EPTBlizzard Must create some new Lore to Starcraft universe that fits some of these features and even gas mechanics.
This will make these things more comfortably and remove the non-sense lorewise that many claimed these things to be
[T] Potential Solutions to Automine - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
Blizzard Must create some new Lore to Starcraft universe that fits some of these features and even gas mechanics. This will make these things more comfortably and remove the non-sense lorewise that many claimed these things to be | ||
|
Magic84
Russian Federation1381 Posts
Slaves when built slooooowly make their way out of the building/egg and sloooooowly proceed to mine patches. Any order to the unit completely cancels all of it. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5546 Posts
On December 12 2008 05:57 pure.Wasted wrote: When I was pointed toward this thread I was only told of FA's posts to look for, without the need for any supplemental material, so thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I'm not sure I understood the part of the explanation that puts the "mode 2 stage 1/2" qualifier onto the MINERAL instead of the SCV (and if I did understand it correctly, I'm not sure how that would work out in-game). Apart from that, the mechanic seems to be a shoe-in in every respect that the suggestion originally wasn't. I'm a little concerned that the new suggestion is of the "hard to explain" variety, and would require an entire section in the tutorial just to get across. It doesn't strike me as straight-forward enough for somebody to pick up just by playing a game, unlike most of SC's mechanics. Could you provide an example of a player going through all the stages, starting with pumping out the SCV and then whatever it is he would do to it, including what buttons he would need to press and where they would be located? That would be a big help. But first impressions are definitely more positive on this than on the original. Here's a brief summary of the mechanic I posted on the BNet forums. I'll write more later on - I still have plenty of posts to read here and elsewhere. T____T TL:DR of TL:DR: You know that workers mine faster in mode 2 but after some time their efficiency drops, so it's advisable to switch between the two modes every now and then (about as often as you produce new workers). That's all there is to it on the fundamental level, and it's all the newbies have to know to play the game. Easy enough to grasp? It isn't much more complicated than knowing that you need to build a Refinery to mine gas and that 3 workers is the optimal number. Nothing overly complex. It's like the damage/armor types and counters in SC - you don't need to know the damage output, attack range, rate of fire, movement speed, etc. to know that Goons with range upgrade >>>> Marines. It's the same with the Mineral Mechanic - you don't need any stats to play the game and enjoy it, AND you can actually use the convenient UI features like rall-mining without being punished for it. The initial TL:DR: 1. The Mineral Mechanic introduces two mining modes for SCVs (all stats subject to change): Mode 1: 5/5, meaning you're credited with 5 minerals from 5 you've mined per each mining trip, 100% efficiency Mode 2: a) stage 1: 7/10, 70% efficiency b) stage 2: 7/15, 47% efficiency 2. When mined in mode 2 the mineral patch turns into stage 2 after a set number of mining trips (ideally the time required for it to switch into stage 2 would be roughly equal to the time required to produce a new worker so that queing new workers is synched with adjusting the mining modes). 3. In order to bring the the mineral patch back to stage 1, you have to mine for a while in mode 1. The cooldown period (going back from stage 2 to stage 1) takes slightly more time than going from stage 1 to stage 2 to prevent abusing the mechanic. 4. Workers start in mode 1 by default. You have to manually switch them to mode 2 to take advantage of increased mining rate, which is usually more benefitting than mode 1, however, there are numerous exceptions to this rule (examples in the elaborate explanation of the mechanic below as well as further in my post). I hope that cleared things up a bit.  | ||
|
Raz0r
United States287 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5546 Posts
| ||
|
Augury
United States758 Posts
Second, people really need to throw out the concept of money map players, etc.. There's only going to be one type of gameplay and that will be the one that the AMM system is using. Custom games will be reserved to RPGs, DOTA, etc.. The SC2 BNET community is going to be a lot more like the Wc3 community than the SC community. | ||
|
bottomtier
United States23 Posts
on the other hand, applying the mechanic to workers and not minerals could be a potential alternative. each new worker will have a different "timing" which would pretty much be impossible to optimize by midgame. it would be interesting to see how close to optimal people can get, though, depending on how often they need to, for lack of a better word, "recalibrate" their workers. I suppose both approaches are pretty much interchangeable, unless the worker mechanic is implemented via time/mana, which could have quite a few ramifications. to add something fresh to the table, FA's mechanic could be extended in various ways. one obvious conclusion would be to replace the gas mechanic... with this one (lawwwwl. has anyone suggested this yet?). consistently timing both min and gas would be pretty damn hard and macro-intensive - while gas timing would be constant (you don't add 30 workers to a geyser), min timing would tend to become more frequent over time. the other possibility is extending the modes to apply to situations other than mining (e.g. doing more/less damage, being faster/slower, etc.). balancing this would suck ass however, so I won't delve into this. | ||
