|
On May 10 2011 21:47 Tonem wrote:Apparently this guy has been QQing about auto-repair for quite some time now. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2369677710I'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. >_>
For me this thread doesn't seem to be a QQ-thread. The OP states that it FEELS out of place and gives examples why.
For your 4 gate example: Immagine you want to sentry contain a Terran ramp. If you dont want to wast FF you literally have to stare at the ramp the whole time otherwise the dude could attack while you're not looking and just kill you because the sentries didn't FF in time.
|
This whole article is pointless. The OP is making a judgement call on what he believes should be required of the player (in terms of micro) and what should be automated. This decision is (and has to be) made top down from Blizzard based on what the want the game to be, which could very well be ANYTHING. If they think the game with ultimately sell more (by being more fun, have a strong competitive scene or whatever) if they add more micro requirements, they'll do so (and vice-versa).
I personally think the game should automate more (optional autoinject larva, mules and CB, the obvious examples), not less. I believe the smarter player with the better tactical/strategic decision making should win, not the player who can better fulfill a mental checklist and has faster fingers. The point is, this is merely my opinion and no objective arguments can be made for this, because simply it is not our place to discuss what the game SHOULD be on a philosofical level.
|
since when is autorepair GAMECHANGING anyways?? Have you ever seen someone lose a game because they didnt have autorepair on? no.
why are you comparing it to queen larva injects; which is by far the strongest macro ability in the game. Being good with your injects is what seperates good players from the bad. Autorepair doesnt make a difference.
If anything, autorepair HURTS because the AI wont target just one unit/building, it does whatever is closest.. Now if you had manual autorepair on one target, that would be fishy (like thor scv allins, and the scvs ignore eachother and only repair the one thor) but thats not the case.. so this isnt even an issue.
|
On May 10 2011 22:01 grigorin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 21:47 Tonem wrote:Apparently this guy has been QQing about auto-repair for quite some time now. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2369677710I'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. >_> For me this thread doesn't seem to be a QQ-thread. The OP states that it FEELS out of place and gives examples why. For your 4 gate example: Immagine you want to sentry contain a Terran ramp. If you dont want to wast FF you literally have to stare at the ramp the whole time otherwise the dude could attack while you're not looking and just kill you because the sentries didn't FF in time.
No, just no. Your comparison doesn't make any sense at all.
1) If you want a sentry to contain a Terran ramp you're on the offensive for starters, and also this makes a total of zero sense. Why the hell would protoss be trying to contain Terran with sentries. (ofc I'm assuming it's early game here because the Terran doesn't have an expansion and/or medivacs. Yeah you're basically saying Protoss is doing early aggression-contain with sentries against a 1 base T..wtf?)
Even in the example of using sentries to defend, your point is still wrong.
You can cast an FF, look away for a little bit, come back and cast another FF. No high level Protoss player will just sit there staring at the ramp if they no the timings of the FF properly, and then know that "Oh hey in between my next FF I can go back to my base and build a pylon."
In the case of no auto-repair, you would have to stare at your bunkers the whole time because:
i) It is impossible to know when the opponent is going to move in and try attacking your bunkers again.
ii) You're in a defensive position, bunkers can fall very quickly to for example, a 4 gate, and even looking away for a second can cause you to lose your bunkers, and therefore lose the game outright. (this would be a very clutch situation, which often the times is true with 4 gates)
2) My point stands because your example is completely flawed lol.
With that said, I couldn't care less if auto-repair was removed, as long as they allowed SCV's to continue repair structures that have reached full health (if they start losing health again).
|
On May 10 2011 22:18 Tonem wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 22:01 grigorin wrote:On May 10 2011 21:47 Tonem wrote:Apparently this guy has been QQing about auto-repair for quite some time now. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2369677710I'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. >_> For me this thread doesn't seem to be a QQ-thread. The OP states that it FEELS out of place and gives examples why. For your 4 gate example: Immagine you want to sentry contain a Terran ramp. If you dont want to wast FF you literally have to stare at the ramp the whole time otherwise the dude could attack while you're not looking and just kill you because the sentries didn't FF in time. No, just no. Your comparison doesn't make any sense at all. 1) If you want a sentry to contain a Terran ramp you're on the offensive for starters, and also this makes a total of zero sense. Why the hell would protoss be trying to contain Terran with sentries. (ofc I'm assuming it's early game here because the Terran doesn't have an expansion and/or medivacs. Yeah you're basically saying Protoss is doing early aggression-contain against a 1 base T..wtf?)
why is it different if you are offensive or defensive?
He contains to expand or tech or just delay T expo while currently having less units.
Even in the example of using sentries to defend, your point is still wrong.
You can cast an FF, look away for a little bit, come back and cast another FF. No high level Protoss player will just sit there staring at the ramp if they no the timings of the FF properly, and then know that "Oh hey in between my next FF I can go back to my base and build a pylon."
