EPTThe Curious Case of soO's Macro Mechanics - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
| ||
|
Quineotio
Australia128 Posts
On August 05 2015 04:46 Dazed_Spy wrote: The nature of an RTS is an intellectually and physically challenging game, thats what draws people away from the genre. Like, for fuck sakes, people are condemning MULTITASKING now as a thing thats dooming the game. People are not condemning multitasking. People are saying that macro mechanics are not fun, add little strategic depth, and needlessly increase the difficulty of getting into SC2. Even if all there was to the game was controlling units, with no base building or production at all, controlling units would still require multitasking. Does this have to be spelt out? RTS is a niche genre, it appeals to a small demographic. To the degree you move the game away from that niche demographic, is the degree to which you lose players. I don't agree that RTS is a niche genre, and that it only appeals to a small demographic. According to wikipedia, SC2 was the fastest selling RTS of all time and has sold over 3 million copies. But even if it was, macro mechanics are not intrinsic to the genre. I agree that macro mechanics keep people away, but I don't think that's a good thing. The argument for removing, or diminishing the importance of the macro mechanics is NOT an argument for making the game easier, or removing multitasking, or removing strategy. It IS an argument for removing unfun, unnecessarily difficult aspects of controlling the game so that players can spend more time doing things that are fun. I feel that macro mechanics are an unnecessary barrier to entry into fully enjoying the game, and that the time spent injecting etc. would be better spent on other things. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On August 05 2015 05:12 Qwyn wrote: I'll post this here as well, but if Blizzard is going to test removing macro mechanics, I would rather they remove ALL of them. Autocast inject larva goes against the spirit of StarCraft and (makes me feel sick, lol) isn't good for the game. IF you have to autocast something, thus removing skill gradient altogether, you have to wonder why it's even in the game at all. Why not just increase the rate of individual larva spawning by a few seconds instead? Tah dah, and we can still make a few queens for creep spread and transfuse (more than enough utility there). // Instead of autocast spawn larva, just increase the spawn rate of larva at hatcheries by a few seconds. That way we don't have to dedicate 6+ supply to AUTOCAST something (if you have to autocast - which is by itself horrible - then why is the feature itself even there). Nony your posts are so damn on the spot, I was trying to come up with something similiar to say but you took the words straight out of my mouth. You can argue it both ways, there are multiple different definitions of "fun" each equally as valid, but the only concrete thing which can be discussed is the identity of StarCraft itself. What is it that this game is all about? And for me that has always been a mechanically challenging game and I don't want to lose that. But if removing macro mechanics might do some good for the tempo of the game then I am all for testing it, if only they are completely removed. Why are repair, charge and medivac heal auto-cast? Should we remove that from the game too? There's a good reason to make inject auto-cast rather than make more larva auto-spawn. And that's to give players the choice of sniping the queen to slow the opponent's economy. But the latter can also be made to work. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Also, if soO didn't have to inject he might be that much better than the next zerg because he can devote more APM to really fine-tuned micro, or whatever. We can't really know something like that, and it's a questionable argument to make. @ What I alluded to in the earlier sentence: we should be preserving the things that are interesting more often, and questioning the things that are only rarely interesting. Since everyone will gain APM to do other things, it should more or less even out, and we have a more interesting viewing experience, and more fun game to play, because we're cutting out the boring parts. Win-win. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
| ||
|
Nuclease
United States1049 Posts
