or gas to enter a nexus, and then there is a build time where the nexus can't make any probes, and then the probe comes out with an increased amount of that resource, like 100.
Or how about Nexuses can take in a probe and turn it into a permanent super probe that produces more.
|
This just in.
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?
|
I would never call myself a SC purist, but I'd be pretty pissed if they made it so 2 probes covered the resources for a whole base.  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?
|
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.
|
You HAVE to micro in EVERY game.
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
|
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:
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. Considering the complains about automine, this kind of decision makes sense.
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.
|
If the Macro mechanic were low in the tech tree but had a fairly high cost (~200m) at gateway/pylon/assimilator tech, and then cost resources (flat rate or per probe) and energy to use every time, it would make the distinction between teching and rushing more interesting. For example, now you have at least three basic economic openings:
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.
|
I think an easier way of creating the distinction between different openings is by changing the requirement for Queen, MULE, Obelisk from Pool, Barracks and Gateway to Evo Chamber, E-Bay and Forge.
That could even spawn some hybrid openings:
1 base aggression/tech
1 base macro mechanic
FE aggression/tech
FE macro mechanic
^____^
|
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?
|
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
|
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.
|
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...
|
On December 10 2009 22:08 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On December 11 2009 04:29 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2009 22:08 Archerofaiur wrote: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. 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.
|
That's a 4 player map. The largest 1v1 map we've seen is BR4. Blizzard wants to take 1v1 in a different direction in SC2 by giving them just 2 spawn locations and making them generally smaller. Since the leagues have tournaments, I think we should assume that all the info thry have us about the direction their taking 1v1 maps means this is what we will see in the leagues. At least initially with the map pools that ship. There's a bit of good info on it on the official site under multiplayer preview. As far as I can tell you can play 1v1 on any map when creating a non AMM game, but the game will ship with specific maps for 1v1 (and 2v2). So if I had to guess I'd say the game is being balanced around their intended map types.
|
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
|
On December 01 2009 10:21 sob3k wrote: manner pylons that drop from the sky
WHO'S WITH ME!
This. Make it happen. Seriously.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
Oh sorry, I thought that was a pic of the new Lost Temple haha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.slashgear.com/gallery/data_files/1/4/6/abductionlamp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ui07.gamespot.com/934/ep2outland010000_2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://sclegacy.com/features/editorials/archermacroexamine/header.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2009/09/16/warpgate_1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sc2armory.com/img/protoss/buildings/assimilator.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.creepcolony.com/vespeneorb.gif)
![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/thumb/d/d6/SteppesOfWar_SC2_Map1.jpg/800px-SteppesOfWar_SC2_Map1.jpg)
