|
On August 04 2015 12:14 lichter wrote:
What I mean is, it's an editorial so it's bound to have a polarizing opinion and not a balanced one. Comments of course will be the same. No problems with that, as long as it's clear.
Yes, but an editorial that takes a stance against a philosophy (the people prefer strategic thinking over macro mechanics) then dismiss several points supporters of that opinion as irrelevant, says strategy is actually still the most important thing in pro play, and then point to an example that offends those people (Flash vs. soO) as the shining example of why people should be on his side.
His point would have been stronger if Flash won...
|
Good read, disagree I think the game would be a lot better without macro mechanics but I can see why people would want them to remain.
|
Imagine a mechanic where the left side of your keyboard turns off every minute for 5 seconds. (Ignore left-handed players for the sake of this thought experiment.)
What would great players have to do? They would have to carefully map out hotkey redundancies to ensure that they could switch smoothly to the right side of their keyboard in that time. Maybe some players would even start playing left-handed. There would be some players at the higher levels that are worse or better at it, and the players better at it would gain an advantage during that time.
Some players would probably even build up a playstyle of attacking during that time, relying on their advantage given by surprising their opponent while the opponent is trying to get used to the new layout. This would be really devastating to an unprepared opponent who might have their attention taken away during this phase. Overall, it would increase strategic and mechanical diversity and raise the skillcap, rewarding players who are able to best take advantage of half the keyboard turning off for their opponent. It would create (or raise) a baseline of skill/attention that players need to devote to be able to play the game effectively.
Removing the half-keyboard-malfunction mechanic would thus remove some playstyles, make it harder for players to differentiate themselves from each other, and remove some of the impressive moments where a player can exploit this mechanic to the fullest.
Still doesn't change the fact that the half-keyboard-malfunction mechanic is fucking dumb and should never be in the game. The absurdity and artificiality of the added mechanical demand that the half-keyboard-malfunction would give, along with the added difficulty for players who aren't used to it, would not be remotely worth the increase in (largely invisible) player differentiation at top levels.
The same is true for larva inject.
|
On August 04 2015 12:17 Redfish wrote:
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.
Exactly this. The dimension of the good of sc2 as a whole is totally missing in the opening post and he is trying to find more and more reasons for why it can be put aside.
It is nothing else than elitist thinking to believe that a player must be using 200+ apm in order to be a good player. For me good players are being made by decision making instead and only.
The required mechanics of Sc2 in fact adds nothing else to the game than serving as an entry barrier. Everything else that they might add to the game can be created in a different way as well, when closely looking at it.
|
Although I do appreciate the skill of the way pros use macro mechanics to dominate games, I also believe it's possible to reduce their demand and tone them down a bit, while increasing the skill level requirements of other aspects of the game. In particular, those aspects that are a bit more 'crowd-pleasing', and I think this is the general spirit of what Blizzard has in mind.
Another possibility that occurred to me was that if Blizzards is concerned that the average fan can't see macro mechanics to appreciate them, perhaps all we need are some clever enhancements to the observer UI to make it more obvious. How about these:
- Highlight hatcheries on the minimap briefly when they are injected.
- Show a timer on the minimap over each hatchery that shows how many minutes:seconds it has been since it was injected.
- Current larva-count should be somewhere obvious at all times!
- Next to resource counts, show average energy currently available across all nexus/orbitals/queens (per player of course).
- In the build legend, when something is being chrono boosted, have it glow or appear highlighted in some way.
- On the minimap, have the buildings that are being chronoed highlighted or glowing in some way.
- Show number of mules on the map and how much minerals per-second they are bringing in.
- Use metrics and symbology on the minimap to indicate which bases are bringing in the most resources. For example, larger or brighter icon for a base that is bringing in more. Pulse the icon when there is a sudden boost in income, like when transferring drones or dropping mules.
- In the game map, have the income rates for a given cc/nexus/hatchery show as numbers right over top of it. Maybe little 'plus numbers' like in D3 when you damage something.
The general idea is to make it more obvious to observers who is macroing better.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Every game has minute details that casual gamers will have a hard time figuring out. LoL/Dota/CSGO all have minute details that noobs will not understand or not notice unless explained to them. Some examples: ward/deward locations, laning combinations, specific gun spray patterns, peaking/calling, etc. Yet it's possible to play those games without understanding them initially. Actually, most people play those games without ever really understanding them. The same is possible for SC2. All games have rote mechanics as well as subtle mechanics that new players can't understand. Pinning everything on macro mechanics is a shame, because it doesn't tackle the real issue.
