|
Thesis to Increase Macro
Thesis to Increase Macro: Part 1 Mining
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=78498
Thesis to Increase Macro: Part 2 Supply
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=78501
Thesis to Increase Macro: Part 3 Support Buildings
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=78657
Thesis to Increase Macro: Part 4 Production Buildings
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=79926
Thesis to Increase Macro Part 5: Gas
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=82730
Thesis to Increase Macro Part 6: Base Defense
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=84339
Contact at ArcherofAiur@gmail.com
Thesis to Increase Macro: Part 1 Mining
Here are the different sections of today's episode for anyone who feels like tackling them one at a time.
The Answer
Zerg Mining Mechanic: Harvesting Tentacles
Protoss Mining Mechanic: Warp- Out Fields
Terran Mining Mechanic: Automining
Closing Thoughts
The Answer
The solution is to make building up the war machine fun again.
1) Increased emphasis on buildings (treat them like stationary units with their own personalities and functions) make the user want to come back to base to do something cool like launch a nuke or cast a global effect.
2) Make resource gathering and army production engaging and interactive by approaching these tasks as a "mini-game". Whats needed is a game mechanics that plays within the confines of automining and mbs (and maybe secretly mimic traditional resource collection) and is still fun.
3) Use these two things as a way to add innovation to starcraft (which many critics claim is severely lacking).
Our Thesis begins with unique resource gathering systems for each race to further diversify and create three different playstyles. I would suggest keep the resources the same so that the core gameplay is the same. I propose three potential race resource mechanics.
Zerg Harvesting Tentacles
Protoss Warp- Out Fields
Terran SCV Automining
Zerg Mining Mechanic: Harvesting Tentacles
How It Works
This mechanic would require zerg players to return to their hatchery and select a tentacle. The player then drags this tentacle over to the desired mineral patch and releases the mouse. The tentacle latches on (accompanied by appropriate graphic) and can then begin harvesting the minerals at a rate concurrent with traditional worker gathering.
This solution is an optimal solution because it recreates the mechanical aspects of manual mining (non-automining) while masking the fact that theoretically this is the same as manual mining. Players have an expectation (from other current RTS games) that they should be allowed to automate their unit's actions and waypoints. They do not (yet) have expectations that they should be able to automate building responses. By introducing entirely novel systems you can once again require the player to perform a vital task (manage an army and a home base) without having them view it as a chore, burden or relic of an archaic system.
Additionally, the dragging and linkage actions should be accompanied by appropriate alien squirming, grabing, morphing etc. This provides a visual reward every time a new mineral line is established. For those who are about to respond that this so incredibly imba (yada yada yada) please note that the rates can be adjusted to give the exact same harvesting rate as a individual worker hiking back and forth from base to mineral. In case you havn't figured it out yet anything can be balanced (starcraft's three distinct races proved that).
So to clarify we no longer have drones for harvesting minerals (maybe keep them in some other capacity for making buildings/defense/gas). Instead, a link is manually established between the hatchery and minerals by the player. The act of establishing this link requires almost the same attention and clicking patterns that you had with traditional (manual mining) starcraft. This allows for all the engagement that conventional resource management enjoys…at least for the zerg player.
Community Feedback: Harvesting Tentacles
Dabman from Teamliquid.net proposed this:
“The tentacles themselves should cost minerals, either by permanently using a drone to morph, or being built from the hatchery. The added macro would come from the fact that there would be 8-10 mineral patches, and you would not be able to immediately create tentacles for every one. There would also be no horrible penalty for not making tentacles; after all, once the minerals run out, the tentacles are lost value. In general, tentacles would be the way to go if you had the APM to rush back to base from time-to-time to add another tentacle.”
(http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=78498¤tpage=4)
Dabman suggests allowing drones to upgrade into tentacles. I had originally conceived of tentacles as replacing drones but I like this dabman’s vision better. For a mineral price drones could mutate into a tentacle. They would latch onto a hatchery and a tentacle would shoot out of there back. The player controlled action could be the player selecting the drone, clicking morph tentacle and then selecting the hatchery. The player would also select a mineral line for the tentacle to latch onto. The tentacle would then function as a more efficient worker line. The player has now freed up all the workers that were mining that mineral patch and can use them for building production or send them to expansions. Dabman further suggest the mechanic be implemented in such a way that does not compromise the necessity of drones in zerg gameplay.
Purchasing the Tentacle
This is the area that will most benefit from playtesting. Should tentacles be purchased at the hatchery and then grown and then connected? Should tentacles be provided free and sporadically like larva and the act of connecting them require resources? Thoughts?
Why Zerg?
The zerg playstyle more than any other race focuses on large numbers of cheap units. It is only fitting that the zerg player be required to spend a portion of his time at the base generating macro advantage rather then just attack moving for 20 min.
Resource mechanic is new, strange and foreign: appropriate for the most alien of races.
