On August 06 2015 18:43 LaLuSh wrote: On the highest level micro is the more important of the two. The higher you go, the greater its relative importance.
Which is the problem in a nutshell. Why is the most abstract, most mechanically difficult aspect of the game also the most important aspect of the game for new players? I think G3n's post "New Macro = Good!?" gives some insight to what it is like without the macro mechanics, where macro gets harder organically as the game goes on and more bases get taken.
Reduced efficiency on injects: This is to reduce the punishment on bad injects. However zerg gets a small extra default larvae production so that the full larvae production is not reduced a lot. As BigJ pointed out, larvae injects are still worth it even with a considerable nerf. But thing like choosing between an inject or extra creep when you have a lot of hatches will be a real choice. Some players already do that with the current system so its interesting. Thats because i think fast larvae production is not a problem, it actually makes the game better with fast tech switches and production for zerg.
Auto cast on mules: Terrans don't have to click the drop mule button each time, but toggle auto cast on and off instead (the meaningful decision involved stays the same). This reduces the burden on new players but experienced players won't notice a big difference. Terran macro is intensive due to production, not mule drops, since there is no permanent loss if you store energy a bit.
No changes on chrono: The punishment for bad chrono is not big and there are meaningful choices involved. Maybe allow auto cast on chrono. Experienced players might toggle it off to not waste nexus energy and turn it on later in the game to boost an upgrade. New players will be able to use with more efficiency. Chrono is a great mechanic and im strongly against its removal.
On August 06 2015 11:35 Parcelleus wrote: Well said Nony.
I also like what Morrow says on Remax (video should play at about 4min 15sec in):
That is a point i already made somewhere, people who focus on single tasks/details get it all wrong imo. It's important that the whole experience is a good one, it doesn't really matter if injects are binary/uninteresting, the mechanic is part of what makes zerg interesting as a whole. I also agree with his general statement that mechanics in sc2 are already too easy, but that's another point entirely^^
On August 06 2015 22:20 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's important that the whole experience is a good one, it doesn't really matter if injects are binary/uninteresting, the mechanic is part of what makes zerg interesting as a whole.
If being binary/uninteresting isn't a good enough reason to change something then what is?
On August 06 2015 22:20 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's important that the whole experience is a good one, it doesn't really matter if injects are binary/uninteresting, the mechanic is part of what makes zerg interesting as a whole.
If being binary/uninteresting isn't a good enough reason to change something then what is?
Read my comment again / watch the video and you will understand why it doesn't matter if a single task might be not 100% interesting on its own. The results of the combination of all these single tasks is what matters.
That is a point i already made somewhere, people who focus on single tasks/details get it all wrong imo. It's important that the whole experience is a good one, it doesn't really matter if injects are binary/uninteresting, the mechanic is part of what makes zerg interesting as a whole. I also agree with his general statement that mechanics in sc2 are already too easy, but that's another point entirely^^
It's not a good argument because it doesn't justify inject.You could literally click away pop-ups or force you to do something else that has nothing to do with RTS like solve math equations and get the same effect. In the case of math equations it would actually be a skillfull task in itself by the way, so it would actually be a better way to create the wanted effect of distinguishing players. It would still be no decision but it would be an actual improvement to the game - which is kind of sad, but that's how bad the current state of injects is.
I'm not against the concept of having players look at their bases and do shit everywhere. But if I do it for building a barracks then it is because I made the spend my money in that way at that time. With inject it is simply a task that you will do regardless of what happens in the game. If you have a 25energy queen next to an uninjected hatchery then you inject that hatchery, plain and stupid as that.
If you want micro to be related to controlling multiple units, then what? MOBA's doesn't properly fulfill that role.
You may then argue that you cuold play other RTS games like that, however, all of the "easy mode" RTS games have awfully slow and unresponsive units. Sc2 is the only game that gives satisfaction in terms of unit control.
But slow units makes the game more open to new players, and let's us focus on what RTS is REALLY about, namely strategy, so we should congratulate those games for that, right? (Sorry, just trolling a bit, feel free to disregard.)
So those whink a real-time game is all about strategy are ccompletely wrong. Every single empirical example will proove you wrong. Let's look at real sports. Who on earth starts to play/watch football/soccer due to strategy? And let's look at the most played computer game in the world League of Legends. Noone gives a !@#$%^&* about strategy in soloq. You buy same items every game. P/B phase is pointless, you just play your favourite champions and most people care little about teamcomps dynamic. Yet it's still succesful becasue the mechanics inside the game work well.
Strategy can be good to have, but mechanics are what defines sports (it will be called technique there) and computergames as well as esports. Strategy should therefore be seen as a secondary goal while a high mechanical skillcap should be the primary goal.
