I like the interface improvements in SC2 quite a bit. I remember multi building selection being pretty controversial when the game was in alpha stages and some discussion of it during beta. But overall it looked like the player base came to accept it, especially with the introduced macro mechanics. Lots of other features were pretty game changing and welcomed by the community. Autorepair, on the other hand, has never sat well with me. I hadn't really verbalized it, but there was something about it that just didn't feel like it belonged with the other interface improvements. MBS, unlimited unit selection, workers harvesting on rally, all these things applied and benefited all three races. Autorepair, however, only benefits Terran. If it was only that, then fine, each race is entitled to be different. But it's more than that... there's something about autorepair that makes it feel like it's more than just a convenient feature....
After much thought, I have come to verbalize why Autorepair is not just an interface improvement. It's automated microing. Autorepair can achieve feats that players cannot humanly achieve on their own. Autoreplay can instantaneously have each SCV repair each other SCV in a cluster. It is humanly impossible to click 10 or 15 individual scvs and right click each neighboring scv in a fraction of a second to repair them all. (a cluster of scvs can survive more than 2 fungal growths with autorepair.) Autorepair allows extremely fast reactional repairing in many situations. It only improves when there's more scvs and more units to be repaired.
So in this sense autorepair is automicroing for you at a superhuman level. Autorepair is capable of doing things for you that you couldn't do yourself. That's the major issue I have with it. It would be like an option for melee units to autotarget nearby workers when there are enemy attack units in range (ie zerglings in mineral line when stalkers are firing at them). The trouble in that situation is that it's humanly impossible to take individual zerglings and right click on nearby individual workers in a timely manner. This is analogous to how you could not possibly micro individual scvs to repair neighboring scvs & attack units in time. Autorepair is performing automated micro at a superhuman level.
In this view, autorepair is no different from an automated micro technique like an imaginary "autoattack workers" command outlined in the above paragraph. Autorepair is also no different from other imaginary automations I can think of like "auto-stutter", "auto-scatter", etc. All these things have something in common: they achieve micro feats that players cannot humanly do on their own. We've seen the automaton 2000 videos: (if you havent, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXUOWXidcY0) Automated microing looks godly; no human can do what the automaton script did here. Similarly, autorepair can repair at the machine-like level that we see in automaton 2000.
What about the other autocast features in the game? Contrast autorepair with the other automated convenience put in the game, autobuild intercepters for carriers. What is the difference between autorepair and auto build intercepters? Build intercepters can easily be done manually by the player regardless of autocast. The "APM cost" of build intercepters is not significantly reduced by autocast because it doesn't take many more actions to bulk up on intercepters; they can be queued and one click queues an intercepter for every carrier. Autorepair, however, significantly reduces the APM-cost of the player in many practical situations. More importantly, autobuild intercepters doesn't do anything the player cannot do himself. You can manually keep up intercepter production with a player who has build intercepters on autocast. It is mere convenience and doesn't achieve anything the player cannot do on his own. Autorepair, on the other hand, can achieve amazing feats of micro that players could not do with manual repairing.
How about medivac heal? Technically, it's autocast. But it's autocast out of necessity; medivacs need autoheal for their spell to be effective. True, medivac healing allows for the same impossible feats of micro when marines are constantly taking damage on and off and manually casting it could never keep up with the effectiveness of autocast. But let's consider that medivac heal would be useless if you had to manually cast it. Repair, on the other hand, is still very very useful without autocast. Medivacs are balanced around autocast. Whereas scv's repair has not been balanced around autocast. Autorepair has never been nerfed or anything to compensate for autocast. If it was, that's unfortunate because there are situations where you don't want to have autocast on and being nerfed for the automation feature is just not fair for those situations. Anyway, medviac heal is no different from every attack unit autoattacking when something is in range. Heal is a medivac's "attack". when you attack move a medivac it follows a unit and heals them. Also, medics had autocast heal in BW as well, which was really the only autocast ability in the game which further reinforces the idea that autocast med heal is autocast out of necessity.
So we've looked at two different kinds of autocast other than autorepair: "convenience autocast" such as build intercepter, and "necessity autocast" like medivac heal. To wrap it up, I want to theorize autocast queen inject for the purpose of comparing it to autorepair because I think most of us can agree that inject should never have an autocast feature. What category of autocast it would autoinject fall under? It certainly wouldn't fall under necessity, as Queens don't need autoinject for inject larva to be effective. (Also, inject larva is an intended macro mechanic meant to make macroing more difficult and separate skill levels.)
So with that out of the way, would autocast inject be more similar to autobuild intercepter or autorepair? Ask yourself this: If you had 30 carriers, could you manually build intercepters and keep up with another player with 30 carriers who had autobuild intercepter on? Absolutely; simply have all carriers selected and keep hitting the build intercepter key. If you had 30 hatcheries and 30 queens, could you manually keep up with autocast larva inject? Absolutely not. The time it would take a player to click through all those hatcheries, even with tricks like "next base" queen injection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0RLKroMJrc) is delayed significantly enough that autocast inject would come out on top. So autocast inject is in the same category as autorepair: it performs automated feats that the player cannot perform on his own. Neither autorepair nor autoinject really groove with this game.
Nerfing autorepair would be absolutely meaningless given it would only force people to unnecessarily spam right click or r + click. People CAN perform the feats of autorepair unlike auto inject. I don't know how you're saying that autorepair is inhuman and impossible to recreate. To even inject those youtube videos of INSANE micro done by AI bots is just a ludicrous comparison.
I'm actually shocked that someone has this much beef with autorepair especially considering the regen mechanics of both zerg and protoss. o_O
On May 10 2011 17:13 stevarius wrote: Nerfing autorepair would be absolutely meaningless given it would only force people to unnecessarily spam right click or r + click. People CAN perform the feats of autorepair unlike auto inject. I don't know how you're saying that autorepair is inhuman and impossible to recreate. To even inject those youtube videos of INSANE micro done by AI bots is just a ludicrous comparison.
I'm actually shocked that someone has this much beef with autorepair especially considering the regen mechanics of both zerg and protoss. o_O
I'll give you a practical example and you tell me it's ludicrous and that a human can do it.
Your 10 scvs are clustered under a group of banshees and are repairing them. Most of your scvs are somewhat injured, enough that a fungal will kill most of them. your scvs get hit by a fungal growth and will die if you don't order the repair command for each to another neighboring scv (you have to click the neighboring scv, not one out of immediate repair range as the units cannot move due to fungal and also there's just not enough time). Your scvs will all survive if you successfully issue the repair command to each of them near instantaneously. Can you honestly tell me you or anyone else would be able to issue those commands in the fraction of a second it would take to survive the fungal? Could anyone even do it in the full 2.5 second (real time) fungal duration? (maybe your first two repair commands would save two scvs at best, but the delayed reaction from the rest would result in death)
Auto repair isnt fool proof your scv`s dont always repair what you want plus setting your scv`s to repair somthing is nowhere near as hard as spreading maarines
On May 10 2011 17:13 stevarius wrote: Nerfing autorepair would be absolutely meaningless given it would only force people to unnecessarily spam right click or r + click. People CAN perform the feats of autorepair unlike auto inject. I don't know how you're saying that autorepair is inhuman and impossible to recreate. To even inject those youtube videos of INSANE micro done by AI bots is just a ludicrous comparison.
I'm actually shocked that someone has this much beef with autorepair especially considering the regen mechanics of both zerg and protoss. o_O
I'll give you a practical example and you tell me it's ludicrous and that a human can do it.
Your scvs are clustered under a group of banshees and are repairing them. most of your scvs are somewhat injured, enough that a fungal will kill most of them. your scvs get hit by a fungal growth and will die if you don't order the repair command for each to another neighboring scv (you have to click the neighboring scv, not one out of immediate repair range as the units cannot move due to fungal and also there's just not enough time). Your scvs will all survive if you successfully issue the repair command to each of them before fungal wears out. Can you honestly tell me you or anyone else would be able to issue those commands in the 2.5 seconds (in real time) that fungal lasts for?
Do you honestly believe the SCVs are going to survive fungals? It's an impractical situation given the amount of DPS fungals do in such a short span of time. Clicking repair or having autorepair for those SCVs would do absolutely nothing except sink your money in the VERY short amount of time they manage to survive.
I even dare you to find a scenario where autorepair is GAME-BREAKING. This is the key as autorepair is, in the opinion of most players, completely fine and unnecessary to be analyzing in the current state of the game...
On May 10 2011 17:21 gogatorsfoster wrote: i have to disagree but great write up!!
Auto repair isnt fool proof your scv`s dont always repair what you want plus setting your scv`s to repair somthing is nowhere near as hard as spreading maarines
It's certainly not fool proof, and I dabble with that a little bit in the article. There are times you want to manually cast it. Albeit most of those times you'll want to repair a single thing, or something similar where it's relatively easy to do it manually. There's also times when scvs on autorepair pull themselves off harvesting to repair nearby buildings that have trivial amounts of damage on them when you just don't need them to be repaired. But that's like turning off autocast intercepters when you need the money elsewhere... autorepair is acting like a convenience you don't need at the moment in this situation.
On May 10 2011 17:21 gogatorsfoster wrote: i have to disagree but great write up!!
Auto repair isnt fool proof your scv`s dont always repair what you want plus setting your scv`s to repair somthing is nowhere near as hard as spreading maarines
It's certainly not fool proof, and I dabble with that a little bit in the article. There are times you want to manually cast it. Albeit most of those times you'll want to repair a single thing, or something similar where it's relatively easy to do it manually. There's also times when autorepairing scvs for insignficant damage on neighboring buildings pulls them off harvesting when you just don't need to. But that's like turning off autocast intercepters when you need the money elsewhere... autorepair is acting like a convenience you don't need at the moment in this situation.
You'd be very surprised actually.... repairing scvs can survive fungals indefinitely. That's not the main motivation behind writing this article, it's just the most poignant example of autorepair's inhuman micro potential because it forces time to be absolutely critical and in numbers you cannot possibly manually issue the commands you need to.
Given the fact that Fungal locks a unit in place and that repair is a "melee range" ability I dont see the point of it being IMBA. It wouldnt save a worker line because the units are too spread out.
