|
So macro ideas have come left and right, and after some searching, I realized the best macro "mechanic" is already there. I'm talking about the Larva system and how it makes the Zerg economy and flexible and powerful thing where:
1. Every production cycle is a complex decision on powering, tech switching, or saving larva and gas while waiting for tech or critical mass
2. It is integrated into both complex build order plans or clutch responses seamlessly.
3. Feels Completely natural and integrated into the racial identity and no one ever complains about it
-----------
So I seek out something with similar level of power and far reaching effects for the protoss race, where people complain lacks interesting macro mechanics. Here is my proposal:
Nexus spell: Speed Warp
Increase the speed where the target building builds, builds units and research upgrades by 20%. It lasts 25 seconds and has a cooldown of 30 seconds and its effect is shown graphically with a beam channeling power from the nexus to the target. The spell has a range of 14 tiles. Can target the nexus itself.
The strategic effects of this ability is far reaching, completely changing every timing in the game from build orders to adaptations. One can imagine a protoss player switching the use of this spell depending on scouting information all the time, like aid in building Robo if one scouts DT attempt, then back switch into nexus for faster probe production after the DT is blocked after losing some nat probes, then into templar achieves to research storm for a timing push....etc
In addition to effecting timing, it effects the base layout and subsequent opponent scouting and building snipes. To take advantage of this spell the most, one would want to spread out buildings at expansions, for example a stargate at every expo for faster carrier switch or a cybernetics core out at expo to research air weapons faster. This would make mass proxy tech hiding or putting productin/tech buildings in well protected areas less of a no brainer, as it is now. This will mean different timings for different base layouts, and different scouting patterns will be needed to figure out the protoss player's intentions then it is now.
The far reaching consequences and potential uses of this simple to understand ability makes this far superior than ideas based on resourcing and ideas revolving around just generating clicks.
|
Easy to learn and grasp, hard to master. I like it, SWP!
|
This would make coming up with build orders for protoss..
+ Show Spoiler +
I like it!
Except I don't want a giant beam shooting across my base but another graphical representation would be fine.
|
I like it but I agree with the above post. Find another animation and it would be fine. Perhaps an extra blue glow or something around the building it is affecting?
|
United Kingdom12028 Posts
I personally don't see what this would add and why Protoss even need something of the sort.
Protoss already have warp in and the proton charge thing. Do they really need anything else?
|
This is a brilliant idea.
It makes you come to your base.
Its fun
Its strategic
I love it
|
|
|
First of all Warp-In already has a unit build time discount.
This idea (and variations of) have been proposed since the begining (I even proposed it once). Simply put it doesnt promote and differentiate macro gameplay nearly as much as extra minerals would. If it did the Terran Reactor mechanic would qualify. Also Blizzard already said they arnt adding in a building construction mechanic like WC3's peasant speed building. While I think their is potential for a build order augmenting mechanic it is not nessesary or sufficent for a primary macro mechanic.
|
I like this idea, it helps to change the timing of certain things from being static to something much more customizable. Was the OP thinking that this would replace proton charge or be something alongside proton charge? ... and would it require another building such as the obelisk? or just be something that could be available/researched at the nexus itself?
I wonder how much time you would save macro'ing or how ahead you would be for that first crucial 5-6 minutes of the early game. It might put the protoss player several workers ahead, or 1 to 2 zealots ahead which could be huge for econ/pressuring, forcing especially a zerg player to scout and use larvae inject much more judiciously. Terran might have to think about FE and turtle much harder and use his orbital command to scan for what building P is using Speed warp on.
Having this ability would also make the Terran macro ability more unique as the only one that actually is mineral addition. This makes sense, since the T already has MULE competing with scan for energy.