The true barrier to entry is that there is too much to do with so little time. It isn't macro mechanics alone. Removing macro mechanics seems like a solution but the game will still feel too overwhelming. That's why I want slower game speed; the game will be easier to manage without removing strategic options and without lowering the competitive skill floor. New players will have more time to do the things they have to do, while pro players will have more time to do the things they can.
|
I think an interesting test would be to see a mod where there is automatic mules unless turned off to save and auto injects.
Then have some top level pro players play against each other.
I think the zerg player would almost always win with the perfect auto injects since injects on time > mules on time.
by removing the mechanics we can better balance the game.
|
I find slower game speed a really great idea tbh. But the whole concept of blizzard seems to be to speed things more and more.
Just easing things a bit isn't a whole removal of all macro mechanics tho and there will be still enough things left that a noob wont recognize.
The example with the half way deactivated keyboard is really dumb, still it has a true core and hits the mark.
There is nothing special about creating hard macro mechanics in a game, really everyone could do that if wanted easily. You could even require players to guess a random letter on the keyboard before they can build a marine and call the process of it macro mechanics.
With auto injects of course the zerg would be favoured compared to a terran with auto mules. But this can and would be taken into consideration and balanced in. As you say, less volatile outcomes (higher predictibility) would allow better overall game balance in return.
|
This reminds me of a lot of the complaints from way back when SC2 was first coming out. MBS, auto-mining, smartcasting. I was very much in favour of making the game easier on casuals then, but here I am not. And most of the reasons are expressed in this article. For the Protoss and Terran mechanics, there's an active decision-making element that makes it truly feel like a gameplay element rather than a chore (like, say, manual worker rallying) but it can also be released in bursts, so even if you do have less than perfect mechanics, you can still derive a bonus from that accumulated energy, by dropping a tonne of MULEs on a new expansion or Chrono Boosting twelve Warp Gates at once or whatever.
I'm pretty adamant that these mechanics are great for the game.
Obviously, the most chore-like is the Zerg's macro mechanic - Larvae I mean, not Creep. Creep spread is a fantastic mechanic. But lost Inject time cannot be recovered in any way, and only in the most exceptional circumstances would a Zerg ever choose to use a Queen's energy for something else and lose an Inject. So I'd be willing to consider replacing Larvae Injecting with something else, though there would need to be a replacement - simply automating it would be a terrible decision.
|
Whether the carriers build at normal speed or can be 'boosted', or whether the larva comes out at normal speed or can be 'hatched' doesn't change the character of the game for me. A lot of it is relative anyway, including the multitasking demands which depend on what your opponent is trying to do.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On August 04 2015 12:45 LSN wrote:
I find slower game speed a really great idea tbh. But the whole concept of blizzard seems to be to speed things more and more.
Just easing things a bit isn't a whole removal of all macro mechanics tho and there will be still enough things left that a noob wont recognize.
The example with the half way deactivated keyboard is really dumb, still it has a true core and hits the mark.
There is nothing special about creating hard macro mechanics in a game, really everyone could do that if wanted easily. You could even require players to guess a random letter on the keyboard before they can build a marine and call the process of it macro mechanics.
Slower game speed isn't something Blizzard will touch, even though many people have argued for it. It solves the core of the problem that anti-macromechanic people identify—that there is too much to do and macro mechanics is the obvious thing to remove because it's the least fun/strategic—while retaining the nuances that more experienced viewers enjoy.
Instead of pinpointing macromechanics as a problem, we need to understand why that is the case, if it is true. More than likely it's the scapegoat because of all possible things to change, macromechanics is the least fun, least obvious and least active. Yet the real problem is SC2's overwhelming number of things to do. Removing one thing is a band aid, it is curing symptoms and not the root. The best way to make the game less overwhelming isn't by removing possible actions because that doesn't solve the core problem. It's by making more actions possible in a given time or making current actions easier to execute. As mentioned, slower game speed is one way to do that.
|
The main interest i have with possibly removing the macro mechanics, is if removing those actions would yield a game where there's more smaller style skirmishes all over the map. If i could be assured that the removal of these sorts of things wouldn't affect the game in that way. Then i'm not in favor of removing them at all.
That said ..i really dislike the some of arguments presented in the article. It sounds like whining, [sarcastic paraphrase] "oh if we free up that much apm Zerg will be op, because they don't know the pain of building supplies via workers."
Or the argument that current Terran and Protoss strategies rely on screwing up the Zergs macro mechanic. To me its obvious the game will have to be re balanced if they were to remove the macro mechanics. That point is a better argument for poor game design, given that i'm pretty confident no Zerg ever has made an attack with the hopes of at least screwing up the Protoss' chrono boost timings.
That said i hope they at least Internally test it, everything should be on the table. And the decision to go through with such a change should be left up to only the absolute elite players in the game. Let the Pros decide.
|
I love when my mind is changed by an argument. That was a good read.
|
8748 Posts
On August 04 2015 12:27 bpgbcg wrote:
Imagine a mechanic where the left side of your keyboard turns off every minute for 5 seconds. (Ignore left-handed players for the sake of this thought experiment.)
