|
On November 24 2008 06:13 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 05:56 bottomtier wrote: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.
Though 360/720s are pretty difficult, I'll give a more obscure example. Fei Long is garbage in ST. He does have a few parlor tricks, though, one of which is close fp xx rh chicken wing (I'll abbreviate it to CW). This is not a combo - however, if you block the fierce, you are also forced to block the entire CW. This means that you can loop an unescapable cl.fp xx rh CW for a number of repetitions (three, I believe) before you are pushed away enough that you won't get a close fierce. The catch is that chicken wing is hard as fuck to do consistently - the command is hcf,u/f+kick - not your everyday tiger knee, and you have to do it in practically a tenth of a second in order to cancel it off the fierce.
Of course, if you practiced enough this would become second nature. But what if you were in the finals at a tournament? Are players so perfect that jumpins are DPed and tick throws are reversaled every time? In high pressure situations nervousness and other psychological factors become prominent - in that case consistent execution should be of even greater importance. Hence the first example I gave; there is always that chance that you might miss that DP, that when the opponent jumps in you block high (or even eat the overhead because you kept holding d/b) in panic.
Admittedly the Fei example was a bit extreme, and all this fighting game talk is straying off-topic. There is no explicit "unnecessary long move" in SC. Everything is basic - but difficulty is relative. A surprising amount of gamers don't even know how to do a hadouken; we can all agree that making APM such a non-factor is as dumb as making one-button shoryukens. You have to juggle proper reaction, spacing, footsies, mindgames, mixups, use of super meter, etc. with execution - just like you have to juggle macro and micro in starcraft. Let's not pretend APM is the only thing that matters, but let's also not pretend that APM is unimportant, or that it is an unnecessary hinder to beginners, when they should in fact overcome it.
|
I wasn't originally going to post this, but here is a slightly modified version of an article I wrote on the requirements of a macromanagement mechanic in SC2. It refers to an earlier part of the discussion, but I've omitted that, because I thought you guys might find it boring. The first bit is a summary that I wrote, and the second is a slightly more verbose discussion going into the reasons behind the mechanic:
******
Mineral mechanic brief
Development of generic, scaleable macromanagement mechanic suitable for both the casual and competitive gamer that parallels manual mining actions.
Design / implementation
Crystal formations will be given two states: aligned, and unaligned. Aligned states will glow, and unaligned states will appear dull. Gather rates are increased when a crystal formation is in an aligned state. A crystal formation in an aligned state will deteriorate into an unaligned state over time. A worker will need to be used to convert a crystal formation from an unaligned state into an aligned state. This will be initialised by a button /hot key. It will take a defined period of time to convert a crystal formation. The deterioration will then restart.
Players will need to make strategic choices about when to align their crystal formations. They will need to consider the opportunity cost of using their worker to align the crystal formations within the context of worker time, and temporary loss of the crystal formation as a mining resource. They will need to consider short and long term objectives, map context, and build orders.
Additional
The mechanic is visual providing a graphical display of the mechanic for spectators. The mechanic is simple making it accessible for new players.
Gas mechanic brief
Development of gas mechanic that improves strategic choice and differentiates the three races.
Design
Starcraft 1 gas mining mechanics used as a baseline with standard reduced gather rate at depletion.
Protoss gas gather rate increases when they position a phase prism over the assimilator. Terran gas gather rate increases when they activate an ability, but at the cost of an increasing rate of damage to the refinery. A timed cooldown is attached to the Terran ability. Zerg gas gather rate increases when they activate an ability, but at an increasing mineral cost rate. Mineral cost on the ability returns to zero at a rate which mirrors use of the mechanic. No cooldown is attached to the Zerg ability.
If necessary a technology advance can be used to balance use of these abilities.
