|
Honestly I believe that there is only one simple solution to automining:
Why not make auto mine for single player only OR maybe better yet, for UMS type play (singleplayer and trigger/scripted base gameplay?????????? Why try to eliminate the intricate parts of competitive gameplay in a mode where novice players usually dont ever play anyway? The novice players that Blizzard is trying to accommodate never end up playing mulitplayer anyway b.c the consensus is that online play is generally harder for them. They play the game for entertainment purposes and not for competitive stimulation. These type of players (casual gamers) play for game lore and dont wish to pursue higher levels of play. These players usually have a hard enough time with single player modes in games - let alone competing in [online play for] RTS's. Multiplayer/online play is suited for the competitive and not for the casual gamer - especially with games as advanced as RTS's. StarCraft is game of many variables in competitive play that most casual players know they dont comprehend - thus the lack of continued play by these individuals. These players play multiplayer to see where they stand with the public and do not pursue it unless they are interested in higher level play. Higher level play would be a game solely that expresses the LACK OF AUTOMATION.
Then again, it would be nice to have a large amount of players committing to a great game. BUT thats where UMS games online would come in!!!!!!!! UMS MODES SHOULD SUPPORT AUTOMINE AS A SCRIPT FOR ENHANCED PLAY VIA TRIGGERS ON THE INTERNET. A MELEE MODE GAME SHOULD BRING A HIGHER LEVEL OF PLAY BY REDUCING AUTOMATION - plain and simple.
|
On November 19 2008 05:04 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 02:38 Unentschieden wrote:On November 19 2008 02:09 EntSC wrote:On November 19 2008 01:49 Unentschieden wrote:
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income. Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't. There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1. If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators. Well you are right, I would like a improved version of Macro compared to SC:BW. As mentioned before I think it´s too onedimensional. Anyone can perfect Manualmining very quicly - most confuse it a bit with Multitasking. You should try to REPLACE the mechanic, not to REPEAT it in different colours. Right now I see: Old: No income vs. income Yours: Low income vs. High income Mine: Low income low risk vs. High income high risk Am I mistaken, or is not the "risk" involved with Ent's idea the fact that you have to leave your army unattended in order to increase your mining speed? Is this not exactly what was desired by the OP and by competitive gamers in general? You need the distraction in order to make battles more exciting, and to make it a strategic decision "Can I win this battle without perfect micro? If not, will I be able to recover my lost units through superior economy? If not, how much will my economy be hurt if I have to spend all my attention at my army's location and how will that affect my building and unit production?" It seems to me there is plenty of risk involved with going back to adjust your minerals, and that the suggestion (or one similar in design and execution) is something just like what the doctor ordered. A simple, easy to see mechanic that gives the player another decision to make. NOT simply more "clicks" NOT simply a "reward" or a "penalty" BUT INSTEAD, another strategic decision. THAT'S the sort of thing I think most of us want.
Did you know why SC originally got the 12 unit selection Limit? It was supposed to prevent Rushes.
In practice "limitations" like these are simply being circumvented by sheer training and therefore simply add a entrance barrier for players with less trainingtime. (But I think some here honestly WANT entrance barriers...)
Professionals don´t "pay attention" to mudane repetative tasks like that - it´s scientifically proven. Beginners and Proffessionals aproach this entirely differently mentally.
It´s a matter of muscle memory, not strategy.
Competative play doesn´t need distractions (please, prove it to me I´m really not seeing it), it needs to be fun (includes fair) even under "powerplay" conditions.
One of the worst scenarios would be "200/200 races" every game - even if it were to be completely balanced no one would want (to watch) matches like that.
TL:DR
It´s not a strategic desicion, its a trainingtimesink.
