EPTOn January 18 2014 07:54 Qwyn wrote:
Hey, looks really awesome so far - I just wanted to lay down a comment on a few things.
The macro mechanics for Terran and Zerg are really, REALLY unintuitive. I'm going to thought spam here, so forgive organization:
After reading the design-group's thoughts on what they wanted to get out of macro mechanics in SB, I'm actually inclined to agree - the idea of putting in some sort of stand-in to simulate "BW style macro" involving going back to your base is a great idea. The problem with this is - in order for these mechanics to FEEL right - to FEEL like a core, essential component of each race's macro cycle - they need to perform some essential role.
In this respect - the Zerg queen's inject function has failed. Queens are of immensely more value in SC2 because a good player WILL be injecting almost constantly (watch Jaedong POV), except when they are stressed to the point where there is a cycle delay, and this does make a massive difference between player skill levels.
I've heard multiple comments from players like Blade and IdrA that the queen's "inject larva" ability in SB doesn't really seem to provide any noticeable difference - and that they are forced to build extra macro hatches anyhow. Now, I think I can very clearly understand the dynamic the design-group is reaching for and I want that too. However, disregarding all the other fluff on the queen - its core mechanic is going to always be the larva-inject ability, unless you decide to remove it and make the queen a creep-spreading/defensive tool.
Now my concerns do not revolve around fluff and cute unit dynamics. They revolve around the core of what every race is going to be doing the most - macro - and making sure that the macro dynamics for each race are DIFFICULT, yet as pleasurable as possible and INTUITIVE to use. The thing about injecting larva is that it is INTUITIVE - a hatch can only be injected once during the duration of the spawn larva ability - and when your larva round pops you can cast the ability again. If you are really good at injecting this skill level is NOTICEABLE - your queens will have no energy when you inject again.
In SB the inject function is far, far from intuitive.
1. The timer can be re-stacked, meaning that psychologically a player doesn't really have any sense of ability progress, especially when you consider the ridiculous rate at which queens regenerate energy and how little mana the spell costs.
2. The benefit of the spell is really, really unintuitive. 65% faster larva regeneration rate? Alright..interesting...in practice, though, especially with a BW style economy where build orders are much more tech oriented for Zerg in the early game and there are few, critical turning points where Zerg players really begin producing units en masse...
--- The big problem with this version of the spell is that a player has no sense of gain from using it. None at all. A secondary, far more important problem to address stemming from this is one of the core macro goals - a player should feel COMPELLED to use larva inject, IMO - a player should be able to IMPROVE their usage of larva inject - the current implementation really results in neither.
I would suggest, before anything else - reverting the spell cost back to SC2 levels and making it so only one can be stacked at a time - in addition to adjusting queen energy regen back to SC2 levels. If there is one nice dynamic you should keep for Zerg from SC2 it is how queens currently work - they feel good to use, they are intuitive, and they just make sense. Simple sense (this is completely disregarding their other spells or your implementation of creep). The % increased larva regeneration rate can be changed independently. But this, at least, solves the psychological problems of larva inject in SB.
Now as to the merits of injecting itself - I definitely agree with the fundamentals of your decision to change how the spawn-larva mechanic works. It will definitely prevent Zerg players from remaxing off of a bank of 7+ larva...on each hatchery...BUT...this doesn't really make the macro cycle for Zerg more DIFFICULT - all it does is force the player to memorize different sets of hatch counts per composition/base #. In the end, Zerg can still spam out units beyond a certain point in the game, - they just haven't gotten used to the number of required hatches yet. Substituting hatcheries for queens feels like a very inelegant decision - yes, I know it was done in BW - but in BW, races didn't have MBS, or auto-mine, and zerg hatcheries built their larva rounds instantly (all larva spent on one unit).
In BW, the base macro cycle was HARD. Really hard. It is this sort of dynamic that changes everything.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest something far more drastic. I think that you need to really, hone in on your goal of implementing some sort of macro mechanic for each race that simulates BW style "return to base macro." Something, that, like SC2 larva-inject:
1. Players are forced to use.
--- This is key. I don't think you can dither on the edge of "these macro mechanics should be optional." Making each race's macro cycle more difficult is NOT a bad thing. Not at all. Mechanics, as I hope you've realized, are what makes this game what it is. Now I get that MBS and UUS are here to stay. I'm down for that. But if you really, REALLY want to simulate BW style macro mechanics, then you're going to have to clutch your balls and implement something that is actually HARD.
