|
On August 06 2015 23:30 mishimaBeef wrote:
Also, I'm certain nobody knows what the strong ways to play LotV are... considering the new economy, there will be much more to do macro/economy wise.
I'm certain the gameplay is very similar to HotS. Blizzard and the Korean players have a point when they say there is so much to manage in engagments now. But that isn't really going to change the gameplay that much, it just means you are going to die every second game because you didn't look at your army when the opponent dropped the disruptor or that you were stupid enough to try and multitask against liberators or lurkers.
|
The only way to know for certain is to test it and see if it forces players down fewer, narrower paths.
|
On August 06 2015 23:38 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2015 23:30 mishimaBeef wrote:
Also, I'm certain nobody knows what the strong ways to play LotV are... considering the new economy, there will be much more to do macro/economy wise. I'm certain the gameplay is very similar to HotS. Blizzard and the Korean players have a point when they say there is so much to manage in engagments now. But that isn't really going to change the gameplay that much, it just means you are going to die every second game because you didn't look at your army when the opponent dropped the disruptor or that you were stupid enough to try and multitask against liberators or lurkers.
I disagree... I believe the economy changes (less resources per base) will have far reaching ramifications on the ebb and flow of the game compared to HotS.
|
As a thought experiment, imagine everyone had some sort of Oracle-like harasser instead of their macro mechanic. Suddenly, will macro style disappear? No. Will a multitasking demand that directly affects the economic position of both players disappear? No.
Macro booster isn't macro. It's a multitasking demand that has an effect on macro. So do many other things in the game. I don't believe 'macro style' will magically disappear. The extent of a person's strategy that is macro-focussed is much more than their ability to fit in the macro booster multitasking demand.
To expand further, 'macro style' is sacrificing production of units, or tech. to go for an economic advantage. And having the confidence in your knowledge of timings, positioning, and micro to defend whatever your opponent might throw at you. All the while having the multitasking capability to make use of your economic investment.
But again, testing is the only way to know if 'macro style' will still exist.
|
to start off sorry for unorganized thoughts and grammar mistakes i gotta type this fast i'm at work.
Having played many competitive games (war3, bw, WOL, cs 1.6, cs go, dota) I believe what would work best for an rts game like sc2 is instead of unit counters and playstyle/build order counters make it so that any style any build order can counter most other options if played properly. that will allow for more variations and more highlight (skilled) plays.
With too much of a focus on macro oriented play (max production efficiency, expansion and army building) you hinder creativity on the battlefield since from an opportunity cost standpoint it would be more effective to just focus on outmacroing your opponent (I don't mean to make macroing easier by any means but in fact it should be harder to have perfect macro... what's the point of automating larvae inject or even having the option of macro boosts in the first place? have some more creative ways for people who are macrooriented to get ahead in a macro perspective). what I mean is after a certain baseline in fundamentals playstyle/strategy/tactics/skill should be more of the determining factor in winning. not only is it more fun to watch/play but that is what makes the game competitive.
If i were to relate this to counterstrike. if you watch cs go rarely do you see the team with much more individual skill beat the more experienced/well playing team. your baseline aim is like macro in sc2. You need to have a certain level to be able to play at a high level but that is not what makes you win. Rather it is the teamwork/strategy/tactics and in game chaotic situation adaptability by players that allow teams to win. For anybody that followed the pro scene the french team i think it was titan at one point had Scream/KennyS/shox who were inarguably the forefront if not at least in the top 5 of riflers and awpers we have ever seen (so basically a player with godlike macro capabilities) but they couldn't post consistent results against the top teams since they consistently got outplayed. Same thing should happen in sc2. Macro is the fundamentals, microstyle should be what separates and defines you. maybe your style is harass, maybe your style is early allin maybe your style is multitasking drops, but regardless of the situation there should always be a way to micro your way back into a game. back in bw you could beat a tank wall with spider mine baits or stasis traps or bait armies into stopped lurkers... where the fuck did all these creative strategies go? micro without creativity is just boring skill. its the creativity, strategy and mindgames that created the depth of all the greatest competitive games of all time whether it was starcraft, warcraft, cs 1.6, DotA etc...
