EPTOn September 11 2008 19:56 Ki_Do wrote:
dude, i am a terran, i want to macro too
wtf?
dude, i am a terran, i want to macro too
wtf?
its ok. just micro.
Thesis to Increase Macro and Innovation - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
tyr0
United States125 Posts
its ok. just micro. | ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On September 14 2008 03:49 Ki_Do wrote: dude im gonna break down, i cant get with these sc2 topics anymore, too much anticipation, nervousism and my head is sick . Patience. Redemption is coming. | ||
|
randomscrub
Bulgaria44 Posts
seriously, even if sc2 is a 100% wc3 clone except without heroes and more supply, macro will be fine. the key features to macro are knowing when to invest in economy and when to invest in unit production. APM will always be needed for micro/scouting/expanding/positioning/organizing units. Even if you have MBS, automine, every possible "anti-macro" feature, I can guarentee you that four players with 400 apm each will not be fast enough to perfectly manage 1 player in a team melee. | ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
the tentacle idea actually might not be so bad for gas mining, but i don't think it will work for mineral mining. anyway, how should pathing work for the tentacles? and i didn't even read that nonsense about protoss warping in minerals. the point of a mineral field is you have to take out the minerals of the field, if you try to warp in the minerals you are going to need to harvest them still because you're really just warping in a section of the field, and the minerals are mixed in with everything else. the worker is harvesting the minerals...you can't just warp them in. i guess if you had an observer it might make sense that you could warp in the minerals then because the observer would be scanning for the minerals in the field, but even that seems farfetched because the observer is mainly a recorder, not a scanner. i guess it might be interesting to require an observer deployed at each mineral patch in order to warp in the minerals. and if you make the tentacles work for only gas like i thought would be realistic, maybe you'll want to transfer your protoss idea over to gas. that would be kindof cool because then you wouldn't have to keep probes on gas anymore. instead you'd pay 25/75 instead of 150 for gas workers...sounds fun. still i don't think warping in the minerals seperately from the field is realistic and even if it were, i don't know that using the observer to scan for the composition of the field is realistic. anyway, it would work best with gas because i don't think it's realistic for tentacles and warping to actually solve the issue of harvesting the resources. the workers themselves harvest the minerals, but the building on the geyser is what harvests the gas. the workers just come pick it up and take it home. that's why i think the tentacle and warping ideas are better suited for gas. actually, if you transfer your idea for warping over to gas i think you'll have to cut off my observer idea, haha, he'd only be useful for the mineral warping in deal. the assimilator is already harvesting the gas, after all. then again, maybe not. he could send the info about the exact position of a gas container to be warped back...yeah, that makes sense. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On September 13 2008 14:39 moebius_string wrote: Comments such as that are irrelevant. If parts of the game were whole heartedly rejected in Beta, Blizzard would rework it even if it was that late in development. Blizzard's a corporation, but their not EA just yet. quote the irrelevant comment. my point was: why create artificial base management systems when they have one that is pretty much perfect (Starcraft). If they want macro/base-management to reflect that of SC... why not use SC? btw, pre-alpha is very late in the developement stage when you consider the project is 4? years long. | ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
i never thought i liked macro... to me u were part of the oozing tumor =) so happy u find basemanagement awesome | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
However, while I think the tentacles might work for zerg - since they generally do not saturate their bases with drones anyway - I think the warp-out mechanic would hurt the finer points of protoss economy, ie, there will be no such thing as cutting workers or playing eco heavy etcetc, you will just saturate your mineral field and that's that, no room to tinker with it. Doesn't have to be terrible (ie works in WC3) but it probably will simplify the economy (again, see WC3). Another thing I don't really like is that you'd have to kill the hatchery to stop zerg mining - that essentially removes harass from all the zerg matchups - not good. If you could kill the tentacles individually it'd be more interesting, although drones would still have to be used for some part of the economy (or spawn for free like larva) to keep base building smooth I think.. | ||
|
moebius_string
United States264 Posts
