|
On August 04 2015 19:45 Big J wrote:
Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience:
The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies. A better opponent should make it hard or even impossible to win because he gets the better end of every interaction. But when there is no interaction - directly or strategically - there is no reason why you should fall behind.
Even though I regularily disagree with the how, blizzard is finally getting that. More interaction, more room for interaction to shine, more ways to interact and more degrees of outcomes for interaction are the direction they want to go and that the game needs to take.
Their ideas to change macro mechanics are double good from this perspective:
1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well
2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements.
The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies
Why? Why is it not 'allowed' to have basic mechanics you have to be good at to reach a certain point of skill which in itself aren't defined by your opponent? You state it is, but i cannot see why this has to be true.
Then again, your opponent already has this control over you and your actions, this will always be the case in game with a high requirement of multitasking. He will force your attention, you won't be perfect in action X,Y and Z cause of it.
1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well
Again, what is wrong with this concept? If you play a real sport you have to be good at "singeplayer-like actions" too and nobody there cries it is "unfun". I simply don't see the problem.
2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements
True and i also think slowing down the economical growth and thus the supply growth would be a good thing, but you can achieve this goal without reducing the mechanical part of the game.
|
Do not change macro mechanics. No. Not for Zerg, not for Protoss, not for Terran. Not at all. Don't make ****ty changes like automatic split, automatic units production, etc. Just leave the game as it was in WoL style. It will be good.
|
France181 Posts
On August 04 2015 20:07 BriD wrote:
Do not change macro mechanics. No. Not for Zerg, not for Protoss, not for Terran. Not at all. Don't make ****ty changes like automatic split, automatic units production, etc. Just leave the game as it was in WoL style. It will be good.
Let the drowning ship drown alone.
|
On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote:I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Being “not fun” is not an argument. Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
|
Casual play against other casuals, thus equally bad on macro mechanics so it's not an issue. Archon mod is there for those with bad mechanics, 1v1 does not have to be played by everyone for the game to be successful.
Without taking a particular stance in the matter, don't you think it's a problem that they best way to win games at the bronze -> plat level is to watch your bases, mass macro one basic type of units and a-move them accross the map?
At those levels, there is absolutely no need to scout, think about army compositions, use spells or getting into a good position. And if you *do* scout, diversify units and micro your battles, you are just getting punished for having bad macro by guys that a-move roaches or marines from 3 bases.
|
Perfect article and blizzard should read this before considering to remove macro mehanics.
|
On August 04 2015 19:53 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 19:14 Foudzing wrote:On August 04 2015 19:03 Parcelleus wrote:
Leave macro alone ! I dont want it made easier, it works leave it, dont mess with it.
It works for people who are already good at the game, for casual it doesn't work, at all and the game will have less and less players. At casual level, macro is more important than anything. A player who will scout, think about strategicall choices and try to micro will lose to a player who do none of that but just play like a robot eyes 100% on his base and constantly making units. Honestly at a casual level, playing the game feels like a punishment, you have to constantly reapeat the same actions, constantly checks, it's like you're doing your groceries or something. And if you want to have fun, well you lose. Now tell me how is this fun? Casual play against other casuals, thus equally bad on macro mechanics so it's not an issue. Archon mod is there for those with bad mechanics, 1v1 does not have to be played by everyone for the game to be successful.
By saying "1v1 does not have to be played by everyone," you are basically saying, "StarCraft does not have to be played by everyone." Which is true, but it is not exactly the way to becoming a successful game.
|
On August 04 2015 20:12 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote:On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote:I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Being “not fun” is not an argument. Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective. And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun".
That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
|
France181 Posts
On August 04 2015 20:12 MuazizTremere wrote:Show nested quote +
Casual play against other casuals, thus equally bad on macro mechanics so it's not an issue. Archon mod is there for those with bad mechanics, 1v1 does not have to be played by everyone for the game to be successful.
Without taking a particular stance in the matter, don't you think it's a problem that they best way to win games at the bronze -> plat level is to watch your bases, mass macro one basic type of units and a-move them accross the map? At those levels, there is absolutely no need to scout, think about army compositions, use spells or getting into a good position. And if you *do* scout, diversify units and micro your battles, you are just getting punished for having bad macro by guys that a-move roaches or marines from 3 bases.
And bronze to platinium is 90% of players. SC2 is just a boring game for 90% of players.
|
On August 04 2015 20:12 MuazizTremere wrote:Show nested quote +
Casual play against other casuals, thus equally bad on macro mechanics so it's not an issue. Archon mod is there for those with bad mechanics, 1v1 does not have to be played by everyone for the game to be successful.
Without taking a particular stance in the matter, don't you think it's a problem that they best way to win games at the bronze -> plat level is to watch your bases, mass macro one basic type of units and a-move them accross the map? At those levels, there is absolutely no need to scout, think about army compositions, use spells or getting into a good position. And if you *do* scout, diversify units and micro your battles, you are just getting punished for having bad macro by guys that a-move roaches or marines from 3 bases.
Well, the basic premise of Starcraft is gathering resources, using those to build a base, using that base to build units, using those units to kill your enemy before he kills you. Everything else (scouting,timings,micro) is just nuance. So it's logical that focusing on the core of the game yields the best improvement results.
