EPTThe Curious Case of soO's Macro Mechanics - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Morn_sc
United States40 Posts
| ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
| ||
|
Cluster__
United States328 Posts
| ||
|
eg9
Norway43 Posts
While it can be very rewarding to after countless hours of practice to simply overwhelm your opponent with units, it feels like at the sub-pro level the mechanical aspect of the macro part of the game is so completely dominating. One of the things i love the most about Starcraft is trying to design and make builds and strategies to execute in the game. The fact that forgetting a round of injects for 15 seconds at the 4-5 minute can be worth as much as a spire if they were drones mean that either you plan your builds exetremely loosely or you never have enough resources in a game where you are being pressured by an opponent. I spent YEARS working pretty much purely on my mechanics before i reached the point where i was able to execute even semi-consistent builds even just into the 4-5 minute mark. This rant is getting a bit out of hand but what i guess i am trying to say is that i wish inject larva was less dominating in the game. I think it is important to have the macro mechanics there, because the feeling of mastering those mechanics is amazing, however i wish they felt more like an option. Maybe the larva could spawn faster from the hatchery and in stead inject larva only spawned two larva or something like that. That way, in stead of you straight up losing without it even being close if you forgot an inject in the fight you would be left with 3-4 units left which is a disadvantage, but one that you can make up for with micro, tactics and well planned trades. Ohh, that that thing about protoss/terran macro being harder because you have to look at your workers when you build pylons/depots, that is absolute bullshit. Zergs have to look at their base to inject and spread creep, and on top of that you have that fucking .4 second delay between the time when an inject finishes and the queen has enough energy for more spawn larva that you have to wait for. (ohh my poor queens always running to the wrong hatcheries because of that design flaw) | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On August 04 2015 10:04 lichter wrote: I would prefer that Blizzard try to slow down the game speed (either the game speed itself, or all/most speed/time related attributes) instead of removing rote mechanics. Slowing down the game speed does more than allow players to do more with their time. It also elongates battles (one common criticism of the game), gives players a fraction more time to make decisions (as I've argued before, speed of thought is a greater bottleneck in SC2 than speed of hands), and makes the game more easy to observe and explain. Agreed. One of the things I like about Warcraft 3, for example, was the slower overall pace of the entire game. A slower game wouldn't change how many workers you need or production or units. It would just, make it slower and I don't honestly see a problem with that at the moment. | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
but that's beside the point. Making the game feel slower does more to lower the barrier to entry than removing mechanics without sacrificing a projected skill ceiling or competitive skill floor. | ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19298 Posts
On August 04 2015 10:59 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: I agree with Lichter. LotV is just way too fast pace and makes it a pain in the ass to play a lot of the time. Slowing the pace is also an way for the viewer to grasp more throughout the game. By either slowing game speed or reducing DPS, more actions can be conducted in a single moment. I've always been an advocate for reducing DPS as a whole. | ||
|
Asunanas
53 Posts
I think that something this article highlights very well is that macro mechanics allow players to easily distinguish their skill level difference. For example, a better player will essentially be able to beat a worst player with random units (Destiny WoL mass queens) simply because they have "more" things. Having "more" things is very clearly distinguishable by skill when you watch players do similar strategies, and allows a pros to distinguish themselves when picking from a certain "meta" of builds, as some players will simply have the macro mechanics to do it better e.g. the soO ling/bling example in the article. | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19298 Posts
| ||
|
Koromon
United States304 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
E.g. when a zerg is getting attacked he not only takes the damage dealt by the attacking units but also the damage that is being dealt by drawing his attention away from injects. This can be compared with if terran/protoss gets attacked their barracks/gateways would go on hold for a few seconds. You don't have to build depots/pylons exactly at the moment of fighting or defending mostly as terran or protoss but can do it a few seconds before or afterwards. Injects need to be done exactly at that very moment tho in theory. So damage is multiplied and games can sometimes end early and in a boring way due to it. Automated larva injects would make games less volatile (can player inject well enough while fighting or not?) with less multiplicative damage. In this scenario e.g. queens range could be reduced back to the old value so that harrassment become more attractive. Those harrassment would less likely be game ending but allow more predictable outcomes. Predictibility allows better balancing of the whole game in return while it doesn't take away of the micro and execution on both sides. In lategame situations where players are on 200 supply, the pylon and depot building also isn't of any major importance anymore. Supplying 5+ hatchs with larvas constantly tho still is and takes away alot of potential from a zerg player that could be used for other tasks. Also in this case games can end in a boring way that cannot be easily understood by watchers (why did the zerg lose after this 30-60 seconds 200/200 fight that went pretty even? - he didn't inject larva meanwhiles). In the future of esports and gaming in general macro