|
United States47024 Posts
On November 22 2008 11:53 Mora wrote:
* I do not know why the gas mechanic is so hated (though admittedly i haven't read enough about why people hate it). It adds a degree (though arguably small) of depth by cutting off ones gas production in intervals. This requires strategic adaptation to make sure that they are producing their tech and army composition in sync with their gas income. That is the most important aspect of the mechanic. The secondary benefit of the mechanic is to reward players who want to make those scvs do something in the interim instead of being idle. (this is what represents a good mechanic vs a bad mechanic. you want to reward good players for being good, not punish bad players for being bad.)
This argument seems to have been raised a lot, but honestly, it's just a change in point of view. In terms of actual outcome, a reward to good players does the same thing as a punishment to bad players:
Manual mining: You could say that it rewards good players for putting their workers to work, or punishes bad players for leaving them idle.
Gas mechanic: You could say it rewards good players for switching the tasks of their workers, or punishes bad players for not doing so.
See what I did there? Its the exact same damn thing, just with a different point of view.
|
I think FA's idea of toggling modes is the most natural - both modes have their (dis)advantages and applications. Let me suggest another idea in that vein, if it hasn't been mentioned already. Have mode 1 be the default mining mode and mode 2 be an overdrive mode of sorts, where workers move faster, harvest more per trip, or something. Let mode 2 also have a timer, of sorts - if you run it too long, your worker becomes more inefficient than it is in mode 1. Sound familiar? FPSs use this as a balance mechanic all the time - think ut03 translocator (although THAT was unnecessary imo, but w/e). Thus, the idea is for a worker to stay in mode 2 as much as possible while never completely running out of 'ammo.'
|
sc2 should have an idle building notification and of you have too many idle buildings it blocks out your whole screen
|
what about this
Everytime you command your workers to gather in a group they get a 10% min bonus, if you send a single worker to gather he gets a 25% bonus
Its a decent idea, i support it
also would like to add, if you single target the building, it could have a faster build time like 10%
|
On November 23 2008 11:51 bottomtier wrote:
I think FA's idea of toggling modes is the most natural - both modes have their (dis)advantages and applications. Let me suggest another idea in that vein, if it hasn't been mentioned already. Have mode 1 be the default mining mode and mode 2 be an overdrive mode of sorts, where workers move faster, harvest more per trip, or something. Let mode 2 also have a timer, of sorts - if you run it too long, your worker becomes more inefficient than it is in mode 1. Sound familiar? FPSs use this as a balance mechanic all the time - think ut03 translocator (although THAT was unnecessary imo, but w/e). Thus, the idea is for a worker to stay in mode 2 as much as possible while never completely running out of 'ammo.'
LOL, we've been brainstorming on something VERY similar with FA yesterday. The difference was that instead of a timer the workers would become less efficient after a set number of trips (estimated as 15 below, all numbers subject to balance and further tweaks) in mode 2, and the fact that instead of their becoming less efficient than in mode 1 they'd simply waste minerals much more quickly.
Let's say stage 1 of mode 2 is 7/10 (where #1 - what you're credited with, #2 - what you actually mine, #2 - #1 = wasted minerals), and stage 2 is 7/15. If mode 1 is 5/5, then by neglecting your workers and letting them mine in stage 2/mode 2 you're basically mining resources at trice the rate of mode 1, meaning you have to expand three times as fast, which you can't afford.
It means you want your workers to mine as much in mode 2 stage 1 as possible without going into stage 2, that's right, bottomtier.
It also means that the more saturated your mineral line is the faster you're going to go into stage 2, which means that sometimes keeping up with worker management in mode 2 might be too demanding to be beneficial (so switching back to mode 1 is a reasonable solution): this adds a new skill gradient which rewards players good at multi-tasking, and at the same time gives strategical choices to the player regardless of skill level.
Additionally, you'd have to manually switch your workers to mode 2 from the default mode 1 as soon as they're produced.
