There has been a lot of discussion in the last few days about macro mechanics and their role in SC2. A lot of statements were made without context or argument. In this article I will argue why Macro Mechanics are fundamental to SC2 and discuss the impact they have on gameplay.
Blizzard's Statement
Here is the original statement. I’ve broken it down into points and counterpoints:
For these, we’re trying to locate areas that are difficult to manage but aren’t really easily noticeable. For example, as a player doing larva inject, it’s somewhat difficult for me to tell how well I’m doing in a given game.
Queen energy shows how many times you’ve missed an inject. 25 means you missed 1, 50 means you missed 2 and so on. The production difference is also keenly felt in the mid and late game. We have seen many a zerg die to pressure simply because they did not have enough larva—lack of queens or poor injects liable.
Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either.
The opponent isn’t supposed to know what you’re doing. That’s the entire point of fog of war and limited information. Both concepts are fundamental to the RTS genre. However if they scout they could see the energy on your cc/nexus/queen, the number of larva you have banked, the building you are chronoboosting or the number of mules mining. The same argument applies for almost every other facet of the game. Your opponent doesn't know how well your economy is doing—until he scouts your mining bases. Your opponent doesn't know how well your upgrades are doing—until he clicks a unit to check. Yet that is exactly how it should be.
In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either.
Every subtle action a pro performs does not need to have some visceral or visual effect. Most subtle things pros do can’t be seen or understood by the average viewer. It’s the same in every competition: Sports, Poker, Chess, LoL, CS, Dota2, FGC, Smash. Subtleties add to the richness of a sport for competent viewers without harming the experience of novices—since, as they noted, novices don't notice. That isn't an argument for removal.
Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it, we’ve been exploring potentially cutting them or making them less important.
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.
Community Complaints
Beyond that, Blizzard gave no additional reasons as to why they are considering cutting or simplifying macro mechanics. However, these are the main points other people have brought up in the ensuing discussion:
It is not “fun to play” or watch.
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.
Mechanics should not beat strategy/micro most of the time.
The second argument is that mechanics—and therefore macro-mechanics—play too large a part in a player's victory or defeat in a game that's supposed to be about strategy. This is only true if there is a large disparity between player skill. Here is a broad list of most of the greatest SC2 players of all time and the current era (in no specific order): HerO, herO, Dear, Classic, Stephano, Bomber, sOs, Leenock, Soulkey, PartinG, DRG, MKP, Maru, soO, Rain, INnoVation, Zest, Nestea, MMA, Polt, MC, Taeja, Life, Mvp, Dream, Dark. In that entire list, only four players dominated parts of their field mechanically: Mvp (2011), DRG, MKP, INnoVation. Yet all of them were strategic or tactical innovators on a large scale.
At the pro level of play there is a base level of mechanics that you need in order to compete. After that it is up to the player to determine where he dedicates his APM and attention. These minute decisions are almost imperceptible but they often dictate the outcome of a match. The reason is because mechanics without strategy is nothing. There have only been two short periods where a purely mechanical player was at the top: MKP’s brief period of dominance in 2012 and INnoVation's early half of 2013. Beyond those two exclusions, mechanical skill has very rarely been the deciding factor as to who were the best players of a given era.
Even in the second tier of pro gamers, mechanics is often beaten by strategy or tactics. Take for instance Cure. Cure is arguably the 3rd most mechanically sound player after INnoVation and Maru. He might even be better than them as he makes more units faster than anyone and almost never gets supplied block. He played even against Hydra playing KR to EU after already playing 20 hours without sleep. He barely beat Snute to qualify for IEM Katowice only with his macro mechanics alone.
He is leagues ahead of other second tier terrans like SuperNova or FanTaSy. Yet both SuperNova and FanTaSy, for most of HotS, had far better results than he did because both of them were better at strategy and tactical execution.
Cutting macro mechanics to make the game more rewarding towards the strategic/tactical side is in my opinion a flawed one as the beauty of SC2 comes from the balancing act of mechanics and strategy and tactics.
“Artificial skill floor”/mindless APM spam
The last argument is that it creates an artificial skill floor and it is just mindless APM spam. Both are wrong for various reasons. First of all, both terran and protoss macro mechanics require decision making. Terran has a choice between using the mule or saving for a scan. Many games have been decided by the simple act of muling at the wrong time. Later on in the game they can go for an entire mule economy and create a large army or use the scans to lock down a protoss (though only Taeja has ever done the second). Protoss have to use chrono boost strategically based on the situation. Chronoboosting probes leads to a better economy but slower tech. Chronoboosting warpgate early gives a timing for pressure. Chronoboosting upgrades ensures you have more efficient units. It only becomes negligible once the protoss gets to 3-4 bases.
Zerg: A Special Case
As for zerg, the answer is much more complex. First you need to understand my definition of macro. Macro is the management of your bases, building, production and economy and how that all feeds into your strategy and tactics. So if you cut macro mechanics for terran or protoss the effect would be small as both races must still take out a worker and build a depot/pylon and build production. Protoss will still time their gateway explosions while unlocking supply and banking resources for a large warp-in. Terran will still need to decide when to make production, when to cut units, when to put on add-ons, etc.
Macro for zerg works on a completely different scale. First, all units come from the hatchery. Second, you do not need to make a building to unlock supply; you make an overlord from a hatchery so you never have to do the extra actions of selecting a worker, pressing the hotkeys, selecting a location, and shift-queuing back. Finally, there is no end point to creep spread and inject. Those two mechanics can be done throughout the game ad infinitum with decreasing importance. To cut or put inject larvae on autocast is to simplify zerg macro beyond comparison. The inject larvae forces zerg to imitate the macro requirements of the other races (where they have to make production and pylons/depots). Additionally there is no end state for zerg. Eventually, a protoss/terran gets the maximum amount of production feasible. Zerg’s macro mechanics of inject and creep spread must be done for however long the game lasts, whether it’s 5 minutes or 2 hours. But in return zerg gets a larger strategical advantage the more larvae they bank and the more creep they spread.
DeParture spreads creep in order to attack Flash's base
Most importantly, all the macro mechanics create a baseline of multitasking in the game. This means that a player must make decisions and prioritize them. A player must judge and evaluate the benefits of microing a fight compared to injecting larvae or making a depot or chrono boosting upgrades. All of a sudden the macromanagement of your base and economics is now also a tactical decision that impacts your overall strategy. Inject is not mindless APM because it forces a player to make minute decisions that can have reverberating effects on how the rest of the game can play out.
It cannot be exaggerated how large an impact autocast inject will have on the viability of harassing zerg as terran and protoss. There is a rhythm to how every SC2 player plays. They tab to their base, make drones, check supply count, make supply, check army, check production, think about when/how they want to attack, do that move, repeat and recycle. That is why counter attacks are so strong. They do more than just kill workers/bits of army. They are mental attacks meant to take your opponent out of their comfort zone. If you take out inject, all of a sudden that 40 second rhythm that protoss/terran can attack is gone and zerg will have a much easier time defending light harassment/full on attacks.
The concept of "indirect damage" is often mentioned in XvZ matchups, and the reason why it's such a big deal against zerg is because of the race's macro mechanics. A terran or protoss can do light harassment knowing that if they aggravate or distract the zerg, they could force the zerg to miss an inject or build units they don't want (which they can't cancel). In tangible terms, this means the terran or protoss will have 4 fewer "units" to deal with in the immediate future. In the early game this could be drones; in the latter stages, it could be reinforcements or crucial spellcasters. The punctuality of injects in a given game can be the difference between hitting the perfect timing and falling into a trap. Removing injects would effectively alter the tempo of XvZ by easing the tug-of-war between the zerg managing his economy and the terran or protoss trying to shatter his rhythm.
Another limited resource that is rarely acknowledged is attention. There are many different aspects to attention: highlighted or "active" units/buildings, screen positioning, minimap awareness, game prompt awareness, and screen awareness. With injects, that is one more unit that zerg has to select, one more skill a zerg has to activate, one more location that the zerg has to visit, a few more split seconds that he has to count his larva, and a few more split seconds that he has to reorientate his internal timer. Multiply that with the number of bases and you can feel how much attention a zerg must pay to his hatcheries. Take that out and there is suddenly an abundance of attention freed for other actions. The common argument for this is that it will allow the zerg to make more interesting actions such as counterattacks. However, it also reduces the incentive for harassment against zerg because a.) he now has more than enough attention available to deal with everything; and b.) indirect damage is nerfed. By hypothetically enabling the zerg to do more interesting actions, removing injects will eliminate interesting actions and interactions from protoss and terran. It is a solution that "solves" one problem while creating two others.
Life is taxed as he must manage his mutas across the map, defend a drop at an expansion, repel a frontal attack, and inject his hatcheries to make sure he has enough units.
It is important to note that attention as a limited resource also applies to terran and protoss. They have their own minutiae to deal with, and rhythm and tempo also applies to matchups not involving zerg. Yet it is the clearest example of how removing macro mechanics inadvertently diminishes indirect damage and how making something easier for one race will make other things harder for the other two. The impact of changing macro mechanics on attention as a limited resource should also be discussed—how players manage their attention and how they try to dictate how their opponent manages theirs—because it is subtly one of the most interesting things about Starcraft strategy.
Finally, even at the top level there are almost no zergs who can truly inject perfectly. After the third hatch goes down, inject efficiency starts to decrease with every additional hatchery. Autocast will artificially increase the skill of every zerg player so that they can make tech switches, reload instantly or play mass ling/bling/muta without fear that their larvae will be unable to sustain their strategy. It is possible for two zergs to play exactly the same game with the outcome determined solely by their larvae count during battle.
The best example of this was GSL Season 3 2014. More specifically Flash vs Solar and Flash vs soO. From 7/29/14 to 8/31/14, Flash had destroyed Proleague. He destroyed the IEM Toronto Qualifiers, he destroyed GSL Ro32 and he won IEM Toronto. He had a 79.03% winrate and was 23-2 in series wins. He was playing the best SC2 of his life. It could even be argued that he may have been the best player at the time. It is with this context then that we look first at his game vs Solar.
In this game Flash made a mockery of Solar. Solar got an early lead as he easily thwarted Flash’s early hellion marine medivac pressure and was able to easily get to the 4 base ling/bling/muta. Yet even with the lead, Solar was crushed without a fighting chance. For context, Solar was easily the second best zerg at the time. He had just gotten Ro8 the season before and would eventually be in the Ro8 again. He got second place at IEM Shenzhen only losing to Taeja.
Now take a look at the best zerg of the era, soO.
This was played right after Flash had won IEM Toronto. In this game, Flash killed 29 drones early on. He then pushed and got murdered. He pushed again and got murdered. He pushed again and got murdered. soO did what Solar could not. He dominated Flash in mechanics. He perfectly hit every inject because he understood that the answer to Flash’s BioThorBat style was mass ling/bling—the most larvae dependent style possible—with some mutas for support. And he was far more decisive. The second Flash stepped onto creep, he immediately attacked because he understood two things. First the strength of Flash’s army could not be realized unless it was spread out. Second, he could commit to these seeming hail Marys because he had the mechanics to inject every fight and knew a flood of ling/bling would arrive on time before the fight even ended.
What was even more telling was their 2nd game:
On Merry Go Round, soO loses his 4th before it ever starts mining, while Flash secures his. Usually this would be a winning move considering Flash’s execution and better upgraded army. Instead soO fights for 10 minutes and nearly routs every army that comes at him with mass ling/bling/muta. To do this he had to hit nearly every larvae inject off of his 4 hatches while simultaneously trying to spread creep, scout, counter attack and delay Flash. The only other player that could have even played a game like this was Life at peak condition. From his rise in 2014 to this very day, soO has had the best injects of any zerg bar none. While his mechanics aren't as easily appreciable because inject doesn't have a visual check like creep spread—which he doesn't do as much as Scarlett, for example—, it doesn't matter. He focuses all his attention on hitting injects and making decisive attacks, and the result is there for all to see. This is the reason why he is one of only two zergs to fight off creep and consistently win against large terran armies (the other being Life).
Recommendations
I’m against cutting macro mechanics. They may not be visible to the viewer, but they add a level of depth and complexity to macromanagement and overall strategy. The effects they have on gameplay are visible for everyone even though the root may not be obvious. And I’m not sure why the idea is to simplify the macro mechanics. Instead, add more strategic depth to the macro mechanics. Terran as it is now is really good. They have to think about when to mule/when to scan. In the end game, it allows them to sac SCVs to make larger armies or to use scans to win the game positionally. Protoss chrono boost loses relevance as the game goes on so it’s fine as it is. Perhaps if Blizzard wanted to add depth to it and make it more useful in the late game that could work too. For zerg, inject is not just an add-on mechanic, but core to everything a zerg does and essential to how modern XvZ is played. It balances out the mechanical requirements as well as strategical/macro needs. If anything, another skill could be added to the queen so that there is more decision making involved.
In a game that appears similar to Life vs INnoVation, soO dominates Flash with better creep spread and an abundance of larvae at all times
At the same time inject does have some problems. Because of the way a zerg's production is staggered, the outcome of attacks can often be extremely polarized. Attack when he has just made a round of drones and he will have no way to defend. Attack just as larvae spawn and he will definitely have enough to overwhelm you. Most players are reluctant to venture on creep unless they have an army large enough to hold their position, a safe way to retreat (medivacs or recall), or the intention to all-in.
Ideally, a midpoint should be found that eases zerg's staggered production without removing what makes it unique. How larva is spent in the early game has too significant an impact because of spawn timings, while banking larvae in the mid game while waiting for the perfect counter discourages most pressure builds. If zerg's inject is to receive a balance rework, it should have the purpose of reducing early game situations where no larva is available in exchange for reduced incentive to stockpile larvae in the midgame.
At the same time inject may be too important for zerg. As mentioned above, soO's ability to inject even under duress could be pinpointed as the source of his wins against Flash. One aspect should not be credited with victory so easily. One aspect should not influence the outcome of games so heavily. However, removing it outright is not a solution as discussed above. Instead, tweaking its effects while giving the zerg some other mechanic that will allow players like soO a chance to shine should be our goal. Rather than the complete removal of all macro mechanics, a revamp of zerg's could be the answer.
Conclusion
I feel that SC2 as a game should be embracing subtle complexities, not shying away from it. What makes SC2 great in my mind is that there is no real victory condition. In every other esport there are objectives. In LoL/Dota2, there are clear road signs for what you should be doing next. Farm your items. Take the towers, take rosh/baron/dragon, take the rax/inhibitor. Take the throne/nexus. In CS you take 16 rounds to win the game, with only 4 possible outcomes. In FGC/Smash you KO or send the other guy flying off stage. In SC2, the victory conditions are destroy all opponent buildings. Yet that almost never happens except in Polt games. 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 multipronged attacks, parade pushes, doom drops, base trades, all-ins, counter build-orders or micro. SC2 is a game that forces players to find the path of victory for himself and through that struggle, through that journey, we come to see our own individuality in our games.
To take away a core tool, to simplify it so that everyone else can do it not only hurts the strategy, but it also hurts the very essence of what makes SC2 great. It takes away another aspect from which players can differentiate themselves from their peers.
In a way this reminds me of the transition from WoL to HotS with the addition of Medivac Boost. While it was a needed tool for terrans to retreat from large battles, it eventually hurt two of the most stylistic players to have ever played the game: MMA and GuMiho.
Because for them, victory was attained through multitasking, coordinated chaos, a 5-7 pronged attack from all sides against a zerg or a protoss. Any terran could win, but only GuMiho or MMA won by creating 5 simultaneous drops. But once medivac boost was implemented, it was easier to do and far less risky. Every terran could emulate what they did without the strategy, without the risk, without the hard work. It took years for GuMiho to find a way to express his kind of madness and win his games. And while MMA was successful, his games in HotS never had the incredible flair and chaos his WoL games had.
I understand the need to try to simplify the game to make it more user friendly, but this change to inject will make everyone have the injects of soO without the mechanics, without the strategy, without the hard work.
If this went through as is, then everyone can be special like soO.
I agree with every piece of this. Removing inject (or automating it) is removing the single most important part of zerg's macro cycle, whereas removing chrono/mule is really not affecting terran or protoss's macro cycle overly much. Per blizzard macro mechanic suggestion 1, nearly all of zerg's macro cycle would be removed while terran's macro cycle would remain completely intact.
I'l also add that believing that the removal of macro mechanics will help ease in newer players is almost completely false. Filtersc's latest video does a good job of explaining this--new players still won't be able to handle the game in its current form, and removing macro mechanics just opens the door to new players being totally overwhelmed even more so by attacks all over the map, which they will fall to due to untrained crisis management. They will still be overwhelmed, it'll just be in a different manner.
On August 04 2015 03:06 PikA . wrote: Lovely writeup, I am glad to see there are still people in the community with brain, rare as that occurence might be.
I like the write up as well but I hate this post. What a great way to comment about the community!
Very good article, I agree with all of this. Also as an SC2 newbie made me realize a whole new level of complexity of the game, and also makes me admire pros even more. Man SC2 is a beautiful game!
Great read, and as a zerg I'm in agreement. Also love soO getting that praise, especially when it's used to prove a point. While it's difficult too balance the strength of mechanics, strategy, and micro I feel cutting one of the three too deeply would be a really wrong move for the game.
I think most people are against the auto-inject, but great article nonetheless. Now make one about the San gates and how we don't want Protoss aggression gone
I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
I am 100% in favor of keeping macro mechanics. However, I am also in favor of trying to adjust them in order to make them more visual/interesting/enjoyable for the player. All the points made about how important the multitasking and decision making can be kept, while still making the actual act of using these macro mechanics more enjoyable and fun. Let's face it, dropping mules or chrono-ing your upgrades isn't really a rewarding, it's too binary. You just want to always do these things as much as possible. An emphasis on decision making in your macro management would be welcome.
On August 04 2015 03:29 JamesT wrote: why is the second game of "soo vs flash" a game of true vs drg?
Hahahahaha oops. I switched it. Good catch.
Someone actually read the article
I did too but I was actually reading it while listening to the cast of the first game in the background, hearing the crispiness of soO's injects rather than seeing them. Since it didn't take me the full 20 minutes to finish reading I hadn't checked the second game yet
On August 04 2015 03:29 JamesT wrote: why is the second game of "soo vs flash" a game of true vs drg?
Hahahahaha oops. I switched it. Good catch.
Someone actually read the article
Oddly enough, I did read the article, very well written, maybe did a little too much of hammering that something integral to the game doesn't have to be the most fun thing ever. I personally love having a bunch of larva at all my hatches to make a massive tech switch into something completely random.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
First part he breakes down the article into parts and argues against them. First quote stuchiu argues against the phrase "difficult to manage but aren’t really easily noticeable" by providing insight how you can note missed injects. That's an argument against it being "impossible to notice", not against it being "difficult" to notice. It also leaves out all the possibilities of multiple queens injecting the same hatchery (e.g. if you have 3queens on 2bases...).
Second part of the breakdown:
The opponent isn’t supposed to know what you’re doing. That’s the entire point of fog of war and limited information.
Typical strawman. Trying to make it look as if DK wants the opponent to know without scouting, which is simply not what the statement
Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either.
Great article I'm up for giving macro mechanics more depth and choices anytime, would be really interesting to see what blizz suggests. If the argument "it's not visible" sticks, blizz can patch up the queen in a way that every time it injects: Fireworks
I strongly agree with keeping macro mechanics. Or, if they really want to neuter injects, at least remove inject from the game and let us build hatcheries like protoss/terran build production. That way we can trade one macro mechanic for another.
I don't think removing the mechanics would lead to some homogenization of the pro players, not everyone will become soO. The players will just find a way to differentiate themselves in another way. This is the same argument lots of people spouted when going from BW to SC2 and it turned out to be false.
I'm not saying I agree with the idea of removing the macro mechanics but many of things Blizzard stated are actually arguments for removing them. You just don't agree with them. Personally, I think they should stay and that unit design needs to be looked at but that's an entirely different topic.
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote: It is important to note that attention as a limited resource also applies to terran and protoss. [...] The impact of changing macro mechanics on attention as a limited resource should also be discussed — how players manage their attention and how they try to dictate how their opponent manages theirs — because it is subtly one of the most interesting things about Starcraft strategy.
it is actually the main fun for me to distract the opponent(s) while balancing at the same time with being distracted myself from macroing in my own base!
Nice writeup, although I disagree with a lot of things. At this point, though, it seems that about half of the community does not want changes because they are happy with what they got (used to), and the other half wants a change because they find macro mechanics tiring/not fun. Not that it's a problem, but it seems neither side can convince the other with any amount of arguments.
It's a shame, though, that the article is biased in favor of the macro mechanics. I don't say it would have been easy to stay neutral about the case, but it would be nice to see someone from the TL staff write such an article from the other perspective.
Also, this.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
Although not with this exact wording, I was going to say the same thing myself.
I think it is too early to say. Yes, removing (or nerfing/simplifying) macro mechanics takes some things away from the game. But so far we did not explore how we can use the free APM. Maybe if Life don't have to care about injects during a base defence, he could do other things which are important as well.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
First part he breakes down the article into parts and argues against them. First quote stuchiu argues against the phrase "difficult to manage but aren’t really easily noticeable" by providing insight how you can note missed injects. That's an argument against it being "impossible to notice", not against it being "difficult" to notice. It also leaves out all the possibilities of multiple queens injecting the same hatchery (e.g. if you have 3queens on 2bases...).
Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either.
implies.
Don't argue with the OP unless you take the time to read their whole argument. Claiming the intro pissed you off so much you couldn't read the rest is such a cop out. Why are you posting here if you don't read all the information from the writer before developing well informed responses. It illegitimizes everything you post.
Additionally: Is it worth nit picking at how the write phrased a few sentences instead of discussing the importance of the macro mechanics in question? These discussion should be fun even if you don't agree. Reread the article, smile, and enjoy the opportunity to debate such a fantastic topic!
Great article. Personally, I think the said macro-mechanics should be introduced in mid-game or late-game in order to provide stability in the early-game. Also, one of the elements that makes the game boring for me is that maxing out happens too early and these mechanics are the main cause.
As an aside, TL has been a bit vocal against Blizzard, hasn't it? Or is it just me?
On August 04 2015 04:02 Sholip wrote: Nice writeup, although I disagree with a lot of things. At this point, though, it seems that about half of the community does not want changes because they are happy with what they got (used to), and the other half wants a change because they find macro mechanics tiring/not fun. Not that it's a problem, but it seems neither side can convince the other with any amount of arguments.
It's a shame, though, that the article is biased in favor of the macro mechanics. I don't say it would have been easy to stay neutral about the case, but it would be nice to see someone from the TL staff write such an article from the other perspective.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
Although not with this exact wording, I was going to say the same thing myself.
I'm not sure anyone on staff shares that perspective. Maybe someone who is good at Devil's Advocate could try it.
The second argument is that mechanics—and therefore macro-mechanics—play too large a part in a player's victory or defeat in a game that's supposed to be about strategy. This is only true if there is a large disparity between player skill.
Isn't that what Blizzard tries to cater to, hence the phrase Ease of accessability? Because what if there is a large disparity between player skill, yet you both are ranked the same? You might be in Platin and think you do everything right, your opponent also Platin seems to lose every battle, yet he overcomes you by cheer numbers. For a non-casual it is time to start looking if he might focuses on the wrong aspect of the game, for gold-league Claire, it becomes a guessing game of why she lost certain games, while seemingly crushed through others. When the game is concentrated on one part alone, then even Silver-leage Larry knows how to improve (removing the fog of war above the nebolous concept of time-management).
I do not want Blizzard to cater to filthy casuals, but Blizzard really wants to, I think your post dodges this critical point, what about Silver-league Larry?
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
Yes, that was the first thing that came to my mind when i read that part. "Not fun" is a pretty good reason to remove some build/unit/playstyle from the game. What makes the DT rush ok is the fact that its actually fun. Its "not fun" when its frustrating, but that is a part of competitive games. Its fun to defend it, knowing it could be DTs makes it more exciting, same goes for pretty much any cheese.
Inperfect information is a big part of the game, i would hate to know the exact number of larvae my zerg opponent have. I would hate if every terran maxed out at 12 because everyone have perfect mechanics (if they are removed).
Imagine how f*cking boring zerg would be without creep spread and larvae injects. Nobody can do it perfectly and still fight, scout and think about the right moves, and thats how i like it. I always mess up my injects and my creep spread halts during fights, the idea of improving that makes me click the play button. Part of the fun of watching pro games is to see all the macro going on even with all the action in the middle of the map. Altough micro is prolly the best part what makes SC2 is the multitask. Making decisions, scouting, macroing and fighting.
As the article says, macro mechanics can be fun too when its put in the game context. A larvae inject mini-game is not fun, but in SC2 it is.
To be honest, if i wanted a fight RTS i would play Heroes of the Storm because the fights are more fun, and if i wanted a strategy game i would play civilization or chess because the strategy is deeper (in my opinion, and yes, i do play those games). I like SC2 because its a lot of stuff working together, mechanical precision included.
edit: to sum it up, i completely agree. edit2: some people suggested improvements for this aspect of the game and thats what blizz should have in mind.
On August 04 2015 04:02 Sholip wrote: Nice writeup, although I disagree with a lot of things. At this point, though, it seems that about half of the community does not want changes because they are happy with what they got (used to), and the other half wants a change because they find macro mechanics tiring/not fun. Not that it's a problem, but it seems neither side can convince the other with any amount of arguments.
It's a shame, though, that the article is biased in favor of the macro mechanics. I don't say it would have been easy to stay neutral about the case, but it would be nice to see someone from the TL staff write such an article from the other perspective.
Also, this.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
Although not with this exact wording, I was going to say the same thing myself.
I'm not sure anyone on staff shares that perspective. Maybe someone who is good at Devil's Advocate could try it.
Really? That's unfortunate. I mean, I could write an article myself but I'm afraid it would not have the same weight as an "official" TL writeup. I think a lot of people will now remember, "Ah yes, that debate. Even the TL staff themselves were against the changes." If someone from TL could show the other side of the coin, that might get people to actually think instead of blindly clinging to their own opinions they formed immediately after the topic was brought up.
Also, I think it would be a pretty good trend for the future to write double critics like in case of some film reviews, coming with two texts from people with generally opposing ideas.
I don't get why people compare SC2 to moba or even WC3... totally different scales.
Also, I agree with the person saying it would be nice to have TL write an article taking the opposite position. If it's true that nobody on the staff agrees with that position... well then it starts to smell like a groupthink factory.
Not agree with OP here but thanks for the writing anyway. A important aspect that seems to miss in this article is the possible change will be applied in LotV, and if anyone still remember, it fast paced like hell with boosted economy and new units that require much more micro.(hence action packing like blizzard love to phase it) As a causal zerg player, while I do like the rhythm feeling injects give zerg, I am not sure I will be able to keep up with the game in LotV, not mention have fun with it.
It is not “fun to play” or watch.
Well this is a game so I would assume people want to have fun?
Alright, what is fun or not is really subjective. As much as i enjoy being overwhelmed with more tasks that my coordination can handle i undestand a lot of people don't. I would be inclined to say "then why are you playing Starcraft?" but LotV is supposed to be more acessible and bring more people into the game so this point is invalid.
I actually do have fun trying to improve my injects and creep spread, it's such a substantial aspect of the game for me, because it's something I can really watch myself get better and back it up with numbers (like checking how far my creep got in X amount of time, when/in which situation I missed my first inject etc.).
On August 04 2015 04:02 Sholip wrote: Nice writeup, although I disagree with a lot of things. At this point, though, it seems that about half of the community does not want changes because they are happy with what they got (used to), and the other half wants a change because they find macro mechanics tiring/not fun. Not that it's a problem, but it seems neither side can convince the other with any amount of arguments.
It's a shame, though, that the article is biased in favor of the macro mechanics. I don't say it would have been easy to stay neutral about the case, but it would be nice to see someone from the TL staff write such an article from the other perspective.
Also, this.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
Although not with this exact wording, I was going to say the same thing myself.
I'm not sure anyone on staff shares that perspective. Maybe someone who is good at Devil's Advocate could try it.
Really? That's unfortunate. I mean, I could write an article myself but I'm afraid it would not have the same weight as an "official" TL writeup. I think a lot of people will now remember, "Ah yes, that debate. Even the TL staff themselves were against the changes." If someone from TL could show the other side of the coin, that might get people to actually think instead of blindly clinging to their own opinions they formed immediately after the topic was brought up.
Also, I think it would be a pretty good trend for the future to write double critics like in case of some film reviews, coming with two texts from people with generally opposing ideas.
If you want an elaborated counter-opinion against the current macro mechanics Jakatak's last video is amazing. + Show Spoiler +
On August 04 2015 04:34 Tuczniak wrote: I disagree with a lot of thing OP wrote, but it's a good article. First part came more as a rant, but that's ok.
Rant is the word I'm looking for >< Yeah the first part almost made me stop reading it.
I'm on the verge of really hating LotV so far. I've had beta access for months now and I can't bring myself to play it.
The 12-worker start is a huge turn off for me. This talk of simplifying the macro mechanics sounds awful and I truly hope they don't go through with it.
I found your points about attention confusing and hard to follow. To me, one of the most interesting effects of the proposed changes is that people will have more attention and actions to spend on tactical movements (including securing more resources a.k.a. macro).
I would appreciate a careful and accurate analysis of the effects on attention and action spending.
Being DT rushed is not fun. Incorporating defenses into your build and finding a good balance is challenging but rewarding. Working on your scouting and reading up on timings takes time and effort. Successfully being able to defend stuff like that is fun!
Injecting is not fun. Supply depots are not fun. Working on it is work. Feeling the results in game once you've worked on it, the flow and speed of it and knowing where it comes from... That's amazing. My point is basically that even though something is not immediately fun on the surface (and even feels like the mechanic is pointing and laughing at you), that doesn't mean that it isn't deeply rewarding along the line. I think things like this have kept me playing this game for so long.
Now, I'm sure Blizzard can come up with other ways to create those feelings without these exact mechanics. But I like them the way they are and I fear the substitute might not be as enjoyable. So it's a bit of fear talking, but it's also contentment. I love having this steady rhythm of actions as an important baseline and substructure carrying the fancy stuff on top.
Now I'm gonna go play some customs and spread creep..
Thanks for that article, hopefully it will be noticed and understood by relevant people in charge. Being a zerg player myself I am strongly against dumbing down macro mechanics. Auto inject takes away the chance to actually hit injects regularly and feel the difference between playing good and playing bad. A game is made for players to play, not for someone to watch. Making stuff easier to do won't bring more players to the game, it might just bring other players to the game and drive away others. What got me into sc2 was the overwhelming difficulty of managing macro and micro at the same time, if you are scared away from the game by that fact, you wouldn't be in for a longer stay anyways. Nowadays I mostly watch instead of playing because I just don't have the time. Understanding a certain strategy is easily achieved, but what is impressive in pro-play to me is that I know they have to have mastered the mechanics to a level I personally will never achieve. Taking that major factor away is just a bad design choice in my opinion.
I always thought Terran had the most interesting macro mechanics. They have 3 different choices (Mule, Scan, Supply Drop) for how to spend their energy. Maybe Mules are a little bit too good in general because that is almost always the best way to spend the energy (with exceptions of course). Maybe a good way to make Terran macro mechanics more interesting would be if the 3 choices were more equally balanced.
Chronoboost is really interesting in the early game, but it becomes dull later in the game. Openings and early/mid game strategies are built around chrono (mass early probes, warpgate timing attack, blink, storm, rush out colossi, etc.). But after a certain point, you just chrono production facilities. And I don't think anyone believes late game chrono is as powerful or impactful as late game Mules and Spawn Larva. It would be interesting if Blizzard added a late game upgrade to let chronos stack or recharge unit shields or something crazy like that, just to keep it interesting.
Spawn Larva seems really tedious compared to the other two mechanics. There really is no strategic choice about it. It's just something you have to do no matter what strategy you are using. And that's something that always turned me off from Zerg as a casual Diamond or Platinum player (depending on the season). But of course the OP is correct that Spawn Larva is the core of SC2 Zerg and it seems many Zerg players relish it.
Sometimes I'm wondering if I'm the only one out there having fun with the game through actually playing better than my opponent which contains micro and macro mechanics.
I just don't get it. HOW can anybody think cutting down on complexity would make a game more fun?
How should this attract new players and make them stay in the game?
I was so bad at this game for such a long time and still I had so extremely fun games at EVERY level of play. Just because the game would be more simple the guys from bronze league wont be in diamond because as the article says if everyone gets better, no one is.
I've been a bit away from the game lately but I still watch some big matches on occasion. And it's true that some details are not apparent to every viewer but that happens in pretty much every sport and even in music.
People not familiar with the game will focus on the battles and effects and it's okay. Those that are more knowledgeable can appreciate individual skill and that is okay too.
The same argument that the article makes can be made for music.
While learning to play the guitar it's not fun to get sore hands and fingers, repeating the same chords and scales while keeping up with the metronome for hours on end is not fun either. And people that don't know much about playing the guitar will not notice every technique used, or the difference between an easy chord or a difficult one. Most people will focus on the end result, the melodies, the flashiness of the player.
We can make the same argument for a lot of other things. It has worked for so long, why change it?
I think making changes like the starting number of workers is enough to help new viewers bypass that early game stage where nothing happens, but removing things from the game because a casual viewer doesn't notice is a bad policy.
Why is "not fun to play or watch" no argument? I like the macro mechanics of Terran and Protoss. Injects is the most unfun and dumbest thing in sc2. And especially very dumb if you have to inject DURING a fight, otherwise T or P outmacroing Z (easily).
Zerg definitely need/should other macro mechanic than the current one. Forgetting one circle of inject is very unforgiving compared to Terran and Protoss macro mechanics.
Great article! Completely agree with keeping up the complexity. What makes me come back to play is the impossible to reach skillcap, which is a great motivation to get better bc you always can. Making the game less difficult hurts the fun in my opinion, bc I was having a blast back in bronze when i had no clue, but later getting better was also fun bc its very rewarding. Actually, for me the most exciting thing about lotv was that I thought it would even be more difficult than hots.
I absolutely agree, and I am glad to read all this...
But I think the "Auto Inject" can be applied at some extent... like setting it as an option BEFORE game starts, and giving A LOT less Larvae or getting a bigger cooldown.
If Blizz try something like that then OK; I am fine, but not cutting them. They can also nerf a little the MULEs and Chrono if they want to, but simply getting rid of all is absurd, and I am sad a huge % of players on NA support the removal of them...
But I think the "Auto Inject" can be applied at some extent... like setting it as an option BEFORE game starts, and giving A LOT less Larvae or getting a bigger cooldown.
I think that's pretty bad, since there will be a huge gap to suddenly overcome, say from Silver -> Gold.
As we can see the apm requirement for sc2 will increase due to other factors in lotv and this cannot be ignored. Hence I think that with simplified macro and increased micro requirements the mechanical requirements for the game will reamin roughly the same (at least I assume this is the aim of blizzard) and it is merely the focus which has been shifted. I dont think that these macro mechanics on their own are bad and infact in hots and wol they had a large and important place in the game however we have to take into account that the mechanical ability of will players is highly limited and so there has to be decisions made on how apm, attention ect is divided between micro and macro. By making the game less macro dependent we are allowing more focus in the highly visual easy to notice micro abilities that are being added.
Hence, yes it may be bad that some of the moments the writer references may well disappear (although I feel the frequency and importance of situations like clutch chronos is exaggerated) but if that paves the way for more exciting mechanics then so be it. For me some of the most exciting moments of wol came ghosts vs templar that have now become all but extinct; this can also be likened to vultures vs dragoons or jangbi storms in brood war, situations that have also largely become extinct due to the decrease in the ability to micro in many units. The decrease in apm required for macro may allow more similar situations like these to come back leading to a faster paced more visual game, unfortunately a sacrifice has to be made...
On August 04 2015 04:42 mishimaBeef wrote: I found your points about attention confusing and hard to follow. To me, one of the most interesting effects of the proposed changes is that people will have more attention and actions to spend on tactical movements (including securing more resources a.k.a. macro).
I would appreciate a careful and accurate analysis of the effects on attention and action spending.
Specifically the points addressed in these two paragraphs. I have highlighted what I feel are most relevant parts (but still unclear).
Another limited resource that is rarely acknowledged is attention. There are many different aspects to attention: highlighted or "active" units/buildings, screen positioning, minimap awareness, game prompt awareness, and screen awareness. With injects, that is one more unit that zerg has to select, one more skill a zerg has to activate, one more location that the zerg has to visit, a few more split seconds that he has to count his larva, and a few more split seconds that he has to reorientate his internal timer. Multiply that with the number of bases and you can feel how much attention a zerg must pay to his hatcheries. Take that out and there is suddenly an abundance of attention freed for other actions. The common argument for this is that it will allow the zerg to make more interesting actions such as counterattacks. However, it also reduces the incentive for harassment against zerg because a.) he now has more than enough attention available to deal with everything; and b.) indirect damage is nerfed. By hypothetically enabling the zerg to do more interesting actions, removing injects will eliminate interesting actions and interactions from protoss and terran. It is a solution that "solves" one problem while creating two others.
It is important to note that attention as a limited resource also applies to terran and protoss. They have their own minutiae to deal with, and rhythm and tempo also applies to matchups not involving zerg. Yet it is the clearest example of how removing macro mechanics inadvertently diminishes indirect damage and how making something easier for one race will make other things harder for the other two. The impact of changing macro mechanics on attention as a limited resource should also be discussed—how players manage their attention and how they try to dictate how their opponent manages theirs—because it is subtly one of the most interesting things about Starcraft strategy.
I'm glad that you wrote all of this with such competence. Bravo.
It was unbelievable how casually David Kim talked about his 'proposed change' in the last feedback. You think that such massive, core part of the game would not be removed/tweaked without extensive consideration, reasoning and justification.
On August 04 2015 05:18 Dingodile wrote: Why is "not fun to play or watch" no argument? I like the macro mechanics of Terran and Protoss. Injects is the most unfun and dumbest thing in sc2. And especially very dumb if you have to inject DURING a fight, otherwise T or P outmacroing Z (easily).
Zerg definitely need/should other macro mechanic than the current one. Forgetting one circle of inject is very unforgiving compared to Terran and Protoss macro mechanics.
Missing a round of unit production as Terran (due to a fight etc.) can be very unforgiving or game losing, as well as many other things for all the races. It's part of what makes this game so challenging.
It's not the injects that happen during the fight that matter, it's the ones leading up to it, building up that lava count so you have the ability to reproduce instantaneously. I don't why Zerg should have the easiness of being able to mass make units/supply without the work that goes towards it.
Zerg will have free reign to just spread creep and control units, with very little focus on macro. There's barely enough as it is to separate Zergs as it is when it comes to macro-mechanics, except the select few above the rest like soOjwa for example. Compare that to Terran where there are players known for being Macro gods.
Terran has a choice between using the mule or saving for a scan. Many games have been decided by the simple act of muling at the wrong time. Later on in the game they can go for an entire mule economy and create a large army or use the scans to lock down a protoss (though only Taeja has ever done the second). Protoss have to use chrono boost strategically based on the situation.
This is a too simplistic analysis. First of, in the majority of the cases its very easy to determine how you should use your energy. Secondly, in the situatuions where a game is decided becasue of one misuse is that even an argument in favor of macromechanics? Shouldn't it be desireable to reward more back and fourth play rather than "one mistake into GG?"
It cannot be exaggerated how large an impact autocast inject will have on the viability of harassing zerg as terran and protoss. There is a rhythm to how every SC2 player plays. They tab to their base, make drones, check supply count, make supply, check army, check production, think about when/how they want to attack, do that move, repeat and recycle. That is why counter attacks are so strong. T
This argument has no real value from a design-perspective as you can tweak the numbers to make harass as strong as you want it to be. So if harass/countersattacks gets indirectly nerfed through autocast, harass units can be buffed as compensation.
Another limited resource that is rarely acknowledged is attention. T
Another? This is the same argument as you just mentioned above.
Finally, even at the top level there are almost no zergs who can truly inject perfectly. After the third hatch goes down, inject efficiency starts to decrease with every additional hatchery. Autocast will artificially increase the skill of every zerg player so that they can make tech switches, reload instantly or play mass ling/bling/muta without fear that their larvae will be unable to sustain their strategy. It is possible for two zergs to play exactly the same game with the outcome determined solely by their larvae count during battle.
Macroing perfectly isn't neccasary when you get enough hatcheries since you have critical produciton anyway. The problem here is that it's actually quite hard to create an engaging story to the viewer. One of the reasons MMA (the sport) is so succesful is that you can create various clashes: Best technical guy vs strongest guy or tallest guy vs best taekwondo dude (or whatever). It's very easy for the viewer to tell these differneces apart.
But the difference in macroskill between pro players is almost meaningsless. It wasn't like that in 2010 where you lots of "pro's" had awfull macro. I even remember Polt staying on like 30-35 workers for 12+ minutes and just focussing on micro. This helped create more engaging storylines. But when the skillcap of macro is reachable and any further advantages almost meaningless, it becomes pointless for the game as an esport
And then the question is whether its fun to play for casuals and more experienced players, and - quite obviously - its not good for casuals (whom typically prefer to micro and don't have the mechanics to do both). For more experienced players, it might be a neccesity if you have nothing else to do. However, that's why its important to realize that Blizzard has added new early game harass and micro tools for zerg that they can devote attention to instead.
On Merry Go Round, soO loses his 4th before it ever starts mining, while Flash secures his. Usually this would be a winning move considering Flash’s execution and better upgraded army. Instead soO fights for 10 minutes and nearly routs every army that comes at him with mass ling/bling/muta. To do this he had to hit nearly every larvae inject off of his 4 hatches while simultaneously trying to spread creep, scout, counter attack and delay Flash. The only other player that could have even played a game like this was Life at peak condition
Since Solars loss wasn't directly related to inject larva, I must assume you are talking about the indirect effect of it increasing the skillcap since it makes it harder for zerg to also couterattack and perform other actions.
However, your missing a bit of the point here. It's not the intention of Dkim to reduce the skillcap when going from HOTS to LOTV, but rather to make the game easer to learn while changing how the skillcap works. So instead of "pointless actions" that aren't engaging for viewers or newer players, Dkim wants to give zerg more multitask and micro options so the skillcap is maintained (or perhaps even increased).
Instead, add more strategic depth to the macro mechanics. Terran as it is now is really good. They have to think about when to mule/when to scan. I
Can I honestly ask how much you have played terran? Becasue it would genuinly surprise me if an expereinced terran player stated that he found the decision between scan and mule to be entertaining.
Does the occational 6 minute decision between scan and mule really excite you that much? And when the DT comes in and kills someone who just scanned 5 seconds before tell you "wow great design blizzard, this is so fun"?
At the end of the day, only the casual plebs are going to care about who won. Anyone with half a brain and some appreciation for Starcraft will look how well the players were playing.
The thing is we need to start talking LotV, because honestly there's a ton of things to pay attention to. So much so that the macro booster doesn't always take away from the pro's. Before you had 52 things to do at the same time, now you have 51 things to do. What's horrible about the macro boosters, is that they're so damned powerful that it becomes the most important thing to do always. So that injecting in a battle is mandatory, which can make the battle look really bad, since it's basically one player microing his heart out vs an afk guy. If they were weaker it would be more up for grabs, there could be a moment where SoO would've injected, but Life would've split his Banes vs Widow Mines.
There are also positives to removing macro boosters, it isn't actually only a matter of harder vs easy. If you remove these from the game, then maybe it means more eyes will be on the army and suddenly it wouldn't be impossible to buff the AoE's of the game. Since it's pretty much expected of you to look at your army. That would allow for more splitting and multiprong attacking and mb even using more than 1 control group. The intervals between attacks can be much shorter, since you don't need to go back before re-engaging.
There's just room for much more discussion here other than, "you want a hard game or an easy game?..."
This article hits the nail on the head, amazing article.
We don't want to understand everything the pros do, the things that they do that we dont understand is what mesmerizes and intrigue us. When we realize the subtle build order mind games going on that really hits it home for me, how deeply stregic these players are playing. Similarly I will never forget how Maru marched across the map endlessly on heavy rain and shutting protoss down in a time when then were nigh unstoppable. No other terran could do it only Maru, his mechanics his micro.
Let me tell you this Blizzard if you reading, if macro was removed "because we dont see it" every pro could micro like Maru. The fact that he can micro like a god AND macro thats what makes the magic happen. I still remember my screams of awe at what Maru was doing, he was doing what no one else at the time could. I believe soO stands as a similar symbol for the same thing, mechanics and micro that creates miracles, as a spectator its just jaw-dropping seeing someone defend something that no one else could defend. Sometimes with even less drones or units. Sometimes from being behind!
We don't want to understand everything and we don't want to be able to copy everything, if everyone could macro like soO who would we look up to. Who would we inspire to play like and who among all the copies of perfect macro would win Blizzon, the one that spun the build order wheel the luckiest thats who.