If the opponent has 10 SCVs hugging each other below a few Banshees its really bad for your opponent already, because technically the Banshees have to deal enough damage for themselves AND for the 10 SCVs. Given the slow repair speed (unless you put 20 workers on repair), the fragility of the SCVs and the changes to targeting priority its unlikely to work well enough anyways. Not worth whining about ...
This discussion isn't specific to fungal, it's just the most extreme example to demonstrate superhuman, automated micro. There are hundreds of other examples we could choose from, like scvs huddled around tanks/helions/thors that are constantly taking damage in separate areas. particlarly if they're on different sides of the map.
If you don't like that specific example with fungal, I can change it to scvs under a battle cruiser. That's certainly effective if the situation demands it... repair heals for a lot on BCS. and you could save them all from fungals with autorepair in that scenario.
On May 10 2011 17:13 stevarius wrote: Nerfing autorepair would be absolutely meaningless given it would only force people to unnecessarily spam right click or r + click. People CAN perform the feats of autorepair unlike auto inject. I don't know how you're saying that autorepair is inhuman and impossible to recreate. To even inject those youtube videos of INSANE micro done by AI bots is just a ludicrous comparison.
I'm actually shocked that someone has this much beef with autorepair especially considering the regen mechanics of both zerg and protoss. o_O
I'll give you a practical example and you tell me it's ludicrous and that a human can do it.
Your scvs are clustered under a group of banshees and are repairing them. most of your scvs are somewhat injured, enough that a fungal will kill most of them. your scvs get hit by a fungal growth and will die if you don't order the repair command for each to another neighboring scv (you have to click the neighboring scv, not one out of immediate repair range as the units cannot move due to fungal and also there's just not enough time). Your scvs will all survive if you successfully issue the repair command to each of them before fungal wears out. Can you honestly tell me you or anyone else would be able to issue those commands in the 2.5 seconds (in real time) that fungal lasts for?
Do you honestly believe the SCVs are going to survive fungals? It's an impractical situation given the amount of DPS fungals do in such a short span of time. Clicking repair or having autorepair for those SCVs would do absolutely nothing except sink your money in the VERY short amount of time they manage to survive.
I even dare you to find a scenario where autorepair is GAME-BREAKING. This is the key as autorepair is, in the opinion of most players, completely fine and unnecessary to be analyzing in the current state of the game...
but they do repair fast enough to survive fungal, and in this situation it is game breaking an extra 10+ scvs that dont have to be remade and can mine is a game changer
fungal harass cant kill scvs on auto repair, at all, combined with repair costs a lot less than rebuilding them and the weaknesses inherent in infestors, thats potentially very game breaking
they did nerf it once to give scvs the attack priority of the unit they were repairing
No. I even did an experiment just to show how wrong you are. I picked 3 infestors(less than the average zerg I've ever seen have, ON AVERAGE. I also used 22 SCVs. 16 on minerals you may have and 6 on gas that could be pulled and auto-repair activated to repair something in dire need such as a planetary, a mechanical unit, etc. To top this off, the SCVs only had each other to repair making your statement look even more ludicrous. Video evidence shows that SCVs with auto-repair die INSANELY fast to fungal growth. With that knowledge lacking from your experience, I call into question anything else you have stated and I do not find the argument you provide compelling in any way as to influence me or people I know to call into question the legitimacy of auto-repair.
Pending fungal vs autorepair with minerals.... *sigh* such a dumb debate. See next post for basic math.
On top of this, the AI for auto repair is highly regarded as slightly retarded. If you search you can find just how bad it can be at times....
Please... I have lost many thors to autorepair AI. Its really annoying to see scvs running around like crazy, then deciding to repair themselves while your units die. However, its also quite useful in some situations. Commanding your scvs to repair a turret being attacked by mutas is a common event in a TvZ. But what happens when the turret reaches full health? Yep you got it, they idle if they dont have autorepair on. Also autorepairing in a bunker rush is a no no, the scvs will not enter the bunkers if they are damaged and the autorepair is on. It has its pros and cons, deal with it.
On May 10 2011 17:48 stevarius wrote: No. I even did an experiment just to show how wrong you are. I picked 3 infestors(less than the average zerg I've ever seen have, ON AVERAGE. I also used 22 SCVs. 16 on minerals you may have and 6 on gas that could be pulled and auto-repair activated to repair something in dire need such as a planetary, a mechanical unit, etc. To top this off, the SCVs only had each other to repair making your statement look even more ludicrous. Video evidence shows that SCVs with auto-repair die INSANELY fast to fungal growth. With that knowledge lacking from your experience, I call into question anything else you have stated and I do not find the argument you provide compelling in any way as to influence me or people I know to call into question the legitimacy of auto-repair.
Weird graphical problem at beginning because of Aero theme option ticked in Xsplit, but you can see clearly at end. 720P :D
Take a look at the top right of your map where your mineral count is.
On May 10 2011 17:48 stevarius wrote: No. I even did an experiment just to show how wrong you are. I picked 3 infestors(less than the average zerg I've ever seen have, ON AVERAGE. I also used 22 SCVs. 16 on minerals you may have and 6 on gas that could be pulled and auto-repair activated to repair something in dire need such as a planetary, a mechanical unit, etc. To top this off, the SCVs only had each other to repair making your statement look even more ludicrous. Video evidence shows that SCVs with auto-repair die INSANELY fast to fungal growth. With that knowledge lacking from your experience, I call into question anything else you have stated and I do not find the argument you provide compelling in any way as to influence me or people I know to call into question the legitimacy of auto-repair.
On May 10 2011 17:48 stevarius wrote: No. I even did an experiment just to show how wrong you are. I picked 3 infestors(less than the average zerg I've ever seen have, ON AVERAGE. I also used 22 SCVs. 16 on minerals you may have and 6 on gas that could be pulled and auto-repair activated to repair something in dire need such as a planetary, a mechanical unit, etc. To top this off, the SCVs only had each other to repair making your statement look even more ludicrous. Video evidence shows that SCVs with auto-repair die INSANELY fast to fungal growth. With that knowledge lacking from your experience, I call into question anything else you have stated and I do not find the argument you provide compelling in any way as to influence me or people I know to call into question the legitimacy of auto-repair.
Take a look at the top right of your map where your mineral count is.
Irrelevant, they die to 2 successive fungals. Do I really have to do this again?
I think he's suggesting they didn't repair because of lack of minerals. I don't know how the editor works so I can't comment on that but if that is the case it would make your video kind of pointless even if you are correct.
On topic, I don't see what the big deal is. The only imba thing about autorepair was on pf's but that isn't too big of a problem nowadays.
Why the comparison the auto cast spawn larva? That is an ability zerg players use dozens of times each game, where as auto repair comes into play how often? No matter how 'imba' something may be its potential to influence the game is limited to its use within the game. In other words a change to spawn larva is game breaking, where as changes to repair or things like bunker salvage are almost meaningless.
Also I have never understood why people complain about auto repair when zerg and protoss units all automatically heal over time - for free.
On May 10 2011 17:13 stevarius wrote: Nerfing autorepair would be absolutely meaningless given it would only force people to unnecessarily spam right click or r + click. People CAN perform the feats of autorepair unlike auto inject. I don't know how you're saying that autorepair is inhuman and impossible to recreate. To even inject those youtube videos of INSANE micro done by AI bots is just a ludicrous comparison.
I'm actually shocked that someone has this much beef with autorepair especially considering the regen mechanics of both zerg and protoss. o_O
I'll give you a practical example and you tell me it's ludicrous and that a human can do it.
Your scvs are clustered under a group of banshees and are repairing them. most of your scvs are somewhat injured, enough that a fungal will kill most of them. your scvs get hit by a fungal growth and will die if you don't order the repair command for each to another neighboring scv (you have to click the neighboring scv, not one out of immediate repair range as the units cannot move due to fungal and also there's just not enough time). Your scvs will all survive if you successfully issue the repair command to each of them before fungal wears out. Can you honestly tell me you or anyone else would be able to issue those commands in the 2.5 seconds (in real time) that fungal lasts for?
Do you honestly believe the SCVs are going to survive fungals? It's an impractical situation given the amount of DPS fungals do in such a short span of time. Clicking repair or having autorepair for those SCVs would do absolutely nothing except sink your money in the VERY short amount of time they manage to survive.
I even dare you to find a scenario where autorepair is GAME-BREAKING. This is the key as autorepair is, in the opinion of most players, completely fine and unnecessary to be analyzing in the current state of the game...
but they do repair fast enough to survive fungal, and in this situation it is game breaking an extra 10+ scvs that dont have to be remade and can mine is a game changer
fungal harass cant kill scvs on auto repair, at all, combined with repair costs a lot less than rebuilding them and the weaknesses inherent in infestors, thats potentially very game breaking
they did nerf it once to give scvs the attack priority of the unit they were repairing
Bad example as usually a few scvs team up to repair one scv, so a lot will die no matter. Ignoring that, this hypothetical example is probably the biggest hair pull I've read. In any case, if auto repair was to be nerfed, I'd expect combat APM to be reduced, because it really is ridiculous how much combat APM a terran requires(using tanks and/or bio).
This might be ok for thor combos(Which suck anyway after patch except for allins), but would just take out one more thing people can do, adding scvs to strengthen their army(since even the best pro wouldn't be able to repair + do all the combat APM stuff terran must do).
Commanding your scvs to repair a turret being attacked by mutas is a common event in a TvZ. But what happens when the turret reaches full health? Yep you got it, they idle if they dont have autorepair on.
This would happen with manual repair too...
On May 10 2011 17:51 Wyk wrote: It has its pros and cons, deal with it.
It certainly does have its pros and cons, as was mentioned earlier in the thread. I agree with that. It doesn't have to be the perfect, be all end all solution to be considered a feature that doesn't belong with this game. Its potential to automate microing for you is just... a no no for starcraft 2 in general.
I'd also like to point out that autoinject would have pros and cons, technically. if your queens are always injecting, then you'd never have a transfuse when you need it. maybe a flimsy example but you get my idea. automation isn't perfect, but there are some automation features we could simply do without in a game that emphasizes the skill of the player.
never used autorepair because the AI is so retarded... why ppl decide it needs to be nerved when so many other things might be far more out of place then AR is beyond me.
OP probably lost to a terran who used it and blames his loss on it...