Now I know all these "creative" things are micro related but you can also implement that with macro to make it viable and creative but there has to be a risk/benefit factor. you can't make macroing as fast as you can to 200/200 the consistent goto way to win taht's just stupid and dry. in cs go that would just mean the team witht eh best aim/reflexes would just outgun the other team every time.
a pro player with the smaller army should be able to micro his way in winning against an army that is bigger. Back in sc/bw that's what made some of the greats shine for eg. slayers boxer was his creative strategies and micro oriented style that could outplay more fundamentally (macro) focused opponenets. I'm not saying it woudlnt' work in reverse but I dont' have any ideas off the top of my head as to how to make that tactically and creativity based.
what do you guys think? i've been out of the loop for sc2 for a bit but I still think this mostly applies as a general theory.
|
Thanks for the thoughtful post Nony, I understand your point of view better although we still won't agree on what should be core identity of SC2.
On August 06 2015 09:12 NonY wrote:
I think for a lot of SC2's 5 year lifetime, micro has been more important at higher levels. For a while, there wasn't enough harassment and skirmishes going on to distract players from macro, so both players had equally good macro. And then games were often decided by one big fight, which of course is about micro. Constantly watching your big death ball army has historically been too important in SC2, especially in WoL. Timing attacks and deadly harass openings have been prominent in HotS, where good pros and bad pros are differentiated by micro, not macro.
That sounds reasonable so I'll take your word for it. What I can say is at masters level macro is way more important than micro, especially for zerg and terran. I'm sure it's even more the case in lower leagues. In the end, I like macro so I don't mind it too much. The main issue for me is the way the difficulty of mechanics drastically reduces strategic options.
On August 06 2015 09:12 NonY wrote:
Blizzard says inject larva is boring, and they're mostly right, so they use it as a reason to remove all macro mechanics. I say chronoboost is awesome and interesting and has done great things for protoss builds and macro, so I'd use it as justification for redesigning zerg's macro mechanic.
I think almost everyone agrees chronoboost is a good mechanic so I’m not really worried about Blizzard removing it. The only thing I think might happen is blizzard giving us the option to cast it only once and it being casted again automatically on the same building everytime it expires.
On August 06 2015 09:12 NonY wrote:
The way Blizzard goes about it, they're basically using their failure to give zerg an interesting macro mechanic as a reason to remove macro mechanics when they could be making it interesting instead.
If they can make injects interesting, then I’m all for it. If they can’t, I think we’re better off either taking it out of the game or making it autocast. I don’t see any problem with keeping chronoboost while getting rid of injects. In fact it would balance the APM requirement between the 3 races.
On August 06 2015 09:12 NonY wrote:
They could redesign them and give them a special spot on the observer UI or make them a central part of some campaign missions so newbs know them better
If you think the reason noobs struggle is because they don’t know or understand the mechanics, you greatly underestimate them. They know what they are supposed to do, they just can’t manage it. I think because you have been a pro level player for so long, you might not remember how much time and mindless practise it takes to get decent at mechanics.
On August 06 2015 09:12 NonY wrote:
As for the game being more about macro than strategy, that's up for each player to decide. Certainly a low league player trying to get the highest league he can could probably do it most easily by learning how to macro better and practicing it a bit. But he could also just not care what percentile he's in and play the game he wants.
Something we’ll all agree on is part of the identity of SC2 is being competitive. Gold league players want to give themselves the best chance to win.
Having a “strategic approach” (as opposed to a macro oriented one) that gives you a lesser chance to win is a contradiction in terms: people who like strategy will still go for the macro oriented approach if that’s the best way to win but they just won't enjoy it as much as if some of the compulsory mindless actions were replaced with more decisions.
On August 06 2015 09:12 NonY wrote:
If you really love pure strategy, you'd be playing card games or table top games (or simulations of those games on the PC). I'll more humbly express my opinion on what StarCraft is on any point except this, because this point I'll say with complete confidence: the basic mechanics of StarCraft should be too difficult to consistently execute perfectly in a real game against a challenging opponent. StarCraft is on the extreme edge of strategy games, being the one that's MOST difficult to actually do what you want to do. That undoubtedly is part of its identity.
If you want it to be about just strategy, play Chess or Hearthstone or a million other games. If you want strategy and micro, play a MOBA. If you want strategy and micro and macro, then right now there's only StarCraft. Let the macro in StarCraft stay difficult and important.
I really dislike MOBAs. I do play Hearthstone (achieved legend a few days ago), poker (semi-pro) and I used to play chess, but I don’t like those as much as SC2 for multiple reasons. I like the scale of SC2, I like to produce and control big armies. I like incomplete information and the fact that you have to scout, think and adapt. I do also enjoy macro, however I don’t think it should be so overwhelming that it accounts for 90% of your skill.