Didn't intend to write this long of a rant it just popped out since its was such a well written article that really reminded me of how some players have awed me in the past and why this game has made such an impression on me that I'm still here.
To say macro mechanics don't make the game interesting for viewers is absurd.
One of the thing casual viewers enjoy the most is sitting down with someone who knows what's going on and hearing about the nuances of why someone is ahead or behind. This way they feel like they are gaining insight, are learning, and that the game is deep and interesting.
Curiosity and mystery are important hooks, and work well with the struggle of competition. One criticism of SC2 from BW viewers is that overlays and camera distance reveal too much information. There is no tension, and so stories told during a SC2 cast struggle to engage viewers.
Test what you need to during beta Blizzard, and get it out of your system.
In a way this reminds me of the transition from WoL to HotS with the addition of Medivac Boost. While it was a needed tool for terrans to retreat from large battles, it eventually hurt two of the most stylistic players to have ever played the game: MMA and GuMiho.
Because for them, victory was attained through multitasking, coordinated chaos, a 5-7 pronged attack from all sides against a zerg or a protoss. Any terran could win, but only GuMiho or MMA won by creating 5 simultaneous drops. But once medivac boost was implemented, it was easier to do and far less risky. Every terran could emulate what they did without the strategy, without the risk, without the hard work. It took years for GuMiho to find a way to express his kind of madness and win his games. And while MMA was successful, his games in HotS never had the incredible flair and chaos his WoL games had.
Even thoug the above analysis touches on some truth, there are a few flaws with it.
First of, Medivac boost actually significantly increased the skillcap of playing terran. There is no limit to how good you can be at microing bio + medivacs, which helped to give Maru an identity. And what about Polts and his nexus snipes?
Secondly, MMA wasn't really a big multitasker late WOL. MMA instead got famous for his dual drop + main army move out early 2011. At that point no terran had ever been able to execute more than 2 attacks at two locations at once but MMA managed to attack 3 times at once.
But late WOL toss/zergs had figured out how to defend drops. The problem was that the skillcap of defending drops was higher than the skillcap of harassing. So while we had lots of dropplay in mid/early 2011, we gradaully saw less and less.
Gumiho indeed had his moments late WOL in some TvZ games, but that was probably more a consequence of zergs getting too used of terrans not dropping.
The issue with Speedmedivacs was, however, that it became so good (balance issue) that it was the dominant style. Thus you didn't see many other styles. While I in late WOL was dying to see just a single game with dropplay, it went from becoming a rarity to something that became standard in HOTS. Thus, I think the issue here is the lack of options/strategic diversity for terrans not the speedmedivac in it self.
One of the thing casual viewers enjoy the most is sitting down with someone who knows what's going on and hearing about the nuances of why someone is ahead or behind. This way they feel like they are gaining insight, are learning, and that the game is deep and interesting.
And noone would talk about macromechanics when watching pro games becasue its not a determining factor. What you would talk about instead is probably army movement in relation to the what the opponent is doing as that is something that is harder to figure out/understand for less experienced players.
Also people need to stop assoiating plus-words like "deep" "interesting" "strategic" to brain dead actions such as going backe very 40 second to press V on hatcheries.
Beautiful article. Keeping parts of SC2, like macro mechanics, is what keeps it an RTS and differs it from the growing esports pack.
Or maybe what keeps it differentiated is that you can control multiple units at once? Did you think to consider that maybe its actually stuff like macromechanics/excessively high learning barrier that is holding the game back from becoming more succesful and not vice versa?
Being DT rushed is not fun. Incorporating defenses into your build and finding a good balance is challenging but rewarding. Working on your scouting and reading up on timings takes time and effort. Successfully being able to defend stuff like that is fun!
Injecting is not fun. Supply depots are not fun. Working on it is work. Feeling the results in game once you've worked on it, the flow and speed of it and knowing where it comes from... That's amazing.
The problem with this logic is that it assumes that there is that you have to combine "working on boring" things to get satisfaction. But wanna know why CS and MOBA's are more popular? Because you work on fun things!!!!
If micro is what most people find enjoyable why not direct the focus more towards that and make sure the skillcap is addequate in that part? Yes the mechanical skillcap should be very high but that doesn't imply that we can't get rid of the unfun parts of the game if we add more depth/focus on the fun parts.
A great article, truly. You have changed my opinion on this. One thing I could think of, is to half inject time as well as larva. This creates smaller drone/attack waves, forgetting one inject is less punishing (if and only if one does not forget twice as many injects with this system), and it creates a higher skill ceiling.
Maybe my idea is stupid, and is the opposite of what blizzard is aiming at, but currently this is my only idea when looking at the problems stated by Stuchiu.
Well written, says everything I've been trying to find words for/been thinking, not just with the latest idea of removing/diminishing macro mechanics, but also whenever Blizzard opts not to do a thing just because "the average viewer can not notice it".
The average viewer not noticing a mechanic, or a subtle play is fine. As said, it occurs in many other games and sports, and if anything it creates more depth to the game for both the professional/better players and the "advanced" viewers. Furthermore, being able to understand subtle mechanics, and then getting to explain that to someone who's maybe not as experienced is also super cool to do, as it helps show them that that additional depth in the game.
Depth is good (to a limit, naturally). Removing that is bad for the game, for its players, and for its viewers, even the casuals (a casual viewer isn't going to stick around when they find out there's nothing more to learn).
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote: I understand the need to try to simplify the game to make it more user friendly, but this change to inject will make everyone have the injects of soO without the mechanics, without the strategy, without the hard work.
If this went through as is, then everyone can be special like soO.
And because everyone is special, no one is.
Just earlier you had written, "Even in the second tier of pro gamers, mechanics is often beaten by strategy or tactics." No, nobody gets to be as special as soO just because you've taken out a layer of macro mechanics. And you imply that macro is being wiped out when it's only being deemphasized a little bit. Blizz is only taking out one part of macro and increasing the emphasis on strategy. Personally I'm fully in agreement with Blizzard's direction. It is personally far more exciting to me when I see something like, "he brilliantly maneuvered his opponent into a trap before surrounding him and completely destroying him," than "he hit all his injects."
This is a really old argument about "dumbing down" Starcraft, but in my opinion, making Starcraft a more strategic rather than mechanical game actually it makes it smarter and harder. Any number of Korean teenagers can hit all their injects, but it takes a genius to outplay and outthink your opponent.
I think most of the points are perfectly well known to Blizzard. They invented these mechanics in the first place!
I think, from a perspective of a casual player like me, David Kim is right for once. The game can be at a better place, if such things (mindless apm sinks that are only there meant to compete with your other actions, and very hard to notice by the viewers) can be redesigned to have less importance.
There are basically two issues in your article, the first is strategy, the second is balance. I agree that mules and chronoboosts can be interesting decisions, but the same thing cannot be said for creeping and injecting. In fact, it is inarguable that protoss is the easiest race to play in the sense that it requires the least apm, so your argument how those two are compensating for building supply buildings is kind of weird. Do you really think Zerg becomes the easiest if say, you play in archon mode and there is one person managing just those two things for you?
Anyway, the bottomline is from a strategical point of view, mules and chrono, maybe; creeping and injecting, not so much.
Then it's balance. I think it should be obvious to Blizzard or anyone, that removing these mechanics will have an impact on balance. It is okay as long as other adjustments are made to compensate. I mean, saying that Soo won but Solar lost against flash due to their inject difference is fine, but that does not necessarily mean therefore we want inject to continue to exist. As said in the article there are arguably more important ways for players to distinguish themselves, I think it is fair to think about removing aspects that are hurting casual players.
I am not sure how most people think. For me esports is not sports after all. Unlike, say, playing tennis, there is a natural and obvious advantage for players that run faster and hit the ball harder, I don't think it is natural to require players to have as high apm as possible. It should be the case that some apm is necessary, but after that point the gain should greatly diminish. And if there is such gain, it should manifest itself in ways that are more visually impactful such as how splits affects a battle, much similar to how physicality is viewable in sports. The worst case is to have an apm sink that a bot can do as good, frustrates new players, rewards apm to levels that hardly anyone one can master, and is not obvious to most observers.
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote: I understand the need to try to simplify the game to make it more user friendly, but this change to inject will make everyone have the injects of soO without the mechanics, without the strategy, without the hard work.
If this went through as is, then everyone can be special like soO.
And because everyone is special, no one is.
Just earlier you had written, "Even in the second tier of pro gamers, mechanics is often beaten by strategy or tactics." No, nobody gets to be as special as soO just because you've taken out a layer of macro mechanics. And you imply that macro is being wiped out when it's only being deemphasized a little bit. Blizz is only taking out one part of macro and increasing the emphasis on strategy. Personally I'm fully in agreement with Blizzard's direction. It is personally far more exciting to me when I see something like, "he brilliantly maneuvered his opponent into a trap before surrounding him and completely destroying him," than "he hit all his injects."
This is a really old argument about "dumbing down" Starcraft, but in my opinion, making Starcraft a more strategic rather than mechanical game actually it makes it smarter and harder. Any number of Korean teenagers can hit all their injects, but it takes a genius to outplay and outthink your opponent.
No, if you remove macro mechanics you just have a dumbed down game where its nearly impossible to distinguish players apart because of how few subskills there are.
What many of you people in this thread are missing, and indeed what many community figures and even Blizzard is missing is that SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game. What that means is that, since the game takes place in real time then time itself becomes a resource. At some point in the mid and late game as a player you're going to have to make decisions as to how to distribute your attention and APM, weather it be macro and base management, micro and army movements or a mix of both. If you remove one or the other you remove a significant bit of depth from the game.
And yes in actual fact Blizzard did realize they dumbed down SC2 compared to BW when they streamlined the UI, its the very reason they even created macro mechanics, so that there would be actual depth to macro. If anything SC2 actually needs more and different macro mechanics, such that different players can have even more opportunities to distinguish themselves. We actually need there to be possible for some players to dedicate so much APM to macro that they can outproduce anyone else if they really put their mind do it and roll over people with pure mechanics.
I find it downright appalling that people like Jakatak or David Kim can fail so utterly to recognize this aspect of RTS and its importance.
I understand the need to try to simplify the game to make it more user friendly, but this change to inject will make everyone have the injects of soO without the mechanics, without the strategy, without the hard work.
If this went through as is, then everyone can be special like soO.
And because everyone is special, no one is.
The issue I have with this comment (besides the mechanic element which is less relevant in LOTV) is that you clearly are intereted in associating strategy with inject larva. What does inject larva have to do with strategy. Its raw mechanics. There are no decisions involved and its not related to the gameplan.
Instead of focussing on the actual arguments you are arguing like a politican and redefining terms so they fit your purpose.
I find it downright appalling that people like Jakatak or David Kim can fail so utterly to recognize this aspect of RTS and its importance.
Or maybe their opinion is that you can increase the skillcap and reduce the learning barrier at the same time? I find it downright appaling that you didn't consider that.
There is a TON of behind-the-scenes complexity in major sports that 95%+ fans aren't aware of and therefore don't appreciate immediately, but the games are better for it on a level that they can appreciate. In SC2, this is the "whoa, how does he have so many units?" moment or "wow, the timing on that attack was perfect."
And I really really can't even begin to understand how their arguments apply to chronoboost. Chrono is used to manipulate builds, which yields a greater variety of things a protoss can do. Players and viewers appreciate the variety. It is not some routine mechanic used for general-purpose macro. Furthermore, casters often see chronoboost as a "tell" in the player's build, tipping them off on what they're cooking up, therefore making it easier for fans to understand what's going on. Chronos on blink over and over? Blink timing. Chronos on nexuses? Investing in economy. It is simple.
It feels like someone at Blizzard is thinking "how can we make SC2 gameplay like other esports?" and came up with some abstract concepts and is trying to apply them to LotV. And in my opinion getting a lot of it wrong.
The only thing that has ever been wrong with SC2 is lack of build variety. There were stretches when players did the same thing too much until something got nerfed or a counter got buffed and during those times lots of people lost interest in SC2. The #1 priority should be creating a game with many build possibilities. The 12 worker start already goes against that. These macro mechanic ideas go against it as well.
Long-time lurker here, jumping in the conversation because this is an important discussion that might have an effect on the direction the game takes.
I disagree with almost the entirety of this article and am in favour of making macro mechanics less important.
I’m quite surprised at the outcry against Blizzard’s propositions. Yet it reminds me of how a lot of people were against worker rally and multiple building selection before the release of SC2. I’m sure everyone realizes how backwards that sounds today therefore I respectfully ask you all to consider whether your opinion about macro mechanics isn’t just you being afraid of change.
The only argument in this article that seems reasonable to me is the idea that macro mechanics create tension which makes the decisions on how to spread your attention and what to prioritize strategic. That is definitely true, however past the early game there is an infinite supply of things you could be doing other than casting injects / mules so you’ll always have to prioritize no matter what. And the good thing is you would have to prioritize between things that are strategic in themselves: army movement, positioning, harass, scouting, etc. How great would it be to see pros harass nonstop at 3 different places at once?
You say mechanics are sometimes beaten by strategy. Sure, but let’s be honest, mechanics are still way more important than strategy right now. To take your example, it doesn’t matter how bad Cure is strategically, he’ll crush anyone from bronze to GM on mechanics alone. I think we can all agree that gamers cannot compete at the highest level past 25-30. That is due to the physiological response time increasing with age, making it impossible to reach the same APM as the best players. How sad is that for what is supposed to be a STRATEGY game? As a new player, if you want to be any decent you have to practise mechanics for months and any strategy consideration before that point is irrelevant because you don’t get to experience the proper timings. Is that the way it should be? What’s wrong with making the game more accessible and more strategic?
The point about Soo is irrelevant. If the game had been less mechanically demanding and Soo hadn’t done as well as he did, then someone else would have been in those GSL finals and we would have praised that player as much as we praised Soo albeit for different things, maybe strategic genius for example. Now I don’t know about you but to me strategic genius sounds way more exciting than god of macro.
And as pointed out by multiple people before me, why on earth would “whether something is fun” not be a good argument for keeping it or not. To the counter example, I do think figuring out scouting opportunities and defensive timings against cheese or harass (including DTs) is extremely fun and rewarding. I really do not understand the comparison.
Side note: as a master zerg player, I do think getting rid of macro mechanics (all other things remaining equal) would give a significant advantage to zerg but that doesn’t matter right now. We’re talking about game DESIGN, and once decisions about DESIGN are made, blizzard will make sure to achieve good overall BALANCE (likely by nerfing zerg in some way).
There is a TON of behind-the-scenes complexity in major sports that 95%+ fans aren't aware of and therefore don't appreciate immediately, but the games are better for it on a level that they can appreciate. In SC2, this is the "whoa, how does he have so many units?" moment or "wow, the timing on that attack was perfect."
The problem is that that noone actually says "wow" before the sentence "that timing was actually perfect". Timing attacks where one guy has a lot more army value than the opponent generally aren't exciting to watch (only if its a foreigner vs a korean I guess).
Instead, viewers are mostly intested in seeing back and fourth games with lots of micro and multitasking.
How do I know that's the case? because protoss is all about these refined timings and it's a lame race. Then you watch someone like Polt play and his timings typically aren't very good/very predictable, however he does really well his multitasking and its exciting to watch.
Its a general misconception amongst a big portion of the community that the opinions of pro gamers actually matter more than from that of the average gamer (when it comes to what they find fun).
But competitive games/high level games shouldn't be assessed on whether they think the game has lots of depth/fun or not, but instead on whether the way they play makes for a great viewing experience.
Hypothetically speaking, if you have some super specific depth that only pro's can appreciate but almost no other players and viewers can't see it, then it doesn't add anything of value to the game.
So whether inject or CB is good should be determined mainly on whether the majority of the target group enjoys using them.
Timing attacks and production efficiency are still in the game. Idle time on a building adds up throughout the course of the game. You can still test your opponent by demanding they attend to micro (and make them risk missing macro timings) or else trade inefficiently in the battles/skirmishes.
Macro mechanics just provided a multitasking template of 'hey to be most effective, check in with these additional actions every X seconds'. With the change, the multitasking template is more open-ended, with more room for creativity.
On August 04 2015 07:20 mishimaBeef wrote: Timing attacks and production efficiency are still in the game. Idle time on a building adds up throughout the course of the game. You can still test your opponent by demanding they attend to micro (and make them risk missing macro timings) or else trade inefficiently in the battles/skirmishes.
Macro mechanics just provided a multitasking template of 'hey to be most effective, check in with these additional actions every X seconds'. With the change, the multitasking template is more open-ended, with more room for creativity.
See i would actually agree if sc2 was designed that there is a lot of room for creativity and multitasking. How would that be the case? You would need a lot of places where attacking/harassing is worth it AND you would need a lot of different builds to do so. The first one is 100% missing. You guys say "hey if we reduce the mechanical skill for macro, we have more time to micro and multitask!" It sounds logical, but it's simply not true, you have no place to multitask more in the current design of economy/mapdesign. Removing one aspect won't change the others too much without other changes as well.
On August 04 2015 07:41 The_Red_Viper wrote: You guys say "hey if we reduce the mechanical skill for macro, we have more time to micro and multitask!" It sounds logical, but it's simply not true, you have no place to multitask more in the current design of economy/mapdesign.
I respectfully disagree. Especially considering the push in Legacy to have more spread out bases and more interesting battle micro.
On August 04 2015 07:17 nTzzzz wrote: Long-time lurker here, jumping in the conversation because this is an important discussion that might have an effect on the direction the game takes.
I disagree with almost the entirety of this article and am in favour of making macro mechanics less important.
I’m quite surprised at the outcry against Blizzard’s propositions. Yet it reminds me of how a lot of people were against worker rally and multiple building selection before the release of SC2. I’m sure everyone realizes how backwards that sounds today therefore I respectfully ask you all to consider whether your opinion about macro mechanics isn’t just you being afraid of change.
The only argument in this article that seems reasonable to me is the idea that macro mechanics create tension which makes the decisions on how to spread your attention and what to prioritize strategic. That is definitely true, however past the early game there is an infinite supply of things you could be doing other than casting injects / mules so you’ll always have to prioritize no matter what. And the good thing is you would have to prioritize between things that are strategic in themselves: army movement, positioning, harass, scouting, etc. How great would it be to see pros harass nonstop at 3 different places at once?
You say mechanics are sometimes beaten by strategy. Sure, but let’s be honest, mechanics are still way more important than strategy right now. To take your example, it doesn’t matter how bad Cure is strategically, he’ll crush anyone from bronze to GM on mechanics alone. I think we can all agree that gamers cannot compete at the highest level past 25-30. That is due to the physiological response time increasing with age, making it impossible to reach the same APM as the best players. How sad is that for what is supposed to be a STRATEGY game? As a new player, if you want to be any decent you have to practise mechanics for months and any strategy consideration before that point is irrelevant because you don’t get to experience the proper timings. Is that the way it should be? What’s wrong with making the game more accessible and more strategic?
The point about Soo is irrelevant. If the game had been less mechanically demanding and Soo hadn’t done as well as he did, then someone else would have been in those GSL finals and we would have praised that player as much as we praised Soo albeit for different things, maybe strategic genius for example. Now I don’t know about you but to me strategic genius sounds way more exciting than god of macro.
And as pointed out by multiple people before me, why on earth would “whether something is fun” not be a good argument for keeping it or not. To the counter example, I do think figuring out scouting opportunities and defensive timings against cheese or harass (including DTs) is extremely fun and rewarding. I really do not understand the comparison.
Side note: as a master zerg player, I do think getting rid of macro mechanics (all other things remaining equal) would give a significant advantage to zerg but that doesn’t matter right now. We’re talking about game DESIGN, and once decisions about DESIGN are made, blizzard will make sure to achieve good overall BALANCE (likely by nerfing zerg in some way).
No, you're flat out wrong. Mechanics is the most important aspect up to a certain point. At the top level when most pros have a certain baseline of mechanics then strategy, positioning, army management, micro and build orders start growing in importance. That doesn't mean that all pros have equal mechanics you can clearly see Maru has superior multi-task to some other Terrans from his ability to constantly attack while keeping up on macro, this is a good thing since it allows room for players to distinguish themselves from their peers in different aspects. At the same time since SC2 is a RTS, players have to chose between different tasks, this adds the element of strategy in managing your time. If there were no macro mechanics we wouldn't have been in awe of Dear when he was hitting all his Chronoboosts on his Royal Road, or soO who hit all his injects to overwhelm Flash, or Bomber who always seemed to have another army ready to replace his recently slaughtered one.
It sounds logical, but it's simply not true, you have no place to multitask more in the current design of economy/mapdesign.
Yeh this is kinda correct but it overlooks one element. What happens when you actually can fight the opponent, but also need to go back to your base to macro? Then you have to prioritize, e.g. decision. You might think that's good, but if the majority of the target groups heavily prefers micro, then it makes the experience less enjoyable. Decisions should mostly be about different fun choices. Not between 1 fun and 1 boring choice.
I experience that scenario frequently when a zerg player transitions to Ultralisks and I have lots of reactors on my barracks. I then need to go back to base and find new locations for my barracks to add tech labs. It's incredibly annoying and boring whereas I really just wanna micro my bio units. It also makes it even more frustrating when you cannot make a new rally when your barracks are lifted (fix that Blizzard plz).
But ofc in many other situations it is true that you cannot attack if its not efficienct to attack (even though you may have time for it). That's, however, also what David Kim is looking to change in LOTV by giving all races more harass options.
(Guess this somewhat ironically sounds like I am a big fan of David Kim)
Seems like some people try to imply that every input related to "macro" is somehow removed from the game.
Where, even, is the line? For example, if I move my units to go sit and defend a key resource location is that a micro action or a macro action?
In reality, I don't feel like anything "macro" is lost, but a checkpoint of an effective multitasking cycle has been removed and is now open for players.
There is a TON of behind-the-scenes complexity in major sports that 95%+ fans aren't aware of and therefore don't appreciate immediately, but the games are better for it on a level that they can appreciate. In SC2, this is the "whoa, how does he have so many units?" moment or "wow, the timing on that attack was perfect."
The problem is that that noone actually says "wow" before the sentence "that timing was actually perfect". Timing attacks where one guy has a lot more army value than the opponent generally aren't exciting to watch (only if its a foreigner vs a korean I guess).
Instead, viewers are mostly intested in seeing back and fourth games with lots of micro and multitasking.
How do I know that's the case? because protoss is all about these refined timings and it's a lame race. Then you watch someone like Polt play and his timings typically aren't very good/very predictable, however he does really well his multitasking and its exciting to watch.
The general confusion amongst a big portion of the community is that the opinions of pro gamers actually matter more than from that of the average gamer. But what's interesting about pro gamers isn't whether they find it fun or not, but rather whether what they do is fun to watch for viewers.
If you have some super specific depth that only pro's can appreciate but almost no other players and viewers can't see it, then it doesn't add anything of value to the game.
So whether inject or CB is good should be determined mainly on whether the majority of the target group enjoys using them.
StarCraft has an identity and every design decision that is made must remain true to that identity. If they want to make another game to appeal to a different target group then make another game. But I don't care for subjecting StarCraft design to the tyranny of the majority. I don't know why you quote me in particular just to contradict my opinions. I say "wow that timing was perfect." So there's at least one person who says it. I really doubt you have that great an idea of what the majority of fans want anyway. No one has any idea what most fans want anyway ever since reddit became a significant part of the community. Their voting system is so fucked, SO much the tyranny of the majority of regular voters while giving the illusion of representing a large portion of the community, that a lot of people get the wrong ideas.
Maybe if timings go unappreciated, Blizzard should take it upon themselves to teach it to people with the campaign. Have missions with timers that require players to put some work into optimizing build orders. Maybe commentators need to do a better job of talking about timings. Google "ee han timing." Timings are a big deal. If the average fan doesn't appreciate them anymore, then maybe have some self-respect and raise the standards rather than lower them.
Or maybe who cares. Let it be an aspect of the game that doesn't fit into the awareness of the casual viewer. As long as the casual viewer has enough action to occupy their attention, there can be an infinite amount of stuff happening behind the scenes that only adds to the game.
I think you missed another vital and interesting factor - Queens are the primary early defence for a macro zerg and they're also required for the macro mechanic. This creates a very interesting dynamic where queens are valuable for defending harassment, however also must be protected, kept alive I.E: through transfuses as they are a target because killing them does economic damage due to their role in inject larvae.
It sounds logical, but it's simply not true, you have no place to multitask more in the current design of economy/mapdesign.
Yeh this is kinda correct but it overlooks one element. What happens when you actually can fight the opponent, but also need to go back to your base to macro? Then you have to prioritize, e.g. decision. You might think that's good, but if the majority of the target groups heavily prefers micro, then it makes the experience less enjoyable. Decisions should mostly be about different fun choices. Not between 1 fun and 1 boring choice.
I experience that scenario frequently when a zerg player transitions to Ultralisks and I have lots of reactors on my barracks. I then need to go back to base and find new locations for my barracks to add tech labs. It's incredibly annoying and boring whereas I really just wanna micro my bio units.
But ofc in many other situations it is true that you cannot attack if its not efficiency to attack (even though you may have time for it).
Well i think this is more a problem of the micro potential. If i actually have the choice to micro in this situation and be extremely efficient cause of it it maybe is even worth it to macro a few seconds later. I don't think it is a problem that you kinda have to macro in that situation when you would rather micro, it's a problem that macroing is 'always' better. The solution to this isn't to remove the macro, it is to give 'micro players' more potential.
They should remove some of the macro mechanics to make it easier for new players, but add in some non-essential features that require high APM and practice to master so that higher level players can show skills. For example, give marines the ability to duck. High skill players could manually duck their marines to reduce damage if timed properly, instead of dropping mules. Zerglings could hop in the air to avoid hellion fire, zealots could phase out for 1 second to avoid damage... this way each race gets to show off APM, and the skill ceiling for new players is lowered due to less macro required.
The thing is, every bit of attention someone devotes to macro mechanics is attention they don't devote elsewhere. The nature of starcraft is that it's never going to be an easy game, so you want to look at other things you might be trading off by adding or removing features - fun, spectacle, difficult versus easy decisions and so on. I don't think macro mechanics measure up well against controlling units, gathering information or making tech choices in most cases (scans vs mules is sometimes interesting).
Building workers and supply doesn't necessarily measure up well either, but killing workers and supply and the consequent need to rebuild under pressure or say screw it and all-in certainly does.
I dont know if is a valid comparition the games of Flash vs Solar, and Flash vs soO, because at that time Solar was in the begining of a slump and Flash certainly was in a good form, and in the game of Flash vs soO, Flash was in the begining a slump of bad results, and soO was in climb on, and also soO is not any Zerg, is the zerg with the best mechanics. Like the article said if everyone can make it, then not gona be stars or "special ones", but the problem is that no matter how good are the zerg player in micro, engage, sense of the game, reading their opponent, scouting at right time,etc, if the victory reduces to how consistent are the zerg player at injects, then the criterion to call someone the "special one" had been reduced mainly to how consistent is at inject, and obvisuly there is something wrong there. Second, terran and protoss at mid- late game not even need to switch his attention to their bases, and just had focuses in control their units, and only if there a harrasment,or a cronobusting at specific time they have to switch attention, but for zerg is different, not matter what happens at the moment, if their units have to engage in a battle, or they have a multidrop, or they try to harrass, no matter what is happening and when is happening, they have to switch the attention to their bases to inject, praying to their units not get caught at bad position. And in a game that basically reduces to use your attention more efficiently, is a big dissanvantage to zerg players. And for newbie zerg players could be a nightmare, i think the problem is not the mechanical by itself, is that not all the races make the same effort to play them. In consistant not always won the best player at all points, usually heard in the analisis game: he lost bcoz didnt snipe well with their vikings, or he lost bcoz he shouldnt blink with stalkers,but for zerg reduces to he lost bcoz he missed some injects, is something dissapointed. I think the inject shouldnt be the factor to determine how good the zerg player is, bcoz it directly affect at detritment all the other skills that zerg player could have, while the other races can focus on what they want and when they want, showing the real skill one.
I appreciate the article Stuchiu - it's clear you've put a lot of effort and time into it and, like most of the other things that you write and publish, it was a valuable read.
I won't lie, my personal stance on the matter is sitting on the fence.
Conceptually, I think it's a bad idea remove these mechanics from the game. Like others have mentioned, progressing from Bronze to Platinum and getting better at said mechanics is quite rewarding. Over the 5 years I've played this game, I've had moments of frustration to moments of sheer joy. However, this brings me onto my next point - over the 5 years I've played this game...I'm the only one from my group of friends that still plays this game, and even that too - I'm a casual nowadays.
If Blizzard's aim is to bring more new people into the game (or recapture people like my friends who've stopped), then realistically this is something that they need to explore. In 2010 when SC2 was released - there was a sense of novelty (with the game being new) and a strategy niche that the game filled. At the time we basically had Dota 1, HoN and SC2 and I think most of the people I knew chose Starcraft over the other two. Fast forward 5 years and now we have DotA 2, LoL, Heroes, Heartstone, CS:GO and SC2 to chose from. When I've tried to get my friends back into SC2 I was often met with the response "it's just too hard" or "but *insert game here* is more fun" or "easier". Which leads onto:
This is a game, most of us play games to have fun, yes? Most of us play games to have fun, wind down from a long day in the office and/or something to make us feel good at the end of a day. At least, that's what I've observed amongst my circle of friends. Blizzard is a games company and needs to make a return on their investment and if they've observed that sales attributed to starcraft 2 has dropped then obviously they are trying to do something about it to try and get more people to play the game.
Legacy of the Void so far feels like Blizzard is trying to re-invent the wheel...is this a bad thing? The casual gamer side of me thinks not but the elitist doesn't want much to change unless it adds to the experience both viewing and playing.
Mmm this turned into a bit of a long post, but to reiterate - I'm sitting on the fence with this one and the reasons above highlights why I'm even entertaining the idea of the changes. If I were on the team that was testing things internally - I'd suggest and trial: - Changing the mule's duration and energy cost so that you have longer intervals by which you have to call them down. - Introducing that idea that BisuDagger mentioned in another thread where Queens inject larvae automatically but less efficiently than if you were to instruct it to inject onto the hatcheries - Not too sure what to do with Chronoboost :/ - depending on whether or not the warpgate changes go through, there could be possible interactions/changes with regards to that "warp-in power" concept that DK mentioned.
Again - just thinking out loud and offering an alternate view as to why changes to the current system may not be a bad thing.
Well i think this is more a problem of the micro potential. If i actually have the choice to micro in this situation and be extremely efficient cause of it it maybe is even worth it to macro a few seconds later.
Well its the combination. How important is it to macro at this given point in time in relation to micro? I think the situation I describe is very common for a lot of terran players and eventually you just gotta downprirotize going for an extra drop or kiting Ultralisks, and instead going back to base becasue having 90% Marines isn't an effective compositions vs Ultras.
The solution to this isn't to remove the macro, it is to give 'micro players' more potential.
So I think that without more micro potential, it's actually neccasary to have macro mechanics in the game. Otherwise the game simply feels empty as there is nothing else to do. However, if you have constant opportunity for micro + it feels rewarding, then almost noone will whine about the lack of macromechanics.
My ideal RTS games has 100% automized macro in the sense that there are interesting decisions to which units/styes you build but they are as least mechanically demanding as possible. Instead there is constant action from the get-go and you have units everywhere on the map.
Thus, I would actually like to see a much higher mechanical skillcap in an RTS game than what Sc2 has atm., but it shouldn't be based on macro.
Obviously Sc2 can't do that, but I think its possible to get a bit closer with LOTV as it looks to be a more actionpacked game.
This is a game, most of us play games to have fun, yes?
It's funny becasue a lot of people tend to overlook the obvious answer when discussing game design. David Kim frequently falls into this trap as well as he often determines his decision decisions based on whether it will add more action or not, instead of the almost-too-easy question "does it make the game more fun"?
We all play games for fun and that should be the overall primary goal. Targets such as "more action" should be seen as a subgoal/general rule. However, if a certain change increases the skillcap or adds more action but makes the game less enjoyable in the proces --> Its a bad change.
And this is one (of multiple) problems I have with the article. It uses a lot of positive-associate terms such as "depth" "strategy" "special" "mechanics" to explain why inject larva is good, whereas in reality it should mainly focus on whether it actually makes the game more enjoyable for the majority of the target audience.
On August 04 2015 07:17 nTzzzz wrote: Long-time lurker here, jumping in the conversation because this is an important discussion that might have an effect on the direction the game takes.
I disagree with almost the entirety of this article and am in favour of making macro mechanics less important.
I’m quite surprised at the outcry against Blizzard’s propositions. Yet it reminds me of how a lot of people were against worker rally and multiple building selection before the release of SC2. I’m sure everyone realizes how backwards that sounds today therefore I respectfully ask you all to consider whether your opinion about macro mechanics isn’t just you being afraid of change.
The only argument in this article that seems reasonable to me is the idea that macro mechanics create tension which makes the decisions on how to spread your attention and what to prioritize strategic. That is definitely true, however past the early game there is an infinite supply of things you could be doing other than casting injects / mules so you’ll always have to prioritize no matter what. And the good thing is you would have to prioritize between things that are strategic in themselves: army movement, positioning, harass, scouting, etc. How great would it be to see pros harass nonstop at 3 different places at once?
You say mechanics are sometimes beaten by strategy. Sure, but let’s be honest, mechanics are still way more important than strategy right now. To take your example, it doesn’t matter how bad Cure is strategically, he’ll crush anyone from bronze to GM on mechanics alone. I think we can all agree that gamers cannot compete at the highest level past 25-30. That is due to the physiological response time increasing with age, making it impossible to reach the same APM as the best players. How sad is that for what is supposed to be a STRATEGY game? As a new player, if you want to be any decent you have to practise mechanics for months and any strategy consideration before that point is irrelevant because you don’t get to experience the proper timings. Is that the way it should be? What’s wrong with making the game more accessible and more strategic?
The point about Soo is irrelevant. If the game had been less mechanically demanding and Soo hadn’t done as well as he did, then someone else would have been in those GSL finals and we would have praised that player as much as we praised Soo albeit for different things, maybe strategic genius for example. Now I don’t know about you but to me strategic genius sounds way more exciting than god of macro.
And as pointed out by multiple people before me, why on earth would “whether something is fun” not be a good argument for keeping it or not. To the counter example, I do think figuring out scouting opportunities and defensive timings against cheese or harass (including DTs) is extremely fun and rewarding. I really do not understand the comparison.
Side note: as a master zerg player, I do think getting rid of macro mechanics (all other things remaining equal) would give a significant advantage to zerg but that doesn’t matter right now. We’re talking about game DESIGN, and once decisions about DESIGN are made, blizzard will make sure to achieve good overall BALANCE (likely by nerfing zerg in some way).
No, you're flat out wrong. Mechanics is the most important aspect up to a certain point. At the top level when most pros have a certain baseline of mechanics then strategy, positioning, army management, micro and build orders start growing in importance. That doesn't mean that all pros have equal mechanics you can clearly see Maru has superior multi-task to some other Terrans from his ability to constantly attack while keeping up on macro, this is a good thing since it allows room for players to distinguish themselves from their peers in different aspects. At the same time since SC2 is a RTS, players have to chose between different tasks, this adds the element of strategy in managing your time. If there were no macro mechanics we wouldn't have been in awe of Dear when he was hitting all his Chronoboosts on his Royal Road, or soO who hit all his injects to overwhelm Flash, or Bomber who always seemed to have another army ready to replace his recently slaughtered one.
What am I wrong about? Can you be more specific? None of what you're saying contradicts any point I made. The fact that you have to get to pro level mechanics for strategy to make a difference is exactly what I am speaking against.
And I do think you're missing the point. Of course it's good that players can distinguish themselves. But we always find something to differentiate them once we see them play enough games. I'd just rather we give them opportunities to differentiate themselves for something else than being really good at hitting V on their hatcheries every 40 second. To be honest, I find it quite sad that you remember Dear for "hitting all his chronoboosts". Maybe if the game was less demanding mechanically, we would have had a GSL champion that distinguished himself with something more interesting. Isn't this supposed to be a strategy game?
Lotv is doing a good job providing pros with a lot of micro and multitasking opportunities to showcase their skill, I don't think there's a need for arbitrary macro mechanics (I'm talking specifically about injects as chronoboosts are a bit more interesting).
So I think that without more micro potential, it's actually neccasary to have macro mechanics in the game. Otherwise the game simply feels empty as there is nothing else to do. However, if you have constant opportunity for micro + it feels rewarding, then almost noone will whine about the lack of macromechanics.
My ideal RTS games has 100% automized macro in the sense that there are interesting decisions to which units/styes you build but they are as least mechanically demanding as possible. Instead there is constant action from the get-go and you have units everywhere on the map.
Thus, I would actually like to see a much higher mechanical skillcap in an RTS game than what Sc2 has atm., but it shouldn't be based on macro.
Obviously Sc2 can't do that, but I think its possible to get a bit closer with LOTV as it looks to be a more actionpacked game.
I would much rather play a game where both styles are viable and ewach person can decide if they wanna be a 'macro player' or a 'micro player' or anything in between. This directly relates to something you always write:
instead of the almost-too-easy question "does it make the game more fun"?
This also is the wrong question, the right question would be "is this more fun for the group of people we actually wanna reach" "More fun" is a concept which loses its meaning completely if we don't define the target group. Do we actually wanna reach the biggest group possible? (in most commcercial productions it's the case, yes) or do we wanna build a game which is liked by a more specific kind of target audience.
This also is the deciding factor most people don't really talk about at all i feel. IMO games are at its best when developers know perfectly which group of people they wanna reach with it, the more you 'play safe' (hey there is something in it for anybody!) the more the actual quality of the game suffers. (there are exceptions, but imo they are rare and thus shouldn't be considered in most cases)
At first I thought this was going to compare a soO game and a Curious game.
Anyhow, this was a good read! I'm torn on this one. As a casual player at best, this would probably make my life a lot easier, since I've always had more fun focusing on what units to build and positioning than on mechanics. However, as a pretty avid viewer, I am convinced by your arguments that this would have a negative impact on the pro scene.
I wonder if the no-macro-mechanics idea would be a good setting for an arcade game or other setting. Much like archon mode, it could help get casual players into the game.
I think at this point...I am solidly against the idea of removing macro mechanics from SC2. This is because their removal creates a whole new host of balance problems with unforeseen consequences.
The whole tempo of supply, army size, tech timings, everything is built on the foundations of each race's macro mechanics. What happens to Protoss vs. Zerg, for example, when Zerg is unable to reach our current acceptable supply to hold off a Protoss timing attack because inject has been removed? The influence of chrono vs. inject is asymmetric, sure, but I think it's quite easy to see what the outcome of such a change would be. And that's just one example.
This tempo is built into the core of the game. This one change would have far more of an impact than all other changes in LOTV put together. Macro mechanics change the core of the game so much that alternative implementations (Starbow, for example) of SC2 spent YEARS fiddling with everything from unit build times and alternative macro mechanics before they just settled on using BW as a foundation.
But the SC2 developers will NEVER use BW style macro mechanics as a foundation. Which means you are removing the impetus for all current game dynamics without considering the consequential interactions of the pieces that REMAIN. And that's a huge can of worms.
To the contrary, I would prefer it if the developers took a page out of Starbow's book and increased the FREQUENCY of macro mechanic use, while slightly dampening their potency. The result being that it is even more rewarding to focus on developing solid use of macro mechanics, while not radically changing every other aspect of the game. Same tempo (greater frequency, slightly dampened effect).
I don't know why people are opposed to making a game of SC2 as jam packed with action and as mechanically difficult as possible. As a player, that is what I wish more than any other. There is nothing more satisfying than the realization that I can really dig into the game because there are a nigh on infinite things to work on and improve. Rather than focus on simplifying for the sake of something as abstract as "spectator value" why not focus on the core player experience? The TEMPO of the game itself?
And with a game like StarCraft, you are NEVER going to lower the barrier of entry to the point where a beginner can jump in and start competing without a significant investment of time and energy. Just get over it - SC is not that type of game. It requires a commitment, and rewards players who are willing to invest themselves. That depth is what all got us hooked on SC in the first place - it's part of SC's appeal.
The process of refining one's macro cycle and learning to split attention at the proper place in the proper time is one of the most rewarding things in the entire game. It is the primary component of what spectators call "speed," or "multitasking." That dynamic should be broadened and reinforced, not removed.
The one thing I liked about Starbow macro mechanics? They had a much higher frequency of repetition. And what I disliked the most? That the impact of each individual use of macro mechanics was dampened too much. There's gotta be a balance, and I'd rather the developers focus on finding that rather than removing macro mechanics altogether. That's the wrong direction, and creates far more balance problems than any developer in their right mind should want to deal with.
But hey, it's beta, a time for testing things. If the developers want to test the complete removal of macro mechanics and are willing to put them back into the game or go in the opposite direction if it turns out it wasn't a good idea, then I'm all for it. I could be wrong.
I'm just dropping in, but your ending example (sOO) contradicts the point of your post. Either he executed a strategy that Flash did not know (and could not know) was possible, because of mechanics, or executed a crappy strategy and succeeded purely because of mechanics. This is, basically, the core complaint of the people you are trying to rebut.
I don't mind the mechanics being in the game, they are mostly fun, but your argument is internally inconsistent.
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote: I understand the need to try to simplify the game to make it more user friendly, but this change to inject will make everyone have the injects of soO without the mechanics, without the strategy, without the hard work.
If this went through as is, then everyone can be special like soO.
And because everyone is special, no one is.
Just earlier you had written, "Even in the second tier of pro gamers, mechanics is often beaten by strategy or tactics." No, nobody gets to be as special as soO just because you've taken out a layer of macro mechanics. And you imply that macro is being wiped out when it's only being deemphasized a little bit. Blizz is only taking out one part of macro and increasing the emphasis on strategy. Personally I'm fully in agreement with Blizzard's direction. It is personally far more exciting to me when I see something like, "he brilliantly maneuvered his opponent into a trap before surrounding him and completely destroying him," than "he hit all his injects."
This is a really old argument about "dumbing down" Starcraft, but in my opinion, making Starcraft a more strategic rather than mechanical game actually it makes it smarter and harder. Any number of Korean teenagers can hit all their injects, but it takes a genius to outplay and outthink your opponent.
No, if you remove macro mechanics you just have a dumbed down game where its nearly impossible to distinguish players apart because of how few subskills there are.
What many of you people in this thread are missing, and indeed what many community figures and even Blizzard is missing is that SC2 is a Real Time Strategy game. What that means is that, since the game takes place in real time then time itself becomes a resource. At some point in the mid and late game as a player you're going to have to make decisions as to how to distribute your attention and APM, weather it be macro and base management, micro and army movements or a mix of both. If you remove one or the other you remove a significant bit of depth from the game.
And yes in actual fact Blizzard did realize they dumbed down SC2 compared to BW when they streamlined the UI, its the very reason they even created macro mechanics, so that there would be actual depth to macro. If anything SC2 actually needs more and different macro mechanics, such that different players can have even more opportunities to distinguish themselves. We actually need there to be possible for some players to dedicate so much APM to macro that they can outproduce anyone else if they really put their mind do it and roll over people with pure mechanics.
I find it downright appalling that people like Jakatak or David Kim can fail so utterly to recognize this aspect of RTS and its importance.
I am just highly skeptical of the idea that Blizzard and David Kim don't understand their own game. Of course they do. They have been living it and breathing it for years and years. You may disagree with the direction they're taking but I think it's absurd to be saying they don't actually understand what's going on or the effects of what they are changing.
I'll put it this way. I don't want Starcraft to be dumbed down, I want it to be smartened up. I think Blizzard is moving in the right direction with this. They have stated they want to give players more strategic options with LotV. I honestly don't think that injects etc are the most strategic way to utilize players' APM, and it is not the most interesting for viewers. Blizzard continues to push SC2 as an esport and to do that they need to make ways to show off player skill that are visually interesting and obvious to viewers.
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.
The biggest argument around what is or isn't kept as a part of sc2 should be how fun it is. There is no other metric that compares.
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote: 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.
This seems like your main point, so are you suggesting that it's of no use to measure how often something is fun? Also, using "All aspects of the game can be fun or not fun" to excuse things that are "not fun" can't work if you don't multiply how fun it is by how often it happens. How many games contain a mule drop or an inject that gets us or our viewers excited? How many games contain marine micro that gets someone excited? We all know they aren't comparable. Should we replace a forgettable task with something that consistently entertains in a more obvious and strong way?
The fun argument gets me every time. How the hell do you dictate something as subjective as fun and use that as an argument for the implentation/removal of a core mechanic?
To me, learning to split my attention and multitask - "getting faster," focusing on honing my mechanics and nailing complex macro, these are the things which make SC2 fun. The funny thing here, is my definition of fun seems to be running against the definition of fun a bunch of others here are throwing out and claiming as fact.
