|
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 Kingdom12022 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.
|
I think "show me the money" is a bit overkill in comparison to the other two. I'd use "whats mine is mine" (+500 minerals) and "breathe deep" (+500 gas) for comparison instead.
|
On December 28 2009 05:52 n00bonicPlague wrote:
I think "show me the money" is a bit overkill in comparison to the other two. I'd use "whats mine is mine" (+500 minerals) and "breathe deep" (+500 gas) for comparison instead.
Good point.
|
Admittedly, the OP idea pertaining to unit production somewhat overlaps with warp gate. This seems easy to fix however, by just making warp gate and speed warp unstackable, or make gateways unaffected by speed warp, so you would only target a robo bay, stargate, or nexus for unit production bonuses. I don't think this would be overpowered because you can only target one building with speed warp while warp gate may affect all of your gateways if you so choose. Only in the late game, where you have a lot of nexuses, can you possibly affect all of your non-gateway production facilities. It may also come into play more because of the move of the Immortal to the robo facility.
|
On December 28 2009 06:50 cerebralz wrote:
Admittedly, the OP idea pertaining to unit production somewhat overlaps with warp gate. This seems easy to fix however, by just making warp gate and speed warp unstackable, or make gateways unaffected by speed warp, so you would only target a robo bay, stargate, or nexus for unit production bonuses. I don't think this would be overpowered because you can only target one building with speed warp while warp gate may affect all of your gateways if you so choose. Only in the late game, where you have a lot of nexuses, can you possibly affect all of your non-gateway production facilities. It may also come into play more because of the move of the Immortal to the robo facility.
Ask yourself, why are they not including a mechanic like peasant speed build from Warcraft 3?
|
Its more like using this to make the Protoss even more annoying. why not give this spell to a terran or something or not use this idea because then we would have 100000 BO for Toss to handle.
|
Even if this was a good mechanic I think it would be better suited for the zerg Queen. As a building construction or reasearch only boost. You cant boost ever process, its unfocused, unelegant and causes more problems than it solves.
|
Something like this
Zerg QueenSpawn Larva Creep Tumor Hyper Evolution: 10X research speed for current upgrade
And Id move the healing spell to the overseer and make it AoE.
|
I have not seen too much of the new SC2 mechanics, but isn't this a little unnecessary? Its not like Protoss doesn't have a bunch of other weird spells and abilities (Blink, Charge, Anti-Gravity?) that already add so many more pathes to the game play, do they really need faster Tech/Buildings/Production?
|
This is a cool idea, much much better than lame "click to get money". I dont remember or care what different cheat codes do, but I fail to see the relevance of those in here...
You'd always have this thing, nexuses, that do it. It would be a minor effect, but effect that would add alot of diversity/uncertainty into timings. Range limit is cool since it encourages you to spread your stuff around. And it would involve constant reward for managing what it does and managing it would be hard decisions.
Imo better implementation would be though to not do it thru cooldowns and switching target every minute, but a constant stream of boost that you can retarget at any time. You might say that that would allow for more lazy use but in reality it would require much madder clicking to use optimally that way... Say you got some gateways pumping the same type of units... Gotta change the gateway you target every time a unit completes, thats switching the target as many times as you have gateways, every production round.
It reminds me of constructor assist in TA a bit...
Does it matter if it overlaps with Warpgate possibly? More overlapping shit = more complex management, and thats what I want
|
On December 28 2009 11:56 JohannesH wrote:
This is a cool idea, much much better than lame "click to get money".
Do you realize that making workers is a "click to get money" mechanic?
|
On December 28 2009 07:08 Archerofaiur wrote:
Ask yourself, why are they not including a mechanic like peasant speed build from Warcraft 3?
It could very well be for flavour//universe-separation reasons, given that Blizzard would likely want to avoid further WC3 in space comparisons. Mind you, that sort of mechanic would only really fit Terran, as they actively build their structures.
|
If needed this mechanic could be limited to what it actually powers. I was only thinking about boosting upgrades, research, and training — not construction.
|
Yes, building workers is "click to get money", and that is why we get automine because "click to get money" is lame. By using the same logic as automine, it'd make sense to have auto-photon charge and auto-gas mechanic and auto....etc. If all we wanted is "click to get money" then manual mine would work just fine.