On May 10 2011 18:00 DiDigital wrote: Why the comparison the auto cast spawn larva? That is an ability zerg players use dozens of times each game, where as auto repair comes into play how often? No matter how 'imba' something may be its potential to influence the game is limited to its use within the game. In other words a change to spawn larva is game breaking, where as changes to repair or things like bunker salvage are almost meaningless.
It was a categorical example, as I explained in the OP. The two belong in the same category of automated micro. You're right of course in your frequency of use argument. Autorepair has the potential to be game breaking in occasional situations, not consistently game breaking like autoinject would be. My big point here was that abilities are in the same category of automation and neither should be in the game.
Also I have never understood why people complain about auto repair when zerg and protoss units all automatically heal over time - for free.
It was like this in BW as well. The answer to you is that of these three healing abilities, repair has the most potential, but has the most attention needed and cost required. So it's a trade off. An ultralisk will take forever to regenerate, but it's completely done free and without attention, while a battlecruiser can be repaired extremely fast at the cost of your attention in bringing+using the scvs and paying for the repair.
Repair of an SCV is ~2.94 hp per second while fungal does 9 dps per second on light units(all ingame time).
With that math, it takes less BARELY over 2 fungals to kill SCVs even with autorepair. My math was about 2 damage short from killing them flat out in 2 fungals assuming they can INSTANTLY repair and are in range of other SCVs to repair.... so many if not most will die in 2. Let me also quote this from liquipedia:
"An SCV that is mining, building, moving, or attacking will not start to repair, even if repair autocast for that unit is toggled."
Autorepair (as a Zerg) isn't all that broken anymore, now that the repairing SCV AI has now been fixed.
It's just a more powerful all in mechanic (sacrifice eco for on the spot damage) and makes Terran all ins essentially harder to stop, and we all know how powerful all ins are already.
On May 10 2011 17:13 stevarius wrote: Nerfing autorepair would be absolutely meaningless given it would only force people to unnecessarily spam right click or r + click. People CAN perform the feats of autorepair unlike auto inject. I don't know how you're saying that autorepair is inhuman and impossible to recreate. To even inject those youtube videos of INSANE micro done by AI bots is just a ludicrous comparison.
I'm actually shocked that someone has this much beef with autorepair especially considering the regen mechanics of both zerg and protoss. o_O
I'll give you a practical example and you tell me it's ludicrous and that a human can do it.
Your scvs are clustered under a group of banshees and are repairing them. most of your scvs are somewhat injured, enough that a fungal will kill most of them. your scvs get hit by a fungal growth and will die if you don't order the repair command for each to another neighboring scv (you have to click the neighboring scv, not one out of immediate repair range as the units cannot move due to fungal and also there's just not enough time). Your scvs will all survive if you successfully issue the repair command to each of them before fungal wears out. Can you honestly tell me you or anyone else would be able to issue those commands in the 2.5 seconds (in real time) that fungal lasts for?
Do you honestly believe the SCVs are going to survive fungals? It's an impractical situation given the amount of DPS fungals do in such a short span of time. Clicking repair or having autorepair for those SCVs would do absolutely nothing except sink your money in the VERY short amount of time they manage to survive.
I even dare you to find a scenario where autorepair is GAME-BREAKING. This is the key as autorepair is, in the opinion of most players, completely fine and unnecessary to be analyzing in the current state of the game...
but they do repair fast enough to survive fungal, and in this situation it is game breaking an extra 10+ scvs that dont have to be remade and can mine is a game changer
fungal harass cant kill scvs on auto repair, at all, combined with repair costs a lot less than rebuilding them and the weaknesses inherent in infestors, thats potentially very game breaking
they did nerf it once to give scvs the attack priority of the unit they were repairing
Bad example as usually a few scvs team up to repair one scv, so a lot will die no matter. Ignoring that, this hypothetical example is probably the biggest hair pull I've read. In any case, if auto repair was to be nerfed, I'd expect combat APM to be reduced, because it really is ridiculous how much combat APM a terran requires(using tanks and/or bio).
This might be ok for thor combos(Which suck anyway after patch except for allins), but would just take out one more thing people can do, adding scvs to strengthen their army(since even the best pro wouldn't be able to repair + do all the combat APM stuff terran must do).
Right. In other words, autorepair really is microing for the player. And if even the best pro can't do all the other things required for him+manually repair in such a battle you described, that really says something. You would have to choose in those precious few combat seconds what to do. Repair or micro something else? Split or stutter... Every race has compelling micro choices just like the compelling choice between macro and micro that makes SC2 so great.
That said, I understand your issue with terran's extreme combat APM requirements. It is pretty nutty. I don't feel like automated micro is the answer though. The benefit of terran is the macro requirements (IMO) are more lenient, letting you micro more. but I really dont want to drag balance into this... Terran's game was not balanced with autorepair in mind. autorepair is technically supposed to be a matter of interface convenience for the players, and I am arguing that it's not.
On May 10 2011 18:14 Bliznako wrote: So basically, what you're saying is either nerf auto-repair or give zergs auto-inject?
Not at all!!! Where autoinject fits into this- I'm saying the vast majority of us disagree with autoinject being added, and autorepair is very similar to autoinject. it's an analogy.
Dumb post is dumb. I was honestly expecting to see something about idra's hotkeys at the end. The AI for autorepair is horrible in terms of how it interacts with other commands of surrounding units. Not to mention unless it is a Thor or PF that's completely surrounde by SCVs, a single SCV's healing power is extremely weak.
I can't really think of too many situations where auto repairing is actually going to be optimal to manually clicking what needs to be repaired and spots where a person couldn't do on their own. I mean it definitely saves more apm then auto building interceptors does but i would put it in the same category.
On May 10 2011 18:14 stevarius wrote: Repair of an SCV is ~2.94 hp per second while fungal does 9 dps per second on light units(all ingame time).
With that math, it takes less BARELY over 2 fungals to kill SCVs even with autorepair. My math was about 2 damage short from killing them flat out in 2 fungals assuming they can INSTANTLY repair and are in range of other SCVs to repair.... so many if not most will die in 2. Let me also quote this from liquipedia:
"An SCV that is mining, building, moving, or attacking will not start to repair, even if repair autocast for that unit is toggled."
Game Breaking right?
no one was talking about scvs that were mining in that situation.
even if your math is correct, that means it takes 3 fungals to kill a cluster of scvs, rather than 2. that's huge. and they could not be saved manually, so...
On May 10 2011 18:14 Bliznako wrote: So basically, what you're saying is either nerf auto-repair or give zergs auto-inject?
Not at all!!! Where autoinject fits into this- I'm saying the vast majority of us disagree with autoinject being added, and autorepair is very similar to autoinject. it's an analogy.
Auto-repair is not very similar to auto-inject, its a horrible analogy. A proper analogy that would be like you tried to before, with heal vs repair.
well i don't like the autorepair function either. it just bad design, i mean the thor abuses show how absurd this becomes.
Also Repair is too cheap imho, if there was a SCV Repair limit it would be fine, but like what? 10 SCVs repairing a thor, if the full DPS of an opposing army can't focusfire 1 Unit/PF something is "broken" imho.
On May 10 2011 18:14 Bliznako wrote: So basically, what you're saying is either nerf auto-repair or give zergs auto-inject?
Not at all!!! Where autoinject fits into this- I'm saying the vast majority of us disagree with autoinject being added, and autorepair is very similar to autoinject. it's an analogy.
Auto-repair is not very similar to auto-inject, its a horrible analogy.
He doesn't seem to think so and no matter what you say and what logic you use, even his own, he will choose to not believe that statement. I can't think of a reasonable way to state the dramatically different roles they play and how much of an error in rational thought it is to compare two completely different things and call them one in the same.
On May 10 2011 18:14 Bliznako wrote: So basically, what you're saying is either nerf auto-repair or give zergs auto-inject?
Not at all!!! Where autoinject fits into this- I'm saying the vast majority of us disagree with autoinject being added, and autorepair is very similar to autoinject. it's an analogy.
Then, by your logic, I guess Zealot charge should be cast manually as well? I sure would like the protoss players to have to press charge for every zealot as the auto-cast is "demonstrating superhuman, automated micro".
Also, if I am making a wish list, I would like inject/feedback to be disabled when clicking on mini-map and you should click every baneling manually to explode into moving targets instead of rolling->auto exploding in the face of manually microed marines.
On May 10 2011 18:14 Bliznako wrote: So basically, what you're saying is either nerf auto-repair or give zergs auto-inject?
Not at all!!! Where autoinject fits into this- I'm saying the vast majority of us disagree with autoinject being added, and autorepair is very similar to autoinject. it's an analogy.
Then, by your logic, I guess Zealot charge should be cast manually as well? I sure would like the protoss players to have to press charge for every zealot as the auto-cast is "demonstrating superhuman, automated micro".
I addressed this in the OP. I made three categories of autocast. Skills like medivac heal, and zealot charge (though I didn't specifically mention it) are autocast by necessity. the ability wouldn't be effective without autocast.
On May 10 2011 18:14 stevarius wrote: Repair of an SCV is ~2.94 hp per second while fungal does 9 dps per second on light units(all ingame time).
With that math, it takes less BARELY over 2 fungals to kill SCVs even with autorepair. My math was about 2 damage short from killing them flat out in 2 fungals assuming they can INSTANTLY repair and are in range of other SCVs to repair.... so many if not most will die in 2. Let me also quote this from liquipedia:
"An SCV that is mining, building, moving, or attacking will not start to repair, even if repair autocast for that unit is toggled."
Game Breaking right?
no one was talking about scvs that were mining in that situation.
even if your math is correct, that means it takes 3 fungals to kill a cluster of scvs, rather than 2. that's huge. and they could not be saved manually, so...
How often do you have your scv's in a cluster that enables perfect autorepair? Also you could do it like this then: Cast two infested terrans, double fungal -> dead scv's.
Almost anything with the "auto" prefix has no place in Starcraft IMO.
I didn't really get over MBS and automining myself - I mean I happily "accepted" it as a player because I'm horrible, but I never accepted it as a fan/spectator because I want to see top players demonstrate why they're top players and to be able to prove that they're actually that much better than everyone else.
Autorepair is really no different to that. It contributes to making the game less mechanical, which is enough to make me dislike it.