Yet what I find "fun" is no less correct, and no less an essential part of the essence of Starcraft.
On August 04 2015 09:15 Qwyn wrote: The fun argument gets me every time. How the hell do you dictate something as subjective as fun and use that as an argument for the implentation/removal of a core mechanic?
To me, learning to split my attention and multitask - "getting faster," focusing on honing my mechanics and nailing complex macro, these are the things which make SC2 fun. The funny thing here, is my definition of fun seems to be running against the definition of fun a bunch of others here are throwing out and claiming as fact.
Yet what I find "fun" is no less correct, and no less an essential part of the essence of Starcraft.
Great article and I'm depressed but hardly surprised at Blizzard's continued failure to understand their own game. One of the parts I always loved about the game was attention as a resource and choosing where to devote mine and trying to stretch my opponents. Then when you watch pros it adds that level of awe when you see them manage everything perfectly whilst executing micro (or hilarity when they fuck up). If macro is too simple it removes part of what makes the game unique and turns it into more of a paper-scissors-rock micro map.
A mix of strategy and mechanics is what made starcraft so addictive, challenging and fun for me. Cherry-picking one thing out of the game and saying it's not fun is ridiculous. As the article said building pylons isn't fun either so why not just give everyone 200 supply and remove them? The thing is not every element of the game needs to be individually 'fun' as long as the game is fun overall.
On August 04 2015 09:21 Scarecrow wrote: Great article and I'm depressed but hardly surprised at Blizzard's continued failure to understand their own game. One of the parts I always loved about the game was attention as a resource and choosing where to devote mine and trying to stretch my opponents. Then when you watch pros it adds that level of awe when you see them manage everything perfectly whilst executing micro (or hilarity when they fuck up). If macro is too simple it removes part of what makes the game unique and turns it into more of a paper-scissors-rock micro map.
A mix of strategy and mechanics is what made starcraft so addictive, challenging and fun for me. Cherry-picking one thing out of the game and saying it's not fun is ridiculous. As the article said building pylons isn't fun either so why not just give everyone 200 supply and remove them? The thing is not every element of the game needs to be individually 'fun' as long as the game is fun overall.
The people designing the game are paid to cherry pick what is and is not fun.
I'm actually excited that Blizzard is looking at cutting macro mechanics, and the core reason all goes back to contraction of time cited in TheDwf's big Razzia of the Blizzstars article: the game is moving too damn fast.
When we came up with the Double Harvest economy model, our goal was to slow down the economic growth of each player to some degree by forcing a player to expand beyond 3 bases in order to achieve maximum income, thereby lengthening the pace of the game to provide for a more varied mid game. Blizzard swatted down this idea and went ahead with their own model with the goal in mind that they wanted a fast-paced, action-packed game with lots of back and forth action that would never really settle into a maximum economy, and that's fine. However, the implication of giving several units extra active abilities and pressuring each player to expand way before they were able to defend it caused a severe contraction in time, pushing the pace of the game to a hectic extreme. Simply put, players would still get to max economy quickly, and there wasn't much back and forth except in various all-in situations where both players were starving to death and trying to micro perfectly.
Macro mechanics were originally designed to give players something to DO. Blizzard was worried that the unlimited selection and building grouping would be problematic and fail to live up to the ESPORTS name, and so they added macro mechanics (AKA repetitive tasks with little to no variation) in order to keep players busy. You can talk about how there's somehow strategy involved in macro mechanics, but if we're honest, outside of a few early game decisions, the choices are always clear: Always MULE, always inject, always chronoboost. There's nothing strategic about them, they are literally just things to do, and a mechanically sound player can definitely pull ahead just by being on point with their macro (i.e. soO).
Some of the key problems in LotV are: there is too much too do, and peak economy still gets reached far too quickly. Removing macro mechanics addresses both of these concerns by removing some of the strategically unnecessary burden from the players and simultaneously slowing down the pace of the game to a reasonable level, allowing for a longer and more varied mid game before a maximum economy is reached.
On August 04 2015 09:21 Scarecrow wrote: Great article and I'm depressed but hardly surprised at Blizzard's continued failure to understand their own game. One of the parts I always loved about the game was attention as a resource and choosing where to devote mine and trying to stretch my opponents. Then when you watch pros it adds that level of awe when you see them manage everything perfectly whilst executing micro (or hilarity when they fuck up). If macro is too simple it removes part of what makes the game unique and turns it into more of a paper-scissors-rock micro map.
A mix of strategy and mechanics is what made starcraft so addictive, challenging and fun for me. Cherry-picking one thing out of the game and saying it's not fun is ridiculous. As the article said building pylons isn't fun either so why not just give everyone 200 supply and remove them? The thing is not every element of the game needs to be individually 'fun' as long as the game is fun overall.
The people designing the game are paid to cherry pick things out of the game so they can see what is and is not fun.
You are throwing the word fun around as if it is a reliable metric for dictating what elements remain in the game. That's a very slippery slope.
Why don't you give me YOUR definition of fun as it pertains to SC2? And I'll give you mine! And we'll both notice how drastically different our two definitions are. Yet I'll bet anything that both definitions contain elements which are essential to SC2 as a whole.
RTS is such a complex genre. It has many different facets. You have to be careful about letting one single definition of "fun" run amok, lest it dictate the entire experience of the game. Or else you'll end up with a variety of SC2 which I don't find fun anymore. Ha.
SC2John, I always find myself agreeing with your posts. I would love Blizzard to test removing macro mechanics, but only if they go through with it and address the myriad of consequences that will emerge as a result.
As for the effects of their removal, I would prefer Blizzard keep the hectic pace of SC2 while targeting the economic curve. Shaping order out of the hectic chaos of the game's tempo has always been the most appealing thing about StarCraft to me. Agree with your assessment. The reason why I'm on the fence is I'm afraid the removal of macro mechanics will open up a whole new host of problems that will not be adequately addressed.
On August 04 2015 09:21 Scarecrow wrote: Great article and I'm depressed but hardly surprised at Blizzard's continued failure to understand their own game. One of the parts I always loved about the game was attention as a resource and choosing where to devote mine and trying to stretch my opponents. Then when you watch pros it adds that level of awe when you see them manage everything perfectly whilst executing micro (or hilarity when they fuck up). If macro is too simple it removes part of what makes the game unique and turns it into more of a paper-scissors-rock micro map.
A mix of strategy and mechanics is what made starcraft so addictive, challenging and fun for me. Cherry-picking one thing out of the game and saying it's not fun is ridiculous. As the article said building pylons isn't fun either so why not just give everyone 200 supply and remove them? The thing is not every element of the game needs to be individually 'fun' as long as the game is fun overall.
The people designing the game are paid to cherry pick what is and is not fun.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Is right clicking fun? How about having to place your buildings every game? Building workers? Why can't I just automate everything and get down to the real FUN?
The designers are paid to ensure the game itself is fun, not each individual element. BW was hard as fuck with many elements that in isolation were hard/annoying but subjectively I had more 'fun' with it than I ever did in SC2.
On August 04 2015 09:28 SC2John wrote: I'm actually excited that Blizzard is looking at cutting macro mechanics, and the core reason all goes back to contraction of time cited in TheDwf's big Razzia of the Blizzstars article: the game is moving too damn fast.
When we came up with the Double Harvest economy model, our goal was to slow down the economic growth of each player to some degree by forcing a player to expand beyond 3 bases in order to achieve maximum income, thereby lengthening the pace of the game to provide for a more varied mid game. Blizzard swatted down this idea and went ahead with their own model with the goal in mind that they wanted a fast-paced, action-packed game with lots of back and forth action that would never really settle into a maximum economy, and that's fine. However, the implication of giving several units extra active abilities and pressuring each player to expand way before they were able to defend it caused a severe contraction in time, pushing the pace of the game to a hectic extreme. Simply put, players would still get to max economy quickly, and there wasn't much back and forth except in various all-in situations where both players were starving to death and trying to micro perfectly.
Macro mechanics were originally designed to give players something to DO. Blizzard was worried that the unlimited selection and building grouping would be problematic and fail to live up to the ESPORTS name, and so they added macro mechanics (AKA repetitive tasks with little to no variation) in order to keep players busy. You can talk about how there's somehow strategy involved in macro mechanics, but if we're honest, outside of a few early game decisions, the choices are always clear: Always MULE, always inject, always chronoboost. There's nothing strategic about them, they are literally just things to do, and a mechanically sound player can definitely pull ahead just by being on point with their macro (i.e. soO).
Some of the key problems in LotV are: there is too much too do, and peak economy still gets reached far too quickly. Removing macro mechanics addresses both of these concerns by removing some of the strategically unnecessary burden from the players and simultaneously slowing down the pace of the game to a reasonable level, allowing for a longer and more varied mid game before a maximum economy is reached.
Yes, the other aspect of macro mechanics. The one that isn't just about giving players something to do for the sake of it but the discussion what they actually do for the game (which isn't all that positive in my opinion).
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.
Interesting article. I think there is some merit to what is said in the article. Personally I only really feel like i have something to say from the zerg perspective. I was a player who climbed from silver to high masters and both experienced for myself and saw others struggle to learn the macro part of the game. One of the sad things I feel about the entire thing is that the macro for a zerg is the completely dominating factor in the game. To improve your injects would not be something that you did to squeeze that extra bit out of your builds (the same way you can skip a spine or some lings early to squeeze that early +1 upgrade out). It is rather a prequesite for playing the game.
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)
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.
I actually hated WC3 (I played WC2 a lot as a kid) xD
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.
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.
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.
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 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. ^^
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.
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.
It is not important for me who likes me on tl and who doesn't and if writers are being paid or not. If an article is opinionated and narrow minded like that I have not much left but naming it - if noone else does it.
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.
This opinion states without any discretion in the opening paragraphs that yes; these mechanics are not fun, its hard to tell whats going on and that they make the game extremely difficult to play, but we should keep them because well he said so, even though they are a drag on the enjoyment of almost every player in the game.
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.
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.
The simple fact of the matter is that Starcraft 2 continues to wane in popularity and viewership, and that isn't going to change if the status quo remains. I agree with some parts of this opinion post, and disagree with other parts, but there is one quote I vehemently, wholeheartedly disagree with, and that is this:
"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.
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...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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.
Ok some people have been bringing up a solution where in.Casual mode you can choose between Auto/Manual and then ladder would be strictly Manual. I could totally hop on that bandwagon, I see nothing wrong with that at all, except that I dont understand how Auto would work for Terran and Protoss especially. Like does it just randomly chrono buildings, how will it spend your energy on mules? "Oh no I have no energy for a scan and im being killed by DT's.. yay" so, Im assuming auto would mean some sort of re-tooling, does anyone have ideas how that would work?
I think a good compromise would be having a mode that gives you the option between the 2, that way people on either side of the fence are appeased. Even if that means making a separate ladder for "Auto", but I dont think that would be necessary. Or it could be like a new player ladder that is less formal but it seems just havin the choice in Casual mode would suffice.
Cutting macro would dumb everything down to a same low level, which is against diversity and development. It is based on a communist mindset that mustn't be encouraged.
On August 04 2015 12:09 lichter wrote: There's a reason this is called an editorial
You did write the following: "In this article I will argue ...", also there is front-page link to it as "Article". This is the only time it is referenced as an editorial.
As an article it is very poorly written but changing the type to editorial makes the wall of text good. It is always nice to see well written pieces that spark more conversation in sc2.
EDIT: I think you should've picked better against-arguments to counter in order to make your writing more impressive.
The first game put you inside the robot, to rotate each piston individually, to scramble around making each gear work, and somehow produce a cohesive strategy and movement to destroy the other giant robot. It took so much effort to even move the damn thing.
The second game, the robot has a life of its own, and starts moving faster and faster of its own accord. Your role now is basically running around putting out fires, and crisis management. If you dont do everything that needs to be done, the tiniest mistake will lead to your robot crashing out.
It makes no sense in the second scenario to still have a bunch of pistons I need to rotate. The key direction of the game was set 4 years back.
Uau , nice writing , I think you understand what makes starcraft a good game , something that even Blizzard did not completely understand when they made brood war. To simplify the game without thinking , is to make it's life span short. Just another title that was nice for one year or so.
Blizzard has such a big and free resource available in the passionate community of starcraft lovers,From casual to professional players that make a living based on their game. I can only hope they use it. Their game helped create an industry but if they do not do the right thing , that industry will go on without starcraft.
On August 04 2015 12:09 lichter wrote: There's a reason this is called an editorial
You did write the following: "In this article I will argue ...", also there is front-page link to it as "Article". This is the only time it is referenced as an editorial.
Actually in the front page the description text reads "In this editorial, ..." so not sure why the link is labeled as article.
For me mechanics bring balance to the game. Because there is the need to have something to overcome strategic disavantage. Even if we sometime call it "mind game" or "good strategic choice", strategic choice have a lot to do with luck. With good player being able to drive game safely (because overall ease to SC2 mechanics at some point), if we remove to much of mechanic part, we may have less comeback possible and more random games. And ofc it will bring even more frustration to the game. How hawfull is that to lose vs all-in/cheese to player that have poor micro/macro but by some luck or abuse manage so sneak something.
Moreover, it create diversity, and it's also the beauty of SC2. Some player will play crazy strategy with less mechanic. And some other will just cut their brain to only stomp you with pure strenght.
A good exemple is Losira at last ASUS ROG: -Vs Terran-BIO. Just stomp them with outstanding mech (with some brain to setup complex game but overall it was full speed game) -Vs Protoss. Just could outplay opponent because of the matchup, he had to play more on strategic level. -Vs Terran-Mech. Had to balance both. Mechanic to take control of the map. But strategic choices to be able to close the game.
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote: Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either.
The opponent isn’t supposed to know what you’re doing. That’s the entire point of fog of war and limited information...
In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either.
Every subtle action a pro performs does not need to have some visceral or visual effect.
Macro mechanics are one of the more subtle, less visible things in the game. Yes they have an impact, and yes (if you know what to look for and take the time to do so) you can tell when someone is doing it well, but they aren't fundamental to the game. From a player's perspective, they add clicks without adding much strategy. From a viewer's perspective, they are almost invisible.
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...
I think they feel (and I agree) that macro is too difficult for its purpose, and are therefore tweaking it.
Being “not fun” is not an argument...
I think "not fun" is the best argument. It is a game after all. People play to have...
At the pro level of play there is a base level of mechanics that you need in order to compete. ... These minute decisions are almost imperceptible but they often dictate the outcome of a match.
Which is why they're talking about minimizing their importance, they are mostly minute decisions that are almost imperceptible but often dictate the outcome of a match
Another limited resource that is rarely acknowledged is attention. ... With injects, that is one more unit that zerg has to select, one more skill a zerg has to activate, one more location that the zerg has to visit, a few more split seconds that he has to count his larva, and a few more split seconds that he has to reorientate his internal timer. Multiply that with the number of bases and you can feel how much attention a zerg must pay to his hatcheries. Take that out and there is suddenly an abundance of attention freed for other actions.
This is exactly why they want to remove macro mechanics.
I understand the need to try to simplify the game to make it more user friendly, but this change to inject will make everyone have the injects of soO without the mechanics, without the strategy, without the hard work.
I'd gladly not have to do the work. This is a game after all - I play to have fun. For me, controlling the units is more fun than injecting hatcheries.
Just to start off with my experience level, I have hit NA masters in 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s for the first 19 ladder seasons in a row.
Well, this is certainly an interesting discussion, and I must respectfully state that as my opinion, the toning down or even removing of macro mechanics will indeed be a good thing for the game. Times have changed a lot and we've all grown up with a whole new set of priorities over learning a game inside and out. Nowadays, the number one factor to "is a game worth my time?" is accessibility. Can I jump right in and realistically play with the tools I am given as effectively as I can without being hampered by not being the best a technical mechanic? If I can never be good at that one particular mechanic, even though I know the game inside and out, it just won't be fun to play.
Way back in 2003, Warcraft III introduced MBS and, to a lesser extent, improved waypointing (command queueing). I absolutely loved that feature and ever since the beginning, I was saying, "If they brought this feature to Brood War, that game would be so much more enjoyable to play." Back in SC1, you had to click each building individually to build your units. And if you played Terran, if your SCV is already constructing a building you can't shift command it to go back to minerals, but you could if you were fast enough to shift command constructing a building and returning to minerals. Even back then, I really never got the "ooh" and "ahh" factor about that.
The fun of StarCraft 1 was always the micro battles and strategic positioning, but if you weren't good at the keeping your production rolling, then there really isn't a getting to the micro and strategy part. And in the end, it's not fun because there's no strategic alternative to maximizing your production. And that part is why every single one (yes, really every single one) of my friends except for myself quit playing competitive StarCraft.
I dabbled in a little bit of League of Legends as well. I've seen pro matches and watched Worlds live one time. The fun part about League of Legends is, not to sound like a broken record, the team fights and strategic positioning. But I am not good at the technical aspect of last hitting. I'll always misjudge how much life a creep has, try to auto it, and find out I left it alive with 3 HP and my minion gets the killing blow, leaving me with no gold. The punishment goes double when you fail to last hit a cannon minion. To miss something like that is like missing your larva injects. And because of that, you're down that amount of gold for the rest of the game. There really is no strategic alternative to missing CS outside of flat out killing the opposing hero, which is no small feat. The frustrating part of that is knowing, "You fell behind, but not because you were outplayed by the other player. Now you have to suffer a disadvantage for the rest of the freaking game."
Pro players in League of Legends are capable of last hitting every single minion in each wave in high stakes matches, easily hitting over 100 CS by the 10 minute mark. They have the timings, their attacks, and movements down to a science. And because of that, my enjoyment of LoL has been utterly destroyed. I cannot emulate their actions vs the lane creeps because you have to be so damn precise. It really is all or nothing when it comes to last-hitting. I cannot last hit for crap, and I do not care to improve myself at it because it doesn't even bring any valuable real-world lessons to it either. And so I do not play League of Legends anymore.
On a side note, Heroes of the Storm is an amazing game because there are so many strategic alternatives to each situation in the game. It's easy to jump into the game and adapt and change your playstyle on the fly. And most importantly, you aren't held back by not being good at PvE.
And going to StarCraft 2, I've had many aspiring zerg friends from the beginning of Wings of Liberty. As an experienced StarCraft veteran, I can easily teach my friends strategy and the flow of the game. But they'll never be good at continuously larva injectinvg, and thus they can't reach the strategy part of the game because they're held back by that one technical mechanic. And so they do not play StarCraft 2 anymore. It's as simple as that.
Now, speaking for myself, I play random race (and hit masters 18 times in a row playing random ), but if I were to main a race, I would not pick zerg. To miss a larva inject is just simply too punishing compared to missing chrono boost and MULE. And it just sucks to lose games knowing you messed up not against the other player, but against yourself. Again, there's no strategical recourse to missing an inject. All you're doing as a zerg is playing from behind. Why should you honestly be that punished just for missing a simple task? And if you win a game vs a zerg and find out they were stockpiling tons of resources but screwed up their larva injects, that victory would feel hollow.
Even if the macro mechanics were totally gutted, I believe the game would still be reasonably difficult, yet rewarding and FUN to play. Games are most fun when you can get your buddies IRL hooked and see them enjoying it and discussing it. I love StarCraft 2 to death because I have played the full 17 years (20 years if you wanna go even further back to Warcraft 2). I am capable of the nuanced mechanics required to play effectively, but all my friends are not even though they enjoy the franchise. So they do not play.
I commend Blizzard's gaming philosophy of making things as accessible as possible to newcomers. I would be enjoying StarCraft 2 to its fullest if my friends were actively playing and discussing it. StarCraft 2 is still my absolute favorite game in the world. It deserves more players, and by making it where getting to the fun part of the game easier is a step that I see will make leaps and bounds.
I'm just gonna talk on the larvae inject thing because that's all I feel like arguing about.
I disagree with OP on this one. The depth of a game should not come from the game not automating near obvious choices. Depth of a game should come from players making choices on OPEN ENDED decisions. If your game lacks depth when you improve the user interface and automate obvious decision making, then your game sucked in the first place and you have other things to fix than forcing the players to click more unnecessary buttons.
Would the game be much more macro intensive if you had to tell your workers to return their minerals they just mined EVERYTIME they did it? Yeah. Is it stupid to make players do that? Yes. When a player has a queen near a hatchery, it is obvious what that queen is gonna do, inject, and maybe auto attack (which doesn't take energy). Sometimes they will transfuse. In that case, why not give the player the ability to automate their macro just like returning minerals? The beauty of auto-cast is that you can turn it off if you decide to use the queen for something else.
Forcing the player to add clicks to handle decisions that are already decided 99% of the time is pointless and makes the game more "micro intensive" in the wrong way.
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.
the assertion is meant to say that there should be something different in place of what seems to take the fun out of it. regardless of if it's a valid argument or not, if enough people have a dislike for their options or how a game plays out it is a concern.
massing an army of stalkers doesn't seem fun to play nor to play against once you've seen it enough. if i had to say why, i'd put it on a small amount of polish that the unit is lacking. it would boil down to how the unit controls, how much space it takes up, how it looks, or how it sounds. if the game does not appeal to a player's basic senses it starts to be "not fun".
people have big expectations for a modern AAA game regardless of it's genre, but due to the repetitive nature of an RTS, we have to be the ones putting up with these tiny little details all the time.
what i'm saying is--while the argument is invalid, there's still merit to the complaints that players have about the overall feel of even the most casual of games of starcraft that are played. the game suffers from the fallout of large amount of players becoming disinterested and they view the expansions as a sort of contingency. that's why i believe you see complaints like this all the time.
On August 04 2015 17:19 Black0ut wrote: I'm just gonna talk on the larvae inject thing because that's all I feel like arguing about.
I disagree with OP on this one. The depth of a game should not come from the game not automating near obvious choices. Depth of a game should come from players making choices on OPEN ENDED decisions. If your game lacks depth when you improve the user interface and automate obvious decision making, then your game sucked in the first place and you have other things to fix than forcing the players to click more unnecessary buttons.
Would the game be much more macro intensive if you had to tell your workers to return their minerals they just mined EVERYTIME they did it? Yeah. Is it stupid to make players do that? Yes. When a player has a queen near a hatchery, it is obvious what that queen is gonna do, inject, and maybe auto attack (which doesn't take energy). Sometimes they will transfuse. In that case, why not give the player the ability to automate their macro just like returning minerals? The beauty of auto-cast is that you can turn it off if you decide to use the queen for something else.
Forcing the player to add clicks to handle decisions that are already decided 99% of the time is pointless and makes the game more "micro intensive" in the wrong way.
I see it two ways. Having no MBS, smartcast etc allowed a greater skill difference amongst pros clearly enough to separate whos in teir 1, 2 etc and in no way shape or form could a casual or semi decent amateur player take down a pro (more appropriately, these events were very rare).
However because its difficult to play due to so much house keeping, casuals would not find ladder or melee games "fun". This is what BW was like. Most casuals would opt to play custom games period. However it didn't stop people from watching progames streamed/aired on TV because the stuff they were doing was simply mind blowing stuff even for the untrained eye.
But with MBS, much nicer interface, automated micro etc in SC2 the skill level between an amateur and a pro may not be so large. Even amongst pros its very hard to differentiate them out. For casuals, its good because its easier to play the game and somewhat be like the pro to some extent.
I personally prefer the former because I like watching pro games vs playing ladder. The skill cap allows multiple playing styles and perfectly sets up the "god" tier players who are able to overcome all that to dominate the field. Even if that means playing ladder is difficult. Any newb whos touched starcraft will instantly know what they are doing is inhuman. They'll also know whos macro-ing like a beast or micro-ing like a fiend.
The latter I feel is the modern way forward but it simply doesn't help the current esports scene. I really don't understand blizzards fixation of action action action mentality. Go make a FPS if you want that or a MOBA.. oh wait. Theyve done that already. The skill cap is not that big to begin with in SC2 and they're trying to automate more things. Why not just throw the econ stuff out of the window and we can just micro units that are all autonomously made for constant non stop action?
Brilliant brilliant article Stu. I disagree with Big J when he says it's not fun is a good argument. Variety and complexity innovate and reinvigorate the game. I take Stu's example of saying DT rushes aren't fun, Muta surprises as toss aren't fun etc. They aren't fun but they are necessary to the game. I guarantee Squirtle didn't find 2 rax proxy fun, but it won Mvp a GSL. Should it be nerfed into oblivion because it wasn't "fun". Saying something is or isn't fun is an entire issue in and of itself as well. I disagree that macro mechanics aren't fun, I personally love to macro as a zerg, it's their biggest pull to me. I am not purely and absolutely against tinkering with macro mechanics, but as they stand they are in an extremely good place in my opinion.
Although the first part of the article is sort of silly and goes too far out of its way to argue or refute insignificant things... I ultimately agree that macro mechanics are one of most important aspects of Starcraft. In fact, I would actually consider "macro mechanics" to be the most strategic part of Starcraft, humorously enough.
In this era of Starcraft, there is a huge amount of planning and timing that goes into a build. Let's look at Terran for a sec. As Terran, you are pretty much balancing aggression with defense at all stages of the game. This means that you must create enough units to do damage to the opponent (Protoss or Terran typically), while having just enough units to defend against potential builds the opponent is doing.
There is this really neat dynamic between macro and knowledge and build orders. With perfect macro, you can make these really strategic and clever plays. You can see, "Oh, if I time things JUST right, I'll be able to do damage at this SPECIFIC MOMENT!!" Like, seeing these really tight timings where you can do a bunch of damage with a small set of marines. It's stuff like that which makes Starcraft unique. It's the perfect balance between timings/macro and skillful maneuvering/micro.
Does CC-energy macro matter? Eh, not too much. I remember Idra saying how the Orbital Command actually punished players for being good at macro, since things like DTs can only really be defended through scans, and a good macro player will use the mules right as they hit 50 energy. I've seen too many good Terrans use both mules just seconds before a few Dark Templars waltzed in, and the game was already decided as soon as those mules hit the ground.
Chronoboost, on the other hand, actually adds a surprising amount of depth. In fact, as odd as it may be, it is actually my favorite aspect of Protoss. It gives players a lot more versatility when it comes to build timings. In addition to defining some builds, it gives a visual cue to the opponent on what the Protoss is doing. It's actually sort of great.
And Injects? Injects are the last thing that should be changed, because I'd say Zerg is already the easiest to manage in terms of "building macro". I find Zerg significantly easier to macro with, even when including creep-spread. Should they make creep spread automated? Naw, that'd be lame. At high level play, the Zerg must choose how much they want to dedicate to creep. Do they want two queens solely for creep tumors? What about using those two queens early on for defense, instead of zerglings, that way they have more value? Maybe the build does not need creep at all, because it is a very aggressive build where fights will be determined on the other side of the map? Then there are the situations where the Zerg is able to contain Terran (often mech, sometimes bio) onto a few bases on their side of the map. Using this, the Zerg can pretty much consume the whole rest of the map with creep. I think creep spread is a cool mechanic. It also gives Zerg a much needed "zerg-y feel". Plus, it gives vision. I think injects are a needed mechanic. Plus, injects also add a lot of depth to ZvZ and early-game timings. It's pretty awesome, in my opinion.
The constant multi-task of macro is one of the most satisfying to see, imo. Some people want to watch people like MarineKing split every one of his marines against fifty banelings. I think it's cool to watch someone micro like a god, too. But I also think it's really awesome seeing someone keep minerals below 500 throughout a 20-minute game. It's awesome watching those situations where both players need to make every unit count, and squeezing out 2 extra marines through better macro/planning will end up winning the game.
Overall, great article stuchiu. You always do a lot of research for your writings, and I greatly appreciate that.
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote: I’m against cutting macro mechanics. They may not be visible to the viewer, but they add a level of depth and complexity to macromanagement and overall strategy.
Almost everything about the article is wrong.
Removing macro mechanics will reduce the amount of macro required, but it will not reduce the amount of strategy required. In fact, it is the opposite. The less attention people have to waste on macro the more attention they will spend on optimizing other parts of their play, such as strategy.
The question is simple. Should SC2 have more emphasis on macro (which is basically mindless clicking) and hence less emphasis on everything else, or should SC2 have less emphasis on macro and hence more emphasis on everything else. The latter is more fun to play and watch.
Suppose that it was possible to control SC2 perfectly using the player's mind and implement macros (i.e. a set of automated instructions) using the player's mind, thereby killing macro completely. Would SC2 cease to be a hard game? Will you never lose under such a setup? Will it cease to be a fun and engaging game? According to your argument, the answer is yes.
On August 04 2015 03:02 stuchiu wrote: I’m against cutting macro mechanics. They may not be visible to the viewer, but they add a level of depth and complexity to macromanagement and overall strategy.
Almost everything about the article is wrong.
Removing macro mechanics will reduce the amount of macro required, but it will not reduce the amount of strategy required. In fact, it is the opposite. The less attention people have to waste on macro the more attention they will spend on optimizing other parts of their play, such as strategy.
The question is simple. Should SC2 have more emphasis on macro (which is basically mindless clicking) and hence less emphasis on everything else, or should SC2 have less emphasis on macro and hence more emphasis on everything else. The latter is more fun to play and watch.
Suppose that it was possible to control SC2 perfectly using the player's mind and implement macros (i.e. a set of automated instructions) using the player's mind. Would SC2 cease to be a hard game? Will you never lose under such a setup? Will it cease to be a fun and engaging game? According to your argument, the answer is yes.
How is that mindless clicking? My strategy to the game could be.. simply out macro my opponent because i am capable of doing that. It adds another layer to this game. Another way of beating my opponent without having to outdo his build or out micro him.
I also really dislike the 'mindless clicking' as an argument.
Once you master stutterstep, it is also mindless clicking. A-click backwards, move-click forwards, repeat. Do you think marines should auto stutterstep when retreating?
Watching stalker healthbars and blinking them back when red is mindless too. There's no decision making. You either blink back or you are too slow the unit dies and you lose a possible advantage.
None of these mechanics make the game less interesting. It really doesn't matter if a click is 'mindless' or not. In the end it's about two players battling eachother at the best of their abilties. Macro is a part of that too. If you have the power of thought to be able to inject better, chrono better, constantly mule better, than that should very well give you a large advantage to win the game.
@parallel I think you're ignoring how much of an impact macro mechanics have in strategy. While removing macro mechanics could allow players to focus more on strategic play, it would remove much of the early-game strategy. And by doing so, it would lower the overall strategic skill cap. In 5 years, I bet players would be able to perform just as strategic of builds, and still be able to perform the macro necessary. Broodwar took years to develop to its late-2000's state.
just the next logical step of dumbing down skill differentiation after adding MBS and unlimited unit select. sc2 needs more ways of being a better player not less.. the koreans have said this since day1, apm allocation and scarcity is a huge part of what makes SC such a special and unique game, removing it (like the transition from bw to sc2 and now hots to lotv) just makes the game easier at a high level, making it more stale and less fun to get to the very very top.. if you wanna pull off a flash level strategy, you should need extremely high apm alongside his game knowledge.. maybe now people will wake up to what everyone has been complaining about since 2009
I completely with agree with Blizzard, the game has no success because it is too difficult, and not fun at low level, that's totally the reason why I quit the game. The other reason was because all my friends quit the game, because it was too hard too. x)
I don't think they are doing it perfectly tho.
They're talking about strategic choice, well: - Send a mule or scan (or emergency supply if you're noob like me) is a strategic choice - Inject or put a creep tumor or keep the nergy for transfuse is a strategic choice - Chronoboost your Probes, your units or your upgrades is a strategicall choice.
The problem I think is this: You don't inject, properly, you lose, you don't mule properly, you lose you don't chornoboost properly you lose.
No matter how awesome your strategicall choices are, no matter how on point your micro is, at a casual level, if your opponent as better macro mecanics, even by a small margin, he'll destroy you. This is a big problem and I agree with Blizzard that this should be solved.
In my opinion the economics abilities are just too strong, this is what makes them impossible to miss, they should nerf the inject, nerf the mule and nerf the chronoboost. But not delete them, because they offer strategicall choice.
I don't know Nexus, Orbitals and Queens can stack up until 200 energy but that's useless because if you don't use your energy constantly you lose anyway. You start to lose potential in army size as long as your queen is at 26/200 in energy, whereas you should start to lose potential when your queen is 200/200 in my opinion.
So that's my opinion as a casual player that don't want to spend 500 hours on a game to start to having fun, and honestly this is where SC2 is at the moment.
I believe all the people who think the opposite are BW nerds who don't want sc2 to be popular. Yes SC BW was more popular than what SC2 is and yes it was more difficult, but it was 10 years ago, times has changed, people have changed, people have now a ton of games to choose from, and if they find a game funnier at first glance, they'll choose it over SC2.
Now my opinion as sc2 esport viewer, I like to watch SC2 because I know how the hell the things they are doing are freakin difficult, and requires a ton of dedication, more than any other esport game in my opinion. So if sc2 becomes easier yes it's will be less exciting. BUT I think even if they makes the game A LOT easier, it will still be A LOT more difficult than the others esports games right now, so they have room to make changes.
And nothing said that the game we'll be more easier for pros, macros will be easier, but if each units has 3 abilities, and you've to take new bases every 3 minutes, well that's not easier for pros lol.
On August 04 2015 18:59 Foudzing wrote: I completely with agree with Blizzard, the game has no success because it is too difficult, and not fun at low level, that's totally the reason why I quit the game.
I don't think they are doing it perfectly tho.
They're talking about strategic choice, well: - Send a mule or scan (or emergency supply if you're noob like me) is a strategic choice - Inject or put a creep tumor or keep the nergy for transfuse is a strategic choice - Chronoboost your Probes, your units or your upgrades is a strategicall choice.
The problem I think is this: You don't inject, properly, you lose, you don't mule properly, you lose you don't chornoboost properly you lose.
No matter how awesome your strategicall choices are, no matter how on point your micro is, at a casual level, if your opponent as better macro mecanics, even by a small margin, he'll destroy you. This is a big problem and I agree with Blizzard that this should be solved.
In my opinion the economics abilities are just too strong, this is what makes them impossible to miss, they should nerf the inject, nerf the mule and nerf the chronoboost. But not delete them, because they offer strategicall choice.
I don't know Nexus, Orbitals and Queens can stack up until 200 energy but that's useless because if you don't use your energy constantly you lose anyway. You start to lose potential in army size as long as your queen is at 26/200 in energy, whereas you should start to lose potential when your queen is 200/200 in my opinion.
So that's my opinion as a casual player that don't want to spend 500 hours on a game to start to having fun, and honestly this is where SC2 is at the moment.
Now my opinion as sc2 esport viewer, I like to watch SC2 because I know how the hell the things they are doing are freakin difficult, and requires a ton of dedication, more than any other esport game in my opinion. So if sc2 becomes easier yes it's will be less exciting. BUT I think even if they makes the game A LOT easier, it will still be A LOT more difficult than the others esports games right now, so they have room to make changes.
And nothing said that the game we'll be more easier for pros, macros will be easier, but if each units has 3 abilities, and you've to take new bases every 3 minutes, well that's not easier for pros lol.
This game died on the casual front because of that BNET 0.2 anti social interface that they royally ****ed up. Still to this day, I dont understand why they had to reinvent something that was functioning so well (only required a few changes..).
On August 04 2015 18:49 Endymion wrote: sc2 needs more ways of being a better player not less..
Forcing the players to arbitrarily click on something every 30 seconds seems like a bad way to allow players to differentiate themselves.
apm allocation and scarcity is a huge part of what makes SC such a special and unique game
I disagree that "apm allocation and scarcity" makes SC special or unique. APM is a part of all RTS games, not just SC2. Regardless, it's not like players will ever be able to control the game at maximum potential. Better players will always be able to do more. Removing macro mechanics will not effect apm scarcity.
removing (macro) just makes the game easier at a high level, making it more stale and less fun to get to the very very top
Removing macro mechanics does not necessarily make the game easier. Remember, both players will have more time, and therefore both players will spend time on other things (like moving units around). It would however make the game easier to control at a basic level, which I think is a good thing.
On August 04 2015 19:03 Parcelleus wrote: Leave macro alone ! I dont want it made easier, it works leave it, dont mess with it.
It works for people who are already good at the game, for casual it doesn't work, at all and the game will have less and less players.
At casual level, macro is more important than anything. A player who will scout, think about strategicall choices and try to micro will lose to a player who do none of that but just play like a robot eyes 100% on his base and constantly making units.
Honestly at a casual level, playing the game feels like a punishment, you have to constantly reapeat the same actions, constantly checks, it's like you're doing your groceries or something. And if you want to have fun, well you lose.
On August 04 2015 19:03 Parcelleus wrote: Leave macro alone ! I dont want it made easier, it works leave it, dont mess with it.
It works for people who are already good at the game, for casual it don't works, and the game will have less and less players.
At casual level, macro is more important than anything. A player who will scout, think about strategicall choices and try to micro will lose to a player who do none of that but just play like a robot eyes 100% on his base and constantly making units.
Now tell me how is this fun?
99% of games these days are 'hold your hand' type of games. Im sick of it, and one of the reasons I love SC2 is because it requires patience and practice to get better, this makes the game very rewarding. I dont want to play 'another' un-rewarding game.
On August 04 2015 19:03 Parcelleus wrote: Leave macro alone ! I dont want it made easier, it works leave it, dont mess with it.
It works for people who are already good at the game, for casual it don't works, and the game will have less and less players.
At casual level, macro is more important than anything. A player who will scout, think about strategicall choices and try to micro will lose to a player who do none of that but just play like a robot eyes 100% on his base and constantly making units.
Now tell me how is this fun?
99% of games these days are 'hold your hand' type of games. Im sick of it, and one of the reasons I love SC2 is because it requires patience and practice to get better, this makes the game very rewarding. I dont want to play 'another' un-rewarding game.
Man even if they make macro way easier there will still be a WORLD of differences between you and soO. Even if they make macro way easier you'll still has to train your ass off to get better, don't freak about it...
I don't want a game where it's easy to climb, I don't care, I am casual, I just want a game fun to play at casual level. Right now sc2 feels like you're not allowed to micro, or even thinking, before you don't macro properly.
So you want a game that where you have to play 100 hours before having any kind of fun? Are you masochist or something? Do you know what "game" means?
On August 04 2015 19:03 Parcelleus wrote: Leave macro alone ! I dont want it made easier, it works leave it, dont mess with it.
It works for people who are already good at the game, for casual it don't works, and the game will have less and less players.
At casual level, macro is more important than anything. A player who will scout, think about strategicall choices and try to micro will lose to a player who do none of that but just play like a robot eyes 100% on his base and constantly making units.
Now tell me how is this fun?
99% of games these days are 'hold your hand' type of games. Im sick of it, and one of the reasons I love SC2 is because it requires patience and practice to get better, this makes the game very rewarding. I dont want to play 'another' un-rewarding game.
Man even if they make macro way easier there will still be a WORLD of differences between you and soO. Even if they make macro way easier you'll still has to train your ass off to get better, don't freak about it...
I don't want a game where it's easy to climb, I don't care, I am casual, I just want a game fun to play at casual level. Right now sc2 feels like you're not allowed to micro, or even thinking, before you don't macro properly.
So you want a game that where you have to play 100 hours before having any kind of fun? Are you masochist or something? Do you know what "game" means?
If you dont find SC2 fun, find a game that you do find fun. I am saying macro is part of SC2 strategy, if you cant cope with that then there are other games you may find more fun. Not many games are like SC2, so trying to make it more casual doesnt make sense from what SC is all about imho.
Its not a casual game, well it is once you reach a certain level, but it does have a steep learning curve which can do with some attention. Messing with a gameplay foundation like macro is not the answer, that is like saying, in basketball you dont have to bounce the ball anymore you can freely run with it. Then its just not basketball is it ? SC and macro cannot be seperated.
You guys write as if there was not enough to do without macro mechanics. If this was true, Archon mode wouldn't be very different from 1v1.
But in the end, it's subjective and arbitrary.
I wonder if people like me, who dislike them, are mostly Zerg. Chronoboost has some thought to be put on it (mostly build orders though), but injecting is simply compulsory. Mules are sort of dumb too.
Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience: The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies. A better opponent should make it hard or even impossible to win because he gets the better end of every interaction. But when there is no interaction - directly or strategically - there is no reason why you should fall behind.
Even though I regularily disagree with the how, blizzard is finally getting that. More interaction, more room for interaction to shine, more ways to interact and more degrees of outcomes for interaction are the direction they want to go and that the game needs to take. Their ideas to change macro mechanics are double good from this perspective: 1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well 2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements.
why not put a boost then. reward a great player for his macro. Decide what the mechanic may be, injects, idle larva, if this is below a certain number for a portion of the game give a boost. Take the mechanic away and well, lets face it, noone new is getting into this game, you just turn away the loyal supporters. the game should endure to be as hard as possible so mistakes by the player ramp up over the game to let the other guy in. The better player should win not the race wins when its notably at its strongest part in the game. You do indeed choose your race, you pick the one you think you can handle
On August 04 2015 19:03 Parcelleus wrote: Leave macro alone ! I dont want it made easier, it works leave it, dont mess with it.
It works for people who are already good at the game, for casual it don't works, and the game will have less and less players.
At casual level, macro is more important than anything. A player who will scout, think about strategicall choices and try to micro will lose to a player who do none of that but just play like a robot eyes 100% on his base and constantly making units.
Now tell me how is this fun?
99% of games these days are 'hold your hand' type of games. Im sick of it, and one of the reasons I love SC2 is because it requires patience and practice to get better, this makes the game very rewarding. I dont want to play 'another' un-rewarding game.
Man even if they make macro way easier there will still be a WORLD of differences between you and soO. Even if they make macro way easier you'll still has to train your ass off to get better, don't freak about it...
I don't want a game where it's easy to climb, I don't care, I am casual, I just want a game fun to play at casual level. Right now sc2 feels like you're not allowed to micro, or even thinking, before you don't macro properly.
So you want a game that where you have to play 100 hours before having any kind of fun? Are you masochist or something? Do you know what "game" means?
If you dont find SC2 fun, find a game that you do find fun. I am saying macro is part of SC2 strategy, if you cant cope with that then there are other games you may find more fun. Not many games are like SC2, so trying to make it more casual doesnt make sense from what SC is all about imho.
Its not a casual game, well it is once you reach a certain level, but it does have a steep learning curve which can do with some attention. Messing with a gameplay foundation like macro is not the answer, that is like saying, in basketball you dont have to bounce the ball anymore you can freely run with it. Then its just not basketball is it ? SC and macro cannot be seperated.
You're getting me wrong, I don't want macro to be deleted, I just want it to be less important, so that it's not the only factor in the games until freaking platinium.
Yes that's what I did, I left SC2, because I had no fun with it (and I tried lol), but that's sad, because SC2 could be fun, for everyone, not only for an elite, who managed to went thought the struggle of annoying and boring games.
SC2 could be fun, the reaction of 90% of the players when they discover SC2 is very positive like "wow there is freaking tanks, wow lasers, wow so many interactions, so many possibilities I want to play this game". Then they play the game, and after 10 to 20 games they realise the game is just about repeating annoying stuff, they realize that it's too difficult to control your units perfectly, and even if you do, controlling your units has close to no impact anyway.
And finally Blizzard understand the problem and tries to fix it, there is a bunch of BW nerds going mad like "leave SC2 boring and impossible to play at low level pls", for no reason, just for the sake of not changing anything, not changing "SC foundations" lol. If foundations are bad, you have to change it, and they are bad, eveything shows that they are bad.
Or maybe the reason is "hey I went thought 500 hours of boring and annoying games to finally be good I don't want newcomers to have 500 hours of funs games to do to be good" but you just don't want to admit it because that's really selfish.
I don't know I feel all you want is SC2 to be as close as possible to BW, if you want BW, just play BW.
On August 04 2015 19:03 Parcelleus wrote: Leave macro alone ! I dont want it made easier, it works leave it, dont mess with it.
It works for people who are already good at the game, for casual it doesn't work, at all and the game will have less and less players.
At casual level, macro is more important than anything. A player who will scout, think about strategicall choices and try to micro will lose to a player who do none of that but just play like a robot eyes 100% on his base and constantly making units.
Honestly at a casual level, playing the game feels like a punishment, you have to constantly reapeat the same actions, constantly checks, it's like you're doing your groceries or something. And if you want to have fun, well you lose.
Now tell me how is this fun?
Casual play against other casuals, thus equally bad on macro mechanics so it's not an issue. Archon mod is there for those with bad mechanics, 1v1 does not have to be played by everyone for the game to be successful.
On August 04 2015 19:03 Parcelleus wrote: Leave macro alone ! I dont want it made easier, it works leave it, dont mess with it.
It works for people who are already good at the game, for casual it doesn't work, at all and the game will have less and less players.
At casual level, macro is more important than anything. A player who will scout, think about strategicall choices and try to micro will lose to a player who do none of that but just play like a robot eyes 100% on his base and constantly making units.
