|
On July 05 2008 01:20 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2008 00:52 Unentschieden wrote:On July 05 2008 00:15 IdrA wrote:On July 04 2008 23:28 Unentschieden wrote:On July 04 2008 23:13 maybenexttime wrote:
I'm not saying SBS is essential. I'm for limited MBS, or Blizzard introducing some multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanics. So far they were unable to design any of those, but at least they're heading the right direction. Agreed. wait what youve spent this whole thread plus multiple other ones arguing that they cant have sbs because it will turn off newbies who dont want to invest time in producing units... and you agree that a 'multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanic' would be good? what? you do realize that has the exact same effect as sbs right? SBS drags you down by burdening you with the task, you don´t optimize your gains, you minimize your inefficiency. Production buildings are build in "clump" to be able to accsess them as fast as possible. The gas mechanic is also multi tasking heavy since you have to order your peons on the minerals during the 45 sec offtime for optimal efficiency - or you can just ignore that. You can live on fumes if you don´t have the time to worry about that. The difference - and this is important - is that this one is optional. It allows you to sink more and more APM into the game without ruining players below a certain level/speed. On July 05 2008 00:28 Showtime! wrote:I think it's time to implement a different UI altogether. Better than MBS OR SBS? Hell yeah! and anything that serves the purpose that is needed (force people to invest time in macro) is going to 'burden you with a task' (how is playing the game a task?). who cares if its minimizing efficiency or maximing gains or whatever, it produces a better game to force people to spend time on macro. (for reasons gone over several hundred times in past threads that you have been a part of) the gas mechanic would not really be optional. imagine you're pvping someone who is of the same skill level as you. everything is equal, except he uses the new gas mechanic and you dont. late game, you have a bunch of zealots and a few stalkers, he has an archon/collosus/zealot army. who wins? (not you) now, if you're both too slow to use the mechanic then yes you'll both be fine. but then youd both be too slow to produce efficiently with sbs, so whats the difference?
But TBH if it will end up like that they will just make units cost less in gas and/or give more gas to geysers.
It's about option to do it and fear if opponent does as you can completely ignore that at some point but if use, whatever if earlier or later (or put it in the other words - midgame or lategame), just to make those more powerful, (currently so much) gas heavy units - they can strengthen unit mix better than standard Zealots or Stalkers worth minerals mined instead.
Blizzard won't keep any units worthless for sure and because of that the game can't be predictable as much as BW... in my point of view.
|
Why can't they just make only certain non-main geysyers replenishable? This mechanic seems broken the more we analyze it...
|
On July 05 2008 01:20 IdrA wrote:
and anything that serves the purpose that is needed (force people to invest time in macro) is going to 'burden you with a task' (how is playing the game a task?). who cares if its minimizing efficiency or maximing gains or whatever, it produces a better game to force people to spend time on macro. (for reasons gone over several hundred times in past threads that you have been a part of)
If it were that easy we could improve the game by adding "Macrobuttons" to the buildings that simply increase output for a certain time with a certain CD. Its macro in the most open sense. It takes up a players time. It creates another "skill" players can master. So it´s perfect right?
Just forcing people to "macro" by limiting the UI is for me the wrong aproach. They should rather EXTEND the possibilities of the Player to give him more stuff to do. No one wants to just add MBS and be done with it.
On July 05 2008 01:20 IdrA wrote:
the gas mechanic would not really be optional. imagine you're pvping someone who is of the same skill level as you. everything is equal, except he uses the new gas mechanic and you dont. late game, you have a bunch of zealots and a few stalkers, he has an archon/collosus/zealot army. who wins? (not you) now, if you're both too slow to use the mechanic then yes you'll both be fine. but then youd both be too slow to produce efficiently with sbs, so whats the difference?
If the gas mechanic actually worked out like it should, I might win. I would have several advantages: More "free time" since my opponent would be busy organizing his drones. More minerals since my opponent "wastes" his on increasing his supply of gas.
My opponent would obviously have the advantage of more gas.
My chances of succsess depend how good/bad the two unit mixes would be and how well I can use my "bonustime".
Both extremes have issues.