Autorepair is kinda necessary if only because they stop repairing whenever the unit reaches full health or you run out of resources. (in which case you need to remicro) If you a move with medivacs they will autoheal, but if you a move with SCVs they'll happily ignore their allies and kamakazie.
I don't understand how autorepair bugs you but autoheal doesnt. The repair costs resources which are costly, the heal costs energy, which is almost always in ample supply. And the heal rate is vastly superior to the repair rate, even on optimal units like Thors.
I mean really, are you also suggesting that protoss should need to micro their units and buildings "on" in order for their shields to recharge? Or that Zerg should need to do the same with their regeneration?
Meaningful micro to display skill is good. Monotonous micro is not.
On May 10 2011 18:14 Bliznako wrote: So basically, what you're saying is either nerf auto-repair or give zergs auto-inject?
Not at all!!! Where autoinject fits into this- I'm saying the vast majority of us disagree with autoinject being added, and autorepair is very similar to autoinject. it's an analogy.
Auto-repair is not very similar to auto-inject, its a horrible analogy.
He doesn't seem to think so and no matter what you say and what logic you use, even his own, he will choose to not believe that statement. I can't think of a reasonable way to state the dramatically different roles they play and how much of an error in rational thought it is to compare two completely different things and call them one in the same.
I don't think we're understanding each other. Autorepair and autoinject are analogous in terms of their automation effect, not their roles in the game or the effect the actutal abilitiy has....
Their automation effect is similar because they both would allow for superhuman, automated feats that the player would not be able to do on his own. That's where the analogy begins and ends.
In this respect, autoscatter would be analogous to both these abilities. 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....
On May 10 2011 18:37 Talin wrote: Almost anything with the "auto" prefix has no place in Starcraft IMO.
I didn't really get over MBS and automining myself - I mean I happily "accepted" it as a player because I'm horrible, but I never accepted it as a fan/spectator because I want to see top players demonstrate why they're top players and to be able to prove that they're actually that much better than everyone else.
Autorepair is really no different to that. It contributes to making the game less mechanical, which is enough to make me dislike it.
I'm on the fence on this one. I don't like anything auto either. I like the interface features because I feel like they add a larger fanbase to the game and more participation at all levels. Auto features don't necessarily do that though....I believe that auto repair goes too far with the auto features of this game.
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.
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?
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.
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.
im trying to do the follow current selection inject fix but it's still not working, it doesnt follow the queens when i tab through my hatcheries, any help? i binded follow current selection to `, and base camera to spacebar. so i press 4(queens), `, v, hold shift and spacebar click for how many hatcheries i have but it's not working like in the video.
I'm going to update the OP and remove the part about SCVs surviving fungals indefintely. It's truly irrelevant to my main point and I'm having mixed results in unit testers. In a vacuum, it looks like the SCVs will eventually die. In real games, I've seen SCVs survive no matter how many fungals were thrown at them. But in real games it's hard to get a perfect back to back fungal. Often you're using more than one infestor and you "summon" the second one to approach for the second fungal and there's a small delay in him getting there. Sometimes you have to approach, withdraw, etc. and it makes it difficult to get perfect back to back fungals. Also, it's interesting because the more scvs you have clustered, the longer they survive fungal waves, even if they're all hit. I can't explain that one too well.
One things for sure though, clustered SCVs can survive more than 2 fungals because of autorepair. Anyway, there are lots of other exmaples we could theorize where autorepair can do it and you can't. That's the point I'm making.
On May 10 2011 18:56 froyolol wrote: im trying to do the follow current selection inject fix but it's still not working, it doesnt follow the queens when i tab through my hatcheries, any help? i binded follow current selection to `, and base camera to spacebar. so i press 4(queens), `, v, hold shift and spacebar click for how many hatcheries i have but it's not working like in the video.
The inject fix works as instructed, but it's rather clumsy and does not feel very natural. A good alternative would be to separate queens to different hotkeys... or even hatcheries.
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.
If you don't feel like this is worth discussing, you certainly didn't have to come here and discuss it...
I believe it's important enough to talk about. It's not the #1 priority of the game by any means, but it has the potential to break some games. Some, even if they're rare. But it doesn't even need to be game breaking to be an issue. It's automated micro and that philosophy doesn't groove with starcraft, IMO. That was the strongest point I tried to bring home and that's why it was the conclusion of my OP.
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.
If you don't feel like this is worth discussing, you certainly didn't have to come here and discuss it...
I believe it's important enough to talk about. It's not the #1 priority of the game by any means, but it has the potential to break some games. Some, even if they're rare. But it doesn't even need to be game breaking to be an issue. It's automated micro and that philosophy doesn't groove with starcraft, IMO. That was the strongest point I tried to bring home and that's why it was the conclusion of my OP.
And I will end my posting in this thread with this philosophical question:
Who are you to decide whether auto repair belongs or not(doesn't fit the 'groove', man) given Blizzard implemented it into the game and has left it virtually untouched in recents patches, if not all since release? I think my point and the point in everyone else disagreeing with you is that, it's fine and that Blizzard intends for it to be in the game. We may not know their justification, but feel free to ask them yourselves on the cesspool forum that is battle.net.
Anyone has ever wondered why scv`s can be repaired AND medivac healed? i don't think it should be this way,but...using the same logic, why isnt the same with hellions? tanks? thors? banshees,etc?
I really think scv's have to be repaired OR healed,not both.
On May 10 2011 18:39 Bliznako wrote: OP's posts remind me only of one thing. Let me quote Adam Savage from Mythbusters: "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
I have a problem with repair being linear, and not exponential like in War3.
It leaves buildings/units with a large surface area to be repaired at an insane rate i.e. PF and Thor making them invincible except to banelings...maybe.
In War3, if humans built a building with 2 workers, it would take around 1.2x resources, with 3 it would take 2x the structure cost, and with 10 it would take an insane amount of resources i.e. around 30x the building cost i.e. making it impractical.
On May 10 2011 19:08 escruting wrote: Anyone has ever wondered why scv`s can be repaired AND medivac healed? i don't think it should be this way,but...using the same logic, why isnt the same with hellions? tanks? thors? banshees,etc?
I really think scv's have to be repaired OR healed,not both.
Worker rushes bro + the ability of probes to have shield regen and drone HP to regen as well. Makes it fair, but it costs money and time. D:
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.
If you don't feel like this is worth discussing, you certainly didn't have to come here and discuss it...
I believe it's important enough to talk about. It's not the #1 priority of the game by any means, but it has the potential to break some games. Some, even if they're rare. But it doesn't even need to be game breaking to be an issue. It's automated micro and that philosophy doesn't groove with starcraft, IMO. That was the strongest point I tried to bring home and that's why it was the conclusion of my OP.
And I will end my posting in this thread with this philosophical question:
Who are you to decide whether auto repair belongs or not(doesn't fit the 'groove', man) given Blizzard implemented it into the game and has left it virtually untouched in recents patches, if not all since release? I think my point and the point in everyone else disagreeing with you is that, it's fine and that Blizzard intends for it to be in the game. We may not know their justification, but feel free to ask them yourselves on the cesspool forum that is battle.net.
I have the right to have my interpretation of what fits into Starcraft... and I think Blizzard is very interested in the player base's interpretation of what should be in Starcraft and what shouldn't. Now whether my interpretation is in line with the majority's interpretation is a completely different story
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.
If you don't feel like this is worth discussing, you certainly didn't have to come here and discuss it...
I believe it's important enough to talk about. It's not the #1 priority of the game by any means, but it has the potential to break some games. Some, even if they're rare. But it doesn't even need to be game breaking to be an issue. It's automated micro and that philosophy doesn't groove with starcraft, IMO. That was the strongest point I tried to bring home and that's why it was the conclusion of my OP.
And I will end my posting in this thread with this philosophical question:
Who are you to decide whether auto repair belongs or not(doesn't fit the 'groove', man) given Blizzard implemented it into the game and has left it virtually untouched in recents patches, if not all since release? I think my point and the point in everyone else disagreeing with you is that, it's fine and that Blizzard intends for it to be in the game. We may not know their justification, but feel free to ask them yourselves on the cesspool forum that is battle.net.
I have the right to have my interpretation of what fits into Starcraft... and I think Blizzard is very interested in the player base's interpretation of what should be in Starcraft and what shouldn't. Now whether my interpretation is in line with the majority's interpretation is a completely different story
very nice analasis thnks for the contribution a lot of us are greatful its shame some thought it would be a good idea to turn this thread into balance wining. any chance you could do an indebt review of the siege tank splash radius i think thats something thats being overlooked in current metegame
On May 10 2011 19:08 escruting wrote: Anyone has ever wondered why scv`s can be repaired AND medivac healed? i don't think it should be this way,but...using the same logic, why isnt the same with hellions? tanks? thors? banshees,etc?
I really think scv's have to be repaired OR healed,not both.
Worker rushes bro + the ability of probes to have shield regen and drone HP to regen as well. Makes it fair, but it costs money and time. D:
ok, but why can they be medivac healed? they have a mechanical thing around them, just like hellions,thors,etc...
It's definitely debatable but I think autorepair does belong in SC2. Repairing would become too much of a hassle for most players, especially in situations where the SCVs repair something to full health while it's still being attacked. (The SCVs would see it's full, stop repairing, then seconds later the depot goes down because you didn't tell them to repair AGAIN.)
However, it absolutely should have been nerfed to make up for the AI assistance you're receiving. A mid-game army should be able to take out a planetary fortress when the opposing army is nowhere nearby. SCVs should not be able to absorb fungal growths endlessly by turbo-repairing themselves and all nearby mech.
On May 10 2011 19:14 Juanald wrote: very nice analasis thnks for the contribution a lot of us are greatful its shame some thought it would be a good idea to turn this thread into balance wining. any chance you could do an indebt review of the siege tank splash radius i think thats something thats being overlooked in current metegame
I'm glad you appreciated it and even flattered that you would like to see more analysis fro mme. I'm really no math wiz so I don't know what I could do about analyzing siege tank splash radius. That would require someone smarter than me tbh... lol. Maybe if the numbers were crunched and explained to me and translated into percentages and comparisons were fed to me as well... I could write up an analysis about it.