I think most high level P player would NOT just indefinitly FF a ramp if they dont see the T try to go down the ramp (would be just a wast of sentry energy)
In the case of no auto-repair, you would have to stare at your bunkers the whole time because:
i) It is impossible to know when the opponent is going to move in and try attacking your bunkers again.
its impossible to know when the T moves DOWN the ramp (even less vision)
ii) You're in a defensive position, bunkers can fall very quickly to for example, a 4 gate, and even looking away for a second can cause you to lose your bunkers, and therefore lose the game outright.
If your P army gets crushed earlygame guess what happens. You dont win ^^.
2) My point stands because your example is completely flawed lol.
With that said, I couldn't care less if auto-repair was removed, as long as they allowed SCV's to continue repair structures that have reached full health (if they start losing health again).
i also dont care about autorepair much, but i agree with OP it fells out of place
|
On May 10 2011 22:08 Skyze wrote:
since when is autorepair GAMECHANGING anyways?? Have you ever seen someone lose a game because they didnt have autorepair on? no.
why are you comparing it to queen larva injects; which is by far the strongest macro ability in the game. Being good with your injects is what seperates good players from the bad. Autorepair doesnt make a difference.
If anything, autorepair HURTS because the AI wont target just one unit/building, it does whatever is closest.. Now if you had manual autorepair on one target, that would be fishy (like thor scv allins, and the scvs ignore eachother and only repair the one thor) but thats not the case.. so this isnt even an issue.
First of all you can autorepair on one thor during an all in. second of all you didnt mention the PF at all. 30 scvs on a PF. Try killing that with anything except for banelings or collosus. It doesn't die
|
On May 10 2011 22:41 Ryrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 22:08 Skyze wrote:
since when is autorepair GAMECHANGING anyways?? Have you ever seen someone lose a game because they didnt have autorepair on? no.
why are you comparing it to queen larva injects; which is by far the strongest macro ability in the game. Being good with your injects is what seperates good players from the bad. Autorepair doesnt make a difference.
If anything, autorepair HURTS because the AI wont target just one unit/building, it does whatever is closest.. Now if you had manual autorepair on one target, that would be fishy (like thor scv allins, and the scvs ignore eachother and only repair the one thor) but thats not the case.. so this isnt even an issue. First of all you can autorepair on one thor during an all in. second of all you didnt mention the PF at all. 30 scvs on a PF. Try killing that with anything except for banelings or collosus. It doesn't die
I think you focus more on the REPAIR part and the thread is more about the AUTO thing ^^
|
While I don't think that autorepair being in the game is actually imbalanced, I agree that it is one step too far to automate things to do things players cannot.
|
The Auto-reapir AI is is messed up I think having auto repair hurts more than it helps.
I can not stress how bad the AI is.
Just last Night I was playing vs toss, scouted the 4 gate put up a bunker and sent 4 scvs to stand next tot he bunker set to auto reapir. Those coward SCVs did everything but repair the bunker, they first tried to save their own skin and repair each other, then they decided a reactor half way across my base looked a little out of date so they tried to work on that, Even after I clicked on the bunker a million times.
Other times with auto repair on vs muta attacks they will first repair the gas extractor, then each other leaving the MT to die.
Seriously that AI is so bad I think I'm being trolled when I use it.
|
I would rather criticize the availability of the autorepair function, seems a bit odd to me that it's the only useable skill of a unit which cannot be bound to a key, although you have to use it in practically every game.
The rest of the arguments given here are invalid in my eyes, the times were repairing was game-breaking are over, because e.g. in a tvz you can only hope that your opponent missplaces his ffs while you try to repair something.
But this touches another aspect of the game which i think has to improve a bit, namely that you cannot dodge spells due to their un-missilely nature. (I know that it's not a real word)
|
On May 10 2011 18:56 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 18:50 AtlasGrip wrote:On May 10 2011 18:46 stevarius wrote:
Could you scatter a thousand zerglings manually in the same time frame that an auto command could? No, you cannot, and neither can you manually inject one thousand hatcheries or one thousand scvs in the same time frame as autocast....
Lol is all I have to say. Auto-repair. A terran racial mechanic due to the lack of regen of terran structures and presence of FIRE. Let's leave it to that as there is no inherent problem with the mechanic. Repair, not autorepair, is the terran racial mechanic due to the lack of regen of terran structures and fire.... and there's nothing wrong with repair inherently. Repair would be this way with or without autorepair. Autorepair is an interface feature that I would argue had no effect on the balance considerations of repair or the terran game overall. Now my response is just going to be: Who cares? It has little to no actual effect on the outcomes of games especially since the priority change on repairing SCVs. Pointless thread and discussion has no further course to take place.
People who actually care about the game care, THAT is who. Most of your posts have seem satisfyingly thought through, until this one.
Even if the mechanic has little to no effect on the outcome of a game, it should be considered for discussion. I think that for you to declare this thread pointless and that this discussion has no further course to take is extreme.