If they want macro/base-management to reflect that of SC... why not use SC? The roll back is most likely not going to happen, because even on teamliquid, there is no consensus. The funny part is these "Thesis" threads get better reception than most, even though what they advocate is quite a departure from the norm. Blizzard wants to make the game more manageable for new players, so a hybrid system with lighter macro(comparatively)is probably what we, will be seeing. Let is be said that for me this whole sequel making process is an anathema to having a stable Esport game. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On September 23 2008 08:24 moebius_string wrote: Let is be said that for me this whole sequel making process is an anathema to having a stable Esport game. Interesting observation. Expand on this. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 23 2008 08:24 moebius_string wrote: The roll back is most likely not going to happen, because even on teamliquid, there is no consensus. The funny part is these "Thesis" threads get better reception than most, even though what they advocate is quite a departure from the norm. Blizzard wants to make the game more manageable for new players, so a hybrid system with lighter macro(comparatively)is probably what we, will be seeing. Let is be said that for me this whole sequel making process is an anathema to having a stable Esport game. In the long run, maybe you are right, but it's simply not feasible to NOT upgrade SC.. I love SC graphics, they don't seem outdated to me at all, but they will seem outdated to the people only now getting into gaming. There'll no doubt come a point where sequels for the sake of better visuals will no longer be neccessary but that'll take awhile.. I'm no expert on the history of chess but I don't think the original version was identical to what is played today - it takes a while for things to stabilize. | ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
 | ||
|
generic88
United States118 Posts
Expanding is one of the most interesting macro aspects in the game. Has anyone considered increasing the rate at which players need to expand in order to alleviate the lack of macro? For example: 1. All minerals have 50% of their current numerical value. 2. After being mined out the mineral spot leaves "cracks" on the ground. 3. A new upgrade is implemented "drilling", this allows players to "drill" the cracks (revealing minerals underneath?) allowing them access to another batch of resources, mined at a reduced rate. ----- This forces increased expanding. Expanding is interesting and requires thought. This allows players to choose between spreading their front and forcing them to defend more positions at once, or having a more defensible position at the cost of a lower mineral yield. | ||
|
NiGoL
1868 Posts
| ||
|
generic88
United States118 Posts
1. Resource manipulation options 2. Basic system tweaks | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5628 Posts
I think your suggestion changes the core gameplay and pacing too much. The new mechanic should be as unintrusive as possible. It's also far from an APM/time sink since expanding is very strictly subject to timing so it couldn't play a role of a "filler task" per se. Basically, it changes the core gameplay a lot but doesn't really achieve the goal of succeeding as a true APM/time sink. At least it's how it seems to me. | ||
|
siggy
United States39 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 04 2008 06:49 generic88 wrote: I am posting here, so as to not create another, perhaps "spam", thread. This post also pertains to macro and mining. Expanding is one of the most interesting macro aspects in the game. Has anyone considered increasing the rate at which players need to expand in order to alleviate the lack of macro? For example: 1. All minerals have 50% of their current numerical value. 2. After being mined out the mineral spot leaves "cracks" on the ground. 3. A new upgrade is implemented "drilling", this allows players to "drill" the cracks (revealing minerals underneath?) allowing them access to another batch of resources, mined at a reduced rate. ----- This forces increased expanding. Expanding is interesting and requires thought. This allows players to choose between spreading their front and forcing them to defend more positions at once, or having a more defensible position at the cost of a lower mineral yield. Generic88 Very interesting mechanic. Could you tell us alittle bit more about how your mechanic would work and how it increases macro specifically. Also not to be narcissistic but have you read my gas mechanic? There are a lot of similarities and I would appreciate your thoughts. "Harvest Elements Gas Mechanic: When a geyser has been drained of its 2000 gas it gains a Drill button on its UI panel. When a player clicks the "Drill" button a Harvest button would appear on the UI panel along with a progress bar divided into ten sections. This bar would begin filling at the rate of one section per second. Each section will eventually count for 10 minerals and 10 gas if successfully harvested. When the player clicks the "Harvest" button the geyser is restocked with minerals and gas proportionate to the number of filled section. The catch is that if the player waits past 10 seconds the boreshaft collapses and the geyser receives no refill. Players can Harvest Elements as many times as they want but there is a cooldown following successful and unsuccessful harvesting." | ||
|
nataziel
Australia1455 Posts
| ||
|
generic88
United States118 Posts
The basis of my idea is to greatly increase the frequency of expansion in-game. Expanding is one of the most interesting and strategic aspects of macro. You must decide when and where to expand, how much or if to defend it, and protect your workers during migration. The implementation of this mechanic would not only lead to more expanding but everything that goes with it. Expansion hunting (scouting), Worker Migration, and the strategic implications of having a larger front to defend and attack. The "drill" ability is simply added to keep the game from going to resource exhaustion too quickly, coincidentally this will increase worker migration as workers will be being transferred very frequently between fresh bases and older ones (after the tech is needed). Increased worker migration leads to increased multitasking. This is because each migrating group of workers wont only need to be initially ordered to the desired location but than also monitored while they are in-transit to protect from enemy interception. This also goes the other way as good players will need to be aware of enemy worker migration and concentration. | ||
| ||