The "best" way would be a golden middle, I would trade for just as much gas as I would need for the optimal unitmix.
On your last point: If we are both to slow to use the gas thing we would use more "basic" units. Now guessing there would be a proper UI we would be able to produce units anyway.
If we were both to slow to use a poor UI we would slow down the game and ruin the pace.
In the first case the game is different. In the second case the game is frustrating.
|
the thing is all numbers are up to change, right now its 100 minerals for 400 gas, but it can easily be more for less or less for more (or more for more or less for less) it it takes the gas offline for 45 seconds, it could take the gas offline for less
and because there are two geysers (whereas if you use the double worker method, you'd probably revert back to one geyser) it does also offer timing strategies, being that building another gas would put you 100 minerals behind, but you double your gas input for a tech rush
however all the timing will settle with years of playtime, blizzard's foresight can only be so far
is the SC2 gas collection with 1 geyser comparable to SC? or do you have to have two geysers for achieve that? (I read gas brings in 6 per trip, depleted 2 per trip). With the faster pathing, that leads me to believe that 1 geyser is comparable to BW's gas rate
|
On July 05 2008 01:31 inlagdsil wrote: This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway  )
Often have just one facility anyway....
|
The gas-mechanic isn't really a fix. Hotkey all assimilators, and it's the same thing as producing units with MBS, only less recurrent, and at another hotkey. (Press 0, spam R for 1/3 of a second, fixed)
|
On July 05 2008 01:41 MrRammstein wrote:
Boxer is in team that I can't recall being worst of all 12 atm; his position there is secured as Ace doesn't recruit more players as far as I know.
Whatever takes his time now every day doesn't prevent him from playing at all but the point is he is limited to BW macro the most as it requires more and more attention with every additional expo.
Um, this statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin.
Estro is currently at the bottom in Pro League.
3 really good players are joining the Air Force. In fact, there has been two threads about this here. (Reach, Silent_Control and Anytime I believe)
Sure, they don't have as much time to practice, but sometimes they manage to get a win.
Just wanted to straighten that out.
|
On July 05 2008 03:04 edahl wrote:
The gas-mechanic isn't really a fix. Hotkey all assimilators, and it's the same thing as producing units with MBS, only less recurrent, and at another hotkey. (Press 0, spam R for 1/3 of a second, fixed)
You will have to redeploy the workers for all your extractors or you will have 3 times the number of extractors idle workers for 45 seconds every time the extractors deplete. The player using his extra workers on minerals during that time will get a huge advantage.
|
On July 05 2008 03:03 Inzek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2008 01:31 inlagdsil wrote: This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway ) Often have just one facility anyway....
haha, true!
Other than making units produced at buildings selected together take more time to train, here are some random ideas to make macro skills useful:
-make the spawn location random. When you tell your 25 gateways to produce 1 zealot, it could be made in any one of them. That way, if you have gateways in several bases, you will put make each group of gateways have its own hotkey. This doesn't make a huge difference, of course, but adds a few keystrokes. For zerg, this would be a huge deal, since hatcheries tend to be scattered at expansions.
-(something similar to this was suggested, I don't remember what is was or where) When you click on a production building, there could be a button that can be used only once for each unit, that cuts down slightly on build time. Thus, faster players will get their armies slightly faster. This function cannot be used when you select several buildings at the same time.
-make supply management more important. Is it true that pylons/overlords/supply depots now give less supply? That is a good start. Getting supply bonuses might also me good. For example, if you individually select 5 supply depots and for each click on "increase supply", you could add 1 supply until the construction of the next depot. That one extra unit can really come in handy.
I don't think that all of these suggestions are ideal, but by discussing them we might stumble upon something really good. The basic idea behind all of them is to let the game be easy to play for casual players, all the while letting competitive players get an edge by doing things that less good players won't bother or have the APM to do.
|
On July 05 2008 05:02 Showtime! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2008 01:41 MrRammstein wrote:
Boxer is in team that I can't recall being worst of all 12 atm; his position there is secured as Ace doesn't recruit more players as far as I know.
Whatever takes his time now every day doesn't prevent him from playing at all but the point is he is limited to BW macro the most as it requires more and more attention with every additional expo.