******
Specific requirements (refers only to the mineral alignment mechanic)
When assessing the initial requirements, I identified three key design areas that needed to be satisfied. As discussed above, any mechanic must meet the expectations of both the casual and competitive demographics. However, I also wanted the mechanic to be flexible and easily scaled, and I felt that it was important to also consider developmental expectations. The design elements are thus: casual; competitive; and developmental. Each is detailed below, with some crossover between the three.
Casual requirements
· Simple: the mechanic must be easily performed
· Accessible: the mechanic must not entrench the skill gap
· Scaleable: the mechanic must provide a gradual reward to players. Specifically, those players which pay more attention to the mechanic must enjoy increasing benefit
Competitive requirements
· Visual: spectators in competitive matches must be able to easily recognise demonstration of the mechanic
· Scaleable: the mechanic must provide a gradual reward to players. Specifically, those players which are faster and more accurate and thus able to perform the mechanic more rapidly must enjoy greater benefit
· Alternative to automine: the mechanic must provide a comparable macromanagement element to manual mining
Developmental requirements
· Variable: there must be multiple variable elements that enable the design team to effectively balance the mechanic
· Generic: the mechanic must be generic from a lore and gameplay perspective to provide a macromanagement solution that does not impact on racial differentiation
· Strategic: the mechanic must require a degree of strategic choice
Design
My idea is orientated around manipulation of the crystal formations in Starcraft 2. I felt that this focus was an appropriate extension of the Vespene gas mechanic that the design team has already explored. I also wanted to replicate the macromanagement requirements of manual mining, and I felt that a solution that incorporated the mineral gathering process could be simultaneously sympathetic to the other casual, competitive and developmental requirements of the mechanic brief.
Crystal formations would have 2 states: aligned, and unaligned. Players would seek to maximise their mineral gathering processes by ensuring crystal alignment. Crystal formations would slowly deteriorate over time, making the mineral gathering process more difficult. Aligned crystal formations would be represented by a glowing hue, whilst unaligned crystal formations would appear dull and lacklustre.
Implementation
Subject to map balance, all crystal formations will initially start in the aligned state. Crystal formations will deteriorate and shift into an unaligned state over a four minute period. Aligned crystals will yield 1 additional mineral per gather trip. To realign a crystal formation, the player must select the graphic and click a button or press a hotkey. This will instruct the nearest worker to perform a simple build operation (I would suggest something similar to the present terran building animations in Starcraft 1).
Player objective
Players will seek to maintain mineral alignment throughout their bases.
Implementation specifics
I will consecutively assess design requirements within the context of implementation. I hope that this will provide a better explanation of the fundamentals of the mechanic.
Casual
1) The mechanic is simple and easily performed. Players must click a button or press a hotkey to activate mineral alignment on each crystal formation. Multiple crystal formations may be selected at once.
2) The simplicity of the mechanic, coupled with the brief time commitment required of players makes it accessible. New players are unlikely to be simultaneously engaging in management of more than 3 bases. The build animation component requires players to choose when to align their crystal formations. This manages expectations of a manual as opposed to automatic implementation of this process for casual gamers.
3) The mechanic benefits players that pay attention to the mineral alignment process whilst not disproportionately hindering players that do not ensure that their crystal formations remain in an aligned state. The mechanic benefits players that devote more time to the mineral alignment process.
Competitive
4) The mechanic is visual. The hue and glow of the crystals will immediately illustrate to spectators whether or not a crystal formation has been aligned.
5) The mechanic benefits those players which are faster and more accurate, and are able to perform the process more quickly.
6) The mechanic parallels the macromanagement requirements of manual mining. In Starcraft 1, players periodically build new strings of workers. A competitive player will immediately instruct his workers to gather minerals if he wants to acquire resources as efficiently as possible. This mechanic will similarly periodically require players to realign their crystal formations if they intend to maintain an efficient approach to resource gathering.