It also works in every stage of the game as opposed to manual-mining, which is irrelevant when your minerals lines are saturated. This, in turn, means there is a significant APM/multi-tasking sink in the macro department regardless of MBS and auto-mining which not only has physical demands but also plenty of depth on its own!!
Worker/mining mode management would also be very dynamic in the sense that it'd be affected by your opponent's choices:
E.g. if he decides to harass you, you may not have enough time to manage your workers properly and thus go into stage 2 and waste quite a lot of resources. Or if you're already mining back in mode 1 due to high worker saturation and then you suffer an economic blow - you need to decided whather to go back to mode 2, and if so with how many workers, as well as adjust each newly produced workers mode as you're recovering. OR, if you decide that the mineral count in that particular expansion is too low, you need to choose in which expansion you should go back to mode 2 or if in any.
The cooldown would work as follows:
After 15 trips (the "set number" mentioned above) in mode 2 stage 1 the mineral patch is in 15/15 state. The any subsequent trip would make it 1/15 of stage 2.
It takes the mineral patch to go down by one notch slightly more time than an average time a signle trip takes (the exact data would have to be calculated, but for the sake of simplicity in this example, let's say that each trip takes 0.8 sec, so the time it takes the mineral patch to go down by one notch is 1 sec of mining in mode 1 or not mining from that patch at all).
EDIT: The cooldown would be on each individual mineral patch so that to in order to monitor your mining efficiency you'd have to go back to your bases.
Example:
1) A worker in mode 2 mines from a mineral patch.
2) After 15 trips (~12 sec) the patch goes from stage 1 (7/10) to stage 2 (7/15).
3) The worker is switched back to mode 1 or delegated to another patch.
4) After 15 seconds
If the patch is at 15/15 of stage 2, then it takes it 30 seconds to go back to 0/15 state of stage 1. This means you won't be punished infinitely for neglecting your workers but just to a point. It prevents lesser players from suffering economically from having insufficient multi-tasking skills and at the same time does not affect average+ players, who won't ever get to 15/15 state of stage 2 anyway - that's half a minute of neglecting their workers.
More to come later. I need to make our ideas as coherent as possible. 
"your worker becomes more inefficient than it is in mode 1"
That's a good alternative. I'll make sure to bring that up in my discussions with FA. ^^
edit: The actual number of trips required for the mineral patch to go from stage 1 (0/#) to stage 2 (0/#) would be determined by playtests. Ideally it should take an equivalent of 20-30 seconds in trips.
|
Dungeon Keeper anyone? :D *slap peon*
|
There's clearly a problem with automining that will spoil macro/micro mechanics.
Although these mining solutions that establish rules and formulas might work, they are ultimately unintuitive and 'dirty'. Adhering to the original starcraft philisophy, basic gameplay elements such as mining minerals ought to be straight forward and obvious to the player.
With that said, maybe it would be good to have the CC / Nexus be able to queue up one worker instead of the normal 5? Automine could stick around this way..
|
How would that solve anything, though? You shouldn't queue workers anyway, with or without automine. T__T
|
The number one thing I´d like to see solved/removed is the "Minimum required click" aproach that seems to be the basis of 75% of the suggestions here.
Lets compare to a fighting game, in respect to special attack commands. One aproach would be to make these attacks better but harder to execute.
The other would be to make all attacks equal - even to the very basic ones - but really easy to execute.
(WARNING SIMPLIFICATION)
Which one would be more impressive/competative? The 1st one favours mechanical skill, the "pros" would be able to pull of moves "newbs" never even heard of. Newbs loose here because they can´t use certain moves.
The second would favour strategy over mechanical skill since Moves aren´t great by themselves - you need to know how or when to use them. Newbs have all the tools but need to figure out how to use them.
It´s analougous to the Automine vs. Manualmine(and APM sink solutions) insofar as that Mineral income is a "tool" or a "move". There is the dimension of execution (order peon to mine) and the dimension of application (expand, turtle, rush...)
