|
On August 25 2015 01:13 Tenks wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 01:08 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
A micro orientated player wants more focus on micro.. is anyone surprised?
The reason qxc like these changes is because it helps bring down players in areas he’s deficient
I don’t use hotkeys.. so I say blizzard removes them so everyone comes down to my level…
That is a silly way of looking at it. The fact of the matter is SC2 lacks a ton of "big play" moments even at the highest level. It is a game more of subtleties. Which if you've played the game for years you can appreciate but if you haven't it is almost impossible to ever figure out why someone won a game. I've watched with people who don't play SC2 and to them it just looks like two armies meet in the middle of the map and someone won for whatever reason and won the game. But if you watch DOTA2 even casually you can recognize big plays. Last TI was defined by the Echo Slam play. Previously it was Dendi's Dream Coil. I have watched SC2 since very early WoL beta and I can't even think of a defining "big play" moment. The only moments in SC2 are storylines. Because no one goes "Holy shit look at this guy's queen energy it is at 5 energy 20 minutes into the game! This is so fucking exciting!"
and can we not compare dota to starcraft
it's like comparing pool to chess
|
On August 25 2015 01:14 Ignorant prodigy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 01:10 Djzapz wrote:On August 25 2015 01:08 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
A micro orientated player wants more focus on micro.. is anyone surprised?
The reason qxc like these changes is because it helps bring down players in areas he’s deficient
I don’t use hotkeys.. so I say blizzard removes them so everyone comes down to my level…
I'd argue that a vast majority of people want more focus on micro. The reason I don't watch or play SC2 anymore is that macro is boring as all fuck. And when I was high masters back in the days before HOTS, my macro was the only good thing. My micro was shit, and I still found micro heavy games more entertaining. And I hardly think qxc takes this so seriously that he'd just "lobby" for things that are advantageous to him, let's be serious x_x the argument isn't who likes maru vs innovation it's the fact you want to see maru vs maru and eliminating innovation entirely. that's fine.. you hate macro.. but you don't speak for everyone (thankfully)
"You hate macro"...? No I don't... and then you end your post with a passive aggressive little maneuver. Of course I don't speak for everyone, but it's clear to me that I speak for a lot of people.
Nonetheless, it's clear that you're not really worth interacting with since you're lazy and aggressive in your comments  . Have a good day.
|
The DDR analogy is perfect. Macro mechanics don't show how good you are at the game it just shows how much you've played it.
|
I just don't understand all those guys stating three strange things:
1) Macro mechanics is not interesting
That's just... silly. If it's not interesting for you, it doesn't mean that it's not interesting for everyone, it doesn't even mean that it's not interesting for an average viewer. As a caster (russian-language one, it's ok that you probably don't know me), I'm always pointing out viewers attention on what's going on in early game in macro mechanics state. Terran can just use mules, terran can use extra depots in some cases (which is often a result of some mistake), terran can scan in order to understand what's going on - come on, there are even several different styles based on macro mechanics choices like Bomber's one without using scans completely! Zerg can spawn a creep tumor early to boost creep spread or to build a wall in ZvZ instead of a usual injection, can build certain amount of queens which will mean something important and so on. Protosses can boost their economy, their production, their upgrades; the amount of energy saved in nexus is a huge tell for scouting purposes... It's such a variety you're just losing here! Macro mechanics is not just "something that differs mechanically strong and weak players", it's one of the most important, most strategical things of the game. Yeah, here is the same "strategy" you're talking about.
2) Complex macro machanics is bad for the game, because removing it will give us more action
So do you really think that, umm, mech terrans in mid-late TvZ right now are not using harrasment and are playing completely defensive because they are macroing? Do you really think that pros on a high level are not performing with much more action because they just cannot deal with everything properly? Do you really think that Brood War was a boring game with no action, because macro was like 10 times harder there?
I'm just... omg... lol.
Removing macro mechanics won't do ANYTHING for a high level of play, because you need to give players some sort of in-game motivation to play more aggressively (and yeah, making the value of workes a bit higher is a way to deal with this problem, but not the best one), not just the time to do it. And talking about casual players is a nonsense here, you can do absolutely any random staff in casual games - get serious, no one is losing in low leagues just because he/she is not using boosts while microing with oracles.
3) We should make StarCraft easier, because blahblahblah
We can do whatever is possible in order to make StarCraft easier -> more popular and so on, but ruining an important part of COMPETITIVE play probably shouldn't be the part of making casuals satisfied, right? Mechanical complexity of StarCraft is the thing which differs this game from ANY other popular esports games. There are tons of tactic, strategy and other aspects of play in every other esports discipline, but not the complex mechanics we have here in StarCraft. Removing it makes this game a bit closer to that gray mass which is not the thing we all want.
|
I tend to agree on the removal, i would give it just more time to really see its impact.
