|
On May 10 2011 20:00 Tonem wrote:
1) You CAN get zerglings to attack workers when there's attacking units there, just use hold trick? I have no idea what you're talking about. The hold trick is very limited. It does not attack workers efficiently at all.
2) Zerg and Protoss have auto-hp regen and auto-shield regen respectively. Repair has more potential than either of these abilties, that's why it's an actitvated ability rather than a passive one....
3) There's no reason to be whine and qq about auto-repair. This is one of the stupidest balance qq threads I've seen in a while.. Probably because this isn't a balance thread or a qq thread...
4) Comparing auto repair to auto inject is absolute stupid. Inject is a fundamental macro mechanic used throughout the whole course of the game. Auto-repair is used in small specific situations of the game, and in most of these cases players manually repair anyway to override the AI doing something stupid like having the scv's repair each other when you need them all to repair a bunker/turret, etc. You would be right if I was comparing the frequency of use of the two respective abilities, or if I was comparing the effect the two abilities have. But I wasn't doing either. I was comparing the automation potential both of these abilties have that cannot be matched by the player.
|
Your argument doesn't mention balance barely at all and focuses on a few arbitrary characteristics you decide do not belong in the game. Your logic is that auto repair is bad because it does things no human player could do. So by this same logic smart cast should be removed. I would be more than willing to face this tradeoff as a terran player. Make protoss cast force field and storm in the manner they used to in Brood War. Also zerglings auto surround and mutalisk magic box should be removed.
Your point is arbitrary. You decide you don't like auto repair and then rationalize backwards about what characteristics of auto repair are unique only to it. You need to focus on balance and gameplay arguments. You will lose here too as auto repair is not a huge part of the game and very rarely affects game outcome while smartcasting force field and zergling and muta micro are seen in a very large portion of games.
|
Theres one thing i dont agree in with IdrA, and thats the necessity of mechanical hardness. IF (and thats a big IF im not sure SC2 satisfy) the game is complex enough than strategical decisions and other factors give the opportunity for the great players to rise and be consistent. The less APM spent on obvious tasks the better for the game.
But. Autorepair is sometimes retarded, as mentioned above. So auto-micro is good so far it is good AND all 3 races have the same possibilities.
|
On May 10 2011 18:46 AtlasGrip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 18:43 Mercury- wrote:
autorepair is pretty much useless except in lategame situations where you pull a majority of your SCVs and have a mech heavy army (only TvZ really) So according to your own logic wouldn't it have some use then?
Yes but a pretty limited one all things considered so there's no reason for you to get worked up over it.
|
On May 10 2011 19:41 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 19:29 bigjenk wrote:
Idk at what point scvs being perfectly clumped taking one extra fungal is any sort of gamebreaking. can you "prove" somehow that this awesome ability is gamebreaking? Preferably through a video / replay which shows endless repairing in a real situation and not a simulation (but maybe simulating the Fungal Growth might be a start to see if it really works ... since Zerg usually cast TWO Fungals in succession to kill SCVs). We could also discuss the color of the Marauders boots to death as Chill suggested once, but that doesnt means these boots are imbalanced in any way. I'm not trying to prove that this ability is game breaking. That's not the purpose of this thread. I'm saying that the ability doesn't belong in the game. Not necessarily because it's game breaking, but it doesn't fit what should be in Starcraft 2. That is, nothing should do the micro for the player but the player himself. As for proof to this effect, does anyone really dispute that autorepair can do things the player could not manually do with repair? It's very easy to imagine the AI repairing 10 different things instantaneously and then imagine you trying to right click 10 different things in that fraction of a second and seeing that you just can't.
If you are bothered by Starcraft 2 perfection / automation you might complain about the perfect movement AI which makes tight balls possible. We didnt have that in BW and the game was awesome. All of these things have been discussed already during the beta IMO, just deal with it! That's not really automation because the player is moving. The game has a paradigm for how units move and that can be discussed in another thread but it truly is not automation. Sure, unit movement is different than in sc1 but it's no more "automated" now than it was then. Now if there were automated buttons for unit formation (ala warcraft 3) that would be a different issue altogether and I would definitely debate against the inclusion of such a feature....
|
I don't really have a problem with autorepair, what I'd like to say though is that I think a requirement to target autorepair might be a better option than removing it all together.
|
AtlasGrip, you wouldn't by any chance be AtlasMech would you? It just seems so similar all over.
|
On May 10 2011 20:13 AtlasGrip wrote:Show nested quote +If you are bothered by Starcraft 2 perfection / automation you might complain about the perfect movement AI which makes tight balls possible. We didnt have that in BW and the game was awesome. All of these things have been discussed already during the beta IMO, just deal with it! That's not really automation because the player is moving. The game has a paradigm for how units move and that can be discussed in another thread but it truly is not automation. Sure, unit movement is different than in sc1 but it's no more "automated" now than it was then. Now if there were automated buttons for unit formation (ala warcraft 3) that would be a different issue altogether and I would definitely debate against the inclusion of such a feature....
