|
On September 14 2008 16:15 ArvickHero wrote:
This is a very artificial way to improve macro. Its like adding a "increase firepower for 2 seconds, and then have a 3 second cooldown" ability to every unit in order to try to "increase" micro. Not only that, but it'll sure as hell confuse a lot of the spectators and cause SC2 to go the way of WC3 as an E-sport.
WC3 is more popular in every country in the world besides Korea. Even the custom game DOTA is the same way. You should think before you speak.
|
On September 16 2008 02:58 Unentschieden wrote:
A lot of effort was put into this. But it is aimed to negate one of Blizzards key goals: to keep the action going and make the game as intuitive and "fluid" as possible.
It does what it is supposed to: Urges the player to spend more time in his base instead of the Battlefield. As you yourself pointed out the Base is only a pacing tool.
For this idea to be viable in SC2 we would have change some basics of the game like aimed at average gametime, importance of execution, importance of Strategy, general Pace.
Making the base fun, making the player come back to it etc. would inevitably slow down the game and I just don´t see Blizzard to do that.
actly in brood war u have to spend some time macroing, is brood war slow paced?
|
On September 15 2008 22:06 dcttr66 wrote:
you're not going to have anything for the zerg and terran to work with and it will be unbalanced.
even if you could come up with something for the zerg or terran, it wouldn't be as cool as this idea.
Lol
That sounds like a dare to me.
I accept your challenge.
|
On September 16 2008 07:03 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2008 22:06 dcttr66 wrote:
you're not going to have anything for the zerg and terran to work with and it will be unbalanced.
even if you could come up with something for the zerg or terran, it wouldn't be as cool as this idea.
Lol That sounds like a dare to me. I accept your challenge.
For Zerg, the answer is simple enough: do something with the queen. (I've made posts alone the same lines in sclegacy about non-combat spell casting, go search it)
For Terran, I think something along the traditional lines of mines-turrets-seige-unseige, would work. Adding abilities to addons (reactor/techlab) would also be a route...
|
On September 16 2008 02:41 Ozarugold wrote:
I apologize but I only read up to the citadel
No, apology not accepted. NEVER post in a thread where you have not read the subject matter in its entirety. It shows incredible ignorance.
|
On September 16 2008 06:31 Ki_Do wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2008 02:58 Unentschieden wrote:
A lot of effort was put into this. But it is aimed to negate one of Blizzards key goals: to keep the action going and make the game as intuitive and "fluid" as possible.
It does what it is supposed to: Urges the player to spend more time in his base instead of the Battlefield. As you yourself pointed out the Base is only a pacing tool.
For this idea to be viable in SC2 we would have change some basics of the game like aimed at average gametime, importance of execution, importance of Strategy, general Pace.
Making the base fun, making the player come back to it etc. would inevitably slow down the game and I just don´t see Blizzard to do that. actly in brood war u have to spend some time macroing, is brood war slow paced?
OP´s goal is to increase the time and effort the player spends on his base compared to what currently happens in SC:BW. If his suggestions DIDN´T slow the pace he would miss his goal of making Bases a bigger part of the gameplay.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
These are great posts, the amount of thought and effort you put into them is very obvious. Personally I didn't like the vast majority of your ideas, but they are certainly unique and intuitive. Thanks for posting 
|
On September 16 2008 07:03 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2008 22:06 dcttr66 wrote:
you're not going to have anything for the zerg and terran to work with and it will be unbalanced.
even if you could come up with something for the zerg or terran, it wouldn't be as cool as this idea.
Lol That sounds like a dare to me. I accept your challenge.
ahaha. yeah, i was challenging you. but i challenged you to make a ums map based on this principle, not to do what i told you was useless to try, haha. but obviously you're free to do with your free time whatever you wish.
|
Addendum 9/19/08: Added first "Modeling Macro Mechanics" feature to opening post.
|
On September 16 2008 07:19 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2008 02:41 Ozarugold wrote:
I apologize but I only read up to the citadel
No, apology not accepted. NEVER post in a thread where you have not read the subject matter in its entirety. It shows incredible ignorance.