Just going from my own analysis, I like siege tank splash where it is atm. It's extremely powerful, almost reaver-like sometimes. I feel like it's necessary though because terran really need it. Siege tanks were upped in cost and supply, and generally in SC2 there are more units around. So the splash is more powerful than in BW. And they've already appropriately given tanks a nerf to light. I think that was the right way to address your concern. err... I'm derailing my own topic. I'll stop here, lol.
On May 10 2011 19:20 Chocobo wrote: However, it absolutely should have been nerfed to make up for the AI assistance you're receiving. A mid-game army should be able to take out a planetary fortress when the opposing army is nowhere nearby. SCVs should not be able to absorb fungal growths endlessly by turbo-repairing themselves and all nearby mech.
1. It was nerfed - priority 2. Mid game armies are likely to entertain siege tanks, colossus, air units etc. 3. Math proves that SCVs can not absorb fungal growths endlessly. If they survive more than 2, lucky. If they survive more than 3, you're terrible with casting units.
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.
If you don't feel like this is worth discussing, you certainly didn't have to come here and discuss it...
I believe it's important enough to talk about. It's not the #1 priority of the game by any means, but it has the potential to break some games. Some, even if they're rare. But it doesn't even need to be game breaking to be an issue. It's automated micro and that philosophy doesn't groove with starcraft, IMO. That was the strongest point I tried to bring home and that's why it was the conclusion of my OP.
And I will end my posting in this thread with this philosophical question:
Who are you to decide whether auto repair belongs or not(doesn't fit the 'groove', man) given Blizzard implemented it into the game and has left it virtually untouched in recents patches, if not all since release? I think my point and the point in everyone else disagreeing with you is that, it's fine and that Blizzard intends for it to be in the game. We may not know their justification, but feel free to ask them yourselves on the cesspool forum that is battle.net.
I have the right to have my interpretation of what fits into Starcraft... and I think Blizzard is very interested in the player base's interpretation of what should be in Starcraft and what shouldn't. Now whether my interpretation is in line with the majority's interpretation is a completely different story
The fact that you even put auto-repair and something as ridiculous as auto-inject in the same category already brings into question what you think SC2 should be. In no game, whatsoever, would there be even the closest comparison to the effectiveness of either of these features. While there WAS room for debate about the actual inclusion of auto-repair in the game, that discussion ended long ago. By bringing this discussion up, while initially complaining about the effectiveness fungal growth, which many players consider borderline OP as it is, against workers, you label yourself as either grossly ignorant or a blatant troll.
Auto repair is a rather useless mechanic its more economically efficenet to manually repair structures and it is to use the auto repair as it repairs things that do not need to be fully repaired and thus cause a bleed of resources that otherwise could be spent on units, workers expanding etc.
On May 10 2011 19:20 Chocobo wrote: However, it absolutely should have been nerfed to make up for the AI assistance you're receiving. A mid-game army should be able to take out a planetary fortress when the opposing army is nowhere nearby. SCVs should not be able to absorb fungal growths endlessly by turbo-repairing themselves and all nearby mech.
1. It was nerfed - priority
Priority wasn't really a "nerf", more like an AI fix. though I wonder if priority would have been implemented whether autorepair existed or not. Surrounding a Thor with SCVs and repairing is not all that difficult to do manually, and Thor+scv surrounds were really the impetus for this balance change.
On May 10 2011 19:08 escruting wrote: Anyone has ever wondered why scv`s can be repaired AND medivac healed? i don't think it should be this way,but...using the same logic, why isnt the same with hellions? tanks? thors? banshees,etc?
I really think scv's have to be repaired OR healed,not both.
Worker rushes bro + the ability of probes to have shield regen and drone HP to regen as well. Makes it fair, but it costs money and time. D:
ok, but why can they be medivac healed? they have a mechanical thing around them, just like hellions,thors,etc...
Marines also have armor, they obviously aren't naked and they can still be healed.
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.
If you don't feel like this is worth discussing, you certainly didn't have to come here and discuss it...
I believe it's important enough to talk about. It's not the #1 priority of the game by any means, but it has the potential to break some games. Some, even if they're rare. But it doesn't even need to be game breaking to be an issue. It's automated micro and that philosophy doesn't groove with starcraft, IMO. That was the strongest point I tried to bring home and that's why it was the conclusion of my OP.
And I will end my posting in this thread with this philosophical question:
Who are you to decide whether auto repair belongs or not(doesn't fit the 'groove', man) given Blizzard implemented it into the game and has left it virtually untouched in recents patches, if not all since release? I think my point and the point in everyone else disagreeing with you is that, it's fine and that Blizzard intends for it to be in the game. We may not know their justification, but feel free to ask them yourselves on the cesspool forum that is battle.net.
I have the right to have my interpretation of what fits into Starcraft... and I think Blizzard is very interested in the player base's interpretation of what should be in Starcraft and what shouldn't. Now whether my interpretation is in line with the majority's interpretation is a completely different story
The fact that you even put auto-repair and something as ridiculous as auto-inject in the same category already brings into question what you think SC2 should be. In no game, whatsoever, would there be even the closest comparison to the effectiveness of either of these features. .
They're analogous in the sense that they can do something you cannot, otherwise known as the automation category... I don't see why you disagree with me there. Can you ever inject as fast as autoinject could on a large scale? can you ever repair as fast as autorepair could on a large scale? the answer to both of these is a resounding no. That's where they are analogous. It doesn't matter the effectiveness of the abilities themselves. I've analogized both these abilties to autoscatter for instance. The analogy fits. There's nothing wrong with it. It's sound. And it's a useful analogy because it demonstrates that neither feature is appropriate for the game.
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.
Yep - and before AtlasGrip gets his post count up again: we know you didnt mean only that scenario specifically.
Dear AtlasGrip,
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.
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!
There has always been historically abilities that auto cast to make certain levels of micro easier, like you mentioned healing from medics/medivacs, dispelling from warcraft 3, etc. auto inject is a macro mechanic, something that greatly changes the way you're able to keep up your larvae production, comparing the two is kind of silly because it'd be equivalent to auto muling (if we didn't need to save energy for scans). and there ARE mechanics that allow inject to be done in a more automated way using backspace or hotkeying and being able to inject from the minimap.
I don't know how else to put it to you since others have already tried, but comparing the two just simply don't match up.
I don't think that auto repair needs to be changed any more, and here's why;
Medivacs are an example that was specifically brought up in the OP. He states that it's a requirement for medivacs to auto-cast their heals. Similarly, SCV's are basically medivacs for mechanical units, when used in the capacity to repair, so pretty much everything about medivacs applies to SCV's.
Also, he brought up the point of building interceptors being auto-cast, and justified it by saying that it can be easily replicated by any player. Well, any player who's rebuilding interceptors as they get killed by marines, can repair a unit repeatedly as it reaches full health/begins to be damaged again.
Oh, and play broodwar sometime. I bet you'd think that it requires ungodly micro to build out of 6 factories/4 CC's at the same time, while telling your SCV's to move to mineral lines manually, while setting rally points constantly.
Of all the things to bitch about, Auto Repair has to be somewhere at the bottom. It has such a small influence in such a super small subset of games.
It's the meme for Starcraft 2. If it exists in the game, people will complain it is imbalanced.
Your whole argument boils down to it that it made micro easier for Terran, but not for protoss and zerg. Then you have weird analogies that don't really make any sense and you have one example of an "ingame" scenario that is obscure as hell and you're not even sure if that works.
I agree but I don't think it's the highest priority.
There are many other things in SC2/bnet2.0 that desperately need to be changed, and while I agree that autorepair shouldn't be the way it is and should be removed, it's pretty far down on the priority list imho
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.
2) Zerg and Protoss have auto-hp regen and auto-shield regen respectively.
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..
4) Comparing auto repair to auto inject is absolutely 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.
I play Terran and the only time I use auto-repair is for when I'm pulling scvs to repair a wall/bunkers. And in this case I'll still allocate groups of SCV's to repair separate stuff.
Please stop QQing, and I hope you've changed your mind about auto-repair.
Commanding your scvs to repair a turret being attacked by mutas is a common event in a TvZ. But what happens when the turret reaches full health? Yep you got it, they idle if they dont have autorepair on.
On May 10 2011 17:51 Wyk wrote: It has its pros and cons, deal with it.
It certainly does have its pros and cons, as was mentioned earlier in the thread. I agree with that. It doesn't have to be the perfect, be all end all solution to be considered a feature that doesn't belong with this game. Its potential to automate microing for you is just... a no no for starcraft 2 in general.
I'd also like to point out that autoinject would have pros and cons, technically. if your queens are always injecting, then you'd never have a transfuse when you need it. maybe a flimsy example but you get my idea. automation isn't perfect, but there are some automation features we could simply do without in a game that emphasizes the skill of the player.
If you suggest autorepair should be removed, then I suggest the same thing should happen to regen as zerg, and protoss shield regen. Then it would be ok.
"Cause I feel the potential to automate microing for you is just.... a no no for starcraft 2 in general." xD and comparing it to that marine splitting bot. hillarious
Shouldnt you feel the same way about workers automatically harvesting and delivering minerals? It doesnt really emphasizes the skill of the player I feel.. You should have to manually click on a mineral patch for it to mine, then order a return command with the cargo, and repeat the prosess for every 5 minerals you mine. That would require some skill.
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 18:43 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 19:29 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 20:24 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 20:24 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 20:25 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.
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.
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 20:24 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 20:24 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.
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.
no, we have an advanced game, so there should be advanced techniques like autorepair available. 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.
On May 10 2011 20:39 cristo1122 wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
I would be fine with a removal of auto-repairing IF scvs continued their repair-command when the building/unit reached maximum hitpoints - that's the main (only ?) situation i find auto-repair actually useful.
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.
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.
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.
Drones heal automatically, probes regenerate shields automatically, so why should SCVs be able to repair automatically?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
On May 10 2011 20:39 cristo1122 wrote: 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.
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.
How many times did Blizzard stupidize SC2 when people cried for it? Did the smart targeting of siege tanks get removed? Did the pathing get made dumber?
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?
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".