2. Provides a noticeable, ESSENTIAL benefit. This might mean that such a mechanic is detrimental if not used. It might provide such a big benefit or be such a big part of play that its benefits cannot be forgone. Either one is fine. The key lies in #3.
3. Has a high, high rate of required repetition. This, more than anything else, is KEY. This is why BW macro is hard. And this is how players with outstanding MULTITASKING are able to differentiate themselves.
Now, everything else in SB seems to be converging towards design goals. More fights across the map, bigger armies, more bases, etc. But for really, really good players to differentiate themselves, you've got to extend the difficulty of the macro cycle in some way. Let's look at the BW macro cycle and how multitasking is detrimental:
1. Queue workers.
2. Select EACH INDIVIDUAL WORKER and send to mine.
#1. #2.
#1. #2.
This base macro cycle happens so OFTEN (such short period), that alone it can prove difficult. When you add in all the other tasks a player must be doing, they compound and cause major DETRIMENT. a player may forget to send workers to mine. Might forget to build workers. Which compounds to be quite sub-optimum. Now the best players, are able to mitigate economic damage by being fast enough to always do #1. #2. #1. #2. And if you are not the fastest player in the world? Well your macro may not be perfect, but at least it's pretty good! This is the same as any other mechanic - I don't know why you (or most people, if not the design-group) are afraid of making macro MECHANICALLY difficult in some fashion - it CAN be improved and MUCH of the reason of why games are so awesome is because players are not perfect.
If you really, really want to align the core of SB with the flow of a BW game (not necessarily BW units or styles, just the flow of a BW RTS style game, you know the difference, it's one of the design goals!), this is the last, most critical step.
Now as for what these, core, essential, skill differentiating macro mechanics might be, I do not know, but I have some ideas. I'm sure you probably do too. Peace <3. Love it.
Hey, looks really awesome so far - I just wanted to lay down a comment on a few things.
The macro mechanics for Terran and Zerg are really, REALLY unintuitive. I'm going to thought spam here, so forgive organization:
After reading the design-group's thoughts on what they wanted to get out of macro mechanics in SB, I'm actually inclined to agree - the idea of putting in some sort of stand-in to simulate "BW style macro" involving going back to your base is a great idea. The problem with this is - in order for these mechanics to FEEL right - to FEEL like a core, essential component of each race's macro cycle - they need to perform some essential role.
In this respect - the Zerg queen's inject function has failed. Queens are of immensely more value in SC2 because a good player WILL be injecting almost constantly (watch Jaedong POV), except when they are stressed to the point where there is a cycle delay, and this does make a massive difference between player skill levels.
I've heard multiple comments from players like Blade and IdrA that the queen's "inject larva" ability in SB doesn't really seem to provide any noticeable difference - and that they are forced to build extra macro hatches anyhow. Now, I think I can very clearly understand the dynamic the design-group is reaching for and I want that too. However, disregarding all the other fluff on the queen - its core mechanic is going to always be the larva-inject ability, unless you decide to remove it and make the queen a creep-spreading/defensive tool.
Now my concerns do not revolve around fluff and cute unit dynamics. They revolve around the core of what every race is going to be doing the most - macro - and making sure that the macro dynamics for each race are DIFFICULT, yet as pleasurable as possible and INTUITIVE to use. The thing about injecting larva is that it is INTUITIVE - a hatch can only be injected once during the duration of the spawn larva ability - and when your larva round pops you can cast the ability again. If you are really good at injecting this skill level is NOTICEABLE - your queens will have no energy when you inject again.
In SB the inject function is far, far from intuitive.
1. The timer can be re-stacked, meaning that psychologically a player doesn't really have any sense of ability progress, especially when you consider the ridiculous rate at which queens regenerate energy and how little mana the spell costs.
2. The benefit of the spell is really, really unintuitive. 65% faster larva regeneration rate? Alright..interesting...in practice, though, especially with a BW style economy where build orders are much more tech oriented for Zerg in the early game and there are few, critical turning points where Zerg players really begin producing units en masse...