|
lol Unentschieden what exactly was scientifcally proven? show me research asap
|
On November 19 2008 06:12 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 05:04 LaughingTulkas wrote:On November 19 2008 02:38 Unentschieden wrote:On November 19 2008 02:09 EntSC wrote:On November 19 2008 01:49 Unentschieden wrote:
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income. Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't. There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1. If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators. Well you are right, I would like a improved version of Macro compared to SC:BW. As mentioned before I think it´s too onedimensional. Anyone can perfect Manualmining very quicly - most confuse it a bit with Multitasking. You should try to REPLACE the mechanic, not to REPEAT it in different colours. Right now I see: Old: No income vs. income Yours: Low income vs. High income Mine: Low income low risk vs. High income high risk Am I mistaken, or is not the "risk" involved with Ent's idea the fact that you have to leave your army unattended in order to increase your mining speed? Is this not exactly what was desired by the OP and by competitive gamers in general? You need the distraction in order to make battles more exciting, and to make it a strategic decision "Can I win this battle without perfect micro? If not, will I be able to recover my lost units through superior economy? If not, how much will my economy be hurt if I have to spend all my attention at my army's location and how will that affect my building and unit production?" It seems to me there is plenty of risk involved with going back to adjust your minerals, and that the suggestion (or one similar in design and execution) is something just like what the doctor ordered. A simple, easy to see mechanic that gives the player another decision to make. NOT simply more "clicks" NOT simply a "reward" or a "penalty" BUT INSTEAD, another strategic decision. THAT'S the sort of thing I think most of us want. Did you know why SC originally got the 12 unit selection Limit? It was supposed to prevent Rushes. In practice "limitations" like these are simply being circumvented by sheer training and therefore simply add a entrance barrier for players with less trainingtime. (But I think some here honestly WANT entrance barriers...) Professionals don´t "pay attention" to mudane repetative tasks like that - it´s scientifically proven. Beginners and Proffessionals aproach this entirely differently mentally. It´s a matter of muscle memory, not strategy. Competative play doesn´t need distractions (please, prove it to me I´m really not seeing it), it needs to be fun (includes fair) even under "powerplay" conditions. One of the worst scenarios would be "200/200 races" every game - even if it were to be completely balanced no one would want (to watch) matches like that. TL:DR It´s not a strategic desicion, its a trainingtimesink.
Part of SC's addictive quality is the requirement of speed and precision with mouse and keyboard. This is why I never really got into WC3. I did not get the same rush from playing.
The thing about entrance barriers, is that they are only entrance barriers to the serious competitive play. Noobs, and casual players will play the game with other casuals and noobs. So, those games will be unaffected by these "entrance barriers" because the players are all playing at the same level. But at higher levels of play, for people who want to and are willing to invest time to be good, you want skill gradients.
That's where the mechanics requirement comes in. Players are differentiated by their mechanics and their comprehension of strategy. The more you remove the mechanics portion of the game, the less frenzied it becomes and the realizement of the best strategy becomes easier to conceive and execute. StarCraft is not super deep in strategy, but that is balanced out by the need for mechanical proficiency. If you want deep strategy with 0 physical requirements, chess is the game for you.
Basically, what it comes down to is, do you feel rewarded by mastering difficult mechanics or do you see them as annoyances? (So it's merely a preference, not a fact that can be proven either way.)
|
What about newly built workers walk 50% faster to the patch initially if manually commanded? That gives a slight but immediate return that would add up incrementally.
|
im sorry but I must protest from a programmer's point of view...
first off we all noe the auto mining is done so that the workers (i call them scv's through out cus im terran biased) automatically go to their minerals, etc
how would blizzard know if the person is interacting w/ the workers initially (i mean rite at the beginning where u must split the scv's) i know from other posts that trying to split the scv's urself actually is ur own undoing since the "smart scv's will move to and empty mineral when u command it to move to a diff mineral patch which might again be occupied by another scv that moved there because it was being "smart." I don't know how you would be able to fix that initial problem without slowing down the scv's too much that even an average gamer could do it easily...
also how is the program suppose to define lazy or bright workers? is it if you click on it it is bright? or if you move it it is bright? etc??
i don't noe about any of you guys or even the progamers for that matter but i really really like using the command queue when i build stuff w/ my scv.. i build osemthing and b4 it start i queue it bak into the mineral fields which makes it so that once it's done it goes rite bak to where it came from... would that be considered lazy worker?
I mean the only thing i see being possible is either highlighting the workes makes them unlazy? in which case i still believe the skill gradient would be shallow... or u must click and then move them? this i think is worse...
also I think automining is kind of a drag but you gotta realized that they put in the vespene gas cool down for a reason... i believe it was their way of making it so that pros who focus will still get the upperhand...
i just don't think it's that great.. like if you have a lot of scv's mining in one base then the spd doesn't realyl matter taht much... because unless you are able to select all the scv's one at a time and then make it so that they move faster when bringing the mineral bak (which is the only spd that matters at that point not the spd going bak to teh mineral because the mineral field will be over saturated anyways) or you select them all and they get like .5% spd boost...