No, I definitely don’t think mechanics should be too difficult for anyone to execute perfectly. It’s frustrating for most players because it feels like it’s the only thing that matters until master league. And I also want to be able to admire the best players in the game and I just can’t right now when the two main predictive factors for being awesome at SC2 are being really young (for the highest APM) and working your ass off for years, 12 hours a day, repeating the same mindless macro tasks over and over again in order to achieve maximum efficiency.
|
That sounds reasonable so I'll take your word for it. What I can say is at masters level macro is way more important than micro, especially for zerg and terran
Do you frequently gets matched up against terran players who cannt build scvs consistently and with high average unspent ressources? I for one can't remember that being the case. It was definitely unit control that's the differentiating factor at that level.
|
Actually, it's multitasking. Your macro slips because the fights are micro intensive. Who can multitask hard enough to keep their macro up will get ahead. You can harass your opponent thereby stressing their multitask to get ahead. Macro boosters are just an additional multitask demand (a fixed, static, "single player", mostly invisible-to-viewers one).
|
Yes nTzzz, I too want to play in Barcelona FC alongside Lionel Messi. But it's so unfair that I have to train 12 hours a day for years repeating mindless exercises over and over in order to stand a chance at being a superstar in a sport. Maybe I should write a letter to the game designers of football and complain?
I cannot admire the best players in the world because of this. That they train hours EVERY day makes me think less of them. The fact that the main predictive factors for being awesome at football are being young and having worked your ass off for years since your youth, repeating the same mindless tasks over; that actually makes me lose my respect for the stars.
If only someone could find the magical balance, the perfect relationship, between time spent and mastery. Surely if one practices something for one hour a day they should be able to execute it perfectly? Now that would be my ideal sport or art form.
That's why I personally buy tickets to average-piano-player#159286's concertos instead of supporting the mindless practice robots that make up the professional pianists establishment. It's a shame that I'm alone in attending these concerts. The general public lack the appreciation for true musicality. They cannot see beyond the mistakes like I can. If only I could redesign the piano so everybody could execute every piece. That way we could decide which musician truly is the most musical and artistic. In my opinion music should be about expression, not technique. Technique should not be so overwhelming that it accounts for 90% of your skill.
|
Reasonable example, but everyone can appreciate the display of movement on the field by Messi, and everyone can appreciate the musical prowess of the professional pianists. But not everyone can enjoy the injecting, mule dropping, or chronoboosting - they are, for the most part, invisible multitasking demands.
What they can appreciate though, is stuff happening *on the map*. Those types of visible actions should be where we drive the game. Not the same old 3 base stuff and oh look he has more units because he multi-tasked the macro boosters well. Need map presence and unit movement! Base construction and defensive postures! Tactical engagements and secret buildings!
Every (precious) action should unfold the story on the battlefield in a visual, intuitive way. Whether someone is building a lot of production to gear up for a timing attack (perhaps called 'micro style'), or someone is double expanding and carefully scouting to set up proper defense with their current limited army (perhaps called 'macro style'). Let's make the most of the immense multitasking skills required to play at the highest level.
|
On August 07 2015 03:32 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +That sounds reasonable so I'll take your word for it. What I can say is at masters level macro is way more important than micro, especially for zerg and terran Do you frequently gets matched up against terran players who cannt build scvs consistently and with high average unspent ressources? I for one can't remember that being the case. It was definitely unit control that's the differentiating factor at that level.
Yes, I frequently get matched up against terrans who forget to build scvs for 30 seconds when something happens on the map. That's often the difference between winning and losing because they have 2 less scvs than they should until maximum 3 base saturation. Same goes for unit production. If they're not very efficient they end up building 1 extra rax and keeping their ressources low but that's 3 extra marines that they don't have. I hope I don't need to convince you that's enough to snowball the following fights one way or the other.
My average unspent ressources over 185 games of LOTV (I'm in GM which means master level at this point) is 585. Obviously I don't float 600 minerals in the early game so it means I sometimes find myself over 1000 minerals when it gets intense. That alone explains almost all of my losses.
|
On August 07 2015 04:07 mishimaBeef wrote:
Reasonable example, but everyone can appreciate the display of movement on the field by Messi, and everyone can appreciate the musical prowess of the professional pianists. But not everyone can enjoy the injecting, mule dropping, or chronoboosting - they are, for the most part, invisible multitasking demands.