I know teamliquid isn´t really the place for arguing in favor of casuals, but i am certain that a few friends
are going to enjoy the game more than ever, which is a good thing for starcraft and us "hardcore"-follower.
|
Russian Federation66 Posts
On August 25 2015 00:36 gillon wrote:
I'm mostly afraid of how much easier some races become compared to others because of the change. Injects were a huge part of what zergs had to keep track of, and it was more punishing than MULE/chronoboost, but for a good reason. Zerg doesn't have to manage infrastructure almost at all. Zerg doesn't have to micro as intensively in most cases. I feel like the removal hardly made protoss or terran any easier to play (not a bad thing) but trivialized big parts of zerg.
At the end of the story only stats counts, if zerg are to strong for a reason or an other, Blizzard will react. Don't be afraid and believes in DK.
|
Regardless of whether it's "good for the game" or not, I'm having much more fun with the new patch. And actually having fun with the game is an aspect that I think is highly underrated on these forums.
|
On August 25 2015 01:34 Pontius Pirate wrote:
Regardless of whether it's "good for the game" or not, I'm having much more fun with the new patch. And actually having fun with the game is an aspect that I think is highly underrated on these forums.
How dare you enjoy the game, sir. The game is for theory crafting and discussing, not playing and certainly not having fun with. As a filthy casual who gave up on hotS I am enjoying LotV more.
|
All the posts commenting on the macro changes seem to assume that removing the macro mechanics will make macro easier, but aside from Zerg I feel like the lost depth is hardly compensated by an easier macro. When I was struggling to macro as protoss, it wasn't the forgotten chrono that slowed me down, but the supply blocks, lack of production and good old forgetting to build workers.
If they want to make macro easier to make the fun parts more accessible, they could add more things like the supply drop for each races, as well as integrated, more obvious alerts/pop-ups, for example when you're 5 supply away from a block, or when you haven't used a warpgate for 30 sec, when your minerals hit 500, all alerts that could of course be disabled.
|
On August 25 2015 01:17 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 01:14 Ignorant prodigy wrote:On August 25 2015 01:10 Djzapz wrote:On August 25 2015 01:08 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
A micro orientated player wants more focus on micro.. is anyone surprised?
The reason qxc like these changes is because it helps bring down players in areas he’s deficient
I don’t use hotkeys.. so I say blizzard removes them so everyone comes down to my level…
I'd argue that a vast majority of people want more focus on micro. The reason I don't watch or play SC2 anymore is that macro is boring as all fuck. And when I was high masters back in the days before HOTS, my macro was the only good thing. My micro was shit, and I still found micro heavy games more entertaining. And I hardly think qxc takes this so seriously that he'd just "lobby" for things that are advantageous to him, let's be serious x_x the argument isn't who likes maru vs innovation it's the fact you want to see maru vs maru and eliminating innovation entirely. that's fine.. you hate macro.. but you don't speak for everyone (thankfully) "You hate macro"...? No I don't... and then you end your post with a passive aggressive little maneuver. Of course I don't speak for everyone, but it's clear to me that I speak for a lot of people. Nonetheless, it's clear that you're not really worth interacting with since you're lazy and aggressive in your comments . Have a good day.
When this idea was proposed, then released, I must admit that I raged about it a little. Since then I have come to appreciate that it may allow the more interesting moments of SC2 shine through. There is some balancing to be done here as Protoss and Terran are still punished for lackluster macro (if we miss making workers) which is much less of a punishment than realizing that you forgot to make some drones then making 5 at a time from your larva bank.
But the balancing is going to be very hard for Blizz to get right in the short time that they now have.
Great write up by QXC.
|
im just upset zerg feels lame as fuck. managing my bases and having good mechanics actually meant something in hots, in lotv i basically just spazz around the map with units cus i dont really have to do anything else
|
I love how the pros in the SC2 scene are much more open-minded compared to the random people who post here. In my almost two decades of playing Starcraft (and Warcraft), I've seen pros simply roll with the punches, er... patches and go on to adapt and win. It's usually the lesser (but still highly-skilled players) who complain about major game changes.
Personally, I like the clean slate that this drastic change will bring. The problem with Starcraft 2 is that it takes a huge time investment and a lot of skill to play the game on a basic level. Basically, the skill floor is way too high. Not only does it take a long time for a random scrub to learn how to play properly, but the game isn't F2P. These two factors significantly contribute to Starcraft 2's lesser popularity compared to games like DotA and LoL.
I like Starcraft but for the past two years, literally none of my friends (real-life friends and online friends) play the game, let alone watch it. Most of my friends play DotA 2, and I can actually play satisfying games with them because my lesser skilled friends can simply play low skill floor heroes like Viper or Wraith King or Sven whereas I go for complicated heroes like Rubick or Chen or Brewmaster or Io. Compare this with Starcraft, where I either demolish them very quickly in 1v1 (before the average solo mid in DotA 2 reaches level 6), or I 1vX the enemy team in team games if they don't all gang up on me because I'm significantly better than them.
I also want Starcraft 2 esports to draw bigger crowds than the past few years. I miss the glory years of 2010 to 2012 when SC2 was the biggest thing in esports, before it got overtaken by more accessible games like LoL and DotA 2. SC2 is too top heavy; there's too much of an emphasis on the highest levels of play at the cost of random peasants like me who form the bulk of the fan base.