EDIT: it's a good idea but I personally think the programming/balancing part of it will be suchhhh a pain in the ass...if it ever happens it'll prolly come out w/ the lsat cd of sc2...
haha by then most of us will want the automine and lose the spd boost cus we'll be old...
On November 19 2008 06:38 NastyMarine wrote:
lol Unentschieden what exactly was scientifcally proven? show me research asap
he's rite it's true pros and novice see things in a different way it has been proven for all differnt subjects, math, physics, art, sports, etc.
it's widely known knowledge that a novice will see a problem and relate to something taht seems familiar (familiar context, objects, etc) whilst a pro will see a problem and be able to abstract away all the unnecessary details and just solve the core of the problem... if you really don't believe me wait till you get to college... one of ur many professors are sure to mention it at least once...
|
|
|
I don't like automining at all and I do agree that better player's should be more rewarded - at least more than in the current build. I can absolutely understand why Blizzard wants to stick with automining as it is considered a standard nowadays. I like your idea, Kennigit, about the temporary speed boost for the mining workers, but selecting them to gain that speed is not that good as it has some major flaws (as pointed out by Chill already). Adding a new mechanic that is rather complex like the selective-speed-boost (I'll call it that way for now). I didn't read the whole thread so I dont know if someone brought that up already.
So I modified your idea: I'd make it more simple. I'd give the Command Center/Hatchery/Nexus a new ability. A propaganda-like "work harder"-call. Clicking on that ability would make all workers in a small radius around the CC/Hatch/Nexus mine 10-15% faster for the next 15-30 seconds.
So a better player could make his workers work 10-15% faster all the time. (The ability would need a cooldown so it can be used again as soon as the effect expired.) Keeping the additional speed up on every expansion would be more harder the more expansions you have. But on the long run it would be a huge boost to the players economy. It's effect would also increase the more workers you have on your expansion. A lesser skilled player wouldn't use it at all or only once in a while, but that wouldn't be a drawback against equally skilled players.
The ability could optionally need to be researched to prevent it's use in the early game.
Maybe the speed-gain should be race-dependent because the number of workers/expansions varies for the three races (at least in BW). But this is subject to balance, as well as effect-duration, effect-speed-gain and cooldown.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
On November 18 2008 03:19 -orb- wrote:
This creates a number of other game possibilities, such as the strategy that if you wanted to have a timing push it might be more efficient to save the speed boost for a certain time in the game in which you speed up all your workers at once (don't know, maybe it would be better to just get it going earlier so you get those workers faster).
i have seen multiple replies excited about the strategic "implications" of making a one time speed boost "decision" during some build order.
but it's false and there is no decision. it is always always always always always always most beneficial to increase speed 0ms after your worker exists... how are people thinking this?
|
Let's stay on topic TL'ers. This thread is about solutions to auto-mine.
This thread is not about what you like better: more or less mechanical requirements. Whichever side you're on, it's your opinion and not some sort of fact that can be proven or disproven.
The topic itself is implicitly on the side of greater mechanical necessity as it asks how we can devise a way to reward players with greater mechanical skill.