However, the question is how do we make the mechanics interesting? How do we maintain a super high skillcap without a super high learning barrier.
High mechanical skillcap will exist regardless considering the way SC2 is designed. Oh, you can micro hellion groups at 2 different bases while dropping the main? Well TY can do that plus micro a banshee, plus expand, plus make units without idling production, plus start +3/+3 as soon as his +2/+2 finished. GG?
And i still don't see the problem with there being tasks which are "plain and stupid" when looked at in a vacuum. A lot of the decisions in sc2 are not all that interesting, even if they are in theory still decisions you have to make. The game gets interesting when a lot of decisions are being made in succession. The same is true for mechanical checks. One alone might be "plain and stupid", combine a lot and suddenly the gameplay shifts a lot and creates different situations for different kinds of players which then create different kinds of decisions as a result.
On August 06 2015 23:06 The_Red_Viper wrote: And i still don't see the problem with there being tasks which are "plain and stupid" when looked at in a vacuum. A lot of the decisions in sc2 are not all that interesting, even if they are in theory still decisions you have to make. The game gets interesting when a lot of decisions are being made in succession. The same is true for mechanical checks. One alone might be "plain and stupid", combine a lot and suddenly the gameplay shifts a lot and creates different situations for different kinds of players which then create different kinds of decisions as a result.
Looking at one task alone isn't useful.
You get into argumentation areas that let you justify everything you want in Starcraft because the game will be good regardless.
A feature has to be good in itself and in the bigger picture. If you can improve the bigger picture only with a stupid task then fine. If you can do it with a meaningful task in the same or a similar way then no, it's not fine to have a "plain and stupid" feature. You can keep the same game quality with a replacement or change of inject. And the point that you need inject to begin with for that game quality is argueable and at least worth testing.
On August 06 2015 21:21 Castor385 wrote: I would really like to see some actual testing data, instead of hours and hours of theory crafting.
I agree.
What do you want to test? Changing this solves no particular problem. It just changes the core of the game. To test something you need to be able to look at the results and try to get some information from that. I don't see what we would be looking for. It's a change you either agree with or don't.
On August 06 2015 23:06 The_Red_Viper wrote: And i still don't see the problem with there being tasks which are "plain and stupid" when looked at in a vacuum. A lot of the decisions in sc2 are not all that interesting, even if they are in theory still decisions you have to make. The game gets interesting when a lot of decisions are being made in succession. The same is true for mechanical checks. One alone might be "plain and stupid", combine a lot and suddenly the gameplay shifts a lot and creates different situations for different kinds of players which then create different kinds of decisions as a result.
Looking at one task alone isn't useful.
You get into argumentation areas that let you justify everything you want in Starcraft because the game will be good regardless.
A feature has to be good in itself and in the bigger picture. If you can improve the bigger picture only with a stupid task then fine. If you can do it with a meaningful task in the same or a similar way then no, it's not fine to have a "plain and stupid" feature. You can keep the same game quality with a replacement or change of inject. And the point that you need inject to begin with for that game quality is argueable and at least worth testing.
I mostly argue against their solution of autocasting the inject here tbh. Give me something more interesting which will still be an important task for macro and i am ok with it. If you remove the macro mechanic and tell me "hey the players will do other exciting things which have nothign to do with macro!" (which i don't believe btw) i don't feel it would imrpove the game one bit.
On August 06 2015 21:21 Castor385 wrote: I would really like to see some actual testing data, instead of hours and hours of theory crafting.
I agree.
What do you want to test? Changing this solves no particular problem. It just changes the core of the game. To test something you need to be able to look at the results and try to get some information from that. I don't see what we would be looking for. It's a change you either agree with or don't.
For starters, if 'macro style' still exists and people can differentiate themselves that way.
I don't understand the bold part. Are you saying we can know the ramifications beforehand without testing?
On August 06 2015 23:06 The_Red_Viper wrote: And i still don't see the problem with there being tasks which are "plain and stupid" when looked at in a vacuum. A lot of the decisions in sc2 are not all that interesting, even if they are in theory still decisions you have to make. The game gets interesting when a lot of decisions are being made in succession. The same is true for mechanical checks. One alone might be "plain and stupid", combine a lot and suddenly the gameplay shifts a lot and creates different situations for different kinds of players which then create different kinds of decisions as a result.
Looking at one task alone isn't useful.
You get into argumentation areas that let you justify everything you want in Starcraft because the game will be good regardless.
A feature has to be good in itself and in the bigger picture. If you can improve the bigger picture only with a stupid task then fine. If you can do it with a meaningful task in the same or a similar way then no, it's not fine to have a "plain and stupid" feature. You can keep the same game quality with a replacement or change of inject. And the point that you need inject to begin with for that game quality is argueable and at least worth testing.