So the macro abilities would look like this:
Zerg- a larvae mechanic
Terran- a gathering/scouting mechanic
Protoss- a production/tech mechanic
Very unique, very sound lore-wise, and very useful for the whole concept of macro vs. micro playstyles. I would personally increase the buff from the spell to a full 100% for tech , as opposed to 50% for production, and maybe 20% for building warp-in, especially since you can only use it on one building. I can easily see being able to 1 gate pressure while teching, using the speed warp like a terran reactor; or pushing out with +1 attack much sooner than "normal'. This makes lore sense to me because Protoss is supposed to be the most technologically advanced race, therefore winning battles with tech instead of 1a2a3a, with the mechanic still being viable for increasing total units.
I like it overall, i hope the OP submits this to official threads.
|
Pig wang, this mechanic is pretty strange because of the range limitation. It is a sign that is already a very forced an unnatural mechanic for protoss. The strategic effects are far reaching and range from annulling the usefulness of proxies to making a build similar to the forge first FE in SC1 much weaker because you cannot speed buildings more than 14 range away.
luckily it wont be in the game. thank god
|
On December 28 2009 03:04 Fontong wrote:
Pig wang, this mechanic is pretty strange because of the range limitation. It is a sign that is already a very forced an unnatural mechanic for protoss. The strategic effects are far reaching and range from annulling the usefulness of proxies to making a build similar to the forge first FE in SC1 much weaker because you cannot speed buildings more than 14 range away.
luckily it wont be in the game. thank god
so your saying...that this entire idea...is terrible...because of an arbitrary range EXAMPLE that the op gave us...the range can be changed the idea should not be trashed because of the idea of a range limitation example...
|
Simply put it doesnt promote and differentiate macro gameplay nearly as much as extra minerals would.
The reactor mechanic is passive, the player don't need to work for it. Even so, such a mechanic is still more interesting strategically since the player can swap addons for tech switches. Extra minerals, however, adds absolutely nothing to the game. If "click = extra minerals" is a solution, we'd have it eons ago without spending time brainstorming.
The thing with minerals, is that the whole thing about macro in starcraft is about "pipelines". A player with a stable 0 mineral and a player running around with 1k mineral doesn't mean that the first player mines faster, builds faster, but has less resources in reserve. If build times are reduced, then the "reserve resources" is again dropped. Lets say 100mineral zealot out of 4 gateways with equal economy. If you drop the build time by half, you'd get 4 extra zealots for a period of time while the opponent is still building, even if your gates run idle afterwards.
Therefore I don't think "more minerals" mean anything. The problem with reducing production time is it makes it too easy to respond to threats and tech switch, but that is another matter.
The strategic effects are far reaching and range from annulling the usefulness of proxies to making a build similar to the forge first FE in SC1 much weaker because you cannot speed buildings more than 14 range away.
Forge FE is hardly weaker, since you get two nexus up very quickly and the main can use speed up to whore probes for some uber mid game econ.
Frankly, compared to "build on creep" restrictions, the in ability to use speed up is a minor restriction. It merely means certain timings are unavailable for a proxy build, when a player has to use speed up on probe production or whatever normal buildings that surrounds the nexus as standard instead. Just consider how phase prism power makes proxies too easy since one no longer have to wait for pylon power to warp in tech/production buildings, there is no need to make that any better.
I think range restrictions are a great thing, that is why I added it, since I feel base layout is an art that has a lot of strategy in it, and adding considerations means more depth to this element. Simcity is interesting enough to be its own game, nothing wrong with adding it to this one.
-----------------
I've read a lot of macro ideas, and from what I've seen, most of it falls under the following major categories:
1. Click for more minerals
2. Slower mining for more minerals latter on (either slower depletion or interest)
3. Resource conversions: Gas <-> Mineral <-> Energy
4. Some kind of limited timing based feature applying to tech or production
The problem with just about all the proposals is that few of them is flexible enough regarding the most critical elements in the game to add many serious decisions, and many more are just plain unintuitive. Many offer choices that would be rarely useful, for example all the mineral saving ideas strikes me as rarely useful considering the pace of the game.
I've also came up with some radical ideas that is truly not matched (unlike this not entirely original one in the op) like having players get a free nuke-anywhere weapon that do enough damage to kill workers but has long delay and a warning to allow both interaction and actions back to base. That idea got flamed to death. I also still like the map dependent mineral layout, but that isn't the sort of thing people are looking for.