|
On November 19 2008 06:45 A3iL3r0n wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 06:12 Unentschieden wrote:On November 19 2008 05:04 LaughingTulkas wrote:On November 19 2008 02:38 Unentschieden wrote:On November 19 2008 02:09 EntSC wrote:On November 19 2008 01:49 Unentschieden wrote:
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income. Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't. There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1. If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators. Well you are right, I would like a improved version of Macro compared to SC:BW. As mentioned before I think it´s too onedimensional. Anyone can perfect Manualmining very quicly - most confuse it a bit with Multitasking. You should try to REPLACE the mechanic, not to REPEAT it in different colours. Right now I see: Old: No income vs. income Yours: Low income vs. High income Mine: Low income low risk vs. High income high risk Am I mistaken, or is not the "risk" involved with Ent's idea the fact that you have to leave your army unattended in order to increase your mining speed? Is this not exactly what was desired by the OP and by competitive gamers in general? You need the distraction in order to make battles more exciting, and to make it a strategic decision "Can I win this battle without perfect micro? If not, will I be able to recover my lost units through superior economy? If not, how much will my economy be hurt if I have to spend all my attention at my army's location and how will that affect my building and unit production?" It seems to me there is plenty of risk involved with going back to adjust your minerals, and that the suggestion (or one similar in design and execution) is something just like what the doctor ordered. A simple, easy to see mechanic that gives the player another decision to make. NOT simply more "clicks" NOT simply a "reward" or a "penalty" BUT INSTEAD, another strategic decision. THAT'S the sort of thing I think most of us want. Did you know why SC originally got the 12 unit selection Limit? It was supposed to prevent Rushes. In practice "limitations" like these are simply being circumvented by sheer training and therefore simply add a entrance barrier for players with less trainingtime. (But I think some here honestly WANT entrance barriers...) Professionals don´t "pay attention" to mudane repetative tasks like that - it´s scientifically proven. Beginners and Proffessionals aproach this entirely differently mentally. It´s a matter of muscle memory, not strategy. Competative play doesn´t need distractions (please, prove it to me I´m really not seeing it), it needs to be fun (includes fair) even under "powerplay" conditions. One of the worst scenarios would be "200/200 races" every game - even if it were to be completely balanced no one would want (to watch) matches like that. TL:DR It´s not a strategic desicion, its a trainingtimesink. Part of SC's addictive quality is the requirement of speed and precision with mouse and keyboard. This is why I never really got into WC3. I did not get the same rush from playing.
Speed and precision are RELATIVLY more a WC3 domain. Unlike SC you can´t let Units simply die, the Resource side is streamlined, Upkeep... WC3 is a radically different game and you might also argue that it´s as a whole not played on such a "high" level as SC in Korea.
That said, SC:BW IS a "faster" game since even economic tasks require "microskill".
On November 19 2008 06:45 A3iL3r0n wrote:
The thing about entrance barriers, is that they are only entrance barriers to the serious competitive play. Noobs, and casual players will play the game with other casuals and noobs. So, those games will be unaffected by these "entrance barriers" because the players are all playing at the same level. But at higher levels of play, for people who want to and are willing to invest time to be good, you want skill gradients.
You can have skill gradients without entrance barriers. Gradients are good but they shouldn´t decrease accessability.
On November 19 2008 06:45 A3iL3r0n wrote:
That's where the mechanics requirement comes in. Players are differentiated by their mechanics and their comprehension of strategy. The more you remove the mechanics portion of the game, the less frenzied it becomes and the realizement of the best strategy becomes easier to conceive and execute. StarCraft is not super deep in strategy, but that is balanced out by the need for mechanical proficiency. If you want deep strategy with 0 physical requirements, chess is the game for you.
Basically, what it comes down to is, do you feel rewarded by mastering difficult mechanics or do you see them as annoyances? (So it's merely a preference, not a fact that can be proven either way.)
That´s the point - Manualmining ISN´T a difficult mechanic, it´s a distracting one. Even during the argumentation here it´s brought up that players don´t need to be challenged but rather distracted since Multitasking is the REAL skill supposed to be tested.
In competative play, what do you think how big the difference is between the highest average "peondowntime" and the lowest? Especially in the first 5~10 Minutes since downtimes are less significant lategame.
Edit:
On November 19 2008 07:08 A3iL3r0n wrote:Let's stay on topic TL'ers. This thread is about solutions to auto-mine. This thread is not about what you like better: more or less mechanical requirements. Whichever side you're on, it's your opinion and not some sort of fact that can be proven or disproven. The topic itself is implicitly on the side of greater mechanical necessity as it asks how we can devise a way to reward players with greater mechanical skill.
I would prefer the mechanical skill to be tested in a more "fluid" enviroment, especially one influenced by the greatest random generator there is: another human.
Make unit "hitboxes" smaller so you´d need to aim better with the Mouse for focus fire.
Create individual targets of opportunity, like observers or Targeting drones.
Create a enviroment for creative solutions (shoot own units with splash weapons against invisibles, Banelingmines, Forcefields...)
|
Seems like a lot of people are forgetting that this is supposed to be a solution to the lack of mutlitask in Sc2 because of the addition of automine and MBS, etc. I don't think the goal of the thread is to simply design a new mechanic for mining. It seems pointless to suggest a mechanic that simply changes worker mining, but fails to solve the multitasking issue...