|
Qwertify
United States2531 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5546 Posts
 And the cooldown on individual mineral patches would be much easier to implement and follow in game, imo. We've discussed a variety of different options and this one seemed the best. Is my summary addressing the concerns some people have risen about our mechanic being to complicated? In my honest opinion, it's VERY easy to understand on the fundamental level, and is pretty intuitive/can be explained lore wise. ;] | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
11. The mechanic promotes the fundamental player vs. player aspect of the game. Now, this isn't necessary -- I think the mechanic proposed by FA and yourself is in most ways adequate where Blizzard's is obviously tacked on and undeserving of StarCraft II. But because this is StarCraft II I'm going to push this last point. While your decision to mine in one mode or another will be influenced by your strategy (which is influenced, in turn, by your opponent), because it is stationary and because it takes place only inside your bases, it does not directly promote further conflict, and so does not PROMOTE exciting gameplay. It adds depth to the game and promotes decision-making, but misses the opportunity of doing that all-the-while adding excitement to the game. "As opposed to?" you ask. Expanding. As an activity, it takes a lot of thought, but it also takes quite a bit of actual management. Granted, that management has decreased with SCII, but even so, there remain some core activities that cannot be removed even in SCX, no matter how many UI improvements are added into the game. You have to take an SCV, you have to order it to scout at least one area in the game, you have to tell it to build a Command Center (and Refinery [or two Refineries]), you have to tell that Command Center to build more SCVs. Rinse, repeat. In my opinion, solely because this is SCII we're talking about, and not just any RTS, they shouldn't settle for something that simply fulfills the requirements of a macro mechanic... they should look for one that also agrees with the "bonus" #11. Because an activity that promotes conflict between the players (like expanding, which brings the players closer and closer throughout the match) will always feel like a natural evolution to the game instead of an added 'feature.' Example In another thread on another forum I proposed an additional resource (on top of minerals and gas) to fuel all upgrades and researches (upgrades and researches may have to be made temporary [5 minutes? 10?] for this to remain necessary throughout the match). The resource would be found in nodes separate from mineral/gas ones, in completely different areas of the map, and would require only a single building (no workers to harvest it) which would shut down every 2 minutes or so, forcing the player to relocate to another. If the "clicking" element isn't prevalent enough it would be easy enough to make a player have to look for two (or more) locations at a time, if that's necessary; basically there's lots of tweak potential throughout. And every 10 minutes or so, a previously used up location would free up again, so they would never run out. It's complex, but it isn't counter-intuitive, and by forcing the players to 'expand' even more around the map, it fulfills every point we're looking for. And to be honest, more and more it's starting to seem like a complex system (as opposed to a single feature) just might be the only way to "naturally" add macro to the game, without breaking any of those 11 points I believe are crucial. | ||
|
exeprime
United Kingdom643 Posts
The thing that probably bothers me the most is that while in the BW you could let a few newly-built workers idle for a bit while you're in the middle of the action somewhere else, this mechanic would punish you waaaaay too much, to the level it might actually make more sense economically to lose quite a few units only to make sure you have all your workers in mode 1. It would make perfect macro much too important, and excellent mechanics would take precedence to smart strategy. Macro is already extremely important and powerful in BW with a mechanic that's a lot less punishing and "negative". The simple and "classy" solution would be removing automining. If blizzard won't do that, I seriously doubt they'd go for a solution as convoluted and punishing as the one suggested here. | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On December 14 2008 20:39 exeprime wrote: Wow. That mechanic seems to gimmicky to me I can't help but hate it. The thing that probably bothers me the most is that while in the BW you could let a few newly-built workers idle for a bit while you're in the middle of the action somewhere else, this mechanic would punish you waaaaay too much, to the level it might actually make more sense economically to lose quite a few units only to make sure you have all your workers in mode 1. It would make perfect macro much too important, and excellent mechanics would take precedence to smart strategy. Macro is already extremely important and powerful in BW with a mechanic that's a lot less punishing and "negative". The simple and "classy" solution would be removing automining. If blizzard won't do that, I seriously doubt they'd go for a solution as convoluted and punishing as the one suggested here. That's the thing I find funny about all this when I look at myself trying to come up with solutions. It's so dumb for us to be coming up for solutions when you think about it, since the most obvious, simple, and intuitive solution is just to take automine out. Jeez sometimes blizzard really pisses me off T_T We have to do all this stupid work to come up with a gimmicky solution (which they probably won't use anyways) when they could just solve the problem so freaking easily by adding a damn option in the game. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5546 Posts