Developmental
7) The mechanic is flexible and easy to balance. The design team can alter the improved mineral yield from aligned crystal formations; the length of time it takes to align the crystal formations; the length of time it takes for aligned crystal formations to deteriorate into an unaligned state; and the number of unaligned states (if appropriate, crystal formations could deteriorate more than once).
8) The mechanic is generic. All races gather mineral resources and manipulate the crystal formations in the same way. This is appropriate because the basic resource gathering process is similarly homogenised.
9) The mechanic requires the application of a strategic decision making process. By loading a time requirement onto the alignment mechanic, players will need to choose whether or not to realign their crystal formations. They may choose to realign some of their crystal formations whilst retaining others in an unaligned state to ensure that they continue to receive minerals. This mechanic will require players to think about short term and long term objectives, within the context of map design and build orders/strategies.
A late game technology upgrade to improve the speed at which crystal formations are realigned could be implemented if the time requirement is found to not scale to the mid and late game.
Summary
I think a key benefit of mineral realignment of crystal formations is its implementation as a new mechanic. I think it is easier to manage expectations when people are addressed by something new and different rather than old and similar to that which has gone before. At its heart, this mechanic was designed to balance the requirements of the casual and competitive gamer, whilst providing variables that the development team could effectively balance to ensure consistency and cohesion with the overall Starcraft 2 design brief.
|
On November 23 2008 11:26 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No.
You don't understand the gas mechanic.
Manual Mining: Every single player, without exception, has the same intention. Every player wants their workers to mine. To take advantage of manual mining, a player needs speed.
Gas Mechanic: Every single player, without exception, has the same intention. Every player wants to be able to tech at the right times, and produce counter-tech at the right times. To take advantage of the gas mechanic, a player needs strategy.
You see what you did there? You tried to make both mechanics about speed, when one clearly isn't. A faster player will be able to take an even greater advantage of the gas mechanic than a slower player (this is true), but the mechanic was not put in place to accomplish this goal.
That's why all these 'time-sink' mechanics are utter shit. They're just trying to punish slow players for being slow. Create a mechanic that serves a greater purpose than to focus on a players speed.
If the game is made with enough depth and enough of these mechanics, speed will be as much a factor as it is in Starcraft. It's unneccessary (and amateur) to throw in 'time-sink' mechanics.
|
My word Moria.
Speed should be a effect, not a goal. If a suggestion contains the element "APM" sink I´m against it. Speed will be an advantage as long as the game is in Real Time. Just look at the "slow" WC3.
Also Speed isn´t really mesurable in APM - what about reaction times? Reflexes? Mouse accuracy? Even in SC no player operates at Top-speed the whole game (that would be propably unhealthy)
Multitasking will be in as long as there are several "Tasks" to be done and can occur at the same time. The difficulty is how different they are mentally, not how long they take. In fact, the longer you "sit" on one task the less it´s a multitasking challenge.
Is moving Dragoons and Moving probes really multitasking? If so is it multitasking to move Dragoons and High Templars?
Isn´t Multitasking more like Moving Dragoons and Expanding?
|
On November 24 2008 06:02 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
3) The mechanic provides a viable attention/APM sink in macro department.
Disagree
Well, you see, the macro mechanic Blizzard need to introduce should be a compromise between the two visions of StarCraft 2: the one presented by more "conservative" SC players (for the lack of a better word) and the one proposed by those who want the game to be more accessible although probably change the focus to micro in the process a bit.
For it to be a compromise, it has to be both deep and have physical aspects to it, creating a wide skill gradient in terms of both mental skills as well as physical efficiency. It has to be a macro related attention/APM sink AND be dynamic at that (as in allowing for a spectrum of choices depending on the current situation).
Implementing a mechanic whose sole reason is increasing the overall depth does not solve the issue, which is the lack of [micro-to-macro] multi-tasking.
You should also note that the said mineral mechanic is not obstructive in any way (it does not force the player to use it but rewards him for doing so instead), and is VERY similar to micro at that:
1) Using the said mineral mechanic is (almost) always more benefitting to the player than simply relying on automine and mode 1, regardless of how efficient you are at that, just as microing your units is (almost) always more beneficial in some way than just relying on their default behavior (i.e. AI).