On-topic:
Has the auto-repair function, while the SCV in question is within a Medivac, been taken into consideration? This scenario is the main issue that I have with the mechanic.
|
On May 10 2011 22:18 Tonem wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 22:01 grigorin wrote:On May 10 2011 21:47 Tonem wrote:Apparently this guy has been QQing about auto-repair for quite some time now. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2369677710I'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. >_> For me this thread doesn't seem to be a QQ-thread. The OP states that it FEELS out of place and gives examples why. For your 4 gate example: Immagine you want to sentry contain a Terran ramp. If you dont want to wast FF you literally have to stare at the ramp the whole time otherwise the dude could attack while you're not looking and just kill you because the sentries didn't FF in time. No, just no. Your comparison doesn't make any sense at all. 1) If you want a sentry to contain a Terran ramp you're on the offensive for starters, and also this makes a total of zero sense. Why the hell would protoss be trying to contain Terran with sentries. (ofc I'm assuming it's early game here because the Terran doesn't have an expansion and/or medivacs. Yeah you're basically saying Protoss is doing early aggression-contain with sentries against a 1 base T..wtf?) Even in the example of using sentries to defend, your point is still wrong. You can cast an FF, look away for a little bit, come back and cast another FF. No high level Protoss player will just sit there staring at the ramp if they no the timings of the FF properly, and then know that "Oh hey in between my next FF I can go back to my base and build a pylon."In the case of no auto-repair, you would have to stare at your bunkers the whole time because: i) It is impossible to know when the opponent is going to move in and try attacking your bunkers again. ii) You're in a defensive position, bunkers can fall very quickly to for example, a 4 gate, and even looking away for a second can cause you to lose your bunkers, and therefore lose the game outright. (this would be a very clutch situation, which often the times is true with 4 gates) 2) My point stands because your example is completely flawed lol. With that said, I couldn't care less if auto-repair was removed, as long as they allowed SCV's to continue repair structures that have reached full health (if they start losing health again).
Personally I feel like your example justifies the removing of auto-repair. If you are not quick enough to react to a player moving up your ramp and starting to attack your bunker you deserve to lose it. Moving up a ramp into firing range with zealots going first etc takes a while.
Youre arguments make no sense either. It's impossible for a protoss to know when a terran is going to move down the ramp, even harder then it is for a terran since they have no high-ground vision, and I can promise you that if you fail to force-field a ramp and let a stimmed terran army run down from it you are going to be severely more punished compared to failing to repair. Constantly force-fielding a ramp isn't always a viable option. As for the second point, bunkers can be used offensively aswell, I'm sure you realize. Auto-repair is not limited to your own base.
I'm not saying they should add a "auto-forcefield ramp" toggle since that would be extremely stupid, but auto-repair should go. Presumably most people don't care since it doesn't make that big of a difference, but it is really similar to auto-inject, just that it has alot less effect on the game.
|
On May 10 2011 22:08 Skyze wrote:
since when is autorepair GAMECHANGING anyways?? Have you ever seen someone lose a game because they didnt have autorepair on? no.
why are you comparing it to queen larva injects; which is by far the strongest macro ability in the game. Being good with your injects is what seperates good players from the bad. Autorepair doesnt make a difference.
If anything, autorepair HURTS because the AI wont target just one unit/building, it does whatever is closest.. Now if you had manual autorepair on one target, that would be fishy (like thor scv allins, and the scvs ignore eachother and only repair the one thor) but thats not the case.. so this isnt even an issue.
He compared it to auto-inject since they are similar. Does auto-repair impact the game as much? No.
Why do you think auto-repair should be in the game at all? Noone cares since it barely impacts gameplay but it's still unfair and if you can't see that you're biased.
|
Autorepair is retarded. It really should be removed from the game.
|
On May 10 2011 22:08 Skyze wrote:
since when is autorepair GAMECHANGING anyways?? Have you ever seen someone lose a game because they didnt have autorepair on? no.
Yes, I have. I've seen many people lose games to autorepair mech play. I've lost many games to autorepair thors and other bullshit.
|
On May 10 2011 22:08 Skyze wrote:
since when is autorepair GAMECHANGING anyways?? Have you ever seen someone lose a game because they didnt have autorepair on? no.
Yeah, I have seen many games T losing, because forgotting autorepair or not using it. For example in games where T goes Thors/needs to repair bunkers against busts/needs to repair Banshees...
|
Not sure why you think auto cast doesnt fit in the game but all the other "former controversial" stuff does. You can make the same points with MBS, unlimited unit selection, automining, etc..
|
Whoa, feels like Beta days again.
Hey guys lets discuss MBS while we are at it
|
On May 10 2011 23:27 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 22:08 Skyze wrote:
since when is autorepair GAMECHANGING anyways?? Have you ever seen someone lose a game because they didnt have autorepair on? no.
Yes, I have. I've seen many people lose games to autorepair mech play. I've lost many games to autorepair thors and other bullshit.
They can just right click the thor in those situations. It doesn't require intense micro unless you're capping their APM at something like 80. If you can't out-damage the repair, it doesn't matter (with units that have large health pools ofc) if he starts it late: it will be a net gain in HP.
|
On May 10 2011 23:33 R0YAL wrote:
Not sure why you think auto cast doesnt fit in the game but all the other "former controversial" stuff does. You can make the same points with MBS, unlimited unit selection, automining, etc..
Why does that make this issue any less real? Simply because he made a thread about a single of the controversial topics does not mean that you can use the others as reasoning for why this one should stay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