On December 14 2008 14:30 pure.Wasted wrote: Thanks for the go-over MNT, the clarifications were very useful. You've addressed most of my points and proven that it's the most thoroughly beneficial system suggested in this thread, and far superior to what Blizzard has come up with. Because of its success, I'm going to challenge it with my ultimate criticism, by adding a final point to your list of what a "well designed macro mechanic worthy of SCII should be like": 11. The mechanic promotes the fundamental player vs. player aspect of the game. Now, this isn't necessary -- I think the mechanic proposed by FA and yourself is in most ways adequate where Blizzard's is obviously tacked on and undeserving of StarCraft II. But because this is StarCraft II I'm going to push this last point. While your decision to mine in one mode or another will be influenced by your strategy (which is influenced, in turn, by your opponent), because it is stationary and because it takes place only inside your bases, it does not directly promote further conflict, and so does not PROMOTE exciting gameplay. It adds depth to the game and promotes decision-making, but misses the opportunity of doing that all-the-while adding excitement to the game. "As opposed to?" you ask. Well, I don't really see how base related task, which has to be frequently done, could actually add excitement. That's because of its non-combat nature. However, as you've said yourself, it may add a lot of depth, which I think is all we can virtually achieve without completely changing the core gameplay of SC's sequel. + Show Spoiler [examples] + "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 " "- when do I want to switch to a different mode in a particular mineral line (you need to analyze this on case by case basis, taking into consideration such factors as: the amount of minerals remaining, your BO/opening/strategy, the state of your and your opponent's economy, whether he'll harass you soon and whether you'll manage to prevent your workers from mining at decreased efficiency, etc.)? (E.g. you might want to mine in mode 2 despite stage 2 when doing an all-in/cheese opening, recovering from harassment, catching up with the opponent's economy after you discovered he's been having a secret expansion for some time already, etc.) " Expanding. As an activity, it takes a lot of thought, but it also takes quite a bit of actual management. Granted, that management has decreased with SCII, but even so, there remain some core activities that cannot be removed even in SCX, no matter how many UI improvements are added into the game. You have to take an SCV, you have to order it to scout at least one area in the game, you have to tell it to build a Command Center (and Refinery [or two Refineries]), you have to tell that Command Center to build more SCVs. Rinse, repeat. In my opinion, solely because this is SCII we're talking about, and not just any RTS, they shouldn't settle for something that simply fulfills the requirements of a macro mechanic... they should look for one that also agrees with the "bonus" #11. Because an activity that promotes conflict between the players (like expanding, which brings the players closer and closer throughout the match) will always feel like a natural evolution to the game instead of an added 'feature.' Example In another thread on another forum I proposed an additional resource (on top of minerals and gas) to fuel all upgrades and researches (upgrades and researches may have to be made temporary [5 minutes? 10?] for this to remain necessary throughout the match). The resource would be found in nodes separate from mineral/gas ones, in completely different areas of the map, and would require only a single building (no workers to harvest it) which would shut down every 2 minutes or so, forcing the player to relocate to another. If the "clicking" element isn't prevalent enough it would be easy enough to make a player have to look for two (or more) locations at a time, if that's necessary; basically there's lots of tweak potential throughout. And every 10 minutes or so, a previously used up location would free up again, so they would never run out. It's complex, but it isn't counter-intuitive, and by forcing the players to 'expand' even more around the map, it fulfills every point we're looking for. And to be honest, more and more it's starting to seem like a complex system (as opposed to a single feature) just might be the only way to "naturally" add macro to the game, without breaking any of those 11 points I believe are crucial. Personally, I think your example is unfortunately little of an APM/time sink since looking for that tertiary resource wouldn't be done frequently enough. Making the player explore the map and fight for the tech resource (you can't really not fight for it due to its nature) every 30-60 seconds or so (so that it's an APM/time sink) would feel artificial. And I don't think it's too flexible in terms of how an individual player wants to approach to this mechanic. I feel