On November 16 2013 08:15 rd wrote: I guess it's just me but I don't see DK's answer and Lalush's points of discussion as being mutually exclusive. It might be in how you interpret the answer, but it sounded to me like DK meant he doesn't want micro that is subtle and can't be distinguished visibly without prior knowledge on how to identify it. I don't think it's that bad of an answer provided they are actually looking for ways to give players more options to distinguish themselves via micro.
No, it's not just you. I read his answer the same way. When you get past all the BW blah blah blah, you can see LaLush's thread as a request for greater micro depth in SC2. And, generally, I'd say most of the SC2 community are in agreement. Now, LaLush may have his vision of the type of micro he wants. But here, LaLush should not confuse general agreement with his theme to general agreement with his specifics. Now, DK has indicated that the type of micro showcased by LaLush is unlikely but that other forms of micro may be added to the game in the future. If so, this may still be the right way to go about it.
It may (or may not) be "flashy", but that may not necessarily be a bad thing. The real question is if it makes sense in light of SC2 as a game (not of BW), if it allows skill differential between players, if it leads to cool moments and enhances SC2 gameplay for player and spectator.
On November 16 2013 08:15 rd wrote: I guess it's just me but I don't see DK's answer and Lalush's points of discussion as being mutually exclusive. It might be in how you interpret the answer, but it sounded to me like DK meant he doesn't want micro that is subtle and can't be distinguished visibly without prior knowledge on how to identify it. I don't think it's that bad of an answer provided they are actually looking for ways to give players more options to distinguish themselves via micro.
No, it's not just you. I read his answer the same way. When you get past all the BW blah blah blah, you can see LaLush's thread as a request for greater micro depth in SC2. And, generally, I'd say most of the SC2 community are in agreement. Now, LaLush may have his vision of the type of micro he wants. And here LaLush should not confuse general agreement with his theme to general agreement with his specifics. Now, DK has indicated that the type of micro showcased by LaLush is unlikely but that other forms of micro may be added to the game in the future. If so, this may still be the right way to go about it.
It may be "flashy", but that may not necessarily be a bad thing. The real question is if it makes sense in light of SC2 (not of BW), if it allows skill differential between players, leads to cool moments, and enhances SC2 gameplay for player and spectator.
If I'm reading you right about the way you're reading DK's read on LaLush's video, DK wants to give "casuals" an obvious read on what's going on regarding micro.
Obviously, DK's read on "casuals" is that they're idiots so the only thing they'll understand is if they can do it also. So, DK will give casuals "micro" in the form of a button to press. It's like bunnyhopping in Counter-strike. Even a casual can see he's going faster than normal, and the screen is shaking, but DK wants a button casuals can press so they too can bunnyhop and tastosis can comment how well Bomber is pressing that button for awesome micro so casuals can understand.
I think DK is the only person who can insult pros and casuals at the same time.
On November 16 2013 08:15 rd wrote: I guess it's just me but I don't see DK's answer and Lalush's points of discussion as being mutually exclusive. It might be in how you interpret the answer, but it sounded to me like DK meant he doesn't want micro that is subtle and can't be distinguished visibly without prior knowledge on how to identify it. I don't think it's that bad of an answer provided they are actually looking for ways to give players more options to distinguish themselves via micro.
No, it's not just you. I read his answer the same way. When you get past all the BW blah blah blah, you can see LaLush's thread as a request for greater micro depth in SC2. And, generally, I'd say most of the SC2 community are in agreement. Now, LaLush may have his vision of the type of micro he wants. And here LaLush should not confuse general agreement with his theme to general agreement with his specifics. Now, DK has indicated that the type of micro showcased by LaLush is unlikely but that other forms of micro may be added to the game in the future. If so, this may still be the right way to go about it.
It may be "flashy", but that may not necessarily be a bad thing. The real question is if it makes sense in light of SC2 (not of BW), if it allows skill differential between players, leads to cool moments, and enhances SC2 gameplay for player and spectator.
If I'm reading you right about the way you're reading DK's read on LaLush's video, DK wants to give "casuals" an obvious read on what's going on regarding micro.
Obviously, DK's read on "casuals" is that they're idiots so the only thing they'll understand is if they can do it also. So, DK will give casuals "micro" in the form of a button to press. It's like bunnyhopping in Counter-strike. Even a casual can see he's going faster than normal, and the screen is shaking, but DK wants a button casuals can press so they too can bunnyhop and tastosis can comment how well Bomber is pressing that button for awesome micro so casuals can understand.