2) The player has a choice of either using the mineral mechanic (with varying degree of involvement) or not using it at all - same with microing one's units.
3) The players has a wide spectrum of choices within the mineral mechanic itself and not just whether you want to use it or not - same for micro.
4) A lesser player is not punished for trying to use the mechanic even considering his (below) average execution, he's just less efficient (e.g. you may unnecessarily lose some resources due to switching back to mode 1 too late, but you've still gained that gathering rate boost), which is, again, similar to micro - you can e.g. escape from spider mines - some might kill some of your goons but it's still beneficial if you do that; (unless, of course, you make some huge blunder while attempting to use this mechanic, which is, again, true for micro as well: using mode 2/stage 2 when your minerals are running dry and you're on negative popcap VS running a group of stimmed marines into lurkers).
5) The said mineral mechanic allows for INDIRECTLY competing with the other player, which can be compared to two players microing against each other - each in a different battle, which is an example of indirect competition as well.
Show nested quote +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)
I meant the BlizzCon 2008 gas mechanic and the one before it (basically the same mechanic but with no automatic recharge). Sorry for being ambiguous.
Show nested quote +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.
As mentioned above, the new mechanic should be a compromise.
Also an attention sink does not necessarily imply that "the more you do it the better" - there's an optimal limit of attention required, just as with manualmining or MICRO (although the latter is higher).
As you probably remember, the new mechanic is, first and foremost, supposed to solve the lack of enough multi-tasking issue. In order to do that, it has to be frequent but that doesn't mean it's should be a mindless task, which our mechanic isn't.
What's more, our mineral mechanic is cyclical, which makes it predictable, allowing for further depth in terms of planning ahead (e.g. "I'm gonna get attacked in a moment" -> "I'd better changed to mode 1 in advance so that I don't suffer from stage 2 when I'm fending it the attack").
Show nested quote +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.
OK.
I hope I've addressed all your concerns above. ;]
@Mora
On November 24 2008 07:52 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2008 11:26 TheYango wrote: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. No. You don't understand the gas mechanic. Manual Mining: Every single player, without exception, has the same intention. Every player wants their workers to mine. To take advantage of manual mining, a player needs speed. Gas Mechanic: Every single player, without exception, has the same intention. Every player wants to be able to tech at the right times, and produce counter-tech at the right times. To take advantage of the gas mechanic, a player needs strategy. You see what you did there? You tried to make both mechanics about speed, when one clearly isn't. A faster player will be able to take an even greater advantage of the gas mechanic than a slower player (this is true), but the mechanic was not put in place to accomplish this goal. That's why all these 'time-sink' mechanics are utter shit. They're just trying to punish slow players for being slow. Create a mechanic that serves a greater purpose than to focus on a players speed. If the game is made with enough depth and enough of these mechanics, speed will be as much a factor as it is in Starcraft. It's unneccessary (and amateur) to throw in 'time-sink' mechanics.
Seems like it's you who doesn't know how the gas mechanic (from Blizzcon 2008) works...
It does not involve any strategy except for maybe taking two geysers at the same time (and suffering from inconsistent gas income later on) for rush purposes.
Other than that it's just as deep as moving the three workers between those two geysers everytime those 300 gas units available deplete.
It's not much different from manualmining as far as thought process goes.
If you disagree, then show some examples of how one could use this gas mechanic.
In case you simply didn't know how the Blizzcon 2008 gas mechanic worked:
1) You start with two gesyers per main/natural (and any other expansion; which is very restrictive in terms of map design).
2) Each geyser has two gas stores: "available" (which you can mine immediately) & "remainind" (which requires you to recharge the geyser).
3) Everytime the "available" gas depletes, it automatically goes into the recharge mode which costs you 100 minerals.