like adding a macro mechanic, i.e. a base related task, and making it "promote conflict" is somewhat of a paradox, since base related tasks is what you do besides fighting with the opponent, where that "conflict" is only the context of these tasks. But a new macro mechanic may definitely promote a conflict indirectly, like e.g. base layout in BW (e.g. proper Turret placement is competing against the opponent's DT rush). On December 14 2008 20:39 exeprime wrote: Wow. That mechanic seems to gimmicky to me I can't help but hate it. The thing that probably bothers me the most is that while in the BW you could let a few newly-built workers idle for a bit while you're in the middle of the action somewhere else, this mechanic would punish you waaaaay too much, to the level it might actually make more sense economically to lose quite a few units only to make sure you have all your workers in mode 1. It would make perfect macro much too important, and excellent mechanics would take precedence to smart strategy. Macro is already extremely important and powerful in BW with a mechanic that's a lot less punishing and "negative". The simple and "classy" solution would be removing automining. If blizzard won't do that, I seriously doubt they'd go for a solution as convoluted and punishing as the one suggested here. (Assuming you're referring to my/FA's suggestion.) You completely misread everything I wrote., completely... You failed to grasp what I've been explaining in my posts. ;; Your concerns make no sense at all: First of all, you meant to say mode 2, right? Because that's the "power mining" mode. Second of all, it does not punish the player for not paying attention to macro side of the game - it rewards him, as opposed to BW's macro (lack of auto-mining), which punishes him quite severely. Your workers not mining AT ALL in BW is so much worse than your workers mining a bit less minerals (mode 1 instead of mode 2) but at least mining thanks to auto-mining! So it's BW macro that de facto severely punishes you. And being rewarded instead of being punished is much better gameplay design. And last but not least, removing auto-mining is not really an option. Not to mention my/FA's mechanic is a better APM/time sink than simple manual-mining since the latter becomes completely irrelevant as soon as your mineral lines get saturated mid/late game whereas the former stay equally relevant throughout the whole game. It also has plenty of depth to it, and is not just a brainless task manual-mining is... On December 14 2008 21:11 -orb- wrote: We have to do all this stupid work to come up with a gimmicky solution (which they probably won't use anyways) when they could just solve the problem so freaking easily by adding a damn option in the game. How is it gimmicky? ANd adding an option is not an option. I'm not going to repeat myself here, just read FA's recent posts about splitting the competitive community. ;; | ||
|
exeprime
United Kingdom643 Posts
On December 14 2008 21:57 maybenexttime wrote: (Assuming you're referring to my/FA's suggestion.) You completely misread everything I wrote., completely... You failed to grasp what I've been explaining in my posts. ;; Your concerns make no sense at all: First of all, you meant to say mode 2, right? Because that's the "power mining" mode. Second of all, it does not punish the player for not paying attention to macro side of the game - it rewards him, as opposed to BW's macro (lack of auto-mining), which punishes him quite severely. Your workers not mining AT ALL in BW is so much worse than your workers mining a bit less minerals (mode 1 instead of mode 2) but at least mining thanks to auto-mining! So it's BW macro that de facto severely punishes you. And being rewarded instead of being punished is much better gameplay design. And last but not least, removing auto-mining is not really an option. Not to mention my/FA's mechanic is a better APM/time sink than simple manual-mining since the latter becomes completely irrelevant as soon as your mineral lines get saturated mid/late game whereas the former stay equally relevant throughout the whole game. It also has plenty of depth to it, and is not just a brainless task manual-mining is... Excuse me, I didn't understand it properly the first time, but it still feels forced to me. I'm afraid taking maximum advantage of the power-mode would become a de facto standard, with anyone not doing it properly finding themselves unable to get to the level where the extra minerals actually count. And i bet this system would prove to be especially annoying in mid / late game, managing all your expos for maximum resource output while also having to control large armies... Just my two cents. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
It also needs to be easy to learn and perform. And it should be exciting to do! | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5546 Posts
