EPTif you don't want advanced techniques, go and play something like WC1...
autpinjections are another topic that could be discussed but have nothing to do with autorepair imo.
Autorepair discussion - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
if you don't want advanced techniques, go and play something like WC1... autpinjections are another topic that could be discussed but have nothing to do with autorepair imo. | ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 20:39 cristo1122 wrote: How are any of these automations? The watchtower activation, MAYBE. But that is just an area that extends unit sight.... The watchtower is an example of automation of necessity. Watchtowers would be useless if you had to constantly do something to activate them, once you had your unit control them. Other than the watchtower, all of your examples involve the player manually doing something.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. | ||
|
LeoA
Canada108 Posts
| ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 20:25 Swede wrote: My argument is not based on preference...I postulate that SC2 holds a philosophy where the game doesn't micro for you. If you want to back up why this makes the game better while maintaining the competitive aspect, or why this argument can only be based on preference, then I'd have more to say.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. | ||
|
Lurk
Germany359 Posts
If you have to hold a critical bunker (against a 4gate for example) you'd have to literally spam repair/right click on the bunker if it wasn't for autocast as any time the bunker reached max hp, repair would stop. I don't think that mindlessy spamming a button can be considered micro. | ||
|
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
On May 10 2011 20:48 AtlasGrip wrote: My argument is not based on preference...I postulate that SC2 holds a philosophy where the game doesn't micro for you. If you want to back up why this makes the game better while maintaining the competitive aspect, or why this argument can only be based on preference, then I'd have more to say. My point is that units auto-attacking IS the game microing for you (you have an attack command just like you do a repair command), and so it follows that you must also disagree with this. If you don't disagree with all aspects of the game that fit into the same category (automated functions which allow you to do things which would be otherwise impossible) then it's preference. | ||
|
FlaminGinjaNinja
United Kingdom879 Posts
I play Zerg and i find repairing SCVs extremly annoying, when they repart a wall off thats about to go down. NOT because of auto repair, no one really uses auto repair except in big mech plays, in which case the auto repair is required because theres soo much micro involved. I feel thats a fair trade for them having to stop a group of SCVs mineing and the additional cost of the repair itself. The only think i will say is that i think there should be a limit on the number of SCVs that can repair a building/ unit at a time. The priority change for repair is all well and good but there are still issues when it comes to taking down PFs being repaired or a Thor being mass repaired and becoming almost invicible. | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On May 10 2011 20:48 AtlasGrip wrote: My argument is not based on preference...I postulate that SC2 holds a philosophy where the game doesn't micro for you. If you want to back up why this makes the game better while maintaining the competitive aspect, or why this argument can only be based on preference, then I'd have more to say. If you thought SC2 doesn't automate micro for you, you would be wrong. Go play Broodwar and see what it was like without auto surround AI. | ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 20:26 Tonem wrote: That's not true at all! The situation I'm describing happens all the time at even the highest level of play. Even when the workers are pulled away, automated autoselection of those workers when you want to chase them would be amazed compared to trying to click each one a horizontal, somewaht stacked column of workers while ranged units attack you.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. 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)). The point is repair has the most potential. It does cost something yes. Resources and APM. Same as in BW. 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. Useless comparison =/= flawed comparison. My comparison may be useless to you, but to me it's very useful. Autoinject does something no player can do on his own. Autorepair does something no player can do on his own. Neither belongs in the game for that very fact, regardless of how effective or uneffective either of these abilities are! | ||
|
cristo1122
Australia505 Posts
On May 10 2011 20:45 AtlasGrip wrote: How are any of these automations? The watchtower activation, MAYBE. But that is just an area that extends unit sight.... The watchtower is an example of automation of necessity. Watchtowers would be useless if you had to constantly do something to activate them, once you had your unit control them. Other than the watchtower, all of your examples involve the player manually doing something. not really it involves the disconection of the player from the action as the individuals focus is in another part of the map therefore using the logic that u have used i.e. that the automation of the action aleviates the player from having to use their active focus to do a task at a particular point in time they are in effect the same. In any case it is a null argument as auto repair is a mechanic that ultimetaly hurts the player more than it helps them as it results in inefficent repair patterns and repairing of non- critical structures and units to full health in situations where it is more economically efficent to either create a new unit or build a new building. personally i think u are a troll or you just dont understand how this game works otherwise you be able to see how much of a non issue this is in a practical game sense. | ||
|
exog
Norway279 Posts
Afaik this has never happened, and we can assume it will never happen. Blizzard will choose other options to balance things. Edit: Btw, does autorepair stop mining after finishing? | ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
On May 10 2011 20:42 AtlasGrip wrote: 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. So, by stating that you feel that MBS and automine have been balanced by the macro mechanics, you're stating that autorepair is imbalanced, and that is the reason why you're making points for it's removal. Otherwise, you think it should be removed because of the fact that you don't have to tell your SCV's to repair, which was the entire reason it was added in the first place. Do you think that blizzard thought to themselves "Surely, people won't be using an auto-repair function to automate repairs"? They considered this before they read the large volume of posts on the subject during the previews/beta. And you've basically boiled your argument down to the same thing as those complaining in beta: automation bad, mandatory mechanics good. Perhaps it's good to have these threads every once in a while, though. It's much preferable to have someone who is willing to type out quite a bit about their argument and thought process in comparison to someone coming on the forums, and posting a one-liner about "TERRAN OP NERF AUTOREPAIR". | ||