O_o
Okay, I just read it all~
|
I agree with the point that this has the WarCraft3-ish feeling where people will have to know the game more deeply to understand what they are spectating. Besides that, this will make the players spend more time in their base. The joy of battle including strategy and tactics is going to be drastically reduced. StarCraft is an RTS here where you play for a quick half to one/two hour games not a Multiplayer SimCity or Utopia where they are meant to be played or run for hours or even days and months.
We do need some macro stuff but this isn't it. Thanks for these suggestions anyway.
|
Taken as a whole these proposals are to complicated, but perhaps one or two ideas on their own could be taken away from this.Perhaps the OP should of left the ideas as proposals that could be cherry picked by the developer, rather than 1 offer a comprehensive solution.
Given that Blizzard already has Warp Gates in place for Protoss,(the best macro we have seen)these ideas could be taken as additions to that. I just find it funny how all the inspired ideas out there, seem to be for Protoss.
|
Ugh, why do we want to increase macro again?
|
On September 21 2008 00:00 Megrim wrote:
Ugh, why do we want to increase macro again?
MBS Discussion I, II, III, and countless other threads on MBS, macro, and low multi-tasking demand in SC2. Read them before posting such rubbish, please.
|
i feel sorry for anyone who would spend so much time reading all of that. aren't those threads 30 pages long with really long posts and mass quoting?
|
|
|
Wow, you REALLY put some serious effort to make your ideas valid. While I wasn't able to finish reading past 1/3 of it (no attention span) your pylon idea seems quite valid. However, it somewhat resembles the concept of moon wells in warcraft 3. Extremely different but it seems that it brings too much of a warcrafty feel. I don't really know but good job on the ideas 
|
Question:
Have you thought about having this ability be tied to the nexus's shields? As in, the energy that gets passed along the pylons "drains" the shields. Might be an interesting dimension as powering up your macro (assuming you go with more econ related abilities instead of the ones you listed) would leave your building more vulnerable to harassment.
|
On September 21 2008 08:37 LaughingTulkas wrote:
Question:
Have you thought about having this ability be tied to the nexus's shields? As in, the energy that gets passed along the pylons "drains" the shields. Might be an interesting dimension as powering up your macro (assuming you go with more econ related abilities instead of the ones you listed) would leave your building more vulnerable to harassment.
You guys are great. Lot of good suggestions.
Swapping out the “energy” values for shield values is exactly the kind of elegant solutions I was hoping for. Attaching focusing to shields reduces the complexity of the mechanic while maintaining almost every other aspect.
In designing solutions to a problem it is useful to employ “out of the box” thinking. This introduces you to other areas of design space. After investigating these new areas of design spaces you can work on increasing “elegance” and with it simplicity.
For everyone saying many of these mechanics are too complex, I agree with you. Where I believe we differ is our design philosophy. I subscribe to the belief that you have to go through a whole bunch of bad ideas before you find your gems. But if you guys are capable of materializing perfect solutions from nether regions well more power to you. This threaditorial is for those who, like me, have to put time and effort into our design process. I intend to devote an upcoming section to simplifying mechanics.
On September 20 2008 23:33 moebius_string wrote:
Taken as a whole these proposals are to complicated, but perhaps one or two ideas on their own could be taken away from this.Perhaps the OP should of left the ideas as proposals that could be cherry picked by the developer, rather than 1 offer a comprehensive solution.
Given that Blizzard already has Warp Gates in place for Protoss,(the best macro we have seen)these ideas could be taken as additions to that. I just find it funny how all the inspired ideas out there, seem to be for Protoss.
As stated above these proposals are not “gold master CD” products. As such they should not be viewed as a All-or-None deal. Instead, they form the foundation of a broad reaching design project intended to improve macromanagement in Starcraft 2. I will go into more details in future installments.
|
theory #4:: increase chicks plaiying game so avg macro level falls
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