You can have epic games in silver or gold. A lot of people don't focus on macro heavily so their incomes will be in the same ballpark, which makes room for the nuances to decide the games again. If you're good enough to win games in silver or gold on pure macro then you'll just get promoted to a higher league anyway so it's not a problem.
|
I would like to thank you for bringing up this topic and raising the important argument of macro attentiveness of a Zerg player. I agree that just making spawn larvae autocast would simplify the life of Zerg much more than of any other race. However, do you think it would be feasible to do it when coupled with some other change or macro challenge?
What I have in mind:
- Spawn Larva on autocast
- Set the larvae cap to 7 down from 19
- Prevent Spawn Larvae to happen on a Hatchery that has more than 3 larvae
This way, every 40 seconds the Zerg is taxed with a decision on which unit to make from the extra larvae. A decision that cannot be later cancelled or changed without larva loss. But also - every second of a delay means that the next spawn larvae is delayed. If the player is otherwise occupied, Queen energy starts to build up as usual.
This also puts a pressure on Zerg to have enough resources to actually use the extra 4 larvae the way he wants. Bad resource management will lead to a delayed Spawn Larvae as well.
Stacking larvae becomes more costly: the Zerg either loses larva due to missed spawn, or minerals when additional macro hatches are constructed.
The gain however is that the Zerg does not have to cycle through all its bases to repeatedly do the same action manually.
|
Imagine playing Super Mario...
Except to make it more 'fun' and more 'skillful' you are forced to tab to mario's past @ the gym and get him to do another pullup every 20 seconds, or else you get slower and can't jump as high.
Nobody but the most inane would argue that this is a good thing for the game, but this is exactly what macro mechanics are in starcraft (except sometimes you want to do a situp instead of a pullup, situational of course).
I can't even force a single friend to play sc2 with me anymore because of things like macro mechanics, and that's in a group of fairly hardcore gamers. Heck, I even quit a few months ago- my hands can't take it. As for the rest of you, is an RSI really worth it to say you can out-f1-box-v-click-repeat-1-1 your friends?
Or, to use a Starcraft analogy: would you possibly think that adding macro mechanics to brood war would be a good thing?
(former masters zerg, willing to give up his inject superiority-over-diamond/plat in exchange for a better game)
|
On August 04 2015 18:49 Endymion wrote:
just the next logical step of dumbing down skill differentiation after adding MBS and unlimited unit select. sc2 needs more ways of being a better player not less.. the koreans have said this since day1, apm allocation and scarcity is a huge part of what makes SC such a special and unique game, removing it (like the transition from bw to sc2 and now hots to lotv) just makes the game easier at a high level, making it more stale and less fun to get to the very very top.. if you wanna pull off a flash level strategy, you should need extremely high apm alongside his game knowledge.. maybe now people will wake up to what everyone has been complaining about since 2009
Then why not remove production queues and multiple unit selection?
|
On August 04 2015 18:49 Blargh wrote:
@parallel
I think you're ignoring how much of an impact macro mechanics have in strategy. While removing macro mechanics could allow players to focus more on strategic play, it would remove much of the early-game strategy. And by doing so, it would lower the overall strategic skill cap. In 5 years, I bet players would be able to perform just as strategic of builds, and still be able to perform the macro necessary. Broodwar took years to develop to its late-2000's state.
Look at archon mode. When people are freed from mindless macro mechanics there's so much more people can do.
Attention is finite. If it's not wasted on macro it will be spent elsewhere or else you will lose to people who do spent it elsewhere.
|
On August 04 2015 20:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 19:45 Big J wrote:
Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience:
The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies. A better opponent should make it hard or even impossible to win because he gets the better end of every interaction. But when there is no interaction - directly or strategically - there is no reason why you should fall behind.
Even though I regularily disagree with the how, blizzard is finally getting that. More interaction, more room for interaction to shine, more ways to interact and more degrees of outcomes for interaction are the direction they want to go and that the game needs to take.
Their ideas to change macro mechanics are double good from this perspective:
1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well
2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements. Show nested quote +The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies Why? Why is it not 'allowed' to have basic mechanics you have to be good at to reach a certain point of skill which in itself aren't defined by your opponent? You state it is, but i cannot see why this has to be true. Then again, your opponent already has this control over you and your actions, this will always be the case in game with a high requirement of multitasking. He will force your attention, you won't be perfect in action X,Y and Z cause of it. Show nested quote +1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well Again, what is wrong with this concept? If you play a real sport you have to be good at "singeplayer-like actions" too and nobody there cries it is "unfun". I simply don't see the problem. Show nested quote +2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements True and i also think slowing down the economical growth and thus the supply growth would be a good thing, but you can achieve this goal without reducing the mechanical part of the game.
Because I opened my statement with "Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience". Singeplayer-like actions are by definition not that. The whole post was meant to be a bit philosophical. 