Honestly at a casual level, playing the game feels like a punishment, you have to constantly reapeat the same actions, constantly checks, it's like you're doing your groceries or something. And if you want to have fun, well you lose.
Now tell me how is this fun?
Casual play against other casuals, equally bad on macro mechanics so it's not an issue. Archon mod is there for those with bad mechanics, 1v1 does not have to be played by everyone for the game to be successful.
Yes it's an issue, because if you want to win, you have to go full macro mode and not doing anything else. Therefore the game is boring as long as you want to win.
Rofl Archon mode, let's talk about Archon mode. They were already customs Archon mode in SC2, and guess what? No one want to do the macro part, WHAT A SURPRISE. Macro is boring, just admit it.
1v1 is the most important part of the game, it should not be reserved to an elite. If you find the most important part of the game not fun, you quit the game, that's all.
On August 04 2015 19:45 Big J wrote: Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience: The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies. A better opponent should make it hard or even impossible to win because he gets the better end of every interaction. But when there is no interaction - directly or strategically - there is no reason why you should fall behind.
Even though I regularily disagree with the how, blizzard is finally getting that. More interaction, more room for interaction to shine, more ways to interact and more degrees of outcomes for interaction are the direction they want to go and that the game needs to take. Their ideas to change macro mechanics are double good from this perspective: 1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well 2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements.
The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies
Why? Why is it not 'allowed' to have basic mechanics you have to be good at to reach a certain point of skill which in itself aren't defined by your opponent? You state it is, but i cannot see why this has to be true. Then again, your opponent already has this control over you and your actions, this will always be the case in game with a high requirement of multitasking. He will force your attention, you won't be perfect in action X,Y and Z cause of it.
1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well
Again, what is wrong with this concept? If you play a real sport you have to be good at "singeplayer-like actions" too and nobody there cries it is "unfun". I simply don't see the problem.
2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements
True and i also think slowing down the economical growth and thus the supply growth would be a good thing, but you can achieve this goal without reducing the mechanical part of the game.
Do not change macro mechanics. No. Not for Zerg, not for Protoss, not for Terran. Not at all. Don't make ****ty changes like automatic split, automatic units production, etc. Just leave the game as it was in WoL style. It will be good.
On August 04 2015 20:07 BriD wrote: Do not change macro mechanics. No. Not for Zerg, not for Protoss, not for Terran. Not at all. Don't make ****ty changes like automatic split, automatic units production, etc. Just leave the game as it was in WoL style. It will be good.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
Casual play against other casuals, thus equally bad on macro mechanics so it's not an issue. Archon mod is there for those with bad mechanics, 1v1 does not have to be played by everyone for the game to be successful.
Without taking a particular stance in the matter, don't you think it's a problem that they best way to win games at the bronze -> plat level is to watch your bases, mass macro one basic type of units and a-move them accross the map?
At those levels, there is absolutely no need to scout, think about army compositions, use spells or getting into a good position. And if you *do* scout, diversify units and micro your battles, you are just getting punished for having bad macro by guys that a-move roaches or marines from 3 bases.
On August 04 2015 19:03 Parcelleus wrote: Leave macro alone ! I dont want it made easier, it works leave it, dont mess with it.
It works for people who are already good at the game, for casual it doesn't work, at all and the game will have less and less players.
At casual level, macro is more important than anything. A player who will scout, think about strategicall choices and try to micro will lose to a player who do none of that but just play like a robot eyes 100% on his base and constantly making units.
Honestly at a casual level, playing the game feels like a punishment, you have to constantly reapeat the same actions, constantly checks, it's like you're doing your groceries or something. And if you want to have fun, well you lose.
Now tell me how is this fun?
Casual play against other casuals, thus equally bad on macro mechanics so it's not an issue. Archon mod is there for those with bad mechanics, 1v1 does not have to be played by everyone for the game to be successful.
By saying "1v1 does not have to be played by everyone," you are basically saying, "StarCraft does not have to be played by everyone." Which is true, but it is not exactly the way to becoming a successful game.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
Casual play against other casuals, thus equally bad on macro mechanics so it's not an issue. Archon mod is there for those with bad mechanics, 1v1 does not have to be played by everyone for the game to be successful.
Without taking a particular stance in the matter, don't you think it's a problem that they best way to win games at the bronze -> plat level is to watch your bases, mass macro one basic type of units and a-move them accross the map?
At those levels, there is absolutely no need to scout, think about army compositions, use spells or getting into a good position. And if you *do* scout, diversify units and micro your battles, you are just getting punished for having bad macro by guys that a-move roaches or marines from 3 bases.
And bronze to platinium is 90% of players. SC2 is just a boring game for 90% of players.
Casual play against other casuals, thus equally bad on macro mechanics so it's not an issue. Archon mod is there for those with bad mechanics, 1v1 does not have to be played by everyone for the game to be successful.
Without taking a particular stance in the matter, don't you think it's a problem that they best way to win games at the bronze -> plat level is to watch your bases, mass macro one basic type of units and a-move them accross the map?
At those levels, there is absolutely no need to scout, think about army compositions, use spells or getting into a good position. And if you *do* scout, diversify units and micro your battles, you are just getting punished for having bad macro by guys that a-move roaches or marines from 3 bases.
Well, the basic premise of Starcraft is gathering resources, using those to build a base, using that base to build units, using those units to kill your enemy before he kills you. Everything else (scouting,timings,micro) is just nuance. So it's logical that focusing on the core of the game yields the best improvement results.
You can have epic games in silver or gold. A lot of people don't focus on macro heavily so their incomes will be in the same ballpark, which makes room for the nuances to decide the games again. If you're good enough to win games in silver or gold on pure macro then you'll just get promoted to a higher league anyway so it's not a problem.
I would like to thank you for bringing up this topic and raising the important argument of macro attentiveness of a Zerg player. I agree that just making spawn larvae autocast would simplify the life of Zerg much more than of any other race. However, do you think it would be feasible to do it when coupled with some other change or macro challenge?
What I have in mind:
Spawn Larva on autocast
Set the larvae cap to 7 down from 19
Prevent Spawn Larvae to happen on a Hatchery that has more than 3 larvae
This way, every 40 seconds the Zerg is taxed with a decision on which unit to make from the extra larvae. A decision that cannot be later cancelled or changed without larva loss. But also - every second of a delay means that the next spawn larvae is delayed. If the player is otherwise occupied, Queen energy starts to build up as usual.
This also puts a pressure on Zerg to have enough resources to actually use the extra 4 larvae the way he wants. Bad resource management will lead to a delayed Spawn Larvae as well.
Stacking larvae becomes more costly: the Zerg either loses larva due to missed spawn, or minerals when additional macro hatches are constructed.
The gain however is that the Zerg does not have to cycle through all its bases to repeatedly do the same action manually.
Except to make it more 'fun' and more 'skillful' you are forced to tab to mario's past @ the gym and get him to do another pullup every 20 seconds, or else you get slower and can't jump as high.
Nobody but the most inane would argue that this is a good thing for the game, but this is exactly what macro mechanics are in starcraft (except sometimes you want to do a situp instead of a pullup, situational of course).
I can't even force a single friend to play sc2 with me anymore because of things like macro mechanics, and that's in a group of fairly hardcore gamers. Heck, I even quit a few months ago- my hands can't take it. As for the rest of you, is an RSI really worth it to say you can out-f1-box-v-click-repeat-1-1 your friends?
Or, to use a Starcraft analogy: would you possibly think that adding macro mechanics to brood war would be a good thing?
(former masters zerg, willing to give up his inject superiority-over-diamond/plat in exchange for a better game)
On August 04 2015 18:49 Endymion wrote: just the next logical step of dumbing down skill differentiation after adding MBS and unlimited unit select. sc2 needs more ways of being a better player not less.. the koreans have said this since day1, apm allocation and scarcity is a huge part of what makes SC such a special and unique game, removing it (like the transition from bw to sc2 and now hots to lotv) just makes the game easier at a high level, making it more stale and less fun to get to the very very top.. if you wanna pull off a flash level strategy, you should need extremely high apm alongside his game knowledge.. maybe now people will wake up to what everyone has been complaining about since 2009
Then why not remove production queues and multiple unit selection?
On August 04 2015 18:49 Blargh wrote: @parallel I think you're ignoring how much of an impact macro mechanics have in strategy. While removing macro mechanics could allow players to focus more on strategic play, it would remove much of the early-game strategy. And by doing so, it would lower the overall strategic skill cap. In 5 years, I bet players would be able to perform just as strategic of builds, and still be able to perform the macro necessary. Broodwar took years to develop to its late-2000's state.
Look at archon mode. When people are freed from mindless macro mechanics there's so much more people can do.
Attention is finite. If it's not wasted on macro it will be spent elsewhere or else you will lose to people who do spent it elsewhere.
On August 04 2015 19:45 Big J wrote: Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience: The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies. A better opponent should make it hard or even impossible to win because he gets the better end of every interaction. But when there is no interaction - directly or strategically - there is no reason why you should fall behind.
Even though I regularily disagree with the how, blizzard is finally getting that. More interaction, more room for interaction to shine, more ways to interact and more degrees of outcomes for interaction are the direction they want to go and that the game needs to take. Their ideas to change macro mechanics are double good from this perspective: 1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well 2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements.
The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies
Why? Why is it not 'allowed' to have basic mechanics you have to be good at to reach a certain point of skill which in itself aren't defined by your opponent? You state it is, but i cannot see why this has to be true. Then again, your opponent already has this control over you and your actions, this will always be the case in game with a high requirement of multitasking. He will force your attention, you won't be perfect in action X,Y and Z cause of it.
1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well
Again, what is wrong with this concept? If you play a real sport you have to be good at "singeplayer-like actions" too and nobody there cries it is "unfun". I simply don't see the problem.
2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements
True and i also think slowing down the economical growth and thus the supply growth would be a good thing, but you can achieve this goal without reducing the mechanical part of the game.
Because I opened my statement with "Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience". Singeplayer-like actions are by definition not that. The whole post was meant to be a bit philosophical.
That part of the post doesn't really say something about Starcraft, but it is my firm believe that Starcraft should be a game that focuses on multiplayer experience. There will always be singleplayer like elements in any game and sport - if you can't run with the ball, you can't play football; if you can't place buildings, you can't play starcraft. But those elements shouldn't ever be more important/attention-eating/harder than the interaction with your opponent.
Since you bring up sports. 1) the multiplayer focused sports are a thousand times more popular. In this infographic the only country that prefers a "singleplayer" sport is Austria + Show Spoiler +
how ironic, hehehe - but seriously, this is probably wrong to begin with; this is the big Austiran ski manifacturing industry talking; the moment our national football team is playing semidecently - which they finally do again these days - it's football; if we'd beat Germany once, it would be football for the next decade. Viewer numbers of our national TV station for top-football events do top the top-skiing events and a lot of people are watching German football which doesn't really find a way in most statistics.
It's only logical that people prefer players interacting over someone who has perfected an action and then is showcasing it every week. It makes for much more dynamic gameplay and unique situations - how does player X's actions matchup with player Y's actions. 2) even in the singleplayer focused sports the important actions are often being changed to make them unique in every instance. E.g. in skiing you have different courses. 3) even when there is no interaction by concept, the sports often try to create or fake interaction because it is more exciting and fun. E.g. in sprinting you don't let the runners take turns but you let them sprint next to each other. In other running disciplines this even leads to important strategical and direct interactions like speed regulation and positioning in the field.
--> a focus on multiplayer is better. For popularity and for the game itself because it creates interaction, it creates real competition, it creates fun. Back to starcraft, actions like inject being singleplayer, always the same mechanical performance on every map in every game makes it so that they should be a very minor piece of puzzle to win the game. But they aren't, in particular injects aren't. Taking back their importance - which is what blizzard is doing; they are not removing them completely! In particular they don't remove any conceptual interactions of inject, you can still snipe queens etc - is good for the game to create room for more interaction.
On August 04 2015 18:43 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I also really dislike the 'mindless clicking' as an argument.
Once you master stutterstep, it is also mindless clicking. A-click backwards, move-click forwards, repeat. Do you think marines should auto stutterstep when retreating?
Watching stalker healthbars and blinking them back when red is mindless too. There's no decision making. You either blink back or you are too slow the unit dies and you lose a possible advantage.
None of these mechanics make the game less interesting.
I agree that stutterstepping and blinking make the game more interesting. Neither is mindless. There are decisions involved on when you want to stutterstep and when you just want to run faster, and decisions about where you want to blink. But that's the whole point: mechanics that make the game more interesting should be kept, mecahnics that don't and are tedious should be cut. Spawn larva is not interesting, in fact, it is the most boring and most mindless mechanic out of all mechanics in the game.
It really doesn't matter if a click is 'mindless' or not. In the end it's about two players battling eachother at the best of their abilties. Macro is a part of that too. If you have the power of thought to be able to inject better, chrono better, constantly mule better, than that should very well give you a large advantage to win the game.
Regarding my thought experiment of mind controlled SC2 which would completely kill macro, no, being able to inject, chrono and MULE better won't give you an advantage because your opponent can macro just as well due to it being mind controlled. But that doesn't dumb the game down, it just changes what skill the game is about: decision making not macro.
On August 04 2015 20:12 MuazizTremere wrote: Without taking a particular stance in the matter, don't you think it's a problem that they best way to win games at the bronze -> plat level is to watch your bases, mass macro one basic type of units and a-move them accross the map?
At those levels, there is absolutely no need to scout, think about army compositions, use spells or getting into a good position. And if you *do* scout, diversify units and micro your battles, you are just getting punished for having bad macro by guys that a-move roaches or marines from 3 bases.
Truth.
I tried to teach my friend sc2 and after enough emphasis on macro, he got more and more bored, and quit. Crazy mechanics is not why people seek out strategy games.
On August 04 2015 20:07 BriD wrote: Do not change macro mechanics. No. Not for Zerg, not for Protoss, not for Terran. Not at all. Don't make ****ty changes like automatic split, automatic units production, etc. Just leave the game as it was in WoL style. It will be good.
It's weird knowing that for 5 years TL staff were the biggest proponents of saying mules / chronoboost and inject were terrible and dumbing the game, countless articles and posts how they were making it imbalanced and needed to be reworked.
The most hardcore players cheered when Starbow made changes to them. In a week they've changed their mind completely, so either TL was wrong for 5 years and they are right now or they were right for 5 years and wrong now. Either way, it's clear it was never an objective opinion.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
No, being or not being fun is a very valid argument, only it may apply differently to different people depending on their tastes. If 90% of people think something is not fun and 10% think it is fun, then it is probably a bad design, even if "fun," of course, is not objective. (These are of course not the numbers in this case; just to show that something not being fun is actually a strong argument.)
Also, it's worth noting what argument the OP does not make in support of macro mechanics: that removing macro mechanics makes the game more easy, because that's just not true.
On August 04 2015 20:46 nottapro wrote: It's weird knowing that for 5 years TL staff were the biggest proponents of saying mules / chronoboost and inject were terrible and dumbing the game, countless articles and posts how they were making it imbalanced and needed to be reworked.
The most hardcore players cheered when Starbow made changes to them. In a week they've changed their mind completely, so either TL was wrong for 5 years and they are right now or they were right for 5 years and wrong now. Either way, it's clear it was never an objective opinion.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
No, being or not being fun is a very valid argument, only it may apply differently to different people depending on their tastes. If 90% of people think something is not fun and 10% think it is fun, then it is probably a bad design, even if "fun," of course, is not objective. (These are of course not the numbers in this case; just to show that something not being fun is actually a strong argument.)
"X is not fun because _______." is an argument.
"X is not fun." is not an argument.
The problem is most people don't bother to discuss the reason, only the symptom. If we understood the root of the problem then we'd actually be able to discuss it and find a solution. But "X is not fun" alone is useless because it doesn't help anyone find answers.
On August 04 2015 20:46 nottapro wrote: It's weird knowing that for 5 years TL staff were the biggest proponents of saying mules / chronoboost and inject were terrible and dumbing the game, countless articles and posts how they were making it imbalanced and needed to be reworked.
The most hardcore players cheered when Starbow made changes to them. In a week they've changed their mind completely, so either TL was wrong for 5 years and they are right now or they were right for 5 years and wrong now. Either way, it's clear it was never an objective opinion.
1. This is stuchiu's opinion, not TL staff's opinion. That's why this is an editorial. 2. 5 years is a long time. I don't think any of the writing staff or strat staff at that time are still around now. Maybe 1 or 2. 3. Being wrong is perfectly fine as long as it helps find the solution.
On August 04 2015 20:35 paralleluniverse wrote: Look at archon mode. When people are freed from mindless macro mechanics there's so much more people can do.
Attention is finite. If it's not wasted on macro it will be spent elsewhere or else you will lose to people who do spent it elsewhere.
Yes... but someone told me that there is nothing else to multitask... how can it be...
If someone cooked you food and you didn't like it, then someone else asked you why you don't eat it, you can say "it doesn't taste good". The reason you don't eat the food is because it doesn't taste good.
argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
To persuade you to stop cooking me your crappy food (i.e. you cooking for me is wrong), I am using the reason that it does not taste good.
On August 04 2015 19:45 Big J wrote: Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience: The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies. A better opponent should make it hard or even impossible to win because he gets the better end of every interaction. But when there is no interaction - directly or strategically - there is no reason why you should fall behind.
Even though I regularily disagree with the how, blizzard is finally getting that. More interaction, more room for interaction to shine, more ways to interact and more degrees of outcomes for interaction are the direction they want to go and that the game needs to take. Their ideas to change macro mechanics are double good from this perspective: 1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well 2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements.
The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies
Why? Why is it not 'allowed' to have basic mechanics you have to be good at to reach a certain point of skill which in itself aren't defined by your opponent? You state it is, but i cannot see why this has to be true. Then again, your opponent already has this control over you and your actions, this will always be the case in game with a high requirement of multitasking. He will force your attention, you won't be perfect in action X,Y and Z cause of it.
1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well
Again, what is wrong with this concept? If you play a real sport you have to be good at "singeplayer-like actions" too and nobody there cries it is "unfun". I simply don't see the problem.
2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements
True and i also think slowing down the economical growth and thus the supply growth would be a good thing, but you can achieve this goal without reducing the mechanical part of the game.
Because I opened my statement with "Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience". Singeplayer-like actions are by definition not that. The whole post was meant to be a bit philosophical.
That part of the post doesn't really say something about Starcraft, but it is my firm believe that Starcraft should be a game that focuses on multiplayer experience. There will always be singleplayer like elements in any game and sport - if you can't run with the ball, you can't play football; if you can't place buildings, you can't play starcraft. But those elements shouldn't ever be more important/attention-eating/harder than the interaction with your opponent.
Since you bring up sports. 1) the multiplayer focused sports are a thousand times more popular. In this infographic the only country that prefers a "singleplayer" sport is Austria + Show Spoiler +
how ironic, hehehe - but seriously, this is probably wrong to begin with; this is the big Austiran ski manifacturing industry talking; the moment our national football team is playing semidecently - which they finally do again these days - it's football; if we'd beat Germany once, it would be football for the next decade. Viewer numbers of our national TV station for top-football events do top the top-skiing events and a lot of people are watching German football which doesn't really find a way in most statistics.
It's only logical that people prefer players interacting over someone who has perfected an action and then is showcasing it every week. It makes for much more dynamic gameplay and unique situations - how does player X's actions matchup with player Y's actions. 2) even in the singleplayer focused sports the important actions are often being changed to make them unique in every instance. E.g. in skiing you have different courses. 3) even when there is no interaction by concept, the sports often try to create or fake interaction because it is more exciting and fun. E.g. in sprinting you don't let the runners take turns but you let them sprint next to each other. In other running disciplines this even leads to important strategical and direct interactions like speed regulation and positioning in the field.
--> a focus on multiplayer is better. For popularity and for the game itself because it creates interaction, it creates real competition, it creates fun. Back to starcraft, actions like inject being singleplayer, always the same mechanical performance on every map in every game makes it so that they should be a very minor piece of puzzle to win the game. But they aren't, in particular injects aren't. Taking back their importance - which is what blizzard is doing; they are not removing them completely! In particular they don't remove any conceptual interactions of inject, you can still snipe queens etc - is good for the game to create room for more interaction.
Well if i look at soccer for example, you need to be able to dribble with the ball, shoot it hard and precise, in general work on your speed, etc These are all "singleplayer skills" in itself, just like being good at injecting is one. If you add an opponent all these things become harder cause your opponent tries to interrupt you and your worked on skills as best as he can.
I would agree that it's maybe a problem that injecting is 'always' your best option if it is available, but as i said before i don't think this is a problem that stems from macro mechanics as a concept, but rather from micro not being rewarding enough in comparison. Some people seem to have a problem with macro being a deciding factor in the game, others love the micro/macro/attention interactions. I would love if both ways would be viable and hard to master so people actually have a decision to make
On August 04 2015 21:21 mishimaBeef wrote: "X is not fun" is an argument.
If someone cooked you food and you didn't like it, then someone else asked you why you don't eat it, you can say "it doesn't taste good". The reason you don't eat the food is because it doesn't taste good.
argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
To persuade you to stop cooking me your crappy food (i.e. you cooking for me is wrong), I am using the reason that it does not taste good.
It is a reason you personally don't eat the food, it's no argument for the cook to not cook it like this again if he personally likes it (and others). Target audience is the deciding factor here.
Just wanna state that I'm not for automating Injects. Though I am for either removing the mechanic or nerfing macro boosters in general.
I don't agree that removing Inject necessarily simplifies macro, in the sense of, where to spend attention. Inject is so strong that there really isn't much of a choice, lets say Inject was 10 energy and had no cooldown. It would be so strong, doing anything else would be stupid and that would grossly simplify macro. All you would do is spam inject and send lings to the other side of the map, not microing one bit. It might take more APM, but it's still simplified.
Nerf inject=make more room for micro, buff inject=less time to micro. So while you're protecting SoO, you could also see it as nerfing Life, so why favour one player over the other? Blizzard is simply saying Life is the more exciting player, so we buff him.
I think it's just important to go back to the core of what Starcraft is meant to be. A game where you build armies and wage war against an opponent. So obviously automating the build army process, is wrong, but so is making it harder, for the case of external factors.
Also, I do not understand why casual players complain about macro having too much influence when there are builds that revolve almost completely around micro, and almost not at all around macro. You can do early aggression every game, and you'll get to micro to your heart's content. In fact, I would actually argue that the early game has the most opportunities to exercise strategic play. There's a strange stigma attached to early aggression, but seriously, if microing and timings are what you enjoy, just do those. I won't judge you.
I do think the game would still be alright if they simplified the macro mechanics significantly. But it would not be the same game, and not the game I personally enjoy. It'd end up being something a lot closer to something like Warcraft (not necessarily a bad thing, just not the same).
On August 04 2015 21:31 The_Red_Viper wrote: If the cook is only cooking for you, sure, but that's hardly the case for the cook blizzard
If someone invited you to a game and you didn't accept, then someone else asked you why you didn't accept, you can say "it is not fun". The reason you don't accept the game invite is because the game is not fun.
argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
To persuade you to stop giving me game invites (i.e. you inviting me to the game is wrong), I am using the reason that it is not fun.
On August 04 2015 19:45 Big J wrote: Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience: The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies. A better opponent should make it hard or even impossible to win because he gets the better end of every interaction. But when there is no interaction - directly or strategically - there is no reason why you should fall behind.
Even though I regularily disagree with the how, blizzard is finally getting that. More interaction, more room for interaction to shine, more ways to interact and more degrees of outcomes for interaction are the direction they want to go and that the game needs to take. Their ideas to change macro mechanics are double good from this perspective: 1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well 2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements.
The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies
Why? Why is it not 'allowed' to have basic mechanics you have to be good at to reach a certain point of skill which in itself aren't defined by your opponent? You state it is, but i cannot see why this has to be true. Then again, your opponent already has this control over you and your actions, this will always be the case in game with a high requirement of multitasking. He will force your attention, you won't be perfect in action X,Y and Z cause of it.
1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well
Again, what is wrong with this concept? If you play a real sport you have to be good at "singeplayer-like actions" too and nobody there cries it is "unfun". I simply don't see the problem.
2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements
True and i also think slowing down the economical growth and thus the supply growth would be a good thing, but you can achieve this goal without reducing the mechanical part of the game.
Because I opened my statement with "Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience". Singeplayer-like actions are by definition not that. The whole post was meant to be a bit philosophical.
That part of the post doesn't really say something about Starcraft, but it is my firm believe that Starcraft should be a game that focuses on multiplayer experience. There will always be singleplayer like elements in any game and sport - if you can't run with the ball, you can't play football; if you can't place buildings, you can't play starcraft. But those elements shouldn't ever be more important/attention-eating/harder than the interaction with your opponent.
Since you bring up sports. 1) the multiplayer focused sports are a thousand times more popular. In this infographic the only country that prefers a "singleplayer" sport is Austria + Show Spoiler +
how ironic, hehehe - but seriously, this is probably wrong to begin with; this is the big Austiran ski manifacturing industry talking; the moment our national football team is playing semidecently - which they finally do again these days - it's football; if we'd beat Germany once, it would be football for the next decade. Viewer numbers of our national TV station for top-football events do top the top-skiing events and a lot of people are watching German football which doesn't really find a way in most statistics.
It's only logical that people prefer players interacting over someone who has perfected an action and then is showcasing it every week. It makes for much more dynamic gameplay and unique situations - how does player X's actions matchup with player Y's actions. 2) even in the singleplayer focused sports the important actions are often being changed to make them unique in every instance. E.g. in skiing you have different courses. 3) even when there is no interaction by concept, the sports often try to create or fake interaction because it is more exciting and fun. E.g. in sprinting you don't let the runners take turns but you let them sprint next to each other. In other running disciplines this even leads to important strategical and direct interactions like speed regulation and positioning in the field.
--> a focus on multiplayer is better. For popularity and for the game itself because it creates interaction, it creates real competition, it creates fun. Back to starcraft, actions like inject being singleplayer, always the same mechanical performance on every map in every game makes it so that they should be a very minor piece of puzzle to win the game. But they aren't, in particular injects aren't. Taking back their importance - which is what blizzard is doing; they are not removing them completely! In particular they don't remove any conceptual interactions of inject, you can still snipe queens etc - is good for the game to create room for more interaction.
Well if i look at soccer for example, you need to be able to dribble with the ball, shoot it hard and precise, in general work on your speed, etc These are all "singleplayer skills" in itself, just like being good at injecting is one. If you add an opponent all these things become harder cause your opponent tries to interrupt you and your worked on skills as best as he can.
I would agree that it's maybe a problem that injecting is 'always' your best option if it is available, but as i said before i don't think this is a problem that stems from macro mechanics as a concept, but rather from micro not being rewarding enough in comparison. Some people seem to have a problem with macro being a deciding factor in the game, others love the micro/macro/attention interactions. I would love if both ways would be viable and hard to master so people actually have a decision to make
There is a huge difference with the "singleplayer skills" of the football example and the macro-one. All of those skills only become important if you add an opponent in football. You only need to shoot hard because you need to make it hard for the opponent to intercept the shot. There is a certain amount of dribbling skill necessary, but you only need to dribble the ball close when there is an opponent trying to tackle you. The only reason why you do tricks with the ball is to get past an opponent. And so on... Of course you only need inject because the opponent is also trying to macro well. But the actual action to inject is 100% disconnected from your opponent's actions on the battlefield. You devote your APM to injects every 40seconds because you get a benefit regardless whether your opponent has dropped a mule right now. That's different from shooting harder due to an opponent being somewhere between you and the goal. Because if the player was behind you, you would try to shoot more precise instead.
The thing you bring up with "micro should be more en par" is that I think this is not really achievable from the current status of SC2. You either bring micro up to the point that it can compete with macro (and I'm not just saying with the macro mechanics, but plainly with the generation of value). Which would mean your microed marine can kill ~40resources of enemies per minute while surviving to bring it en par with worker efficiency - an insane value that also produces the problem that in such a scenario there wouldn't be any development left. If killing stuff is as efficient as mining stuff, you very soon get into a state in which you cannot afford to tech and expand further. The other approach would be to nerf macro mechanics, but there is a bottom cap how much you can do it. If you nerf the macro mechanics to be less costefficient than regular macro (e.g. injects being worse than plainly building more hatcheries) than people will just not use them at all.
So I think the pure existance of macro mechanics that have to be superior to regular macro tools to even be useful makes it impossible to have them less important than micro managing units. However, you can very well work with "storage" of those abilities like mules. You don't have to drop mules every 40seconds like injects. You drop them every 80seconds to begin with and you can store multiple mules per OC that you can drop later on.
On August 04 2015 21:31 The_Red_Viper wrote: If the cook is only cooking for you, sure, but that's hardly the case for the cook blizzard
If someone invited you to a game and you didn't accept, then someone else asked you why you didn't accept, you can say "it is not fun". The reason you don't accept the game invite is because the game is not fun.
argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
To persuade you to stop giving me game invites (i.e. you inviting me to the game is wrong), I am using the reason that it is not fun.
So you are into arguing semantics? Fine, keep doing it. The truth stays the same though, you not having fun is no objective argument blizzard or anyone else has to value highly when there are also people who think the exact opposite. It's subjective.
On August 04 2015 21:32 Blargh wrote: Also, I do not understand why casual players complain about macro having too much influence when there are builds that revolve almost completely around micro, and almost not at all around macro. You can do early aggression every game, and you'll get to micro to your heart's content. In fact, I would actually argue that the early game has the most opportunities to exercise strategic play. There's a strange stigma attached to early aggression, but seriously, if microing and timings are what you enjoy, just do those. I won't judge you.
This leads to many problems.
1- You don't improve much, yes we can say casual don't want to improve anyway. But I think one of the BIG problems with SC2, is that it's a pain in the ass to improve, not because it's difficult, but because it's boring. Seriously lwhen I see the "finally hit master after shit tons of games" post on reddit I feel like poster went throught something horrible and it's the end of the purge lol.
2- What if what you enjoy is big fights, strategic and multitask? What you're saying is that people casual should cut off 80% of the game. It's almost the same as saying "well you can't macro? Then just don't play the game."
On August 04 2015 21:31 The_Red_Viper wrote: If the cook is only cooking for you, sure, but that's hardly the case for the cook blizzard
If someone invited you to a game and you didn't accept, then someone else asked you why you didn't accept, you can say "it is not fun". The reason you don't accept the game invite is because the game is not fun.
argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
To persuade you to stop giving me game invites (i.e. you inviting me to the game is wrong), I am using the reason that it is not fun.
So you are into arguing semantics? Fine, keep doing it. The truth stays the same though, you not having fun is no objective argument blizzard or anyone else has to value highly when there are also people who think the exact opposite. It's subjective.
I'm not arguing that it's not subjective. I'm arguing that it's a valid argument.
They can do as they please with the objective *numbers* of how many people find the game fun vs how many don't.
On August 04 2015 21:31 The_Red_Viper wrote: If the cook is only cooking for you, sure, but that's hardly the case for the cook blizzard
If someone invited you to a game and you didn't accept, then someone else asked you why you didn't accept, you can say "it is not fun". The reason you don't accept the game invite is because the game is not fun.
argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
To persuade you to stop giving me game invites (i.e. you inviting me to the game is wrong), I am using the reason that it is not fun.
So you are into arguing semantics? Fine, keep doing it. The truth stays the same though, you not having fun is no objective argument blizzard or anyone else has to value highly when there are also people who think the exact opposite. It's subjective.
It can be measured by how many ppl stick to the game. In sc2 these are not alot and the obvious reason and argument for not doing so is not having too much fun.
Its funny also because soO is one of the less entertaining players to watch, the only great games I can remember with him in it is when his opponent (usually a terran) goes on multitask mode and gives soO a run for his money, but it's never soO who create the plays, he's most of the time the defender, the passive player.
If all the players were like soO starcraft would be way less entertaining to watch.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
No, being or not being fun is a very valid argument, only it may apply differently to different people depending on their tastes. If 90% of people think something is not fun and 10% think it is fun, then it is probably a bad design, even if "fun," of course, is not objective. (These are of course not the numbers in this case; just to show that something not being fun is actually a strong argument.)
"X is not fun because _______." is an argument.
"X is not fun." is not an argument.
The problem is most people don't bother to discuss the reason, only the symptom. If we understood the root of the problem then we'd actually be able to discuss it and find a solution. But "X is not fun" alone is useless because it doesn't help anyone find answers.
"X is bad." is not an argument. "X is bad because it is not fun." is already an argument in my opinion, even if not too constructive. It does not offer solutions, but it does not have to; and it gives a reason why I think X is bad. I agree that it is kind of useless on its own, but I think it's up to you how much you want to understand what people mean by it. You may say it doesn't help to just say this without digging to the root of the problem, but I would like to believe that most intelligent people understand what others mean by it not being fun, even if they themselves think otherwise.
But, as many have already worded, a complete argument would be something like, "Macro mechanics are not fun because they are repetitive, don't bring in too much strategic depth (if at all), but at the same time require a lot of attention and they punish players heavily if they are not good at them. Therefore they are bad."
This is an opinion, with which you can agree or disagree (I personally think it is only a real issue in case of Larva injects). If you don't agree with it, you may or may not have reasons as to why, which I would really be interested in hearing.
On August 04 2015 21:31 The_Red_Viper wrote: If the cook is only cooking for you, sure, but that's hardly the case for the cook blizzard
If someone invited you to a game and you didn't accept, then someone else asked you why you didn't accept, you can say "it is not fun". The reason you don't accept the game invite is because the game is not fun.
argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
To persuade you to stop giving me game invites (i.e. you inviting me to the game is wrong), I am using the reason that it is not fun.
So you are into arguing semantics? Fine, keep doing it. The truth stays the same though, you not having fun is no objective argument blizzard or anyone else has to value highly when there are also people who think the exact opposite. It's subjective.
I'm not arguing that it's not subjective. I'm arguing that it's a valid argument.
They can do as they please with the objective *numbers* of how many people find the game fun vs how many don't.
Then by your estimation, "protoss is dumb" is a valid argument. But again, it is useless unless explained.
Everyone here is so obsessed with being "right" instead of, as I mentioned, finding the root of the problem. No one is saying that SC2 couldn't be more fun. Of course it can be. But saying "it's not fun" helps absolutely no one. Saying "it's not fun because I would rather do other exciting actions instead of macroing" is a more useful argument. Very few have bothered to try and explain why it isn't fun, and only demand that it isn't. If people actually explained their presumably intelligent reasons instead of bickering wanting to be right then maybe we could have thought of a solution by now.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
No, being or not being fun is a very valid argument, only it may apply differently to different people depending on their tastes. If 90% of people think something is not fun and 10% think it is fun, then it is probably a bad design, even if "fun," of course, is not objective. (These are of course not the numbers in this case; just to show that something not being fun is actually a strong argument.)
"X is not fun because _______." is an argument.
"X is not fun." is not an argument.
The problem is most people don't bother to discuss the reason, only the symptom. If we understood the root of the problem then we'd actually be able to discuss it and find a solution. But "X is not fun" alone is useless because it doesn't help anyone find answers.
But, as many have already worded, a complete argument would be something like, "Macro mechanics are not fun because they are repetitive, don't bring in too much strategic depth (if at all), but at the same time require a lot of attention and they punish players heavily if they are not good at them. Therefore they are bad."
This is an opinion, with which you can agree or disagree (I personally think it is only a real issue in case of Larva injects). If you don't agree with it, you may or may not have reasons as to why, which I would really be interested in hearing.
Now this is a good argument, because we can actually try to tackle the things pointed out. Too repetitive? Maybe try to tweak it so you do it less often but with a comparable effect. No strategic depth? Let's give it more uses or make those uses more pronounced. Too big an impact? Make it easier with smaller reward. See, this is a useful argument. "Not fun" is not constructive at all, and for our purposes (finding a way to make SC2 better), it should never be accepted as an argument unless explained.
I guess allowing auto cast on mules chrono and larvae inject is ok. Literally only the act of clicking is removed, the decision making stays the same.
Its not something hard to implement, right click the chrono icon and click on the target. Lets say its cybernetics core, it will chrono warp-gate till its done. Same for mule but on mineral patches and queens on hatcheries. It still rewards a player for not landing a mule that will die or if you need a scan/tumor/transfuse or a wasted chrono on something that is almost done, and it does make it easier specially for newcomers.
The down side is that it rewards less for good mechanics, but it think it will affect inexperienced players much more. It also helps zerg more than the other races, but it can be tuned during balance patches.
Personally, i don't care about this change, its not for me.
I think the solution is clear as demonstrated in archon mode games. It isn't any *easier* to win in archon mode, or to differentiate yourself as a team. The skill ceiling is still unreachable, the fun factor and excitement is higher.
On August 04 2015 19:45 Big J wrote: Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience: The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies. A better opponent should make it hard or even impossible to win because he gets the better end of every interaction. But when there is no interaction - directly or strategically - there is no reason why you should fall behind.
Even though I regularily disagree with the how, blizzard is finally getting that. More interaction, more room for interaction to shine, more ways to interact and more degrees of outcomes for interaction are the direction they want to go and that the game needs to take. Their ideas to change macro mechanics are double good from this perspective: 1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well 2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements.
The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies
Why? Why is it not 'allowed' to have basic mechanics you have to be good at to reach a certain point of skill which in itself aren't defined by your opponent? You state it is, but i cannot see why this has to be true. Then again, your opponent already has this control over you and your actions, this will always be the case in game with a high requirement of multitasking. He will force your attention, you won't be perfect in action X,Y and Z cause of it.
1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well
Again, what is wrong with this concept? If you play a real sport you have to be good at "singeplayer-like actions" too and nobody there cries it is "unfun". I simply don't see the problem.
2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements
True and i also think slowing down the economical growth and thus the supply growth would be a good thing, but you can achieve this goal without reducing the mechanical part of the game.
Because I opened my statement with "Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience". Singeplayer-like actions are by definition not that. The whole post was meant to be a bit philosophical.
That part of the post doesn't really say something about Starcraft, but it is my firm believe that Starcraft should be a game that focuses on multiplayer experience. There will always be singleplayer like elements in any game and sport - if you can't run with the ball, you can't play football; if you can't place buildings, you can't play starcraft. But those elements shouldn't ever be more important/attention-eating/harder than the interaction with your opponent.
Since you bring up sports. 1) the multiplayer focused sports are a thousand times more popular. In this infographic the only country that prefers a "singleplayer" sport is Austria + Show Spoiler +
how ironic, hehehe - but seriously, this is probably wrong to begin with; this is the big Austiran ski manifacturing industry talking; the moment our national football team is playing semidecently - which they finally do again these days - it's football; if we'd beat Germany once, it would be football for the next decade. Viewer numbers of our national TV station for top-football events do top the top-skiing events and a lot of people are watching German football which doesn't really find a way in most statistics.
It's only logical that people prefer players interacting over someone who has perfected an action and then is showcasing it every week. It makes for much more dynamic gameplay and unique situations - how does player X's actions matchup with player Y's actions. 2) even in the singleplayer focused sports the important actions are often being changed to make them unique in every instance. E.g. in skiing you have different courses. 3) even when there is no interaction by concept, the sports often try to create or fake interaction because it is more exciting and fun. E.g. in sprinting you don't let the runners take turns but you let them sprint next to each other. In other running disciplines this even leads to important strategical and direct interactions like speed regulation and positioning in the field.
--> a focus on multiplayer is better. For popularity and for the game itself because it creates interaction, it creates real competition, it creates fun. Back to starcraft, actions like inject being singleplayer, always the same mechanical performance on every map in every game makes it so that they should be a very minor piece of puzzle to win the game. But they aren't, in particular injects aren't. Taking back their importance - which is what blizzard is doing; they are not removing them completely! In particular they don't remove any conceptual interactions of inject, you can still snipe queens etc - is good for the game to create room for more interaction.
Well if i look at soccer for example, you need to be able to dribble with the ball, shoot it hard and precise, in general work on your speed, etc These are all "singleplayer skills" in itself, just like being good at injecting is one. If you add an opponent all these things become harder cause your opponent tries to interrupt you and your worked on skills as best as he can.
I would agree that it's maybe a problem that injecting is 'always' your best option if it is available, but as i said before i don't think this is a problem that stems from macro mechanics as a concept, but rather from micro not being rewarding enough in comparison. Some people seem to have a problem with macro being a deciding factor in the game, others love the micro/macro/attention interactions. I would love if both ways would be viable and hard to master so people actually have a decision to make
There is a huge difference with the "singleplayer skills" of the football example and the macro-one. All of those skills only become important if you add an opponent in football. You only need to shoot hard because you need to make it hard for the opponent to intercept the shot. There is a certain amount of dribbling skill necessary, but you only need to dribble the ball close when there is an opponent trying to tackle you. The only reason why you do tricks with the ball is to get past an opponent. And so on... Of course you only need inject because the opponent is also trying to macro well. But the actual action to inject is 100% disconnected from your opponent's actions on the battlefield. You devote your APM to injects every 40seconds because you get a benefit regardless whether your opponent has dropped a mule right now. That's different from shooting harder due to an opponent being somewhere between you and the goal. Because if the player was behind you, you would try to shoot more precise instead.
Your argument is flawed in the sense that football is just a game about shooting and controlling the ball well. While SC2 is a game about managing your time and attention the best way possible, you also fail your argument because macro, micro, multi-tasking is all dependent on your opponent. You need a certain baseline of macro to make it hard for your opponent to cope. There is a certain amount of skill necessary in macroing, but you only need to multi-task when the opponent is barreling down on you. Yes you devote APM to injecting every few seconds, but so do terrans and protoss do every few seconds to queue new units, rally stuff or going back to base to add new buildings.
If your remove macro mechanics you take away tools for the players to distinguish themselves, you remove the choice of how to allocate time and attention, you remove the beauty of seeing the pros handle the different crises.
By your argument why don't we also automate rallies, adding production structures, queueing up units, etc? They obviously are single player actions independent of the opponent.
If anything its larva inject itself that is the problem, its too important and too polarizing in its effect. Larva inject itself should be changed, but macro mechanics as a concept shouldn't be removed, if anything we need to add more macro mechanics to the game to give players even more ways to distinguish themselves and to have some actual paragons of macro, players capable of just out-producing everyone else if they so chose.
On August 04 2015 22:07 mishimaBeef wrote: I think the solution is clear as demonstrated in archon mode games. It isn't any *easier* to win in archon mode, or to differentiate yourself as a team. The skill ceiling is still unreachable, the fun factor and excitement is higher.
This is a more useful argument. It's true that the effective skill ceiling is unreachable, so removing a few mechanics should not leave the game devoid of potential actions. But as mentioned in the article the removal of macro mechanics has a bigger effect than just making things simpler, and the initial analysis that "if it's automatic everything will be the same but easier" doesn't hold true. Yes it is easier, but many subtle things about the game changes, and they have to be considered. Of course this change could still be good, but not considering all possible ramifications before trying it isn't a good idea.
Also, this is why I again proposed slower game speed. It solves the root of the problem you are pinpointing. Slower game speed means more time to do things, which is easier, but pros can still find more ways to use that time. So it makes things easier for new players but not easier for pro players. This solution does not remove anything, and instead changes something. As much as possible solutions that remove should be avoided because they solve symptoms not causes. This change addresses the cause you pinpoint without sacrificing macro mechanics.
See, this discussion wouldn't be possible with "X is not fun" but possible once you explain your opinion with reason.
However you want to classify the statement "X is not fun" is fine by me. But it still reveals that there is an issue and a very important one considering the economics of the situation (game development).
On August 04 2015 22:16 mishimaBeef wrote: Slower game speed affects excitement factor.
A chief complaint is also that new viewers don't understand what's going on because everything happens too fast. Many also complain that battles are over in 2 seconds, as opposed to 5 seconds. Making the game slower also allows veteran viewers to spot more subtle micro tasks, since more micro is possible with slower game speed. The game isn't slower with the same amount of action now. It's slower but with more action, hypothetically.
On August 04 2015 21:31 The_Red_Viper wrote: If the cook is only cooking for you, sure, but that's hardly the case for the cook blizzard
If someone invited you to a game and you didn't accept, then someone else asked you why you didn't accept, you can say "it is not fun". The reason you don't accept the game invite is because the game is not fun.
argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
To persuade you to stop giving me game invites (i.e. you inviting me to the game is wrong), I am using the reason that it is not fun.
So you are into arguing semantics? Fine, keep doing it. The truth stays the same though, you not having fun is no objective argument blizzard or anyone else has to value highly when there are also people who think the exact opposite. It's subjective.
It can be measured by how many ppl stick to the game. In sc2 these are not alot and the obvious reason and argument for not doing so is not having too much fun.
Well maybe, yes. But then you have to find the 'why', the reasons. I don't think macro mechanics is important in that regard.
My personal opinion is that as soon as you have to multitask in a game, the game will be less popular (thus less fun?) for the majority of people, it doesn't matter if you have a game 100% micro based, as soon as you have to control more than one thing you will get people who can't deal with it.