Mimics biological systems (roots, blood vessels, proboscis)
Reinforces the hatchery as the nucleus of the zerg base
Could generate periodically like larva.
Advantages
Interactive
Macro Intensive
Aesthetically appealing
Characteristic of race themes and lore
Disadvantages
Different (AAAAHHHH)
Difficult (but not impossible) to balance
Credit Where Credit is Due
The tentacle idea for zerg harvesting (sans drag selecting) was proposed on Blizzard's forums a couple months ago by someone else. If that person wants to come forward and claim credit for that I would really like to discuss these issues with you.
Protoss Mining Mechanic: Warp- Out fields
How It Works
To collect minerals protoss players would need to select a base and "build" a warp-out field over a mineral field. Initiation of the warp-out field would cost money and the warp-out field would need time to materialize before it could begin phasing out minerals to protoss home worlds. In essence this requires the same actions as selecting a nexus (now probe) building a probe (initializing warp out field) and directing that probe to appropriate mineral field (placing warp out field on mineral field). An electrical disturbance animation along the lines of psi storm or disruption field signifies that this effect is in place and processing a mineral field. The process does not require further automation because it relies on construction actions. (and thank god for to automate construction actions would necessitate automation of all of base building).
Why Protoss?
Protoss are the masters of warping technology. If a race has the capacity to recall and warp-in units from one place to another the logical extension of this technology is to teleport your resources directly into your manufacturing systems. Aesthetically the electrical field over a mineral field will fit right at home with the Protoss look particularly in a new base with many warp-in and warp-out fields going up at once (make sure there different enough for visual clarity).
Warp Out Field Feedback Request
Question for you guys. Should warp-out fields have an upgrade ability? Should you be able to stack them?
Advantages
Player must come back to base to place warp out fields
Devotes attention and mouse clicks to macromanagement
New spin on old mechanic (warp-in)
Keeps with racial traits and lore
Only one probe required for a complete base (natural extension of starcraft 1 probe's ability to create a whole base by itself)
Disadvantages
Only one probe required for a complete base (we all know how much we hate having "heroes")
Surge Feature
One variation of my warp-out mechanic included a surge feature where the player can put a warp field in hyperdrive to generate additional minerals at the cost of decreased production for a time period after (incorporates parts of current gas build). For balance considerations this could be hard capped.
Terran Mining Mechanic: Automining
How It Works
Terran player clicks to make a scv and sets the rally point to a nearby mineral field. When the SCV pops out it immediately heads to the mineral field and begins its menial labor. Got it?
Here to explain why giving only one race automining might actually work is 1950's Family Values Dad and Lil Billy.
Lil Billy: Wow dad this game is incredible. Thank you so much for buying me starcraft 2.
1950's Family Values Dad: No problem son. You know in my day we didn't have all of those new features you kids have now like MBS and unlimited selection or that automining that the Terrans have.
Lil Billy: But dad I don't understand how come the Terran get automining while the Protoss and Zerg have to place all their gathering systems. Isn't that totally IMBA?
1950's Family Values Dad: Well Lil Billy, It is true that the Terran do have the advantage of being able to increase their mineral production while away at the battle lines. However there are a lot of advantages that the other races enjoy. For instance, did you know that you cant kill the Zerg harvesting tentacles. No you have to destroy the whole hatchery.
Lil Billy: Golly that's a huge advantage for the Zerg.
1950's Family Values Dad: Yes indeed. The attention that the Terran player saves by automating his minerals comes at the cost of having to protect his workers when his base is invaded.
Lil Billy: Oh I get it! The key to giving one race a cool thing is to balance it with equally cool features for the other races.
1950's Family Values Dad: Right you are son. Its all part of the elegant and cohesive balance that makes starcraft a truly extraordinary game. Any other questions?
Lil Billy: Will Russia destroy us in an atomic firestorm?
1950's Family Values Dad: We'll see Lil Billy, we'll see.
Why Terran?
As the race responsible for the Kel-Morian Combine you better believe the Terran are good at mining. They don't need no teleportation voodoo or some bio-prehensile appendage. No siree. YOU! Redneck trucker dude, go get in that suit and get outside and when your out there go mine some of that blue junk and keep doing that till I tell you to stop.
This resource mechanic feels the most familiar and thus perfect for the race closest to kin. It stands in stark contrast to the more "alien" resource mechanics for the protoss and zerg
Advantages
Traditional
Easy for beginning players
Disadvantages
Little macro for the terran player, this can be compensated by increased emphasis on building centered mechanics (more on this later).
Justification
Ultimately, it might not be a totally bad thing to have a race that favors heavy micro, one that favors heavy macro and one that falls somewhere in between (fits the racial trichotomy).