On December 15 2008 02:13 exeprime wrote: Excuse me, I didn't understand it properly the first time, but it still feels forced to me. I'm afraid taking maximum advantage of the power-mode would become a de facto standard, with anyone not doing it properly finding themselves unable to get to the level where the extra minerals actually count. And i bet this system would prove to be especially annoying in mid / late game, managing all your expos for maximum resource output while also having to control large armies... Just my two cents. I addressed your first concern in one of my previous posts (actually a couple): + Show Spoiler + "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 - you're trying to churn out as many reinforcements (mineral only units like Marines or Lings) to help your push or whatever 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 " "- when do I want to switch to a different mode in a particular mineral line (you need to analyze this on case by case basis, taking into consideration such factors as: the amount of minerals remaining, your BO/opening/strategy, the state of your and your opponent's economy, whether he'll harass you soon and whether you'll manage to prevent your workers from mining at decreased efficiency, etc.)? (E.g. you might want to mine in mode 2 despite stage 2 when doing an all-in/cheese opening, recovering from harassment, catching up with the opponent's economy after you discovered he's been having a secret expansion for some time already, etc.) " It's just a matter of adjusting the exact numbers. As for your second concern, imagine BW macro: SBS, manual-mining. Now imagine that type of macro but with MBS instead of SBS - that's basically how intense it's going to be, with mineral mechanic replacing manual-mining, making managing workers a thoughtful process instead of a mindless task. People manage to keep up with BW's macro, keeping up with SC2's potential macro would be easier, especially for casuals/newbies. The mineral mechanic also rewards the player for paying attention to macro instead of punishing him (idle workers). Personally, I think it's the best possible solution. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5546 Posts
On December 15 2008 02:58 Archerofaiur wrote: Returning to manage resources needs to be a periodic task. Not a constant one. Im thinking once every 2 or 3 minutes. It also needs to be easy to learn and perform. And it should be exciting to do! If it's only periodic (every 2-3 minutes) then it's not an APM/time sink, meaning it does not reward multi-tasking, which is the prime concern regarding SC2's macro. ;; | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 15 2008 03:04 maybenexttime wrote: If it's only periodic (every 2-3 minutes) then it's not an APM/time sink, meaning it does not reward multi-tasking, which is the prime concern regarding SC2's macro. ;; You are assuming managing resources is the only thing to do at the base. If we have several engaging tasks they can add up to the APM requirements of BW. Additionaly, having many tasks increases the multitasking more then one single task. We need to find fun mineral tasks, fun gas tasks, fun production building tasks, fun support building tasks, etc. Completion of tasks should lead to a significant battlefield advantage reward. Players should perform decision making based on which battlefield advantage they want. For instance if they need increased troop production they will want to perform production building tasks. If the opponent has more minerals they will want to perform mineral tasks. If they want to fast tech they may opt for gas mechanics. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5546 Posts
On December 15 2008 03:35 Archerofaiur wrote: You are assuming managing resources is the only thing to do at the base. If we have several engaging tasks they can add up to the APM requirements of BW. Additionaly, having many tasks increases the multitasking more then one single task. We need to find fun mineral tasks, fun gas tasks, fun production building tasks, fun support building tasks, etc. Ockham's razor - why implement several different mechanics when a single mechanic does the job just fine? It's unintuitive and clutters the game, dilluting the core gameplay experience and really makes it feel like SimCity. ;/ Not only that, but predicting the side effects after implementing several different mechanics is much harder than in case of just one. Completion of tasks should lead to a significant battlefield advantage reward. Players should perform decision making based on which battlefield advantage they want. For instance if they need increased troop production they will want to perform production building tasks. If the opponent has more minerals they will want to perform mineral tasks. If they want to fast tech they may opt for gas mechanics. Are you assuming players wouldn't have enough time to do all these tasks? Also the mineral mechanic does involve plenty of player vs. player interaction. Read the spoiler above. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On December 14 2008 21:57 maybenexttime wrote: Well, I don't really see how base related task, which has to be frequently done, could actually add excitement. That's because of its non-combat nature. However, as you've said yourself, it may add a lot of depth, which I think is all we can virtually achieve without completely changing the core gameplay of SC's sequel. I'm not looking for excitement within the task itself -- I'm looking for the task to promote excitement due to its very nature. As you suggest, building SCVs at an expansion is not exciting. But being forced to get an expansion is exciting in its potential for creating conflict, so even though you are doing something "gimmicky" as a base-related APM sink, you feel as though you're nearing the end goal of the game, which is actually a show-down between yourself and your opponent. And it does do that. In that way, expanding in SCI serves two goals at the same time -- APM sink and bringing the players closer together and fueling more conflict. Because it so successfully camouflages its true 'intent,' so to speak, I think it is a very natural fit for the game. Making the player explore the map and fight for the tech resource (you can't really not fight for it due to its nature) every 30-60 