I mostly argue against their solution of autocasting the inject here tbh. Give me something more interesting which will still be an important task for macro and i am ok with it. If you remove the macro mechanic and tell me "hey the players will do other exciting things which have nothign to do with macro!" (which i don't believe btw) i don't feel it would imrpove the game one bit.
True. I guess I'd personally be fine with that blizzard argumentation because I personally like it when I can spend a lot of time on the frontlines with little need to manage my bases, but I can very well see that this is not for Starcraft. And that this type of being forced away from the action is an interesting thing in itself. And thus might not be everyone's beef.
On August 06 2015 23:06 The_Red_Viper wrote: And i still don't see the problem with there being tasks which are "plain and stupid" when looked at in a vacuum. A lot of the decisions in sc2 are not all that interesting, even if they are in theory still decisions you have to make. The game gets interesting when a lot of decisions are being made in succession. The same is true for mechanical checks. One alone might be "plain and stupid", combine a lot and suddenly the gameplay shifts a lot and creates different situations for different kinds of players which then create different kinds of decisions as a result.
Looking at one task alone isn't useful.
You get into argumentation areas that let you justify everything you want in Starcraft because the game will be good regardless.
A feature has to be good in itself and in the bigger picture. If you can improve the bigger picture only with a stupid task then fine. If you can do it with a meaningful task in the same or a similar way then no, it's not fine to have a "plain and stupid" feature. You can keep the same game quality with a replacement or change of inject. And the point that you need inject to begin with for that game quality is argueable and at least worth testing.
I mostly argue against their solution of autocasting the inject here tbh. Give me something more interesting which will still be an important task for macro and i am ok with it. If you remove the macro mechanic and tell me "hey the players will do other exciting things which have nothign to do with macro!" (which i don't believe btw) i don't feel it would imrpove the game one bit.
True. I guess I'd personally be fine with that blizzard argumentation because I personally like it when I can spend a lot of time on the frontlines with little need to manage my bases, but I can very well see that this is not for Starcraft. And that this type of being forced away from the action is an interesting thing in itself. And thus might not be everyone's beef.
If sc2 would be designed to have constant micro battles on a lot of fronts, then this might actually be a good change for the sake of the initial design. I don't feel this is the case though. I probably would also have fun with such a game, but i don't think it would be starcraft anymore tbh ^^
edit: this is the reason i don't buy the reasoning "hey you will have more apm to micro!!" Cool, now i can micro my lings i built to check the enemy wall, great!
A great strength of starcraft 2 is the variety in play that is possible. From the original article.
"Every player is given tools on how they want to win. Then they decide how they want to win whether it be by deathball, economic starvation, constant multi-pronged attacks, parade pushes, doom drops, base trades, all-ins, counter build-orders or micro."
Not only are there 3 very different races, each race has a variety of tactics and strategies that they can focus on to achieve victory.These also provide ways for each player to distinguish themselves.
As mentioned MMa/GuMiho were the terran kings of constant multi pronged attacks.
soO is one of the few zergs who can do the extremely larva heavy style of ling/baneling and engaging terran off of creep.
Or lets say bombers mass macro, nothing but marines/medivacs in TvZ, undoubtedly entertaining, how would that work without mules?
If we say protoss is too restricted and focused on victory by death-ball, then lets improve their options for other styles. Does anyone remember liquid herOs aggressive multi pronged harassment with warp prisms and high templar?
Removing macro mechanics reduces variety and options and forces players down fewer, narrower paths. When instead the focus should be on enhancing or strengthening the various tactics for every race. This allows players a means to distinguish themselves as a 'King or Queen' of a certain style. Then there is even more entertainment when opposing styles clash or two players known for the same styles of play engage in an epic confrontation to determine who is best. It is also even more impressive if a player can seamlessly switch between the different styles, choosing the best way to play for a specific match-up and opponent. Targeting an opponents weakness or meeting their strengths and besting them.
On August 06 2015 23:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 06 2015 22:36 mishimaBeef wrote:
On August 06 2015 21:21 Castor385 wrote: I would really like to see some actual testing data, instead of hours and hours of theory crafting.
I agree.
What do you want to test? Changing this solves no particular problem. It just changes the core of the game. To test something you need to be able to look at the results and try to get some information from that. I don't see what we would be looking for. It's a change you either agree with or don't.
I don't understand the bold part. Are you saying we can know the ramifications beforehand without testing?
Well, yes. Apart from the obvious balance issues that the changes will bring it'll just make macro less important as a whole, and that is something you like, or don't like.
EPT