Wouldn't you rather have more people to play with? More people to dominate? Right now, with SC2's sky-high skill floor, we don't have a lot of noobs to crush. If the barrier to entry were lowered by lowering the skill floor, we'll have more people to play with and crush.
|
I RARELY post, but I need to give my opinion on that.
First, I think QXC clearly ''forgot'' to talk about some things.
#1 Im completly against this change. I love macro, if I wanted a micro game, I would play LoL. But I can understand why blizzard wants to make the game easier. Even if I dont agree.
My problem with that?
If you want to make the game easier, make it easier for EVERY RACE EQUALLY.
Right now, theres Protoss, Terran and a joke.
What was harder to do before? Injects, Mule, or Chrono?
Every body would say Injects were way harder. And not only way harder, but way more important.
Removing all of that gives a HUGE buff for zerg, making the race way easier, but doesnt make the 2 other races way easier too.
Its pretty unfair.
ATM, if a terran and a zerg that are equally skilled in HOTS play in LotV, the zerg will win all the time, since his race became way easier than mine.
The lower you are on ladder, the more true it is.
And I really dont think QXC's opinion is good or valuable (not saying mine is, im just midmaster).
With all due respect, QXC's macro was never really good for a ''pro''. Its obvious that this patch would benefit him way more.
What he doesnt seem to understand is that some people love macro more than micro.
And taking Life as an exemple is awfull too, since Life is known for is great micro, but his macro is not really good for his level.
Ask soO, innovation, FlaSh, Rain etc......
Do you think they think its good for the game?
Im pretty sure, that if you ask pros if they like this patch, most good koreans would say they hate it, and most foreigner with bad macro would like it.
|
On August 25 2015 00:36 DeepBurrow wrote:Marcro Mechanics Removal is a good change  Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 00:36 gillon wrote:
I'm mostly afraid of how much easier some races become compared to others because of the change. Injects were a huge part of what zergs had to keep track of, and it was more punishing than MULE/chronoboost, but for a good reason. Zerg doesn't have to manage infrastructure almost at all. Zerg doesn't have to micro as intensively in most cases. I feel like the removal hardly made protoss or terran any easier to play (not a bad thing) but trivialized big parts of zerg. LBM requires alot of micro, defending drops to. If you are so afraid of Zergs getting good because its easier, it means that you dont have faith in your skill so you want a handicap for the other person. Shame.
What? Stop being so defensive, it's not like I'm alone in this sentiment. Loads of players have stressed the same problem, zerg is like objectively the easiest race in LotV.
|
On August 25 2015 01:20 Tenks wrote:
The DDR analogy is perfect. Macro mechanics don't show how good you are at the game it just shows how much you've played it.
What does that even mean. How is having good macro NOT being good at the game?
|
Great read, thanks!
|
United States7483 Posts
I very much happen to agree with what qxc said here.
Most important to me is the slowdown of economic development, which I believe was necessary for healthy gameplay to develop.
The important thing is that this doesn't trivialize macro, and there's enough else to do that if you've got plenty of APM, you can make use of it.
On August 25 2015 02:29 gillon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 01:20 Tenks wrote:
The DDR analogy is perfect. Macro mechanics don't show how good you are at the game it just shows how much you've played it. What does that even mean. How is having good macro NOT being good at the game?
It's one skill out of many in Starcraft. Imagine a player who is exceptional at producing units and has fantastic macro mechanics.... but he only makes marines and doesn't micro them at all, and tends to lose a lot because they just a-move and die. Would that player qualify as being good at the game? He probably wouldn't even qualify as a diamond player.
|
On August 25 2015 02:29 gillon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 01:20 Tenks wrote:
The DDR analogy is perfect. Macro mechanics don't show how good you are at the game it just shows how much you've played it. What does that even mean. How is having good macro NOT being good at the game? because qxc's macro is bad, so for him, only micro and strategy is what you need to be qualified a good player.
But of course, if something in which he was really good was made way easier, he would complain much more.
Hes just bias
|
I think all of you naysayers haven't put in enough games to have a legit cause for concern... I think the macro changes have if anything increased the skill disparity between good players and bad ones which is why a lot of you are having a hard time swallowing the truth here...
QxC's points are valid and powerful and I'd like to add to them the fact that because harass is stronger than ever so will defense and also keeping on point with workers building is so important you can't rest on the fact that you have mules or can chrono out workers or make 18 drones at once you have to defend your workers maynard away from danger as well as harass your opponent. While most of you don't like this it is bringing the bwesque days back imo.
We have lurkers, we don't have macro crutches, and we now have reaveresque units and ultras are super scary again LOL Bring back the sci vessel and my friend we have bw 2
|
I personally agree with pretty much everything.
"The problem is that macro is the gateway to the rest of the game. Without good macro, you can’t experience a substantial part of what Starcraft offers. Micro, strategic decisions, tech switches and mind games all take a back seat to just ‘produce as much stuff as possible’ until you get close to optimal macro."
When you think that the "stuff league" is gold and below and that's roughly 60% of the player base, feels weird to call SC2 an RTS.
The learning curve for Sc2 is very high and I do think that's one of the main issue with it's popularity overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
