EPTOn December 28 2009 15:08 SWPIGWANG wrote:
If the question is how to promote a "macro" play style, that is beyond trivial.
If the question is how to promote a "macro" play style, that is beyond trivial.
The refinement of macro ideas: a destination - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
| ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 29 2009 02:45 SWPIGWANG wrote: The term is in brackets since it has no generally agreed up on definition and is under dispute. From the description surrounding the sentence, it should be self evident which one that particular sentence refers to, which is about the player spending large portion of his time managing production and the "economy" as opposed to micro-ing units. As I said, to make the player do that is trivial and it should not be the main quest of macro mechanics. And what is your non-trivial definition of macro playstyles? | ||
|
GW.Methos
United States249 Posts
| ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
On December 29 2009 03:39 GW.Methos wrote: i love when people make up retarded spells in game thats not finished. What's actually great is the endless fighting over the idea. I mean come on, putting out forwards ideas can surely be a help to the company making the game, and out of many this one is quite good, and it deserves to be discussed - however any reasonable/relevant discussion ended at the start of page 2. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
Something that needs (infinitely) complex management promotes a econ management style. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 29 2009 07:37 JohannesH wrote: Archer, giving everyone more money for more clicks does very little to promote a "macro playstyle". Thats not my point. My point is that at its core mining (and yes automining as well) is a "click for money" mechanic. It is possible to have a economic system that does not require "click for money" activation if that was what how you wanted to design the RTS. But I dont believe thats the kind of RTS starcraft should be. See "click for money" by itself is not bad. What matters is the degree of depth associated with that mechanic. That is the direction these mechanics need to go in. TLDR: Whats needed is economic depth from the bottom up. Not a "click for faster everything" button. | ||
|
bluegoo
United States141 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + stop. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On December 29 2009 10:05 Archerofaiur wrote: TLDR: Whats needed is economic depth from the bottom up. Not a "click for faster everything" button. This proposition here is not click for faster everything, its click for faster something which is kinda different since it involves much more DEPTH and critical decisions and stuff. And buying workers is not just clicking to get more money, its just as much about paying money to get more money. And being limited by nexus count on how much money you can spend on that investment. And tonne of other things to take to consideration ofc I dont really see whats your problem with this suggestion, you seem to strongly think it promotes some kind of gameplay that you dont like but I didnt see (yep maybe you said it I didnt bother reading all of these posts) what exactly you think would follow from it and why it would be bad... So elaborate | ||
|
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
Take for example PvZ although the idea is abit backwards when my corsair is 3/4 done and i havnt scouted my opponent i should at least build 1 cannon in my main in case my opponent 2hatched muta. But if the zerg had this mechanic instead i have to build my cannon when my stargate finishes because 2hatch muta could be at my base. That is unbelievable advantage without the Zerg even have to do anything. He can make the Protoss build a cannon way way way early without having to do anything because Zerg just have this mechanic. If gives Zerg(Protoss) an extreme metagame advantage which is not good imo. Not only mentioning that youd have to Balance that which means you have to have several ways a protoss could survive those early mutalisks without shattering his econ in half which to me is ridiculous. And once you balanced for ALL races all you have is this mechanic that gives an out of place(or unfair) metagame advantage. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 29 2009 12:00 JohannesH wrote: This proposition here is not click for faster everything, its click for faster something which is kinda different since it involves much more DEPTH and critical decisions and stuff. Not the same amount of depth that could be created by a revamped economic system. This is a tacked on ability that while useful does not bring enough to the table to be the primary macro mechanic. Plus im having trouble seeing how this could stack up against extra larva and minerals. And buying workers is not just clicking to get more money, its just as much about paying money to get more money. And being limited by nexus count on how much money you can spend on that investment. And tonne of other things to take to consideration ofc I never said they didnt. In fact if you read my post I point in this exact direction. You need economic systems with depth. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On December 29 2009 12:16 RodrigoX wrote: This has to be later tier no doubt. I find the idea very compelling but it seems for the opponent to know all these timings way out of line. To be good at StarCraft you need to know timings but the burden this mechanic puts on the opponent of a protoss player seems unbelievable. Take for example PvZ although the idea is abit backwards when my corsair is 3/4 done and i havnt scouted my opponent i should at least build 1 cannon in my main in case my opponent 2hatched muta. But if the zerg had this mechanic instead i have to build my cannon when my stargate finishes because 2hatch muta could be at my base. That is unbelievable advantage without the Zerg even have to do anything. He can make the Protoss build a cannon way way way early without having to do anything because Zerg just have this mechanic. If gives Zerg(Protoss) an extreme metagame advantage which is not good imo. Not only mentioning that youd have to Balance that which means you have to have several ways a protoss could survive those early mutalisks without shattering his econ in half which to me is ridiculous. And once you balanced for ALL races all you have is this mechanic that gives an out of place(or unfair) metagame advantage. Yes it makes timings more uncertain but thats a good thing not bad imo, many more viable small alterations to starting builds, it makes scouting more crucial and economy less easily mapped out. And of course balance would be done taking the current mechanics into account, hm and theres no corsairs in this game and possibly not any viable 2hatch muta build either. | ||
