EPTAutorepair discussion - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zowon
Norway237 Posts
| ||
|
grigorin
Austria275 Posts
I agree that autorepair feels a bit out of place in the game and I personally got the impression that it was a feature designed for the campaign (where i first noticed it - I think its turned on by default). The best solution in my eyes would be to remove autorepair and instead implement that SCVs dont idle after a full repair, but tbh I think this will never happen as it has really a low priority and is not imbalanced or sth. | ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:24 brobear wrote: This isn't trivial though, nor a nuisance. That's my point. It's not trivial for the game to automate things you could not do yourself.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. I've already addressed the medivac thing. holding z down on larva is not automation at all..... there's still a time factor in holding it down, and you are after all, manually holding it down. manually, which is the complete opposite of automatically.If auto-inject is what you want, then just say that's what you want. Auto-inject is a horrible, horrible idea. | ||
|
Andorra
Andorra64 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:17 AtlasGrip wrote: 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...) Sorry to disappoint you but auto-repair is pretty useless and is used only in cases where the AI can't mess it up. In fact, a player will always repair manually if the situation is even remotely important. There is not a single game situation where auto repair is necessary and more effective than a human with anything more than 20 apm. It was added for the lower leagues, to make the game more easy, but once pasted a certain (pretty low) skillpoint it becomes simply irrelevant. Your statement that it is capable of something humans aren't is incorrect, as there is no realistic game situation where the autorepair could be better than a player with a reasonable amount of skill. | ||
|
KentHenry
United States260 Posts
However, Terran units and structures do not have a free auto-cast ability where they heal over time (excluding Medivacs/Bio). Terran structures can burn to the ground if not repaired quickly enough and it comes at the cost of a percentage of the building. Mech units also cost the Terran player resources if he decides to repair them. Also if the Terran player decides to include some SCVs in his army to repair, thats a loss of potential mining time from those SCVs (the Terran player loses potential income and spends income to repair). This game is a lot of fun to play and little things like this are not that big of a deal. Auto-repair is not overpowered and it comes at the cost of resources (both mineral and gas; also potential income). When little things are brought up like this, I usually overlook them because I feel it's a lot of theorycrafting on a very small and insignificant scale. However, I felt I should try to rationalize the reasoning behind why auto-repair is "ok". TL;DR Auto-repair is fine and doesn't break the game, QQ less. | ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:32 grigorin wrote: Maybe it is the same in most discussion threads, but i am surprised how bad some people are at arguing/reading and understanding arguments. I think the OP has some good and well thoughtout points. I agree that autorepair feels a bit out of place in the game and I personally got the impression that it was a feature designed for the campaign (where i first noticed it - I think its turned on by default). The best solution in my eyes would be to remove autorepair and instead implement that SCVs dont idle after a full repair, but tbh I think this will never happen as it has really a low priority and is not imbalanced or sth. Thanks for your feedback and I appreciate your clear headedness. I'm definitely with you on the first thing you pointed out  | ||
|
Zaffy
United Kingdom128 Posts
| ||
|
Erionn
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:17 AtlasGrip wrote: 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...) Why it was implemented is irrelevant. They have the same function (admittedly to different degrees). Auto-repair allows efficiency beyond the limits of manual micro. The same is true of auto-attack - it allows efficiency beyond the limits of manual micro. As a side note, just because an automation (or any other function) isn't necessary doesn't make it a less valid addition to the game so even this argument isn't going anywhere. I am going to bed so I'll leave you to it. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:34 AtlasGrip wrote:This isn't trivial though, nor a nuisance. That's my point. It's not trivial for the game to automate things you could not do yourself. To be fair, even in Brood War, it would simply be unreasonable if Medics didn't heal automatically even if it's something that would otherwise be impossible. Automating things that players cannot physically do isn't necessarily game breaking or imbalanced nor is it detrimental. Auto Repair as it exists right now may be annoying, but it's shown itself to be fairly balanced since the change in SCV priority for attackers. The amount of automation that is acceptable in a game is an issue of personal preference and can be argued to the end of time without resolution. The important part here is to look at the game as a whole rather than isolate a single feature and critique it outside of the context of the game. SC2 has made a lot of things easier for players, not just repairing in combat scenarios (where Auto Repair really counts). It's really not fair to just pick on one of these features while ignoring the rest. | ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:41 Swede wrote: Why it was implemented is irrelevant. They have the same function (admittedly to different degrees). Auto-repair allows efficiency beyond the limits of manual micro. The same is true of auto-attack - it allows efficiency beyond the limits of manual micro. As a side note, just because an automation (or any other function) isn't necessary doesn't make it a less valid addition to the game so even this argument isn't going anywhere. I am going to bed so I'll leave you to it. You brought up why it was implemented as the crux of your argument  I disagree with you about the two having the same function. Repair can be used efficiently without automation, whereas attack cannot be used efficiently without the units autoattacking. (Just so we're clear, I'm referring to how wildly inefficient it would be if units just stood there and didn't attack unless you specifically clicked on something for them to attack.) I'm off to bed as well. | ||
|
Tonem
Australia91 Posts
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2369677710 I'd just ignore this guy tbh Also as has already been mentioned, the only reason it's really used is because if you are for instance, being 4-gated, you have bunkers set up, the 4-gater moves in, attacks bunkers, falls back, reinforces,etc. Then the SCV's repair the bunker and once it gets to full health, if it the bunkers get attacked again the scvs can start repairing. Often times in this situation you need to be managing your main base or w/e you need to do, removing auto-repair would mean the player would literally have to stare at their bunkers the whole time, otherwise the dude could attack while you're not looking and just kill you because the scvs didn't repair. >_> | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13431 Posts