|
DNB
Finland995 Posts
| ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 20:53 Swede wrote: I was sure someone would be this technical eventually. Autoattacking, if you want to consider it an automation, is an automation of necessity. I clearly distinguished these from autorepair. It's an automation of necessity because attacking would not be effective if you had to manually click every unit, and tell it to attack another unit, and then click those units again when that unit is dead and so on! Battles would not be effective, interesting, or even very much tactical due to a lot of unit potential being lost. Fast attack units would be absolute garbage if you had to keep telling them to attack, one by one. In sum, "autoattack" is necessary, just as medivac heal or zealot charge or harvesting mining by themselves (not rally mining, just going back and forth harvesting patches/gas)My point is that units auto-attacking IS the game microing for you (you have an attack command just like you do a repair command), and so it follows that you must also disagree with this. If you don't disagree with all aspects of the game that fit into the same category (automated functions which allow you to do things which would be otherwise impossible) then it's preference. | ||
|
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:02 AtlasGrip wrote: I was sure someone would be this technical eventually. Autoattacking, if you want to consider it an automation, is an automation of necessity. I clearly distinguished these from autorepair. It's an automation of necessity because attacking would not be effective if you had to manually click every unit, and tell it to attack another unit, and then click those units again when that unit is dead and so on! Battles would not be effective, interesting, or even very much tactical due to a lot of unit potential being lost. Fast attack units would be absolute garbage if you had to keep telling them to attack, one by one. In sum, "autoattack" is necessary, just as medivac heal or zealot charge or harvesting mining by themselves (not rally mining, just going back and forth harvesting patches/gas) It's as much an automation of necessity as autorepair is. Autorepair is only used when the amount of repair micro required is too much and something else is required to achieve what is needed. Autorepair is necessary to achieve that at that point. Perhaps it doesn't make as big a difference to how the game plays out as auto-attack, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally the same. | ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:00 goiflin wrote: Neither of these. I'm not stating autorepair is "imbalanced".So, by stating that you feel that MBS and automine have been balanced by the macro mechanics, you're stating that autorepair is imbalanced, and that is the reason why you're making points for it's removal. Otherwise, you think it should be removed because of the fact that you don't have to tell your SCV's to repair, which was the entire reason it was added in the first place. Do you think that blizzard thought to themselves "Surely, people won't be using an auto-repair function to automate repairs"? They considered this before they read the large volume of posts on the subject during the previews/beta. and I'm not arguing that it should be removed solely because you don't have to tell your scvs to repair. If it was just that, then autorepair would fall under an automation of convenience. Like build intercepters. Not bad. But if the autorepair, in the process, can do extraordinary amounts of automated micro that players could never match manually, that's a problem. That shouldn't be allowed into this game. | ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:10 Swede wrote: It's as much an automation of necessity as autorepair is. Autorepair is only used when the amount of repair micro required is too much and something else is required to achieve what is needed. Autorepair is necessary to achieve that at that point. Perhaps it doesn't make as big a difference to how the game plays out as auto-attack, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally the same. Clever argument, but that's not why autorepair was implemented. It wasn't implemented out of necessity because players can demonstratively use autorepair effectively (they cannot use any of the automations of necessity effectively, and that's why they're of necessity...) | ||
|
GxZ
United States375 Posts
| ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:14 AtlasGrip wrote: Neither of these. I'm not stating autorepair is "imbalanced". and I'm not arguing that it should be removed solely because you don't have to tell your scvs to repair. If it was just that, then autorepair would fall under an automation of convenience. Like build intercepters. Not bad. But if the autorepair, in the process, can do extraordinary amounts of automated micro that players could never match manually, that's a problem. That shouldn't be allowed into this game. You have no proof that it can't be emulated manually. I'm sure someone with 300 APM could replicate it fine, and just by saying that, my argument is just as valid as yours. You also can't say it shouldn't be allowed in the game, because of something that can't be emulated manually, since there are players who couldn't macro their way out of a wet paper bag without MBS/automine, regardless of having to hit a mule/inject/chrono every X seconds, unless they had the APM to do so. If you say that it's not imbalanced, it shouldn't be removed, since we're just talking about personal preference. You just want to play a game without auto-repair. And since you have no problem with removing MBS/automine, you can play BW, or SC2:BW with those options turned off. Or SC2:BW with those options on, since SCV's can't auto-repair in it anyway (I think). | ||
|
brobear
United States101 Posts
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. You can go play BW if you want to feel gosu, but I sure as hell don't want to send each individual workers to mine again for the entire duration of the game. The game's interface has simply evolved from BW to automate some small non-gamebreaking nuisances for the players. You say that this auto-repair mechanic is "not game breaking," but say that automation beyond any human physical capability isn't fit for starcraft 2? With your logic, medivac auto-casting heal is analogous to scvs auto-repairing mech troops in battle. Would you also like for selecting 30 larvae and holding down z to spawn 30 zerglings to be removed, and instead click z 30 times in a row? What a joke. Is this an IdrA-influenced phenomenon? Why are zergs on TL suddenly trying to make every little mechanic of the game (which the zerg race doesn't have apparently, through their horrid attempts at making "analogies") into a game-breaking design flaw??? This shit needs to stop. If auto-inject is what you want, then just say that's what you want. | ||
| ||