No, it is automation, and it is unit formation. Your units automatically move into the formation "deathball". Just because there's no other option doesn't mean there's no automation involved. In BW, you had to manually clump your units.
MBS/automine go a long way to reduce the APM required to be a good player at the midgame/endgame drastically. Realistically, to be even a decent BW player, you needed 120 APM or more, in some cases. That's a conservative estimate. Stuff like autorepair lessens APM requirements to the same extent (as MBS/automine). Those things (and autorepair) were discussed to death BEFORE beta. This is basically beating a horse that has been dead for two years. There were just as many TL:DR posts about the subject during those days, I'm sure blizzard has already heard any argument you can make against autorepair.
It probably will stay.
|
On May 10 2011 20:08 yomi wrote:
Your argument doesn't mention balance barely at all and focuses on a few arbitrary characteristics you decide do not belong in the game. That's because this isn't a balance thread. The characteristics aren't arbitrary; automated micro is something that almost any starcraft player would disagree with being allowed into the game. I just don't think most of us think of autorepair as automated microing right now.
Your logic is that auto repair is bad because it does things no human player could do. So by this same logic smart cast should be removed. I suppose you could. But you still have to manually aim and cast each spell, thus making it primarily an interface improvement. So that's a critical difference. Though it certainly does significantly reduce the APM sink of casting spells. Maybe an appropriate analogy would be if, when selecting autorepair, target a unit or structure and that SCV will always only auto-repair that unit/structure (sort of like the SCV being "focused" on that one unit/building you targettted). So it reduces the APM of having to constantly repair a Thor that is taking damage sometimes and is at full health otherwise, but you'd have to manually switch when you need the scv to repair something else. That's how it would be similar to smart casting. And really, I wouldn't have too much of an issue with that because the player is having to make micro choices.
Also zerglings auto surround and mutalisk magic box should be removed. How do either of these analogize? zergling autosurround you can do a better surround manually. Mutalisk magic box IS manual control...
Your point is arbitrary. You decide you don't like auto repair and then rationalize backwards about what characteristics of auto repair are unique only to it. You need to focus on balance and gameplay arguments. You will lose here too as auto repair is not a huge part of the game and very rarely affects game outcome while smartcasting force field and zergling and muta micro are seen in a very large portion of games. If, theoretically, both autorepair and smartcasting were broken, it wouldn't be a battle of the priorities and the higher one comes out on top and gets smashed with the nerf bat upon his crowning victory.... both would get fixed. I disagree with you about smart casting, and it doesn't need to be a "huge part of the game" to belong or be removed from the game. After all, autorepair is IN the game and you're saying it's not a huge part of it.... so why keep it by your logic?
|
|
|
To me it's exactly the same as your units auto-attacking enemy units. For example, you couldn't possibly micro a large stalker ball in a big battle so that all stalkers are firing as fast as possible while also reducing overkill as much as possible.
It's a question of making the game better while also maintaining the competitive aspect (ie a high enough skill ceiling). In my opinion, autorepair does this. Maybe you disagree, but the best argument you can make is preference.
Rofl. AtlasMech's ban date and AtlasGrip's account created date match up pretty well too. Good spotting!
|
On May 10 2011 20:06 AtlasGrip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 20:00 Tonem wrote:
1) You CAN get zerglings to attack workers when there's attacking units there, just use hold trick? I have no idea what you're talking about. The hold trick is very limited. It does not attack workers efficiently at all. Repair has more potential than either of these abilties, that's why it's an actitvated ability rather than a passive one.... Show nested quote +3) There's no reason to be whine and qq about auto-repair. This is one of the stupidest balance qq threads I've seen in a while.. Probably because this isn't a balance thread or a qq thread... Show nested quote +4) Comparing auto repair to auto inject is absolute stupid. Inject is a fundamental macro mechanic used throughout the whole course of the game. Auto-repair is used in small specific situations of the game, and in most of these cases players manually repair anyway to override the AI doing something stupid like having the scv's repair each other when you need them all to repair a bunker/turret, etc. You would be right if I was comparing the frequency of use of the two respective abilities, or if I was comparing the effect the two abilities have. But I wasn't doing either. I was comparing the automation potential both of these abilties have that cannot be matched by the player.
1) If a player has attacking units in range of their mineral line when you go to attack their workers, they will pull their workers to a far mineral patch and move in with their units any way, so the whole situation your describing is kind of flawed at ANY high level of play.