The crystal alignment proposal solves the multitasking issue really well and is the least likely to cause developer problems. It's also the least intrusive towards actual gameplay. Introducing an upgrade so that workers can mine faster seems really intrusive and doens't appear to solve the entire MultiTasking issue.]
Seems like people are getting sidetracked from the original issue is all :/.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I think my idea does both, as you'll want to change the mining mode of your workers regularly, and it has to be done manually.
|
On November 19 2008 08:11 FrozenArbiter wrote:I think my idea does both, as you'll want to change the mining mode of your workers regularly, and it has to be done manually.
Just stating my opinion, so no offense or anything. Your idea seems really intrusive to me and in my opinion will really complicate gameplay. It would also be harder for spectators to see. I also don't see it solving the multitasking issue very well. I don't see players indivudally selecting workers very often, I see players just putting groups of workers or all of them on hotkeys and changing their modes. It also seems silly to forfeit map control, so you can sit on one or two base longer. Extra minerals will allow players to expand faster, so they will have more crystals anyways, etc..
Just seems to me like there are easier/better and less intrusive ways to solve the multitasking issue.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
i really don't know about overly technical rewards like this. it seems like they still just need to split the games into two styles, the casual and the competitive style. newbies really have every right to play the game at optimal speed and not be hindered but they shouldn't get to play like that at tournaments.
a lot of people worry that will split the community but people seem to ignore that there were already split communities in starcraft and the game is still going strong, BGH, vanilla, ums, teamplay, competitive play. to be completely frank, if blizzard doesn't take action i'm guessing the community will. someone will probably mod sc2 over to have an sc1 interface and we can start pressuring tournaments to take it up that way.
sorry if my advice is redundant, i know i've been saying this stuff forever.
|
How about no more band aid solutions problems to huge, gaping wounds? You cant fix macro with such solutions as giving your workers a speed increase. It just wont work. The solution needs to be simple, without any increases or decreases in your workers. It just needs to flow with the game. I don't see any solutions other than taking it out.
Blizzard needs to keep the economy so that it constantly needs to be watched over and managed. Automine and MBS just take away from it too much, and unfortunately, I don't see how any of these band aid solutions can fix the bigger underlying problem.
Now, am I actively against automine and MBS? Yes, because I only care about SC2's competitive longevity. I want it to last for years, as StarCraft did. But these new features are only going to greatly decrease the skill gap, which will, in turn, decrease the longevity of the professional scene. To be honest, I don't really care if they are kept in or not, because I don't plan on playing competitively, but I'd still love to see the competitive scene and watch it, if it grows as big.
|
On November 19 2008 08:25 MyLostTemple wrote:
i really don't know about overly technical rewards like this. it seems like they still just need to split the games into two styles, the casual and the competitive style. newbies really have every right to play the game at optimal speed and not be hindered but they shouldn't get to play like that at tournaments.
a lot of people worry that will split the community but people seem to ignore that there were already split communities in starcraft and the game is still going strong, BGH, vanilla, ums, teamplay, competitive play. to be completely frank, if blizzard doesn't take action i'm guessing the community will. someone will probably mod sc2 over to have an sc1 interface and we can start pressuring tournaments to take it up that way.
sorry if my advice is redundant, i know i've been saying this stuff forever.
BNET 2.0 will compltely change that though. With AMM and automated tourneys etc. it's going to be a lot harder to have split communities. :/
|
On November 19 2008 06:12 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 05:04 LaughingTulkas wrote:On November 19 2008 02:38 Unentschieden wrote:On November 19 2008 02:09 EntSC wrote:On November 19 2008 01:49 Unentschieden wrote:
My problem with your direct mechanic is that it just "shifts" the mechanic, you explain it quite well yourself: "This is analogous to the production of SCVs: as you produce workers you must tell them to gather crystals; as you gather minerals in SC2 with AM, you must realign the crystals."