mechanics should and will have a decreasing role. Why? Only a very limited group of players is capable of keeping up mechanics by doing it as kinda a full time job. This is mostly teens and full-time progamers that can or must spend their time on training daily for several hours in order to keep it up. If you can't keep this up you cannot play sc2 competitively and there is not much reason to continue to play sc2 at all, when realizing it. So sc2 loses out on all of these players basically. Players at the age of 30+, players who cannot train like maniacs etc. This is something that future competitive gaming will hardly be able to afford on a scale on that sc2 is when thinking in terms target groups and limiting them unreasonably. Difficulty of mechanics can not only be reduced for zerg by automating larva injects but I am sure also for the other two races (protoss has it already actually) in different ways. Therefore everyone that is participating could benefit from it and it is not a one sided thing at all. In fact I believe that stategic depth and interesting games can be more easily generated when players have to focus less on macro mechanics but can put more attention on micro and strategical execution of attacks and defences. Again this would make games more logical, less volatile and in the end creates satisfying outcomes. This can only be achieved by reducing the macro tasks. Alot of modern games such as company of heroes or heroes of the storm (just two examples) completely don't rely on macro mechanics but take all their appeal out of pure micro management and strategy. If you don't believe that a rebalance of sc2 around lessened macro mechanics can be successful, then you don't believe in the quality of sc2 itself. After all is every second that is spend on macro mechanics technically wasted time that could be used creatively in order to refine strategy, timings, positioning etc. As you mentioned the macro becomes only visible at a match between players of different level. But you haven't answered why Sc2 is a game that must involve macro mechanics to a that high extend so that it functions as an entry barrier to play at all and as a predefining condition of victory. Real strategic depth and outclassing the opponent in thinking and strategy imo is a way better criterion than the ability of using the mouse and keyboard at the fastest possible speed. I am not decided in the matter yet, especially as an old WC2 and BW players I also support the arguments against automated larva injects. For me it is just important to show up that this article isn't written fair and by far not all aspects of the issue are being shown. So to speak it is opinionated and a bit narrow minded and written with reluctance to change and thus the end another time justifies the means of unfair coverage and creating sentiments. This in the end makes the work of blizzard more hard than it already is. TL is for sure a thing to them and working against TL for blizzard is for sure nothing they do with pleasure. The more important it is to understand that these opinions are being staged to a good extend and just followed by others without using their brain. In this sense: "Lovely writeup, I am glad to see there are still people in the community with brain, rare as that occurence might be." The only ones without brain here is you and the other guys that blindly follow the mock without trying to understand new possible ways for sc2 and with elitist thinking of what you have had to learn others after you should better get used to as well or gtfo and play another noob game. ^^ | ||
|
Jonas :)
United States511 Posts
Simplifying the macro mechanics will not make the game easier for newbees.... an RTS is going to be overwhelming and stressful the first times that you play it regardless of how "simple" you make it. Removing or reducing the dependency on macro is only going to lower the skill ceiling, which will removing the ability of pros to differentiate themselves from NA GM's. | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19298 Posts
On August 04 2015 11:36 LSN wrote: There are advantages and disadvantages of automated larva inject. Your article is nothing but one sided. E.g. when a zerg is getting attacked he not only takes the damage dealt by the attacking units but also the damage that is being dealt by drawing his attention away from injects. This can be compared with if terran/protoss gets attacked their barracks/gateways would go on hold for a few seconds. You don't have to build depots/pylons exactly at the moment of fighting or defending mostly as terran or protoss but can do it a few seconds before or afterwards. Injects need to be done exactly at that very moment tho in theory. So damage is multiplied and games can sometimes end early and in a boring way due to it. Automated larva injects would make games less volatile (can player inject well enough while fighting or not?) with less multiplicative damage. In this scenario e.g. queens range could be reduced back to the old value so that harrassment become more attractive. Those harrassment would less likely be game ending but allow more predictable outcomes. Predictibility allows better balancing of the whole game in return while it doesn't take away of the micro and execution on both sides. In lategame situations where players are on 200 supply, the pylon and depot building also isn't of any major importance anymore. Supplying 5+ hatchs with larvas constantly tho still is and takes away alot of potential from a zerg player that could be used for other tasks. Also in this case games can end in a boring way that cannot be easily understood by watchers (why did the zerg lose after this 30-60 seconds 200/200 fight that went pretty even? - he didn't inject larva meanwhiles). In the future of esports and gaming in general macro mechanics should and will have a decreasing role. Why? Only a very limited group of players is capable of keeping up mechanics by doing it as kinda a full time job. This is mostly teens and full-time progamers that can or must spend their time on training daily for several hours in order to keep it up. If you can't keep this up you cannot play sc2 competitively and there is not much reason to continue to play sc2 at all, when realizing