I think DK is the only person who can insult pros and casuals at the same time.
No, you've not read me right. But, never mind. We have different views on this game.
If they are thinking of adding more "gimmicky abilities" to enhance the micro opportunities.. or make things accelerate/move faster like they are doing now, it would incredibly be disappointing.
this thread is just filled with so much common sense and win. after years knowing something wasn't right, the nails keep getting hit on the head.
Bacillus gives us another poignant thought re: david kim's bizarre response to the OP:
Unless you're actually able to understand the deeper build order and metagame interactions, your average round just doesn't have much else to see than exploding stuff. It's often very hard to see how the players are interacting outside the 5 second major battles.
It seems pretty clear that Blizzard doesn't have what it takes to make SC2 live up to its namesake. I'd like to see Lalush, Barrin, and at least one person from the Starbow mod apply to work at Valve on a team making the true spiritual successor to Brood War.
On November 16 2013 08:15 rd wrote: I guess it's just me but I don't see DK's answer and Lalush's points of discussion as being mutually exclusive. It might be in how you interpret the answer, but it sounded to me like DK meant he doesn't want micro that is subtle and can't be distinguished visibly without prior knowledge on how to identify it. I don't think it's that bad of an answer provided they are actually looking for ways to give players more options to distinguish themselves via micro.
No, it's not just you. I read his answer the same way. When you get past all the BW blah blah blah, you can see LaLush's thread as a request for greater micro depth in SC2. And, generally, I'd say most of the SC2 community are in agreement. Now, LaLush may have his vision of the type of micro he wants. But here, LaLush should not confuse general agreement with his theme to general agreement with his specifics. Now, DK has indicated that the type of micro showcased by LaLush is unlikely but that other forms of micro may be added to the game in the future. If so, this may still be the right way to go about it.
It may (or may not) be "flashy", but that may not necessarily be a bad thing. The real question is if it makes sense in light of SC2 as a game (not of BW), if it allows skill differential between players, if it leads to cool moments and enhances SC2 gameplay for player and spectator.
There is a significant problem though with DK and the current state of SC2. Just look at the word MICRO. What does it mean? REALLY SMALL. The thing is that you wont notice something REALLY SMALL when the entire screen is covered with units and also the efficiency gain of such really small things is usually really small too ... and this is overshadowed by the (re)production capability every time. If you have the better economy than your opponent and can reproduce units faster than he can it wont matter if he wins an engagement by a small amount every time, because you just swarm him repeatedly until he is out of money.
Enabling micro for units like Lalush proposes will require changes to the economy and production capabilities of the races or it will be as useless/limited/unused as Roach burrow micro. It is also better if there are fewer units on the screen, because spectators will be able to focus on "the right details of awesomeness" more easily.
The question is: Do you want managers to win the game or people who can do nifty things you wish you could do too?
On November 16 2013 08:15 rd wrote: I guess it's just me but I don't see DK's answer and Lalush's points of discussion as being mutually exclusive. It might be in how you interpret the answer, but it sounded to me like DK meant he doesn't want micro that is subtle and can't be distinguished visibly without prior knowledge on how to identify it. I don't think it's that bad of an answer provided they are actually looking for ways to give players more options to distinguish themselves via micro.
To trade what they think is being subtle micro with non-appealling micro is stupid no matter what the intention is.
Do you try to be as abrasive as possible for the sake of being abrasive? They haven't specifically suggested anything yet in response for you to even call it non-appealing. The lack of solutions can be criticized in itself, but you can't have it both ways, citing a lack of micro tricks from BW while at the same time making the blanket statement that anything they could put forth to fill that void is non-appealing.
And it's not a matter of subjectivity in what someone considers subtle. No one would figure out patrol micro in a vacuum unless it was explained to them beforehand. That goes beyond the definition of subtle.
Going into a game and trying out all possible solutions to that type of micro is not a hard feat. Especially nowadays when the replays show exactly which command that was used. Besides DK said that the clumping of units were non-appealing basically since casuals can't appreciate it. Do you even pay attention? Like 'casual' gamers need something flashy and shiny to be able to think it is cool. Besides if they not going to change how you can manage units then how can they add more micro? All answer is probably going to be more subtle than clumping units and hit patrol.