Let me propose another scenario wherein autorepair is problematic you get Thors or tanks and bring 10scvs along. click auto repair and then leave the screen to macro or something and then the mechanical unit won't die and you don't have to watch it. the problem is a person cannot repair a mechanical unit the moment 1 HP is lost instantly. it makes it extremely difficult to kill mech units and very easy to sustain them with little to no effort. its not imbalanced per se but I think it is out of place as for most scenarios you can right click to repair easily. and to those saying its physically possible great then go do it with autocast off and to those saying its hard without autorepair you kinda prove the op's point | ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:44 LegendaryZ wrote: You do bring up a strong argument. You have a very holistic look on game discussion. I agree on holistic perspectives when it comes to game balance, but not when it comes to game philosophy. Effectively, you and I disagree on our outlook on how the game should be discussed and looked at.To be fair, even in Brood War, it would simply be unreasonable if Medics didn't heal automatically even if it's something that would otherwise be impossible. Automating things that players cannot physically do isn't necessarily game breaking or imbalanced nor is it detrimental. Auto Repair as it exists right now may be annoying, but it's shown itself to be fairly balanced since the change in SCV priority for attackers. The amount of automation that is acceptable in a game is an issue of personal preference and can be argued to the end of time without resolution. The important part here is to look at the game as a whole rather than isolate a single feature and critique it outside of the context of the game. SC2 has made a lot of things easier for players, not just repairing in combat scenarios (where Auto Repair really counts). It's really not fair to just pick on one of these features while ignoring the rest. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
| ||
|
brobear
United States101 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:34 AtlasGrip wrote: This isn't trivial though, nor a nuisance. That's my point. It's not trivial for the game to automate things you could not do yourself. I've already addressed the medivac thing. holding z down on larva is not automation at all..... there's still a time factor in holding it down, and you are after all, manually holding it down. manually, which is the complete opposite of automatically. Auto-inject is a horrible, horrible idea. How are you using your "all automation is bad for starcraft" logic to point out a flaw in one part of the game, and then disregard it for another (medivac heal) because you feel it's required?? Medivac healing is obviously more effective when auto-cast. But like your argument against auto-repair, it is a feat which is impossible for a human to accomplish, which you believe do not belong in the game. Your logic on automation definitely links those two together, and if you want to argue for them separately, you need a different take on this issue. If you want to separate Medivac auto-healing and scv auto-repair and queen auto-injects into different areas, you're arguing for a balance issue. | ||
|
AtlasGrip
45 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:47 Tonem wrote: Heh, I actually have a full length post that's almost identical to the one here that you didn't link. Someone in the post suggested I should post it here, as the scum of the bnet forums just wasn't worth posting a thorough analysis to. I just took my sweet time reposting it here. Also, if I"ve been saying it before, doesn't that show some degree of consistency? That I'm not just spewing out something new to complain about, like your typical QQer might?Apparently this guy has been QQing about auto-repair for quite some time now. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2369677710 I'd just ignore this guy tbh Also as has already been mentioned, the only reason it's really used is because if you are for instance, being 4-gated, you have bunkers set up, the 4-gater moves in, attacks bunkers, falls back, reinforces,etc. Then the SCV's repair the bunker and once it gets to full health, if it the bunkers get attacked again the scvs can start repairing. Often times in this situation you need to be managing your main base or w/e you need to do, removing auto-repair would mean the player would literally have to stare at their bunkers the whole time, otherwise the dude could attack while you're not looking and just kill you because the scvs didn't repair. >_> What's wrong with that? if it's important enough, you should attend to it. And really, you could stare at the minimap which is what a good player should be doing anyway. and the same can be said for responding to drops, scouting units at towers before theyre picked off, etc. | ||
|
mentallyafk
139 Posts
while you're at it, remove auto-attack | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
The only time I find it useful is when I have a mech army, between 2 fights, I just box 3 scvs, enable autorepair and right click them near my army so they start repairing it without me having to shift right click. Autorepair for microing a battle is horrible, as the scv will start repairing themsleves and not the useful targets. Also, don't forget autorepair is the lowest priority action for a scv, it has to be idle for using autorepair. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On May 10 2011 21:51 The KY wrote: It's not like an auto-attack-workers button, it's more like the attack move button. I could argue that attack move is a button that does micro for you; after all, when was the last time you individually selected a couple of zerglings at a time and targeted each individual marine in a ball? It would actually be closer to Medivac heal. I think the reason people have more of a problem with Auto Repair is because of the nature of the things often being repaired (PF, Battlecruisers, Thors, Tanks, etc.) whereas a Medivac will often be healing less powerful and less consequential units. I'm not saying it isn't something you can gripe about, but removing it would require a lot of other changes to bring the game back to a relatively balanced state and I believe in trying to balance the game with as few changes as possible since each aspect of the game has balance implications across the board. Rather than looking at Auto Repair as the problem (which affects lots of units and lots of scenarios), maybe we should instead be looking at the specific scenarios which are problematic and addressing the units/buildings in question rather than the mechanic. Should these units and buildings be so powerful and consequential that Auto Repair should matter so much in the first place? Maybe the problem is that MULES make SCV's feel more disposable for Terrans when the other races would be crippled by losing such worker numbers. I'm not going to pretend to have an answer, but it might help to look at the issue from different angles and explore different approaches. | ||
| ||