By your definition we should also remove multiple unit selection and if we wanted to attack, we should select each unit individually because auto-attacking is just a tool for something that is mechanically hard.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Protoss and Zerg both have a free auto-cast healing mechanic for their units and structures. Protoss units and structures need to stay out of battle long enough for their shield to recharge, while all Zerg units and structures heal over time (a Spire/Nexus/Zealot/Muta could heal from 1 HP back to full health for free); these abilities come at no cost to the player.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
good points, sorry so many people are ignorant of your position and say things like shield regen etc etc even though they are different.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
As terran I don't care about autorepair or not, they could remove it for what I care. 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.
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.
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.
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).
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 22:08 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)
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
Yes it does, because they all fall under the same catagory. Things that reduce the APM requirement to be up-to-par with others in the game.
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..
I actually don't think any of those are even close to being comparable. For starters all races have access to them. I don't see why automining shouldn't be in the game, you can set rally points for your workers. The fact that they didnt 'understand' that they should mine in BW was because it's an old game. Unlimited unit selection is in the same boat aswell. It's not specific for a race and it's nothing automatic about it. It was 12 in BW because of limitations.
I don't think MBS is in the same category as auto-repair but it does automize a little bit so it's a fair poitn I guess.
Honestly, I can deal with auto-repair, but why does Terran have supply calldown. It can't affect balance (except maybe early timing rushes that depend on it) and it's literally just a noob friendly tool that prevents you from falling behind from playing badly. You see even top GSL Terrans end up using it during the course of the game, but I think they should just get rid of it because it's a terrible mechanic and it's a huge advantage when you make a mistake to not be supply blocked.
I fully agree with this and have been talking about it for some time now.
This is just one of those "noob-friendly" features Blizzard has introduced to the game to lower the skill ceiling that much more. SCV repair is such a strong attribute to the Terran race, I feel like there should be some penalty or cost (micro) associated with it for it to be utilized fully.
The idea that you can simply tag a group of 10 SCVs to a Thor and set them to auto-repair is ridiculous. There should definitely be attention required when pulling off an attack of that sort.
I like the interface improvements in SC2 quite a bit. I remember multi building selection being pretty controversial when the game was in alpha stages and some discussion of it during beta. But overall it looked like the player base came to accept it, especially with the introduced macro mechanics. Lots of other features were pretty game changing and welcomed by the community. Attack-move, on the other hand, has never sat well with me. I hadn't really verbalized it, but there was something about it that just didn't feel like it belonged with the other interface improvements. MBS, unlimited unit selection, workers harvesting on rally, all things implemented in the new game. Attack-move was in BW, as well, but it's more than that... something about the incredibly smart unit pathing of SC2 combined with attack-move/autoattack that meks it feel like it's more than just a convenient feature... But it's more than that... there's something about autoattack that makes it feel like it's more than just a convenient feature.... and this was only made more obvious by the prevalance of unit "balling" and "deathballs" that can only function by relying on auto-attack.
After much thought, I have come to verbalize why Autoattack is not just an interface improvement. It's automated microing. Autoattack can achieve feats that players cannot humanly achieve on their own. Autoattack can instantaneously have each marine attack each zergling in a cluster. It is humanly impossible to click 10 or 15 individual marines and right click each neighboring zergling in a fraction of a second to kill them all. (a cluster of marines can even attack -move and survive against banelings with autoattack.) Autoattack allows extremely fast reactional attacking in many situations. It only improves when there's more units and more units to be attacked
So in this sense autoattack is automicroing for you at a superhuman level. Autoattack is capable of doing things for you that you couldn't do yourself. That's the major issue I have with it. It would be like an option for workers units to autotarget repair on nearby damaged units when they are being damaged (ie scvs repairing thors during combat). The trouble in that situation is that it's humanly impossible to take individual scvs and right click on nearby individual thors in a timely manner. This is analogous to how you could not possibly micro individuals to attack units in time. Autoattack is performing automated micro at a superhuman level.
In this view, autoattack is no different from an automated micro technique like an imaginary "autorepairing workers" command outlined in the above paragraph. Autoattack is also no different from other imaginary automations I can think of like "auto-worker-splitting", "auto-production", etc. All these things have something in common: they achieve mechanical feats that players cannot humanly do on their own. We've seen the automaton 2000 videos: Automated microing looks godly; no human can do what the automaton script did here. Similarly, autoattack can attack at the machine-like level that we see in automaton 2000.
So with that out of the way, would autocast inject be more similar to autobuild intercepter or autoattack? Ask yourself this: If you had 30 carriers, could you manually build intercepters and keep up with another player with 30 carriers who had autobuild intercepter on? Absolutely; simply have all carriers selected and keep hitting the build intercepter key. If you had 30 hatcheries and 30 queens, could you manually keep up with autocast larva inject? Absolutely not. The time it would take a player to click through all those hatcheries, even with tricks like "next base" queen injection () is delayed significantly enough that autocast inject would come out on top. So autocast inject is in the same category as autoattack. If this were BW, and unit pathing were still terrible, auto-attack wouldn't be a problem, since everyone would be working hard to overcome it, and the computer wouldn't be ABLE to automate it for you. But the combination of unit pathing and auto-attack is deadly: it performs automated feats that the player cannot perform on his own. Neither autoattack nor autoinject really groove with this game.
On May 10 2011 17:48 stevarius wrote: No. I even did an experiment just to show how wrong you are. I picked 3 infestors(less than the average zerg I've ever seen have, ON AVERAGE. I also used 22 SCVs. 16 on minerals you may have and 6 on gas that could be pulled and auto-repair activated to repair something in dire need such as a planetary, a mechanical unit, etc. To top this off, the SCVs only had each other to repair making your statement look even more ludicrous. Video evidence shows that SCVs with auto-repair die INSANELY fast to fungal growth. With that knowledge lacking from your experience, I call into question anything else you have stated and I do not find the argument you provide compelling in any way as to influence me or people I know to call into question the legitimacy of auto-repair.
I dont know why auto-repair has a place in the game.
But it's not unbalanced, or really significant. Seems like a way to reward lazy people and low apm. Just right click auto repair in your mineral line and when mutas come to attack that missile turret you don't even have to re-focus your screen.
What would be nice if they limited the number of scv's that can repair a unit to its supply. I don't really expect this to happen though.
As opposed to taking it out i'd just prefer auto-repair and harvest be mutually exclusive. Meaning a harvesting worker can't be on auto-repair duty. It is really nice that you can have a few scv's on idle with auto repair and send banshees back to them and not have to manually click through.
I dont know if I agree with Op but his point is good
IMO RTS games are essentially a game of a person vs a UI ... the person who can best manage the UI wins the game.
so at soem pouint the difficulty of controllign units vs amount of autiomation will lead to the sweet spot int he game ... enough automation so that the game appears to behave intelligently whilst keeping a cap of about 250 - maybe 300 apm to be bale to exhaustivley micro and macro - as this seems to be the speed top pros are playing at without too much spam.
The other kind of automation is automation that doesn't necessarily help - like dodgy path finding ... or an automatedresponse that overpowers a player issued command.
The question then becomes what would you rather automated vs what shuold be manual. If repair was not automatic then a lot of apm would be consumed by it, meanign something else would rpobably require better automation.
Really the problem with auto repair is that it can introduce a lot more units into a battle which causes the automation of targetting to perform a lot worse than a human would choose - the problem being that the human cannot possibly manage individually targetting the scv's in the available time.
It is a really compl;ex problem to solve computationally wheras people can solve it very ra[idly.
So I think the problem with autorepair is not that it is imba in its own right but that it forces there to be a way too much emphasis on micro for the opponent due to the failings of the target acquisition logic (which is far stronger in this game than most tbh). Stuff just doesnt die when there are a lot of autorepairing scv's. Maybe autorepairign scv's shold automatically get some splash dmg or soemthing.
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..
I actually don't think any of those are even close to being comparable. For starters all races have access to them. I don't see why automining shouldn't be in the game, you can set rally points for your workers. The fact that they didnt 'understand' that they should mine in BW was because it's an old game. Unlimited unit selection is in the same boat aswell. It's not specific for a race and it's nothing automatic about it. It was 12 in BW because of limitations.
I don't think MBS is in the same category as auto-repair but it does automize a little bit so it's a fair poitn I guess.
Im not saying that theres not other points to each of the features. Theres a whole Venn Diagram of points, I was just saying that some of the points that the OP made about auto repair fall in the middle of the Venn Diagram. That made me question why he thinks it doesnt belong in the game when there are so many other features that he accepts that inhibit the same thing.
Zerg heals automatically, Protoss shields regenerate automatically - for units and buildings, in both cases. The argument that something shouldn't happen automatically, if the player is not physically able to control it on his own, is too vague, because many things in the game happen automatically, even in BW.
So yeah, one can't match manually the speed of autorepair, so what if it was designed right in to be automatic by default, and there was no button for it? Then this argument would not be possible, even though it's practically the same situation.
On May 11 2011 00:40 aFganFlyTrap wrote: the OP obviously put a lot of effort into his post but that doesnt stop it from being beyond retarded,
out of all the things you could discuss about balance you chose auto repair. you sir have far to much time on your hands.
it honestly doesnt even dignify a response its that bloody silly.
this is exactly whats wrong so many of the threads on TL. they think that shit like this needs to be discussed ad nauseam.
another example would be the thread about china and LA server not deserving a spot in the sc2 ranks top 200 because they are skewing the rankings?????
shakes head
either you didnt read the thread or you cant comprehend what was written. It was stated multiple times that it was not intended as a balance thread.
and your post is exactly whats wrong with so many of the posts on TL. Don't insult people and PLEASE read the thread first.
On May 11 2011 00:57 figq wrote: Zerg heals automatically, Protoss shields regenerate automatically - for units and buildings, in both cases. The argument that something shouldn't happen automatically, if the player is not physically able to control it on his own, is too vague, because many things in the game happen automatically, even in BW.
So yeah, one can't match manually the speed of autorepair, so what if it was designed right in to be automatic by default, and there was no button for it? Then this argument would not be possible, even though it's practically the same situation.
I think if it was activated by default and not deactivateable there would be more support for removing it ^^
Why people still talk about MBS , auto-mining? Yes those stuff would increase SC2 skill ceiling but it won't make gameplay better in anyway and so 1999. There're lot way to increase Skill ceiling w/o completely destroying the UI to stone age, like improve micro. And for auto-repair , I don't think it comparable to larvie injection, Zerg's gameplay heavily depend on larvie management and auto-repair? not quite close.