What would great players have to do? They would have to carefully map out hotkey redundancies to ensure that they could switch smoothly to the right side of their keyboard in that time. Maybe some players would even start playing left-handed. There would be some players at the higher levels that are worse or better at it, and the players better at it would gain an advantage during that time.
Some players would probably even build up a playstyle of attacking during that time, relying on their advantage given by surprising their opponent while the opponent is trying to get used to the new layout. This would be really devastating to an unprepared opponent who might have their attention taken away during this phase. Overall, it would increase strategic and mechanical diversity and raise the skillcap, rewarding players who are able to best take advantage of half the keyboard turning off for their opponent. It would create (or raise) a baseline of skill/attention that players need to devote to be able to play the game effectively.
Removing the half-keyboard-malfunction mechanic would thus remove some playstyles, make it harder for players to differentiate themselves from each other, and remove some of the impressive moments where a player can exploit this mechanic to the fullest.
Still doesn't change the fact that the half-keyboard-malfunction mechanic is fucking dumb and should never be in the game. The absurdity and artificiality of the added mechanical demand that the half-keyboard-malfunction would give, along with the added difficulty for players who aren't used to it, would not be remotely worth the increase in (largely invisible) player differentiation at top levels.
The same is true for larva inject.
You wrote all that just to end up simply stating your opinion, as if doing a thought experiment with an analogous situation where you end up just telling us your intuition on whether it's good or bad provides some kind of support for your opinion. There's nothing inherently wrong with maintaining an artificial difficulty. Well there's really no point in saying "artificial" because the whole game is artificial. All games are just made up rules in pursuit of a goal with no practical purpose. So forgetting about the word 'artificial' and saying that games sometimes find it in their best interests to maintain some of the difficulties they originally had seems perfectly reasonable. Whether or not changes should be made is determined on a case-by-case basis with what's best for the game in mind.
|
Great write up.
It is objectively correct. Why this is even a debate, or even needs to be said is the scary part.
|
On August 04 2015 13:52 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 12:27 bpgbcg wrote:
Imagine a mechanic where the left side of your keyboard turns off every minute for 5 seconds. (Ignore left-handed players for the sake of this thought experiment.)
What would great players have to do? They would have to carefully map out hotkey redundancies to ensure that they could switch smoothly to the right side of their keyboard in that time. Maybe some players would even start playing left-handed. There would be some players at the higher levels that are worse or better at it, and the players better at it would gain an advantage during that time.
Some players would probably even build up a playstyle of attacking during that time, relying on their advantage given by surprising their opponent while the opponent is trying to get used to the new layout. This would be really devastating to an unprepared opponent who might have their attention taken away during this phase. Overall, it would increase strategic and mechanical diversity and raise the skillcap, rewarding players who are able to best take advantage of half the keyboard turning off for their opponent. It would create (or raise) a baseline of skill/attention that players need to devote to be able to play the game effectively.
Removing the half-keyboard-malfunction mechanic would thus remove some playstyles, make it harder for players to differentiate themselves from each other, and remove some of the impressive moments where a player can exploit this mechanic to the fullest.
Still doesn't change the fact that the half-keyboard-malfunction mechanic is fucking dumb and should never be in the game. The absurdity and artificiality of the added mechanical demand that the half-keyboard-malfunction would give, along with the added difficulty for players who aren't used to it, would not be remotely worth the increase in (largely invisible) player differentiation at top levels.
The same is true for larva inject. You wrote all that just to end up simply stating your opinion, as if doing a thought experiment with an analogous situation where you end up just telling us your intuition on whether it's good or bad provides some kind of support for your opinion. There's nothing inherently wrong with maintaining an artificial difficulty. Well there's really no point in saying "artificial" because the whole game is artificial. All games are just made up rules in pursuit of a goal with no practical purpose. So forgetting about the word 'artificial' and saying that games sometimes find it in their best interests to maintain some of the difficulties they originally had seems perfectly reasonable. Whether or not changes should be made is determined on a case-by-case basis with what's best for the game in mind.
Oh okay; I guess I didn't understand what people were saying. I thought that a "half-keyboard-malfunction" mechanic would be something that it could be agreed upon would be bad for the game, so I just stated it as a fact.
My argument was basically
(1) Consider the half-keyboard-malfunction mechanic. Clearly this is a stupid mechanic which is bad for the game.
(2) This is analogous to Larva Inject.
I spent most of the paragraph elaborating (2) because I thought (1) was obvious; didn't realize there were people who actually thought that half-keyboard-malfunction could be a good mechanic.