Um, this statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin. Estro is currently at the bottom in Pro League.
That's why I wrote "that I can't recall"
3 really good players are joining the Air Force. In fact, there has been two threads about this here. (Reach, Silent_Control and Anytime I believe) Sure, they don't have as much time to practice, but sometimes they manage to get a win. Just wanted to straighten that out.
Well Thank You for info, good for Ace.
|
On July 05 2008 05:48 inlagdsil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2008 03:03 Inzek wrote:On July 05 2008 01:31 inlagdsil wrote: This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway ) Often have just one facility anyway.... + Show Spoiler +haha, true!
Other than making units produced at buildings selected together take more time to train, here are some random ideas to make macro skills useful:
-make the spawn location random. When you tell your 25 gateways to produce 1 zealot, it could be made in any one of them. That way, if you have gateways in several bases, you will put make each group of gateways have its own hotkey. This doesn't make a huge difference, of course, but adds a few keystrokes. For zerg, this would be a huge deal, since hatcheries tend to be scattered at expansions.
-(something similar to this was suggested, I don't remember what is was or where) When you click on a production building, there could be a button that can be used only once for each unit, that cuts down slightly on build time. Thus, faster players will get their armies slightly faster. This function cannot be used when you select several buildings at the same time.
-make supply management more important. Is it true that pylons/overlords/supply depots now give less supply? That is a good start. Getting supply bonuses might also me good. For example, if you individually select 5 supply depots and for each click on "increase supply", you could add 1 supply until the construction of the next depot. That one extra unit can really come in handy.
I don't think that all of these suggestions are ideal, but by discussing them we might stumble upon something really good. The basic idea behind all of them is to let the game be easy to play for casual players, all the while letting competitive players get an edge by doing things that less good players won't bother or have the APM to do.
I have nothing against smaller supply given by Depots but I wouldn't make them upgradeable 
About making units in random buildings tho:
Putting aside Warp In (that would make it of very small use), what if by default they were produced in Gateways that were warped (build) 1st?
So Protoss player would have to plan where to build 1st ones to be sure where units will pop out if queued using MBS?
Blizz may make it closest ones to the rally point tho...
|
On July 05 2008 08:13 MrRammstein wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2008 05:48 inlagdsil wrote:On July 05 2008 03:03 Inzek wrote:On July 05 2008 01:31 inlagdsil wrote: This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway ) Often have just one facility anyway.... + Show Spoiler +haha, true!
Other than making units produced at buildings selected together take more time to train, here are some random ideas to make macro skills useful:
-make the spawn location random. When you tell your 25 gateways to produce 1 zealot, it could be made in any one of them. That way, if you have gateways in several bases, you will put make each group of gateways have its own hotkey. This doesn't make a huge difference, of course, but adds a few keystrokes. For zerg, this would be a huge deal, since hatcheries tend to be scattered at expansions.
-(something similar to this was suggested, I don't remember what is was or where) When you click on a production building, there could be a button that can be used only once for each unit, that cuts down slightly on build time. Thus, faster players will get their armies slightly faster. This function cannot be used when you select several buildings at the same time.
-make supply management more important. Is it true that pylons/overlords/supply depots now give less supply? That is a good start. Getting supply bonuses might also me good. For example, if you individually select 5 supply depots and for each click on "increase supply", you could add 1 supply until the construction of the next depot. That one extra unit can really come in handy.
I don't think that all of these suggestions are ideal, but by discussing them we might stumble upon something really good. The basic idea behind all of them is to let the game be easy to play for casual players, all the while letting competitive players get an edge by doing things that less good players won't bother or have the APM to do. I have nothing against smaller supply given by Depots but I wouldn't make them upgradeable About making units in random buildings tho: Putting aside Warp In (that would make it of very small use), what if by default they were produced in Gateways that were warped (build) 1st? So Protoss player would have to plan where to build 1st ones to be sure where units will pop out if queued using MBS? Blizz may make it closest ones to the rally point tho...
Yeah, choosing which building produces will be an important decision. My "random" idea was to make it less convenient and force players to hotkey several different groups of buildings. It's very unlikely that they would do that though.