OP said auto-repair could be a game-breaking issue but all I read are unreasonable compararisons, sry but I don't buy it.
On May 10 2011 17:48 stevarius wrote: No. I even did an experiment just to show how wrong you are. I picked 3 infestors(less than the average zerg I've ever seen have, ON AVERAGE. I also used 22 SCVs. 16 on minerals you may have and 6 on gas that could be pulled and auto-repair activated to repair something in dire need such as a planetary, a mechanical unit, etc. To top this off, the SCVs only had each other to repair making your statement look even more ludicrous. Video evidence shows that SCVs with auto-repair die INSANELY fast to fungal growth. With that knowledge lacking from your experience, I call into question anything else you have stated and I do not find the argument you provide compelling in any way as to influence me or people I know to call into question the legitimacy of auto-repair.
I understand why lots of you disagree with the OP but I'm kind of surprised at the hate hate hate. As a random player, I actually feel like autorepair feels a little "weird". For me, it's not a balance problem at all. I don't think it changes the outcomes of very many games.
Every RTS game chooses a different line drawn in the sand where stuff on one side of it is automated to make your life better and the game less tedious, and on the other side everything is manual to make you need mechanics. For example, in Total Annihilation, you could save templates of arbitrarily large building clusters, so you could click a few buttons and queue up a giant, previously designed cluster of turrets and walls and shield generators. Clearly Total Annihilation's line in the sand is way, way further towards automation than SC2's.
Without any belief that it causes problems in gameplay or balance, I would say that the ability to grab 3-4 SCV's and put them on a patrol path around your base or forward contain zone with autorepair (to repair tanks and turrets and vikings) seems like something too automated for that line in the sand that I imagine was chosen for SC2. But I don't think it matters either.
To be honest, auto-repair reminds me too much of the way I played RTS games when I was very young. I used to play very defensively and I would get a lot of defensive structures with workers patrolling to auto-repair. My brother still plays WC3 4v4 games with this strategy where he keeps workers on hand in an effort to do as little as possible. And even in the campaign for SC2 I found I would have myself doing things like this in missions where playing defensively pays off.
So really, I think it doesn't fit too well with Starcraft 2, since it does have a decent amount of effect for little effort. An example is sending SCVs with your late-game army: if you have the money they can increase the effectiveness of a variety of units by a lot, and worse, it all looks fairly complex as if the player is doing something particularly difficult.
I do think losing the functionality of repairing turrets is a bit obnoxious. It doesn't have to be, though. I think Blizzard could easily program it to work as follows: - Giving a repair command stops not until you manually tell the SCV to stop repairing. - Repairing a full-health unit doesn't cost any resources. This way you can still repair bunkers, turrets and so on without the feeling your workers are rebelling against you and are refusing to follow orders.
I guess Zealots shouldn't have auto-charge either. What is so bad about Auto-Repair? I don't even understand how you can think it has no place in this game.
The only time it's even useful is when you're using bunkers to defend or be aggressive and it costs minerals to repair as well.
Seems like people will complain about everything these days.
This OP is essentially a Battle.net quality QQ post masquerading as intelligent discussion.
There is a school of thought that anything that allows for a player to be more efficient than if it were all done manually is somehow "dumbing the game down." Quite a few people in this community bring things up like this from time to time, and it is 100% of the time related to a BW mechanic/aspect that they enjoy.
This game is NOT "player vs UI" as I saw someone ridiculously suggest. Lol, really? This game is about player versus player; 1v1. Head to head competition. Being able to use the equipment is a given. Having specific proficiency and expertise in certain aspects of the equipment is an advantage. Everyone is allowed to use the same equipment.
You'd be hard-pressed to find an example in real life of a sports community specifically altering the gear to make the game harder. This is extremely, extremely rare. Almost all changes to gear is specifically to improve the efficiency and capabilities of the player.
I can think of two off the top of my head that are somewhat similar - The ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) were considering reducing the pressure of the regulation tennis balls to compensate for improvements in racquet design. The ball speed achieved by some of the players were beginning to exceed the parameters of the tennis court.
- The PGA (Professional Golfers' Association of America) redefined the parameters that governed the groves in a club. The lessened the depth and removed a certain shape from being regulation gear. They did this because the skill of the players and the improvements in the gear were allowing players to stop the ball on the green from hundreds of yards, or simply achieve more spin than was originally intended for the game.
What is the main difference here between the OPs QQ argument and the two examples I listed? The ATP change literally affects every single aspect of the game; every swing, every ball bounce, and every single player in the world. The PGA change also affects every single game of every player in the PGA.
Auto-repair is an extremely tiny niche ability given to the Terran SCV. The OP tries to relate it to various degrees of AI driven Automation, but that is an outrageously flawed line of thinking. We're playing a war simulator. There is a tremendous amount of AI automation in this game.
I hope Blizzard continues to improve the game with changes to the UI that are logical, progressive, and allow for the game to be a fine balance between physical and mental dexterity.
Autorepair is a very imba hability: in early tech pushes, it can allow you to focus a bit less on micro and more on macro. Thats more than enought to call it imba.
On May 11 2011 01:18 KonohaFlash wrote: I guess Zealots shouldn't have auto-charge either. What is so bad about Auto-Repair? I don't even understand how you can think it has no place in this game.
The only time it's even useful is when you're using bunkers to defend or be aggressive and it costs minerals to repair as well.
Seems like people will complain about everything these days.
Actually autocharge make people micro "against" using it so it is used when the battle starts, and not on, lets say, a supply depot.
On May 11 2011 01:18 TimeSpiral wrote: This OP is essentially a Battle.net quality QQ post masquerading as intelligent discussion.
There is a school of thought that anything that allows for a player to be more efficient than if it were all done manually is somehow "dumbing the game down." Quite a few people in this community bring things up like this from time to time, and it is 100% of the time related to a BW mechanic/aspect that they enjoy.
This game is NOT "player vs UI" as I saw someone ridiculously suggest. Lol, really? This game is about player versus player; 1v1. Head to head competition. Being able to use the equipment is a given. Having specific proficiency and expertise in certain aspects of the equipment is an advantage. Everyone is allowed to use the same equipment.
You'd be hard-pressed to find an example in real life of a sports community specifically altering the gear to make the game harder. This is extremely, extremely rare. Almost all changes to gear is specifically to improve the efficiency and capabilities of the player.
I can think of two off the top of my head that are somewhat similar - The ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) were considering reducing the pressure of the regulation tennis balls to compensate for improvements in racquet design. The ball speed achieved by some of the players were beginning to exceed the parameters of the tennis court.
- The PGA (Professional Golfers' Association of America) redefined the parameters that governed the groves in a club. The lessened the depth and removed a certain shape from being regulation gear. They did this because the skill of the players and the improvements in the gear were allowing players to stop the ball on the green from hundreds of yards, or simply achieve more spin than was originally intended for the game.
What is the main difference here between the OPs QQ argument and the two examples I listed? The ATP change literally affects every single aspect of the game; every swing, every ball bounce, and every single player in the world. The PGA change also affects every single game of every player in the PGA.
Auto-repair is an extremely tiny niche ability given to the Terran SCV. The OP tries to relate it to various degrees of AI driven Automation, but that is an outrageously flawed line of thinking. We're playing a war simulator. There is a tremendous amount of AI automation in this game.
I hope Blizzard continues to improve the game with changes to the UI that are logical, progressive, and allow for the game to be a fine balance between physical and mental dexterity.
Shameless bump because it got almost the last position on the previous page and will never be read by anyone.
i read the entire OP grigorin and the entire post is one big balance discussion. i suggest you re-read the OP and try doing some left side brain activities.
time spiral brings up some actual intelligent points and as you can see almost everyone is of the same opinion.
It's like he wasn't even trying, previously AtlasMech and now AtlasGrip? sigh.
ROFL thats one fuckin good catch
actually read through some of his other posts i cant stop laughing at how bad they are everything is about some stupid balance suggestion "pools should give supply"
It's like he wasn't even trying, previously AtlasMech and now AtlasGrip? sigh.
ROFL thats one fuckin good catch
actually read through some of his other posts i cant stop laughing at how bad they are everything is about some stupid balance suggestion "pools should give supply"
You really wrote a wall of text explaining why a feature that is barely ever toggled and when toggled barely ever works like intended, is problematic because it performs more actions on itself than a player could issue? You're fine with Medivac autocast healing since it's "balanced" around that and then claim SCV's are not balanced around auto-repair?
Do you have any proof for this? And more importantly, do you have a replay where a Terran is clearly exploiting autocast repair and winning becuase of it? I Why complain about something so insignificant that doesn't even make a difference? Anyone who has used SCV's on autocast realizes that you're bound to babysit them anyways because SCV's like to repair eachother whilst ignoring the thor or bunker that's dying next to it.
On May 11 2011 01:42 Saechiis wrote: Sorry, but ... really?
You really wrote a wall of text explaining why a feature that is barely ever toggled and when toggled barely ever works like intended, is problematic because it performs more actions on itself than a player could issue? You're fine with Medivac autocast healing since it's "balanced" around that and then claim SCV's are not balanced around auto-repair?
Do you have any proof for this? And more importantly, do you have a replay where a Terran is clearly exploiting autocast repair and winning becuase of it? I Why complain about something so insignificant that doesn't even make a difference? Anyone who has used SCV's on autocast realizes that you're bound to babysit them anyways because SCV's like to repair eachother whilst ignoring the thor or bunker that's dying next to it.
Dude, look at the link i posted above. He's posts this kind of stuff on every forum he goes to. I found this gem on another forum he was on:
Incase you didn't know, I was banned from the blizzard forums for making absurd complaints about zerg. Now I am banned from these forums for doing the same. But if you know something is wrong with an obtusely designed race (Zerg) it becomes hard to put your finger on what exactly that problem is.
I will be moving on now to the TeamLiquid Forums, but I am currently under a 3 day trial period before I can post a thread, this is what I will be posting there.
On May 11 2011 01:42 Saechiis wrote: Sorry, but ... really?
You really wrote a wall of text explaining why a feature that is barely ever toggled and when toggled barely ever works like intended, is problematic because it performs more actions on itself than a player could issue? You're fine with Medivac autocast healing since it's "balanced" around that and then claim SCV's are not balanced around auto-repair?
