Depth of Micro - Page 28

On November 01 2013 23:49 Falling wrote:
Wow. This has gone downhill in the last few pages. This sort of micro gives players more tools and gives units greater functionality. Why are we against units that respond better and are more maneuverable. Why should players "fight against the computer."

Why this is good for an RTS is because the most successful RTS's as competitive games and as spectator sports were ones that married Strategy and Tactics from RTS's and twitch response unit control from Fighting Games. Probably not intentionally, but that's the best description I can give. Day9's so-called frisbee analogy comes exactly into play here.

It's not just a click fest and he that has the higher apm spam wins. It is creating these little unit combo moves that allows players to gain advantages beyond simply positioning and unit composition. In addition to. Not in place of. That's why it creates more depth the gameplay. You take the fundamentals of a strategy game with unit positioning, composition decisions, tech choices and add in rapid response unit maneuvers.

Yes some of that already exists. My fallback example is Marines vs Banelings. We like that stuff. This adds more. Or enhances what already exists. It makes the micro smoother, more snappy, more crisp. Rather than making it feel like you are microing through mud. You can do it, but without the crisp, clean feel it doesn't feel nearly as fun to perform. You always feel like you are waiting for the computer to do its thing before performing the next action. Like playing in a high latency environment. Doable, but not as fun.

Marines vs Banelings is visual, it requires skill, and it is about rapid response and both players microing back and forth. Why would we sniff our noses at getting rid of engine limitations that choke unit functionality, that grinds unit movement to a halt and forces them to pause before firing. Maybe some units should keep that pause. But should all? Just because it's status quo and it might shake up the game. Delving down to these fundamentals and making smart changes can only be a good thing for the game for competitors and spectators alike.

(Oh and by the way, most of these maneuvers can be performed by low level players. I'm only 1700 D on iccup now, but the vast majority of the micro tricks I can do and could do when I was hovering between D/D-. Just not consistently and while macroing. It's fun for low level player as well as high level players. Even my brother (LordBryon of my BW is for Newbs blogs) has started trying Vulture patrol micro. It looks cool even for new players and they want to try it out.)

On November 02 2013 02:02 lolfail9001 wrote:
On a second thought, (not talking about that default stack behavior, after all what do you think separation radius variable was responsible for after all), kiting is actually like... easier now. Yes, this does not raise skill cap (it is infinite after all) in the slighest, it just makes game easier. That's funny, like really funny. On another thought, if Blizzard ever reacts to this video (i just pray they will not try to watch full video), they will just make attack command being more prioritized over separation, while keeping separation having higher priority over move and other comannds. Now that actually makes a BW-style muta micro possible, while keeping magic box and what not as it is.

On November 02 2013 02:28 Spawkuring wrote:


I don't agree that kiting is easier. Rather I'd argue that proper kiting is possible. The thing about how SC2 designed right now is that very few units, outside of terran infantry, can truly kite their enemy. The tank vs. zealot portion in the video is a great example of that. Siege tanks can kite the zealots, but only to an extent since their turrets constantly reset. No matter how skilled the player, the zealots will get enough free hits in that the tanks will always lose the battle. That's a stark difference from the tweaked example, where the modified tanks can actually beat the zealots if kited enough.

This is what people mean when they say SC2 is less skill based. If you don't have the proper numbers, unit comp, or pre-battle positioning, you will lose no matter how skilled you are. The "in-battle" micro is de-emphasized, so it creates a meta-game where timing pushes, all-ins, and build orders often decide more games than they should. It's still a skill intensive game, but it's also an arguable one that's less entertaining to watch.

On November 01 2013 17:45 Sissors wrote:

And thats simply not true. Micro management is very important in SC2.

But then why should kiting with vikings be made so much easier? Earlier you said SC2 should be a game where the player with superior macro, micro and mechanics should win. Yet all this does is making clicking fast more important at the cost of other aspects of the game, such as positioning. I guess I just don't think fast clicking is important enough as it is.

On November 01 2013 01:58 Nirel wrote:
I have a feeling that if this video was made before SC2s lunch all of these changes would've been implemented, sadly after 2 expansions I find it very hard to believe they are going to change anything of value with the mechanics.

On November 02 2013 02:48 phodacbiet wrote:
Hopefully blizzard change something though. These changes, even if just a few, would be great for the game because it would increase the skill cap. At the highest level we need to know/see the pros do some super crazy human micro. While the godly decision level making of the pros is cool too, it gets boring after awhile because people want to see action, not "oh his ball moved up, oh now its down, oh its up again! Wow! Concave! Wow! Lazer!" Sc2 right now focuses way too much on the pre fight and once the fight start there is not much you can do to win if youre behind (unless you aren't too far behind). But let's be real here, blizzard will probably say something like "we won't do any of these changes because itll change too much of the game and its too late. Sorry please buy LoTV!"