After reading Blizzard's talk about "macro styles", I spend some time thinking about what "macro style" really means. I figured what we traditionally know as "macro styles" are not merely shown by the ability to stuff build queues at the right time, but the ability to control timings to hit timing windows where one has a edge over an opponent. This is a skill that takes a deep understanding of the relative economies and tech timings of the race, and fine tuning tools give greater scope for this skill to develop. A more "micro style", which is usually something harass heavy, tries to defeat macro players by throwing confusion, chaos and friction into timings and win by having an attritional advantage over time while masking timing weaknesses.
By looking at the problem that way, then the answer to the problem is a feature that generates more build orders and more timings. And not just any build order or timing, but one that has the flexibility to be both planned and adapted on the fly. The Zerg larva mechanism appears to me to fulfill the strategy goal despite not in the mechanical sense. (in fact, in helps new players by making their mistimings less punishing) I then just applied the simplest way to generate new timings with the most flexibility and potential uses while retaining a mechanical requirement.
|
Exactly, i think if this were a mechanic in the game it should be to any building, obviously where you have sight.
After some thought, initially it seems that a mechanic like this would be less useful as the game progresses, while gaining minerals and larvae can become more useful. However, where this mechanic could really shine in the late game is in upgrades. With a 100% bonus to tech speed, it ensures that the P is almost always ahead in upgrades, especially since you can go +3, +3, +3 that affects all your units in some way. the +3, +3 terran army is still the most powerful force in the game, but very rarely do we see games go that long, and the P is guaranteed to be maxed much faster.
With proper scouting, the P can change his tech pattern much faster. If you see 1 hatch hydra, or terran reactors, maybe rush for storm or +1 zeals w/charge. If you see FE or tech, then get your core up and bulldog. Maybe you want to do a quick stargate, getting the gate 20% faster then getting the first pheonix 50% faster, killing an extra ovie before the zerg gets his spire up.
The other issue when it comes to the late game is having expansions. With a bonus to building warp in, the P will be able to secure expansions much faster, which is a big deal, especially when there are only a few expansions left to take. Same goes for a early one gate FE. You can even use the mechanic to speed up placing cannons to fend off early lings or a bunker rush.
My problem with the current Proton charge is like many ppl, i think it's boring, repetitive, and in the mid-late game, way to overpowered. It doesn't encourage a micro type game. Maybe keep the obelisk as a shield/mana battery, perhaps single target cloak/scout.
|
On December 28 2009 04:37 SWPIGWANG wrote:Show nested quote +Simply put it doesnt promote and differentiate macro gameplay nearly as much as extra minerals would. The reactor mechanic is passive, the player don't need to work for it. Even so, such a mechanic is still more interesting strategically since the player can swap addons for tech switches. Extra minerals, however, adds absolutely nothing to the game. If "click = extra minerals" is a solution, we'd have it eons ago without spending time brainstorming. The thing with minerals, is that the whole thing about macro in starcraft is about "pipelines". A player with a stable 0 mineral and a player running around with 1k mineral doesn't mean that the first player mines faster, builds faster, but has less resources in reserve. If build times are reduced, then the "reserve resources" is again dropped. Lets say 100mineral zealot out of 4 gateways with equal economy. If you drop the build time by half, you'd get 4 extra zealots for a period of time while the opponent is still building, even if your gates run idle afterwards. Therefore I don't think "more minerals" mean anything. The problem with reducing production time is it makes it too easy to respond to threats and tech switch, but that is another matter.
I think your forgeting that their already is a macro mechanic for speeding up unit production. And it does a great job of promoting and differentiating macro gameplay. And its balanced and it plays well with other macro mechanics like the mineral mechanics.
Its called "building more production buildings".
Also warp-ins unit production speed boost isnt sufficient to be the protoss primary macro mechanic. Its good but its not enough. Unit production boosts for zerg works but that has more to do with what thier limiting resource is. Ultimatly for the Terran and Protoss the best way to promote macro is to give them more stuff to build and macro with thus creating a positive feed back loop. Having more minerals promotes all around faster and better macro gameplay from the ground up.