What they can appreciate though, is stuff happening *on the map*. Those types of visible actions should be where we drive the game. Not the same old 3 base stuff and oh look he has more units because he multi-tasked the macro boosters well. Need map presence and unit movement! Base construction and defensive postures! Tactical engagements and secret buildings!
Every (precious) action should unfold the story on the battlefield in a visual, intuitive way. Whether someone is building a lot of production to gear up for a timing attack (perhaps called 'micro style'), or someone is double expanding and carefully scouting to set up proper defense with their current limited army (perhaps called 'macro style'). Let's make the most of the immense multitasking skills of experts.
Who cares if people can't see it. Anyone who has played maybe 5 games of sc2 in their life knows you gotta inject to be good. They know it's happening. You can argue that inject is boring and you'd like to see it replaced, but stop trying to dumb shit down for people who don't give a shit about Starcraft.
|
It's not 'dumbing shit down' it's making the war story on the screen better. No random masters level player is going to multitask like Maru, even with macro boosters gone. And yes though it is known that you gotta inject to be good, injecting doesn't advance the visual story on the battlefield besides realizing later on "oh he has more units". This is especially important for new viewers.
And if I "know it's happening" it's boring. I just assume they are hitting their macro boosters in pro games. Only if they somehow lose out of nowhere will I think, oh must have slipped on macro. This is no different from if the macro boosters are out. Except with them out, the multitasking demand can be replaced by something more interesting.
Again, multitasking demands of macro boosters is not macro. Macro has it's own set of demands (including multitasking defense from economic harass - which I will argue is a lot harder than rote mechanical actions since you have to read and react). 'Macro style' is sacrificing army power (tech. or numbers) for economic advantage.
|
On August 07 2015 04:21 mishimaBeef wrote:
It's not 'dumbing shit down' it's making the war story on the screen better. No random masters level player is going to multitask like Maru, even with macro boosters gone. And yes though it is known that you gotta inject to be good, injecting doesn't advance the visual story on the battlefield besides realizing later on "oh he has more units". This is especially important for new viewers.
And if I "know it's happening" it's boring. I just assume they are hitting their macro boosters in pro games. Only if they somehow lose out of nowhere will I think, oh must have slipped on macro. This is no different from if the macro boosters are out. Except with them out, the multitasking demand can be replaced by something more interesting. Again, multitasking demands of macro boosters is not macro. Macro has it's own set of demands (including multitasking defense from economic harass) and 'macro style' is sacrificing army power (tech. or numbers) for economic advantage.
Then add a little indicator on screen for unused queen energy or something to show how good someone's macro is, instead of changing the game for viewers. Adjust the game for players, change the visuals in observer mode for viewers.
|
On August 07 2015 04:07 mishimaBeef wrote:
Reasonable example, but everyone can appreciate the display of movement on the field by Messi, and everyone can appreciate the musical prowess of the professional pianists. But not everyone can enjoy the injecting, mule dropping, or chronoboosting - they are, for the most part, invisible multitasking demands.
What they can appreciate though, is stuff happening *on the map*. Those types of visible actions should be where we drive the game. Not the same old 3 base stuff and oh look he has more units because he multi-tasked the macro boosters well. Need map presence and unit movement! Base construction and defensive postures! Tactical engagements and secret buildings!
You and that other guy really seem to buy into the myth that macro is difficult in SC2. I'd wager you'd appreciate it more if it actually led to some readily noticeable differences in unit output, which it hardly does in its current form.
Most noticeable differences in unit output on the professional level is due to the things you already mention you like about the game. "Visible actions" drive the differences. Someone killed workers with harass? That leads to a difference in macro. Someone faked aggression to force units instead of workers? That leads to difference in macro output.
Just don't buy into the myth that the difficulty of macro execution itself leads to any readily noticeable differences in professional play, unless you're really analysing in depth and actively looking for minute differences.
Pretty much haven't heard a commentator emphasize macro mechanics execution since early 2011, when it still was relevant because everybody sucked enough at the game for viewers to be able to notice a difference in unit output.
|
What's more exciting... seeing someone's number is high/low? Or seeing that they have 10 things going on the map?
|
Macro is not difficult. I can fire up the single player game and macro away. Even in brood war. What makes macro difficult is the need to multitask. It is better to give players 1 hero harass unit for the whole game and cut macro boosters. This way we have something visible for their multitasking - which still affects economics of the game!