Closing Thoughts
Please remember these are not hard and fast ultimatums. I am not saying "this is how SC2 HAS to be or else it will fail and I won't buy it the end". What I am really advocating more then anything else is a new way of looking at macromanagement. I believe my proposal opens up avenues of design space that may have not been explored previously. The addition of contemporary UI features has proven incompatible with both the traditional macro SC2 enjoys and the multitude of aspirations SC2 hopes to accomplish. In order to fill all three of these big shoes the first thing that has to happen is for designers and fans to at least entertain novel approaches to RTS gameplay. Even harder then this but equally necessary: All parties involved must be prepared to compromise on some levels for the greater good. Because although starcraft as a universe is defined by the conflict of three obstinate and opposing factions, starcraft as a game can not be.
Pax
|
Mini game you say?
'YOU! Redneck trucker dude, go get in that suit and get outside and when your out there go mine some of that blue junk and keep doing that till I tell you to stop.'
aren't scvs black?
loloflrmao
|
waaaaaaay too much time spent writing this just to troll :\
|
|
|
On September 11 2008 12:47 Archerofaiur wrote:
Disadvantages:
Only one probe required for a complete base (we all know how much we hate having “heroes”)
Hey, I like my hero probes! XD
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are proposing to basically eliminate workers for mining from both protoss and zerg? IMO, this would actually have the opposite goal of what you are trying to accomplish, which is to increase the amount of macro in SC2. Here are my reasons for thinking this:
1. No ability to maynard workers to a new expo/move workers from a mined out expo. It is common practice to over-saturate the main so that workers may be transferred to the natural, ect.
2. No offensive/defensive capability for zerg and protoss, since they won't have much reason to make workers except for building. We all know how crucial workers can be in defending a rush (Ex: Jaedong vs Lucifer). No more Kwanro ridiculous speed upgraded ranged drones slaughtering marines to win the game.
3. No more ability for zerg to quickly sunken up by pulling drones from the mineral line.
4. No more maps that use the dynamic of mining a mineral to bypass some obstacles, eg Plasma.
These are what I can think of offhand. What are your thoughts after considering these points?
Edit: lool, there could be 'instance' things where you can take control of a probe and mine minerals and snipe SCVs and drones n stuff. i would play that game all day.
|
Holy hell thats a nice first poster 
We should add one of those for the question batch....
|
ignore Hermione.
The main flaw in your suggestions lies in the whole idea of miner mobility. I'm under the assumption that Tentacles are connected to Hatches and Warp Out buildings will be stationary as well. SCVs are still mobile. So in essence Z and P resource gatherers are stuck in base as stationary buildings, and therefore more vulnerable to harassment. Bottom line: SCVs can run away from danger but stationary miners cannot. I feel this does not make any sense.
I also do not fully understand the Warp suggestion. is it AOE? do you warp minerals by selecting a single cluster at once? if its AOE it shares very few mechanical traits to BW's probe to each mineral patch. Clarify this.
BTW: thats a huge ass first post.
|
Quite the impressive first post, I applaud your efforts. However, like 1950s dad points out, Terrans have to protect their workers. I think workers are essential, because of their weakness to harass. Basically, if we didn't have workers, the only way to inflict economic damage would be to destroy buildings. That would mean things like a single zealot harass or a few lings sneaking into a main would be useless because they have no potential for economic damage.
This is a really cool idea, and it looks like you put a lot of work into it, but I think you need to be able to blow workers up for easy econ damage. I'll give it some more thought though.
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know...I was trying to post there. PM a mod, or you could edit it into this thread.
Edit: maybe becos you made 2 threads in such quick succession..dunno
Edit2(becos i dont want to post again): You can PM a mod by clicking the 'PM' button in the upper left hand corner of the site, where it says 'logout.' Just type in a mods name and be like 'plox halp me '
If you don't know mods, here are some: FrozenArbiter, Manifesto7, Hot_Bid, Last Romantic(he is a mod right...?)
|
Why didn't you just edit the old post and put your new stuff in?
|
How would I PM a mod?
I wanted to keep the two threads seperate because it is easier for me to compile the feedback I get from you guys.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
hi reopened. Sorry i thought it was double post
|
I kinda like the idea, though I'm sad to say I don't think it'll work out. But I do like the concept of one race being heavy macro, one being heavy micro, and one falling somewhere in between. And I could even go so far as to say which race should fill which role. However, that's a discussion of unit mechanics and isn't for this thread.
Good idea, though, but some issues do need to be worked out. Most people have already brought them up. The lack of protoss and zerg workers, for instance. I mean, come on, who hasn't seen the boxer SCV rush? And while from a lore point, the zerg and protoss mechanics seem very different, in gameplay, they would really be almost identical it seems to me. Though it could turn out to be like the zerg unit production in BW. The terran and protoss unit production were really quite similar; the zerg was radically different. *shrugs* I think this idea should be definitely looked into by blizzard. I hope they at least consider it.
|
Suppy Mechanics Thread, you say??? Hmm....