On December 28 2009 04:54 cerebralz wrote:
My problem with the current Proton charge is like many ppl, i think it's boring, repetitive, and in the mid-late game, way to overpowered. It doesn't encourage a micro type game. Maybe keep the obelisk as a shield/mana battery, perhaps single target cloak/scout.
Trust me. Although it sounds boring on paper having more minerals than your opponent from macroing would be allot more fun than constantly poking buildings to make them work faster.
|
Its called "building more production buildings".
There is also a very fine way of getting more minerals, it is called "building more workers."
The thing with production buildings is that they are a expensive investment that locks you into a build (since idle buildings are just a waste, might as well use it even if it is not optimal) that does not allow much on the fly adaptation and makes the game rigid. The mechanic is not so powerful as to replace buildings, what it does is allow fine tuning of things that don't require a response as large as throwing down an extra building or throwing it down earlier.
Your perspective is about "how to give more minerals by clicking plus some perks" while mine is about "how to generate new and diverse build orders." I am convinced that starcraft players do not want new tasks, but new ways to do old tasks better.
--------------------
I think there is a reason why Starcraft removed the extra terran salvage craft (which was said to mine wrecks) long before alpha, and SC2 didn't go for the War3 type unique mining for each race. Its a game about war with the resource system being an abstraction to support the war. It is not about growth of civilization and the interplay of a dozen resource types and its subsequent optimization. The whole macro thing was a non-issue until certain elements in the community started whining and I think it is better to give them the depth they want as opposed to getting fixated on "zomg click for minerals" that coincidentally formed the decision chain in SC1. If you want to make the mechanic cost lot of clicks, that is trivial....the hard part is always how to make it something that is meaningful....
|
On December 28 2009 05:17 SWPIGWANG wrote:There is also a very fine way of getting more minerals, it is called "building more workers." The thing with production buildings is that they are a expensive investment that locks you into a build (since idle buildings are just a waste, might as well use it even if it is not optimal) that does not allow much on the fly adaptation and makes the game rigid. The mechanic is not so powerful as to replace buildings, what it does is allow fine tuning of things that don't require a response as large as throwing down an extra building or throwing it down earlier. Your perspective is about "how to give more minerals by clicking plus some perks" while mine is about "how to generate new and diverse build orders." I am convinced that starcraft players do not want new tasks, but new ways to do old tasks better. -------------------- I think there is a reason why Starcraft removed the extra terran salvage craft (which was said to mine wrecks) long before alpha, and SC2 didn't go for the War3 type unique mining for each race. Its a game about war with the resource system being an abstraction to support the war. It is not about growth of civilization and the interplay of a dozen resource types and its subsequent optimization. The whole macro thing was a non-issue until certain elements in the community started whining and I think it is better to give them the depth they want as opposed to getting fixated on "zomg click for minerals" that coincidentally formed the decision chain in SC1. If you want to make the mechanic cost lot of clicks, that is trivial....the hard part is always how to make it something that is meaningful....
Here do me a favor. We can roughly test out which boost promotes macro better. Go play a game with the something for nothing cheat on. Then go play a game with the operation CWAL cheat on. Which boost lead to better gamplay.
|
On December 27 2009 22:23 SWPIGWANG wrote:
So macro ideas have come left and right, and after some searching, I realized the best macro "mechanic" is already there. I'm talking about the Larva system and how it makes the Zerg economy and flexible and powerful thing where:
1. Every production cycle is a complex decision on powering, tech switching, or saving larva and gas while waiting for tech or critical mass
2. It is integrated into both complex build order plans or clutch responses seamlessly.
3. Feels Completely natural and integrated into the racial identity and no one ever complains about it
I will most definitely agree that Spawn Larvae is the macro mechanic with the most potential. Like you said, it's a very natural enhancement to what's already there. However, most I've spoken to have said that it could still be improved. Personally, I would like to go back to the idea of the Queen as a mobile hatchery — as a unit that can be taken up to the front lines and used to create reinforcements on site. Spawn Larvae in its current form is just too simple for my taste. But of course, that's MY taste......