All of these changes sound good on paper, and it's tempting to say that implementing them would greatly improve SC2, but I don't see where most of them would actually come into play in-game.
Unsieged tanks will continue to be outmaneuvered by almost every other unit in the game, people will still just use FFs to protect their Immortals anyway, Oracles still won't be cost-effective compared to other options past the early game, etc. Banshees and Hellions with moving shot would be a nightmare during the early game and would almost certainly need rebalancing, but I don't see them getting people to choose mech over bio any time soon. It might be okay on Vikings or Mutalisks, at least.
On November 16 2013 21:06 wozzot wrote: All of these changes sound good on paper, and it's tempting to say that implementing them would greatly improve SC2, but I don't see where most of them would actually come into play in-game.
Unsieged tanks will continue to be outmaneuvered by almost every other unit in the game, people will still just use FFs to protect their Immortals anyway, Oracles still won't be cost-effective compared to other options past the early game, etc. Banshees and Hellions with moving shot would be a nightmare during the early game and would almost certainly need rebalancing, but I don't see them getting people to choose mech over bio any time soon. It might be okay on Vikings or Mutalisks, at least.
The point is that players will have a higher skill ceiling (and able to differentiate between players), and more options to micro.
you have to provide a playground/options (maps, micro, macro) for the players, but its up to there abilities/skill to use them (muta micro, wraith, (even transfer workers to a new base is something casuals may not know ...) etc), so if you are newb you may not even know about some tricks ... but thats ok. As a result you get 4 different ways to play a certain match up - opponent. just open up the PTR and try things ...
On November 16 2013 21:06 wozzot wrote: All of these changes sound good on paper, and it's tempting to say that implementing them would greatly improve SC2, but I don't see where most of them would actually come into play in-game.
Unsieged tanks will continue to be outmaneuvered by almost every other unit in the game, people will still just use FFs to protect their Immortals anyway, Oracles still won't be cost-effective compared to other options past the early game, etc. Banshees and Hellions with moving shot would be a nightmare during the early game and would almost certainly need rebalancing, but I don't see them getting people to choose mech over bio any time soon. It might be okay on Vikings or Mutalisks, at least.
The point is that players will have a higher skill ceiling (and able to differentiate between players), and more options to micro.
The thing is that many of these options already seem to be made redundant or non-viable by other mechanics in the game, and they only raise the skill ceiling of the game if using them confers a significant advantage, giving them a reason to be used in the first place. Scouts with speed may have been highly microable in BW, but that doesn't mean that anyone ever used them except as a joke
On November 16 2013 08:15 rd wrote: I guess it's just me but I don't see DK's answer and Lalush's points of discussion as being mutually exclusive. It might be in how you interpret the answer, but it sounded to me like DK meant he doesn't want micro that is subtle and can't be distinguished visibly without prior knowledge on how to identify it. I don't think it's that bad of an answer provided they are actually looking for ways to give players more options to distinguish themselves via micro.
To trade what they think is being subtle micro with non-appealling micro is stupid no matter what the intention is.
Do you try to be as abrasive as possible for the sake of being abrasive? They haven't specifically suggested anything yet in response for you to even call it non-appealing. The lack of solutions can be criticized in itself, but you can't have it both ways, citing a lack of micro tricks from BW while at the same time making the blanket statement that anything they could put forth to fill that void is non-appealing.
And it's not a matter of subjectivity in what someone considers subtle. No one would figure out patrol micro in a vacuum unless it was explained to them beforehand. That goes beyond the definition of subtle.
Going into a game and trying out all possible solutions to that type of micro is not a hard feat. Especially nowadays when the replays show exactly which command that was used. Besides DK said that the clumping of units were non-appealing basically since casuals can't appreciate it. Do you even pay attention? Like 'casual' gamers need something flashy and shiny to be able to think it is cool. Besides if they not going to change how you can manage units then how can they add more micro? All answer is probably going to be more subtle than clumping units and hit patrol.
That was the Blizzard approach pre queen patch: Just throw in a bunch of shit, trying all possible solutions. Look at the mess they made. I can't imagine half of the pro-gamer solutions having much more foresight (generally speaking). Turns out it takes way more thought than "well, it TECHNICALLY functions." I don't really care what DK said about casuals. It sucks he's still short sighted, but it's not productive. My point is that what DK wants and everything Lalush put forth aren't mutually exclusive. Instead of making it us vs DK we could just point this out and work within that single constraint.