Great first post man, I just read through it and although there's some points I can say I can disagree on, I really enjoyed the read and the effort you put into this post. I'll give my opinions tomorow when I have time. In the meantime, I'd like to say those were great first posts, and welcome to TL.net!
+ Show Spoiler +You must be Oakhill. I don't know the story behind it but bringing up topics like these will spark nice discussions so thanks
|
Well, I think they're nice ideas, but:
1) Dont think this will solve Macro probs
2) Too late to suggest a change as big as this
3) Too different from the starcraft we know
4) As others pointed out, stationary mineral gatherers seem to have a disadvantage.
5) Would be cool ideas for another game
|
On September 11 2008 13:50 Superiorwolf wrote:Suppy Mechanics Thread, you say??? Hmm.... Great first post man, I just read through it and although there's some points I can say I can disagree on, I really enjoyed the read and the effort you put into this post. I'll give my opinions tomorow when I have time. In the meantime, I'd like to say those were great first posts, and welcome to TL.net! + Show Spoiler +You must be Oakhill. I don't know the story behind it but bringing up topics like these will spark nice discussions so thanks
I am not Oakhill
|
On September 11 2008 14:00 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2008 13:50 Superiorwolf wrote:Suppy Mechanics Thread, you say??? Hmm.... Great first post man, I just read through it and although there's some points I can say I can disagree on, I really enjoyed the read and the effort you put into this post. I'll give my opinions tomorow when I have time. In the meantime, I'd like to say those were great first posts, and welcome to TL.net! + Show Spoiler +You must be Oakhill. I don't know the story behind it but bringing up topics like these will spark nice discussions so thanks I am not Oakhill That's exactly what Oakhill would say ^^
Also, your suggestions are all too exaggerated (as in completely change the metagame) for a game that none of us know much about. How can you balance something you do not know? You're shooting in the dark, that's pretty much a 100% worthless waste of time. Why can't you just wait for beta, see exactly what the weak points of the game are. And then make exaggerated suggestions that at least are based on experience rather than pure speculation? Really, the game is not even fucking beta... chill out, calm down and wait until you actually play it and have any clue of what's going on.
|
dude, i am a terran, i want to macro too
wtf?
|
I like the ideas but there would be a lot of complications to the game.
Anyway very good post!
|
I like your idea, visually speaking, especially the tentacles.
Althought, and besides the gfx, I don't see an improvment.
Zerg :
What you suggest is simply no auto-mining, ok.
But then, if the tentacles are attached to hatcheries, you would lose also mobility and workers transfer, which is a part of micro / macro.
If they are invincible, you'd lose all the actions required to save your workers in case of an attack, which therefore tends to lower macro / micro : the main and only goal would be to destroy the hatch.
What then ? I guess you would lose all the tentacles, since they are attached.
If you had to pay for each of them, it could appear to be a very strong economic damage. Unless may be each tentacle would increase hatchery HP by, say, 50 hp ? Or may be tentacles could go into a defensive stance (now that would be graphically appealing : imagine the 50 tentacles Hive dance of death, impaling marines and zealots left and right)
I can't see tentacles popping like larvae, and costing no money, that would take away so much of the player interractivity. (which would be, in this case, only to assign)
I must say i like this idea, overall.
Protoss :
I don't like this idea.
It would be like Night elf mining, sort of. You plant your mine, which is protected but destroyable since it is a building, and then you do... nothing. (since no workers are required to be placed inside to harvest, in your pattern).
No mobility (no scouting, no probe escape, no probe transfer), no base caring, no over mining... I can see only disadvantages in this scheme.
May be you could still scout with a probe since you wanted to keep one to make those said building, but then the probe's role would be.... ? pure builder ? Therefore only need one ?
This sound like a devolution to me. (although, and again, i liked your idea behind this, graphically speaking. Storms surrounding the nexus would be awesome.)
Terran :
Nothing to add.
Edit :
I had another thought, while rereading the OP, where you mentionned Innovation and "having fun building the war machine".
I think that "having fun" is actually coming from innovation itslef, therefore i would agree that you're purposed changes would be a source of fun, because they are very innovative, for the tentacle part at least.
But after the element of surprise, i am not sure that those tentacles would lead to the same amount of fun we already have with drones, mainly for the loss of mobility, and so the loss of control it'll imply.
May be building your base in SC1 is not funny anymore, (arguable), but I'd say this mainly comes from the fact that SC1 is a 10 year old kid software. We know the deal.
Imo, what keeps up the fun after all those years -when innovation is gone-, is also the quality of animation, sounds and effects produced by the game. (I am not saying extreme SLI quadricore gfx, I'am saying good animations, well rounded sounds and fair graphics). SC1 had the 3 of those, and this is why, even though we've seen the same screens over and over again, it stills remains enjoyable, trippy and rewarding.