On December 27 2009 22:23 SWPIGWANG wrote:
So I seek out something with similar level of power and far reaching effects for the protoss race, where people complain lacks interesting macro mechanics. Here is my proposal:
Nexus spell: Speed Warp
Increase the speed where the target building builds, builds units and research upgrades by 20%. It lasts 25 seconds and has a cooldown of 30 seconds and its effect is shown graphically with a beam channeling power from the nexus to the target. The spell has a range of 14 tiles. Can target the nexus itself.
The strategic effects of this ability is far reaching, completely changing every timing in the game from build orders to adaptations. One can imagine a protoss player switching the use of this spell depending on scouting information all the time, like aid in building Robo if one scouts DT attempt, then back switch into nexus for faster probe production after the DT is blocked after losing some nat probes, then into templar achieves to research storm for a timing push....etc
In addition to effecting timing, it effects the base layout and subsequent opponent scouting and building snipes. To take advantage of this spell the most, one would want to spread out buildings at expansions, for example a stargate at every expo for faster carrier switch or a cybernetics core out at expo to research air weapons faster. This would make mass proxy tech hiding or putting productin/tech buildings in well protected areas less of a no brainer, as it is now. This will mean different timings for different base layouts, and different scouting patterns will be needed to figure out the protoss player's intentions then it is now.
The far reaching consequences and potential uses of this simple to understand ability makes this far superior than ideas based on resourcing and ideas revolving around just generating clicks.
I like this concept of super-charging buildings. It reminds of my "Psionic Flux" mechanic (which was pretty much Additional Supplies moved to the Protoss but with the added ability to double the psi range of a pylon). If I could make one adjustment to "naturalize" your mechanic, I would have the Nexus target Pylons only, my reasoning being that, lorewise, power flows from the nexus to the pylons to the buildings, rather than directly from the nexus to the buildings. Whatever Pylon gets targeted then supercharges everything within its range.
To prevent this from getting overpowered, the boosting charge would get split up between whatever processes are going on at the time. For instance, you suggested 20% boost. If it hits a Pylon that has a Gateway making a Zealot and a Forge upgrading shields, each process will get a 10% boost (instead of each getting a 20% boost). This will prevent players trying to smash as many buildings as possible around a single pylon so that all of the buildings get a 20% boost.
This adjustment to your idea can also get a cool effect with the targeted Pylon increasing in brightness and perhaps even casting a visible psi halo within its psi radius. I also think this will increase the importance of Pylons and make them more critical to gameplay than just nodes for supply and regular power.
|
On December 28 2009 05:26 Archerofaiur wrote:
Here do me a favor. We can roughly test out which boost promotes macro better. Go play a game with the something for nothing cheat on. Then go play a game with the operation CWAL cheat on. Which boost lead to better gamplay.
Plus all your talk about enhancing build orders isnt so much enhancing it as it is destroying it.
Operation CWAL + show me the money obviously does. The optimal strategy in that is to build stargates and rally scouts/corsairs into the enemy team which results in 100% macro that is limited by the speed you can queue stargates. :D Boosts "macro" perfectly up to infinite APM. Yay macro style! (double plus good if it is a UMS that have no supply limits) The high speed makes optimal production while throwing down pylons difficult, and makes "hold down o to spam units" less optimal since you need to constantly shuffle across stargates to keep difficult buildings queued.
Oh please, what a lame strawman. The boost proposed in the op is about a 20% boost which hardly change everything, and the general build times could be increased to balance this feature. Build orders would have to revolve around it.
|
something for nothing = +1 all upgrades
(3 times for full EngBay, Armory, EvCham, Spire, Forge, CyberCore weapon and armor levels)
show me the money = +10000 minerals and gas
operation cwal = all build/train/upgrade/research speeds x10 (I think it was x10)
|
So which leads to a better positive feedback loop?
Something for nothing, show me the money or operation cwal?
Actually an even better model to look at would be peasant speed build in WC3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