So, what are the options for choosing which building produces?
Here are the ones mentioned and a few more:
-random
-order of buildings produced
-closest to rally point
-chosen by player at any time, but default is order produced
-from highest on map to lowest, or right to left etc.
-commit different buildings to different units, one to zeals, one to DTs... but this might be too complicated
Any other ideas?
In weighing these options, a problem arises: do you want the system to be as convenient as possible, or make it difficult so that better players take advantage of it more?
|
Difficult but with as much logical reasoning as possible for me... reposting my idea from page 10
Units (much) more heavy in gas cost, lower income of gas and lower amount of gas in geysers + mechanic making gas renewable give SC2 more depth...
My (or not only my ?) idea maybe isn't the best >< but what if gas (and maybe small amount of minerals too) could be harvested not only by geysers?
Every race uses raw resources and refines them to make buildings and units.
Terran do this probably not far from what we do today.
Zerg use whole lot of enzymes.
Protoss use whatever high technology they have.
If all 3 of them can transform raw resources into something more usable, then why don't do this with something even more accessible?
Supreme Commander and it's ancestor Total Annihilation already use plants as free source of energy. Breaking old habits and bias why SC2 wouldn't, in less easily accessible (than just sucking energy in) way of course?
As presented on some screenshots even lethally harsh environment of Char can sustain some life other than Zerg, even if it isn't big.
Additional pros would be:
1) Even bigger importance of map control as number of potential expo sites would increase.
2) Even bigger importance of resource managing as it would be not as easy source as normal mineral patches and gas geysers but much more massed and easier to switch than (even now) simple 3/6/etc workers more on gas or minerals
3) Even bigger importance of scouting your opponent to avoid being surprised by sudden gas heavy units in the battle
- Zerg with potential of Overseer's huge range of sight aren't any exception as both other races through at least Phoenixes and Vikings (+ lack of Scourges) can take care of them!
Please don't misunderstand this as harvesting lumber in W3 as I'm trying to put it far from that.
|
On July 05 2008 02:04 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2008 01:20 IdrA wrote:
and anything that serves the purpose that is needed (force people to invest time in macro) is going to 'burden you with a task' (how is playing the game a task?). who cares if its minimizing efficiency or maximing gains or whatever, it produces a better game to force people to spend time on macro. (for reasons gone over several hundred times in past threads that you have been a part of) If it were that easy we could improve the game by adding "Macrobuttons" to the buildings that simply increase output for a certain time with a certain CD. Its macro in the most open sense. It takes up a players time. It creates another "skill" players can master. So it´s perfect right?
Judging from your example here, you don't seem to really understand the underlying problem that MBS introduces into the game. The problem is not the reduction of button presses, its the reduction of time. More specifically, its where that time is being invested. If the time is invested while the player is on the battlefield, watching his units, then that extra time investment is not really taking the player's attention away from microing, and its not helping to balance the mico/macro in the game. This is the main reason why things like the new gas mechanic don't really help to increase macro time: with MBS, there is effectively no issue with having too few hotkeys as there is in BW. In SC2, with MBS, you can hotkey all your production buildings, all your units, AND all your extractors/assimilators/refineries and still have hotkeys left over. Therefore, you can perform all production while on the battlefield quite easily, and it doesn't really have any noticeable effect on your micro.
The main problem with MBS is not that it removes keystrokes (although past a certain point, this as well is an issue. With the newer setup with MBS (one keystroke per unit) this is much less of a problem). The main problem with MBS is that it means a player barely ever has to move his viewpoint from units in battle back to his base. In BW, there's absolutely no way you could hotkey all your production buildings and still have space for your units past early game. You absolutely have to look back at your base during battles if you want to keep up good macro. And in doing so, you invest time into the game while not able to view your units. This forces you to make tough strategic decisions on the fly, and forces you to weigh risks and benefits quickly. It introduces a tough question with no *absolutely correct* answers into play that occurs frequently, one that will always be made differently by different people, and therefore adds infinitely varying degrees of skill into the game.