Any pro (whose skill we want to "mesure") would simply outtrain the "mechanical drawback" (look at the current SC:BW proscene), the real difference though is always in application of the tools you gain (Take a look at the article "Mind over Mechanics").
That means that such "simple" stuff would only frustrate beginners since everyone needs these APM sinks to compete but wouldn´t really differinate between competative players since they all had to "learn" it.
And thats where I FINALLY come on topic:
maybenexttimes suggestion has 2 options: one inferior but easy, one superior but hard to execute. He even says so himself: "Good" Players will always go with the 2nd mode.
A modification that would change it to the 2nd aproach (that I´m favouring) would be to make the "switch" between the modes very simple - a button at the Command structure for example.
Further Both modes would have advantages and disatvantages, maybe the 2nd modes drawback would be so much wasted resources that it´s enforces "all in" situations.
Or make it even more drastic: Harvest a full Crystal immeadiately but only gain 10% of it´s value. That offers a HUGE boost but ruins you if you can´t win (or at least get even). The idea is that every newb seing such a maneuver should be able to duplicate it - but have to figure out WHEN and HOW exactly to use it. You wouln´t be able to train THAT against the computer.
|
On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote:
Lets compare to a fighting game, in respect to special attack commands. One aproach would be to make these attacks better but harder to execute.
The other would be to make all attacks equal - even to the very basic ones - but really easy to execute.
I can't help but think you don't actually play any fighting games at a decent competitive level. Any good game isn't balanced based on input difficulty; that would just be idiotic(only notable exception I can think of is parries in Third Strike). Moreover all the standard fighting game inputs aren't at all difficult, and any complexity they have exists only to eliminate the possibility of accidental inputs.
Saying that players in a fighting game are limited based on what inputs they can perform is like saying that Starcraft players are limited based on what buttons they are capable of pressing on the keyboard. It's such a low level that it's not even worth considering.
If you try to extend the comparison further and talk about manually challenging combos, then it still makes no sense. A combo in a fighting game is an absolutely rigid set of moves that you have to execute exactly the same once the first hit is landed, and really the only option for a player that wants to compete is to memorize them; the only analogue to that in Starcraft is initial build orders, which are much easier to memorize so aren't really as significant in making the game difficult to learn.
|
On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote:The second would favour strategy over mechanical skill
I stopped reading right there.
I mean seriously, are you honestly trying to go with the more strategy less clicks option?
Do you really think having pros click 400 times a minute makes them use less strategy? If so you clearly don't watch starcraft. Making sc2 easier WILL NOT add more strategy, it will just make the game easier.
|
Here's what a well designed macro mechanic should be like:
1) The mechanic must have direct strategical value.
2) The mechanic must not punish players for using automine.
3) The mechanic provides a viable attention/APM sink in macro department.
4) The mechanic creates a wide skill gradient and allows players of different playstyles to distinguish themselves.
5) The mechanic allows for UI features such as MBS or auto-mining to remain untouched and does not punish the players for using them.
6) The mechanic in dynamic in the sense that it depends on the player and his opponent's choices.
7) The mechanic gives plenty of room for necessary tweaks.
8) The mechanic gives the player different alternatives, each having their advantages and disadvantages.
9) The mechanic does not force a specific map design (unlike the current Blizzard gas mechanic).
10) The mechanic is not mindless nor repetitive.
FA's mechanic meets all requirements, imo.
As for your suggestion, Unentschieden, would not meet some of them. E.g. making it CC/Nexus/Hatchery thing would mean it's not an attention/APM sink anymore since you can just remotely manage that like you do with unit production hansk to MBS. Not to mention it wouldn't be used frequently, which means it'd be a gimmicky mechanic.
Your other suggestion would break the balance and wouldn't be an APM/attention sink due to how situational it is.
As for "maybenexttimes suggestion has 2 options: one inferior but easy, one superior but hard to execute. He even says so himself: "Good" Players will always go with the 2nd mode."