As for peasant build speed, it is just a limited ability that doesn't do very much in itself. This, however, does a lot more.
-------------
You cant boost every process, its unfocused, unelegant and causes more problems than it solves.
Unfocused abilities are much better than focused ones, since its exact uses are not so obvious as to be trivial. By expanding the realm of influences the strategies involved is more complex. Focused concepts often have implication and strategies that takes 5 minutes to figure out.
So which leads to a better positive feedback loop?
Something for nothing, show me the money or operation cwal?
What you mean by positive feedback loop? Macro is something you do to get units, not some kind of magic. Show me the money obviously generates the most "macro", if you are wondering. Since being able to max in 3 minutes takes far more clicks then the other options.
I'm not sure if you are even asking the right questions. If the question is how to promote a "macro" play style, that is beyond trivial. Just go play one of those "fastest map ever ums" and you'd see 100% macro styles since micro is irrelevant in those games. All you need to do to increase macro is to increase the resource uptake speed and the natural friction of building supply, building production buildings, and so on would take up increasing amounts of APM, especially given that even SC2 do not have building queuing or partial construction as in TA. I don't think what the community wants is necessarily more clicks, or hit the "dune limit" with regard to babysitting the economy, but more strategy that is not a sideshow.
Much of the economic suggestions I've read are sideshows, and sideshows that has strategy that is either trivial to figure out, or rarely applicable, comparable to proxy hatch into sunken rush, the sort of thing that is only rarely useful.
|
i really love this idea that Archerofaiur mentioned. Archerofaiur knows the w3, his statement is soo true, i remember this when i played wc3.
|
On December 28 2009 15:08 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Yes, building workers is "click to get money", and that is why we get automine because "click to get money" is lame .
Surprise automine is also "click to get money"!
|
On December 28 2009 15:08 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Unfocused abilities are much better than focused ones, since its exact uses are not so obvious as to be trivial.
In the words of the great Maro "restrictions breed creativity". Having a "speed up everything button" has many problems the first of which is inequality in usage. As in speeding up research is almost always better than speeding up unit production. So to fix this you make it different for each different use and now your messing with the "easy to learn" part. So than you say "well their are other things that are hard to learn" and at that point you should realize that rather than adopt elegance as a defining guideline youve attempted to shoehorn the player into your first draft creation. All in the name of a "big tent" ability.
But lets hear your reply to this and then well move onto the second problem :p
Show me the money obviously generates the most "macro",
Im glad you admit this.
If the question is how to promote a "macro" play style, that is beyond trivial.
I hate to be the first one to tell you but promoting a macro playstyle is the point of the macro mechanics.
|
This post's title reminds me of a rant Chill made in some TL podcast.
|
Automine is less clicks and more importantly, do not require a screen change. Now one can remove the worker economy system altogether, but that is just too much for a sequel. I've thought about more complex worker management ideas, but figures that it is less elegant and more clumsy than this.
Having a "speed up everything button" has many problems the first of which is inequality in usage. As in speeding up research is almost always better than speeding up unit production.
Hardly, otherwise we'd see a evolution chamber first build over pool or hatch first build! You need upgrades to hit at the right timing, for example the +1 speedlot rush or storm push out. You do not need upgrades to hit earlier. There is a reason why people build single e-bay, forge and armory in many mid game situations, because upgrades are no good if you are dead to a rush or get out expanded 5 to 2.
If upgrades are "too good" and you always want to get it faster, then the obvious choice is to nerf the upgrade cost/time as opposed to the ability.
I hate to be the first one to tell you but promoting a macro playstyle is the point of the macro mechanics.
Macro play style can either be boring or interesting. What you care about is that there is a macro style and not whether it is any good and thus it is just trivial. Giving more minerals in a flat manner just not interesting.
If you look at games (like some european RTS or rise of nations) that actually is designed around the economy as opposed to fine tuning combat units, you see more resources, resource conversions, resource transport beyond harvesting and so on. Most of that reflect in crazy simcities and building layout of those games and few of that ever is about reward extra task that is APM constrained. Look, simcity is fun enough to be its own game. If "click on minerals a lot" can be made into a successful independent game then lets see it.
|
Pig wang, just answer this. Do you agree that the purpose of the macro mechanics is to promote macro playstyles? A second ago you called it beyond trivial.
|
What, you are trying to use debating tactics to get me into a bait and switch argument that'd go into semantics space? I refuse to debate someone that don't define his terms before hand and instead tailors his definition in response to the opponent and use that to win debates.