So when searching for something to add into the game that replaces the skill lost due to MBS, we aren't searching to replace the keypresses. We aren't searching to replace the time. We're looking for something much more specific: something that forces you to divert your attention back to your base very frequently during the game. The right solution would force you to make a decision that has no easy answers, and in choosing your option, there is always a downside.
BW is a game of limitations. You have limited time, limited minerals, limited gas, limited hotkeys. The limited time means no play can ever be truly perfect. The limited minerals and gas means you must manage and make strategic spending decisions. Lastly, the limited hotkeys means you can never monitor every unit and every building with perfect timing, nor can you control each of them with perfect timing. MBS effectively removes the limit on hotkeys, while also giving you an effective boost in the time availible to you. So whatever solution is chosen, it needs to fix the skill lost by the modification of those limits. And honestly, none of the solutions I have seen either A) do that, or B) are elegant and simple enough to please the majority of the population playing the game. SBS is by far the simplest solution to the problem.
I realize a lot of you would rather see this problem patched over with 'additions' rather than 'limits', but as I said, SC is a game of limits. And thats what's needed to fix this problem: a limit.
|
tec very well said sir.
this isn't worth arguing anymore considering it really isn't going anywhere. Can we stick to coming up with new and exciting ideas like new ways of gathering resources and what not? The Anti-MBS versus MBS discussion is getting lame again.
It will go on forever.
|
On July 05 2008 11:20 Showtime! wrote:
tec very well said sir.
this isn't worth arguing anymore considering it really isn't going anywhere. Can we stick to coming up with new and exciting ideas like new ways of gathering resources and what not? The Anti-MBS versus MBS discussion is getting lame again.
It will go on forever.
You're right, this discussion is on how to improve the game assuming it does have MBS.
Regarding the nature of the changes to be made, tec suggests that they should be "limitations". Well, they were in BW, and that certainly worked out well. But do they have to be in SC2? The sequel will be a different game, with a different focus. Even in the same game, SC, the focus has shifted over time from micro to macro. There is a huge opportunity here to influence the making of a game so that it becomes exactly what we want. Now, we can say "it was done this way in SC, so that's how it should be in SC2". This implies that SC was perfect in every way. If that were the case, then why the fuss about SC2, it would necessarily be a disappointment! Our greatest hope is that SC2 will be even more fun than SC while retaining its infinite skill ceiling.
SC2 is a modern game; it should feel pleasant to play. This is what worries me about the new gas mechanic, as it risks being a nuissance. I have made many suggestions in the last few pages on mechanics that reward returning to your base and clicking on individual buildings. The problem that they share is that they risk being annoying. The limitations in SC are technical: no one intended on them being a hindrance. In fact SC prided itself in its "revolutionary new queuing system", if I recall. In other words, there are no artificial tools added to SC to make you have to spend time macroing, the requirement is just built into the interface. However, these limitations will not exist in SC2. Therefore, the point of this thread should be to find a mechanic that achieves the following things:
-requires you to balance your efforts between micro and macro
-seems to stem naturally from the gameplay and isn't some random contrived clickfest
-everything everyone else said better than me
One way would be to make the game much more fast paced. If units produced a lot faster, then you would have to train them a lot more often. However, this seems like a draconian way of dealing with the problem.
I still like my idea of using increased training time as a penalty for training from multiple
buildings at once, but there is surely a way of improving on it to make it less like "this game has MBS but if you want to play well you can't have it, nah nah nah".
And please, no one say: "well then what about SBS?", that is for a different thread...
Ok, this post is too long, time to play SC.
|
Here's an idea inspired by tec's post; it's not directly macro-related, but at least helps solve the problem.
The problem tec (and others before) has with MBS is that it allows the player to build new units without taking their attention off of their army or armies, which removes an important strategic decision in timing waves of unit production. But does this shift in attention require a shift in viewpoint?
The assumption is that it does, because it's assumed that hotkeyed MBS unit production (even with one unit per click) will be fast enough to perform that even if battlefield conditions change while the player is producing units, if the player is aware of those changes they have time to finish their production and effectively respond to new threats.