You are mistaken.
You'd generally want to stay in mode 2; stage 1 for as long as possible when a particular mineral line is not fully saturated, and only for a set period of time (till you hit stage 2), only when this particular mineral line works unhindered.
Situations in which you'd want to use mode 2 despite stage 2:
- you've been harassed and you need to recover in terms of worker count
- you've discovered that your opponent has been mining from a hidden expansion and you want to get even economically
- you're trying to capitalize on an economic/army advantage
- you're preparing a warp-in drop
- you're trying to capitalize on a hidden expansion
- you're trying to maximize the income from an expansion you know you're going to lose
- you're cheesing with half your workers and the other half and constantly mining in mode 2
Situation in which you'd want to stay in mode 1:
- your mineral line is saturated and you're wasting too much resources (especially if minerals are running dry in that particular expansion)
- you're gathering minerals faster than you can spend them because:
a) you're low on popcap because your opponent killed your popcap structures/ovies or you were sloppy
b) you're low on production structures because of enemy's destroying them or your timing mistake
You'd have to consider all these factors on case by case basis as regards specific mineral lines.
Additionally, you'd have to decide how how frequently you want to adjust your mining modes (micro vs. macro in terms of attention) ans well as plan ahead: e.g. you know your opponent will harass you or you're launching an attention demanding attack yourself and you know you're not gonna be able to mine in mode 2 without suffering from stage 2 for an extended period of time, so you switch back to mode 1 ahead of time.
There's even more to that, but I don't have time to mention it all. But, as you can see, there are plenty decisions to be made with this mechanic. It's all dynamic - depends on what you and your opponent do.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote:
The number one thing I´d like to see solved/removed is the "Minimum required click" aproach that seems to be the basis of 75% of the suggestions here.
Lets compare to a fighting game, in respect to special attack commands. One aproach would be to make these attacks better but harder to execute.
The other would be to make all attacks equal - even to the very basic ones - but really easy to execute.
(WARNING SIMPLIFICATION)
Which one would be more impressive/competative? The 1st one favours mechanical skill, the "pros" would be able to pull of moves "newbs" never even heard of. Newbs loose here because they can´t use certain moves.
The second would favour strategy over mechanical skill since Moves aren´t great by themselves - you need to know how or when to use them. Newbs have all the tools but need to figure out how to use them.
The obvious answer is that neither is the optimal solution. It seems pretty apparent to me that, as with many things, you need a balance of the two. All one and all the other is bad. It's about where to place the balance.
On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote:
It´s analougous to the Automine vs. Manualmine(and APM sink solutions) insofar as that Mineral income is a "tool" or a "move". There is the dimension of execution (order peon to mine) and the dimension of application (expand, turtle, rush...)
Any pro (whose skill we want to "mesure") would simply outtrain the "mechanical drawback" (look at the current SC:BW proscene), the real difference though is always in application of the tools you gain (Take a look at the article "Mind over Mechanics").
That means that such "simple" stuff would only frustrate beginners since everyone needs these APM sinks to compete but wouldn´t really differinate between competative players since they all had to "learn" it.
You keep missing the point. It's not just about more clicks. It's about multitasking. Regardless of how easy or complex the actions are in and of themselves, they create the dimension of multitasking. That's a skill differentiator at all levels. There's no "out-training" multitasking. That's why even at pro levels we have players like Bisu who are known for having good multitasking.
|
On November 24 2008 04:53 armed_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote:
Lets compare to a fighting game, in respect to special attack commands. One aproach would be to make these attacks better but harder to execute.
The other would be to make all attacks equal - even to the very basic ones - but really easy to execute. I can't help but think you don't actually play any fighting games at a decent competitive level. Any good game isn't balanced based on input difficulty; that would just be idiotic(only notable exception I can think of is parries in Third Strike). Moreover all the standard fighting game inputs aren't at all difficult, and any complexity they have exists only to eliminate the possibility of accidental inputs. Saying that players in a fighting game are limited based on what inputs they can perform is like saying that Starcraft players are limited based on what buttons they are capable of pressing on the keyboard. It's such a low level that it's not even worth considering.