it. So sc2 loses out on all of these players basically. Players at the age of 30+, players who cannot train like maniacs etc. This is something that future competitive gaming will hardly be able to afford on a scale on that sc2 is when thinking in terms target groups and limiting them unreasonably. Difficulty of mechanics can not only be reduced for zerg by automating larva injects but I am sure also for the other two races (protoss has it already actually) in different ways. Therefore everyone that is participating could benefit from it and it is not a one sided thing at all. In fact I believe that stategic depth and interesting games can be more easily generated when players have to focus less on macro mechanics but can put more attention on micro and strategical execution of attacks and defences. Again this would make games more logical, less volatile and in the end creates satisfying outcomes. This can only be achieved by reducing the macro tasks. Alot of modern games such as company of heroes or heroes of the storm (just two examples) completely don't rely on macro mechanics but take all their appeal out of pure micro management and strategy. If you don't believe that a rebalance of sc2 around lessened macro mechanics can be successful, then you don't believe in the quality of sc2 itself. After all is every second that is spend on macro mechanics technically wasted time that could be used creatively in order to refine strategy, timings, positioning etc. As you mentioned the macro becomes only visible at a match between players of different level. But you haven't answered why Sc2 is a game that must involve macro mechanics to a that high extend so that it functions as an entry barrier to play at all and as a predefining condition of victory. Real strategic depth and outclassing the opponent in thinking and strategy imo is a way better criterion than the ability of using the mouse and keyboard at the fastest possible speed. I am not decided in the matter yet, especially as an old WC2 and BW players I also support the arguments against automated larva injects. For me it is just important to show up that this article isn't written fair and by far not all aspects of the issue are being shown. So to speak another opinionated tl.net article by narrow minded staff that likes to get stuck with things that they do understand and is reluctant to change and thus the end another time justifies the means of unfair coverage and creating sentiments. This in the end makes the work of blizzard more hard than it already is. TL is for sure a thing to them and working against TL for blizzard is for sure nothing they do with pleasure. The more important it is that these opinions are being staged here for one or another reason and alot of guys just follow without using their own brain. In this sense: "Lovely writeup, I am glad to see there are still people in the community with brain, rare as that occurence might be." The only ones without brain here is you and all the other guys that blindly follow the mock. Your point would have gotten across without the bitter name calling. These are volunteer writers. Not paid staff. They work hard and try to bring perspective to current issues. I'm sure it's easy to forget that so I just thought I'd remind you. There is no other agenda on TL then to give enthusiastic contributions from people who love SC2. | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
I even agree to most of the points. It is just that there are in fact many arguments that go for lessened macro mechanics which are at 100% convenience being opressed in the article. That he didn't write a single line about what goes for blizzard's idea gives a bit of evidence for the all so bad words that I used to describe it. Nothing personal stuchio, I appreciate your writups here nevertheless, but things are in fact not as one sided as you put them. | ||
|
nottapro
202 Posts
And if you disagree, well... anything you say that he doesn't like "is not an argument." It just demonstrates how difficult of a time people are having to justify game mechanics that don't work. | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
You wont ever get an I agree so much and I love you all and lets smoke pot together comment from me. D: | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
| ||
|
Redfish
United States142 Posts
"These macromechanics also do not serve as a barrier to entry because players can play without any knowledge of inject, mules or chronoboost." Turning on the game does not equal playing it. Yes, as a total noob, I can load up the game and play someone and have no idea what I'm doing. But, the game is designed for me to know what I'm doing, and to do it well, while doing four or five other things at the same time. That's the nature of SC2. But, if I'm not nailing my injects or spending my Orbital energy on cue or timing my Chronos perfectly, then not only am I not really experiencing the game as it is designed to be experienced, but I'm getting inaccurate feedback as to the balance and fun of the game. The reality is that we need new players if we're not going to wither even further into a niche game, lagging even further behind LoL, DotA, Hearthstone, Heroes, CS:GO, or whatever. We're not going to get any meaningful amount of new players if it takes playing at even 60+ APM to not get stomped in the dregs of bronze, and no casual gamer is going to spend months losing 50+ games to figure it out. They'll get frustrated and move on - I've seen it with friends and family that I've tried to get into the game. Thus, these macro mechanics DO serve as a barrier to entry. The crucial nature with which they impact gameplay makes it so you HAVE to learn them well if you're not going to lose an overwhelming portion of your games. If we're going to have a game as fast paced as SC2 is, it's folly to think that a bunch of new people will want to play if it's the same as it always is (except faster in the early game). Holding on to these mechanics out of shortsighted nostalgia is akin to an old, failing restaurant keeping an old, boring menu because they're afraid the few geezers who still eat there might leave if they change it. It's not forward-thinking, and it's not good for Starcraft's future. | ||
| ||