We should discuss if a specific change is an improvement or not considering the pros and cons. Its obviously good to change the macro mechanics as long as its an improvement, hard to tell how a change will affect the game without more specific details.
The changes proposed for each race affects the game in a different way and should not be put in the same generic bag. If the proposed changes help one race more than the other but improve the game design then it should be done (as long as its not something extreme). Balance can be tuned in balance patches, but a better time to work on the game design won't come.
On August 04 2015 21:31 The_Red_Viper wrote: If the cook is only cooking for you, sure, but that's hardly the case for the cook blizzard
If someone invited you to a game and you didn't accept, then someone else asked you why you didn't accept, you can say "it is not fun". The reason you don't accept the game invite is because the game is not fun.
argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
To persuade you to stop giving me game invites (i.e. you inviting me to the game is wrong), I am using the reason that it is not fun.
So you are into arguing semantics? Fine, keep doing it. The truth stays the same though, you not having fun is no objective argument blizzard or anyone else has to value highly when there are also people who think the exact opposite. It's subjective.
It can be measured by how many ppl stick to the game. In sc2 these are not alot and the obvious reason and argument for not doing so is not having too much fun.
Well maybe, yes. But then you have to find the 'why', the reasons. I don't think macro mechanics is important in that regard.
My personal opinion is that as soon as you have to multitask in a game, the game will be less popular (thus less fun?) for the majority of people, it doesn't matter if you have a game 100% micro based, as soon as you have to control more than one thing you will get people who can't deal with it.
Case in point: Company of Heroes (2). One of the few other high quality RTS titles. It actually has near zero macro, and is decided purely on strategy and micro. Yet only a few thousand people play it competitively, as you still need insane multitasking to be good at it.
It's not like there's loads of people playing Micro Tournament in the arcade either. Hell the most popular arcade game is Desert Strike which requires 0 micro
We will be nowhere near 'zero macro' with macro boosters gone. And insane multitasking is cool to watch when it is visible (case in point archon mode games).
About the "fun or not" debate. Its of course subjective. But if the reasoning to dislike a change is likely shared between a good chunk of the community then its more relevant. If its something really personal, then im ok with you sharing it but its not important at all. However, something that changes the game identity too drastically is expected drive away part of the community. By now its clear that many people would miss larvae injects if they are simply removed.
On August 04 2015 21:10 lichter wrote: 1. This is stuchiu's opinion, not TL staff's opinion. That's why this is an editorial. 2. 5 years is a long time. I don't think any of the writing staff or strat staff at that time are still around now. Maybe 1 or 2. 3. Being wrong is perfectly fine as long as it helps find the solution.
True, the solution is that Mule / Chronoboost / Inject get reworked.
A lot of people have woken up to how illogical peoples knee jerk conservatism of abstruse game mechanics has become, even Blizzard has realized the game is going to stagnant if they keep letting a vocal minority literally argue that the game shouldn't be enjoyable to play because disagreeing isn't a choice, or to quote directly "is not an argument."
We can collectively kill the myth that the more; repetitive, unfun and difficult you make simple tasks in the game to do, the "better it gets."
Archon mode has demonstrated that people have a better chance at a comeback when they have a larger the window of time to make strategic decisions. There's better ways to make the game deep then forcing pro-gamers constantly shift queue their army attacks because they don't have time to look at them, while they turn back to their base to tab through queens and V-click a hatchery.
It really infuriates me that there can be so many strong reactions against the changes before they've been tested in game. There's no reasons to not test it. Additionnaly, if this change gets scraped because of the community backlash, this may be the last major change we'll ever come close to have and those who opposed it will spend the rest of their days bitching about how blizzard isn't doing anything radical to change the game.
On August 04 2015 22:19 mishimaBeef wrote: It also affects average game length.
Cause and effect in SC2 isn't at all this deterministic. The never ending series of balance changes proves this rather well. So no, that's purely conjecture.
On August 04 2015 19:45 Big J wrote: Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience: The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies. A better opponent should make it hard or even impossible to win because he gets the better end of every interaction. But when there is no interaction - directly or strategically - there is no reason why you should fall behind.
Even though I regularily disagree with the how, blizzard is finally getting that. More interaction, more room for interaction to shine, more ways to interact and more degrees of outcomes for interaction are the direction they want to go and that the game needs to take. Their ideas to change macro mechanics are double good from this perspective: 1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well 2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements.
The game's difficulty should stem from your opponent's actions and strategies
Why? Why is it not 'allowed' to have basic mechanics you have to be good at to reach a certain point of skill which in itself aren't defined by your opponent? You state it is, but i cannot see why this has to be true. Then again, your opponent already has this control over you and your actions, this will always be the case in game with a high requirement of multitasking. He will force your attention, you won't be perfect in action X,Y and Z cause of it.
1) they directly interfere with the principle that you get massive advantages from doing a singleplayer-like action very well
Again, what is wrong with this concept? If you play a real sport you have to be good at "singeplayer-like actions" too and nobody there cries it is "unfun". I simply don't see the problem.
2) it slows down the economical proponent of the game. Consequently an investment - say a harassment unit - has more time to interact with the opponent before it has to be retreated/dies due to reinforcements
True and i also think slowing down the economical growth and thus the supply growth would be a good thing, but you can achieve this goal without reducing the mechanical part of the game.
Because I opened my statement with "Getting into the concept of a multiplayer focused experience". Singeplayer-like actions are by definition not that. The whole post was meant to be a bit philosophical.
That part of the post doesn't really say something about Starcraft, but it is my firm believe that Starcraft should be a game that focuses on multiplayer experience. There will always be singleplayer like elements in any game and sport - if you can't run with the ball, you can't play football; if you can't place buildings, you can't play starcraft. But those elements shouldn't ever be more important/attention-eating/harder than the interaction with your opponent.
Since you bring up sports. 1) the multiplayer focused sports are a thousand times more popular. In this infographic the only country that prefers a "singleplayer" sport is Austria + Show Spoiler +
how ironic, hehehe - but seriously, this is probably wrong to begin with; this is the big Austiran ski manifacturing industry talking; the moment our national football team is playing semidecently - which they finally do again these days - it's football; if we'd beat Germany once, it would be football for the next decade. Viewer numbers of our national TV station for top-football events do top the top-skiing events and a lot of people are watching German football which doesn't really find a way in most statistics.
It's only logical that people prefer players interacting over someone who has perfected an action and then is showcasing it every week. It makes for much more dynamic gameplay and unique situations - how does player X's actions matchup with player Y's actions. 2) even in the singleplayer focused sports the important actions are often being changed to make them unique in every instance. E.g. in skiing you have different courses. 3) even when there is no interaction by concept, the sports often try to create or fake interaction because it is more exciting and fun. E.g. in sprinting you don't let the runners take turns but you let them sprint next to each other. In other running disciplines this even leads to important strategical and direct interactions like speed regulation and positioning in the field.
--> a focus on multiplayer is better. For popularity and for the game itself because it creates interaction, it creates real competition, it creates fun. Back to starcraft, actions like inject being singleplayer, always the same mechanical performance on every map in every game makes it so that they should be a very minor piece of puzzle to win the game. But they aren't, in particular injects aren't. Taking back their importance - which is what blizzard is doing; they are not removing them completely! In particular they don't remove any conceptual interactions of inject, you can still snipe queens etc - is good for the game to create room for more interaction.
Well if i look at soccer for example, you need to be able to dribble with the ball, shoot it hard and precise, in general work on your speed, etc These are all "singleplayer skills" in itself, just like being good at injecting is one. If you add an opponent all these things become harder cause your opponent tries to interrupt you and your worked on skills as best as he can.
I would agree that it's maybe a problem that injecting is 'always' your best option if it is available, but as i said before i don't think this is a problem that stems from macro mechanics as a concept, but rather from micro not being rewarding enough in comparison. Some people seem to have a problem with macro being a deciding factor in the game, others love the micro/macro/attention interactions. I would love if both ways would be viable and hard to master so people actually have a decision to make
There is a huge difference with the "singleplayer skills" of the football example and the macro-one. All of those skills only become important if you add an opponent in football. You only need to shoot hard because you need to make it hard for the opponent to intercept the shot. There is a certain amount of dribbling skill necessary, but you only need to dribble the ball close when there is an opponent trying to tackle you. The only reason why you do tricks with the ball is to get past an opponent. And so on... Of course you only need inject because the opponent is also trying to macro well. But the actual action to inject is 100% disconnected from your opponent's actions on the battlefield. You devote your APM to injects every 40seconds because you get a benefit regardless whether your opponent has dropped a mule right now. That's different from shooting harder due to an opponent being somewhere between you and the goal. Because if the player was behind you, you would try to shoot more precise instead.
Your argument is flawed in the sense that football is just a game about shooting and controlling the ball well. While SC2 is a game about managing your time and attention the best way possible
You also manage your attention and body functions in football, obviously also with a time component. Most of the goals in football are scored because the defender's attention has been managed badly.
, you also fail your argument because macro, micro, multi-tasking is all dependent on your opponent. You need a certain baseline of macro to make it hard for your opponent to cope.
The second sentence is exactly what I'm critizising. You need a baseline to make it hard for your opponent, even if that opponent isn't actually interacting with you. It's like two runners that can't see each other. They just try to do the best job possible. Who wins is dependent on the opponent, but there is no interaction. Dependancy =/= interaction. For the first one I don't need my players to be on the same map in Starcraft.
If your remove macro mechanics you take away tools for the players to distinguish themselves, you remove the choice of how to allocate time and attention, you remove the beauty of seeing the pros handle the different crises.
You can arbitrarily add any forms of tools to distinguish themselves. I can ask you to solve a math equation for every unit you build, it would produce great differences in skill. I can open 50pop-ups instead of having a 50second production time on a unit. You'd be amazed how much players start to distinguish themselves. None of that means those tools are good for the game. There should be much more to every tool in the game than just the question whether it scales with skill or not.
By your argument why don't we also automate rallies, adding production structures, queueing up units, etc? They obviously are single player actions independent of the opponent.
Because they involve tons of decisions. True, you might get caught in a situation in which you only want to make marines anyways and you just want them to be made consistently without over-/underqueuing. But in general the production buildings are set up in a way that you want to make the decision which unit to produce or maybe even to not produce for a moment. The given tools are already very optimized to ensure this, e.g. multiple building selection, hotkeys, control groups, smart-queuing. I haven't played grey goo, but I know that in SupCom the ability to auto-queue units was something that I only used sporadically because I changed the decision what to build all the time. Also SupComs income-system was specifically tinkered to work well-together with autoqueuing while SC2's income system is not. Hence, I feel like blizzard has automated these things very well already, but yes, if there were intuitive changes to improve that even further I would be all for them. The problem is that you would have to dumb the game down in the decision process to allow for automatization to even be useful. You simply don't want to autobuild drones all the time, not even in the first 3mins of the game. You want to mix in a pair of zerglings, or time your overlords in a specific way etc.
If anything its larva inject itself that is the problem, its too important and too polarizing in its effect. Larva inject itself should be changed, but macro mechanics as a concept shouldn't be removed, if anything we need to add more macro mechanics to the game to give players even more ways to distinguish themselves and to have some actual paragons of macro, players capable of just out-producing everyone else if they so chose.
This is a personal preference. I prefer games in which the macro of players doesn't make it plain obvious who is going to win and you can tell from the production tab and supply count who is going to win. "Did you really think X could stand up to INnoVation?" Well no, the game also was never really exciting because of that. INnoVation just had more stuff time and time again. I would miss that element of gameplay as much as I currently miss the element of gameplay in which you have a hero unit that outlevels the opponent's hero unit - not at all.
On August 04 2015 22:19 mishimaBeef wrote: It also affects average game length.
Cause and effect in SC2 isn't at all this deterministic. The never ending series of balance changes proves this rather well. So no, that's purely conjecture.
If you slow game speed down to fit more actions per unit time, the battles will last longer, stuff will build slower, stuff will move slower. I think it's likely the game length is increased.
Maybe the discussion can be helped with agreeing on certain things and create a logical discussion:
1. The opinion, likes or preferences of professional players have absolutely no matter in this issue at the current state of Sc2. They only exist because there are sponsors to support their teams and tournaments etc. Sponsors do that because they want something in return. Viewer numbers are really low for Sc2. Single players of other games get 5 times + as many viewers as side events of sc2. Main events of Sc2 hardly get a bit more viewers than a single cs or dota player that is messing around in public with random teammates at the same time.
Probably talking bullshit on a stream could grant you more viewers than streaming sc2 currently. If ppl, e.g. pro players insist on keeping their mechanics so that they can maintain their elaborated status, then they are digging their own progamer graves if this in the end doesn't help to attract more people to the game and sponsors gonna drop it.
(1) So the first thing to agree on is that the right decision for everyone included that likes to see sc2 to flourish for one or another reason is to do what potentially can attract more basic users to the game.
The question then is if reducing macro mechanic requiremtns is capable of doing so.
(2) As a matter of fact and opposed to what the opening post says, I think it is pretty clear that the high macro mechanics of sc2 compared to other games serve as an entry barrier for many players and drive them away.
Do these macro mechanics add anything to the strategic depth or decisionmaking process of the game?
(3) It can be agreed on that they don't or barely do.
How do these macro mechanics work exactly for player experience?
(4) It is only to some extend something that you acquire permanently. Every player has a basic level and can push this through practise to his personal temporary cap. While a pro player's basic level might be high grandmaster and practises alot to push it to world excellence a diamond players basic level might be platin but he pushes it with 100s of games to diamond but would fall back to platin if he isnt training anymore (compare MMR adaption).
So we are talking about a spread that is involved for any player. Everyone who is not practising frequently is more close to his basic level and in order to reach your cap of macro mechanics each player has an individual factor multiplied with games played per time that allows him to reach or come close to his own cap.
(5) I assume that players feel the game is fun when they are capable of playing close to their personal cap and I assume furthermore that players feel that the game is unfun when they are only capable of playing close to their basic level as described above.
As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it.
I wanted to write more about it but I will leave it to that, I guess its enough of information. Just let me add one more sentence:
Good macro mechanics is something that can be adoreable compared to how it is adoreable to be able to throw a ball as far as possible. If you don't train it almost every day you will lose the ability to throw it far even if you knew how to do it. In a world with alot of tasks, high workloads in schools, university and jobs, alot of people try to dodge things that require constant training such as throwing a ball as wide as possible. And in the matter of tv sports it is probably not exciting to watch someone who can throw a ball as wide as possible at all, no matter how hard it is and how long the guy has trained for it. If you are a thrower yourself and once were good at it, you wont continue to throw balls if you don't train for it daily, instead you simply leave it for good.
I'm probably in the minority, but I do find larvae inject fun. There is nothing more satisfying then squeaking out a win in a long TvZ when the game gets scrappy, and knowing it was because i managed to keep rolling my injects. If they remove/automate larvae inject I would probably stop playing Zerg.
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: Maybe the discussion can be helped with agreeing on certain things and create a logical discussion:
1. The opinion, likes or preferences of professional players have absolutely no matter in this issue at the current state of Sc2. They only exist because there are sponsors to support their teams and tournaments etc. Sponsors do that because they want something in return. Viewer numbers are really low for Sc2. Single players of other games get 5 times + as many viewers as side events of sc2. Main events of Sc2 hardly get a bit more viewers than a single cs or dota player that is messing around in public with random teammates at the same time.
Probably talking bullshit on a stream could grant you more viewers than streaming sc2 currently. If ppl, e.g. pro players insist on keeping their mechanics so that they can maintain their elaborated status, then they are digging their own progamer graves if this in the end doesn't help to attract more people to the game and sponsors gonna drop it.
(1) So the first thing to agree on is that the right decision for everyone included that likes to see sc2 to flourish for one or another reason is to do what potentially can attract more basic users to the game.
The question then is if reducing macro mechanic requiremtns is capable of doing so.
(2) As a matter of fact and opposed to what the opening post says, I think it is pretty clear that the high macro mechanics of sc2 compared to other games serve as an entry barrier for many players and drive them away.
Do these macro mechanics add anything to the strategic depth or decisionmaking process of the game?
(3) It can be agreed on that they don't or barely do.
How do these macro mechanics work exactly for player experience?
(4) It is only to some extend something that you acquire permanently. Every player has a basic level and can push this through practise to his personal temporary cap. While a pro player's basic level might be high grandmaster and practises alot to push it to world excellence a diamond players basic level might be platin but he pushes it with 100s of games to diamond but would fall back to platin if he isnt training anymore (compare MMR adaption).
So we are talking about a spread that is involved for any player. Everyone who is not practising frequently is more close to his basic level and in order to reach your cap of macro mechanics each player has an individual factor multiplied with games played per time that allows him to reach or come close to his own cap.
(5) I assume that players feel the game is fun when they are capable of playing close to their personal cap and I assume furthermore that players feel that the game is unfun when they are only capable of playing close to their basic level as described above.
As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it.
I wanted to write more about it but I will leave it to that, I guess its enough of information. Just let me add one more sentence:
Good macro mechanics is something that can be adoreable compared to how it is adoreable to be able to throw a ball as far as possible. If you don't train it almost every day you will lose the ability to throw it far even if you knew how to do it. In a world with alot of tasks, high workloads in schools, university and jobs, alot of people try to dodge things that require constant training such as throwing a ball as wide as possible. And in the matter of tv sports it is probably not exciting to watch someone who can throw a ball as wide as possible at all, no matter how hard it is and how long the guy has trained for it. If you are a thrower yourself and once were good at it, you wont continue to throw balls if you don't train for it daily, instead you simply leave it for good.
Don't have time to explain atm, I will try to flesh this out later, but i do not agree with several of the things you say can be agreed upon.
On August 04 2015 23:11 Vedeynevin wrote: I'm probably in the minority, but I do find larvae inject fun. There is nothing more satisfying then squeaking out a win in a long TvZ when the game gets scrappy, and knowing it was because i managed to keep rolling my injects. If they remove/automate larvae inject I would probably stop playing Zerg.
I would probably quit the game if this goes through. I swore that to myself years ago.
On August 04 2015 21:57 Foudzing wrote: Its funny also because soO is one of the less entertaining players to watch, the only great games I can remember with him in it is when his opponent (usually a terran) goes on multitask mode and gives soO a run for his money, but it's never soO who create the plays, he's most of the time the defender, the passive player.
If all the players were like soO starcraft would be way less entertaining to watch.
False statements like this are infuriating. soO's only play passive when needed and he's easily in the aggro zerg bracket. Especially with his cheesy tendancies both vZ/P
On August 04 2015 23:11 Vedeynevin wrote: I'm probably in the minority, but I do find larvae inject fun. There is nothing more satisfying then squeaking out a win in a long TvZ when the game gets scrappy, and knowing it was because i managed to keep rolling my injects. If they remove/automate larvae inject I would probably stop playing Zerg.
Great writeup, good read. Perfectly summarizes my panic over blizzards suggestion (and frankly, their reasoning behind it made me seriously doubt that Blizzard knows what theyre doing).
Amazing article, expressing how I feel about the current "I'm noob but I criticise macro mechanism because I can't do it/understand it" that we see everywhere.
I feel like a lot of the arguments are just because you cant imagine the game without them. People here are already raging hard at something they have NEVER played without.
If playing an overlay of tetris awarded you with extra income, the game would be more demanding - but not more fun to play or watch. Thats exactly the point.
there isnt a single player here that can reach the limits of macro in this game, even without the macro mechanics - and thats exactly why we should try without them for a while. If it sucks, just bring them back.
I think this is one of the most cleaving topic in STR community. Multitasking vs Strategy. S vs T (STR)
I disagree that simplifying mechanics will reduce complexity. It will just force the players to change their focus. Complexity and competitiveness will move towards more strategic complexity. As player like sOs shows us everyday, there is still plenty of strategies to discover.
A STR game should be a battle of strategy, where it is my build against your build, I will surprise you with a variation in the meta-game, and you could counter it with a nice scout and correct anticipation, etc.. Real time provide excitement and continuous show.
What I do not like in SC2 is the multi-task fights (like ZvT), the repetitive actions(injections) and all actions that do not mean decisions.
Besides, TL community is, by design, people that already love SC2 like it is, so naturally they don't want to change one of the "basic" concepts of the game. But there is many STR players that do not play SC2 because they have the feeling it is too difficult. In the end, blizzard should do the game they love themselves, because the SC2 community favor SC2 concept, but if the concept changes, some players will quit and some will join that community.
On August 04 2015 23:21 ImgTrinity wrote: Amazing article, expressing how I feel about the current "I'm noob but I criticise macro mechanism because I can't do it/understand it" that we see everywhere.
I don't get why people treat noobs like some inferior people who can't even have an opinion on the game. Guess what, a noob may have as much knowledge about the game as a self-styled "non-noob," the difference may actually lie in their lack of macro abilities. For which they have every right to criticise the game, even if they could improve if they tried really hard.
The thing is, the long term survival of the game is actually decided by the attitude of the noobs (also known as filthy casuals) towards the game. Because less players, less viewers, less sponsors, less events, less alive game.
Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing.
Archon mode games aren't rhetoric. They are proof of the increased excitement and strategy that is created with more multitasking creativity. And I don't think anyone is arguing that it is easy to win an archon mode match or that they have hit the skill ceiling.
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing.
noones asking to remove the running from soccer, this is just a heavily biased article that picks away at quotes with arguments that dont even make sense at times. Ill give you some examples of doing the same thing.
Queen energy shows how many times you’ve missed an inject. 25 means you missed 1, 50 means you missed 2 and so on.
Queen energy can be spent on tumors if you miss injects, if you have 0 energy you could have missed 2 injects but placed 4 tumors.
then there are the 2 video examples of Flash playing against solar and soo that make me wonder if hes even watched the games. First of all, nothing indicates how well these players have injected. Without studying the replay there is no way to tell (which is exactly what blizzard is saying) Second, the builds and openings from both players are vastly different. In one game there are heavy drone losses, a banshee and the "identical push" comes 7 minutes later.
You can love macro mechanics, thats fine - but these personal opinion articles are just silly.
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so.
All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned.
On August 04 2015 23:47 mishimaBeef wrote: Archon mode games aren't rhetoric. They are proof of the increased excitement and strategy that is created with more multitasking creativity. And I don't think anyone is arguing that it is easy to win an archon mode match or that they have hit the skill ceiling.
They are the proof that doubling your apm would increase the things you can do. wow. So sure, if you wanna remove macro alltogether you have a lot more apm for micro/multitask. At that point it may be comparable to archon mode.
What this doesn't address is that the multitasking required for these things still will be a too big obstacle for the average player. He won't have to macro, but he will still be overwhelmed by the nature of rts design => the guy who can multitask better (in this example all his multitasking is micro focused) will win the game. Then there are the people who wanna have strategy > mechanics, i will never understand why these people don't play round based strategy, but ok. (that may be offensive to some of you who are on TL, sry i guess)
What is our goal now? Appeal to the average guy who hates multitasking? We will get a lot of players this way for sure, but the only way to make the game exiting to watch is to focus on teamgames (maybe you mentioned archon because of that?). Or do we wanna make the game fun to watch without the multiplayer requirement? Then we need multitasking no matter what, which will probably mean low player numbers. Kinda hard to solve this, huh
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so.
All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned.
100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping.
Sorry but I completely disagree with the writer's opinion. Being not fun is a great argument for removal. Not having enough larva could had been solved by more hatcheries. Not knowing what the opponent is doing does not make a great excuse for having it non-visible for opinion.
If it requires great deal of mechanics, maybe even more so than in game micro, then it obviously should be more visible. Blizzard loves to use creep as the best example.
Let's view back vods and how many have time to actually pause at zerg's base queens and comment on the energy? Even then, the energy used for transfuse is very much just creep queen not spreading creep efficiently and therefore having enough energy for transfuse.
Energy for late game Terran and Protoss and more or less zerg, are basically spam abilities, there is no more trade off between mule or scan for example when you have 15 CCs built around.
If macro mechanics are to be kept, they need to be improved by a great deal and far more viewer friendly.
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so.
All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned.
100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping.
Ofc you could theoretically remove running from soccer, it just doesn't occur to anyone in their right mind cause running is a natural thing to do. Apparently pressing buttons on your keyboard isn't a natural thing, thus it can be removed. (that might be the logic?)
People are way too fixated on specific actions being fun imo, it simply doesn't matter, the whole experience has to be fun as a whole => the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
even more people are watching TV. by your logic we should remove all strategic aspects about sc2 and just make it into a TV-show about relations and drama or whatever.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
Ok, now we have to find the reason WHY this is the case. What exactly is unfun? As i said in other posts, i think the major "unfun" aspect of sc2 is the multitasking requirement. In sc2 you need a lot of multitasking for action to happen, in all the other games this isn't the case because they are team games and none of the players has to do any multitasking. So, do we really want that for sc2? Is the 1vs1 focus the wrong one? (Archon mode could tackle this problem, maybe)
On August 04 2015 23:21 ImgTrinity wrote: Amazing article, expressing how I feel about the current "I'm noob but I criticise macro mechanism because I can't do it/understand it" that we see everywhere.
Actually most of the people you see criticizing macro mechanics here are competent players. I'm a master zerg player myself (GM on lotv beta though that doesn't mean a thing), with good injects, yet I'm all for making macro mechanics slightly less overwhelming. It would definitely make me lose some "skill" relative to the average player but I'm happy with it because it would make for a better game (with less mindless APM spam but more strategy and action).
In the past, I have spent hundreds of hours practising with the arcade "multitasking trainer" just to get to a decent APM. Unlike most of the other player I know (who already quit playing SC2) I didn't completely hate that process but I sure didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I did playing the game. The fact that this feels like a necessary step to even begin to enjoy the strategic aspects of the game is just sad. If new players get the opportunity to enjoy the game without going through the same things we had to, good for them!
Like many others here, I'm the only one left from a group of 10+ friends who used to play SC2. They all loved brainstorming about strategy and getting better at the game but they got increasingly frustrated with the fact you have to spend a huge amount of time working specifically on the most boring facets of the game just to be able to enjoy everything else SC2 has to offer.
Your post makes it sound like the main reason why you're so attached to macro mechanics is that they make you feel good about being competent at something. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the kind of person who likes to put down the people you play by calling them noobs or whatever. Imo, that kind of attitude and the overwhelming macro requirements are the two main things that turn off new players.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
even more people are watching TV. by your logic we should remove all strategic aspects about sc2 and just make it into a TV-show about relations and drama or whatever.
And by your logic we should make every game, sport, book, movie, music into a TV show because most people watch TV. Seriously... the greatest strawman the north has ever seen.
On August 04 2015 23:21 Qwizzyx wrote: The fact that this beautiful article even need to exist makes me sad.
I have no idea what people see in the larva inject mechanic, or MULE for that part. The whole thing reads like sentimental bullshitting. What was that thing about MMA and Gumiho not being able to distinguish themselves after medivac boost became a thing? MMA fell off in like 2012 and had a resurgence in HotS. HE couldn't even replicate his own play style to decent effect by the end of WoL because the hyper aggression that he pulled off was dead.
His assertion that macro mechanics add complexity to the game is wrong. It makes playing the game more complicated, much in the same way that having to crank something in front of your car frequently to keep it going is also more complicated than just turning the key and going. That's not complexity, it's busy work that shouldn't need to be done to play the game.
His Flash vs soO game example was also pretty bad. He chalks it up to soO's superior mechanics at the start of his breakdown, and how important injects were (yes, if you have bad injects you'll fall behind), and then goes on to talk about how what really won the game is how masterfully he played out the engagements. Nobody cared that he hit his injects so crisply, because it's it's arbitrary busywork in the game. If inject never existed and the larva just popped on a 40 second timer nobody would have said "hey, what if we made an ability on the queen that required you to babysit the hatchery and hit an on/off switch frequently or your production capacity would be cut in half? That sounds like a fun and interesting idea!" because it's not a good move. The only reason it ever existed in the first place was to placate the BW fans who thought that having workers auto mine from rally would ruin the game by dumbing it down. Not surprisingly those same people were also up in arms when auto mine from start was put in, only to find out that it actually doesn't matter at all.
He does make a decent point about how it establishes baseline multitasking, but the problem is that it's the video game equivalent of patting your head and rubbing your belly. It's not necessary. Why do we insist on having bad mechanics in the game for the sake of giving people something to do? Is the game really so bad that we have to put mindless, repetitive actions in our strategy game so that we aren't just sitting there doing nothing? I don't think it's gotten that bad.
His claim about Protoss having to choose where spending chrono boost wisely is accurate if you ask me. My only complaint is that you need to keep revisiting the building to reapply the chrono boost when it wears off. I'd suggest that they be stackable so that casting a 2nd one on an active one adds 20 seconds to the duration. It doesn't effect the decision making part of it but it would take much of the busy work out of it. Chrono Boost is also nice because it's a useful tool at times when scouting. Overall I think it should stay, but we should keep our minds open to the idea of making adjustments to it.
As for the Terran macro mechanics, they are a level above Zerg as far as decision making, but it's not a huge gap. Supply Drop is almost always inferior to MULE, and scan is almost never a real "choice". There are times when you need them, like for clearing creep or sniping cloaked units, and when those times are not up you MULE because even for scouting it's often more cost effective to send an SCV out on the map, build a barracks, float it to where you want to scout and let it die than waste the MULE. What a choice! That being said, with MULE gone and other mechanics nerfed a bit there is a legitimate case for supply drop going in as a macro mechanic. This is interesting because it actually changes the value of the building it is applied to. Suddenly that depot that is ignored for reactors, upgrades, and worker lines starts to look like a much juicier target, and Terran may have to plan their base defense accordingly to deal with harass sniping dropped depots. This adds counter play. Right now MULE doesn't really encourage counter play. It's a given for most of the time, and it encourages the asinine practice of making a dozen OCs and saccing 80% of the workers on the map in favor of MULES.
My thoughts on potential changes are as follows:
Spawn Larva is a stupid ability that does nothing but cut the production of Zerg by more than half if it's forgotten, and lets the race operate as it's supposed to if done perfectly. Remove it, make it base-line, or put the ability on the hatchery itself with a spawning pool requirement at least so the queen can actually do the only really interesting thing that the queen can do; spread creep. Zerg will make them anyway for early game defense and creep spread. Right now it's just a cluster fuck of uninteresting play.
Chrono Boost should be stackable such that adding a 2nd Chrono to an active one extends the duration of it by 20s. This only serves to keep the current decision making of chrono boost (which is decent) while removing the tedium of babysitting an upgrade to keep it boosted. It is only a QoL improvement.
MULE, if it has to stay, needs to be reduced in effectiveness so that it's not such a clearly superior decision to the other two abilities sharing the energy pool. This will obviously require changes to the numbers of other race mechanics, or a buff to Terran to compensate (the former would likely be easier to balance). Making MULEs mine at a similar rate as 2 SCVs instead of ~4 might be somewhere in the target area, and also have the benefit of making end game mass OC less viable and also encouraging more MULEs dropped in the field as emergency repair (yay real options!), also it puts less overall emphasis on OCs in the first place, possibly even to the point where PFs become a real option. Nerfing MULE also has the effect of improving the value of Supply Drop as an instant, but more dangerous way to spend energy as relying on too many super depots can really bite you in the ass if strong harass comes around and picks of 3-4 super depots and the energy isn't there to drop more.
Remember, you always have the choice to shoot yourself in the foot or not to shoot yourself in the foot, but when the payoff is getting shot in the foot it's almost never a real choice.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
I wonder who actually gave the feedback that injects aren't fun. I don't think blizzard came up with it themselves. Do they have sources that indicate it is a majority of people who think that way? The Community Update of July 17th suggests that this direction, maybe even this particular idea of pushing the macromechanics back comes from the Korean professional players. The very players that are used as argument for those mechanics in the OP.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
I wonder who actually gave the feedback that injects aren't fun. I don't think blizzard came up with it themselves. Do they have sources that indicate it is a majority of people who think that way? The Community Update of July 17th suggests that this direction, maybe even this particular idea of pushing the macromechanics back comes from the Korean professional players. The very players that are used as argument for those mechanics in the OP.
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so.
All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned.
100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping.
We can go on forever with the analogies, a bit hard to discuss like this imo.
Soccer and running aside, the point was that macro mechanics are a substantial part of the game's identity. Changing the game to the point it doesn't feel the same to attract a new public is not the way to go. Each of the old players will have to ask themselves if they like this "new game that feels familiar".
Its not necessarily a bad thing, but i don't think its the right way to make a game expansion. Limited unit selection was part of BW identity and im glad it changed. The result? Many BW players disliked it and still play BW or don't play Starcraft at all. However, SC2 was a new game and changing the game's identity was expected.
As Nony pointed out, SC2 was designed as a sport-like game and things like game mechanics that can always be improved but are never perfected was a way to achieve this goal. Is it fun? Some tasks may not be fun themselves but they are part of the fun in a competitive game designed to be a sport.
If blizzard thinks LotV should feel like SC3 then fine, i disagree with this decision but im ok with that. Nedless to say many people dislike it too (surely, some are not ok with that).
Im not saying that changing the macro mechanics will turn it into a different game, im merely pointing out that the game's identity should be taken into account. Just ask yourselves this question: "Is this game still SC2 with no chrono boost, larvae inject and mules?" This is not rhetorical, i think its a relevant question to the topic.
I agree, preserving the game's identity is not always a good reason to dismiss change proposals. But it can be.
On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote: I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence:
Being “not fun” is not an argument.
Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table.
I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed
Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective.
And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2.
There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
even more people are watching TV. by your logic we should remove all strategic aspects about sc2 and just make it into a TV-show about relations and drama or whatever.
And by your logic we should make every game, sport, book, movie, music into a TV show because most people watch TV. Seriously... the greatest strawman the north has ever seen.
do you really believe his argument is worth a serious counter-argument?
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so.
All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned.
100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping.
We can go on forever with the analogies, a bit hard to discuss like this imo.
Soccer and running aside, the point was that macro mechanics are a substantial part of the game's identity. Changing the game to the point it doesn't feel the same to attract a new public is not the way to go. Each of the old players will have to ask themselves if they like this "new game that feels familiar".
Its not necessarily a bad thing, but i don't think its the right way to make a game expansion. Limited unit selection was part of BW identity and im glad it changed. The result? Many BW players disliked it and still play BW or don't play Starcraft at all. However, SC2 was a new game and changing the game's identity was expected.
As Nony pointed out, SC2 was designed as a sport-like game and things like game mechanics that can always be improved but are never perfected was a way to achieve this goal.
If blizzard thinks LotV should feel like SC3 then fine, i disagree with this decision but im ok with that. Nedless to say many people dislike it too.
Im not saying that changing the macro mechanics will turn it into a different game, im merely pointing out that the game's identity should be taken into account. Just ask yourselves this question: "Is this game still SC2 with no chrono boost, larvae inject and mules?" This is not rhetorical, i think its a relevant question to the topic.
I agree, preserving the game's identity is not always a good reason to dismiss change proposals. But it can be.
But why is it the game's identity? Why weren't Swarm Hosts part of the HotS identity? They were also deeply rooted. Why don't we have the same argument against introducing the adept? Why does Protoss get a core unit that completely messes up the identity? Why is practically removing the Colossus, the most iconic unit of SC2-Protoss not a change of identity? I think this argument is very arbitrary and I'm not going to give someone else prerogative of interpretation over what I should think is the game's identity. For me inject's are plainly not part of the game's identity. It is a spell like any other, just a very powerful and poorly designed one.
Well, I enjoy strategy games, I'm more impressed with people's brains than I am with people's hands, and so I'm obviously all for less of what I don't really care about.
That being said, I don't see it happening, and considering how the community views protoss in general I'm kind of perplexed by Blizzard's proposition to push the game in the protoss direction.
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so.
All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned.
100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping.
We can go on forever with the analogies, a bit hard to discuss like this imo.
Soccer and running aside, the point was that macro mechanics are a substantial part of the game's identity. Changing the game to the point it doesn't feel the same to attract a new public is not the way to go. Each of the old players will have to ask themselves if they like this "new game that feels familiar".
Its not necessarily a bad thing, but i don't think its the right way to make a game expansion. Limited unit selection was part of BW identity and im glad it changed. The result? Many BW players disliked it and still play BW or don't play Starcraft at all. However, SC2 was a new game and changing the game's identity was expected.
As Nony pointed out, SC2 was designed as a sport-like game and things like game mechanics that can always be improved but are never perfected was a way to achieve this goal.
If blizzard thinks LotV should feel like SC3 then fine, i disagree with this decision but im ok with that. Nedless to say many people dislike it too.
Im not saying that changing the macro mechanics will turn it into a different game, im merely pointing out that the game's identity should be taken into account. Just ask yourselves this question: "Is this game still SC2 with no chrono boost, larvae inject and mules?" This is not rhetorical, i think its a relevant question to the topic.
I agree, preserving the game's identity is not always a good reason to dismiss change proposals. But it can be.
But why is it the game's identity? Why weren't Swarm Hosts part of the HotS identity? They were also deeply rooted. Why don't we have the same argument against introducing the adept? Why does Protoss get a core unit that completely messes up the identity? Why is practically removing the Colossus, the most iconic unit of SC2-Protoss not a change of identity? I think this argument is very arbitrary and I'm not going to give someone else prerogative of interpretation over what I should think is the game's identity. For me inject's are plainly not part of the game's identity. It is a spell like any other, just a very powerful and poorly designed one.
When it comes to macro mechanics, i think changing them can hurt the competitive (sport-like) aspect of the game, sorry, i was editing the post too because i realized its not very clear. Iconic units are part of this identity too, the question is how much can we change it. Removing and including a couple units is not nearly as significative imo. They are the tools, not the core.
PS: Im not against changing the macro mechanics, i think proposed changes should be tested and discussed. Im against the removal of chrono, mules and inject tho.
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
NonY, did you really just compare injecting larva and dropping MULEs with running? Here's the thing, for a lot of people running isn't the most fun part of soccer, if it were people would probably just take up track because it will give them maximum fun for the duration. However, part of soccer isn't just kicking a ball and team work. There's a lot of positioning, and actual direct competing for the ball. If you can find a way for soccer players to move around the field in real time and interact with each other quickly there might not actually be a need for running in soccer.
There always the case for excitement with running too. There's a lot of excitement to be had by a sweet break away down the field, and a lot of tension if the defense might catch up. Not even Apollo, for all his hype, could get away with making an inject something to get out of your seat for. It's not even good for the spectators. Running, as you put it, is a clear case of a game having something necessary, but perhaps a bit lackluster, to allow you to do the other things in the game.
Inject Larva isn't actually required to make the game play better. It just exists to give a player something to do. If we're really that hurt for things to do in the game let's remove it and put something that not only gives us something to do, but also has a higher skill ceiling, real counter play, decisions, and doesn't cut your production in half just for forgetting about it for a little bit (while also eating into your limited supply count). The same goes for MULEs.
Largely, I think Chrono Boost is pretty ok because it offers players real choices, but could use some touching up.
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
@Nony
Sure you could argue that Sc2 should stay as it is and therefore inevitably continue to get more and more niche. This is the big question to think and argue about. In which direction do we want to go? But one thing is fact as well: The less people overall play and invest into sc2 the less sponsors players, teams and tournaments will get. This in return will also make alot of the top players go to where the money (and possibly also where the fun) is.
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so.
All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned.
100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping.
We can go on forever with the analogies, a bit hard to discuss like this imo.
Soccer and running aside, the point was that macro mechanics are a substantial part of the game's identity. Changing the game to the point it doesn't feel the same to attract a new public is not the way to go. Each of the old players will have to ask themselves if they like this "new game that feels familiar".
Its not necessarily a bad thing, but i don't think its the right way to make a game expansion. Limited unit selection was part of BW identity and im glad it changed. The result? Many BW players disliked it and still play BW or don't play Starcraft at all. However, SC2 was a new game and changing the game's identity was expected.
As Nony pointed out, SC2 was designed as a sport-like game and things like game mechanics that can always be improved but are never perfected was a way to achieve this goal.
If blizzard thinks LotV should feel like SC3 then fine, i disagree with this decision but im ok with that. Nedless to say many people dislike it too.
Im not saying that changing the macro mechanics will turn it into a different game, im merely pointing out that the game's identity should be taken into account. Just ask yourselves this question: "Is this game still SC2 with no chrono boost, larvae inject and mules?" This is not rhetorical, i think its a relevant question to the topic.
I agree, preserving the game's identity is not always a good reason to dismiss change proposals. But it can be.
But why is it the game's identity? Why weren't Swarm Hosts part of the HotS identity? They were also deeply rooted. Why don't we have the same argument against introducing the adept? Why does Protoss get a core unit that completely messes up the identity? Why is practically removing the Colossus, the most iconic unit of SC2-Protoss not a change of identity? I think this argument is very arbitrary and I'm not going to give someone else prerogative of interpretation over what I should think is the game's identity. For me inject's are plainly not part of the game's identity. It is a spell like any other, just a very powerful and poorly designed one.
When it comes to macro mechanics, i think changing them can hurt the competitive (sport-like) aspect of the game, sorry, i was editing the post too because i realized its not very clear. Iconic units are part of this identity too, the question is how much can we change it. Removing and including a couple units is not nearly as significative imo. They are the tools, not the core.
PS: Im not against changing the macro mechanics, i think proposed changes should be tested and discussed. Im against the removal of chrono, mules and inject tho.
That's of course a valid concern. I don't believe the game would be "too easy" or something, but it would definitely change a bit. Though less than people pretend. There is neither infinitely more to do that you could spend the extra attention on, nor are the macro mechanics that taxing - assuming you learned the right tricks like backspace inject-cycles - that professionals would suddenly play that much better due to that change. From a gameplay perspective I think this change gets more and more subtle (as this article shows, the difference is very subtle if even adressable towards soO's great injects at all) the higher you get. While a missed inject or 200stored energy on your CC are probably some of the bigger reasons why people lose games, aka "learn to macro".
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basis level than you fall back on during periods of inactivity. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
On August 04 2015 23:21 ImgTrinity wrote: Amazing article, expressing how I feel about the current "I'm noob but I criticise macro mechanism because I can't do it/understand it" that we see everywhere.
Actually most of the people you see criticizing macro mechanics here are competent players. I'm a master zerg player myself (GM on lotv beta though that doesn't mean a thing), with good injects, yet I'm all for making macro mechanics slightly less overwhelming. It would definitely make me lose some "skill" relative to the average player but I'm happy with it because it would make for a better game (with less mindless APM spam but more strategy and action).
In the past, I have spent hundreds of hours practising with the arcade "multitasking trainer" just to get to a decent APM. Unlike most of the other player I know (who already quit playing SC2) I didn't completely hate that process but I sure didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I did playing the game. The fact that this feels like a necessary step to even begin to enjoy the strategic aspects of the game is just sad. If new players get the opportunity to enjoy the game without going through the same things we had to, good for them!
Like many others here, I'm the only one left from a group of 10+ friends who used to play SC2. They all loved brainstorming about strategy and getting better at the game but they got increasingly frustrated with the fact you have to spend a huge amount of time working specifically on the most boring facets of the game just to be able to enjoy everything else SC2 has to offer.
Your post makes it sound like the main reason why you're so attached to macro mechanics is that they make you feel good about being competent at something. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the kind of person who likes to put down the people you play by calling them noobs or whatever. Imo, that kind of attitude and the overwhelming macro requirements are the two main things that turn off new players.
This is the truth ^
No amount of unit balance is going to fix it, the idea that brutally tedious game mechanics make the game interesting; has been proven false by every modern game. Some of the macro-rules are like playing QWOP or Surgeon Simulator because of myths that awkward redundant tasks are making the game better.
As if watching pros shift click their army instead of micro-ing it because they are too busy tabbing through queens to clicking their hatcheries 40 times a game is now somehow leading us to a bright future of RTS's games.
Its not a zero sum game, you can make macro mechanics less of a grind without making them less important. You can take out some of the mindless actions and give people room to make better decisions, its okay if this game takes a turn towards a more cognitive, smarter decision strategy game instead of bogging the whole game down in repetitive tasks.
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
NonY, did you really just compare injecting larva and dropping MULEs with running? Here's the thing, for a lot of people running isn't the most fun part of soccer, if it were people would probably just take up track because it will give them maximum fun for the duration. However, part of soccer isn't just kicking a ball and team work. There's a lot of positioning, and actual direct competing for the ball. If you can find a way for soccer players to move around the field in real time and interact with each other quickly there might not actually be a need for running in soccer.
There always the case for excitement with running too. There's a lot of excitement to be had by a sweet break away down the field, and a lot of tension if the defense might catch up. Not even Apollo, for all his hype, could get away with making an inject something to get out of your seat for. It's not even good for the spectators. Running, as you put it, is a clear case of a game having something necessary, but perhaps a bit lackluster, to allow you to do the other things in the game.