--- The big problem with this version of the spell is that a player has no sense of gain from using it. None at all. A secondary, far more important problem to address stemming from this is one of the core macro goals - a player should feel COMPELLED to use larva inject, IMO - a player should be able to IMPROVE their usage of larva inject - the current implementation really results in neither.
I would suggest, before anything else - reverting the spell cost back to SC2 levels and making it so only one can be stacked at a time - in addition to adjusting queen energy regen back to SC2 levels. If there is one nice dynamic you should keep for Zerg from SC2 it is how queens currently work - they feel good to use, they are intuitive, and they just make sense. Simple sense (this is completely disregarding their other spells or your implementation of creep). The % increased larva regeneration rate can be changed independently. But this, at least, solves the psychological problems of larva inject in SB.
Now as to the merits of injecting itself - I definitely agree with the fundamentals of your decision to change how the spawn-larva mechanic works. It will definitely prevent Zerg players from remaxing off of a bank of 7+ larva...on each hatchery...BUT...this doesn't really make the macro cycle for Zerg more DIFFICULT - all it does is force the player to memorize different sets of hatch counts per composition/base #. In the end, Zerg can still spam out units beyond a certain point in the game, - they just haven't gotten used to the number of required hatches yet. Substituting hatcheries for queens feels like a very inelegant decision - yes, I know it was done in BW - but in BW, races didn't have MBS, or auto-mine, and zerg hatcheries built their larva rounds instantly (all larva spent on one unit).
In BW, the base macro cycle was HARD. Really hard. It is this sort of dynamic that changes everything.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest something far more drastic. I think that you need to really, hone in on your goal of implementing some sort of macro mechanic for each race that simulates BW style "return to base macro." Something, that, like SC2 larva-inject:
1. Players are forced to use.
--- This is key. I don't think you can dither on the edge of "these macro mechanics should be optional." Making each race's macro cycle more difficult is NOT a bad thing. Not at all. Mechanics, as I hope you've realized, are what makes this game what it is. Now I get that MBS and UUS are here to stay. I'm down for that. But if you really, REALLY want to simulate BW style macro mechanics, then you're going to have to clutch your balls and implement something that is actually HARD.
2. Provides a noticeable, ESSENTIAL benefit. This might mean that such a mechanic is detrimental if not used. It might provide such a big benefit or be such a big part of play that its benefits cannot be forgone. Either one is fine. The key lies in #3.
3. Has a high, high rate of required repetition. This, more than anything else, is KEY. This is why BW macro is hard. And this is how players with outstanding MULTITASKING are able to differentiate themselves.
Now, everything else in SB seems to be converging towards design goals. More fights across the map, bigger armies, more bases, etc. But for really, really good players to differentiate themselves, you've got to extend the difficulty of the macro cycle in some way. Let's look at the BW macro cycle and how multitasking is detrimental:
1. Queue workers.
2. Select EACH INDIVIDUAL WORKER and send to mine.
#1. #2.
#1. #2.
This base macro cycle happens so OFTEN (such short period), that alone it can prove difficult. When you add in all the other tasks a player must be doing, they compound and cause major DETRIMENT. a player may forget to send workers to mine. Might forget to build workers. Which compounds to be quite sub-optimum. Now the best players, are able to mitigate economic damage by being fast enough to always do #1. #2. #1. #2. And if you are not the fastest player in the world? Well your macro may not be perfect, but at least it's pretty good! This is the same as any other mechanic - I don't know why you (or most people, if not the design-group) are afraid of making macro MECHANICALLY difficult in some fashion - it CAN be improved and MUCH of the reason of why games are so awesome is because players are not perfect.
If you really, really want to align the core of SB with the flow of a BW game (not necessarily BW units or styles, just the flow of a BW RTS style game, you know the difference, it's one of the design goals!), this is the last, most critical step.
Now as for what these, core, essential, skill differentiating macro mechanics might be, I do not know, but I have some ideas. I'm sure you probably do too. Peace <3. Love it.
I think this IS is a key post here. hopefully the devs will find some time to answer.
Read below.