I´d like a reason NOT to "align the crystals". Why not make them "targettable" while aligned so that you would be more vulnerable to enemy raids as "payment" for the increased income. Ahhh, I see what you mean. My intention though was to develop a mechanic that provided macro in the absence of automine. Without automine SCVs just stand still. We're talking about players moving back to their bases with the specific intention of telling their SCVs to gather; telling SCVs to construct buildings (or perform other actions) is a different mechanic, so the choice is to go back to your base and tell your SCVs to gather, or don't. There's no advantage in not telling them to gather (apart from the time saving, but we haven't raised that as an argument because the time saving is naturally present with any mechanic that increases macro). So from my perspective crystal alignment is a good solution to the problem of automine because of the parallels with macro in SC1. If, however, you are talking about coming up with an improved mechanic that doesn't parallel macro in SC1, then I completely take your points about a disadvantage associated with crystal realignment. My intention was just to replace macro in a format acceptable to the casual and competitive gamer with a graphical display that is interesting for spectators. Well you are right, I would like a improved version of Macro compared to SC:BW. As mentioned before I think it´s too onedimensional. Anyone can perfect Manualmining very quicly - most confuse it a bit with Multitasking. You should try to REPLACE the mechanic, not to REPEAT it in different colours. Right now I see: Old: No income vs. income Yours: Low income vs. High income Mine: Low income low risk vs. High income high risk Am I mistaken, or is not the "risk" involved with Ent's idea the fact that you have to leave your army unattended in order to increase your mining speed? Is this not exactly what was desired by the OP and by competitive gamers in general? You need the distraction in order to make battles more exciting, and to make it a strategic decision "Can I win this battle without perfect micro? If not, will I be able to recover my lost units through superior economy? If not, how much will my economy be hurt if I have to spend all my attention at my army's location and how will that affect my building and unit production?" It seems to me there is plenty of risk involved with going back to adjust your minerals, and that the suggestion (or one similar in design and execution) is something just like what the doctor ordered. A simple, easy to see mechanic that gives the player another decision to make. NOT simply more "clicks" NOT simply a "reward" or a "penalty" BUT INSTEAD, another strategic decision. THAT'S the sort of thing I think most of us want. Did you know why SC originally got the 12 unit selection Limit? It was supposed to prevent Rushes. In practice "limitations" like these are simply being circumvented by sheer training and therefore simply add a entrance barrier for players with less trainingtime. (But I think some here honestly WANT entrance barriers...) Professionals don´t "pay attention" to mudane repetative tasks like that - it´s scientifically proven. Beginners and Proffessionals aproach this entirely differently mentally. It´s a matter of muscle memory, not strategy.
Well that high entrance level is a major part of sc and is a part many of us want to return. The game shouldn't be allowing players to simply pick it up and play. You could honestly make the same argument apply to the entire sport of ping pong. How much strategy can there possibly be? It's just a game of practicing and reinforcing your muscle memory. Casual players can still have fun with the game if they play against each other. They simply play without any advanced hits and spin techniques. If they want to take their game higher, they practice the difficult learning curve. This is very basic to sc.
|
I don't like the idea of workers slowing down and getting visual changes, thats just gonna add more clutter to the game screen. We'll end up with every unit having little shit here and there and have unintelligible confusion like warcraft 3.
I do however like the idea of telling workers to keep mining for speed/resource boosts. This will actually give people some useful apm instead of just spamming hotkeys or selecting shit in early game/B O time as well as throughout the game when there are breaks in macro/micro
I think maybe it should be more specific though, Say you must click 1 worker at a time and tell him to mine a crystal and he either gets a 5% speed / attack speed% increase for that gather/return or maybe a mineral bonus of +1 or +2. So this way its not too cheap but in early game it is totally needed to be on the top levels or play.
Totally agree with this too
On November 19 2008 08:25 MyLostTemple wrote:
i really don't know about overly technical rewards like this. it seems like they still just need to split the games into two styles, the casual and the competitive style. newbies really have every right to play the game at optimal speed and not be hindered but they shouldn't get to play like that at tournaments.
a lot of people worry that will split the community but people seem to ignore that there were already split communities in starcraft and the game is still going strong, BGH, vanilla, ums, teamplay, competitive play. to be completely frank, if blizzard doesn't take action i'm guessing the community will. someone will probably mod sc2 over to have an sc1 interface and we can start pressuring tournaments to take it up that way.
sorry if my advice is redundant, i know i've been saying this stuff forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