It just feels good when a marine explodes or zerglings pop.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 11 2008 18:24 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2008 14:00 Archerofaiur wrote:On September 11 2008 13:50 Superiorwolf wrote:Suppy Mechanics Thread, you say??? Hmm.... Great first post man, I just read through it and although there's some points I can say I can disagree on, I really enjoyed the read and the effort you put into this post. I'll give my opinions tomorow when I have time. In the meantime, I'd like to say those were great first posts, and welcome to TL.net! + Show Spoiler +You must be Oakhill. I don't know the story behind it but bringing up topics like these will spark nice discussions so thanks I am not Oakhill That's exactly what Oakhill would say ^^ Also, your suggestions are all too exaggerated (as in completely change the metagame) for a game that none of us know much about. How can you balance something you do not know? You're shooting in the dark, that's pretty much a 100% worthless waste of time. Why can't you just wait for beta, see exactly what the weak points of the game are. And then make exaggerated suggestions that at least are based on experience rather than pure speculation? Really, the game is not even fucking beta... chill out, calm down and wait until you actually play it and have any clue of what's going on. For the record oakhill still browses with his banned acc
|
Diversifying Racial Resouce gathering is a nice idea but won´t work like that simply because the peonswarm needs to stay as vulnerable spot of each base. I mean what is the purpose of Reapers if Protoss mine via "buildings"?
There are possibilities in the Resource aspect to become more involving. We could take ideas from other Games - Blizzard is known for that.
Possibilities include: More resource applications, forr example as tool in diplomacy (won´t happen)
Tradable with a 3rd Faction, maybe over a neutral Trading port? (kinda exists as "gas mechanic")
More complex resource system - how about adding a refinery building, instead of delivering to the CC directly your peons first deliver to the refinery where it is "processed" and THEN to the CC.
This could increase value but be more vulnerable and take longer to set up/involve more peons.
Taxes and Interest. Doesn´t have to work like in WC3 but it´s a possibility to increase economical depht/options.
|
Nice thesis... only four problems
What main questions do you want answered with the thesis?
What theory or sources did you use to validate your thesis?
Where is the empirical study?
What is the reliability and validity of your results that you got when you compared the thesis with your theory and empirical study, are there any reasons as to why your conclusion could be false, if so what were they?
|
i really dislike all of the new ideas, workers are essential for base defense, all-ins and micro tricks like (ramp) blocking. I like having a work force that can fight back, i love those moments when the peons run out to surround and kill the goons, and those decisions are some of the hardest and most important to make. Most importantly workers are just about the only reason for harassment, which is just about the only reason for a whole truck load of fast DT/reaver/muta/vulture-speed strats and counter strats. These are all parts of the game i do not wish to disappear.
Also i don't see how the protoss version adds macro, you just say build here the forget, and what's to stop a single probe running round the map and building on every min patch? i guess you could put in something like it takes X seconds per square of distance from a nexus but then you may as well use a probe.
|
The many workers approach of Starcraft's resource mining is a big part of the game. As mentioned before, removing harassment is a big big big part of Starcraft. Also, maynarding is one of the strategic economic decisions that is fun to make even with MBS - exactly the sort of mechanic we want to keep.
I also have a further compliant about the Zerg. The decision whether to make units or workers is uniquely Zerg, and this eliminates that aspect, and yet another good strategic economic elemnts compatible with MBS / Automine.
Your concpet and statement of intent are perfect, but its back to the drawing board on concrete ideas, I'm afraid.
|
why would Blizzard go out of their way to remove as much base management, and then implement a new system that is essentially the same thing but tries to pretend it's not?
If Blizzard wanted people to spend more time on macro/base-management in SC2, they would have implemented such a system.
|
Mora
"We have been working hard for the last several months on ways to improve the gas mechanic in StarCraft 2. There are a couple of goals for this design change:
1) Gas doesnt always involve a lot of choice or strategy in SC2. You tend to just try to collect as much as you can as fast as you can and it involves only a few of your workers. Could a new way of collecting gas be another way to add more strategy to the game?
2) Base building and economy management isnt as strategically deep as we want it to be in StarCraft 2. StarCraft has always been a game where economy plays a large role in your strategy. Can we improve what we have?
The second issue is extremely important to us. Gas doesnt HAVE to be more interesting, but economy strategy and economy management must be an important part of the game. We have tried at least a dozen different gas systems in the last few months as we have explored what works and doesnt work inside StarCraft game play. We will continue to work on different ideas for a new gas mechanic until we find something that meets our needs or until we discover that all possible solutions are worse than what we currently have. What was shown at WWI was very much a work-in-progress, and while it continues to evolve it is valuable to be able to read forum posts from our fans about what they liked or didnt like in the last build they had a chance to play."
-Dustin Browder, Lead Designer of StarCraft II
for you
|
On September 12 2008 00:21 Integra wrote:
Nice thesis... only four problems
What main questions do you want answered with the thesis?