It doesn't even have to involve enhancing a unit's capabilities. If you give a progamer a problem, they can sometimes solve it through micro that wasn't previously necessary. Granted that the aoe clumpfest is probably worse for the game than any good it has done, it did give birth to the single most noticeable micro in SC2 which is marine splitting. There are many ways of looking at it.
On November 16 2013 18:08 YyapSsap wrote: If they are thinking of adding more "gimmicky abilities" to enhance the micro opportunities.. or make things accelerate/move faster like they are doing now, it would incredibly be disappointing.
high acceleration is generally a good thing in my opinion. Moving faster not so much.
And I agree that there should be a high correlation between the difficulty of microing a unit and how much it shows even for people who dont play much. For example, if youve never used the banshee you have no idea its way harder to micro than an oracle, and while the difficulty aspect in itself is not a bad thing, the fact that it doesnt really show much is not as good.
In general units that behave consistently and are highly responsive is the rule of thumb if the goal is to clearly convey the microaspect to viewers, however blizzard dont even seem follow this rule so I have no idea what David Kim is japping about. Prime example: the tank. It is not highly responsive, it is unintuitive and behaves nothing like casuals would expect a tank to behave.
On November 16 2013 18:08 YyapSsap wrote: If they are thinking of adding more "gimmicky abilities" to enhance the micro opportunities.. or make things accelerate/move faster like they are doing now, it would incredibly be disappointing.
high acceleration is generally a good thing in my opinion. Moving faster not so much.
And I agree that there should be a high correlation between the difficulty of microing a unit and how much it shows even for people who dont play much. For example, if youve never used the banshee you have no idea its way harder to micro than an oracle, and while the difficulty aspect in itself is not a bad thing, the fact that it doesnt really show much is not as good.
In general units that behave consistently and are highly responsive is the rule of thumb if the goal is to clearly convey the microaspect to viewers, however blizzard dont even seem follow this rule so I have no idea what David Kim is japping about. Prime example: the tank. It is not highly responsive, it is unintuitive and behaves nothing like casuals would expect a tank to behave.
I disagree, I think low acceleration but higher speeds is much more interesting, because it forces you to always be active with your units, and, especially in fights you would need to keep your units on the move to make them efficient. This could be a good dynamic for Warp Prisms and Medivacs, it would force you to micro them around if you want to make quick escapes, if you are inefficient and they stop then your chances of evacuating safely are lower.
I think the Shuttle and Reaver worked similarly in BW.
On November 16 2013 18:08 YyapSsap wrote: If they are thinking of adding more "gimmicky abilities" to enhance the micro opportunities.. or make things accelerate/move faster like they are doing now, it would incredibly be disappointing.
high acceleration is generally a good thing in my opinion. Moving faster not so much.
And I agree that there should be a high correlation between the difficulty of microing a unit and how much it shows even for people who dont play much. For example, if youve never used the banshee you have no idea its way harder to micro than an oracle, and while the difficulty aspect in itself is not a bad thing, the fact that it doesnt really show much is not as good.
In general units that behave consistently and are highly responsive is the rule of thumb if the goal is to clearly convey the microaspect to viewers, however blizzard dont even seem follow this rule so I have no idea what David Kim is japping about. Prime example: the tank. It is not highly responsive, it is unintuitive and behaves nothing like casuals would expect a tank to behave.
I disagree, I think low acceleration but higher speeds is much more interesting, because it forces you to always be active with your units, and, especially in fights you would need to keep your units on the move to make them efficient. This could be a good dynamic for Warp Prisms and Medivacs, it would force you to micro them around if you want to make quick escapes, if you are inefficient and they stop then your chances of evacuating safely are lower.
I think the Shuttle and Reaver worked similarly in BW.
I think that for many ground units you should really have high acceleration though, I can't imagine trying to micro marines if they would have very slow acceleration or turn rates.
I heard the question put to DK at Blizzcon and thought I'd check this thread out. thanks for the great explanation of BW micro. It's unforgivable that Blizzard do not address the bugs with damage point, moving shot and turret rotation.
I think this thread has seen its day, we need a map with high level players doing some matches to see the difference. Yes it will be horribly imbalanced, but that's besides the intial point, I think everyone wants to see in general what this will look like roughly in a real match and not a unit tester.
EPT