|
n00bonicPlague
United States197 Posts
It makes the game that much harder to master. Anyway, like I said, I really like this idea. | ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
As I've said, Starcraft is a combat game, not a mining game. From the perspective of a combatant, the point of macro is "the right units in the right amount at the right time" and manipulating time scales does this in the most direct and flexible way of changing this. Making this happen is the essence of "macro." Mining is horribly unintuitive as it is. New players have a hard time figuring out their mineral income, just exactly how close they are to saturation, the change in rate of returns with each extra worker and so on. It takes some memorizing of starchart output and experimenting to with build orders to figure out what is going on. What it means in practice is most players just use canned builds developed by other people. If you make mining even more complicated, then I suspect build order robots would be even more common since the human mind simply can not figure this crap out while controlling everything at 150+ APM. However, no matter how complicated mining is, the end result is "changing what units you get at what time" at most. So why not just do that directly? This is a tool to let even the lowest of B-net N00bs to control their timing without excessive planning, while still having potential for some truly complicated use for advanced players that is used in conjunction with base layout. --- The appeal of starcraft over something like warcraft 3 is that the dynamics is really simple but still has space for creative uses. Something like walling out an opponent from their nat is a concept that even a non-player can comprehend, yet has enough details that makes it not a good idea to just any random player. I wanted something in macro-play that can be said to be pimp in using old tools to do something new. What I don't want is just doing the same old thing since the day the game is released, faster, nor do I want brilliance buried behind incomprehensible mechanics that all but the very top can understand what happened. I want strategies that is hard to find, but self evident once found. What this means is options, lots of them, for players to explore. | ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
To be good at StarCraft you need to know timings but the burden this mechanic puts on the opponent of a protoss player seems unbelievable. There is one race that already have this flexibility in Starcraft 1, that being the Zerg. The Zerg could go drone drill, 3hat speed ling break, 2hat hydra break, 2hat muta, 3hat muta, 2hat lurk, 2hat lurk slow drop as their economy allows all sorts of combination ranging from extreme ALL IN to Greed and Turtle, sometimes adapted on the fly based on whether a scouting worker is sniped or not and opponent's starting build. This means knowing what the opponent is doing is of critical importance and there is a burden on the opponent to cope with all the possible strategies of the Zerg. However, in balance, Zerg have the weakest, least cost effective units that do not benefit from critical mass and need to basically "out strategy" the opponent to fight on even ground. If the Zerg used the wrong build against an opponent, it is a quick path to GG unlike Terrans that can use pretty much the same build every game and still win. Now, for protoss to have this flexibility means they have to be nerfed in other ways, but that is fine. It is deeper to have a race's strength in its flexibility than in its combat/econ power. --------------- I never said they didnt. In fact if you read my post I point in this exact direction. You need economic systems with depth. I think it would be "deeper" if you have to solve calculus questions while playing to get minerals, why settle with clicks. Or just what do you mean by deeper? Do you mean: 1. Difficult mechanically 2. Difficult to comprehend its consequences of its use 3. Difficult to explore all possibilities it offers 4. Just plain difficult to comprehend what is going on | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
| ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
Likewise I dont think macro is just "the right units in the right amount at the right time" There is allot more to macro then build orders and unit composition. What is it, then? | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On December 29 2009 12:30 Archerofaiur wrote: Plus im having trouble seeing how this could stack up against extra larva and minerals. wtf, how do the economic mechanisms need to be equal. Theres tonnes of other factors too that determine racial balance. | ||
|
Rainmaker5
United States1027 Posts
On December 29 2009 14:54 Archerofaiur wrote: I dont think deeper needs to mean difficult. Likewise I dont think macro is just "the right units in the right amount at the right time" There is allot more to macro then build orders and unit composition. What do you think Macro is Archer? Because having "the right units in the right amount at the right time" is pretty much the goal of macro. | ||
|
cerebralz
United States443 Posts
I want strategies that is hard to find, but self evident once found. What this means is options, lots of them, for players to explore. I totally agree with helping to make more options more viable. For the game to be a long term esport success, i think that the metagame has to be always evolving. I mean, i loved to watch pro PvZ until you realize that every P is going to open with the Bisu build pretty much and almost every zerg will 9 pool into 5 hatch hydra. More variation will probably mean more losses on your fantasy team to "lower ranked" players but i feel that variations that are made possible by things like quick tech switches or faster upgrades change timings enough to force a quick evolution of strategy. It seems like the people who like ideas like this fall into a category of being fans of strategy and change, while those opposed like the dominance of superior mechanics (doing stuff faster/better). Both sets of people aren't wrong. I think the fact that we are having this discussion highlights the depth of the game that we know and love and is evidence that this game is so darn hard to balance. What I think we want for the future of starcraft is very good macro and micro players of each race having turns at being dominant in the pro scene that we can follow and cheer for. Not just Jaedong's and not just Fantasy's/Boxer's. Furthermore, you have to realize that many of these macro mechanics are being put in for us, the casual player who doesn't have 300+APM. Pros control large 5-7 base 200 supply armies all the time without them. The trick is to put in these mechanics which make the game easier to a degree for us, without destroying the balance/feel on the high end. To this end, i think that the OP idea has a lot of merit. | ||
| ||