4) Recharging one geyser takes about as long as depleting the other (there are 300 units "avialable" and recharging takes like 30 seconds).
That's all there is to it. You're just supposed to time your Assimilators/whatever so that when one depletes the other finishes recharging. Pretty mindless if you ask me...
|
After 18 pages of ideas and critics
is it possible to create solutions to macromanagement and avoid the "unnatural-mechanic" argument?
Yes
Just do not use that argument before, you cant create a natural thing, when the inherent aspects of something are "automated/removed" the solution we are looking for is in creating synthetic solutions for the problem - that formerly never existed -
-2
You cant put the slower players in the same level of faster players, this is natural punishment, more like "justice" for being better.
Changing the focus of economy from speed to strategy/decision making is pretty much removing a big part of Real Time from RTS.
This is not the way to go nor the way to think in a esport community, there is only one kind of game that require only strategy or 90% of it, TBS / chess are we going to revert to it?
Time is money~
|
What do people think about the rally point mechanic that someone mentioned a few pages back?
You would have to reassign rally points after each round of production, effectively making you shift your screen.
It's also somewhat functional, since it is something that could potentially be useful if the new movement techs change where battles are fought constantly.
|
That's going backwards in UI design. It feels forced, artificial and just wrong to me, personally. Guess what casual players will think of it then. 
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 24 2008 07:52 Mora wrote:
No.
You don't understand the gas mechanic.
Manual Mining: Every single player, without exception, has the same intention. Every player wants their workers to mine. To take advantage of manual mining, a player needs speed.
Gas Mechanic: Every single player, without exception, has the same intention. Every player wants to be able to tech at the right times, and produce counter-tech at the right times. To take advantage of the gas mechanic, a player needs strategy.
You see what you did there? You tried to make both mechanics about speed, when one clearly isn't. A faster player will be able to take an even greater advantage of the gas mechanic than a slower player (this is true), but the mechanic was not put in place to accomplish this goal.
Explain how the gas mechanic attempts to inject strategy into the game? All it does is cap the rate of gas intake, which was already capped by the fact that you can only have 3-4 workers on gas. The only change it makes is that now you have to move workers to minerals every now and then instead of having them always on gas. How is that not a "speed" based mechanic?
On November 24 2008 08:27 Unentschieden wrote:
Multitasking will be in as long as there are several "Tasks" to be done and can occur at the same time. The difficulty is how different they are mentally, not how long they take. In fact, the longer you "sit" on one task the less it´s a multitasking challenge.
Is moving Dragoons and Moving probes really multitasking? If so is it multitasking to move Dragoons and High Templars?
Isn´t Multitasking more like Moving Dragoons and Expanding?
Expanding happens at most 3 or 4 times a game. It doesn't happen often enough to be considered a significant part of multitasking.
|
TheYango, actually each much at BlizzCon 08 had two geysers in every main, natural and expo (unless mineral only), so you basically moved workers from one geyser to another to have constant gas income.
That's even worse: no thinking involved (besides multi-tasking, but that's true for manualmining alike) and forced map designs. Also you're forced to pay those 100 minerals even if you don't want to.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 25 2008 03:33 maybenexttime wrote:
TheYango, actually each much at BlizzCon 08 had two geysers in every main, natural and expo (unless mineral only), so you basically moved workers from one geyser to another to have constant gas income.
That's even worse: no thinking involved (besides multi-tasking, but that's true for manualmining alike) and forced map designs. Also you're forced to pay those 100 minerals even if you don't want to.
In that scheme, it's still best to move your workers to minerals though, since the other geysers should all already have 3 workers on them. Even if they don't, it would be faster to put the idle gas SCVs on minerals, and have 3 mineral scvs at the expo move to gas.