seconds or so (so that it's an APM/time sink) would feel artificial. And I don't think it's too flexible in terms of how an individual player wants to approach to this mechanic. The goal with my added point #11 isn't to cause fights to break out all of the time, it's to create potential for conflict down the line. Just like expansions -- just because people make them doesn't mean they're attacked all of the time, but the further you get into the game, the more opportunities there are to hurt your opponent. I don't see why this resource would necessarily HAVE to be more problematic in this regard than regular expansions. And if that's cleared up, then there's no reason why this mechanic is any more artificial than anything else suggested in the thread -- even your/FA's SCV modes. Both of them force you to go back to do something at a regular interval, which is what we're looking for. The difference as I see it is that expanding doesn't feel like a macro activity, or some kind of macro mini-game, it feels as though it's a part of the game, because it directly pits you against your opponent -- and it changes the face of the battlefield, too, making it feel like an important decision. You didn't just get 2 minerals which add up over a long period of time, you just placed an outpost which may or may not be attacked by your enemy, which you may or may not have to defend. It "feels" like you're making things happen. Which is why my example is so similar to the way expanding works already -- I think that is the holy grail to which all other macro activities need reach. As for flexibility on the player's side, there's plenty! Say a Terran player is not strong on macro, he might want to ignore this task completely, well now he can't research Stim Packs or Marine Range or even Siege Mode. Or if he doesn't do it often enough, he can't keep them for long. But maybe it doesn't matter, because his strategy doesn't depend on it. Whereas another player can't live without Siege Mode and all of the vehicle upgrades, which means he's going to need not just some of the resource once, but an influx all the time to keep all those upgrades 'permanent.' We may see completely different playstyles emerge from the 3 races, each one with branches that take advantage (or don't) of this added macro. The more you do it, the more upgrades you can have researched at the same time, which is obviously desirable. So between all the ability upgrades for units you use and their attack/defense upgrades, the ceiling is actually very high, and making the researches temporary means players are going to have to keep on top of this in order to not run out of Siege Mode in the middle of a battle, if that's what their strategy requires of them. You can ignore it completely and go for a rush without any upgrades while your opponent is settling in for a more long-term game, or you can get every upgrade required by your units. In that way it's very accommodating to different playstyles. I feel like adding a macro mechanic, i.e. a base related task, and making it "promote conflict" is somewhat of a paradox, since base related tasks is what you do besides fighting with the opponent, where that "conflict" is only the context of these tasks. But a new macro mechanic may definitely promote a conflict indirectly, like e.g. base layout in BW (e.g. proper Turret placement is competing against the opponent's DT rush). Once again, I'd like to bring up "expanding" in SCI. 1. Go to your base, grab an SCV en route to minerals. 2. Order SCV to location. 3. Once it arrives, remember to go back to location and order it to build CC. 4. Once CC is completed, order to train SCVs. 5. Order SCV to build Refinery. 6. Tell each trained SCV to go to either minerals or gas as it comes out. It's a massive APM sink with the potential for even more steps than I listed (ComSat, Turret)... but it directly promotes conflict because it forces you to move closer to your enemy, and gives your enemy a strategic location for assault that is an alternative to your main base. The first expansion is the least dangerous, but as you move closer and closer, so does your enemy, and the player doesn't feel like he's wasting time on an APM sink because he's actually more worried about the "exciting" portion of it -- defending his own, attacking his opponent's, using the gains from it to train an army. Now in SCII it's going to be a bit easier because you won't have to tell each SCV what to do, so beyond the first couple, you can just rally-mine and order the CC to train more from a hotkey. But it's still a macro activity that pits the players against one another, and because of that, you will never think of it as an APM sink while you're playing it. Sure, we can take it down to that level while we're sitting around right now, and deconstruct it, but when you're in the hot seat, it feels like you're impacting the game in a huge way by moving around the map -- not just pressing a button on a unit over and over and over. And again, that's why my example is so similar to the expanding mechanic. The simplest solution would have been to suggest they force players to expand more often, so I wouldn't be re-inventing the wheel over here, but from my understanding that would lead to huge changes across the board for the entire game... whereas my change, while on the surface very drastic, is actually very easy to balance out because it affects a very isolated, specific portion of the game (upgrades and researches); as opposed to minerals/gas which affect everything and in disproportional amounts, disproportionate by both build order and race. | ||
| ||