Tell me, what the hell is "macro playstyles" in you mind....
|
Pig wang you are the one who made the original comment that im asking you to explain. lol we are trying to get you to explain your "semantics space".
On December 28 2009 15:08 SWPIGWANG wrote:
If the question is how to promote a "macro" play style, that is beyond trivial.
|
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.
|
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?
|
i love when people make up retarded spells in game thats not finished.
|
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.
|
Archer, giving everyone more money for more clicks does very little to promote a "macro playstyle". It just forces clicks in your base too, but with current obelisk everyone good will do it always.
Something that needs (infinitely) complex management promotes a econ management style.
|
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.
|
|
|
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
|
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.
|
On December 29 2009 12:00 JohannesH wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
I think varying up timings would actually be extremely good for SC2.
It makes the game that much harder to master.
Anyway, like I said, I really like this idea.
|
It is certainly possible to make mining complicated, but I don't think it is really all that intuitive, fun, or addresses the main essence of the game.
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On December 29 2009 17:11 JohannesH wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No your absolutly right. It is a combination of many factors. However the benefit of macroing for each race should at least be on the same level (though not exactly equal) I think it would be widely accepted that macroing as zerg or terran would be much more useful in most situations. Which is why I think this ability has potential for a secondary macro ability (like call-down supplys) but probably not as a primary macro ability.
|
I don't think the ability is any weaker than spawn larva, which is simply a cheaper hatchery that you have to click on. In any case, the ability to squeeze a DT rush or reaver drop a good 30 seconds earlier is nothing trivial. This is an ability that is more important at higher levels of play and that is fine.
And finally, frankly there is no need for "equality" between macro mechanics or we could just give the same thing to everyone. There was no equality when Zerg had workers that come in waves that makes it easier to manage in the days without automine, and production that require less clicks without wasting productivity and thats all okay.
|
We have to realize that for Protoss to get the unit first and have the build time second (as well as a slight production speed bonus) as well as getting that unit anywhere is a huge advantage that fundamentally changes the toss race. Of course they still have the longest build times but that is now slightly compensated for by not having to really wait for the unit.
I like the unpredictability of the suggestion and the ability to "customize" your build order more. It will really encourage scouting which is a good thing.
Two key things are missing from this mechanic that should at least be addressed and they kind of tie into each other a bit.
It is my strong opinion that any macro mechanic theyvdo include should be disruptable beyond having to sit around and kill a building. This may involve killing the queen (hopefully not too easy to replace) or a MULE. It also may involve killing a unit as it warps in.
This ability needs to be disruptable and I shouldn't have to sit around and kill your nexus or the gateway it is powering. It should be a raid not an assault.
The second thing it should have is a downside ranging from a cooldown to a resource cost. Basically limited by creativity. Unless we want this mechanc to be always in use (te downside would then be using it HERE as opposed to THERE), in which case the entire race must be rebalanced, there should be a downside to using it.
There is also an option to make this a rare but strategic ability. For 100-200 (example) minerals you can speed up production by 50%. Instead of using it always, you could include it as a bonus, which is what I think the MMs should be. We already have the "boring chore" of building probes and we have warp in which we do all the time, so let's have a mechanic that increases macro and strategic depth but only under the right circumstances which at up to the player to determine. Sacrificing minerals for a faster BO every once in a while is a good choice IMO.
|
This ability needs to be disruptable and I shouldn't have to sit around and kill your nexus or the gateway it is powering. It should be a raid not an assault.
Indeed, after reading this thread, the idea seems awesome, but I think it should be on the obelisk, fixing the range issue, letting you a little more leway with proxy tech / base layout.
And also making it raidable as justice said, the obelisks are pretty weak if focused.
It was said earlier that it would seem too random to see what was being buffed, well I imagine that's why there's a beam from the nexus(or obelisk) to the affected building.
If it's on an upgrade building you know an upgrade is coming soon and can prepare, if it's on production, you know to expect more. It's similar to seeing a reactor on a terran building.
The obelisk's cost means you can't spam them too much to get too many buffs, which I think is a nice balancing factor.