Even though you looked straight at it you missed the point. Youre trying to convince me of the very point I made: It´s silly to try and make "hard controls" since these only affect and frustrate beginners.
A good fighting games input control is supposed to prevent accidental messups. They AREN`T trying to PROVOKE mistakes to test the players "input skills" or something.
In a certain way SC Players ARE limited in their input control - they can´t use hotkeys for example to use Psistorm from more than one High Templar.
On November 24 2008 04:53 armed_ wrote:
If you try to extend the comparison further and talk about manually challenging combos, then it still makes no sense. A combo in a fighting game is an absolutely rigid set of moves that you have to execute exactly the same once the first hit is landed, and really the only option for a player that wants to compete is to memorize them; the only analogue to that in Starcraft is initial build orders, which are much easier to memorize so aren't really as significant in making the game difficult to learn.
Depending on the Fighting game you refer to, there ARE combos with different "paths" for the attacker and "escapes" for the victim.
But you were talking about rigid sets of moves - Build Orders don´t really aply. There are several valid ones and NO one always works, it always depends on what your opponent does.
What IS always the same is Manual Mining. There is no difference in the build, select, send to mineral no matter if the enemy is Terran, Zerg or Protoss, if he is rushing, Turtling or Teching...
On November 24 2008 04:58 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 04:16 Unentschieden wrote:The second would favour strategy over mechanical skill I stopped reading right there. I mean seriously, are you honestly trying to go with the more strategy less clicks option? Do you really think having pros click 400 times a minute makes them use less strategy? If so you clearly don't watch starcraft. Making sc2 easier WILL NOT add more strategy, it will just make the game easier.
Maybe you should read to the end. You are, just as you said, coming to conclusions. Right here I´m NOT talking about amount of clicks.
What I´m talking about is the relative value of mechanics as success factor.
Imagine there was a mechanic that while hard would make you win every time against anyone who doesn´t use it.
That would seperate the scene between thouse that to "it" and thouse that don´t.
Said mechanic wouldn´t be a deciding factor in either "subcommunity" since everyone in the "lower" one doesn´t/can´t use it, while everyone does it in the other one.
That would mean to be competative you´d first have to learn the HARD mechanic (Wasn´t it supposed to be easy to learn, hard to master?). Strategy doesn´t apply since you´re trying to work out the mechanic.
Obviously Strategy would apply with the "pros" since said mechanic doesn´t let you win there - everyone is equal (If one was weaker he´d loose every time and be considered "lower community")
But then it would ONLY apply there.
But now you are thinking "what if the hard mechanic wasn´t dominant?" Well, no one would do it.
"What if it was equal to other aproaches?" Then it would be unpopular (even pros avoid potential mistakesources) but a alternative, possibly a humiliation tool.
So, why should we avoid such a mechanic? It makes the learning process harder. It´s hard but necessary to compete. You risk players using modifications without said mechanic if they aren´t willing to learn it.
You could also replace "Mechanic" with "Strategy" - ever wonder why the spawning pools costs were increased?
|
On November 24 2008 05:44 Unentschieden wrote:
A good fighting games input control is supposed to prevent accidental messups. They AREN`T trying to PROVOKE mistakes to test the players "input skills" or something.
...
Depending on the Fighting game you refer to, there ARE combos with different "paths" for the attacker and "escapes" for the victim.
But you were talking about rigid sets of moves - Build Orders don´t really aply. There are several valid ones and NO one always works, it always depends on what your opponent does.
What IS always the same is Manual Mining. There is no difference in the build, select, send to mineral no matter if the enemy is Terran, Zerg or Protoss, if he is rushing, Turtling or Teching...