What theory or sources did you use to validate your thesis?
Where is the empirical study?
What is the reliability and validity of your results that you got when you compared the thesis with your theory and empirical study, are there any reasons as to why your conclusion could be false, if so what were they?
What main questions do you want answered with the thesis?
How can macro be improved for Starcraft 2?
What theory or sources did you use to validate your thesis?
A series of essays to be put forth detailing game design approaches and possible mechanics.
Where is the empirical study?
Warcraft 3 and Starcraft editor maps that will be created to model the mechanics with the most potential.
What is the reliability and validity of your results that you got when you compared the thesis with your theory and empirical study, are there any reasons as to why your conclusion could be false, if so what were they?
Trust me, I will have allot to say on this once we have completed the first three stages.
|
yeah, and the terrans wont have to macro?
|
On September 12 2008 08:05 Ki_Do wrote:
yeah, and the terrans wont have to macro?
Did I say that?
The terran players will have whatever tools they need to play starcraft in a fun and competitive manner. Keep in mind that this is only my essay on mining mechanics. A second essay on supply mechanics is also avalible. I am currently working on essays detailing ancillary buildings, production builidngs, base defence, UI and the ever elusive gas mechanic. Even the ideas I have already proposed are far from finalized. I tend to follow the same design timeline blizzard does. Conceive, iterate, iterate, iterate, discard and start over cause that idea sucked anyway. It would be nice if I could conjure up an idea so great that it was ready to go into starcraft 2 without any tweaking, balancing, beta etc. Sadly I cannot. Which brings up the reason I would post this idea on forums in the first place. I am looking for constructive criticism and suggestions from you guys. Feel free to give your impressions, percieved problems, and recomendations. I promise that I will take all of them into account.
|
IMO this just makes the game that much more easier, and less entertaining. With automining and MBS, people can easily become good with -100 APM
|
"By introducing entirely novel systems you can once again require the player to perform a vital task (manage an army and a home base) without having them view it as a chore, burden or relic of an archaic system."
^----- I stopped reading after that. By introducing a retarded thing like that it would just elminate automining because they no longer automatically mine =\. They chose to not have it for a reason, not so they could add something stupid that mimics manual mning.
|
On September 12 2008 11:42 OmgIRok wrote:
IMO this just makes the game that much more easier, and less entertaining. With automining and MBS, people can easily become good with -100 APM
Being good is always relative, that is why the metagame is so important. We won´t be able to change anything if we always look at it as it it was added to SC:BW. Easy in Multiplayer is a weird concept for me, I always think that means a unexperienced opponent while others propably mean a effective User interface.
|
On September 12 2008 06:06 Ki_Do wrote:Mora Show nested quote +"We have been working hard for the last several months on ways to improve the gas mechanic in StarCraft 2. There are a couple of goals for this design change:
1) Gas doesnt always involve a lot of choice or strategy in SC2. You tend to just try to collect as much as you can as fast as you can and it involves only a few of your workers. Could a new way of collecting gas be another way to add more strategy to the game?
2) Base building and economy management isnt as strategically deep as we want it to be in StarCraft 2. StarCraft has always been a game where economy plays a large role in your strategy. Can we improve what we have?
The second issue is extremely important to us. Gas doesnt HAVE to be more interesting, but economy strategy and economy management must be an important part of the game. We have tried at least a dozen different gas systems in the last few months as we have explored what works and doesnt work inside StarCraft game play. We will continue to work on different ideas for a new gas mechanic until we find something that meets our needs or until we discover that all possible solutions are worse than what we currently have. What was shown at WWI was very much a work-in-progress, and while it continues to evolve it is valuable to be able to read forum posts from our fans about what they liked or didnt like in the last build they had a chance to play."
-Dustin Browder, Lead Designer of StarCraft II for you
What does that have anything to do with macro or base management?
An economic syetm requiring thought/strategy != spending time managing your base.
Of course Blizzard wants their economy system to be deep. That's part of creating an engaging and long-living strategy game. Do you expect them to have a different goal?
I was going to re-itreate what i had said, but i think i nailed my point on the head the first time, so i will just repeat myself: why would Blizzard go out of their way to reduce base management, just to implement a new system that essentially requires the same thing but tries to pretend it doesn't?
MBS does not reduce the amount of strategy involved with Macro. Nor does auto-mining. It just allows for players to accomplish those strategies with more speed and better efficiency. This is not by mistake, it is by intent. They would not sabotage those intentions by implementing a system such as the original poster suggests, as it would accomplish exactly that.
If Blizzard changed their intentions regarding how much time a player spends managing his base/macro, why wouldn't they simply remove MBS and automining? Why go to great lengths to create a new system (the Thesis) so late in their developement stage?
|
On September 12 2008 11:42 OmgIRok wrote:
IMO this just makes the game that much more easier, and less entertaining. With automining and MBS, people can easily become good with -100 APM
Do you think Blizzard wants players want to be able to be good at less than 100APM?