@Unentschieden: I believe that you were the one that said a macro mechanic like mining should have a tradeoff. I agree with you in this regard. The problem with the gas mechanic is that there is no tradeoff. It's ALWAYS better to be mining gas at full capacity. Therefore, the only thing the gas mechanic accomplishes is forcing you to move 3 workers every minute or so (which manual mining did anyway).
|
I think we're simply talking about two types of geyser positioning: I'm talking about maps where both geysers are on the same side of the CC/Nexus/Hatchery (so, naturally, it's better to just juggle gas workers) whereas you are talking about a situation where the two geysers are on opposite sides. ;]
|
Blizzard should do the only right thing (it's what they're doing anyway): let the game designers and other people with clue about gameplay (that is NOT == skill in SC:BW) decide what to put into the game, and then have a few good SC:BW progamers (which is NOT == teamliquid trolls) *test* the shit and say no or yes, which Blizz can then use as *inspiration*, but not as the only valid choice. Otherwise we'll just get the same old game with all its flaws still present, zero evolution.
|
You're not contributing.
As a matter of fact, your post is bordering trolling...
And, no, Blizzard are not heading in the right direction - their gas mechanic is just bad (the BlizzCon 08 one). T____T
|
On November 25 2008 04:05 TheYango wrote:
@Unentschieden: I believe that you were the one that said a macro mechanic like mining should have a tradeoff. I agree with you in this regard. The problem with the gas mechanic is that there is no tradeoff. It's ALWAYS better to be mining gas at full capacity. Therefore, the only thing the gas mechanic accomplishes is forcing you to move 3 workers every minute or so (which manual mining did anyway).
I don´t remember refering to the actual implementation of the Gas mechanic we have seen up to now in a favourable way, only to the direction Blizzard takes by testing it.
Economic considerations are imho reather limited in SC:BW, it doesn´t have the variety, the "possiblities" we see in combat. It´s effectivly the only thing the 3 races have in common (though racial distinction is a different matter entirely)
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 25 2008 06:45 Unentschieden wrote:
I don´t remember refering to the actual implementation of the Gas mechanic we have seen up to now in a favourable way, only to the direction Blizzard takes by testing it.
Economic considerations are imho reather limited in SC:BW, it doesn´t have the variety, the "possiblities" we see in combat. It´s effectivly the only thing the 3 races have in common (though racial distinction is a different matter entirely)
I'm all for experimentation and more strategy in the economic side of the game. I'd be fine with a new macro mechanic (as we've been brainstorming for several threads now). My concern is that results haven't really been shown in the most recent build of SC2. As of right now, IMO its pretty hard to deny that the gas mechanic is clunky and doesn't do anything that manual mining didn't already do. Seeing as they accomplish the exact same thing, I'd rather stick with an old familiar mechanic than a new, clunky one (but would take another alternative if presented with a good one).
Incidentally, there is a rather minor fix to the gas mechanic that would make it carry MUCH more strategy: have geysers regenerate gas at a slow, constant rate when not depleted. This then carries with it the necessity to balance geyser efficiency with immediate resources. If you slow your gather rate (e.g. put 1 worker on gas), you can have effectively no geyser "down-time" in a game, and have a higher long-term intake overall. However, if you need the gas immediately, you can throttle more workers onto gas, and get more immediate gas, but at the consequence of having your geyser shut down.
This accomplishes most of the goals that we're trying to accomplish with a macro mechanic. While its possible for a low-level player to throw one worker on gas, and forget about it, a higher-level player would have to learn to take workers on and off gas, in coordination with his gas spending. This, IMO seems to have been Blizzard's goal with the gas mechanic. The problem with the Blizzcon version is that it doesn't add this strategy. More workers on gas is always better in the Blizzcon version, because your net rate of gas intake is still higher with more workers, even if you have more down-time.
|
On November 25 2008 11:41 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 06:45 Unentschieden wrote:
I don´t remember refering to the actual implementation of the Gas mechanic we have seen up to now in a favourable way, only to the direction Blizzard takes by testing it.