Not to mention you would always pull workers anyway...
2) Yeah they can repair their health faster, but it also costs money, hp and shields regen is FREE AND doesn't require another worker to be there (for example Terran can't regain health during early game scouting, which protoss and zerg can and often use to their advantage (allbiet an insignificant advantage)).
3) Sure seemed like a QQ thread to me, my apologies.
4) Your completely ignoring the point. I'm saying it is absolutely useless to compare auto-repair to auto-inject. I don't give a damn in what context you were comparing them, if there as obvious flaw in your comparison, comparing them is pointless, regardless of context.
|
On May 10 2011 20:24 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 20:13 AtlasGrip wrote:If you are bothered by Starcraft 2 perfection / automation you might complain about the perfect movement AI which makes tight balls possible. We didnt have that in BW and the game was awesome. All of these things have been discussed already during the beta IMO, just deal with it! That's not really automation because the player is moving. The game has a paradigm for how units move and that can be discussed in another thread but it truly is not automation. Sure, unit movement is different than in sc1 but it's no more "automated" now than it was then. Now if there were automated buttons for unit formation (ala warcraft 3) that would be a different issue altogether and I would definitely debate against the inclusion of such a feature.... No, it is automation, and it is unit formation. Your units automatically move into the formation "deathball". Just because there's no other option doesn't mean there's no automation involved. In BW, you had to manually clump your units. Like I said, it's no more automation than what it was in BW. In BW you had to manually clump your units, yes. In SC2, you have to manually disperse your units. See my point?
MBS/automine go a long way to reduce the APM required to be a good player at the midgame/endgame drastically. Realistically, to be even a decent BW player, you needed 120 APM or more, in some cases. That's a conservative estimate. Stuff like autorepair lessens APM requirements to the same extent (as MBS/automine). Those things (and autorepair) were discussed to death BEFORE beta. This is basically beating a horse that has been dead for two years. There were just as many TL:DR posts about the subject during those days, I'm sure blizzard has already heard any argument you can make against autorepair.
It probably will stay.
They were talked about a LOT before beta, I've acknowledged this at the very beginning of my OP But it's truly not beating a dead horse. We never got our hands on the game when these were discussed. Now it's almost a year since the game has been released. Wouldn't it be fair to have a look at these features again? I've already decided that MBS and the other interface features are fine, but through my own play something is out of place with autorepair. Is that not worth discussion, post release?
|
On May 10 2011 20:22 HopLight wrote:
AtlasGrip, you wouldn't by any chance be AtlasMech would you? It just seems so similar all over.
I'm not. Never heard of AtlasMech though for much of beta my tag was just "Atlas" and I was constantly asked if I was the Atlas so I eventually added something to my name.
|
On May 10 2011 20:29 AtlasGrip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 20:24 goiflin wrote:
No, it is automation, and it is unit formation. Your units automatically move into the formation "deathball". Just because there's no other option doesn't mean there's no automation involved. In BW, you had to manually clump your units. Like I said, it's no more automation than what it was in BW. In BW you had to manually clump your units, yes. In SC2, you have to manually disperse your units. See my point?
You had to manually disperse your units in BW too.
On May 10 2011 20:29 AtlasGrip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 20:24 goiflin wrote:
MBS/automine go a long way to reduce the APM required to be a good player at the midgame/endgame drastically. Realistically, to be even a decent BW player, you needed 120 APM or more, in some cases. That's a conservative estimate. Stuff like autorepair lessens APM requirements to the same extent (as MBS/automine). Those things (and autorepair) were discussed to death BEFORE beta. This is basically beating a horse that has been dead for two years. There were just as many TL:DR posts about the subject during those days, I'm sure blizzard has already heard any argument you can make against autorepair.
It probably will stay. They were talked about a LOT before beta, I've acknowledged this at the very beginning of my OP But it's truly not beating a dead horse. We never got our hands on the game when these were discussed. Now it's almost a year since the game has been released. Wouldn't it be fair to have a look at these features again? I've already decided that MBS and the other interface features are fine, but through my own play something is out of place with autorepair. Is that not worth discussion, post release?
Why is MBS and automine fine, but autorepair not? What's the difference between these two functions? It still requires 100+ APM to be dedicated to the sole task of production in brood war, or say a SC2 without these features. It would require 100+ APM of dedicated micro to replicate autorepair. I see no problems here. You remove both, or neither.
Sounds like you're biased against terran, since you want auto-repair gone, but want MBS/Automine to stay.
|
On May 10 2011 20:25 Swede wrote:To me it's exactly the same as your units auto-attacking enemy units. For example, you couldn't possibly micro a large stalker ball in a big battle so that all stalkers are firing as fast as possible while also reducing overkill as much as possible. It's a question of making the game better while also maintaining the competitive aspect (ie a high enough skill ceiling). In my opinion, autorepair does this. Maybe you disagree, but the best argument you can make is preference. Rofl. AtlasMech's ban date and AtlasGrip's account created date match up pretty well too. Good spotting!