This is a great article. Don't play much SC2 anymore mostly because I'm thinking Blizz might not listen and will just push LotV through with stripped down macro. Mechanics are a metric that is vital to the improvement of players, and is one of the things that takes the most discipline to improve. I think that things that require real dedication to improve on are good in a game. Macro is one of those things. Micro is one of those things. Getting rid of one breaks the yin and yang of SC2 micro/macro and would make me very sad. Remember this? v v v http://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/compositions/17444952/views/1,width=190,height=190,appearanceId=4.png/micro-macro-balance-2nd-edition-navy_design.png In basketball, every pro player ever has spent hours and hours and hours and hours, days and months working on lay-ups and freethrows. Does this make any other part of the game less exciting? Do the basic, foundational parts of basketball or any other common sport/competitive game make those games any less fun for people who don't spend 3 hours a day practicing them? No, I don't think so. KEEP MACRO ALIVE BROS. | ||
|
Quineotio
Australia128 Posts
On August 05 2015 12:55 Nuclease wrote: Don't play much SC2 anymore mostly because I'm thinking Blizz might not listen and will just push LotV through with stripped down macro. You don't play SC2 any more because you are afraid it will change in the future? | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
This is just like arena football. Out of bounds stops the clock? that's unfun, let's get rid of it. We have a better game now, right? ... right? The real motivation for seeking changes like these is to try and entice increased viewership which is seen as where there is now (new) money to be made in the industry. So the idea is do everything to make it better to watch. Never a thought is given to whether or not these changes will make for what amounts to actually a better game. | ||
|
L3x_Luthor
United States4 Posts
Thanks for the article stu. | ||
|
nTzzzz
France30 Posts
On August 05 2015 13:25 TheFish7 wrote: Macro and mechanics are an integral part of the RTS genre. Yet Blizzard continues to cater to the lowest common denominator by dumbing down anything in one of their games that is considered to be too difficult or demanding to the casual player. It was done to WoW and it was done to Diablo. Dungeons too hard? Let's call regular dungeons Heroic mode and create an easier version to keep milking our biggest casual cash-cows. Character building too difficult? Lets limit everyone to 4 skills and no assigning points. Macro mechanics too hard? Oh well, it was unfun and boring to watch anyway. This is just like arena football. Out of bounds stops the clock? that's unfun, let's get rid of it. We have a better game now, right? ... right? The real motivation for seeking changes like these is to try and entice increased viewership which is seen as where there is now (new) money to be made in the industry. So the idea is do everything to make it better to watch. Never a thought is given to whether or not these changes will make for what amounts to actually a better game. "Dumbing down" : a deliberate diminution of the INTELLECTUAL LEVEL of education, literature, cinema, news, and culture. If that's indeed what you mean, can you please stop whining about everything / blaming Blizzard out of principle and instead actually look with an open mind at how the proposed changes affect gameplay? Let's take a concrete situation. If you think it is too specific, I'll be happy to come up with a dozen more examples: Master level ZvX midgame. I'm starting to get my macro and creep spread rolling so I now need to prioritize between various tasks. With my limited APM, I have two options: 1) spending a lot of my focus on trying to gather nuggets of information with my overlords close to my opponent's base and if I find something relevant, altering my build to counter my opponent's strategy. 2) leaving the overlords where they are and playing a default strategy that I'm comfortable with while making sure I hit my injects on time. The way things are right now, missing injects (due to spending too much attention on scouting or freestyling as a counter to what I see my opponent doing) is so detrimental that the low probability that I could actually find useful information is not worth the risk. So most of the time I end up playing my default, somewhat mindless strategy that requires no intellectual work whatsoever. If I didn't have to inject (or if missing injects was less punishing), I would be able to spend more time scouting and adapting, and that would make for a way more strategic / intellectually challenging game. The macro boosters you love so much are actually what is "dumbing down" SC2. Now if you want to argue you'd rather have a "sports-like", mostly mechanical game where the faster player wins (like other people here), at least that's coherent. But what you are saying right now makes no sense. | ||
|
Parcelleus
Australia1662 Posts
On August 05 2015 14:10 nTzzzz wrote: The macro boosters you love so much are actually what is "dumbing down" SC2. Now if you want to argue you'd rather have a "sports-like", mostly mechanical game where the faster player wins (like other people here), at least that's coherent. But what you are saying right now makes no sense. What you say doesnt make sense. The faster player does not always win, ie. Pro players FanTaSy and elfi win games against faster players all the time. Macro is intertwined with SC's identity. If you want less macro/ no macro you can play Dawn of War 2 which is like that. Leave SC foundations alone, they work and they been working for many years. I dont want SC2 to be made easier, if Dayvie wants to cut 'a few clicks', remove some new units and/or their actions. In any case, the ladder will put you to similar skill of other players. | ||