However, if this assumption is wrong, there would not only be a strategic choice on when to build a new wave of units, but also a strategic choice on whether to finish a production run if the enemy attacks in the middle or break it off to respond to the threat and try to remember where you left off to finish later. This would be ideal, but the counter-argument is that it's unlikely that the enemy would attack during a production run both because of the speed of MBS production and because the enemy doesn't know for certain when their opponent isn't controlling their units (and so attacks while one is producing are essentially luck rather than planned).
This is where my idea comes in. Every unit will have two animations for most basic actions: one if they are currently selected by the player, and another if they aren't. If the player is currently selecting a unit, they will be "at attention", on edge and ready for anything. If the unit isn't selected, however, they subtly but distinctly "relax" now that their commander isn't looking over their shoulder, with their animations looser than when they're at attention.
In play, an observant enemy will know to look for "relaxed" units, and time their attacks when they know that their opponent isn't in direct control. Now, the producing player can see the attack coming, but they have to make a decision whether to cut off the production run and select their units to keep their opponent from gaining the upper hand at the cost of a off-timed/smaller production run, or finish their production run before selecting their units, which ensures maximum production but puts the player at a disadvantage in the battle.
So in a way, this brings back the attention cost to production, though now its more of a control cost. The player must decide whether to give up control over their units for production, and whether to cut off a production run to go back to their units if necessary. It also brings a new skill to attacking, rewarding players who send scouts ahead to see when the enemy "relaxes" and only attacking when their opponent will have to sacrifice something else that they're doing to stay on top of the battle.
|
On July 05 2008 16:51 1esu wrote:
Here's an idea inspired by tec's post; it's not directly macro-related, but at least helps solve the problem.
The problem tec (and others before) has with MBS is that it allows the player to build new units without taking their attention off of their army or armies, which removes an important strategic decision in timing waves of unit production. But does this shift in attention require a shift in viewpoint?
The assumption is that it does, because it's assumed that hotkeyed MBS unit production (even with one unit per click) will be fast enough to perform that even if battlefield conditions change while the player is producing units, if the player is aware of those changes they have time to finish their production and effectively respond to new threats.
However, if this assumption is wrong, there would not only be a strategic choice on when to build a new wave of units, but also a strategic choice on whether to finish a production run if the enemy attacks in the middle or break it off to respond to the threat and try to remember where you left off to finish later. This would be ideal, but the counter-argument is that it's unlikely that the enemy would attack during a production run both because of the speed of MBS production and because the enemy doesn't know for certain when their opponent isn't controlling their units (and so attacks while one is producing are essentially luck rather than planned).
This is where my idea comes in. Every unit will have two animations for most basic actions: one if they are currently selected by the player, and another if they aren't. If the player is currently selecting a unit, they will be "at attention", on edge and ready for anything. If the unit isn't selected, however, they subtly but distinctly "relax" now that their commander isn't looking over their shoulder, with their animations looser than when they're at attention.
In play, an observant enemy will know to look for "relaxed" units, and time their attacks when they know that their opponent isn't in direct control. Now, the producing player can see the attack coming, but they have to make a decision whether to cut off the production run and select their units to keep their opponent from gaining the upper hand at the cost of a off-timed/smaller production run, or finish their production run before selecting their units, which ensures maximum production but puts the player at a disadvantage in the battle.
So in a way, this brings back the attention cost to production, though now its more of a control cost. The player must decide whether to give up control over their units for production, and whether to cut off a production run to go back to their units if necessary. It also brings a new skill to attacking, rewarding players who send scouts ahead to see when the enemy "relaxes" and only attacking when their opponent will have to sacrifice something else that they're doing to stay on top of the battle.
I see how this deals with the problem, but I'm not really comfortable with the idea. In SC, you have to guess that the units aren't being controlled, which can be helped by setting up a diversion. Knowing for sure just seems to be less fun. It would also become an important part of the game. So then, do we really want to spend our time during the whole game looking at which animation the unit has? I don't have anything really objective to say about this right now, but it just doesn't feel right to me.
|
On July 05 2008 10:05 tec27 wrote:
I realize a lot of you would rather see this problem patched over with 'additions' rather than 'limits', but as I said, SC is a game of limits. And thats what's needed to fix this problem: a limit.