I guarantee you if you could dragon punch with only one button, street fighter would be largely unplayable. Even with something as simple as f,d,d/f, people will mess up or get psyched out at times. When your opponent jumps in and you want to DP, you have to commit by leaving block position. I can name countless other examples where a move's input serves as a method of balance.
armed is right; you HAVE to balance between the execution and utility of a task.
edit: also, good players will try to provoke other players to make the wrong inputs whenever possible - this can be said of pretty much every fighting game in the known universe. this goes beyond simple high/low/throw - look up crossups in street fighter.
|
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
Here's what a well designed macro mechanic should be like:
1) The mechanic must have direct strategical value.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
2) The mechanic must not punish players for using automine.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
3) The mechanic provides a viable attention/APM sink in macro department.
Disagree
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
4) The mechanic creates a wide skill gradient and allows players of different playstyles to distinguish themselves.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
5) The mechanic allows for UI features such as MBS or auto-mining to remain untouched and does not punish the players for using them.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
6) The mechanic in dynamic in the sense that it depends on the player and his opponent's choices.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
7) The mechanic gives plenty of room for necessary tweaks.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
8) The mechanic gives the player different alternatives, each having their advantages and disadvantages.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
9) The mechanic does not force a specific map design (unlike the current Blizzard gas mechanic).
Agreed, though I´m not certain what you mean with the comment about the "current" Blizzard gas mechanic (I´m certain they already changed that, they even said they would)
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
10) The mechanic is not mindless nor repetitive.
Agreed
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
FA's mechanic meets all requirements, imo.
As for your suggestion, Unentschieden, would not meet some of them. E.g. making it CC/Nexus/Hatchery thing would mean it's not an attention/APM sink anymore since you can just remotely manage that like you do with unit production hansk to MBS. Not to mention it wouldn't be used frequently, which means it'd be a gimmicky mechanic.
Your other suggestion would break the balance and wouldn't be an APM/attention sink due to how situational it is.
You will notice that my suggestion breaks the one requirement I disagree with. If it is a "APM-sink" it means that certain mechanic serves to "soak" player action. The more you do it the better.
You also mention it wouldn´t be used frequently (which isn´t a requirement on your list) - that is fine with me. My criteria isn´t how often it´s used or how much APM it takes - I´m concerned about how it changes gameplay.
I do have to agree it´s suboptimal, it was a modification of previous suggestions into a direction I would support.
On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
As for "maybenexttimes suggestion has 2 options: one inferior but easy, one superior but hard to execute. He even says so himself: "Good" Players will always go with the 2nd mode."
You are mistaken.
You'd generally want to stay in mode 2; stage 1 for as long as possible when a particular mineral line is not fully saturated, and only for a set period of time (till you hit stage 2), only when this particular mineral line works unhindered.
Situations in which you'd want to use mode 2 despite stage 2:
- you've been harassed and you need to recover in terms of worker count
- you've discovered that your opponent has been mining from a hidden expansion and you want to get even economically
- you're trying to capitalize on an economic/army advantage
- you're preparing a warp-in drop
- you're trying to capitalize on a hidden expansion
- you're trying to maximize the income from an expansion you know you're going to lose
Situation in which you'd want to stay in mode 1:
- your mineral line is saturated and you're wasting too much resources (especially if minerals are running dry in that particular expansion)
- you're gathering minerals faster than you can spend them because:
a) you're low on popcap because your opponent killed your popcap structures/ovies or you were sloppy
b) you're low on production structures because of enemy's destroying them or your timing mistake
You'd have to consider all these factors on case by case basis as regards specific mineral lines.
Additionally, you'd have to decide how how frequently you want to adjust your mining modes (micro vs. macro in terms of attention) ans well as plan ahead: e.g. you know your opponent will harass you or you're launching an attention demanding attack yourself and you know you're not gonna be able to mine in mode 2 without suffering from stage 2 for an extended period of time, so you switch back to mode 1 ahead of time.
There's even more to that, but I don't have time to mention it all. But, as you can see, there are plenty decisions to be made with this mechanic. It's all dynamic - depends on what you and your opponent do.
