What do you think about a Protoss a Gas Mechanic? - Page 2

On December 16 2009 17:12 wrote:
As long as its balanced why not... i really like that idea. What if every race had 3 mechanics?.. but could only use 1 at a time! that would leave for some good desision makeing.. such as 1 mineral mechanic, 1 gas mechanic, and 1 popluation mechanic.. but only 1 could be at any given time.

ex. zerg is low on population and instead of using its mineral mechanic.. it uses its population one and queen builds a "Nest of Death" or something that permantly increases its population by like 4 or something until its destroyed. after that that he can continue to go back to the mineral/gas mechanics when the queens energy is recovered.

On December 16 2009 10:16 majesty.k)seRapH wrote:
these macro mechanics all just feel too artificial to me
i really don't like any of them. this one isn't an exception.

On December 17 2009 11:21 edahl wrote:


EDIT: Or ... I'd be very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very careful. The principle of least astonishment SHOULD apply if they want it to be a good spectator sport. Imagine having to introduce 3 different gas mechanics, three different mining mechanics, three different macro mechanics every bloody time there is a match. Too much weird shit with the basic mechanics and you might lose some of SCs extreme simplicity: Mine minerals, get gas, build units, receive bacon. It works for BW.

On December 16 2009 23:07 Archerofaiur wrote:

lol brilliant!




Im not getting the joke unfortunately. I think a whole bunch of people are interpreting my posts as "Blizzards putting my idea in the game!!!!!11111" Thats not what I said. I said there were interested in this thread on BNET about protoss mechanics. He really did say that. That doesnt mean they ARE putting a gas mechanic in the game.

On December 17 2009 11:28 Archerofaiur wrote:


Imagine having to explain psi storm, siege tanks, muta micro, force field, creep movement, warp in.....................

On December 17 2009 11:39 edahl wrote:


Big flash, stuff dies. It's a tank, boom boom. Look, dangerous fliers. Oh shit, they just blocked off the ramp. Bad ground, can't build there. Oh, something "mounted", seems there's units coming.

There!
If too much things happen that doesn't have an immediately obvious interpretation, well, as a game developer (or a developer of a spectator sport) I'd be very aware that I may be doing something wrong, and I'd monitor the situation.
EDIT: If you don't play WoW, watch a few games of that to see the extremes of what I'm talking about. To some degree also true for WC3 I guess, but not nearly as much.

On December 17 2009 11:44 Archerofaiur wrote:



Mining robot drops from orbit.Mines.


How hard was that?

On December 17 2009 11:47 edahl wrote:


Well, if it's just that, then sure there's not much problem. But if it's only that one might ask ... "what's the point?"

On December 17 2009 11:56 Archerofaiur wrote:


The point of macro mechanics? There are several reasons but the big reason Dustin explained in the recent TL interview. They want to differentiate micro playstyles and macro playstyles. They want each race to have two different ways of being played.

On December 03 2009 16:02 Kennigit wrote:
TL: To follow that up, what types of challenges do you face when trying to balance the needs of the casual player versus the rage of hardcore players like in the progaming community. You had mentioned the macro mechanics being a big one.

DB: Sure that's definitely a big one – it's a place where we feel we can definitely do better but it then does break other systems. 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”.

If anything, this will probably just heighten the ceiling for good, solid management play.

On December 17 2009 12:24 fOscB.Sulik.SLR wrote:

Which is always good.

On December 17 2009 11:56 Archerofaiur wrote:


The point of macro mechanics? There are several reasons but the big reason Dustin explained in the recent TL interview. They want to differentiate micro playstyles and macro playstyles. They want each race to have two different ways of being played.

On December 17 2009 12:50 eXigent. wrote:


It seems like he doesnt really know what he is saying. Micro and Macro are not different types of playstyle, they are both needed in order to be decent at the game. Breaking them down into 2 different playstyles changes the game quite a bit. Also, it just doesnt seem to make much sense to state that you can play 2 different styles (micro or macro). There are more than 1 style of play for each race already, that utilizes both micro and macro together to accomplish their goal. Saying they should be seperated into playstyles just doesn't add up, nor make sense.

Also, how would they even stack up? A macro player will obviously win the game, because he is able to take map control, out produce and eventually just attack move to victory. The point is , micro and macro are used together to create playstyles, not on their own.