Honestly I like how with high apm you could switch the beams target really fast getting a pretty good boost to base management, or with low apm just leave it on your nex/gateway/forge etc.
Easy to use hard to master. With the all important visual feedback for spectators, i LOVE this suggestion.
Trouble is protoss already have another awesome macro ability in warp-in, i wonder how the other races would fare trying to get abilities just as good and unique. Archer's remote M.U.L.E. is a pretty sweet idea for terran, I hope zerg get more in depth macro abilities, something as important as the larvae choke in BW imo....
|
I think the OP has a pretty good idea there. However, I think it can be improved into this:
Instead of targeting a building, this ability creates a time bubble (much like the time bomb ability) but instead of slowing down time for everything inside, it speeds it up instead. You could use this for a whole variety of things: speeding up a building in production, an upgrade, regenerating shields, helping defending units fire faster, and of course speeding up mining. I think this is so awesome that I have no idea why nobody thought of this before (or maybe they have and I just have not seen it.) In any case, I think it fits in perfectly with Protoss lore as well and can be a very interesting game mechanic.
|
This is a pretty interesting concept... Well thought!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I like this idea a lot, and I think a broader definition of "macro gameplay" needs to be applied when considering macro mechanics.
It's not "Boxer individual unit micro" vs "iloveoov unit production macro" - SC 1 has already moved past that. Macro can be applied to many other areas: troop movement, expansion/base management etc.
Effeciently utilizing this spell would definitely fall into the base management category.
I also have a huge penchant for timing variations in build orders (though I was never one to get too into the nitty gritty of peon cutting, I have a deep respect for those who do), so this idea appeals even more to me. It's simpler, too, than the different mining modes I used to argue for back in the day (see maybenexttime's thread(s) about it if you dunno what I'm referring to).
And I mean simpler in a good way.
As for what building to put it on, or other details (I.E should it cost more money to boost production speed? etc), there's obviously a lot of room for discussion. If you don't want it to be static, you could even place it on the warp prism, or allow the obelisk to "lift off".
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 02 2010 01:09 AeTheReal wrote:
I think the OP has a pretty good idea there. However, I think it can be improved into this:
Instead of targeting a building, this ability creates a time bubble (much like the time bomb ability) but instead of slowing down time for everything inside, it speeds it up instead. You could use this for a whole variety of things: speeding up a building in production, an upgrade, regenerating shields, helping defending units fire faster, and of course speeding up mining. I think this is so awesome that I have no idea why nobody thought of this before (or maybe they have and I just have not seen it.) In any case, I think it fits in perfectly with Protoss lore as well and can be a very interesting game mechanic.
Wow, sounds amazing :D Although it'd have to be small enough not to affect too much at once (like disruptor forcefield sized)
|
Theres some things that make it better for nexus to have it instead of obelisk.
It makes for more varied building placement, since you want to have at least 1 production building at each base to get the advanatge from nexuses.
And it isnt efficient to spam nexuses to get more production boosts - with obelisk it cant be too strong effect or you might want an obelisk for every gateway which doesnt appeal to me. Though I suppose that queen is bit like that atm...
|
Time bubble ftw. Very nice ideas.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 03 2010 23:42 JohannesH wrote:
Theres some things that make it better for nexus to have it instead of obelisk.
It makes for more varied building placement, since you want to have at least 1 production building at each base to get the advanatge from nexuses.
And it isnt efficient to spam nexuses to get more production boosts - with obelisk it cant be too strong effect or you might want an obelisk for every gateway which doesnt appeal to me. Though I suppose that queen is bit like that atm...
You're forgetting that the obelisk is only half the price (at the moment) of a new nexus, they're hardly spammable.
|
edit: Bleh. Wrong thread.
|
Wait hang on. Did Blizz literally just jack this thread's idea and put it into SCII or what?
Did i miss something?
Edit: If so, thats awesome.
|
On February 12 2010 13:30 m3rciless wrote:
Wait hang on. Did Blizz literally just jack this thread's idea and put it into SCII or what?
Did i miss something?
Edit: If so, thats awesome.
People were talking about this idea back in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://classic.battle.net/war3/images/human/units/animations/peasant.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.sc2armory.com/img/zerg/units/queen.jpg)