|
nTzzzz
France30 Posts
On August 05 2015 14:28 Parcelleus wrote: What you say doesnt make sense. The faster player does not always win, ie. Pro players FanTaSy and elfi win games against faster players all the time. Macro is intertwined with SC's identity. If you want less macro/ no macro you can play Dawn of War 2 which is like that. Leave SC foundations alone, they work and they been working for many years. I dont want SC2 to be made easier, if Dayvie wants to cut 'a few clicks', remove some new units and/or their actions. In any case, the ladder will put you to similar skill of other players. Alright, replace "always wins" with "is at a huge advantage". Now what? Plus Fantasy is still pretty fucking fast. What about the example I brought up? What are you disagreeing with? I don't want less macro, I want less mindless clicks that distract you from anything strategy related and whose main purpose is to make people who have practised them feel good about crushing noobs. | ||
|
Quineotio
Australia128 Posts
On August 05 2015 14:28 Parcelleus wrote: Macro is intertwined with SC's identity. By "macro" I assume you mean specifically the macro mechanics blizz is considering changing (mule/inject/chrono). Macro will always be a part of SC2. Leave SC foundations alone, they work and they been working for many years. I would counter that they haven't been working, from the perspective that they are not fun, deter people from playing the game, and add little strategic depth. I dont want SC2 to be made easier, if Dayvie wants to cut 'a few clicks', remove some new units and/or their actions. Being worried about the game being easier should only be a concern if the game becomes so easy that people hit a skill ceiling. I don't think that players will be anywhere near the skill ceiling even with the removal of macro mechanics, especially seeing as army control is becoming more difficult in LotV. What I would expect is a more dynamic, interactive game, where players have more time to control their armies. I don't understand why anyone would rather spend time injecting hatcheries etc. rather than controlling units. Wanting to remove units and/or their abilities to keep macro mechanics seems... odd. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Don't make an adjutant hold your hands in case you fall (by removing all steep drops). Don't make the game focused around showy micro harass units that will yield a yell from the crowd. Let those understated aspects of player skill continue to impact in the manner they currently do (minus shifting balance changes). I fear all future RTS games will continue the trend of not troubling the casual gamer with these "difficult to manage" "not easily noticeable" things. I want to earn my soO-like base management, not have it built-in. | ||
|
F u r u y a
Brazil173 Posts
I'd like to emphasize the following too (in bold): On August 05 2015 02:51 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Oh I dont give a flying crap if the game is twice as big as LoL or as small as the current BW-scene. as long as I can find games on ladder, there is something to watch and every now and then a tournament. Gameplay-wise, sc2 has never been more beautiful than it is right now, if Blizzard were to break the 3 base eco cap, remove forcefields/MSC and the need for them, fix zerg AA(the new viper ability is way to hardcounter-ish) and some other tweaks, it would be close to perfect. SC2 will NEVER become as big as the mobas. NEVER. if people want a lot of micro that doesnt require multitasking, they can play mobas or Company of heroes or grey goo or total war or other similar games. So instead of trying to shape SC2 into some cheap moba "copy" make it the best damn RTS it can possibly be. Cater it to RTS-players, the kind who prefer mechanics over games where your base is insignificant and you never have to look at it ever. if SC2 where to become something I no longer love, why would I give a flying hump about its future? You assume that the reason people dont watch sc2 is because of the mechanically demanding aspects. What exactly are you basing this on? edit: I literally said that I didnt "have" to spend a fuckton of hours practicing anything. I played the game and had fun learning the game, as I played it. *** And just to finish my post. Blizzard has too much power (compared to us humble players who enjoy StarCraft II) and can pretty much do whatever they want with the game (add more MOBA into it) and yet retain a pretty large player base. In fact, that's their goal: larger player base = more profit (and screw the players who enjoy StarCraft II for what StarCraft II truly is). Remember that we're talking about really big figures here. Activision Blizzard revenue in 2014 was 4.4 billion USD. HotS alone sold 1.1 million units in the first two days (60 million USD). If the SC2 balance team is able to successfully implement a more popular (more selling) version of the game, I'd imagine they would earn some kind of bonus. In that situation do you think they'd give a flying horse crap to the "hardcore" players? No. Let's go MSC2! | ||