Inject Larva isn't actually required to make the game play better. It just exists to give a player something to do. If we're really that hurt for things to do in the game let's remove it and put something that not only gives us something to do, but also has a higher skill ceiling, real counter play, decisions, and doesn't cut your production in half just for forgetting about it for a little bit (while also eating into your limited supply count). The same goes for MULEs.
Largely, I think Chrono Boost is pretty ok because it offers players real choices, but could use some touching up.
yet there are football players who are famous for their ability to constantly run and stress their opponents. Theyre able to use their own stamina and endurance to stress out your opponents whos endurance/stamina are lesser than yours. Not everything has to be hypeable, macro mechanics are "subtle" yet, when well handled, provides a great satisfaction to viewers and players who appreciate the mechanical aspects of the game.
Why does the game have to be about mindless hyping, loudness and standing in your seat?
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
Personally I never had to solely practice how to inject larva "for hundreds of hours" in a macro trainer, playing games and having fun learning is why I want macro mechanics to continue to be a part of the game.
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again.
I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak.
Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't.
As someone who figured out sc2 was a simplistic piece of trash rapidly descending into even worse crap, I'm pleased to see that Blizzard genuinely is interested in killing RTS as a genre, and I wasnt simply paranoid. "Lets remove macro!" LOL
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again.
I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak.
Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't.
I think the argument is more akin to: rts is played in a particular manner, and if you remove enough of its features and dumb it down appreciably enough, your no longer playing the same game, or the same genre. And they like it how it is, and would rather see it die a slow natural death than simply change into crap. I'm not interested in doing whats good for the genre, if whats good is the end of macro for crying out loud.
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again.
I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak.
Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't.
Assuming people would watch sc2 more if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
On August 05 2015 02:46 Dazed_Spy wrote: As someone who figured out sc2 was a simplistic piece of trash rapidly descending into even worse crap, I'm pleased to see that Blizzard genuinely is interested in killing RTS as a genre, and I wasnt simply paranoid. "Lets remove macro!" LOL
Bullshit talking like this should be banned out of these forums if it was moderated correctly.
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again.
I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak.
Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't.
Assuming people would watch sc2 more if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
No!
The logical assumption is that ppl watch the games that they play themselves.
I wonder why I have to explain the world to everyone, really ;-(
On August 05 2015 02:46 Dazed_Spy wrote: As someone who figured out sc2 was a simplistic piece of trash rapidly descending into even worse crap, I'm pleased to see that Blizzard genuinely is interested in killing RTS as a genre, and I wasnt simply paranoid. "Lets remove macro!" LOL
Bullshit talking like this should be banned out of these forums if it was moderated correctly.
Yes because theres no thematic link between SC2's introduction of auto mining, multi building select, and their current intentions to whole sale remove macro.
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again.
I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak.
Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change.
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.
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again.
I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak.
Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't.
Assuming people would watch sc2 more if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
No!
The logical assumption is that ppl watch the games that they play themselves.
I wonder why I have to explain the world to everyone, really ;-(
And i wonder why you think you are so much smarter than anyone else here. Ok then again, assuming that significantly more people would play the game if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again.
I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak.
Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't.
Assuming people would watch sc2 more if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
No!
The logical assumption is that ppl watch the games that they play themselves.
I wonder why I have to explain the world to everyone, really ;-(
And i wonder why you think you are so much smarter than anyone else here. Ok then again, assuming that significantly more people would play the game if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
Someone a few posts above you told me that there are mechanically less demanding games like mobas or CS and I should go play these games instead.
What do you think is the main difference between CS:GO or mobas and Sc2? It is the mechanical requirement to play the game.
Now it is about you to explain me what other reason than these mechanical requirement are responsible for esports shifting towards these games and not about me to explain the obvious.
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: [quote] Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again.
I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak.
Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't.
Assuming people would watch sc2 more if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
No!
The logical assumption is that ppl watch the games that they play themselves.
I wonder why I have to explain the world to everyone, really ;-(
And i wonder why you think you are so much smarter than anyone else here. Ok then again, assuming that significantly more people would play the game if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
Someone a few posts above you told me that there are mechanically less demanding games like mobas or CS and I should go play these games instead.
What do you think is the main difference between CS:GO or mobas and Sc2? It is the mechanical requirement to play the game.
Now it is about you to explain me what other reason than these mechanical requirement are responsible for esports shifting towards these games and not about me to explain the obvious.
Nice of you to use my post where Im telling you, if you dont enjoy mechanics, maybe you shouldnt try to play a game that requires mechanics, when there are other games, like company of heroes, hearthstones, Grey goo, command and conquer etc that require almost no mechanics.
There are plenty of less popular games than sc2 that are way less mechanically demanding. To use your own logic: the cause of them being less popular is obviously because of them being less mechanically demanding than SC2, now prove me wrong.
I already mentioned this elsewhere, the main difference is that they are teamgames and thus need to multitasking to create constant action all over the map. Now it depends what removing mechanics means exactly. If we talk about removing macro completely you still will need to multitask a lot, which is exactly what people in general don't like if you ask me. All these mobas and csgo have this in common, no multitasking (in general)
I doubt we want to remove mechanics alltogether?
If we wanna make the game less mechanical (which in reality means 'less about multitasking') we get pretty fast to a problem that it will be hard to make the game actually exciting, for watching. More players = more viewers isn't true all the time, the conversion rates are a big deal here (sc2 has a lot of viewers if we consider the active ladder base, lol has a low viewer count if we consider it) http://www.ongamers.com/articles/dreamhack-hearthstone-numbers-are-out-550-000-uniques/1100-1788/ this article says hearthstone had about 55k viewers for the finals, that's pretty low for a game with 30 million players (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/05/hearthstone-reaches-30-million-players) for example.
So what is the point here? The game has to be exciting to watch competetively as well, which means a lot of action (mobas, csgo) How do we manage to do this without the need of multitasking? You would need to redesign sc2 quite a bit, removing some macro mechanics won't do anything to get there. (i actually think archon mode might be the best solution => go the route all the other big esports do, teamgames)
You should at least agree on that high mechanical demands is something that holds alot of players back from playing Sc2 and not the other way round. Cause that is common sense. Therefore it is an entry barrier.
You can go and research yourself why coh or the companies behind it don't have the means or will to push it further e.g. with big tournaments and what other reasons there are in the game itself for why it is not as successful.
Sc2 and blizzard has everything that is needed. It is in one league with other tripple A multiplayer games like CS or Dota so that I would rather search to compare it with these games.
Wow, rifkin said at The International, they have lightning effects go off in the crowd whenever Zeus, the lightning guy does his global ultimate spell!
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so.
All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned.
100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping.
We can go on forever with the analogies, a bit hard to discuss like this imo.
Soccer and running aside, the point was that macro mechanics are a substantial part of the game's identity. Changing the game to the point it doesn't feel the same to attract a new public is not the way to go. Each of the old players will have to ask themselves if they like this "new game that feels familiar".
Its not necessarily a bad thing, but i don't think its the right way to make a game expansion. Limited unit selection was part of BW identity and im glad it changed. The result? Many BW players disliked it and still play BW or don't play Starcraft at all. However, SC2 was a new game and changing the game's identity was expected.
As Nony pointed out, SC2 was designed as a sport-like game and things like game mechanics that can always be improved but are never perfected was a way to achieve this goal.
If blizzard thinks LotV should feel like SC3 then fine, i disagree with this decision but im ok with that. Nedless to say many people dislike it too.
Im not saying that changing the macro mechanics will turn it into a different game, im merely pointing out that the game's identity should be taken into account. Just ask yourselves this question: "Is this game still SC2 with no chrono boost, larvae inject and mules?" This is not rhetorical, i think its a relevant question to the topic.
I agree, preserving the game's identity is not always a good reason to dismiss change proposals. But it can be.
But why is it the game's identity? Why weren't Swarm Hosts part of the HotS identity? They were also deeply rooted. Why don't we have the same argument against introducing the adept? Why does Protoss get a core unit that completely messes up the identity? Why is practically removing the Colossus, the most iconic unit of SC2-Protoss not a change of identity? I think this argument is very arbitrary and I'm not going to give someone else prerogative of interpretation over what I should think is the game's identity. For me inject's are plainly not part of the game's identity. It is a spell like any other, just a very powerful and poorly designed one.
When it comes to macro mechanics, i think changing them can hurt the competitive (sport-like) aspect of the game, sorry, i was editing the post too because i realized its not very clear. Iconic units are part of this identity too, the question is how much can we change it. Removing and including a couple units is not nearly as significative imo. They are the tools, not the core.
PS: Im not against changing the macro mechanics, i think proposed changes should be tested and discussed. Im against the removal of chrono, mules and inject tho.
That's of course a valid concern. I don't believe the game would be "too easy" or something, but it would definitely change a bit. Though less than people pretend. There is neither infinitely more to do that you could spend the extra attention on, nor are the macro mechanics that taxing - assuming you learned the right tricks like backspace inject-cycles - that professionals would suddenly play that much better due to that change. From a gameplay perspective I think this change gets more and more subtle (as this article shows, the difference is very subtle if even adressable towards soO's great injects at all) the higher you get. While a missed inject or 200stored energy on your CC are probably some of the bigger reasons why people lose games, aka "learn to macro".
I agree.
Removing mules, chrono and inject makes it easier to macro - specially for newcomers - making micro and strategy more important in lower levels of play. Its true, when learning the game we have fun with micro and unit compositions, but we win or lose mostly with macro.
Players on mid-high level and above enjoy a more complete experience, we need the full skill set to win. While new players need to practice macro if they want to improve fast. To the point that some macro training tool is better than actual play.
But removing those mechanics is a lazy solution. If there was no down side, or if everyone was happy with the removal of macro mechanics then its all good. But thats not the case. Blizzard can come up with some good changes that don't hurt the identity of the game and don't have a backlash from (what im guessing is) a big chunk of the community. Even if its a vocal minority i think its a minority with a point.
On August 05 2015 01:53 PulcoAgrumes wrote: What about dividing the gameplay based on the race?
If you play Zerg, mechanics are favored against strategy If you play Protoss, strategy is more important than mechanics
It is already the case imo and maybe it just needs to be assumed like this.
Not sure about your specific proposal, but i agree they should look at each race individually.
On August 05 2015 03:15 mishimaBeef wrote: Wow, rifkin said at The International, they have lightning effects go off in the crowd whenever Zeus, the lightning guy does his global ultimate spell!
Now that's epic!
Heh, I think you might have ended up in the wrong thread :D
On August 04 2015 23:52 weikor wrote: noones asking to remove the running from soccer, this is just a heavily biased article that picks away at quotes with arguments that dont even make sense at times. Ill give you some examples of doing the same thing.
Nony's argument wasn't not a reduction to absurdity, it was an analogy or even merely an image, and therefore it does not rely on the statement "you should remove running from soccer" to actually be held true by anybody.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
On top of being an analogy, Nony's point is an abstract one, he's not drawing a parallel between 'running in soccer' and 'macro in starcraft' because they are the same thing, but because they share some characteristics : - they are somewhat separate from strategy and tactics, although they feed into those - they require repetition training since they heavily involve muscle memory - to most people they are not fun in themselves - instead of involving decisions, they are mostly quantitative, it's a matter of being faster, more precise, more endurant etc., there's no two ways about it
In short, 'running in soccer' and 'macro in SC2' represent the crude physical components of their respective games, and the more rewarding and the more relevant this component is in a game, the more a player can count on the effectiveness of going for this material advantage. In a game like chess, truly materialistic advantage doesn't exist as you can only gain "material advantage" through tactics and strategies, you can't flex your muscles to generate an additional pawn, for example.
However, in soccer as in starcraft, you may theorycraft as much as you want with your Os and your Xs on a drawing board, you may know the perfect ideal answer to every situation, you are going no where if your opponent has you beat in the material department, if you're not competing in terms of execution.
To me the debate is between people who like to win by going for the raw material advantage and more cerebral people who like games won by mind blowing strategical moves and decision-making.
I like to think that SC2 has both and should keep having both.
On August 05 2015 03:14 LSN wrote: You should at least agree on that high mechanical demands is something that holds alot of players back from playing Sc2 and not the other way round. Cause that is common sense. Therefore it is an entry barrier.
You can go and research yourself why coh or the companies behind it don't have the means or will to push it further e.g. with big tournaments and what other reasons there are in the game itself for why it is not as successful.
Sc2 and blizzard has everything that is needed. It is in one league with other tripple A multiplayer games like CS or Dota so that I would rather search to compare it with these games.
On August 04 2015 23:52 weikor wrote: noones asking to remove the running from soccer, this is just a heavily biased article that picks away at quotes with arguments that dont even make sense at times. Ill give you some examples of doing the same thing.
Nony's argument wasn't not a reduction to absurdity, it was an analogy or even merely an image, and therefore it does not rely on the statement "you should remove running from soccer" to actually be held true by anybody.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
On top of being an analogy, Nony's point is an abstract one, he's not drawing a parallel between 'running in soccer' and 'macro in starcraft' because they are the same thing, but because they share some characteristics : - they are somewhat separate from strategy and tactics, although they feed into those - they require repetition training since they heavily involve muscle memory - to most people they are not fun in themselves - instead of involving decisions, they are mostly quantitative, it's a matter of being faster, more precise, more endurant etc., there's no two ways about it
In short, 'running in soccer' and 'macro in SC2' represent the crude physical components of their respective games, and the more rewarding and the more relevant this component is in a game, the more a player can count on the effectiveness of going for this material advantage. In a game like chess, truly materialistic advantage doesn't exist as you can only gain "material advantage" through tactics and strategies, you can't flex your muscles to generate an additional pawn, for example.
However, in soccer as in starcraft, you may theorycraft as much as you want with your Os and your Xs on a drawing board, you may know the perfect ideal answer to every situation, you are going no where if your opponent has you beat in the material department, if you're not competing in terms of execution.
To me the debate is between people who like to win by going for the raw material advantage and more cerebral people who like games won by mind blowing strategical moves and decision-making.
I like to think that SC2 has both and should keep having both.
I think everyone understands the analogy, you don't need to explain it.
The reason that analogy has no value is you couldn't remove running from soccer even if you wanted to. Therefore the fact that it is still a part of soccer (despite not being a strategic element) doesn't give us any insight about whether we should keep macro mechanics or not.
On top of that, soccer isn't primarily labeled as a strategy game so it only makes sense that it would include a lot of non strategic elements. The fact that Starcraft is 90% mechanics and 10% strategy is a bit more worrisome.
On July 09 2015 01:02 Liquid`Ret wrote: It's the macro mechanics that speed up the game immensely. Which it why it feels much more fast-paced and if you disregard the aspect of how hard it was to control your shit properly in BW mechanically, it's actually a harder game because you make decisions much faster and there is 0 room for error.
Chronoboost drops off in utility as the game progresses. The effort/attention cost of casting it starts to outweight the benefits. Once you're far enough in the game (e.g. all upgrades done) it's a fair trade to chose "doing other things", since "doing macro mechanics" wouldn't give you as much benefit.
Mules keep a pretty constant utility, maybe even increasing once you get many OC's. Since Mules can stack, it seems that using them gets EASIER as the game progresses, since you can be busy "dong other things", come back for a second to do 6x"macro mechanics" then move on.
Creep spread only ever gets harder, due to more surface area. There will never be a point in the game where a ready supply of larva isn't essential. Larva injection is always crucial, but worst of al, its difficulty scales (6 hatches are much harder to inject than 2). I don't think its fair, and its certainly grind-y as hell, to have to always inject into the lategame, especially when that's when you want to be doing just about everything else.
So, I think they should change injects, so that their difficulty or "effort required" stops scaling at some point. I think the best way to cap this difficulty would be to make "Autocast Inject Larva" upgradable at Hive tier, for a fair amount of money.
Where: You could get it from the Hive itself, or, if Blizzard really want you to use some obscure spell-caster, they could give the upgrade from that unit's building instead. Having it auto-cast outright would make it too easy. Putting it near the end of the game caps the added effort, but doesn't give everyone a cop-out at the earlier stages.
Cost: I'm thinking 500/500. If you're really pro and really dying, you can forgo it and just inject manually. But, if you can't spend all your money fast enough already, why not be allowed to purchase "Zerg Macro - Easy Mode Upgrade"? It's important to give it a cost as a dis-incentive. I for one would always research it, because I'm sick of being at risk of dying simply because I didn't perfectly hit my timings.
Or you could even make it researchable AND upgradable, where you'd have to pay extra to morph specific queens into "Hive Queen"s with auto-inject, and a different look (adding an extra harassment priority) but otherwise identical stats as normal queens.
On August 05 2015 03:14 LSN wrote: You should at least agree on that high mechanical demands is something that holds alot of players back from playing Sc2 and not the other way round. Cause that is common sense. Therefore it is an entry barrier.
You can go and research yourself why coh or the companies behind it don't have the means or will to push it further e.g. with big tournaments and what other reasons there are in the game itself for why it is not as successful.
Sc2 and blizzard has everything that is needed. It is in one league with other tripple A multiplayer games like CS or Dota so that I would rather search to compare it with these games.
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. 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. Because there isnt a demographic sitting out there that would "really like rts if only it was as easy to pick up as cod". Its moronic to suggest there is, and pointless too. If you personally dont like RTS' macro and multitasking functions, you dont like the game, so be gone. If you do, on the other hand, your potentially (lets be honest: certainly) supporting something that destroys a game you do like, for nothing.
On August 05 2015 04:12 bITt.mAN wrote: Chronoboost drops off in utility as the game progresses. The effort/attention cost of casting it starts to outweight the benefits. Once you're far enough in the game (e.g. all upgrades done) it's a fair trade to chose "doing other things", since "doing macro mechanics" wouldn't give you as much benefit.
Mules keep a pretty constant utility, maybe even increasing once you get many OC's. Since Mules can stack, it seems that using them gets EASIER as the game progresses, since you can be busy "dong other things", come back for a second to do 6x"macro mechanics" then move on.
Creep spread only ever gets harder, due to more surface area. There will never be a point in the game where a ready supply of larva isn't essential. Larva injection is always crucial, but worst of al, its difficulty scales (6 hatches are much harder to inject than 2). I don't think its fair, and its certainly grind-y as hell, to have to always inject into the lategame, especially when that's when you want to be doing just about everything else.
So, I think they should change injects, so that their difficulty or "effort required" stops scaling at some point. I think the best way to cap this difficulty would be to make "Autocast Inject Larva" upgradable at Hive tier, for a fair amount of money.
Where: You could get it from the Hive itself, or, if Blizzard really want you to use some obscure spell-caster, they could give the upgrade from that unit's building instead. Having it auto-cast outright would make it too easy. Putting it near the end of the game caps the added effort, but doesn't give everyone a cop-out at the earlier stages.
Cost: I'm thinking 500/500. If you're really pro and really dying, you can forgo it and just inject manually. But, if you can't spend all your money fast enough already, why not be allowed to purchase "Zerg Macro - Easy Mode Upgrade"? It's important to give it a cost as a dis-incentive. I for one would always research it, because I'm sick of being at risk of dying simply because I didn't perfectly hit my timings.
Or you could even make it researchable AND upgradable, where you'd have to pay extra to morph specific queens into "Hive Queen"s with auto-inject, and a different look (adding an extra harassment priority) but otherwise identical stats as normal queens.
making a 500-500 upgrade at the hive, for an autocast inject upgrade is most certainly not the way to go. It would be completely unuseable.
However hatcheries could produce extra larva once you reach Lair, and even more with hive... thats something worth considering.
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.
On August 04 2015 23:52 weikor wrote: noones asking to remove the running from soccer, this is just a heavily biased article that picks away at quotes with arguments that dont even make sense at times. Ill give you some examples of doing the same thing.
Nony's argument wasn't not a reduction to absurdity, it was an analogy or even merely an image, and therefore it does not rely on the statement "you should remove running from soccer" to actually be held true by anybody.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
On top of being an analogy, Nony's point is an abstract one, he's not drawing a parallel between 'running in soccer' and 'macro in starcraft' because they are the same thing, but because they share some characteristics : - they are somewhat separate from strategy and tactics, although they feed into those - they require repetition training since they heavily involve muscle memory - to most people they are not fun in themselves - instead of involving decisions, they are mostly quantitative, it's a matter of being faster, more precise, more endurant etc., there's no two ways about it
In short, 'running in soccer' and 'macro in SC2' represent the crude physical components of their respective games, and the more rewarding and the more relevant this component is in a game, the more a player can count on the effectiveness of going for this material advantage. In a game like chess, truly materialistic advantage doesn't exist as you can only gain "material advantage" through tactics and strategies, you can't flex your muscles to generate an additional pawn, for example.
However, in soccer as in starcraft, you may theorycraft as much as you want with your Os and your Xs on a drawing board, you may know the perfect ideal answer to every situation, you are going no where if your opponent has you beat in the material department, if you're not competing in terms of execution.
To me the debate is between people who like to win by going for the raw material advantage and more cerebral people who like games won by mind blowing strategical moves and decision-making.
I like to think that SC2 has both and should keep having both.
I think everyone understands the analogy, you don't need to explain it.
The reason that analogy has no value is you couldn't remove running from soccer even if you wanted to. Therefore the fact that it is still a part of soccer (despite not being a strategic element) doesn't give us any insight about whether we should keep macro mechanics or not.
On top of that, soccer isn't primarily labeled as a strategy game so it only makes sense that it would include a lot of non strategic elements. The fact that Starcraft is 90% mechanics and 10% strategy is a bit more worrisome.
Despite what you say, you are misconstruing Nony's analogy (and other people too) when you argue as if he meant : "soccer has it, starcraft should have it too". He's not saying that at all. The analogy is here to say : macro mechanics is the "sport" element in starcraft. By underlining this, he's framing the debate between pure gamers who want SC2 to look more like a game like chess and other gamers who appreciate the sport/game hybrid nature of SC2. He then argues that SC2's identity as an e-sports, according to him, is exactly that sports component.
Now you can disagree with his conclusion, but you can't throw away what he says by objecting to his analogy the way that you did it, because the fact that you couldn't possibly remove running from soccer is irrelevant to what Nony meant to say.
I love that the game is what most people would consider difficult/very difficult. This is what makes it possible to seperate yourself from others in terms of skill at any level. Fortunately the game is divided in leagues to find similar opponents for everyone.
When I started to play ~5 years ago I obviously was a monsternoob. Yet still with every match you could feel improving up to this day, because there is always something to improve. Games where every 2nd person can get to around a similar level as the best arent intresting. Making things easier isnt intresting. It ends up in pros practicing all day not beeing much better as casual gamers and I want to see differences even at the highest level of play. As in every other sports these are mainly made by practice and natural talent and thats fine with me. Lionel Messi does a thousand things we all cant do. We dont make football easier because of that. We have plenty of different leagues for different skill levels so none of us amateuers have to play him. We do however have the option to try to get as good as him or get as close as we can. Its a choice mostly and as stated earlier obviously also a question of talent.
What I read over and over again here is the argument of "new players quickly go away cause to hard...". So just theoretically if all macro was done for them and they only needed to do the "fun" battle stuff, you really think it wasnt to hard for them then?? They loose their armies 5 times on move command, another 5 times to 5 banelings and another 5 times cause they arent watching at all. Noob quits game. Same story.
I play/ed an arcade game for also almost 5 years now. Constantly there was similar topics on the forum about "make it easier for nubs" and so on. Over the years it actually got easier to a point where it is hard to make a difference as the much more skilled player vs average players. Its frustrating for the one that put alot of effort into it and cant always show it because the game restricts it. Did it attract more players? Not at all. All it did is thrive away skilled players and find more of "I just wanna play a game for one hour for fun without wanting to improve at all" players. And dont get me wrong that attittude is totally legit everyone can use their time as they wish. But then please go find another easy game and dont destroy my harder one.
On August 05 2015 03:14 LSN wrote: You should at least agree on that high mechanical demands is something that holds alot of players back from playing Sc2 and not the other way round. Cause that is common sense. Therefore it is an entry barrier.
You can go and research yourself why coh or the companies behind it don't have the means or will to push it further e.g. with big tournaments and what other reasons there are in the game itself for why it is not as successful.
Sc2 and blizzard has everything that is needed. It is in one league with other tripple A multiplayer games like CS or Dota so that I would rather search to compare it with these games.
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. 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. Because there isnt a demographic sitting out there that would "really like rts if only it was as easy to pick up as cod". Its moronic to suggest there is, and pointless too. If you personally dont like RTS' macro and multitasking functions, you dont like the game, so be gone. If you do, on the other hand, your potentially (lets be honest: certainly) supporting something that destroys a game you do like, for nothing.
How does removing or even just tweaking injects and mules destroy SC2? Nobody is talking about removing macro from the game. Why don't you come up with more logical arguments instead of calling people moronic? The elitist bullshit is getting old.
You're saying the nature of a RTS is "an intellectually and physically challenging game" but right now, though it's challenging physically, it doesn't feel very challenging intellectually because mechanical skill is much more important than everything else. Even on masters level where strategy plays a larger role than on lower leagues, when I look at what would be the most efficient way for me to get better, I'm still convinced that gaining an extra 20 apm would make me more successful than any strategic improvement.
To use your own words, part of what Blizzard is trying to do is restore a balance between the intellectual and physical components. SC2 will still be really hard even without macro boosters, the big differences will be that: -good players will have to focus more on meaningful actions instead of APM spam to make a difference compared to their opponents. -weaker players will have a baseline of guaranteed macro (in the case of auto-casting) which means they won't get fucked as badly by their bad mechanics and they'll get more enjoyment out of the game.
I also strongly disagree that moving away slightly from the hardcore macro requirements will lose SC2 players, in fact I'm sure of the exact opposite. Obviously SC2 still won't convert many COD players but there are a lot of ex SC2 players on the fence about whether to give LOTV a try. I myself have 4 friends who are seriously considering it and they all have the exact same reason for why they might not do it. It goes along the lines of:
"Sure, I love SC2, but it's just too punishing mechanically. Whenever I come back I just can't execute anything close to the strategies I have in mind unless I practise mindlessly for dozens of hours. Since I don't have the time to play 5 hours a day anymore, I sometimes get more frustration than enjoyment out of it. If that's the case, I'd rather not play at all."
This also is the wrong question, the right question would be "is this more fun for the group of people we actually wanna reach" "More fun" is a concept which loses its meaning completely if we don't define the target group.
Yeh ofc its fun relative to the target group, and you will see mee write that frequently too, but it can get too tedicious to state the obvious every time.
I would much rather play a game where both styles are viable and ewach person can decide if they wanna be a 'macro player' or a 'micro player' or anything in between.
I think that concept sounds nice in theory, but I am not sure it grants the best experience in practice. The reason for that is that I think micro is most interesting when both players micro during in engagements (heavily) and in relation to what the opponent is doing (countermicro).
For that reason, its my belief that if you have one specific style/race that is not very microheavy but very taxing on macro, it will also make the experience worse for the microplayer.
IMO games are at its best when developers know perfectly which group of people they wanna reach with it, the more you 'play safe' (hey there is something in it for anybody!) the more the actual quality of the game suffers. (there are exceptions, but imo they are rare and thus shouldn't be considered in most cases)
Yeh so I think with regards to Sc2 the business model isn't set up to fit a more niche/hardcore target group (I estimate that target group at around 0.5M-1M). That's not to say that F2P is the correct business model either because I don't think the combination of a very high learning barrier and free access to lots of casuals makes sense either. I think F2P makes a ton more sense if the first impression is really good.
For Sc2, I think it's clear that you need to be very commited to learn the game before in order to be wililng to go through the steep learning curve. With such a model, it makes more sense to have an upfront-fee's as you then better monetize the "commited beforehand target group".
However, when you have a very low target group and development costs are still relatively high, it still makes sense to try and monetize the "commited/hardcore players" that spends alot of time on the game on top of the initial upfront cost.
Given that Blizzard doesn't have this business model in place for sc2, I do think we need to attracht a larger target group.
Thus if the learning barrier of Sc2 was reduced you would also attracht more people whom would play the game more casually, which makes more sense for Blizzard financially.
It could be helpful putting what macro mechanic you want to be automated and which not, because terran and protoss has similarity, but zerg has a completely different mechanic, for terrans could not have the perfect macro mechanic and forget muling, but nothing happen, they could send a tonn of mules after that forgot, and his production didnt hurt, because his production is based in queues, and for protoss is similar to, they could cronobust a bunch of gates, at specific time, and is almost for potential their push, while inject is different, it is priority, all their production is based on the injects, and it has to be do it since the begin to the end of the game, to difference of mule and cronobust that are mechanics for a bonus production and can do it anytime they want, injects are. no matter what is happening and when is happening has to inject, and for a missing injects, there is no point of regret or comeback, you cant recover that, as sending tonn of mules like terran, or cronobusting at once a bunch of gates. So considering macro mechanics of the 3 races like one, i think is a mistake, should be treated at different categories. Also the idea of a mode with automatic mechanics and a mode with manual mechanics, is good i guess, could be interesting see how many of those manual mechanics fanboys still gona play at manual mechanics mode XD. Other idea could be start with automatic mechanics at bronze, and every league you advance one automatism is removed, to get the point where you have good mechanics, and the upgrading of league could be for election of the player to, because many people not want to learn mechanics to. PD: Im in favor of other larva production method, i think the inject heavily affect negativily the rest of skills of zergs players could have, for the reason to constantly switching attention to their bases, even they are in an engage that could end the game, or any other situation like multidrop, or harrasing mutas.
On August 04 2015 23:52 weikor wrote: noones asking to remove the running from soccer, this is just a heavily biased article that picks away at quotes with arguments that dont even make sense at times. Ill give you some examples of doing the same thing.
Nony's argument wasn't not a reduction to absurdity, it was an analogy or even merely an image, and therefore it does not rely on the statement "you should remove running from soccer" to actually be held true by anybody.
I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work.
On top of being an analogy, Nony's point is an abstract one, he's not drawing a parallel between 'running in soccer' and 'macro in starcraft' because they are the same thing, but because they share some characteristics : - they are somewhat separate from strategy and tactics, although they feed into those - they require repetition training since they heavily involve muscle memory - to most people they are not fun in themselves - instead of involving decisions, they are mostly quantitative, it's a matter of being faster, more precise, more endurant etc., there's no two ways about it
In short, 'running in soccer' and 'macro in SC2' represent the crude physical components of their respective games, and the more rewarding and the more relevant this component is in a game, the more a player can count on the effectiveness of going for this material advantage. In a game like chess, truly materialistic advantage doesn't exist as you can only gain "material advantage" through tactics and strategies, you can't flex your muscles to generate an additional pawn, for example.
However, in soccer as in starcraft, you may theorycraft as much as you want with your Os and your Xs on a drawing board, you may know the perfect ideal answer to every situation, you are going no where if your opponent has you beat in the material department, if you're not competing in terms of execution.
To me the debate is between people who like to win by going for the raw material advantage and more cerebral people who like games won by mind blowing strategical moves and decision-making.
I like to think that SC2 has both and should keep having both.
I think everyone understands the analogy, you don't need to explain it.
The reason that analogy has no value is you couldn't remove running from soccer even if you wanted to. Therefore the fact that it is still a part of soccer (despite not being a strategic element) doesn't give us any insight about whether we should keep macro mechanics or not.
On top of that, soccer isn't primarily labeled as a strategy game so it only makes sense that it would include a lot of non strategic elements. The fact that Starcraft is 90% mechanics and 10% strategy is a bit more worrisome.
Despite what you say, you are misconstruing Nony's analogy (and other people too) when you argue as if he meant : "soccer has it, starcraft should have it too". He's not saying that at all. The analogy is here to say : macro mechanics is the "sport" element in starcraft. By underlining this, he's framing the debate between pure gamers who want SC2 to look more like a game like chess and other gamers who appreciate the sport/game hybrid nature of SC2. He then argues that SC2's identity as an e-sports, according to him, is exactly that sports component.
Now you can disagree with his conclusion, but you can't throw away what he says by objecting to his analogy the way that you did it, because the fact that you couldn't possibly remove running from soccer is irrelevant to what Nony meant to say.
Well, if that's what he meant it was poorly worded and I am still objecting to his analogy for being manipulative (comparing something that's rigorously impossible to something quite reasonable that he just doesn't want Blizzard to do).
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote: Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running?
Some people would agree removing running from soccer could be a good thing if it didn't sound so absurd, hence the logical fallacy.
But if you're right, I did overlook that part because I don't see SC2 like a sport. You and other people keep talking about preserving the identity of SC2. To me the identity of SC2 is being a strategy game but it doesn't feel much like a strategy game when mechanics almost always trump every other skill. I would agree difficult macro and multitasking is also part of the identity but they will still both be very challenging even without macro boosters, the same way worker rally and MBS didn't make SC any less difficult to master. The skillset might change but in the end you're always competing against other players with access to the same ressources.
You framed the debate well, and YES, I want Starcraft to be less like a sport and more like a strategy game. In SC2, you cannot compete at the highest level past the age of 25-30, because the increasing physiological response time puts a cap on the APM you can reach. Flash was on top of the BW world when he was a kid but now he cannot compete with Maru. Do you think Maru is so much more talented that he can overcome the 6 extra years of Starcraft experience Flash has? Or is he, just like Flash, a smart kid and a very hard worker who happens to be quite younger? I just don't see the point in keeping arbitrary macro boosters that add nothing to the game (injects) except in the way they raise the mechanical skill ceiling to a level that only a 15-20 year old who dedicates years to SC can get close to. It's not good for the competition, and it's not good for new players.
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.
Let's leave the elitist attitude of our game is the hardest to BW and strive for mass appeal, both in playing and viewing, in LOTV. Streamlining macro by getting rid of useless tasks is a start to achieving that.
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.
I think you can easily flip what the OP concludes with on its head: in an expansion where your APM is spread out / taxed even more than before, should we really preserve something that is (usually) boring that's going to let an extreme few players in the world shine, while bringing down the average level of micro (the thing people usually find more interesting) in the other 99.9999% of games? Millions upon millions of SC2 games will be slightly more mediocre because we want a couple top level koreans to be able to shine because they can inject 5-10% better than other pros. Ok.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for the write-up. The less flashy and more complex aspects to the game never had as vocal of defenders. I want more games when the peerless master of mechanics loses to a novel strat, and the dominant strategic genius is simply overtaxed by multipronged attacks that overwhelm his attention first, and base secondly. Frankly, I can't even imagine another RTS game made that will be enjoyable that has a core macromechanics spine.
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.
If StarCraft II takes that road and loses its identity, which in my opinion is the sports-inspired or material aspect (borrowing words from fellow posters), then I wish some big Blizzard competitor (EA for instance) beautifully fills that gap for us who enjoy this game for that very aspect. It's the essence, or core, or identity of the game. It's what makes StarCraft II StarCraft II. If you don't enjoy that why play this game? NonY made this argument much better than I did and I'm here just to emphasize it one more time. And as nice as it could be (beautiful competitor RTS game), the idea of losing StarCraft II is very sad. Sad to the point that we have all this fuss about the proposed changes (while some will lose SC2, a lot more will win MOBA-SC2 or MSC2 for short).
I'd like to emphasize the following too (in bold):
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote: As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it. .
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again.
I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak.
Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a mediocre player and viewer of tournament, I have to say that for me personally I have always seen SC2 macro in 2 bits. Things you have to do because if you don't you will lose and you have no choice in the matter. Things you have a choice over and will produce different outcomes. I personally enjoy to play and watch the 2nd type and dislike the first.
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.
Just some math musings on injects (times are old starcraft time, not real seconds): An inject gives you 4 larva and is casted every 40 seconds from a queen that costs 150 minerals. That is 6 larva/min if perfectly done. A hatchery is worth 350 minerals (300+50 for the drone) and spawns a larva every 15 seconds, so 4 larva/min.
Therefore we get for the cost of a larva produced by a queen compared to hatchery (150/6)/(350/4)=0.2857, so only 28.57% of the cost of a larva produced by a hatchery.
Option 1 of blizzard would raise this to 38.1%. Option 2 of blizzard would raise this to 57.14%. In both cases getting queens just for injects would still be mineral-superior to building another hatchery.
On August 05 2015 19:07 Big J wrote: Just some math musings on injects (times are old starcraft time, not real seconds): An inject gives you 4 larva and is casted every 40 seconds from a queen that costs 150 minerals. That is 6 larva/min if perfectly done. A hatchery costs 350 minerals and spawns a larva every 15 seconds, so 4 larva/min.
Therefore we get for the cost of a larva produced by a queen compared to hatchery (150/6)/(350/4)=0.2857, so only 28.57% of the cost of a larva produced by a hatchery.
Option 1 of blizzard would raise this to 38.1%. Option 2 of blizzard would raise this to 57.14%. In both cases getting queens just for injects would still be mineral-superior to building another hatchery.
But... a hatchery costs 300 bro nvm I'm an idiot
In reality though you'd need more hatcheries anyway to keep production levels the same as you can't use a queen for production without a hatchery. So if a normal 3 base 3 queen spawns 30 larva/minute, option 2 only gives 21 larva/minute, requiring a full extra hatchery and queen to resume normal production. I feel this will make heavy ling play pretty hard
On August 05 2015 19:07 Big J wrote: Just some math musings on injects (times are old starcraft time, not real seconds): An inject gives you 4 larva and is casted every 40 seconds from a queen that costs 150 minerals. That is 6 larva/min if perfectly done. A hatchery costs 350 minerals and spawns a larva every 15 seconds, so 4 larva/min.
Therefore we get for the cost of a larva produced by a queen compared to hatchery (150/6)/(350/4)=0.2857, so only 28.57% of the cost of a larva produced by a hatchery.
Option 1 of blizzard would raise this to 38.1%. Option 2 of blizzard would raise this to 57.14%. In both cases getting queens just for injects would still be mineral-superior to building another hatchery.
But... a hatchery costs 300 bro nvm I'm an idiot
In reality though you'd need more hatcheries anyway to keep production levels the same as you can't use a queen for production without a hatchery. So if a normal 3 base 3 queen spawns 30 larva/minute, option 2 only gives 21 larva/minute, requiring a full extra hatchery and queen to resume normal production.
Of course, you are absolutely correct. It also doesn't consider that later on in the game you often have too much larva anyways if you inject well - depending also on the units you are playing. E.g. roach/hydra/viper is much less larvaintense than ling/bling/muta in ZvT. Passive play lets you build up 7+ larva on every hatchery and then the efficiency of the inject becomes of a much lesser importance. I think the interesting thing to take away here is how far off we are from a sweet spot in which injecting is a more strategical decision. I can't really say where this would be in percent - it must be noted that if we nerfed injects to 100% of current hatchery production it would be so weak that you would always spread creep instead - but I believe if it is that far off from 100% there is hardly any decision involved and energy tension will always be bypassed by building extra queens, or the other abilities simply won't be used.
Automated or not, I think that spawning rate of hatchery and queen should be brought closer together which can be achieved both ways, adding to the hatchery and lowering the spawning rate of injects.
Macro changes I think macro needs to be harder. My suggestion to fix it up: - Mules: Make a cooldown for mules, so you can't just throw down 10 at once. It will reward players who constantly drop mules.
-Inject: Make a limit on how may larvae can be on a hatch at once. I think it should be limited to around 8. This will force players to use macro hatches.
On August 05 2015 18:20 TRaFFiC wrote: Managing your economy while at the same time controlling your army has been a fundamental part of every RTS I ever played.
On August 05 2015 18:20 TRaFFiC wrote: Managing your economy while at the same time controlling your army has been a fundamental part of every RTS I ever played.
And it still will be?
It still will be but the balance between the two is getting messed up. How would people who love micro feel if Blizzard just flat out told them the thing they like isn't actually fun or appreciated by viewers of tournaments so they're removing force field, fungal and stim to allow players to focus more on the fun stuff, the macro mechanics?
When Blizzard added multiple building selection to SC2, which made macro easier and take less time, they compensated by adding the macro mechanics (and warp gate) which are the subject of this article. That was cool because using the macro mechanics (and warp gate) is more interesting than selecting a bunch of buildings in quick succession. But now they're saying they want less attention to be spent on macro. They'd remove macro mechanics without providing any compensation, on purpose. That's not keeping the balance.
RTS and StarCraft in particular is about macro. The whole premise of playing it instead of some other genre of games is "what if we had to build a base and develop an economy and be the master of all the behind-the-scenes stuff and not just do the fights." I wouldn't say that removing macro mechanics is ruining this but it's a step in that direction. Those of us who don't like that direction, even if this step might be tolerable, need to voice our concerns every step of the way to make sure it doesn't go too far. If the whole community said in unison "YES YES YES" then I 100% believe Blizzard is of a mindset to just roll with it, not caring about the tradition and identity of RTS and StarCraft.
What they're doing to SC2 with LotV is exactly like what they did to get from League/Dota to Heroes of the Storm. Some people like it and some people don't. The things that annoy me are (1) when the people who like it act like they're right, as if it's not a matter of preference, and (2) that Blizzard is transforming StarCraft into this rather than making another game. Isn't this trend obviously better suited for WarCraft 3? Why not let StarCraft be StarCraft for its final expansion rather than leaving us permanently affected by this fad of design philosophy which hasn't even proven itself yet?
As is to be expected, with the removal of macro crutches the pacing changed, but not quite in the way you would expect.
Games didn't turn out slower, timings and build times were mostly unaffected, rather, engagements in the early game became scrappier and with less units. You could make a lot of things work with good control. Things like losing a worker or even a unit tended to hurt a lot, so you mostly tried to save both.
The Mid-game is where the game usually picked up into something that resembled the usual SC2 pacing. The main difference was the abundance and diversity of higher tech units,accompanied by lower tech units and meat shields, but not as many as you would usually see. Micro is still a big part of the fights, but your macro dictates the pace of the game since you have to expand more and get more production facilities, the managing of more expansions and buildings than usual starts getting in the way of your micro and your micro in the way of your macro, but up to this point it's not that much harder than the usual macro mechanics.
The Late Game is where the game gets completely insane. I regret to say that I didn't manage to get many games that lasted this long so I don´t have that much to say except that that if you make it this far the game goes nuts and it gets pretty hard to manage everything. You have so many bases, so many production facilities,so many different unit types spread just about everywhere, so many different places to defend and attack, both players are already fielding their best units and upgrades. It gets pretty chaotic, especially with bases and buildings that are pretty far away from each other, and especially with all the fighting going on.
So it starts out Slower and it ends up Faster, why? well, logic would dictate that the current macro mechanics should give a faster game all game no? the reason for this isn't readily apparent until you understand...
On August 05 2015 18:20 TRaFFiC wrote: Managing your economy while at the same time controlling your army has been a fundamental part of every RTS I ever played.
And it still will be?
The things that annoy me are (1) when the people who like it act like they're right, as if it's not a matter of preference, and (2) that Blizzard is transforming StarCraft into this rather than making another game. Isn't this trend obviously better suited for WarCraft 3? Why not let StarCraft be StarCraft for its final expansion rather than leaving us permanently affected by this fad of design philosophy which hasn't even proven itself yet?
Same. I always thought of WC as the micro oriented RTS and of SC as the macro oriented one. This move would take too much focus away from macro to make micro/multitask really appreciable to my taste.
On August 05 2015 18:20 TRaFFiC wrote: Managing your economy while at the same time controlling your army has been a fundamental part of every RTS I ever played.
And it still will be?
It still will be but the balance between the two is getting messed up. How would people who love micro feel if Blizzard just flat out told them the thing they like isn't actually fun or appreciated by viewers of tournaments so they're removing force field, fungal and stim to allow players to focus more on the fun stuff, the macro mechanics?
When Blizzard added multiple building selection to SC2, which made macro easier and take less time, they compensated by adding the macro mechanics (and warp gate) which are the subject of this article. That was cool because using the macro mechanics (and warp gate) is more interesting than selecting a bunch of buildings in quick succession. But now they're saying they want less attention to be spent on macro. They'd remove macro mechanics without providing any compensation, on purpose. That's not keeping the balance.
RTS and StarCraft in particular is about macro. The whole premise of playing it instead of some other genre of games is "what if we had to build a base and develop an economy and be the master of all the behind-the-scenes stuff and not just do the fights." I wouldn't say that removing macro mechanics is ruining this but it's a step in that direction. Those of us who don't like that direction, even if this step might be tolerable, need to voice our concerns every step of the way to make sure it doesn't go too far. If the whole community said in unison "YES YES YES" then I 100% believe Blizzard is of a mindset to just roll with it, not caring about the tradition and identity of RTS and StarCraft.
What they're doing to SC2 with LotV is exactly like what they did to get from League/Dota to Heroes of the Storm. Some people like it and some people don't. The things that annoy me are (1) when the people who like it act like they're right, as if it's not a matter of preference, and (2) that Blizzard is transforming StarCraft into this rather than making another game. Isn't this trend obviously better suited for WarCraft 3? Why not let StarCraft be StarCraft for its final expansion rather than leaving us permanently affected by this fad of design philosophy which hasn't even proven itself yet?