Economic considerations are imho reather limited in SC:BW, it doesn´t have the variety, the "possiblities" we see in combat. It´s effectivly the only thing the 3 races have in common (though racial distinction is a different matter entirely) I'm all for experimentation and more strategy in the economic side of the game. I'd be fine with a new macro mechanic (as we've been brainstorming for several threads now). My concern is that results haven't really been shown in the most recent build of SC2. As of right now, IMO its pretty hard to deny that the gas mechanic is clunky and doesn't do anything that manual mining didn't already do. Seeing as they accomplish the exact same thing, I'd rather stick with an old familiar mechanic than a new, clunky one (but would take another alternative if presented with a good one). Incidentally, there is a rather minor fix to the gas mechanic that would make it carry MUCH more strategy: have geysers regenerate gas at a slow, constant rate when not depleted. This then carries with it the necessity to balance geyser efficiency with immediate resources. If you slow your gather rate (e.g. put 1 worker on gas), you can have effectively no geyser "down-time" in a game, and have a higher long-term intake overall. However, if you need the gas immediately, you can throttle more workers onto gas, and get more immediate gas, but at the consequence of having your geyser shut down. This accomplishes most of the goals that we're trying to accomplish with a macro mechanic. While its possible for a low-level player to throw one worker on gas, and forget about it, a higher-level player would have to learn to take workers on and off gas, in coordination with his gas spending. This, IMO seems to have been Blizzard's goal with the gas mechanic. The problem with the Blizzcon version is that it doesn't add this strategy. More workers on gas is always better in the Blizzcon version, because your net rate of gas intake is still higher with more workers, even if you have more down-time.
You are right. Personally I´m still wondering why gas was unlimited in the first place. The SC Boardgame has a mechanic where you get 1 resource per "deposit" forever or 2 but only 5(?) times before you wouldnt get anything anymore if you choose to strip mine.
|
I just had a ridiculous idea, what if the worker rallypoint resets after each built worker :p
That would be a real compromise 
Or here is a more serious idea:
What if you could build "mines" on the minerals much like how you build refineries on the gas vents?
A mine could cost ~50 minerals and have a fair amount of health, but instead of allowing the harvesting of gas it allows the mineral patch to be harvested at twice the speed until its empty in which case it explodes.
This mechanic would be an extension of FA's, however it is more intuitive and allows for more strategic options since:
A: You lose minerals not just "because it wastes it!!" but because the mine costs to build.
B: It makes a short downtime in mineral income and to then get a huge boost, making it not the best choice just to get a short boost of income.
C: Not using it gives a lot more mineral income in the short sense, a lot less in the medium sense and a bit more in the end.
D: It can be used to free up worker slots in the late-game thus heavily emphasizing macro due to constantly needing to build mines on all mineral blocks to keep mining efficiency high with low drone counts.
If it takes the same time to build as 10 trips the opportunity cost would be 100 minerals and after another 20 trips you break even and after that you reap huge economic benefits, that style would be perfect for the current macro heavy gamers since it gives a way to manage your economy to become a lot bigger faster than your opponents.
For zerg the mine could be built very fast and free to balance up the cost of extra larvae and the drone cost, while protoss would take a bit longer to build than terran since they do not lose the worker during the buildtime.
Also that would create a quite bit of macro diversity between the races.
On November 25 2008 11:41 TheYango wrote:
As of right now, IMO its pretty hard to deny that the gas mechanic is clunky and doesn't do anything that manual mining didn't already do.
That one is very easy to answer, yes it do something manual mining doesn't:
It doesn't conflict with low-end players gameplay experience, and as such it is just an improvement over manual mine.
|
On November 26 2008 00:06 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 11:41 TheYango wrote:On November 25 2008 06:45 Unentschieden wrote:
I don´t remember refering to the actual implementation of the Gas mechanic we have seen up to now in a favourable way, only to the direction Blizzard takes by testing it.