I think everyone knows your point, as it has been discussed to death. It might be valid (i.e. if it's proven that being able to "babysit" your army slightly more than is possible in SC1 is bad for the gameplay). However, your conclusion is only half true. You don't need a limitation (like SBS) to fix this. An "addition" which forces the player to pay more attention to his base works just as well if not even better, provided that it doesn't feel too artificial/awkward/strange. It has to blend well into the game. SBS feels awkward and tedious, so why keep it? If many players don't like it, why keep it? The effect it has can be created with other, better (more meaningful) methods too.
Instead of limiting player effectiveness by including SBS again, there should be a way for players to gain an advantage by choosing to switch to their base every now and then. This way, bad players can choose to babysit their army and not get the advantages because it's too demanding on their multitasking skill, but good players can gain additional advantages by splitting their attention. It would be an optional feature (SBS is not), and great for both parties... no one would have to complain about anything.
And you probably know that good players will use every means possible in order to improve, so it's not like they would ignore such possibilities.
Furthermore, something like this new gas mechanic could also lead to very complex but rewarding build orders. It will take longer until the best build orders for each map/situation/race are known, and creative players will be able to find out many new cool builds.
|
On July 05 2008 17:15 inlagdsil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2008 16:51 1esu wrote:
Here's an idea inspired by tec's post; it's not directly macro-related, but at least helps solve the problem.
The problem tec (and others before) has with MBS is that it allows the player to build new units without taking their attention off of their army or armies, which removes an important strategic decision in timing waves of unit production. But does this shift in attention require a shift in viewpoint?
The assumption is that it does, because it's assumed that hotkeyed MBS unit production (even with one unit per click) will be fast enough to perform that even if battlefield conditions change while the player is producing units, if the player is aware of those changes they have time to finish their production and effectively respond to new threats.
However, if this assumption is wrong, there would not only be a strategic choice on when to build a new wave of units, but also a strategic choice on whether to finish a production run if the enemy attacks in the middle or break it off to respond to the threat and try to remember where you left off to finish later. This would be ideal, but the counter-argument is that it's unlikely that the enemy would attack during a production run both because of the speed of MBS production and because the enemy doesn't know for certain when their opponent isn't controlling their units (and so attacks while one is producing are essentially luck rather than planned).
This is where my idea comes in. Every unit will have two animations for most basic actions: one if they are currently selected by the player, and another if they aren't. If the player is currently selecting a unit, they will be "at attention", on edge and ready for anything. If the unit isn't selected, however, they subtly but distinctly "relax" now that their commander isn't looking over their shoulder, with their animations looser than when they're at attention.
In play, an observant enemy will know to look for "relaxed" units, and time their attacks when they know that their opponent isn't in direct control. Now, the producing player can see the attack coming, but they have to make a decision whether to cut off the production run and select their units to keep their opponent from gaining the upper hand at the cost of a off-timed/smaller production run, or finish their production run before selecting their units, which ensures maximum production but puts the player at a disadvantage in the battle.
So in a way, this brings back the attention cost to production, though now its more of a control cost. The player must decide whether to give up control over their units for production, and whether to cut off a production run to go back to their units if necessary. It also brings a new skill to attacking, rewarding players who send scouts ahead to see when the enemy "relaxes" and only attacking when their opponent will have to sacrifice something else that they're doing to stay on top of the battle. I see how this deals with the problem, but I'm not really comfortable with the idea. In SC, you have to guess that the units aren't being controlled, which can be helped by setting up a diversion. Knowing for sure just seems to be less fun. It would also become an important part of the game. So then, do we really want to spend our time during the whole game looking at which animation the unit has? I don't have anything really objective to say about this right now, but it just doesn't feel right to me.
I like this idea, made me remember Stronghold game where some units already stand up not when they are selected but when selection box is being dragged over them and lie down back when aren't selected.
This would work more not because they wouldn't be selected but because it would take split of second to respond and execute animation...
in other words would be similar to current Mutas micro - they can be used more efficient when used with Hold Position (as they don't shoot instantly when they have range but are on the move).
Another thing is fact that not selected units would not mean they aren't supervised and could be selected in instant when battle is going to start... so this could be used to lure opponent out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