And yet you do the same thing when you decide what is Starcraft's identity, which is very much one's personal perception as well.
I personally can 100% agree that Starcraft is about macro. It's the build up of epic armies and a huge empire of multiple bases that I love - something that SC2 more or less pioneered compared to the much smaller scale RTS games it succeeded. And then pair it with a lot of micromanagement - something that only blizzard has really understood in the RTS genre up to these days. What I don't agree with is that the build-up part must be inherently hard mechanically for SC's identity, even if your opponent doesn't try to make it hard for you (i.e. force you into strategic choices, force you to cut economy for defense, force you into playing aggressive, force you into playing it slow).
Damn, nony expresses exactly what I'm feeling about those announced changes (or at least things blizzard is thinking about). Starcraft is about macro and micro, and there is a beauty in a well crafted build, a perfect macro, there is a great feeling of accomplishment when you manage to not be supply block, when you manage to not forget one probe, as well as there is beauty in a perfectly controlled army, managing to save each of your few early stalkers, managing to do lot of damage with your small commando of units while still handling your base right and spending your money.
And I dont get why the starcraft team seems to let the run to audience drive the game design, as if lowering the skill cap will help bring more people to sc2 or more people to watch sc2. This is to me the wrong way of handling the game, wich has competition and difficulty at its heart. People who are struggling with the 1v1 difficulty and complaining its no fun have already many options : team game, arcade mode, FFA, and soon the archon mode wich is a great thing in this regard. They also can play any other game more micro oriented, like blizzard's new moba even. What is the need to simplify the macro mechanics ? Will this really bring new people to the game, people probably struggling with the idea of 1v1 competition anyway ? And isnt there the risk to lose the core starcraft fans on the way ?
On a side note I can see some people saying lotv is already faster and more difficult than hots, so this idea of removing macro mechanics will not really make sc2 easier. Well, i dont really know about that, to be honest I dont like the new economy model like it is right now, I dont like the 12 workers start and I dont get why blizzard didn't try more things during this looooong beta. But still, the starcraft licence is an RTS, may be an "old school" RTS, but its part of its identity to have very distinct parts, macro, and micro. Why throw that away and not make an entire other game ? :/
Here is a very nice counter to this argument. It is naive to think that simply removing the macro mechanics will make the game "easier" or in some way lower the "skill ceiling". This is just typical theory crafting without any real data.
Consider that Brood War didn't have these macro mechanics and it seems this community likes to compare SC2 to its predecessor in nearly every way, right? Was the macro not difficult enough in that game? Are we saying those pros had it to easy? I think not.
Give it a read with an open mind and see where you stand.
On August 05 2015 18:20 TRaFFiC wrote: Managing your economy while at the same time controlling your army has been a fundamental part of every RTS I ever played.
And it still will be?
It still will be but the balance between the two is getting messed up. How would people who love micro feel if Blizzard just flat out told them the thing they like isn't actually fun or appreciated by viewers of tournaments so they're removing force field, fungal and stim to allow players to focus more on the fun stuff, the macro mechanics?
When Blizzard added multiple building selection to SC2, which made macro easier and take less time, they compensated by adding the macro mechanics (and warp gate) which are the subject of this article. That was cool because using the macro mechanics (and warp gate) is more interesting than selecting a bunch of buildings in quick succession. But now they're saying they want less attention to be spent on macro. They'd remove macro mechanics without providing any compensation, on purpose. That's not keeping the balance.
RTS and StarCraft in particular is about macro. The whole premise of playing it instead of some other genre of games is "what if we had to build a base and develop an economy and be the master of all the behind-the-scenes stuff and not just do the fights." I wouldn't say that removing macro mechanics is ruining this but it's a step in that direction. Those of us who don't like that direction, even if this step might be tolerable, need to voice our concerns every step of the way to make sure it doesn't go too far. If the whole community said in unison "YES YES YES" then I 100% believe Blizzard is of a mindset to just roll with it, not caring about the tradition and identity of RTS and StarCraft.
What they're doing to SC2 with LotV is exactly like what they did to get from League/Dota to Heroes of the Storm. Some people like it and some people don't. The things that annoy me are (1) when the people who like it act like they're right, as if it's not a matter of preference, and (2) that Blizzard is transforming StarCraft into this rather than making another game. Isn't this trend obviously better suited for WarCraft 3? Why not let StarCraft be StarCraft for its final expansion rather than leaving us permanently affected by this fad of design philosophy which hasn't even proven itself yet?
And yet you do the same thing when you decide what is Starcraft's identity, which is very much one's personal perception as well.
I personally can 100% agree that Starcraft is about macro. It's the build up of epic armies and a huge empire of multiple bases that I love - something that SC2 more or less pioneered compared to the much smaller scale RTS games it succeeded. And then pair it with a lot of micromanagement - something that only blizzard has really understood in the RTS genre up to these days. What I don't agree with is that the build-up part must be inherently hard mechanically for SC's identity, even if your opponent doesn't try to make it hard for you (i.e. force you into strategic choices, force you to cut economy for defense, force you into playing aggressive, force you into playing it slow).
I'm not deciding StarCraft's identity -- I'm starting the conversation on it. No one else seems to care. It seems like people assume a utilitarian approach for SC2 game design while I think it's obvious that, since there's such a great variety of games, a utilitarian approach for each individual game is a horrible idea. But I appreciate you weighing in on what you feel is core to StarCraft.
On August 06 2015 02:13 rigginssc2 wrote: Here is a very nice counter to this argument. It is naive to think that simply removing the macro mechanics will make the game "easier" or in some way lower the "skill ceiling". This is just typical theory crafting without any real data.
Consider that Brood War didn't have these macro mechanics and it seems this community likes to compare SC2 to its predecessor in nearly every way, right? Was the macro not difficult enough in that game? Are we saying those pros had it to easy? I think not.
Give it a read with an open mind and see where you stand.
The brood war argument is a really shitty one, considering lack of automine and multiple building selection more than made up for lack of macro mechanics. Macroing in brood war was a bigger factor in differentiating players than it is in sc2.
On August 06 2015 01:37 tamino wrote: Damn, nony expresses exactly what I'm feeling about those announced changes (or at least things blizzard is thinking about). Starcraft is about macro and micro, and there is a beauty in a well crafted build, a perfect macro, there is a great feeling of accomplishment when you manage to not be supply block, when you manage to not forget one probe, as well as there is beauty in a perfectly controlled army, managing to save each of your few early stalkers, managing to do lot of damage with your small commando of units while still handling your base right and spending your money.
No one is suggesting removing supply, simplify building probes, simplify controling an army, simplify spending your money. No one! Macro elements are going to stay. The suggestion is about the additional macro mechanics, in terms of Mules, Larva Inject, Chronoboost. They add up to macro, but are not the main bulk of it. So don't worry: SC2 has and will have macro components
I imagine that the point of this is to have players have to go back to their base less often. If so, I don't think you can change the mule mechanic without touching addons. I think add on management forces me to go back my base far more often than muleing.
On August 06 2015 01:37 tamino wrote: Damn, nony expresses exactly what I'm feeling about those announced changes (or at least things blizzard is thinking about). Starcraft is about macro and micro, and there is a beauty in a well crafted build, a perfect macro, there is a great feeling of accomplishment when you manage to not be supply block, when you manage to not forget one probe, as well as there is beauty in a perfectly controlled army, managing to save each of your few early stalkers, managing to do lot of damage with your small commando of units while still handling your base right and spending your money.
No one is suggesting removing supply, simplify building probes, simplify controling an army, simplify spending your money. No one! Macro elements are going to stay. The suggestion is about the additional macro mechanics, in terms of Mules, Larva Inject, Chronoboost. They add up to macro, but are not the main bulk of it. So don't worry: SC2 has and will have macro components
That's true. I'm pushing this a little bit too far because it feels like a small step in this direction : reducing the macro part of starcraft for more micro. Those mechanics were not part of brood war either, but macro in brood war was much more present due to what people called artificial mechanics constraints like no MBS, no auto mining and the limitation of 12 units per group wich forced you to go back to your base so often. And this added to the difficulty of the game so much, and it was part of the show too : when you watched the game from the player's perpespective, this was so impressive to see, the speed of constant point of view change, this was something and everyone new the game was difficult and every micro move was difficult also cause you needed good macro while microing.
The macro mechanics were introduced for this reason if I recall correctly, and they are somewhat working and having the same effect while adding some strategy in the macro part (what do I chrono ? Should I mule or save energy for scan ? On wich direction should I creep spread first ?). You have to go back to your base regularly in order to gain some macro advantage, even during fights. And now what, blizzard saying this is not really interesting nor adding to the show ? Damn this is touching to the flow of the game (not sure this is the right word) , the way starcraft feels when you play it, and a great way to see the game difficulty when you go on player's perspective too.
The argument of artificiallity of those mechanics also bothers me. Of course it is artificial, it is a rule in a game. But having to micro is also somewhat artificial too. The AI could be tweaked to handle much more things automatically if blizzard wanted to, and the game could play all by itself at some point. But we dont want that, we want our units to need us and we want to be able to prove a better player than the opponent by micro... and macro.
Methinks considering the Terrible, Terrible Damage issue, we shouldn't necessarily conclude that it was, in hindsight, a bright idea to compensate for the lost macro mechanic difficulties from Brood War by introducing artificial macro boosters in SC2.
Some have raised the point that those macro boosters helped to energize a slow game flow that existed in Wings of Liberty, but is quite energized in Legacy of the Void.
What is funny is that I find myself defending the macro mechanics of sc2 from complete removal while I think they deserve some rework, especially the mule thing wich leads to some aberration in my opinion like being able to mine without workers or the mass CC in late game.
So well, since we have no real choice here and blizzard is doing whatever they want despite they recent effort in communication, we'll see how this will turn out...
On August 05 2015 18:20 TRaFFiC wrote: Managing your economy while at the same time controlling your army has been a fundamental part of every RTS I ever played.
And it still will be?
It still will be but the balance between the two is getting messed up. How would people who love micro feel if Blizzard just flat out told them the thing they like isn't actually fun or appreciated by viewers of tournaments so they're removing force field, fungal and stim to allow players to focus more on the fun stuff, the macro mechanics?
When Blizzard added multiple building selection to SC2, which made macro easier and take less time, they compensated by adding the macro mechanics (and warp gate) which are the subject of this article. That was cool because using the macro mechanics (and warp gate) is more interesting than selecting a bunch of buildings in quick succession. But now they're saying they want less attention to be spent on macro. They'd remove macro mechanics without providing any compensation, on purpose. That's not keeping the balance.
RTS and StarCraft in particular is about macro. The whole premise of playing it instead of some other genre of games is "what if we had to build a base and develop an economy and be the master of all the behind-the-scenes stuff and not just do the fights." I wouldn't say that removing macro mechanics is ruining this but it's a step in that direction. Those of us who don't like that direction, even if this step might be tolerable, need to voice our concerns every step of the way to make sure it doesn't go too far. If the whole community said in unison "YES YES YES" then I 100% believe Blizzard is of a mindset to just roll with it, not caring about the tradition and identity of RTS and StarCraft.
What they're doing to SC2 with LotV is exactly like what they did to get from League/Dota to Heroes of the Storm. Some people like it and some people don't. The things that annoy me are (1) when the people who like it act like they're right, as if it's not a matter of preference, and (2) that Blizzard is transforming StarCraft into this rather than making another game. Isn't this trend obviously better suited for WarCraft 3? Why not let StarCraft be StarCraft for its final expansion rather than leaving us permanently affected by this fad of design philosophy which hasn't even proven itself yet?
And yet you do the same thing when you decide what is Starcraft's identity, which is very much one's personal perception as well.
I personally can 100% agree that Starcraft is about macro. It's the build up of epic armies and a huge empire of multiple bases that I love - something that SC2 more or less pioneered compared to the much smaller scale RTS games it succeeded. And then pair it with a lot of micromanagement - something that only blizzard has really understood in the RTS genre up to these days. What I don't agree with is that the build-up part must be inherently hard mechanically for SC's identity, even if your opponent doesn't try to make it hard for you (i.e. force you into strategic choices, force you to cut economy for defense, force you into playing aggressive, force you into playing it slow).
I'm not deciding StarCraft's identity -- I'm starting the conversation on it. No one else seems to care. It seems like people assume a utilitarian approach for SC2 game design while I think it's obvious that, since there's such a great variety of games, a utilitarian approach for each individual game is a horrible idea. But I appreciate you weighing in on what you feel is core to StarCraft.
Oh, very sorry. I reread your previous comment and realized that you indeed said nowhere "this is SC's identity" and you were actually saying
... What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? ...
Other people later on interpreted or extended your post in the way I thought it was and that somehow stuck...
I very much like this approach of first identifying what concepts we actually want and then having a discussion based on that.
first time reading any sc2 article in about 2 years. Only thing I want to add to this is that BW did it right regarding utilizing macro mechanics to separate the gods from the rest.
Why are not you be honest and say that took you months or years get good mechanics, and now that blizz want they have less importance you are against it,it is more trueborn saying that, than bullshit like the soul of the game,historical esence, big part of strategy,etc., or maybe are afraid of a player with better micro or better engage decisions gona win you. Im sure that if blizz make the macro more busier, all those not gona say a word, and i can bet that XD, because even it affect them, affect more the rest of people, and more important the newbie players. Also why being so dramatic, blizz want to decrease a little the macro required, they are not saying that gona automate all macro. And is a correct decision i guess, whoever who played LotV beta knows that is a game faster than HotS, and only could be played well with good mechanics, not even decent mechanics i guess, if for a newbie or casual player the game rigth now is unenjoyable, maintening the same macro relevance, not gona be only a barrier will be a proclamated restriction. also at high lv we could see the real potential of the new units, that are micro oriented, and only we could see that if the players can focus more in the micro than the macro. Lets be all less selfish and dramatic, and if the game gona change a little the relevance of micro macro, give a chance, personally i prefer that the game being played for a lot of people, than get the point to have to play with the same players over and over.
On August 05 2015 18:20 TRaFFiC wrote: Managing your economy while at the same time controlling your army has been a fundamental part of every RTS I ever played.
And it still will be?
It still will be but the balance between the two is getting messed up. How would people who love micro feel if Blizzard just flat out told them the thing they like isn't actually fun or appreciated by viewers of tournaments so they're removing force field, fungal and stim to allow players to focus more on the fun stuff, the macro mechanics?
Imo, the balance between macro and micro IS already messed up. I'm sure we can agree macro is way more important than micro right now. That's especially true for players who are diamond and lower because for them ignoring micro completely while focusing on macro is the best thing they can do if they want to win. And I believe macro is still more important than micro even at the highest level. If you want a better balance between the two, cutting on macro mechanics is the right thing to do.
On August 06 2015 00:46 NonY wrote:
When Blizzard added multiple building selection to SC2, which made macro easier and take less time, they compensated by adding the macro mechanics (and warp gate) which are the subject of this article. That was cool because using the macro mechanics (and warp gate) is more interesting than selecting a bunch of buildings in quick succession. But now they're saying they want less attention to be spent on macro. They'd remove macro mechanics without providing any compensation, on purpose. That's not keeping the balance.
Are you saying injecting hatcheries repeatedly is INTERESTING? If you mean chronoboost, I'm with you, but injects?
The compensation for cutting macro abilities is the additional unit abilities in LOTV which require extra APM. Yes, that would make LOTV more micro intensive than HOTS but no, macro would still be more important than micro in LOTV, we would just be moving closer to the balance you seem to want.
On August 06 2015 00:46 NonY wrote: RTS and StarCraft in particular is about macro. The whole premise of playing it instead of some other genre of games is "what if we had to build a base and develop an economy and be the master of all the behind-the-scenes stuff and not just do the fights." I wouldn't say that removing macro mechanics is ruining this but it's a step in that direction. Those of us who don't like that direction, even if this step might be tolerable, need to voice our concerns every step of the way to make sure it doesn't go too far. If the whole community said in unison "YES YES YES" then I 100% believe Blizzard is of a mindset to just roll with it, not caring about the tradition and identity of RTS and StarCraft.
Starcraft's identity being about impossibly difficult macro mechanics is your opinion. To me, its identity is being a STRATEGY focused game. Although Starcraft should be difficult mechanically, the macro requirements shouldn't be so difficult and punishing that it takes away from the strategy. Right now, unless you have GM level APM to do everything, it feels like you're better off focusing mainly on macroing off an all-around build you have practised times and times again instead of scouting, thinking, and adapting.
I'm really curious about what you think about that. Don't you think that's a shame? Is is not important to you whether or not the SC2 gaming experience includes a good share of strategy?
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.
I think that with some of the ideas of LotV, like having more small battles going on constantly and requiring players to defend more area (because they're taking more bases), should improve the game in these aspects. Instead of focusing on macroing perfectly until the big battle, at which point micro is the only thing that matters, games should be more of a constant mix of both.
Ideally, some players should have the option to pick between different viable styles. If macro becomes too easy and paying attention to every skirmish becomes too important, then a whole dimension of style can virtually disappear. There should be players who are great at production and kind of just throw units around. But in order for that to be viable, pro players who focus on micro must have imperfect macro, so that a macro-focused player can actually differentiate himself. Simplifying or removing macro mechanics is in the wrong direction for that. I'd be more comfortable leaving them in for WCS 2016 and seeing what the games are like by season 3.
Inject larva is a mechanic that wasn't any more interesting than how zerg macro is done in SC:BW. Queens themselves are an added complexity to zerg macro. But eventually in a game zerg macro gets to a point where you need X number of inject queens just injecting regularly and that is not more interesting. The important thing is that it's not impossible for macro mechanics to be interesting. 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.
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. 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, as steps toward remedying the problems they say they have. But to just be like "nah actually we just want to make our game less about macro instead" really sucks for some of us to hear.
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. And actually there are pros who just play however they want, too. Certainly there are pros with worse mechanics or better mechanics, and in particular worse or better macro, worse or better builds, worse or better tactics, etc.
Whenever someone says the thing they love most about StarCraft is the strategy, and that strategy (as opposed to mechanics) is what's awesome and great about StarCraft, I always feel like they ought to be saying in parentheses that of course it's strategy performed in the context of extremely demanding mechanics that is really beautiful and great about StarCraft. I know for sure that StarCraft has a reputation for being extremely mechanically demanding. And a key component to all esports is mechanics. 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.
On August 06 2015 08:07 nTzzzz wrote: Imo, the balance between macro and micro IS already messed up. I'm sure we can agree macro is way more important than micro right now. That's especially true for players who are diamond and lower because for them ignoring micro completely while focusing on macro is the best thing they can do if they want to win. And I believe macro is still more important than micro even at the highest level. If you want a better balance between the two, cutting on macro mechanics is the right thing to do.
I don't really care about making the game easier for silver leaguers. Because even if blizzard makes some changes that makes macro easier, then BOTH of the silver league players have that new advantage. And when both players have an advantage, nobody does.... thus if blizzard simplifies fundamental game play mechanisms, then the only people who will actually be affected are the people who are already playing the game at a very high level.
The "macro vs micro" discussion shouldn't even be a discussion at all. There should be opportunities for great players to differentiate themselves with their macro AND their micro. And if you cut away some macro mechanics (or, for that matter, make units more difficult to micro), you remove the opportunity for great players to separate themselves from everyone else. And a lower skill ceiling = more boring game to watch and to play.
Strategy is doing the right thing in any given moment. But macro trumps any other action spending a lot of the time. I don't know how to solve it while still keeping macro styles viable, visible, and exciting. I am willing to try out the macro booster cut.
As a note on aesthetics: I believe that the macro boosters clutter balance and analysis of timings and build orders. Also they seem to provide complicated power surges throughout the game that are accounted for by precautionary nerfs for each race.
On August 06 2015 09:20 Jonas wrote: And if you cut away some macro mechanics (or, for that matter, make units more difficult to micro), you remove the opportunity for great players to separate themselves from everyone else.
How so is it that making units more difficult to micro removes that opportunity?
Pretty much agree with Nony. I do think though that perhaps macro boosters stand in the way of rapid expanding. I think it would be cooler if attention was given to expanding all over and controlling points on the map instead of having stuff to do on your 3 bases, which essentially represent 6 bases worth of production.
I hate to say it Nony but as a Zerg player I love larva inject! It's one of my favorite parts about sc2 - nothing makes you feel like youre multitasking more than injecting then spreading creep tumors then doing some micro - hell yeah. IMO multitasking and not dropping the ball is what makes StarCraft interesting!
On August 06 2015 10:15 CursOr wrote: I hate to say it Nony but as a Zerg player I love larva inject! It's one of my favorite parts about sc2 - nothing makes you feel like youre multitasking more than injecting then spreading creep tumors then doing some micro - hell yeah. IMO multitasking and not dropping the ball is what makes StarCraft interesting!
oh yeah i totally get that. but i think it's also possible to make it an interesting strategic choice or make it a defining part of a certain style of play. so you can happily do it every game but someone else could get by without focusing on it or practicing that skill. or if it really is gonna be kinda mandatory for everyone, then make the zerg macro mechanic more complex somehow so that the people who get satisfaction from making good decisions can get satisfaction from their macro mechanic. i think it's a case where a pareto improvement is possible (no one comes out worse, some people come out better).
keeping macro-focused style viable and interesting but not all-powerful is what blizzard's goal should be. so you can inject like a pro while your opponent is trying to get in your face to mess up your injects and take advantage of your attention being on injects instead of units. and that battle of attention should be balanced so that both styles are viable
I appreciate the time and effort that went into this post but I don't think its particularly designed without a mind already made up. Personally I'm really excited for some of these mechanics to be dropped in LOTV. I understand wanting pro players to be able to separate themselves from the pack but I'm not convinced the skill ceiling is dropping, rather, being shifted to other tasks.
While I'm constantly impressed by soO or Jaedong being able to make an enormous tech switch on account of perfect injects over the course of 20 minutes, its a mechanic that up until that point doesn't appear exciting. With further expansion taking place in LOTV as well as some more harass options, I would much rather watch the pros separate themselves by being able to spend the time attacking on multiple fronts rather than checking their injects.
Chrono I don't see a particular issue with, MULEs aren't exciting when they're just dumped in large numbers, to me that rewards poor mechanics being able to dump them all at once.
All in all I would like people to at least consider more where the new found APM can be spent. The pros won't have slower mechanics, they'll use the actions which would normally be spent on highly mundane tasks to the viewer to entertain with more interesting ones. In my opinion, a much more exciting venture for the esports audience.
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.
I think that with some of the ideas of LotV, like having more small battles going on constantly and requiring players to defend more area (because they're taking more bases), should improve the game in these aspects. Instead of focusing on macroing perfectly until the big battle, at which point micro is the only thing that matters, games should be more of a constant mix of both.
Ideally, some players should have the option to pick between different viable styles. If macro becomes too easy and paying attention to every skirmish becomes too important, then a whole dimension of style can virtually disappear. There should be players who are great at production and kind of just throw units around. But in order for that to be viable, pro players who focus on micro must have imperfect macro, so that a macro-focused player can actually differentiate himself. Simplifying or removing macro mechanics is in the wrong direction for that. I'd be more comfortable leaving them in for WCS 2016 and seeing what the games are like by season 3.
Inject larva is a mechanic that wasn't any more interesting than how zerg macro is done in SC:BW. Queens themselves are an added complexity to zerg macro. But eventually in a game zerg macro gets to a point where you need X number of inject queens just injecting regularly and that is not more interesting. The important thing is that it's not impossible for macro mechanics to be interesting. 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.
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. 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, as steps toward remedying the problems they say they have. But to just be like "nah actually we just want to make our game less about macro instead" really sucks for some of us to hear.
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. And actually there are pros who just play however they want, too. Certainly there are pros with worse mechanics or better mechanics, and in particular worse or better macro, worse or better builds, worse or better tactics, etc.
Whenever someone says the thing they love most about StarCraft is the strategy, and that strategy (as opposed to mechanics) is what's awesome and great about StarCraft, I always feel like they ought to be saying in parentheses that of course it's strategy performed in the context of extremely demanding mechanics that is really beautiful and great about StarCraft. I know for sure that StarCraft has a reputation for being extremely mechanically demanding. And a key component to all esports is mechanics. 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.
If there were an alternative to the current mechanics, but still kept the macro/choice ceiling high, would you be for it? I've always felt like chrono was underwhelming, (maybe it would be better if it drastically increase shield regen for units or building s- more than it already does for buildings). I have always thought mule was a bit too strong, and that it takes away from dt/burrow play - I'd much rather see the terran player make the choice for a mule drop add on or a scan add on. Injects are very one dimensional, and I agree with your and most others sentiments on it.
So, regardless of my ideas or feelings, how would you feel if blizzard were able to create an alternative to the current macro mechanic in place, perhaps ones that are completely new and never seen before.?
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.
I'm with Nony on this (but I wont quote his huge post), with the addition that I, like cursor, actually enjoy injects.
Actually, let me quote myself from the other thread, saying something fairly similar:
On August 03 2015 15:55 Cascade wrote: For me, and I think for many others in the thread, the problem isn't the total mechanical requirement of the game, which as you say will still be very high in lotv, with or without macro mechanics. What bothers me is that the mechanical requirements would shift from economy to unit control. I'm not saying that a game needs to have super hard economy mechanics to be a good game. but I think many of us, maybe especially people that have played sc1/2 for a long time, are used to and enjoy having macro skills as a huge factor in who wins the game, especially at lower levels. Removing inject, as a reaction to the increased micro requirement, would be a step away from that, which I'd be a bit sad to see.
I feel that it'd move sc2 towards "all the other games" that typically are more about unit control than demanding economy. Again, I don't try to claim that having a hard-to-handle economy is required to make a good game, and it may be less inviting for new players, I am not sure, but it is at the heart of why I have played starcraft 1 and 2 since it was released, and that may very well the case for others as well.
So this is a purely emotional argument from my side, nothing right or wrong, just explaining why I am not personally happy to see this suggestion.
I'm all for redesigning inject to have it involve more choices (apart from: should I micro my harass lings or go back and inject, /signed gold player). As long as it gives me a reason to actually look at my bases regularly, and gives me a chance to outmacro (or be outmacroed by) the other player.
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.)
On August 05 2015 18:20 TRaFFiC wrote: Managing your economy while at the same time controlling your army has been a fundamental part of every RTS I ever played.
And it still will be?
It still will be but the balance between the two is getting messed up. How would people who love micro feel if Blizzard just flat out told them the thing they like isn't actually fun or appreciated by viewers of tournaments so they're removing force field, fungal and stim to allow players to focus more on the fun stuff, the macro mechanics?
Imo, the balance between macro and micro IS already messed up. I'm sure we can agree macro is way more important than micro right now. That's especially true for players who are diamond and lower because for them ignoring micro completely while focusing on macro is the best thing they can do if they want to win. And I believe macro is still more important than micro even at the highest level. If you want a better balance between the two, cutting on macro mechanics is the right thing to do.
No we cannot agree on this. On the highest level micro is the more important of the two. The higher you go, the greater its relative importance.
You will have to convince us otherwise before we can agree.
There are two sides of the coin here: casual players and pro players.
For pro players having demanding macro is another way to separate good from the average or another path to focus on to beat your competitors.
For casual players the fun does not come from making 2 more zealots or 2 more swarm hosts. My best memories from BW was getting to those fun units before enemy was prepared to defend well and harassing or killing them. You didn't share stories with friends how it was cool that I had 10 marines at minute 4 vs his 7 marines but how you managed to rush to dark templars and keep the enemy Terran in the base until he got SVs or how a Lurker drop with slow overlords managed to surprise him or how that 1st Tank in a good position stopped the attack.
Even in sc2 the most exciting games from the past were the baneling traps, hidden void ray rushes and so on. The way first Zerg champion won first GSL is still cooler than most winning afterwards and that was not about better macro.
I am pretty sure a much smaller number of players and viewers get off on seing someone have 10 more units due to better macro mechanics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 04:21 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.
So you want to make sc2 into wc4? Well that isn't even in the question for blizzard, they just want to cut macro mechanics. So you do agree that by doing this nothing too important will change considering action and multitasking cause there won't be a huge redesign?
I will agree to the idea that the multitasking demands of 'single player' macro boosters can be replaced by other actions demanding attention; actions that actually have an interaction component with the opponent.
Mule, chrono, inject - for the most part they are single player actions. Occasionally there is a direct interaction component, such as oops I dropped mule during a dt timing. But I want these multitasking demands replaced with something that necessarily has an interaction component (such as more harassment on the map OR I'm going down this strategic route instead of that one).
This shouldn't affect any notion of macro since the only difficulty in macro (assuming you know your builds/timings down pat) is multitasking. If anything this should make multitasking (and consequently macro) harder as you now have to play a 2 player read-react game (with surprises) instead of a 1 player rhythm game (with no surprises). Now we can truly appreciate those that dare to play a spread out macro game. Instead of a tight, I'm good at mini-rhythm game, macro game.
Nah you didn't understand me, i meant what actions would we see more of if these macro mechanics would be cut? You think there would be more engagements cause of it? More drops? I don't believe that there would be more action at all, cause the design of sc2 doesn't allow it in most cases.
Then why does Archon mode have more action? Even 2 extra drops per game is an improvement mind you! I would rather watch that and see how both players handle it instead of watching two players sit in their base playing rhythm games by themselves.
Because archon mode doubles the apm and more importantly it creates REAL multitasking cause there actually are two seperate guys controlling the game at once. Cutting some macro mechanics won't give you double the apm. I guess you wanna cut any apm required to macro alltogether then?
And even in archon mode you sometimes simply cannot do more cause sc2 simply doesn't allow it very well.
Why fixate on the double factor? If even 5% of your APM is freed up to handle other tasks that is okay. Remember, 2 drops increase per game is an improvement. Unless, you're from the camp that enjoys single player rhythm games defining your macro.
And I don't buy the argument that 'sc2 doesn't allow it'. This is easily refuted by observing the evolution of strategy and tactics throughout SC2. I've been around wince WoL beta and it has been a slow but forward moving process - players will find the tactical shots available without sacrificing solid play.
I can pretty much guarantee the koreans complained about micro being too frantic when they said "LotV is too hard". The remax episode with the people who went to Blizzard's summit said as much.
Leave it to Blizzard to freely interpret micro as macro.
Why i fixate on you giving an example which theoretically improves your apm by 100% to "prove" that cutting macro mechanics will lead to more action? I don't know, maybe cause it's a ridiculous example?
Archon mode doesn't double the action on the map, why should a tiny increase in effective "battle" apm increase action at all then? Where are these 2 drops coming from?
It's pretty simple if you ask me. If we had a game where you had to expand all over the map very fast, thus forcing the players to defend these expansions, then yes i would also enjoy a game where every single apm you have is used for actual micro management of your units. Sc2 isn't designed like that though, you have a very limited amount of area to defend most of the time. So no, the apm i now use to inject my hatcheries won't suddenly be used to harass with my zerglings, cause well i simply cannot do it cause there is a wall and units at the natural base.
I simply don't see how such a small apm change would create better gameplay with the current version of sc2. But hey maybe i am completely biased cause i still think that there actually should be MORE mechanical checks in sc2 regarding macro + more options to micro (with more potential reward)
The more I think about it the more I think the macro boosters should be nerfed. Not allowing mass probes or units to be chrono'd out or mass larva or especially those god damn mules would actually force players to macro better.
That being said the macro mechanics are interesting and should still be in the game, just make them give a less dramatic effect on the game (ie less chrono energy, larva etc)
On August 07 2015 04:02 LaLuSh wrote: 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.
So much distortion of what I am saying I don't know where to start. How about having a real, logic based discussion about what's important to each of us in SC2 and then seeing how those things are affected by the proposed change and the other alternatives we can come up with?
First you're working under the assumption that I want to be part of the greats and I have absolutely no interest in that. What I want is:
1) to get more enjoyment out of the game. For me that requires more strategy and less repetitive stuff.
2) to be able to be in awe of the top players. For me that requires that the pro level skillset include more strategy. I'm not saying I think less of them because they've had to practise mindless actions 12 hours a day for years, I'm saying I need something else on top of that: a lot of thinking.
3) that players on all levels are able to enjoy the strategic aspects of SC2. Notice that it doesn't necessarily require reducing the skill ceiling (since I'm starting to understand a lot of you mostly care about the game being insanely difficult mechanically). We could just make missing things like injects less punishing so that focusing on something else than macro with a low APM is actually viable. As a bonus, it would make the game less frustrating for lower level players, all for the greater success of SC2. I myself would really enjoy playing again with my friends who have all quit for that very reason.
The comparison with soccer doesn't really work. Most importantly the logic behind it is flawed because we couldn't make football less technical even if we wanted to, whereas changes to macro boosters are easy to implement. Another reason is that the fact I don't find football very strategic is precisely why I don't watch it. SC2 is supposed to be a strategy game and that's a big part of why I like it. And as I said, I don't think less of players because they've had to work their ass off, I just need something else on top of that.
Same flawed reasoning for piano. If we had a way to make it less difficult for pianists to deliver great music, wouldn't we want to do it? Or would you instantly think piano music is for the plebs and totally sucks if it gets easier? The reason I like piano is not because I know it's incredibly difficult but because the music is beautiful. It just happens to be very difficult. You also conveniently ignore the fact that it takes a great deal of other things than technical skills to be a great pianist. I would know, my dad happens to be one and to conduct orchestras for a living. Comparatively to other pianists, Glenn Gould was pretty bad technically, what made him great is he was a thinker and had an artistic vision.
Please, no more bad comparisons. You're better than this.
On August 07 2015 05:25 The_Red_Viper wrote: Why i fixate on you giving an example which theoretically improves your apm by 100% to "prove" that cutting macro mechanics will lead to more action? I don't know, maybe cause it's a ridiculous example?
Archon mode doesn't double the action on the map, why should a tiny increase in effective "battle" apm increase action at all then? Where are these 2 drops coming from?
It's pretty simple if you ask me. If we had a game where you had to expand all over the map very fast, thus forcing the players to defend these expansions, then yes i would also enjoy a game where every single apm you have is used for actual micro management of your units. Sc2 isn't designed like that though, you have a very limited amount of area to defend most of the time. So no, the apm i now use to inject my hatcheries won't suddenly be used to harass with my zerglings, cause well i simply cannot do it cause there is a wall and units at the natural base.
I simply don't see how such a small apm change would create better gameplay with the current version of sc2. But hey maybe i am completely biased cause i still think that there actually should be MORE mechanical checks in sc2 regarding macro + more options to micro (with more potential reward)
I'm not *proving* anything, merely poking holes in your argument:
On August 07 2015 04:59 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't believe that there would be more action at all, cause the design of sc2 doesn't allow it in most cases.
Also LotV has more of this:
On August 07 2015 05:25 The_Red_Viper wrote: If we had a game where you had to expand all over the map very fast, thus forcing the players to defend these expansions...
And less of this:
On August 07 2015 05:25 The_Red_Viper wrote: you have a very limited amount of area to defend most of the time
Broodwar, Starcraft Improved, and Starbow all have nerfed macro mechanics. And none of the accusations you made in OP occur in these games. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of what you suggest.
The fact that you don't think it's important for a game to be fun to play pretty much shows how asinine your whole argument is.
It would be extremely easy to make an extremely hard game that's much harder than SC2. But probably no one would play it.
On August 07 2015 04:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: So you want to make sc2 into wc4? Well that isn't even in the question for blizzard, they just want to cut macro mechanics. So you do agree that by doing this nothing too important will change considering action and multitasking cause there won't be a huge redesign?
No I did not say they level up... heck it makes sense for each race to have a behind-enemy-lines harassing commander. Then we will see who can multitask (in an interactive way).
Yeah I see it now... they start in a locked state, and after X minutes they unlock. Don't ask me for more stats, figure it out.
But no... 'hero units' have no place in starcraft. And macro has to be a single player rhythm game in your base, long live brood war I guess. I enjoyed the rhythm of macro in brood war, click z, click z click z, click d click d click d w/e yeah it was fun, it was rhythmic. But... I want to see the height of high intensity, strategic starcraft. APM is finite. I know it's nice to talk about holding down the a-button, but you can't do even that when the banelings roll in.
On August 07 2015 04:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: So you want to make sc2 into wc4? Well that isn't even in the question for blizzard, they just want to cut macro mechanics. So you do agree that by doing this nothing too important will change considering action and multitasking cause there won't be a huge redesign?
No I did not say they level up... heck it makes sense for each race to have a behind-enemy-lines harassing commander. Then we will see who can multitask (in an interactive way).
Yeah I see it now... they start in a locked state, and after X minutes they unlock. Don't ask me for more stats, figure it out.
But no... 'hero units' have no place in starcraft. And macro has to be a single player rhythm game in your base, long live brood war I guess. I enjoyed the rhythm of macro in brood war, click z, click z click z, click d click d click d w/e yeah it was fun, it was rhythmic. But... I want to see the height of high intensity, strategic starcraft. APM is finite. I know it's nice to talk about holding down the a-button, but you can't do even that when the banelings roll in.
There is something good in my post, I'm sorry you missed it (apparently you don't want high intensity strategic starcraft as long as it's mechanically hard and the generals are walking around with a hundred pound ball chained to their leg).
---
For emphasis I will repeat the best part (with a slight edit):
I want to see the height of high intensity, strategic starcraft. APM is finite. I know it's nice to talk about how holding down the a-button is so easy, but you can't do even that when the banelings roll in.
---
Also, in case people in this thread aren't looking at the other one, I think this is a good post summarizing some key considerations as to why macro booster cut may be a good thing (less luck = more skill):
Yes, I frequently get matched up against terrans who forget to build scvs for 30 seconds when something happens on the map.
I would like to see a replays of this happening (in the phase of the game where worker count is very relevant).
600 average unspent ressources and you don't think I (or my opponents) ever miss scv rounds? I'm not saying ANYTIME something happens they forget scvs, I'm saying it happens.
Even pros sometimes do. I'm not going to spend time watching my own crappy replays but you can watch game 1 of Happy vs Heromarine from today, which you can find here (starts at 2h25) http://www.twitch.tv/esl_sc2/v/9892484
Happy stops producing scvs for no reason (other than reaper harass) between: 4:14 and 4:21 4:37 and 4:48 5:57 and 6:06
That's already 1.5 scv behind on bad macro alone, all on one CC and less than 30 supply. Then on 2 CCs he's supply blocked at 38 supply from 6:44 to 7:07 and misses on two more scvs.
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.
This is can be done by listing all/top x of the negatives and positives described here, play a few 100 games and see which changes actually happened. One might easily overlook side effects or dramatise something which is actually no big deal.
600 average unspent ressources and you don't think I (or my opponents) ever miss scv rounds? I'm not saying ANYTIME something happens they forget scvs, I'm saying it happens.
I am still waiting for the 30 seconds in a row. If huge macro mistakes happened frequently against master terrans, you shouldn't have a problem finding some examples.
Happy stops producing scvs for no reason (other than reaper harass) between:
Happy has always been bad at producing scvs. Not a very good example of a typical pro gamer. I remember Thorzain at HSC "mocking" him over it during his casts.
But even then, the 1.5 less scvs he missed responds to less than 5% less income in the future. So if we assume Happy is in bottom tier of pro gamer macro, the difference between him and top macro players is 5%. That's not a very big deal compared to the imporance of unit control.
The point is that macro is more aboout getting reasonable good/solid at it, and once you reach a critical minium level, any further progress isn't as significant.
But that's exactly why the design of macro in Sc2 is terrible because it then becomes something that adds to the skillflor and not the skillceiling.
I want to look at endgame situations for zerg once again. While p and t have finnished with their supply and production building creation and can focus solely on fights zerg has to both keep the creep spread up and supply 5, 6 or even more hatcheries with larva which is keeping him off the actual tasks.
This does lower the quality of games alot I believe at the end of games. Just spreading creep is enough to keep zerg busy and leave enough time for the other visible tasks.
While p and t have finnished with their supply and production building creation and can focus solely on fights zerg has to both keep the creep spread and supply 5, 6 or even more hatcheries with larva which is keeping him off the actual tasks.
You don't need to inject anywhere near constantly when you have 5+ hatches.
While p and t have finnished with their supply and production building creation and can focus solely on fights zerg has to both keep the creep spread and supply 5, 6 or even more hatcheries with larva which is keeping him off the actual tasks.
You don't need to inject anywhere near constantly when you have 5+ hatches.
Lets change this into: Players don't inject near as constantly when they have 5+ hatches.
Simply for the reason that it is hardly possible to do so while spreading creep and managing a 200/200 army in fights.
This is a reason that makes games more volatile and watchers not understand why e.g. a zerg loses a game after a pretty even or slightly disadvantagous 200 vs 200 fight if they can't see that he was on low larva.
On August 07 2015 15:35 Hider wrote: Happy has always been bad at producing scvs. Not a very good example of a typical pro gamer. I remember Thorzain at HSC "mocking" him over it during his casts.
Wait what? A pro gamer can't even produce scvs properly around the 5 minute mark? Clearly the macro is not as easy as what people make it out to be. What happens when the game gets into the mid-game and the multitasking *really* ramps up? Probably many macro slips that go unnoticed because *holding down the a-button is easy*.
Lets change this into: Players don't inject near as constantly when they have 5+ hatches.
No it's because you literrally don't need to. You just need to have enough production. What's the benefit of having 50+ idle larva?
Wait what? A pro gamer can't even produce scvs properly around the 5 minute mark? Clearly the macro is not as easy as what people make it out to be. What happens when the game gets into the mid-game and the multitasking *really* ramps up? Probably many macro slips that go unnoticed because *holding down the a-button is easy*.
Then scv production doesn't matter, and you just need to keep your average unspent down. Happy does that almost as good as everyone. Just look at actual games and notice how low the average unspent is consistently. The differences are marginal and especially as the game progresses, small macro discrepancies become less and less influential on the outcome of the game.
Also I don't buy "scv doesn't matter then"... if macro is *so easy*, then should be no problem to squeeze out *every possible advantage*.
---
*APM is Finite* - you can't simultaneously build units, and move units, and build gases at new base, and drop your opponent, and micro a battle... it just doesn't work no matter how *easy* you think the UI is, the fact of the matter is when you compress the analysis down to a minute (an instant or a point of time, a very short time) time scale, you must make choices how to spend actions.
---
Also, all the macro boosters make the power balance throughout the game confusing. For the longest time I tried to justify in my own mind that somehow Terran is balanced around having 400+% mining power in the late game... but I think it's time we just scrapped these power surge macro boosters and focused on core balance and how to make the game play better and better.
What is that type of strawman? Reread my comments and you see that I consistently have written that the small macro assymetries barely matter (not that everyone macros perfectly).
We just saw that with Happy. Probably worst current pro macro player, and he "suffers" from a disadvantage of 5% less income..... That's not significant.
A low skillcap of a certain element in the game does not imply that you cannot get better at that. Rather it implies that any type of further progression isn't very impactful.
Also I don't buy "scv doesn't matter then"... if macro is *so easy*, then should be no problem to squeeze out *every possible advantage*.
Scv production doesn't matter in the later stages of the game (that's what I implied by "then" given the context).
Early game, ofc a 5% extra income is good, but it's - in the bigger picture - a marginal advantage, and this isn't the difference between your average good pro macro player and great macro player. It's the difference between a bottom tier macro player and perfect macro.
Wait what? A pro gamer can't even produce scvs properly around the 5 minute mark? Clearly the macro is not as easy as what people make it out to be. What happens when the game gets into the mid-game and the multitasking *really* ramps up? Probably many macro slips that go unnoticed because *holding down the a-button is easy*.
Then scv production doesn't matter, and you just need to keep your average unspent down. Happy does that almost as good as everyone. Serisouly just look at actual games and notice how low the average unspent is consistently.
SCV production does matter. Average unspent resources is only a good indicator if you actually have sufficient income. If your unspent resources is a lot, you are likely not macroing well, but if it is low you can still be bad. If you have very little income and you spend it all instantly, your macro is worse than if you had 1.5 times the income but floated a constant 500 minerals. This is not to say that Happy's macro is bad, because I'm sure it is not, but not making SCVs early in the game is usually a mistake.
What is that type of strawman? Reread my comments and you see that I consistently have written that the small macro assymetries barely matter. We just saw that with Happy. Probably worst current pro macro player, and he "suffers" from a disadvantage of 5% less income..... That's not significant.
A low skillcap of a certain element in the game does not imply that you cannot get better at that. Rather it implies that any type of further progression isn't very impactful.
Forget about that example. What happens when the game transitions into the management style mid-late game? Is the macro perfect then? Is the micro perfect? Answer is no.
5% here, 5% there ... suddenly pro has an advantage. Pro will always fit in more actions than lower level player. And even pro is not macro'ing perfect throughout the game.
Not post early game since you there will have 60+ workers anyway (which was what I responded too). And assuming no excessive queing, average unspent is a very good indicator of macro skills. And pro macro players barely que (again the diferences here are in the small percentages).