Maybe you should do more digging. I've had the tag AtlasGrip since mid beta when they removed the identifier tags (ie Atlas.Grip). I've only recently started posting on TL just cause I've been a lurker on here and haven't found something I could contribute that's not been discussed before. I've been posting on the battle.net forums since the very beginning of SC2 beta.
|
AtlasGrip is amusing he dosent understand the game at all and as a result belives that his opinion is valid due to its profound incorrectness (by that I mean that its factual basis by which the opinion is formed is incorrect rather than a specific opinion is wrong as opions by their very nature are neither correct or incorrect).
Consider this your problem as far as i can tell from the somewat misformed perspective is that auto-repair results in the automation of micro which has no place in starcraft. However this ignores the number of other features in the game which cause the automation of micro to name a few;
activation of watchtowers.
building queing (reduces the need to control a worker as was the case in broodwar)
shift clicking of units back into transports
ability to select multiple workers and building structures with only one worker leaveing the mineral line rather than the inability to build structures (as in broodwar) or causing all workers to move to the area where the structure is going to be constructed.
|
On May 10 2011 20:38 AtlasGrip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 20:25 Swede wrote:To me it's exactly the same as your units auto-attacking enemy units. For example, you couldn't possibly micro a large stalker ball in a big battle so that all stalkers are firing as fast as possible while also reducing overkill as much as possible. It's a question of making the game better while also maintaining the competitive aspect (ie a high enough skill ceiling). In my opinion, autorepair does this. Maybe you disagree, but the best argument you can make is preference. Rofl. AtlasMech's ban date and AtlasGrip's account created date match up pretty well too. Good spotting! Maybe you should do more digging. I've had the tag AtlasGrip since mid beta when they removed the identifier tags (ie Atlas.Grip). I've only recently started posting on TL just cause I've been a lurker on here and haven't found something I could contribute that's not been discussed before. I've been posting on the battle.net forums since the very beginning of SC2 beta.
Fine. You're different people. At least respond to my actual post.
|
On May 10 2011 20:36 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 20:29 AtlasGrip wrote:On May 10 2011 20:24 goiflin wrote:
No, it is automation, and it is unit formation. Your units automatically move into the formation "deathball". Just because there's no other option doesn't mean there's no automation involved. In BW, you had to manually clump your units. Like I said, it's no more automation than what it was in BW. In BW you had to manually clump your units, yes. In SC2, you have to manually disperse your units. See my point? You had to manually disperse your units in BW too. What I was saying, in other words, is you would have to manually configure your units to go into "BW configuration" in SC2 the same way the guy I quoted said you had to manually clump your units in BW to get the clumped "SC2 configuration"
On May 10 2011 20:29 AtlasGrip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 20:24 goiflin wrote:
MBS/automine go a long way to reduce the APM required to be a good player at the midgame/endgame drastically. Realistically, to be even a decent BW player, you needed 120 APM or more, in some cases. That's a conservative estimate. Stuff like autorepair lessens APM requirements to the same extent (as MBS/automine). Those things (and autorepair) were discussed to death BEFORE beta. This is basically beating a horse that has been dead for two years. There were just as many TL:DR posts about the subject during those days, I'm sure blizzard has already heard any argument you can make against autorepair.
It probably will stay. They were talked about a LOT before beta, I've acknowledged this at the very beginning of my OP But it's truly not beating a dead horse. We never got our hands on the game when these were discussed. Now it's almost a year since the game has been released. Wouldn't it be fair to have a look at these features again? I've already decided that MBS and the other interface features are fine, but through my own play something is out of place with autorepair. Is that not worth discussion, post release?
Why is MBS and automine fine, but autorepair not? What's the difference between these two functions? It still requires 100+ APM to be dedicated to the sole task of production in brood war, or say a SC2 without these features. It would require 100+ APM of dedicated micro to replicate autorepair. I see no problems here. You remove both, or neither.
Sounds like you're biased against terran, since you want auto-repair gone, but want MBS/Automine to stay.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that with MBS, you still have to make the units. And for both MBS and automine, the macro mechanics were added to make up for them. Also, autorepair is for one specific race.
That said, I'm certainly not against removing MBS and automine. But I have no issue with them, Blizz balanced these two with macro mechanics in my opinion.
|
Also, autorepair is for one specific race.
That's not a point. Of course it's for one specific race. Terran is the only race with repair and so it follows that Terran would be the only race that could have auto-repair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