Seems like for economics/macro multitasking people would rather have a mini single player rhythm game to multitask than actual war actions...
|
People are touchy about the subject because it's part of the identity of Starcraft as a game:
Warcraft 3 was a really good example where we really wanted to have a game where the individual units mattered more. In Starcraft, I could win games without even managing my troops. Because I was so good at the economic part of the game and I was so fast at building my base.
The other thing that I think is tough to account for in RTS games in a numerical sort of way, is where your attention is at, and how you are utilizing your attention and what you're focusing on. Because everything is an opportunity cost for your attention. Are you going to focus on building a new base? Are you going to focus on your current base? Are you going to focus on building units? Are you going to focus on controlling your units? You can't do everything. It's one of the things I think is really exciting about RTS's. You have to make those choices.
One of the insights I had as a player, was if I'm playing against other players: make them focus on combat. And I'm going to focus on economy. Because what's going to happen as the game advances, I'm going to increase my economic advantage over a period of minutes. Then it's going to get to a place where they just can't keep up with my troop production. They're spending all their time fighting off my zerglings, which I'm not even managing! I could give a shit, because basically I'm just sapping their attention.- Rob Pardo, ( source, time: 0:55:48)
|
On August 07 2015 04:21 mishimaBeef wrote:
It's not 'dumbing shit down' it's making the war story on the screen better. No random masters level player is going to multitask like Maru, even with macro boosters gone. And yes though it is known that you gotta inject to be good, injecting doesn't advance the visual story on the battlefield besides realizing later on "oh he has more units". This is especially important for new viewers.
And if I "know it's happening" it's boring. I just assume they are hitting their macro boosters in pro games. Only if they somehow lose out of nowhere will I think, oh must have slipped on macro. This is no different from if the macro boosters are out. Except with them out, the multitasking demand can be replaced by something more interesting.
Again, multitasking demands of macro boosters is not macro. Macro has it's own set of demands (including multitasking defense from economic harass - which I will argue is a lot harder than rote mechanical actions since you have to read and react). 'Macro style' is sacrificing army power (tech. or numbers) for economic advantage.
Then maybe the sc2 team should work on the bigger picture instead, if a visually appealing concept of skill is that important.
Truth is that a lot of high supply fights still look very bad and boring.
Working on that might be more important.
And if you still wanna imply that "less work on macro = more action on the map" by default, then pls explain it to me how that works with the current map design, economy design and unit design
|
On August 07 2015 04:36 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2015 04:21 mishimaBeef wrote:
It's not 'dumbing shit down' it's making the war story on the screen better. No random masters level player is going to multitask like Maru, even with macro boosters gone. And yes though it is known that you gotta inject to be good, injecting doesn't advance the visual story on the battlefield besides realizing later on "oh he has more units". This is especially important for new viewers.
And if I "know it's happening" it's boring. I just assume they are hitting their macro boosters in pro games. Only if they somehow lose out of nowhere will I think, oh must have slipped on macro. This is no different from if the macro boosters are out. Except with them out, the multitasking demand can be replaced by something more interesting.
Again, multitasking demands of macro boosters is not macro. Macro has it's own set of demands (including multitasking defense from economic harass - which I will argue is a lot harder than rote mechanical actions since you have to read and react). 'Macro style' is sacrificing army power (tech. or numbers) for economic advantage. Then maybe the sc2 team should work on the bigger picture instead, if a visually appealing concept of skill is that important. Truth is that a lot of high supply fights still look very bad and boring. Working on that might be more important. And if you still wanna imply that "less work on macro = more action on the map" by default, then pls explain it to me how that works with the current map design, economy design and unit design
It is better to give players 1 hero harass unit for the whole game and cut macro boosters. This way we have something visible for their multitasking - which still affects economics of the game!
Replaced multitask demands from macro boosters by a harassment option. That's more action on the map. This way, instead of each player playing a 'single player macro game' with their macro boosters, they are playing a '2 player macro game' (offense/defense) with harass units. Sounds bloody harder to me! Skill ceiling increased.
Now it's not hard to see that each race can build one or more 'harassment units' which is a risk.
Don't be focusing on some vague notions of macro/micro the true lifeblood is multitasking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