Or let's be more specific: What APM is the threshold that Blizzard desires their 'upper eschelon' of players to play at?
|
Ultimately, it might not be a totally bad thing to have a race that favors heavy micro, one that favors heavy macro and one that falls somewhere in between (fits the racial trichotomy).
I disagree here, It probably takes more time to master micro than macro because micro has to do with a lot of unit types whereas macro has to do with hotekeys, buildings, and peons.
Meaning that someone who has played less using say zerg would have and equal chance of beating someone who played more as a terran (50 games out of 100) given that they learned at the same pace in starcraft 1.
edit: Although I don't like copying people, you have to look at some other cool games like age of empires 2. The game was relatively fast paced, though not as much as starcraft, and you could hotkey buildings and train fast. Warcraft 3 had too few units and age of empires 3 is for noobs, but Age 2 was pretty good and had waypoints. It did have four static resources though so meh...
To make the game have more macro... well there are a few ways, just do anything that make the player click more to do the same thing in a longer amount of time. Decrease the unit selection for protoss and terran and halve it for zerg?
This isn't a college thesis is it? Because that would be one sick major :study of starcraft 2 design.
edit 2: make units move in formation. Those things are so annoying that they force good players to
micro their units, lol probe formation that steps over itself for 30 seconds before maynarding unless you doubleclick the mineral chunk and stack them beforehand. It won't work, but it'd be funny to see.
|
If Blizzard changed their intentions regarding how much time a player spends managing his base/macro, why wouldn't they simply remove MBS and automining? Why go to great lengths to create a new system (the Thesis) so late in their developement stage?
its definitely an option for them, said Dustin Browder about finding a way to add macro again to the game and recreate the macro more vs micro more styles of gameplay, all i know is that actual sc2 = failure.
|
On September 13 2008 10:18 Mora wrote:
If Blizzard changed their intentions regarding how much time a player spends managing his base/macro, why wouldn't they simply remove MBS and automining? Why go to great lengths to create a new system (the Thesis) so late in their developement stage?
Does pre-alpha count as late in the development stage these days?
|
On September 13 2008 13:57 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2008 10:18 Mora wrote:
If Blizzard changed their intentions regarding how much time a player spends managing his base/macro, why wouldn't they simply remove MBS and automining? Why go to great lengths to create a new system (the Thesis) so late in their developement stage? Does pre-alpha count as late in the development stage these days?
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.
|
On September 11 2008 19:56 Ki_Do wrote:
dude, i am a terran, i want to macro too
wtf?
its ok. just micro.
|
dude im gonna break down, i cant get with these sc2 topics anymore, too much anticipation, nervousism and my head is sick .
|
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.
|
imo, artificial macro is silly. the main reason why macro is so easy in wc3 is because retarded things like the upkeep system + low supply max + heroes encourages micro oriented play. automine/mbs/etc will not make a difference.
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.
|
uhm...once again, i feel like this sort of thing should be saved for campaigns and ums maps.
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.
|
On September 13 2008 14:39 moebius_string wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2008 13:57 Archerofaiur wrote:On September 13 2008 10:18 Mora wrote:
If Blizzard changed their intentions regarding how much time a player spends managing his base/macro, why wouldn't they simply remove MBS and automining? Why go to great lengths to create a new system (the Thesis) so late in their developement stage? Does pre-alpha count as late in the development stage these days? 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.
|
lol mora...
i never thought i liked macro...
to me u were part of the oozing tumor
=) so happy u find basemanagement awesome
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Very nice post, sorry for not reading it sooner.
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..
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I think it's time for you to study WorldEdit (forgot what it's called) or SCedit so you can apply all this stuff once Sc2 comes up.. good job anyway! 
|
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.
|
Pretty ok way to increase macro, keep going!
|
I pretty much think simplicity is beautiful. The trick is to have a system be a simple as possible, but also provide as much depth as possible. The idea I proposed doesn't really add a whole lot to the game (pretty much 1 upgrade), but would substantially increase macro. Basically I think there are two ways to add thoughtful macro (not simply UI regression mechanical).