Economic considerations are imho reather limited in SC:BW, it doesn´t have the variety, the "possiblities" we see in combat. It´s effectivly the only thing the 3 races have in common (though racial distinction is a different matter entirely) I'm all for experimentation and more strategy in the economic side of the game. I'd be fine with a new macro mechanic (as we've been brainstorming for several threads now). My concern is that results haven't really been shown in the most recent build of SC2. As of right now, IMO its pretty hard to deny that the gas mechanic is clunky and doesn't do anything that manual mining didn't already do. Seeing as they accomplish the exact same thing, I'd rather stick with an old familiar mechanic than a new, clunky one (but would take another alternative if presented with a good one). Incidentally, there is a rather minor fix to the gas mechanic that would make it carry MUCH more strategy: have geysers regenerate gas at a slow, constant rate when not depleted. This then carries with it the necessity to balance geyser efficiency with immediate resources. If you slow your gather rate (e.g. put 1 worker on gas), you can have effectively no geyser "down-time" in a game, and have a higher long-term intake overall. However, if you need the gas immediately, you can throttle more workers onto gas, and get more immediate gas, but at the consequence of having your geyser shut down. This accomplishes most of the goals that we're trying to accomplish with a macro mechanic. While its possible for a low-level player to throw one worker on gas, and forget about it, a higher-level player would have to learn to take workers on and off gas, in coordination with his gas spending. This, IMO seems to have been Blizzard's goal with the gas mechanic. The problem with the Blizzcon version is that it doesn't add this strategy. More workers on gas is always better in the Blizzcon version, because your net rate of gas intake is still higher with more workers, even if you have more down-time. You are right. Personally I´m still wondering why gas was unlimited in the first place. The SC Boardgame has a mechanic where you get 1 resource per "deposit" forever or 2 but only 5(?) times before you wouldnt get anything anymore if you choose to strip mine.
If you're talking about BlizzCon 08, then the gas was not unlimited.
Each geyser had two storages of gas: "available" (what you can mine immediately) & "remaining" (what requires you to recharge the geyser in order to gain access to).
|
On November 26 2008 02:26 Klockan3 wrote:I just had a ridiculous idea, what if the worker rallypoint resets after each built worker :p
That would be a real compromise Or here is a more serious idea: What if you could build "mines" on the minerals much like how you build refineries on the gas vents? A mine could cost ~50 minerals and have a fair amount of health, but instead of allowing the harvesting of gas it allows the mineral patch to be harvested at twice the speed until its empty in which case it explodes. This mechanic would be an extension of FA's, however it is more intuitive and allows for more strategic options since: A: You lose minerals not just "because it wastes it!!" but because the mine costs to build. B: It makes a short downtime in mineral income and to then get a huge boost, making it not the best choice just to get a short boost of income. C: Not using it gives a lot more mineral income in the short sense, a lot less in the medium sense and a bit more in the end. D: It can be used to free up worker slots in the late-game thus heavily emphasizing macro due to constantly needing to build mines on all mineral blocks to keep mining efficiency high with low drone counts. If it takes the same time to build as 10 trips the opportunity cost would be 100 minerals and after another 20 trips you break even and after that you reap huge economic benefits, that style would be perfect for the current macro heavy gamers since it gives a way to manage your economy to become a lot bigger faster than your opponents. For zerg the mine could be built very fast and free to balance up the cost of extra larvae and the drone cost, while protoss would take a bit longer to build than terran since they do not lose the worker during the buildtime. Also that would create a quite bit of macro diversity between the races. Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 11:41 TheYango wrote:
As of right now, IMO its pretty hard to deny that the gas mechanic is clunky and doesn't do anything that manual mining didn't already do. That one is very easy to answer, yes it do something manual mining doesn't: It doesn't conflict with low-end players gameplay experience, and as such it is just an improvement over manual mine.
I actually like this one the best now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