Well, you know the mechanic better than I do yo I will let that stand until we can actually test it. Arguing about numbers right now would be silly. I was going at it on a more conceptual level, as mentioned above, edging it more into a direction I´d like.
If it will actually work as you detailed above I will support it even if it isn´t something I would come up with.
|
On November 24 2008 05:56 bottomtier wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 05:44 Unentschieden wrote:
A good fighting games input control is supposed to prevent accidental messups. They AREN`T trying to PROVOKE mistakes to test the players "input skills" or something.
...
Depending on the Fighting game you refer to, there ARE combos with different "paths" for the attacker and "escapes" for the victim.
But you were talking about rigid sets of moves - Build Orders don´t really aply. There are several valid ones and NO one always works, it always depends on what your opponent does.
What IS always the same is Manual Mining. There is no difference in the build, select, send to mineral no matter if the enemy is Terran, Zerg or Protoss, if he is rushing, Turtling or Teching...
I guarantee you if you could dragon punch with only one button, street fighter would be largely unplayable. Even with something as simple as f,d,d/f, people will mess up or get psyched out at times. When your opponent jumps in and you want to DP, you have to commit by leaving block position. I can name countless other examples where a move's input serves as a method of balance. armed is right; you HAVE to balance between the execution and utility of a task. edit: also, good players will try to provoke other players to make the wrong inputs whenever possible - this can be said of pretty much every fighting game in the known universe. this goes beyond simple high/low/throw - look up crossups in street fighter.
I wasn´t arguing against mechanics itself, which you´d have noticed had you paid attention. In this case it isn´t one button versus easy move but easy move versus unnecessary long move.
What is the most complex move in Streetfighter executionwise (not combos)? Is that move a "reward" for the player that can do it or is it "just another move?"
You are right with your comments, they just miss the analogy. Remember that we are talking about SC2 here - I´ll apologize if I confused you.
|
Im wondering right now:
Hatcheries in SC2 do still have larvae to morph all (most) of your units, don't they? So if you set the rallying point of your hatches to the entrance of your base and then produce a bunch of drones, do they move to the rallying point of the hatch or do they start mining? I guess automine only comes into effect when you rally your workers from the CC/Nexus/Hatch directly onto the minerals. So if you play Zerg, do you actually benefit from automining? Would be heavily imbalanced if not...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Hatcheries have a seperate rally point for workers.
|
On November 24 2008 05:44 Unentschieden wrote:
Youe trying to convince me of the very point I made: It´s silly to try and make "hard controls" since these only affect and frustrate beginners.
No I'm not. I'm saying that your comparison doesn't work, and so any arguments based upon it are unfounded.
On November 24 2008 05:44 Unentschieden wrote:
A good fighting games input control is supposed to prevent accidental messups. They AREN`T trying to PROVOKE mistakes to test the players "input skills" or something.
There's a fundamental difference between requiring a high number of actions and not being able to perform a single action due to convuluted input. The former changes the way you have to play the game, the latter just forces you to learn how to do the input perfectly before playing. More importantly, the latter case doesn't exist in Starcraft, at all. Hence, again, the whole comparison you're making here is flawed.
If you want to compare the manual requirements of Starcraft to something in a fighting game, a better choice would be the speed. Fighting games are changed completely by the fact that they run too fast for players to counter most moves on reaction; essentially, it's what makes guessing game that's at the core of all fighting games possible. It's not there to artificially make the game more difficult by requiring fast reflexes, it makes certain things impossible to make the game more interesting. The manual requirements(and more importantly, the fact that you have to do certain actions at different locations) of Starcraft serve a similiar purpose; they make it impossible for a player to only focus on one thing and succeed, and so forces the player to multitask.
So really, in this case, you can't make a distinction between the degree to which a mechanic is "changing gameplay" and "how much APM it takes" - simply adding an APM sink in the player's base changes gameplay far more than a simple additional strategic choice ever would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