60+ workers? I could have sworn the example we were discussing was around the 5 minute mark.
Also you claim that 5% advantage at 5 minutes is insignificant then? I also ask how many opportunities for 5% advantage exist and are missed in a game?
Forget about that example. What happens when the game transitions into the management style mid-late game? Is the macro perfect then? Is the micro perfect? Answer is no.
If macro was a huge factor later in the game, then we would see much higher average unspent. E.g. pro players would frequently have 1k+ average unspent. But when on a great macro player has 240 average unspent and a bad pro macro player has 280 average unspent... that's a very marginal advantage.
*APM is Finite* - you can't simultaneously build units, and move units, and build gases at new base, and drop your opponent, and micro a battle... it just doesn't work no matter how *easy* you think the UI is, the fact of the matter is when you compress the analysis down to a minute (an instant or a point of time, a very short time) time scale, you must make choices how to spend actions. Removing macro boosters doesn't change that.
---
Also, all the macro boosters make the power balance throughout the game confusing. For the longest time I tried to justify in my own mind that somehow Terran (as one example) is balanced around having 400+% mining power in the late game... but I think it's time we just scrapped these power surge macro boosters and focused on core balance and how to make the game play better and better.
---
Also you claim that 5% advantage at 5 minutes is insignificant then? I also ask how many opportunities for 5% advantage exist and are missed in a game?
600 average unspent ressources and you don't think I (or my opponents) ever miss scv rounds? I'm not saying ANYTIME something happens they forget scvs, I'm saying it happens.
I am still waiting for the 30 seconds in a row. If huge macro mistakes happened frequently against master terrans, you shouldn't have a problem finding some examples.
Happy stops producing scvs for no reason (other than reaper harass) between:
Happy has always been bad at producing scvs. Not a very good example of a typical pro gamer. I remember Thorzain at HSC "mocking" him over it during his casts.
But even then, the 1.5 less scvs he missed responds to less than 5% less income in the future. So if we assume Happy is in bottom tier of pro gamer macro, the difference between him and top macro players is 5%. That's not a very big deal compared to the imporance of unit control.
The point is that macro is more aboout getting reasonable good/solid at it, and once you reach a critical minium level, any further progress isn't as significant.
But that's exactly why the design of macro in Sc2 is terrible because it then becomes something that adds to the skillflor and not the skillceiling.
If you hadn't been making serious contributions to this thread previous to that, I'd think you're trolling.
I keep saying I enjoy strategy over repetitive tasks. Do you think I feel like watching my own replays staring at the scv production just to prove a point that's completely obvious to (I hope) everyone else? Already did that for that Happy game, and it turned out I couldn't pay attention to anything else. Not fun.
The very first game I watch (picked a non korean TvT), I find Happy forgetting scv production for 10 seconds three times before 30 supply. Granted he's not the most mechanically sound pro out there but he's still infinitely better than I am. Why do you not believe I can miss scvs for 30 seconds? If I say 20 seconds instead, are you ok with it? Cause it doesn't change anything to my previous argument. Yes, missing scv production for 20 seconds is a huge deal.
Let's say I forget even just one scv (17 seconds) at 20 supply. It's going to take more or less (depending on when you get your 3rd CC) 5 minutes to get to maximum 3base saturation (it would take 46*17/60/2 = 6.5 minutes producing the remaining 46 scvs on 2 CCs). You're missing on one scv the whole time, that would be mining 40-45 minerals per minute so you're down more than 200 minerals by that time.
In the case of Happy he was down 700 minerals. Not a big deal right?
I don't even care about the macro vs micro debate which this argument was about. What I care about is making the game more strategic.
Right now I'm watching Bbyong v Life G2 and he is totally not getting the gases in his corner bases for a considerable time... that's a pretty big deal no? #perfectMacroWithoutMacroBoosters
I think this is mostly right. I do think there is something to reducing the overall strength of macro mechanics, which would both slow down economy expansion and perhaps also reduce skill disparities at the very lowest level of the game. But I am very, very much opposed to removing the macro mechanics altogether.
This debate is really interesting. There's just something I can't help but notice about stuchiu's article: I understand from what I read that the reason for injects to exist is to compensate for the extra charge of macro terran and protoss have to do compared to zerg, making it, by DEFINITION, a band-aid to a problem rather than an true cure to it. Mechanics in Starcraft shouldn't just be «robot-like» based, but strategy-based (I really can't see why we shouldn't make the two things - decision making + good mechanics - happen at once when we can - is there a counter-argument to this I'm not aware of?). So, isn't the issue at hand to propose actual concrete changes rather than simply saying «remove the band-aid» or «don't remove it» since we all reckognize there IS a problem? Shouldn't we be focusing our energies on writing articles about these proposed changes with mods incremented in the game to test them, like I believe some mods have been set up to adress the mothership core and warp-gate design issues in the past?
The very first game I watch (picked a non korean TvT), I find Happy forgetting scv production for 10 seconds three times before 30 supply. Granted he's not the most mechanically sound pro out there but he's still infinitely better than I am. Why do you not believe I can miss scvs for 30 seconds?
Because I watched thousands of master league replays over the years, and I always study how well my opponent macro's. I do the same thing for pro games and it was why I well already aware that Happy sucked at scv production. But most pro's are very close to max efficiency here (Goody is actually good at scv production, he just sucks at production by overqueing).
I noted it becasue he was worse than producing Scv's than I was (when I played actively 1-2 years ago in master league) and I was generally close in macro skills to most other terrans in master league.
You come from a postion where you probably haven't been watching how well they macro on a consistent basis. But I have made that a habit of mine. I both look at unspent ressources and production tab whenever I watch games.
So I am still waiting for you to send me these replays of huge macro flaws that you claim exist. Shouldn't be that much work when you say its something that happens frequently.
On August 08 2015 08:51 Trizztein wrote: I understand from what I read that the reason for injects to exist is to compensate for the extra charge of macro terran and protoss have to do compared to zerg, making it, by DEFINITION, a band-aid to a problem rather than an true cure to it.
Assuming queen injects exist because zerg needs a macro mechanic comparable in difficulty to the mechanics of terran and protoss it just does not follow that this means the zerg mechanic is a band-aid solution.
It could also be no solution or the solution. This argument is flawed.
Lets change this into: Players don't inject near as constantly when they have 5+ hatches.
No it's because you literrally don't need to. You just need to have enough production. What's the benefit of having 50+ idle larva?
There are obviously a lot of factors involved (when are we in late game, what kind of composition is the zerg going for, etc.), but having 50+ larvae allows you to remax instantly after a battle. Take roach hydra vs mech for example, it may require the zerg 3 maxed out armies to take the terran down. You need to keep your injects up (to a degree) to make this possible.
In my opinion, this is fine, because the extra macro zerg needs to put in is rewarded with an ability (instant remax) terran and protoss do not have. And this remains balanced because instant remax units are generally a bit weaker than protoss or terran units.
Another method of playing late game is going for the super army (brood lords). I would agree with you that if it gets to the massive brood lord army, injects become way less relevant. If you lose that army, you very probably just lose the game.
I am astonished to see how many tl users actually like the macro mechanisms. I was expecting opposite reaction since I believe that as players are able to concentrace on micro we will see more small fights over the map. For me microing units is much more fun to play and watch. Great macro isn't appreciated much by the viewers. It doesn't give much wows in a instant even if it was the determing factor between winning and losing the game.
However, it could be the case that there is a bias: long-time sc2 players do not want to give easy way to new players. They've put long hours, especially zerg players, honing their macro and new players would not have to do that kind of grinding in case macro mechanisms were removed. So maybe this could be a improvement even if it's not very liked.
The biggest problem with current mechanisms is how punishing missing injects is compared to forgetting muling or chronoboosting. Taking account community's wants, one possibility would be making protoss and terran mechanisms more punishing as well. On top level this would barely affect the balance but for lower ranking players missing injects would be less punishing as protoss and terran players would miss their macro mechanisms as well.
One way to "punish" protoss and terran could be to introduce timer, as injects have, for chrono and mules as well. This would put end to mule hammers and mass warpgate boosting. Every race would still have another ways to spend cc/nexus/queen energy, but they'd need almost equal amount of attention to macro.
On August 08 2015 20:55 newtii wrote: I am astonished to see how many tl users actually like the macro mechanisms. I was expecting opposite reaction since I believe that as players are able to concentrace on micro we will see more small fights over the map. For me microing units is much more fun to play and watch. Great macro isn't appreciated much by the viewers. It doesn't give much wows in a instant even if it was the determing factor between winning and losing the game.
However, it could be the case that there is a bias: long-time sc2 players do not want to give easy way to new players. They've put long hours, especially zerg players, honing their macro and new players would not have to do that kind of grinding in case macro mechanisms were removed. So maybe this could be a improvement even if it's not very liked.
I think you can't take micro and macro apart like that. Current micro is so impressive because players have to macro behind it. Maybe I'm wrong, but if micro is "the only thing" you have to do, we'll reach skill caps really soon and 'amazing' moves become way too common.
The biggest problem with current mechanisms is how punishing missing injects is compared to forgetting muling or chronoboosting. Taking account community's wants, one possibility would be making protoss and terran mechanisms more punishing as well. On top level this would barely affect the balance but for lower ranking players missing injects would be less punishing as protoss and terran players would miss their macro mechanisms as well.
One way to "punish" protoss and terran could be to introduce timer, as injects have, for chrono and mules as well. This would put end to mule hammers and mass warpgate boosting. Every race would still have another ways to spend cc/nexus/queen energy, but they'd need almost equal amount of attention to macro.
The biggest problem is pulling out one aspect of the game that is different between the races in order to brand it as imbalanced (or I guess, punishing). If you don't like how punishing queen injects are, play a different race. It is just wrong to me to want the races to be more alike. I want more diversity between the races not less. It is amazing to me the three races differ on such fundamental levels.
On August 08 2015 20:55 newtii wrote: I am astonished to see how many tl users actually like the macro mechanisms. I was expecting opposite reaction since I believe that as players are able to concentrace on micro we will see more small fights over the map. For me microing units is much more fun to play and watch. Great macro isn't appreciated much by the viewers. It doesn't give much wows in a instant even if it was the determing factor between winning and losing the game.
However, it could be the case that there is a bias: long-time sc2 players do not want to give easy way to new players. They've put long hours, especially zerg players, honing their macro and new players would not have to do that kind of grinding in case macro mechanisms were removed. So maybe this could be a improvement even if it's not very liked.
I think you can't take micro and macro apart like that. Current micro is so impressive because players have to macro behind it. Maybe I'm wrong, but if micro is "the only thing" you have to do, we'll reach skill caps really soon and 'amazing' moves become way too common.
The biggest problem with current mechanisms is how punishing missing injects is compared to forgetting muling or chronoboosting. Taking account community's wants, one possibility would be making protoss and terran mechanisms more punishing as well. On top level this would barely affect the balance but for lower ranking players missing injects would be less punishing as protoss and terran players would miss their macro mechanisms as well.
One way to "punish" protoss and terran could be to introduce timer, as injects have, for chrono and mules as well. This would put end to mule hammers and mass warpgate boosting. Every race would still have another ways to spend cc/nexus/queen energy, but they'd need almost equal amount of attention to macro.
The biggest problem is pulling out one aspect of the game that is different between the races in order to brand it as imbalanced (or I guess, punishing). If you don't like how punishing queen injects are, play a different race. It is just wrong to me to want the races to be more alike. I want more diversity between the races not less. It is amazing to me the three races differ on such fundamental levels.
yeah its kinda like the gumiho incident with drops before hots. in WoL people were like: wow, gumiho is really good at dropping! with superspeed medievacs he'll probably be even more insane. Then instead we got a dozen more gumihos, and it wasnt really special anymore
On August 08 2015 21:17 MJesk wrote: If you don't like how punishing queen injects are, play a different race. It is just wrong to me to want the races to be more alike. I want more diversity between the races not less. It is amazing to me the three races differ on such fundamental levels.
I don't think inject is intrinsic to the identity of zerg. It's also not the only point of difference between the races. As you say, the races differ on fundamental level.
I personally like the zerg units and zerg in general, but I dislike inject as a mechanic.
On August 08 2015 21:17 MJesk wrote: If you don't like how punishing queen injects are, play a different race. It is just wrong to me to want the races to be more alike. I want more diversity between the races not less. It is amazing to me the three races differ on such fundamental levels.
I don't think inject is intrinsic to the identity of zerg. It's also not the only point of difference between the races. As you say, the races differ on fundamental level.
I personally like the zerg units and zerg in general, but I dislike inject as a mechanic.
The methodology and mechanics of production as well as creep spread are the defining features of zerg. These mechanics differ on a fundamental level from the other two races. All else follows from that (like how the units are). If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. But I would like to know what you think the fundamental differences between the races are.
On August 08 2015 20:55 newtii wrote: I am astonished to see how many tl users actually like the macro mechanisms. I was expecting opposite reaction since I believe that as players are able to concentrace on micro we will see more small fights over the map. For me microing units is much more fun to play and watch. Great macro isn't appreciated much by the viewers. It doesn't give much wows in a instant even if it was the determing factor between winning and losing the game.
However, it could be the case that there is a bias: long-time sc2 players do not want to give easy way to new players. They've put long hours, especially zerg players, honing their macro and new players would not have to do that kind of grinding in case macro mechanisms were removed. So maybe this could be a improvement even if it's not very liked.
I think you can't take micro and macro apart like that. Current micro is so impressive because players have to macro behind it. Maybe I'm wrong, but if micro is "the only thing" you have to do, we'll reach skill caps really soon and 'amazing' moves become way too common.
I feel that the casual viewers cannot understand the mechanics required for macro, the restriction it makes for micro. More awesome micro is needed for sc2. And I'd believe this change would encourage it even more as attention to macro isn't limiting factor. Hopefully new micro techniques would emerge.
Of course current Maru style TvP micro would be diluted but maybe Maru maybe this change could allow even more room for Maru's brilliant micro.
On August 08 2015 21:17 MJesk wrote: If you don't like how punishing queen injects are, play a different race. It is just wrong to me to want the races to be more alike. I want more diversity between the races not less. It is amazing to me the three races differ on such fundamental levels.
I don't think inject is intrinsic to the identity of zerg. It's also not the only point of difference between the races. As you say, the races differ on fundamental level.
I personally like the zerg units and zerg in general, but I dislike inject as a mechanic.
The methodology and mechanics of production as well as creep spread are the defining features of zerg. These mechanics differ on a fundamental level from the other two races. All else follows from that (like how the units are). If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. But I would like to know what you think the fundamental differences between the races are.
If you mean fundamental to the way zerg is currently designed in HotS, then yes, I agree. But inject didn't exist in broodwar, and is not necessary in order for zerg to feel like zerg.
Yes, inject is a feature that is unique to zerg, but removing it does not remove zerg uniqueness.
On August 08 2015 20:55 newtii wrote: The biggest problem with current mechanisms is how punishing missing injects is compared to forgetting muling or chronoboosting. Taking account community's wants, one possibility would be making protoss and terran mechanisms more punishing as well. On top level this would barely affect the balance but for lower ranking players missing injects would be less punishing as protoss and terran players would miss their macro mechanisms as well.
One way to "punish" protoss and terran could be to introduce timer, as injects have, for chrono and mules as well. This would put end to mule hammers and mass warpgate boosting. Every race would still have another ways to spend cc/nexus/queen energy, but they'd need almost equal amount of attention to macro.
The biggest problem is pulling out one aspect of the game that is different between the races in order to brand it as imbalanced (or I guess, punishing). If you don't like how punishing queen injects are, play a different race. It is just wrong to me to want the races to be more alike. I want more diversity between the races not less. It is amazing to me the three races differ on such fundamental levels.
The change I proposed do not affect the design of the races, all the fundamental differences would still exist. Reasoning for it is because lots of posters in this thread like and feel that need to go back to one's base to macro is essential for sc2. It is a feature to distinguish sc2 from other rts games. The change would force this (arguably) liked feature for protoss/terran more in the late game too.
Implemented in HOTS chrono and mules could be buffed if needed, but in LOTV it's impossible to make any balance calls.
On August 08 2015 21:17 MJesk wrote: I think you can't take micro and macro apart like that. Current micro is so impressive because players have to macro behind it. Maybe I'm wrong, but if micro is "the only thing" you have to do, we'll reach skill caps really soon and 'amazing' moves become way too common.
I feel that the casual viewers cannot understand the mechanics required for macro, the restriction it makes for micro. More awesome micro is needed for sc2. And I'd believe this change would encourage it even more as attention to macro isn't limiting factor. Hopefully new micro techniques would emerge.
Of course current Maru style TvP micro would be diluted but maybe Maru maybe this change could allow even more room for Maru's brilliant micro.
I think the casual viewer can see the restriction macro puts on micro almost every game. The frequency in which stuff dies because players aren't paying attention is pretty high. It may be that casters should explain this better, but it seems to me that it doesn't take much for people to realize something's up.
And really. Do you want to change the fundamentals of the game based on a vague hope some amazing micro stuff will miraculously pop up?
On August 08 2015 08:51 Trizztein wrote: This debate is really interesting. There's just something I can't help but notice about stuchiu's article: I understand from what I read that the reason for injects to exist is to compensate for the extra charge of macro terran and protoss have to do compared to zerg, making it, by DEFINITION, a band-aid to a problem rather than an true cure to it.
Writing it in italic and caps doesn't make it true. Or adding «double angle brackets» for that matter. (How do you even type those??) And please tell me what is the DEFINITION of a band-aid to a problem that separates it from a solution to a problem? Or a true cure to a problem for that matter? Anyway, just got a bit annoyed at your choice of words, sorry about that. I think I understand what you are trying to say.
Moving on:
Historically, the mule, chrono boost and inject were introduced roughly simultaneously in the WoL beta (or alpha probably?), and the reason was mainly the huuuuge outcry from the ex BWers about how the macro was incredibly simplified through MBS and auto-rally workers. Those were simplified much for the same reasons people bring up now: it's silly to have people do mindless repetitive action (such as clicking through 10 barracks or tell every worker to go mine manually). They still wanted to keep people busy in their bases though, so they introduced the macro mechanics for each race that would introduce meaningful strategical clicks. Don't see what's band-aid about that train of thought.
Mechanics in Starcraft shouldn't just be «robot-like» based, but strategy-based (I really can't see why we shouldn't make the two things - decision making + good mechanics - happen at once when we can - is there a counter-argument to this I'm not aware of?). So, isn't the issue at hand to propose actual concrete changes rather than simply saying «remove the band-aid» or «don't remove it» since we all reckognize there IS a problem? Shouldn't we be focusing our energies on writing articles about these proposed changes with mods incremented in the game to test them, like I believe some mods have been set up to adress the mothership core and warp-gate design issues in the past?
Then as you say, people figured out pretty quickly what was the best way to spend the queen/OC/nexus energy, and they turned into pretty mindless tasks for most of the time, especially the inject. So as you say, from that perspective, it'd make sense to try to change or nudge the macro mechanics, especially the inject, to introduce more meaningful choices (or strategy if you want) in the macro clicks. That's definitely a direction I'd welcome, and if you read around you will see suggestions to tweaks as you called for.
I'd also like to question whether every single click really needs to be either a strategic choice or removed. If so, you could argue for removing or automating a whole bunch of other mindless tasks that really are pretty straight forward, both in macro and micro, and you'd end up with a game that me personally wouldn't enjoy playing. I don't think anyone actually argues that (so it'd be a strawman to just stop here ftw), but what it does show is that the argument "this click rarely involves strategy, so it should be automated or removed" isn't really enough by itself, unless you also want to remove all other clicks that rarely involve strategy.
So before we remove or automate inject, we need to ask why we remove the mindless macro-click of inject, but not remove the mindless macro-click of building supply depots, or the mindless micro-click of blinking back injured stalkers?
On August 08 2015 21:17 MJesk wrote: If you don't like how punishing queen injects are, play a different race. It is just wrong to me to want the races to be more alike. I want more diversity between the races not less. It is amazing to me the three races differ on such fundamental levels.
I don't think inject is intrinsic to the identity of zerg. It's also not the only point of difference between the races. As you say, the races differ on fundamental level.
I personally like the zerg units and zerg in general, but I dislike inject as a mechanic.
The methodology and mechanics of production as well as creep spread are the defining features of zerg. These mechanics differ on a fundamental level from the other two races. All else follows from that (like how the units are). If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. But I would like to know what you think the fundamental differences between the races are.
If you mean fundamental to the way zerg is currently designed in HotS, then yes, I agree. But inject didn't exist in broodwar, and is not necessary in order for zerg to feel like zerg.
Yes, inject is a feature that is unique to zerg, but removing it does not remove zerg uniqueness.
I think it can be argued that zerg is more 'zergy' in hots than in brood war. But let's not go there .
I think that we're mostly in agreement. I don't think queen injects are the only means of making zerg unique, but I do think that just removing it would make zerg less unique (leaving all else more or less the same). And arguing for removal because the other races do not have this specific burden is in my humble opinion, a very wrong way of looking at it. And that was the actual point I was trying to make.
On August 08 2015 21:17 MJesk wrote: I think you can't take micro and macro apart like that. Current micro is so impressive because players have to macro behind it. Maybe I'm wrong, but if micro is "the only thing" you have to do, we'll reach skill caps really soon and 'amazing' moves become way too common.
I feel that the casual viewers cannot understand the mechanics required for macro, the restriction it makes for micro. More awesome micro is needed for sc2. And I'd believe this change would encourage it even more as attention to macro isn't limiting factor. Hopefully new micro techniques would emerge.
Of course current Maru style TvP micro would be diluted but maybe Maru maybe this change could allow even more room for Maru's brilliant micro.
I think the casual viewer can see the restriction macro puts on micro almost every game. The frequency in which stuff dies because players aren't paying attention is pretty high. It may be that casters should explain this better, but it seems to me that it doesn't take much for people to realize something's up.
And really. Do you want to change the fundamentals of the game based on a vague hope some amazing micro stuff will miraculously pop up?
Your point is true, but is it something that we'd like to see/experience in (high-stakes) games? Instant deaths because of small misplay? Of course it is a skill to give enough attention to everything, but to me games decided in instand because of misplay are lacklusters. I am more keen on seeing continuous harrasment, multi-pronged attacking and insane micro in engagements.
On August 08 2015 22:49 MJesk wrote: I don't think queen injects are the only means of making zerg unique, but I do think that just removing it would make zerg less unique (leaving all else more or less the same). And arguing for removal because the other races do not have this specific burden is in my humble opinion, a very wrong way of looking at it. And that was the actual point I was trying to make.
I agree that wanting to remove inject just because other races don't have something equivalent would be the wrong way of looking at it. Personally I want it removed because I find it really irritating to have to inject every hatch every 30 seconds. The negative definitely outweighs the positive.
On August 08 2015 21:17 MJesk wrote: I think you can't take micro and macro apart like that. Current micro is so impressive because players have to macro behind it. Maybe I'm wrong, but if micro is "the only thing" you have to do, we'll reach skill caps really soon and 'amazing' moves become way too common.
I feel that the casual viewers cannot understand the mechanics required for macro, the restriction it makes for micro. More awesome micro is needed for sc2. And I'd believe this change would encourage it even more as attention to macro isn't limiting factor. Hopefully new micro techniques would emerge.
Of course current Maru style TvP micro would be diluted but maybe Maru maybe this change could allow even more room for Maru's brilliant micro.
I think the casual viewer can see the restriction macro puts on micro almost every game. The frequency in which stuff dies because players aren't paying attention is pretty high. It may be that casters should explain this better, but it seems to me that it doesn't take much for people to realize something's up.
And really. Do you want to change the fundamentals of the game based on a vague hope some amazing micro stuff will miraculously pop up?
Your point is true, but is it something that we'd like to see/experience in (high-stakes) games? Instant deaths because of small misplay? Of course it is a skill not give enough attention to everything, but to me such games are lacklusters. I am more keen on seeing continuous harrasment, multi-pronged attacking and insane micro in engagements.
If you formulate the question that way then yes.
I think you underappreciate all the moments in which it went right. Those moments are amazing because it is so easy for things to go wrong. And to be fair, in pro play, it does not happen that often.
I am unconvinced removing macro mechanics will bring what you think it brings. I think it makes what's currently special normal. The skill of players constantly grows. We're seeing micro we never saw 5 years ago. It will be the same in 5 years. We do not need to remove the macro mechanics for that.
On August 08 2015 22:49 MJesk wrote: I don't think queen injects are the only means of making zerg unique, but I do think that just removing it would make zerg less unique (leaving all else more or less the same). And arguing for removal because the other races do not have this specific burden is in my humble opinion, a very wrong way of looking at it. And that was the actual point I was trying to make.
I agree that wanting to remove inject just because other races don't have something equivalent would be the wrong way of looking at it. Personally I want it removed because I find it really irritating to have to inject every hatch every 30 seconds. The negative definitely outweighs the positive.
I think that a personal dislike of a mechanic in a specific race is a bad argument as well. The races are different for a reason. Play another one. Or come back here and argue that no one likes it, that it's fundamentally imbalanced or that it's bad for the game in general. I would go for the third option if I were you .
On August 08 2015 22:49 MJesk wrote: I don't think queen injects are the only means of making zerg unique, but I do think that just removing it would make zerg less unique (leaving all else more or less the same). And arguing for removal because the other races do not have this specific burden is in my humble opinion, a very wrong way of looking at it. And that was the actual point I was trying to make.
I agree that wanting to remove inject just because other races don't have something equivalent would be the wrong way of looking at it. Personally I want it removed because I find it really irritating to have to inject every hatch every 30 seconds. The negative definitely outweighs the positive.
I think that a personal dislike of a mechanic in a specific race is a bad argument as well. The races are different for a reason. Play another one. Or come back here and argue that no one likes it, that it's fundamentally imbalanced or that it's bad for the game in general. I would go for the third option if I were you .
Gets tiring writing the entire argument out in every post. Time to stop.
On August 08 2015 22:49 MJesk wrote: I don't think queen injects are the only means of making zerg unique, but I do think that just removing it would make zerg less unique (leaving all else more or less the same). And arguing for removal because the other races do not have this specific burden is in my humble opinion, a very wrong way of looking at it. And that was the actual point I was trying to make.
I agree that wanting to remove inject just because other races don't have something equivalent would be the wrong way of looking at it. Personally I want it removed because I find it really irritating to have to inject every hatch every 30 seconds. The negative definitely outweighs the positive.
I think that a personal dislike of a mechanic in a specific race is a bad argument as well. The races are different for a reason. Play another one. Or come back here and argue that no one likes it, that it's fundamentally imbalanced or that it's bad for the game in general. I would go for the third option if I were you .
Gets tiring writing the entire argument out in every post. Time to stop.
"I can't inject so inject should be removed" sounds like a stupid argument aswell
How not? If pros are close to max efficiency they shouldn't be getting terribly supply blocked. There are countless examples. It's like every time I zone in on the macro details during an intense game I find a slip up.
Not only that, but quite often in korean vs foreigner mirrors they will have the same or extremely similar builds and the korean will be 10-20 supply ahead, even quite early on. But clearly all pros have the same or similar macro.
Macro mechanics should definitely be removed. They're one of the core reasons behind SC2's steroided economy issue.
Remove them and make the game mechanically harder through conventional means. All of a sudden you have a more interesting and dynamic game that requires more skill to max out on.
On August 04 2015 05:18 Dingodile wrote: Why is "not fun to play or watch" no argument? I like the macro mechanics of Terran and Protoss. Injects is the most unfun and dumbest thing in sc2. And especially very dumb if you have to inject DURING a fight, otherwise T or P outmacroing Z (easily).
Zerg definitely need/should other macro mechanic than the current one. Forgetting one circle of inject is very unforgiving compared to Terran and Protoss macro mechanics.
This isn't true. Having to build supply blocks is the equivalent of injects because overlords are easy to do and don't work that way. So Terran has to build supply blocks, which is mechanically the same as injecting, and mule (which is about the same as how zerg does overlords).
On August 09 2015 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Macro mechanics should definitely be removed. They're one of the core reasons behind SC2's steroided economy issue.
It isn't an issue related to economy. It's an issue about what tasks a player ought to be doing and how much time each task should take and how many decisions have to be made for each task.
If the current macro mechanics are causing problems for the economy (bursts of probe and drone production and mules distorting income) then their economic implications can be redesigned. The fact that WoL introduced macro mechanics that heavily influence the economy of the game does not mean all macro mechanics are bad for economy design. The important thing is that macro involves decisions and attention.
The thing about the current testing is that it's not anything like putting the game through WCS for a year, for example. As long as they realize that, despite some "pros" playing LotV, the current beta testing tells them almost nothing about esports issues. I would hate for them to be misled by their own process. Long term, SC2 is a game centered around esports. Doing "rapid iteration" beta testing and then being very reluctant to make changes after release does not feel like the best way to develop an esports game. If they continue to stay quite involved post-release, as opposed to how they've been for HotS, then I guess it might turn out okay. I am against patching the game too quickly in response to race balance issues but I'm in favor of patching the game in a timely manner to address game design issues. If there aren't any "macro players" in WCS 2016 then I hope they're willing to do what needs to be done to keep variety in the game.
edit: I can get away with double posting because I'm privileged, but don't do it!
For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. So because of things like resource changes now you have to spread out your bases and expand more aggressively which means you have to manage multiple bases at once. And not only that, because of how the resourcing actually works in legacy of the void you gotta check back at each of those locations and manage the probes and worker lines a lot more efficiently as well. Our current thinking is that because we made it a little more difficult on this side, even if we take away a little bit from the macro mechanics we wonder if end result is that it’s a very skillful macro experience for players.
On August 08 2015 08:51 Trizztein wrote: This debate is really interesting. There's just something I can't help but notice about stuchiu's article: I understand from what I read that the reason for injects to exist is to compensate for the extra charge of macro terran and protoss have to do compared to zerg, making it, by DEFINITION, a band-aid to a problem rather than an true cure to it.
Writing it in italic and caps doesn't make it true. Or adding «double angle brackets» for that matter. (How do you even type those??) And please tell me what is the DEFINITION of a band-aid to a problem that separates it from a solution to a problem? Or a true cure to a problem for that matter? Anyway, just got a bit annoyed at your choice of words, sorry about that. I think I understand what you are trying to say.
Moving on:
Historically, the mule, chrono boost and inject were introduced roughly simultaneously in the WoL beta (or alpha probably?), and the reason was mainly the huuuuge outcry from the ex BWers about how the macro was incredibly simplified through MBS and auto-rally workers. Those were simplified much for the same reasons people bring up now: it's silly to have people do mindless repetitive action (such as clicking through 10 barracks or tell every worker to go mine manually). They still wanted to keep people busy in their bases though, so they introduced the macro mechanics for each race that would introduce meaningful strategical clicks. Don't see what's band-aid about that train of thought.
Mechanics in Starcraft shouldn't just be «robot-like» based, but strategy-based (I really can't see why we shouldn't make the two things - decision making + good mechanics - happen at once when we can - is there a counter-argument to this I'm not aware of?). So, isn't the issue at hand to propose actual concrete changes rather than simply saying «remove the band-aid» or «don't remove it» since we all reckognize there IS a problem? Shouldn't we be focusing our energies on writing articles about these proposed changes with mods incremented in the game to test them, like I believe some mods have been set up to adress the mothership core and warp-gate design issues in the past?
Then as you say, people figured out pretty quickly what was the best way to spend the queen/OC/nexus energy, and they turned into pretty mindless tasks for most of the time, especially the inject. So as you say, from that perspective, it'd make sense to try to change or nudge the macro mechanics, especially the inject, to introduce more meaningful choices (or strategy if you want) in the macro clicks. That's definitely a direction I'd welcome, and if you read around you will see suggestions to tweaks as you called for.
I'd also like to question whether every single click really needs to be either a strategic choice or removed. If so, you could argue for removing or automating a whole bunch of other mindless tasks that really are pretty straight forward, both in macro and micro, and you'd end up with a game that me personally wouldn't enjoy playing. I don't think anyone actually argues that (so it'd be a strawman to just stop here ftw), but what it does show is that the argument "this click rarely involves strategy, so it should be automated or removed" isn't really enough by itself, unless you also want to remove all other clicks that rarely involve strategy.
So before we remove or automate inject, we need to ask why we remove the mindless macro-click of inject, but not remove the mindless macro-click of building supply depots, or the mindless micro-click of blinking back injured stalkers?
Thank you for taking my post seriously. And sorry for the caps and such; I only now realised that yes they could be quite annoying when abused, as they did. Anyways, It's really just that oc, some mechanics in SC ask almost no strategical decision once you've figured out what to do with them, but still, as with any strategy, at least, they become part of one given strategy. Injects have to be part of all strategies (at least for games that extend past 5-6 min marks I guess). Period. Even making supply depots implies some decision-making in certain situations: if I invest a alot of money in pushing my army cap now, perhaps I'll have a steadier-production in the long-run, but my initial army input (for the short-term) will be smaller, so if i'm all-inning or want to support an explosive push, I will have to stop doing it at some point and/or do only a very specific amount of it to save my money for army. I will also have to adjust it to what kind of army I want and how supply consuming it is for production/minute. Supplies can also be targeted by my opponent and can harm significantly my production so I have to be wise about where I place them and they matter in the sim cities building placements and scouting and and ... (you get my point) Blinking stalkers is part of micro (not macro, which is the subject at hand here I think), but perhaps it is relevant to the matter and I'm wrong on this.
But just like you, yes, I like to have to do alot of stuff in an RTS, alot of it. It's this sort of «mental/physical juggling» that I find so impressive in pro players. I just want these actions to stay in touch, at least somehow, with the concept of strategy, since it is an Real Time Strategy game we are talking about, aren't we?
All of this being said, I have to admit not reading the entirety of the comments and the tweaks suggested (I'm happy to learn there are quite a few as you say, though; I just felt that the whole article published (not the comments) was perhaps not directed at the right problem and wished to encourage another way.
For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. So because of things like resource changes now you have to spread out your bases and expand more aggressively which means you have to manage multiple bases at once. And not only that, because of how the resourcing actually works in legacy of the void you gotta check back at each of those locations and manage the probes and worker lines a lot more efficiently as well. Our current thinking is that because we made it a little more difficult on this side, even if we take away a little bit from the macro mechanics we wonder if end result is that it’s a very skillful macro experience for players.
Credit to TheWinks for transcription.
That's reassuring that at least he feels that macro will still be challenging. Nonetheless I hope that they'll be prepared to make changes for some time after release based on pro play. I'm disappointed that they're using this time to prune things rather than design things.
I feel like worker distribution management is something basic like army positioning. Macro has no equivalent to blinking back hurt stalkers or spreading marines or landing fungals. There could even be macro mechanics that promote fighting, like a channeled ability that makes a nexus build probes faster as long as it hasn't taken damage in the last 30 seconds. So harass builds would be encouraged because they'd get a ton of extra value just for tapping the opponent's nexus. And there'd be all kinds of interesting judgment calls on how much commitment and sacrifice is worth it. Anyway that's just quick brainstorming.. the point is that they could be making macro mechanics 2.0 that address the issues with the current macro mechanics and have synergy with their other design goals with the added benefit of giving the player options for style of play.
But there could be some macro mechanic that is just as important as blinking back hurt stalkers, that is just as challenging to do. That's what producing units without multiple building selection used to be. If you didn't keep up unit production, you were dead. But it took significant time and skill to do it. However if you didn't micro your units, you were also dead. So it is challenging and awesome to do both. Chronoboosting all your gates is similar, because you have to actually move your camera to your gates and move your mouse around and time your clicks, but that maneuver isn't done very often, not even in every single game (nothing like having to do it for every round of production in BW). Anyway, something mechanically difficult and effective like that, with some observer UI component to display it effectively so commentators can pick up on it.
Claims have been made that the pacing is much different with the macro mechanics gone. I think what causes the macro mechanics to fail design-wise is that it tampers with time. Time is a fundamental thing to balance around. When you have stuff suddenly disregarding the game's otherwise normal rules of time (and accelerating different parts of the game at different times), it starts getting complicated fast.
In Legacy we have more units that allow the dynamic of trading APM for power (like babysitting a medivac + tank combo as an example). But, is it wise to have dynamics that trade APM for economy? I think this might be tough to balance. Economy is like a snowball and once it gets rolling with an advantage it snowballs out of control. This is why macro style is so strong. Once the macro player stabilizes on the defense, with the larger economy, it's pretty much gg for the player that is a base down. All they have to do is wait it out.
As far as I can tell, Brood War did not have a mechanic to change the standard rules of time.
But to me SC2 is like dancing speed chess. Its like speed chess but you must play while dancing. The dance is an important part, without the dancing its just speed chess. Macro mechanics are like a dance.
Im ok if someone change the dance moves but i don't feel like playing speed chess.
The fun is that nobody can make good moves in the short time or dance well when you have to make a move and think about it every minute. And if the other guy moves in a second you are in trouble.
@MJesk, neither BW or Starbow have these mechanics, and neither of them have the flaws that you are suggesting come from the lack of these mechanics. SCI mod is also removing/nerfing them, but we haven't seen any SCI matches yet.
All they do is make the game focused around these repetitive and unenjoyable tasks. You spend like 10 minutes of every game just injecting and spreading creep... then it's often over after one 5 second fight. The game/winner is mostly focused around who has better macro, rather than who makes a better use out of the units they make.
I would highly recommend you watch some BW/Starbow VODs.
On August 08 2015 20:55 newtii wrote: I am astonished to see how many tl users actually like the macro mechanisms. I was expecting opposite reaction since I believe that as players are able to concentrace on micro we will see more small fights over the map. For me microing units is much more fun to play and watch. Great macro isn't appreciated much by the viewers. It doesn't give much wows in a instant even if it was the determing factor between winning and losing the game.
Same.
It seems like it's mostly people who've only played SC2 who want the macro to stay.
On August 09 2015 07:53 Superbanana wrote: Ok, don't take this seriously, just in case.
But to me SC2 is like dancing speed chess. Its like speed chess but you must play while dancing. The dance is an important part, without the dancing its just speed chess. Macro mechanics are like a dance.
Im ok if someone change the dance moves but i don't feel like playing speed chess.
The fun is that nobody can make good moves in the short time or dance well when you have to make a move and think about it every minute. And if the other guy moves in a second you are in trouble.
Picture this in your mind. Its the beauty of SC2.
Actually I believe this is a superb comparison. As with speed chess, everything is in the preparation: your brain actually plays from models that have been studied prior to the games you play: you don't think during the play (or as little as possible), you only act and react from memory built from careful preparation (Innovation demonstrates this to it's utmost incarnation I believe). And yes, there is the dance aspect because it's all about flawless movement execution, which requires alot of muscle memory, a bit as with improvised music which is also a choregraphy of gestures, with a musician whom adapts to what he hears from his colleagues (his colleagues being an opponent whom you adapt/react to in an SC2 context). I can't help but think this RTS reunites so many things that I love, along with the competitive part And yes, SC2 needs to be something more than speed chess: it needs to be unique, and so mechanics (the «dance» part to it) needs to stay somehow.
Anyways, just giving your argument my support and sharing the excitement
On August 09 2015 10:08 MaximilianKohler wrote: @MJesk, neither BW or Starbow have these mechanics, and neither of them have the flaws that you are suggesting come from the lack of these mechanics. SCI mod is also removing/nerfing them, but we haven't seen any SCI matches yet.
All they do is make the game focused around these repetitive and unenjoyable tasks. You spend like 10 minutes of every game just injecting and spreading creep... then it's often over after one 5 second fight. The game/winner is mostly focused around who has better macro, rather than who makes a better use out of the units they make.
I would highly recommend you watch some BW/Starbow VODs.
On August 08 2015 20:55 newtii wrote: I am astonished to see how many tl users actually like the macro mechanisms. I was expecting opposite reaction since I believe that as players are able to concentrace on micro we will see more small fights over the map. For me microing units is much more fun to play and watch. Great macro isn't appreciated much by the viewers. It doesn't give much wows in a instant even if it was the determing factor between winning and losing the game.
Same.
It seems like it's mostly people who've only played SC2 who want the macro to stay.
See the post by superbanana and my own support of it sooner. These tasks you call «unenjoyable» are actually all the things that ask for a superb and flawless sort of «micro-dance» execution which requires alot of discipline in their training. If you remove them, you get speed-chess: a strategy game which is pretty much all determined by preparation prior to the game because respecting timing windows is a top priority you have to pay respect to. The only thing I ask from these tasks, as I argued earlier, is that they stay in touch with the idea of strategy at least (make sure they don't have to be part of every possible strategy for a race, like injects are).
And as a matter of fact, I did play quite a lot of BW as a kid, then Age of Empires, WC3 and then SC2. In all of them, I could appreciate these qualities I've listed above which connect with my musical background. Music, too, asks for these sort of repetitive perfectly rehearsed micro-moves whose basic blocks can seem redundant (you only need 7 different notes in many Mozart pieces, and isn't depressing a piano key something that can seem terribly repetitive in the long run?), but their sum builds something amazing
If you have 8 workers mining a fresh base, you will benefit from forcing them to mine the high capacity patches. That way, at some time later, if you add another 8 workers, you will mine at double rate. Contrast with the case that they are mining the low capacity patches, at some time later, if you add any workers, the mining rate is still the same since now only 4 patches remain.
#newEconomyDetails #microYourWorkers
TL, DR: Optimal mining depletes all 8 patches at the same time (when feasible)?
For many of the comments which are against removing macro from the game, i dont know in what point of the time the concept of macro had been reduced to 3 tasks: mules,crono,inject, lol. The question here is which game we want, we want a macro oriented game where making workers and buildings is more important than control the units, or we want a micro oriented game with more interesting engagements and battles than the typical a+click vs a+click. And dont tell me the bullshit answer of :"I want a game balanced between micro and macro", because right now we have a macro oriented game, and blizz want balance a little modifing 1 task per race, just 1 task of all the macro tasks, and you are crying a lot. Cmon, give me a break.
On August 11 2015 05:53 FaiFai wrote: or we want a micro oriented game with more interesting engagements and battles than the typical a+click vs a+click.
lololololololololo. surely all sc2 engages atm are amove vs amove :D:D:D:D:D:D
On August 11 2015 05:53 FaiFai wrote: or we want a micro oriented game with more interesting engagements and battles than the typical a+click vs a+click.
lololololololololo. surely all sc2 engages atm are amove vs amove :D:D:D:D:D:D
lolololol, in which part did i say: all sc2 engages. Pfff, why people can't read well.
If a change like this would enable players to spend more energy actually doing cool stuff with their units, this game might be interesting to me again. I think people against removing them are afraid of any simplification of game mechanics, even when the complex element didn't really add much to gameplay and wasn't necessary in the first place. These kind of macro mechanics are only interesting when you first start playing SC2. It strikes me as something that's not very noticeable, that only the most hardcore of Starcraft bores find interesting - if I had to choose between a complex task of macro-management and a more simplified macro system in favor of allowing for more of that much-desired micro, I know which one I would choose. I would choose it in a heartbeat and never look back.
The Articel totally speaks directly out of my SC Heart. As an SC Player from the first Hour on, i am totally against the cutting strategy from blizzard. We don't need more of that disgusting Heroes of the Storm casual crap. That game is the best Example how to stupidify a game for the mass of the players at all costs... Let the games stay complex and difficult to master, it's a part of a Competition that i like about Games.
More and more I wonder if they just need "pro" modes for the game. It does make the game accessible, but it's not totally unheard of. They have amateur tees in golf, they have a shorter 3 point line in college basketball. Like imagine if BW launched today with MBS and auto mine. The mechanical cap would be significantly lower. But then imagine for pro tournaments they took it out. It would make pro play sit on this beautiful perch.
There's an obvious problem with this of course which is ladder. So this would probably only work if an organization was really dedicating cash to making pro tournaments happen and allowed a separate pro ladder / league or something. I even think they could take HOTS, take out MBS and it would still work because I do think macro is beautiful, it's just that it's done a little artificially through macro mechanics now which are honestly too approachable.
EPT![[image loading]](/staff/lichter/editorials/curiouscase/creepspread.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/lichter/editorials/curiouscase/attention.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/lichter/editorials/curiouscase/soodominate.jpg)
I'm up for giving macro mechanics more depth and choices anytime, would be really interesting to see what blizz suggests. If the argument "it's not visible" sticks, blizz can patch up the queen in a way that every time it injects: Fireworks
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y1auTjl.png)
), but if I were to main a race, I would not pick zerg. To miss a larva inject is just simply too punishing compared to missing chrono boost and MULE. And it just sucks to lose games knowing you messed up not against the other player, but against yourself. Again, there's no strategical recourse to missing an inject. All you're doing as a zerg is playing from behind. Why should you honestly be that punished just for missing a simple task? And if you win a game vs a zerg and find out they were stockpiling tons of resources but screwed up their larva injects, that victory would feel hollow.![[image loading]](http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130326042806/starwars/images/3/33/BibFortunaHS-ROTJ.png)