|
TRaFFiC
Canada1448 Posts
On August 05 2015 14:50 Quineotio wrote: By "macro" I assume you mean specifically the macro mechanics blizz is considering changing (mule/inject/chrono). Macro will always be a part of SC2. I would counter that they haven't been working, from the perspective that they are not fun, deter people from playing the game, and add little strategic depth. I don't understand why anyone would rather spend time injecting hatcheries etc. rather than controlling units. Wanting to remove units and/or their abilities to keep macro mechanics seems... odd. Managing your economy while at the same time controlling your army has been a fundamental part of every RTS I ever played. I can't imagine any serious player wanting this bullshit. Edit: The decision to hit an inject on time or throw down a mule on 50 energy is a strategic one which helps players with bad micro get a bigger army. Those are the same bad players this changes supposedly aims to help. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On August 05 2015 09:36 Quineotio wrote: People are not condemning multitasking. People are saying that macro mechanics are not fun, add little strategic depth, and needlessly increase the difficulty of getting into SC2. Even if all there was to the game was controlling units, with no base building or production at all, controlling units would still require multitasking. I don't agree that RTS is a niche genre, and that it only appeals to a small demographic. According to wikipedia, SC2 was the fastest selling RTS of all time and has sold over 3 million copies. But even if it was, macro mechanics are not intrinsic to the genre. I agree that macro mechanics keep people away, but I don't think that's a good thing. The argument for removing, or diminishing the importance of the macro mechanics is NOT an argument for making the game easier, or removing multitasking, or removing strategy. It IS an argument for removing unfun, unnecessarily difficult aspects of controlling the game so that players can spend more time doing things that are fun. I feel that macro mechanics are an unnecessary barrier to entry into fully enjoying the game, and that the time spent injecting etc. would be better spent on other things. even if 3 million copies is a lot for an RTS, its not a lot if you compare to the games people want sc2 to be competing with in terms of viewership/playerbase. which further proves that RTS is a niche genre. The only acceptable change to macro mechanics would be to fully remove injects and muling and either replace them with other macro mechanics that rewards multitasking or increase the spawn larvae rate on hatcheries (and possibly make hatcheries cheaper) but that means Zerg would be an even more mechanically demanding race because you would constantly have to spend larvae or risk being blocked (3/3) which I personally wouldnt mind as it would make sc2 mechanically rewarding but it goes against what people who want sc2 to become more casual would want. | ||
|
Dracover
Australia177 Posts
To me macro that you have to do or else you will lose include: - lavae injects - mules - chrono probes early on I enjoy them about as much having to cast guardian shield during a fight. I don't see the point of a button you have to press when the game design already means you don't have a say in the matter. You have to press it. All it does is frustrates some people and confuses others. A beginner will turn on the game an legitimately think that supply call down is a viable option whereas we know it is not. To me macro that give choice and strategy: - Buildings...you have to build them but you can choose when and what order etc. You still need production facilities but putting a robo before 2 gateways or robo forge into gateway. The number of gateway etc all are strategic decisions intertwined with macro. - Upgrades, what to get, when to get them, the order to get them. You have to macro but you can choose. - Units, you have to get them but you can decide what and how many of each and the composition and timing. All of the above are elements of macro | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 05 2015 18:20 TRaFFiC wrote: Can someone link me Blizzard's post? I can't for the life of me find it. Community Feedback July 31st Also in Community Feedback July 17th they are considering to change macro mechanics. | ||
| ||