Do you have any proof for this? And more importantly, do you have a replay where a Terran is clearly exploiting autocast repair and winning becuase of it? I Why complain about something so insignificant that doesn't even make a difference? Anyone who has used SCV's on autocast realizes that you're bound to babysit them anyways because SCV's like to repair eachother whilst ignoring the thor or bunker that's dying next to it.
Dude, look at the link i posted above. He's posts this kind of stuff on every forum he goes to. I found this gem on another forum he was on:
Incase you didn't know, I was banned from the blizzard forums for making absurd complaints about zerg. Now I am banned from these forums for doing the same. But if you know something is wrong with an obtusely designed race (Zerg) it becomes hard to put your finger on what exactly that problem is.
I will be moving on now to the TeamLiquid Forums, but I am currently under a 3 day trial period before I can post a thread, this is what I will be posting there.
He's already been banned once
The mods don't take kindly to side-stepping their bans.
On May 11 2011 01:42 Saechiis wrote: Sorry, but ... really?
You really wrote a wall of text explaining why a feature that is barely ever toggled and when toggled barely ever works like intended, is problematic because it performs more actions on itself than a player could issue? You're fine with Medivac autocast healing since it's "balanced" around that and then claim SCV's are not balanced around auto-repair?
Do you have any proof for this? And more importantly, do you have a replay where a Terran is clearly exploiting autocast repair and winning becuase of it? I Why complain about something so insignificant that doesn't even make a difference? Anyone who has used SCV's on autocast realizes that you're bound to babysit them anyways because SCV's like to repair eachother whilst ignoring the thor or bunker that's dying next to it.
Dude, look at the link i posted above. He's posts this kind of stuff on every forum he goes to. I found this gem on another forum he was on:
Incase you didn't know, I was banned from the blizzard forums for making absurd complaints about zerg. Now I am banned from these forums for doing the same. But if you know something is wrong with an obtusely designed race (Zerg) it becomes hard to put your finger on what exactly that problem is.
I will be moving on now to the TeamLiquid Forums, but I am currently under a 3 day trial period before I can post a thread, this is what I will be posting there.
Haha! Wow why do people think its ok to come to TL to do nothing else except whine about balance? Sigh.. worst place you could have chosen kid.
I for one think that Autorepair does take its place in Starcraft Two for the following reasons 1. Inside the bunker --- SCV's have the ability to repair themselves inside bunkers, if autorepair wasnt in starcraft 2, then this would not have happened and note blizzard thinks that this is fair, and will not patch it(based on the amount of time this has been known and the fact that they reduced the mineral cost of doing so. 2. Inside the Medvac --- Have you seen a 3 hellion 2 scv drop? Like the bunker, repairing units inside the medvac will not be possible without autorepair and again Blizzard thinks that it is balanced 3. The fact that SCV's take the attack priority in which the SCV is attacking --- Let's take the Planetary fortress example, lets say you are A-attacking a planetary fortress and its surrounded by a bunch of SCV's. Before, you would need to manually attack the SCV's to make it possible to take down that PF, but now blizzard has changed it so your units attack the SCV's. So the autorepair AI has been compensated by the new and improved "A-move AI" Same example for thors. If a player does a thor rush with SCV's, guess what your units kill first? The SCV's 4. The slightly dumb SCV AI -- SCV's tend to repair eachother rather than lets say.. a seige tank or a tech lab that's on fire nearby. Thats just how stupid the AI's are
On May 11 2011 01:42 Saechiis wrote: Sorry, but ... really?
You really wrote a wall of text explaining why a feature that is barely ever toggled and when toggled barely ever works like intended, is problematic because it performs more actions on itself than a player could issue? You're fine with Medivac autocast healing since it's "balanced" around that and then claim SCV's are not balanced around auto-repair?
Do you have any proof for this? And more importantly, do you have a replay where a Terran is clearly exploiting autocast repair and winning becuase of it? I Why complain about something so insignificant that doesn't even make a difference? Anyone who has used SCV's on autocast realizes that you're bound to babysit them anyways because SCV's like to repair eachother whilst ignoring the thor or bunker that's dying next to it.
Dude, look at the link i posted above. He's posts this kind of stuff on every forum he goes to. I found this gem on another forum he was on:
Incase you didn't know, I was banned from the blizzard forums for making absurd complaints about zerg. Now I am banned from these forums for doing the same. But if you know something is wrong with an obtusely designed race (Zerg) it becomes hard to put your finger on what exactly that problem is.
I will be moving on now to the TeamLiquid Forums, but I am currently under a 3 day trial period before I can post a thread, this is what I will be posting there.
You realise you quoted something from 2010 from a guy who is named similarly to the OP (which was already pointed out in the thread and the OP claimed not to be the same guy)?
Maybe I am too trustworthy for the internet and he lies straight to our faces, but only mods can prove that.
On May 11 2011 03:23 Techno wrote: Alright take out Auto Charge on Zealots then.
only 10 pages and people still dont read the thread before posting so much repetition :
On May 10 2011 18:14 Bliznako wrote: So basically, what you're saying is either nerf auto-repair or give zergs auto-inject?
Not at all!!! Where autoinject fits into this- I'm saying the vast majority of us disagree with autoinject being added, and autorepair is very similar to autoinject. it's an analogy.
Then, by your logic, I guess Zealot charge should be cast manually as well? I sure would like the protoss players to have to press charge for every zealot as the auto-cast is "demonstrating superhuman, automated micro".
I addressed this in the OP. I made three categories of autocast. Skills like medivac heal, and zealot charge (though I didn't specifically mention it) are autocast by necessity. the ability wouldn't be effective without autocast.
On May 10 2011 21:40 Zaffy wrote: autocast zealot charge should be removed also.
On May 11 2011 01:18 KonohaFlash wrote: I guess Zealots shouldn't have auto-charge either. What is so bad about Auto-Repair? I don't even understand how you can think it has no place in this game.
The only time it's even useful is when you're using bunkers to defend or be aggressive and it costs minerals to repair as well.
Seems like people will complain about everything these days.
What's with the personal attacks? Let's keep this focused on the discussion please. I really shouldn't have to prove I'm not someone else with a similar name. It's not difficult to conceive that more than one person likes the name "Atlas" (which has been part of my email address for years) and adds to it with something like numbers or another word.
On May 11 2011 04:13 Scila wrote: Yes let's complain and make a thread about something that has little to no impact on the game instead of discussing real issues, like race balance.
Strange, I dont see a SC2 Balance category as a forum topic. I had the impression that this forum is a place where people come and try to help each other improve on their own play and become a better player, rather than pointlessly complaining about balance and saying how you would make the game.
It's not supposed to be something that just makes micro easier. It's an ability that makes repairing better.
If you think about it like that, this discussion just seems silly. It's like saying "why do zealots have charge, when nobody could humanly make a zealot move that fast?"
While I agree with your premise that auto-repair micro's your SCV's in a way you could not do yourself (in a hypothetical game that has no auto-repair), I do not understand how you arrive at the conclusion it shouldn't be in SC2.
Many mechanics could be hypothetically altered in such a way that you would no longer be able to achieve the micro/macro you were previously able to achieve with the original mechanics. I'm wondering what separates this from the infinite other scenarios that also share your specified premise.
On May 11 2011 04:00 AtlasGrip wrote: What's with the personal attacks? Let's keep this focused on the discussion please. I really shouldn't have to prove I'm not someone else with a similar name. It's not difficult to conceive that more than one person likes the name "Atlas" (which has been part of my email address for years) and adds to it with something like numbers or another word.
You really expect us to believe that it isn't you? You even SAY that you're transferring over to TL to continue your pointless balance whining because every other website has gotten sick of you, even getting banned from the bnet forums Then magically this thread appears and its the only thing that you have ever said here?
On May 11 2011 04:00 AtlasGrip wrote: What's with the personal attacks? Let's keep this focused on the discussion please. I really shouldn't have to prove I'm not someone else with a similar name. It's not difficult to conceive that more than one person likes the name "Atlas" (which has been part of my email address for years) and adds to it with something like numbers or another word.
You really expect us to believe that it isn't you? You even SAY that you're transferring over to TL to continue your pointless balance whining because every other website has gotten sick of you, even getting banned from the bnet forums ?
Mods, is it ok if I revive this thread? I ran out of time to continue the discussion and was a little dismayed by the personal attacks. Also, autorepair has been changed a little bit. The new patch changes on the PTR remove autorepair from allowing an SCV to repair a bunker or medivac while the SCV was in the bunker. That shows that blizzard doesn't approve of this form of use for autorepair, and I think it's useful to move forward with this discussion with that in mind.
On September 07 2011 11:04 AtlasGrip wrote: The new patch changes on the PTR remove autorepair from allowing an SCV to repair a bunker or medivac while the SCV was in the bunker.
This is just flat-out wrong, SCVs cannot repair bunkers or medivacs while in them.
PTR Patch 1.4.0: SCVs can no longer repair themselves while inside a Bunker or Medivac.
iono what to discuss about it that hasnt already been covered lol. Sure those are changed but they were hardly utilized. I dont think they ever were a big big problem to begin with. I could see scv repairing in bunker might be problem but I think in medivac its ok atleast it havent been utilized to shown to be OP. Beside, what are terran going to repair inside medivac nowaday anyways considering that hellion getting nerf and mech in all match up but TvT going to die. I just dont see it being utilized to be a problem :/
I feel like attack-move should be nerfed to be honest. Can you imagine the inhumane micro required to individually select units and A+leftclick on the enemy units?
I still don't like autorepair and barely use it. Unfortunately, I don't think removing it is a change blizz would even remotely consider.
On September 07 2011 13:48 fer wrote: I feel like attack-move should be nerfed to be honest. Can you imagine the inhumane micro required to individually select units and A+leftclick on the enemy units?
Although I think it was a great read, I don't think you should dwell on this, Atlas. Consider the scv autorepair similar to a heal spell but for buildings. It's really not a macro mechanic because it doesn't help produce anything, just saves things from being destroyed. The only time where this was completely imbalanced was at release when SCVs could not be targeted in certain cases, like underneath a giant thor...but that was patched, so I'm happy.
At this point a lot of us just accepted it. No big fuss really, there are much bigger issues to cry about.
EPT