That part of the post doesn't really say something about Starcraft, but it is my firm believe that Starcraft should be a game that focuses on multiplayer experience. There will always be singleplayer like elements in any game and sport - if you can't run with the ball, you can't play football; if you can't place buildings, you can't play starcraft. But those elements shouldn't ever be more important/attention-eating/harder than the interaction with your opponent.
Since you bring up sports.
1) the multiplayer focused sports are a thousand times more popular. In this infographic the only country that prefers a "singleplayer" sport is Austria + Show Spoiler +how ironic, hehehe - but seriously, this is probably wrong to begin with; this is the big Austiran ski manifacturing industry talking; the moment our national football team is playing semidecently - which they finally do again these days - it's football; if we'd beat Germany once, it would be football for the next decade. Viewer numbers of our national TV station for top-football events do top the top-skiing events and a lot of people are watching German football which doesn't really find a way in most statistics.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/piktochartv2-dev/v2/uploads/6c996ec1-7dff-40e7-9ed5-6ec962e076df/a93adfbfee04d6f1782bd64a998452c7939c5970_original.jpg
Fuck, sorry it's in German. I kind of missed that. ^^
It's only logical that people prefer players interacting over someone who has perfected an action and then is showcasing it every week. It makes for much more dynamic gameplay and unique situations - how does player X's actions matchup with player Y's actions.
2) even in the singleplayer focused sports the important actions are often being changed to make them unique in every instance. E.g. in skiing you have different courses.
3) even when there is no interaction by concept, the sports often try to create or fake interaction because it is more exciting and fun. E.g. in sprinting you don't let the runners take turns but you let them sprint next to each other. In other running disciplines this even leads to important strategical and direct interactions like speed regulation and positioning in the field.
--> a focus on multiplayer is better. For popularity and for the game itself because it creates interaction, it creates real competition, it creates fun.
Back to starcraft, actions like inject being singleplayer, always the same mechanical performance on every map in every game makes it so that they should be a very minor piece of puzzle to win the game. But they aren't, in particular injects aren't. Taking back their importance - which is what blizzard is doing; they are not removing them completely! In particular they don't remove any conceptual interactions of inject, you can still snipe queens etc - is good for the game to create room for more interaction.
|
On August 04 2015 18:43 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I also really dislike the 'mindless clicking' as an argument.
Once you master stutterstep, it is also mindless clicking. A-click backwards, move-click forwards, repeat. Do you think marines should auto stutterstep when retreating?
Watching stalker healthbars and blinking them back when red is mindless too. There's no decision making. You either blink back or you are too slow the unit dies and you lose a possible advantage.
None of these mechanics make the game less interesting.
I agree that stutterstepping and blinking make the game more interesting. Neither is mindless. There are decisions involved on when you want to stutterstep and when you just want to run faster, and decisions about where you want to blink. But that's the whole point: mechanics that make the game more interesting should be kept, mecahnics that don't and are tedious should be cut. Spawn larva is not interesting, in fact, it is the most boring and most mindless mechanic out of all mechanics in the game.
It really doesn't matter if a click is 'mindless' or not. In the end it's about two players battling eachother at the best of their abilties. Macro is a part of that too. If you have the power of thought to be able to inject better, chrono better, constantly mule better, than that should very well give you a large advantage to win the game.
Regarding my thought experiment of mind controlled SC2 which would completely kill macro, no, being able to inject, chrono and MULE better won't give you an advantage because your opponent can macro just as well due to it being mind controlled. But that doesn't dumb the game down, it just changes what skill the game is about: decision making not macro.
|
On August 04 2015 20:12 MuazizTremere wrote:
Without taking a particular stance in the matter, don't you think it's a problem that they best way to win games at the bronze -> plat level is to watch your bases, mass macro one basic type of units and a-move them accross the map?
At those levels, there is absolutely no need to scout, think about army compositions, use spells or getting into a good position. And if you *do* scout, diversify units and micro your battles, you are just getting punished for having bad macro by guys that a-move roaches or marines from 3 bases.
Truth.
I tried to teach my friend sc2 and after enough emphasis on macro, he got more and more bored, and quit. Crazy mechanics is not why people seek out strategy games.
|
On August 04 2015 20:07 BriD wrote:
Do not change macro mechanics. No. Not for Zerg, not for Protoss, not for Terran. Not at all. Don't make ****ty changes like automatic split, automatic units production, etc. Just leave the game as it was in WoL style. It will be good.
This is all that needed to be said
|
It's weird knowing that for 5 years TL staff were the biggest proponents of saying mules / chronoboost and inject were terrible and dumbing the game, countless articles and posts how they were making it imbalanced and needed to be reworked.
The most hardcore players cheered when Starbow made changes to them. In a week they've changed their mind completely, so either TL was wrong for 5 years and they are right now or they were right for 5 years and wrong now. Either way, it's clear it was never an objective opinion.
|
On August 04 2015 20:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 20:12 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote:On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote:I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Being “not fun” is not an argument. Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective. And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2. There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
No, being or not being fun is a very valid argument, only it may apply differently to different people depending on their tastes. If 90% of people think something is not fun and 10% think it is fun, then it is probably a bad design, even if "fun," of course, is not objective. (These are of course not the numbers in this case; just to show that something not being fun is actually a strong argument.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