(Am I capturing accurately what you're saying? I don't want to accidentally make a strawman...)
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 04 2015 12:55 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 12:45 LSN wrote:
I find slower game speed a really great idea tbh. But the whole concept of blizzard seems to be to speed things more and more.
Just easing things a bit isn't a whole removal of all macro mechanics tho and there will be still enough things left that a noob wont recognize.
The example with the half way deactivated keyboard is really dumb, still it has a true core and hits the mark.
There is nothing special about creating hard macro mechanics in a game, really everyone could do that if wanted easily. You could even require players to guess a random letter on the keyboard before they can build a marine and call the process of it macro mechanics.
Slower game speed isn't something Blizzard will touch, even though many people have argued for it. It solves the core of the problem that anti-macromechanic people identify—that there is too much to do and macro mechanics is the obvious thing to remove because it's the least fun/strategic—while retaining the nuances that more experienced viewers enjoy. Instead of pinpointing macromechanics as a problem, we need to understand why that is the case, if it is true. More than likely it's the scapegoat because of all possible things to change, macromechanics is the least fun, least obvious and least active. Yet the real problem is SC2's overwhelming number of things to do. Removing one thing is a band aid, it is curing symptoms and not the root. The best way to make the game less overwhelming isn't by removing possible actions because that doesn't solve the core problem. It's by making more actions possible in a given time or making current actions easier to execute. As mentioned, slower game speed is one way to do that.
Frankly, I think the real problem of SC2 is the excessive rate of economic development and the too quick rate of hitting supply cap, not the APM sinks. That said, larva inject pretty much has almost no strategic depth to it. At least chronoboost and mules have a significant opportunity cost.
I'm not a big fan of mechanics that exist solely as an APM sink to separate people who are fast and those who aren't. It's not an interesting mechanic, and it doesn't really add anything to the decision making process. Beyond the very early game where you might want to drop a creep tumor with your first 25 energy on your initial queen, you pretty much always inject, and make extra queens for creep.
|
the person that wrote this really needs to look up the definition of the word "argument". he says multiple times "this is not an argument" when what he means is "i dont agree with this argument". claiming something is not an argument because you dont agree with it is not fair. very poorly written article.
|
|
|
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote:
Cutting something because it’s too difficult isn’t an argument. It is important to find a balance between difficulty, purpose and effect. If an action is too difficult for its purpose, then a tweak might be necessary. If an action is too easy for its effect, then a tweak might be necessary. Removing an action simply because it is difficult, without analyzing its relationship with its purpose and its effect, is extremely shortsighted. These macromechanics also do not serve as a barrier to entry because players can play without any knowledge of inject, mules or chronoboost. Learning them, however, makes one a better player. Removing it because it is difficult will have no effect on making the game easier to play for a wider group of people.
Sorry this is kinda a silly argument. Macromechanics are DEFINITELY a barrier to entry for new players, particularly when playing zerg. New players mostly don't give a shit about macro and timings and perfect injects, they want to battle with cool units and use cool strategies. Spreading creep is cool. Scanning is cool. Cronoboosting your upgrades to get cool units earlier is cool. Spending hours learning hotkey setups which allow you to start learning how to inject every 40 seconds just so you can produce as many units as the other guy is NOT cool, not interesting and pretty damn hard.
The barrier isn't that injects are hard, it's that they're a barrier to interacting with the more fun parts of the game.
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote:
Being “not fun” is not an argument. Making SCVs or depots/pylons/overlords is not fun. Getting cannon rushed is not fun. Getting surprised by mutas as protoss is not fun. Getting DT rushed is not fun. The fact that it's "not fun" to play against these strategies is no reason to cut out these units or builds. In fact, the assertion that these macro mechanics are not fun is flawed. How many times have we been excited by Maru, on his last breath, mule a base with abandon to give his economy an adrenaline injection? How many times have we been awed by soO gathering just enough units in time to repel INnoVation's advances? How many times have we been held on the edge of our seats as PartinG's crucial chronoboost allowed his +1 to finish before his forge died? All aspects of the game can be fun or not fun depending on the circumstances, and using it as a reason for removal—again, without investigating its purpose/effect—is folly.
uhhhh, yes it is. It is, quite literally, the ONLY important argument to make when designing a game. What else is the game there for, so that you can feel superior to all the plebs playing 'casual' games? Sure, part of a game being fun is it being interesting and challenging and sure, we don't want to stray too far away from what makes SC2 an 'RTS'. But, at the end of the day, I don't get what other question you should be judging a game by than - is it fun to play?
Your examples are kind of false dilemmas as well since the excitement in those situations wasn't necessarily caused by the macro mechanics. We were excited about parting almost finishing his +1, we weren't literally excited by the fact that he was chronoboosting it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