1. Resource manipulation options
2. Basic system tweaks
|
What I posted on Bnet forums:
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.
|
Ya its a good idea but its too far fetched and isn't Starcraft the way we know it. imagine the uproar there would be if tomorrow blizzard said that they were going to remove probes from the game!
|
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."
|
I think the warp out mechanic for protoss sounds really cool. Instead of starting with 50 minerals, you start with say 200, and only 1 probe, with the warp out thingamajigger costing 50 minerals to warp in, so you warp all four in then begin gathering (automatically) from them. Then as soon as you get 50 again you start warping the next one and so on, it's basically the same as normal except you use buildings instead of probes. The buildings could have really low health so they are vulnerable to harass, but because you can't run them they would have to have more health than a normal (SC1) probe
|
Your proposed gas mechanic is quite interesting. It is like implementing a mini-game into an RTS? It sounds quite radical, I'm not sure how the community would take it. ^_^
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.
|
I sort of like the conception of these ideas. Just to add my two cents:
Tentacles: The Zerg "tentacles" could be more than just additional macro. It could also be a defensive strategy against attacks such as a storm drop. The tentacles would be immune to storm, and thus a Zerg player with a tentacle-mining base would not have to worry so much about abrupt stops in harvesting. The necessity for making tentacles should be properly balanced so that a scouting Zerg player would weigh-in the decision about making tentacles early if he sees templar tech.
The tentacles themselves should cost minerals, either by permanently using a drone to morph, or being built from the hatchery. The added macro would come from the fact that there would be 8-10 mineral patches, and you would not be able to immediately create tentacles for every one. There would also be no horrible penalty for not making tentacles; after all, once the minerals run out, the tentacles are lost value. In general, tentacles would be the way to go if you had the APM to rush back to base from time-to-time to add another tentacle.
Tentacles should be destroyable so as to add more options to an invading army. Do I have enough time to take down the whole hatchery, or should I take out as many tentacles while I still have troops in Zerg's base?
To sum up tentacles: tentacles would provide certain defensive advantages (vs. templar, etc.), and boost mineral production for the cost of minerals and APM.
Protoss Mineral Harvest: While I liked the idea of this, I think it needs more work done to further diversify it from the Zerg Tentacle idea. One idea I thought of would be a mini-warpgate (I'll dub them a name like "mineral-fold" or "minefold") buildable by probes upon each mineral patch. Instead of bringing the minerals to the nexus, the probe would actually blink off the screen - transferring minerals to some other Protoss nexus across the galaxy - and blink back to immediately begin harvesting again. The result would be quicker mineral harvesting, but at the cost of a minefold for each mineral patch. The macro component would come in to play because a player couldn't simply spend all their initial minerals on minefolds at once. The construction would have to be dispersed over a period of time, dependent on the developing military conflict. There would be natural bonuses for these minefolds: if probes are off the screen half the time, speed/targeting-dependent economy harasses would be less optimal. Additionally, if the Protoss Nexus is destroyed, probes would still be able to mine any patches with minefolds! (certainly mineral-folds would not be buildable until a nexus is first built.) These benefits would have to be outweighed by the cost or time required to build a minefold. For example, when a probe starts construction of a minefold, that mineral patch could be un-mine-able until completion. The Protoss simply wouldn't want to convert all mineral patches to minefolds at once, since this would result in a deadly delay in harvesting.
To sum up minefolds: Probes build "minefolds" on individual mineral patches to decrease harvest transport time and thus increase production. "Minefolds" grant additional defensive features. The cost is minerals/APM.
That was my (more than) two cents, glad to see some exciting ideas about increasing macro in this tread!
|
Oh, so you're saying that the tentacles and minefold thingos are there in addition to normal probe/drone mining?
|
They would replace probe/drone mining slowly if deemed necessary by the player. For example, if an intense early-game battle begins the match, it may not be economically worth it to convert the half-mined-out main. It also might not be worth it if you're a very micro-centered person. But if you're capable of handling the extra APM required to convert harvesting to tentacles/mineral-folds while battles occur, you would benefit with faster mineral harvesting.
For Zerg, the drone would metamorph into the tentacle. The incentive is faster production, but at the loss of the mobility and versatility of a drone. For Protoss, the probes would mine as units, they would just have a boosted production rate since they wouldn't have to physically transport the minerals.
For expansions, there would still be an incentive to send drones/probes so that mining can begin immediately after hatchery/nexus is put up. This mechanic would definitely not replace the importance of drones/probes in the SC economy.
|
So your saying something like the drone latches itself onto a hatchery and basically upgrades to a stationary mineral line?
Love it!
I can picture the tenticle bursting out of its back now.
Addendum 12/06/08: Added Community Feedback Section
"Dabman suggests allowing drones to upgrade into tentacles. I had originally conceived of tentacles as replacing drones but I like dabman’s version better. For a mineral price drones could mutate into a tentacle. They would latch onto a hatchery and a tentacle would shoot out of there back. The player controlled action could be the player selecting the drone, clicking morph tentacle and then selecting the hatchery. The player would also select a mineral line for the tentacle to latch onto. The tentacle would then function as a more efficient worker line. The player has now freed up all the workers that were mining that mineral patch and can use them for building production or send them to expansions. Dabman further suggest the mechanic be implemented in such a way that does not compromise the necessity of drones in zerg gameplay."
|
Wow, that does sound extra cool the way you put it. I'm sure it could be animated to be as disgusting as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i38.tinypic.com/15g6sfd.png)
